The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay from her employment as a teacher for 30 work days.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a teacher of emotionally/behaviorally disturbed ("E/BD") students at Jose de Diego Middle School, a middle school within the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, Petitioner's policies and rules, and Florida law. Background The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on or about January 12, 2012. On that day, three male students in Respondent's class engaged in play fighting and video-recorded their actions on cell phones and an MP-3 recording device. As a result, Mr. Fernandez, the principal of Jose de Diego Middle School, determined that Respondent did not follow established policies and procedures in stopping or attempting to stop the play fighting, and that her failure to do so endangered the safety of the students involved. Accordingly, he recommended that she be suspended from her employment for 30 work days without pay. On May 16, 2012, Petitioner suspended Respondent from her employment for 30 work days without pay. Incident Giving Rise to Charge The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred during the last instructional block of the day, while the students were engaged in language arts and reading. There were a total of eight or nine students in Respondent's classroom, and they were divided into two groups, consisting of four or five students each, for reading exercises. They were situated in the back of the classroom where they had access to computer terminals. Respondent and a paraprofessional, Ms. Larkin, were also situated in the back of the classroom, working with the students. During this instructional time, Respondent received three separate calls on the classroom telephone from her department head asking about paperwork on one of Respondent's students. The classroom phone is located in the front of the classroom. Each of these calls took Respondent away from her teaching and supervision of the students. Ms. Larkin continued to supervise the groups, but then excused herself to use the restroom. This left the students at least momentarily unsupervised. At this time, three male students, instigated by one student, began to play fight. The persuasive evidence indicates that the students engaged in three separate incidents of play fighting over a period of time lasting several minutes. The other students in the class looked on and did not engage in play fighting. Respondent credibly testified that as soon as she saw what was happening, she immediately hung up the phone and went to the back of the classroom to stop the play fighting, yelling at the students to stop and threatening to write disciplinary referrals to the office; however, they ignored her. Her testimony was closely corroborated by that of D.M., one of the students engaged in the play fighting. D.M. credibly testified that Respondent repeatedly attempted to get the students to stop by yelling at them and threatening to write referrals, but they ignored her. They continued to play fight and recorded the play fighting on two cell phones and an MP-3 device with the stated intention of posting the videos on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. Once Respondent saw that the students would not stop, she stepped into the hall to see if a security monitor was on the first floor, where her classroom was located. Seeing none, she called George Coakley, the Dean of Students, to come to her classroom. An emergency button is located in each classroom. This button transmits a call to the main office, which is responsible for responding to the call. Respondent did not use the emergency button to call for assistance because, in her experience, such calls often are not answered. Respondent used the classroom phone to call Mr. Coakley's cell phone. Mr. Coakley had given her and other teachers his cell phone number to, among other things, be used in such situations. At the time of Respondent's call, Mr. Coakley was involved with another matter, and said he would be there as soon as he was finished with that matter. He and Respondent both estimated it took approximately five minutes for him to arrive at Respondent's classroom. At that time, the students disengaged and ran to sit down as he entered the classroom. Before Mr. Coakley's arrival, Respondent wrote referrals on all of the students involved in the play fighting. These referrals were turned over to the main office for disciplinary purposes. Mr. Coakley took the students involved in the play fighting from Respondent's classroom to the main office and turned them over to Principal Fernandez, who confiscated the phones and MP-3 device and ultimately suspended the students from school. The persuasive evidence establishes that there were three separate videos of three discrete episodes of play fighting taken on three separate recording devices.2/ In one of the videos, Respondent and Ms. Larkin are seen sitting at the desk in the front of the classroom while the play fighting is taking place in the back of the classroom.3/ It is undisputed that the videos depict only a portion of the entire incident. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent first made efforts, not captured on the videos, to get the students to stop play fighting. Those efforts consisted of going to the back of the room and yelling at the students to stop fighting, then threatening to write and writing disciplinary referrals. She took these actions before looking for a security monitor, then calling Mr. Coakley and awaiting his arrival. Based on the video, Principal Fernandez concluded that Respondent's efforts to stop the play fighting did not conform to the E/BD Crisis Plan Jose de Diego Middle School 2011/2012 ("Crisis Management Plan") protocol applicable to student fights. The Crisis Management Plan requires, in pertinent part, that the teacher immediately contact security via emergency call button, the school administrator, and nearby staff. Principal Fernandez determined that Respondent did not comply with this requirement because she did not use the emergency call button to summon school security to her classroom. However, the persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did contact school administration——specifically, Mr. Coakley——as soon as she determined that she was unable to get the students to stop the play fighting. Respondent credibly testified that she contacted Mr. Coakley directly instead of using the call button specifically because, in her experience, school security often did not respond to the emergency call button. The Crisis Management Plan also requires the teacher to "separate and isolate" students involved. It does not specifically describe how this should or must be done. Respondent testified that she repeatedly attempted to get the students to stop play fighting by going to the back of the room where they were located, yelling at them to stop, and threatening to write referrals on them. Principal Fernandez testified that Respondent should have said "stop"——which Respondent did. He also testified that she should have "separated and isolated" the students but he did not articulate any specific means that Respondent should have employed short of physically intervening to break up the play fights——an action that arguably may itself have violated Petitioner's corporal punishment policies or may have resulted in Respondent herself being physically injured. Robin Morrison, an Instructional Supervisor with Petitioner's Division of Special Education, testified that Respondent could have used "proximity control" to separate the students, and that in her opinion, based on her viewing of the videos, Respondent did not do this and therefore did not respond appropriately in trying to break up the play fighting. However, as previously discussed, the videos do not depict the entire incident. Thus, Ms. Morrison's testimony is deemed unpersuasive. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did go to the back of the room where the play fighting was occurring and attempted to get the students to stop. Only after it became apparent that they would not comply did she go to the front of the room, where she looked down the hallway to see if a security monitor was immediately available, then called Mr. Coakley on the classroom phone. Findings of Ultimate Fact Misconduct in Office Petitioner has charged Respondent with committing misconduct in office. Misconduct in office is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(3)4/ as: violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system. The Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6B-1.001, provides: The educator values the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, and the nurture of a democratic citizenship. Essential to the achievement of these standards are the freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal opportunity for all. The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6B-1.006, provides in pertinent part: The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law. Obligation to the student requires that the individual: Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. * * * The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent made reasonable efforts to protect the students in her classroom from conditions harmful to learning and to their mental and physical health and safety. As addressed above, the persuasive evidence establishes that instead of doing nothing—— as the incomplete video record of the incident appears to depict——Respondent did, in fact, immediately attempt to stop the students from play fighting by going to the back of the room where they were located, ordering them to stop, and threatening to subject them to disciplinary action by referring them to the office. When it became apparent the students were not going to stop despite these measures, Respondent went to the front of the room and looked to see if a security monitor was immediately available. Seeing none, and based on her prior experience of emergency calls going unanswered, she elected to call the Dean of Students, who had given his cell phone number to her and to other teachers specifically for such use. Accordingly, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not violate rules 6B-1.006 or 6B-1.001, and, therefore, did not commit misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(3). Policy 3210 - Standards of Ethical Conduct School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, provides in relevant part: All employees are representatives of the District and shall conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. A. An instructional staff member shall: * * * 3. make a reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety[.] * * * As previously discussed, Respondent's actions in attempting to break up the play fighting and contacting the school administration constituted reasonable effort to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning and to their mental health and physical health and safety. Petitioner's sole evidence that Respondent sat by and did nothing consists of an incomplete video record of the incident that was contradicted by the persuasive, consistent testimony of Respondent and D.M., who were present when the incident occurred. Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent did not violate School Board Policy 3210. Policy 3210.01 - Code of Ethics School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics, provides in pertinent part: All members of the School Board, administrators, teachers and all other employees of the District, regardless of their position, because of their dual roles as public servants and educators are to be bound by the following Code of Ethics. Adherence to the Code of Ethics will create an environment of honesty and integrity and will aid in achieving the common mission of providing a safe and high quality education to all District students. As stated in the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (State Board of Education F.A.C. 6B-1.001): The educator values the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, and the nurture of democratic citizenship. Essential to the achievement of these standards are the freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal opportunity for all. The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, students, parents, and other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. * * * Fundamental Principles The fundamental principles upon which this Code of Ethics is predicated are as follows: * * * F. Kindness – Being sympathetic, helpful, compassionate, benevolent, agreeable, and gentle toward people and other living things. * * * Respect – Showing regard for the worth and dignity of someone or something, being courteous and polite, and judging all people on their merits. It takes three (3) major forms: respect for oneself, respect for other people, and respect for all forms of life and the environment. Responsibility – Thinking before acting and being accountable for their actions, paying attention to others and responding to their needs. Responsibility emphasizes our positive obligations to care for each other. Each employee agrees and pledges: To abide by this Code of Ethics, making the well-being of the students and the honest performance of professional duties core guiding principles. To obey local, State, and national laws, codes and regulations. To support the principles of due process to protect civil and human rights of all individuals. To treat all persons with respect and to strive to be fair in all matters. To take responsibility and be accountable for his/her actions. To avoid conflicts of interest or any appearance of impropriety. To cooperate with others to protect and advance the District and its students. To be efficient and effective in the performance of job duties. Conduct Regarding Students Each employee: A. shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety[.] Petitioner did not prove that Respondent violated Policy 3210.01. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent immediately responded to the play fighting by going to the back of the room and attempting to get the students to stop by yelling at them and threatening disciplinary action through office referrals. When these measures were not successful, Respondent followed proper protocol by expeditiously contacting the school administration regarding the matter. As previously discussed, Respondent's conduct did not violate Rule 6B-1.001, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, or the pertinent Fundamental Principles set forth in Policy 3210.01. Also as previously discussed, Respondent's conduct constituted a reasonable effort to protect her students from conditions harmful to their learning and to their mental and physical health and safety. For these reasons, it is determined that Respondent did not violate Policy 3210.01, Petitioner's Code of Ethics. Accordingly, there is no just cause, as required by subsections 1012.33(1)(a) and (6),5/ for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from her employment as a teacher for 30 work days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a Final Order rescinding the suspension of Respondent, Thelma Mobley, from her employment as a teacher for 30 work days without pay, and paying Respondent's back salary for the 30-day period for which she was suspended. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 April, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Lee County (School Board) should terminate the Respondent, Christel Freeman, for fighting with another school bus employee on School Board property.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Christel Freeman, has been a school bus driver employed by the School Board since 2002. There was no evidence that she was anything other than an exemplary employee until an incident that occurred at the School Board’s Leonard Street bus compound at the end of the work day. She and her boyfriend, Mike Ortes, were driving their personal vehicle from the back of the compound to the front, where the employees clock out and usually visit for a while before going home, when she spotted another employee, Ashley Thomas, who had just recently been transferred to Leonard Street. The Respondent approached Thomas, who was visiting with co-workers at a picnic table, because she suspected that Thomas was having sexual relations with her boyfriend and wanted to tell Thomas to stay away from her boyfriend, stop interfering with the Respondent’s family unit, and stop “talking trash about her.” When she got within earshot, the Respondent asked Thomas if they could talk in private. Thomas said, yes, and the two walked away from the co-workers at the picnic table. The Respondent began to tell Thomas what she wanted to talk about, and the conversation soon became heated. After they left the view of the co-workers at the picnic table, they passed another co-worker who was sitting in a vehicle and who said something to Thomas. As Thomas turned to respond to the speaker, the Respondent struck Thomas with her hand or fist on the side of the face, near the eye. Thomas was carrying her car keys, cell phone, and purse and was surprised by the blow. When the Respondent followed up with another blow, Thomas began to defend herself by hitting back. The nearby co-workers very quickly ran to the combatants to separate them. In the process, the combatants fell down, with the Respondent landing on top. The scuffling continued for a brief time until the combatants were separated. By this time, Thomas’s shirt had been torn open at the front buttons, her face was bruised and swelling, and her eye was hurt. The Respondent also had an eye injury from being hit with Thomas’s car keys. The police were called, but the Respondent left the scene with her boyfriend by the time the police arrived. After some leading questions by the Respondent, Ortes supported her testimony that they went to the hospital for emergency treatment for her eye and, once there, called the police, who responded to the hospital. After discussing the incident with the police, neither woman pressed charges. The Respondent’s primary defense is that after she called Thomas a “nasty bitch,” Thomas struck her first with the car keys, and the Respondent defended herself. However, the other witnesses to the incident saw it the other way around, with the Respondent hitting first without provocation. The Respondent attempted to undermine that testimony by saying those witnesses were family and friends of Thomas. To the contrary, the evidence was that the family and friends of Thomas were not the eyewitnesses who testified; rather, Thomas’s family and friends either did not testify or testified that they were not eyewitnesses to the incident. While the Respondent attempted to downplay the state of her emotions at the time of the incident, it is clear from the evidence that she was angry at Thomas and initiated the conversation in that state of mind. It is possible that what triggered the Respondent’s violence was Thomas saying the Respondent should ask her boyfriend for the answers to her questions, which the Respondent took as flaunting an admission that they were having sexual relations. According to the Respondent’s testimony, her job with the School Board is very important to her and her family. Notwithstanding that she has not admitted instigating the fight with Thomas and throwing the first blow, she understands that the consequences of engaging in similar conduct again would certainly be the permanent loss of her job. For that reason, it is unlikely that she would put herself in that position in the future. There is a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC) that governs the Respondent’s employment. The procedure followed in the Respondent’s case is set out in sections 7.10 and 7.103 of the SPALC agreement. Section 7.10 of the SPALC agreement provides: The parties agree that dismissal is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee’s job seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary actions(s) taken against SPALC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee’s record. Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause. Section 7.10 also states that employee misconduct is a ground for suspension without pay or termination of employment. The SPALC agreement does not define misconduct. The School Board has policies that govern employee conduct. Policy 4.09 adopts a “zero tolerance” policy for threats of violence. It prohibits “any verbal, written or electronically communicated threat, suggestion or prediction of violence against any person.” Id. “Any serious threat of violence shall result in immediate disciplinary action and referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency.” Id. School Board Policy 5.29(1) states: “All employees are expected to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional ” School Board Policy 2.02(2) describes and prohibits “unacceptable/disruptive behavior.” This includes “[u]sing unreasonable loud and/or offensive language, swearing, cursing, using profane language, or display of temper.” Id. at ¶ (b). It also includes “[t]hreatening to do bodily or physical harm to a . . . school employee . . . regardless of whether or not the behavior constitutes a criminal violation.” Id. at ¶ (c). It also includes “[a]ny other behavior which disrupts the orderly operation of a school, school classroom, or any other School District facility.” Id. at ¶ (e). Section 7.103 of the SPALC agreement allows an employee being terminated to either file a grievance under Article 5 or request a hearing before the School Board, but not both. Section 7.13 of the SPALC agreement provides that employees “shall not engage in speech, conduct, behavior (verbal or nonverbal), or commit any act of any type which is reasonably interpreted as abusive, profane, intolerant, menacing, intimidating, threatening, or harassing against any person in the workplace.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of employee misconduct and either terminating her employment, or suspending her without pay and reinstating her upon entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of June, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Pam Stewart, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Nancy J. Graham Superintendent of Lee County Schools 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Robert Dodig, Jr., Esquire School District of Lee County 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Christel Freeman 2119 French Street Fort Myers, Florida 33916-4434
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 231.3605(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), by engaging in alleged harassment, inappropriate interactions with colleagues, or misconduct. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact On March 13, 2000, the School Board employed Respondent as a Plant Operator at Seminole High School. The School Board transferred Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School on May 22, 2000. On August 2, 2000, Respondent earned a satisfactory evaluation from his supervisor. The evaluation stated that he is a "hard worker," a "good team worker," and "he works well with others." On February 15, 2001, Respondent earned a Better Than Satisfactory evaluation from his supervisor. The evaluation stated that Respondent is a "good team worker" and is "always willing to help others." On September 17, 2001, the School Board promoted Respondent to Night Foreman at Cypress Woods Elementary School (Cypress Woods). The two individuals who had previously served as Night Foremen were Barbara Moore (Moore) and Kevin Miller (Miller). At Cypress Woods, Sharon Sisco (Sisco) was the Principal, Marilyn Cromwell (Cromwell) was the Assistant Principal, and Candace Faull (Faull) was the Head Plant Operator. As Head Plant Operator, Faull supervised Respondent as well as Moore and Miller. Each Night Foreman had "poor communication problems" with Faull. Between the fall of 2000 and the spring of 2002, Respondent, Moore, and Miller each supervised individual Plant Operators at Cypress Woods, including Alice Mertz (Mertz). Mertz had problems with taking instructions from each Night Foreman and with taking complaints "over their head[s]" directly to Faull. Faull attempted to "set up" both Miller and Moore for disciplinary action by the School Board. During the fall of 2000, the School Board received numerous complaints from Miller and Moore about the abuse they suffered at Cypress Woods. On October 10, 2000, Sisco issued specific directives to Faull, instructing her "not to make or engage in negative conversation [with] . . . the crew (or other staff) regarding the Night Foreman." On March 14, 2001, Sisco reprimanded Faull and again counseled her "not to make or engage in negative conversation made by the night crew (or other staff) about the night foreman." On March 20, 2001, Cromwell instituted a Success Plan. The Plan instructed the Plant Operations crew to "refrain from gossip and negative comments about each other." The Plan required the Plant Operations crew to maintain a Communications Log. During the spring of 2001, Cromwell monitored the behavior of the Plant Operations staff through regular meetings. The Plant Operations crew continued its historical behavior after the School Board promoted Respondent to Night Foreman at Cypress Woods in the fall of 2001. On February 1, 2002, Respondent earned a Better Than Satisfactory evaluation from Sisco. The evaluation stated that Respondent is a "great team worker" who "gets along with staff." On February 28, 2002, Respondent touched Mertz on her buttocks in the break room at Cypress Woods in the presence of at least two other people in the room. The physical contact occurred when Mertz walked past Respondent on her way out of the break room. Respondent admits that his hand made contact with the buttocks of Mertz. However, Respondent claims that the contact was incidental, not intentional, not inappropriate, and did not satisfy the definition of sexual harassment. Mertz did not confront Respondent but left the room. However, Mertz later filed a sexual harassment complaint with her employer. Campus police investigated the matter on March 1, 2002. The investigation included statements from Mertz, Respondent, and Mr. Todd Hayes (Hayes), one of the individuals who was present in the break room at the time of the incident. All three testified at the administrative hearing and provided written statements during the investigation. Mertz and Respondent also provided deposition testimony during pre- hearing discovery. Respondent also provided an additional statement on March 5, 2002, during an interview with Michael Bissette (Bissette), Administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS). On March 18, 2002, Bissette determined that Respondent had committed harassment, inappropriate interaction, and misconduct in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v), respectively. School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v) authorizes disciplinary action for each offense that ranges from a caution to dismissal. Bissette recommended to the Superintendent of the School Board that the School Board dismiss Respondent from his employment. By letter dated March 18, 2002, the Superintendent notified Respondent that Respondent was suspended with pay from March 13, 2002, until the next meeting of the School Board on April 16, 2002. If the School Board were to adopt the recommendation of dismissal, the effective date of dismissal would be April 17, 2002. Respondent requested an administrative hearing, and the School Board suspended Respondent without pay on April 17, 2002, pending the outcome of the administrative hearing. Some inconsistencies exist in the accounts provided by Mertz. For example, Mertz claims in her testimony that the incident occurred "around 2:30 p.m." The investigation report by the campus police shows that Mertz claimed the incident occurred around 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. Other inconsistencies exist between the accounts by Mertz and Hayes. For example, Mertz testified that five people were in the break room at the time of the incident and that she did not confront Respondent or say anything to Respondent. Hayes recalls that only four people were in the room and that Mertz did turn and say something to Respondent such as, "Oh stop it." Inconsistencies regarding the time of the incident, the number of people in the break room, and whether Mertz said anything to Respondent at the time are not dispositive of the material issues in this case. The material issues are whether the physical contact by Respondent was intentional, sexual, and offensive, whether it was inappropriate, and whether it constituted misconduct within the meaning of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v), respectively. Respondent claims that he touched Mertz accidentally while he was putting his keys into a pocket at the particular time that Mertz walked in front of Respondent. Mertz walked between Respondent and Hayes in a manner that prevented Hayes from observing the actual contact by Respondent. However, Hayes did observe Respondent's movements up to the time of the actual contact. When Respondent was approximately a foot away from Mertz, Respondent moved his left hand from his side in an upward direction with his palm up and fingers extended to a point within an inch or so of the right buttock of Mertz. Respondent's arm was always extended and did not move in a sideways direction that would have occurred if Respondent had been putting keys into his pocket or reaching for keys in his pocket or on his belt. Respondent had a smirk on his face and laughed. The testimony of Hayes at the administrative hearing concerning Respondent's hand and arm movements was consistent with the accounts by Hayes in two written statements provided during the investigation. Mertz felt Respondent grab her right buttock. She felt Respondent's hand tighten on her buttocks. Mertz did not feel Respondent inadvertently touch her. The physical contact Mertz felt on her buttocks was consistent with the observations by Hayes. The testimony of Mertz at the administrative hearing concerning the physical contact is consistent with accounts by Mertz in three written statements provided during the investigation and in her pre-hearing deposition. Respondent's testimony concerning his hand movements in the break room does not possess the consistency present in the accounts by Mertz and Hayes. When asked on direct examination what happened, Respondent testified: I was walking towards the cabinet to get the flags after we'd had a meeting, to leave; she walked by me -- I -- walked behind her. I had my keys clipped to my right side of my belt and they were flopping against my leg. I wasn't going to need my keys so I started to reach over with my left hand to open my pocket because I had my keys in my right hand to put them in, because my pants were tight and there was a top pocket to put them in and as my hand came up and around that's when I hit her, I brushed against her. Transcript (TR) at 284. On cross-examination, counsel for Petitioner asked questions that provided Respondent with an opportunity to reconcile his testimony with ostensibly divergent accounts during the investigation. Q. The day after the incident you wrote a statement for the police officer, didn't you? A. Yes, I did. Q. And in the statement you said Ms. Mertz asked you to grab her can, didn't you? * * * A. Yes, this is what I wrote but I misquoted it. She said that she was going to grab her can. Q. But you wrote in the statement that Alice said, grab my can? Is that what you wrote? A. That's what I wrote but that "my" is her, not me. * * * Q. Let me ask you . . . Did you write in your statement, "and with my left hand I whacked at her to say, hey"? A. Yes. But I was using that as a description on the type of motion it was. It was like a, you know, a hey, type of motion that I came across. TR at 285-286. In Respondent's initial written statement to campus police, Respondent wrote that he whacked at Mertz with his "open" left hand as if to say hey but did not know where contact was made. In a second written statement to campus police, Respondent wrote that he whacked at Mertz with the "back" of his left hand. In an interview with Sisco, Respondent claimed that he and Mertz were just joking. During direct examination, Respondent did not testify that he whacked at Mertz as if to say "hey." Rather, Respondent testified that his left hand inadvertently came in contact with Mertz as a result of Respondent reaching for his keys. The account provided by Respondent during direct examination at the hearing is consistent only with Respondent's testimony in his pre-hearing deposition. The statements given during the investigation are closer in time to the actual event. The actions of Hayes and Mertz immediately following the incident are consistent with their testimony that Respondent intentionally grabbed the buttocks of Mertz in a sexual manner. Hayes asked another individual in the break room if she had observed the incident. He later reported the incident to Faull before speaking to Mertz. Mertz was initially shocked and left the break room; she later reported the incident to her employer. The physical contact by Respondent created an offensive environment for Mertz. Mertz was initially completely in shock. She then became angry and eventually became so angry she "wanted to strangle" Respondent. Mertz cried and was very upset when she completed a written statement for Sisco. She did not tell her husband immediately because she did not want to upset him. Respondent's physical contact with Mertz constituted sexual harassment within the meaning of School Board Policies 8.24 and 8.241. The physical contact was "unwanted sexual attention," "unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature," and "physical contact" that had the purpose of creating an "offensive environment" within the meaning of School Board Policies 8.24(2)(a), (2)(b)4, and 8.241(2)(a)1, respectively. Respondent's physical contact with Mertz violated the prohibitions in School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v). The physical contact was harassment that created an offensive environment in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m). It was an inappropriate interaction that violated Policy 8.25(1)(p). It was misconduct that violated Policy 8.25(1)(v). Respondent has no prior disciplinary history. The physical contact engaged in by Respondent is his first offense and is a single isolated violation of applicable School Board policy. Respondent has never asked Mertz on a date, never seen her outside work, never made any sexual comments either to her or about her, and has never touched her when they were working alone together on the night shift.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three charged offenses, suspending Respondent without pay from April 17 through September 17, 2002, and reinstating Respondent to his former position on September 18, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline Spoto Bircher, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Ted E. Karatinos, Esquire Seeley & Karatinos, P.A. 3924 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Dr. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-3536 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Billie M. Bunch, is a noninstructional employee of the Petitioner, School Board of Palm Beach County, and is under an annual contract of employment for the 1987-88 school year. Respondent was initially employed by petitioner in 1970 as a custodian, and was assigned to Boca Raton Elementary School (the school). In 1972, he was promoted to foreperson, and has continued to serve in such capacity at the school through the ensuing years. The custodial staff at the school has, during respondent's tenure, consisted of two people: the custodial foreperson and a custodian. The school is, however, a small school, with a maximum capacity of 290 students, and can be appropriately maintained by a staff of two custodians provided they regularly perform their prescribed duties. As custodial foreperson, respondent was charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the school center was properly cleaned and maintained. To accomplish this charge, respondent was directed to devote 75 percent of his time to cleaning activities and 25 percent of his time to administrative matters. The administrative matters were, however, nominal and consisted primarily of preparing a work schedule, supervising the custodian, ordering necessary supplies, and recommending needed repairs. The proof demonstrates that respondent rarely devoted any time to actual cleaning at the school. 1/ Rather, he placed that burden on the sole custodian. As a consequence, the school center was not routinely cleaned and fell into a state of disrepair. During the 1984-85 school year, the school was surveyed by a team of educators representing the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The purpose of the survey was to ascertain the degree to which the school met the standards for accreditation as established by the Southern Association. The team found the school satisfied all standards for accreditation except the standard relating to school maintenance. That standard Provided: There shall be evidence of effective maintenance and housekeeping designed to Provide a safe, sanitary, and attractive environment for learning and to protect the investment in the school plant. The team recommended: that the administration immediately take what ever action is necessary to insure that routine maintenance and daily housekeeping be done on a constant basis. that the administration recommend immediately for the district main- tenance to do the necessary repairs, painting, replacing, etc., that would come under their jurisdiction. * * * 4. that the gymnasium be maintained so that it can be utilized in a multi- purpose manner. The proof supports the finding of the survey team that daily housekeeping was not done on a routine basis. Trash was not removed, rooms were not cleaned, equipment was not maintained, restrooms were not sanitary, graffiti was not removed from the walls, and the grounds were not kept free of litter. During the 1985-86 school year, conditions were not improving at the school. Respondent contended, however, that the condition of the school was not a consequence of his failure to perform his duties, which contention is not credited, but the failure of petitioner to improve the school. In the face of the report of the survey team and complaints from the school advisory board, petitioner undertook to remodel, repaint, recarpet, and otherwise completely renovate the school center. The renovations were completed on or about June 1986, and respondent concedes that every complaint or problem he perceived with the condition of the physical plant had been remedied. During the 1986-87 school year, despite respondent's promise to maintain the school center, the same conditions that had previously existed at the school slowly began to reappear. Trash was not removed, rooms were not cleaned routinely, restrooms were not sanitary, graffiti was not removed from the walls, and the grounds were not kept free of litter. Because of the poor condition of the school at the end of the 1986-87 school year, the supervisor of petitioner's building services department sent in an outside crew to clean the physical plant. Over the course of a number of days that summer, this crew cleaned a substantial portion of the facility, including the 2 gang toilets, the 4 small bathrooms, 7 classrooms, the gymnasium, and the outside corridors. Additionally, they changed the air conditioning filters, cleaned the carpet in 6 classrooms, pressure cleaned the outside corridors, and washed windows. In July 1987, a new principal, Mary Smith, was assigned to Boca Raton Elementary School. Prior to the end of the 1986-87 school year, Donald Robinson had acted as principal of the school. However, because of his failure, among other things, to assure that the school center was properly maintained, petitioner requested and received his resignation. 2/ On July 27, 1987, Ms. Smith met with the respondent upon his return from vacation. At that meeting, Ms. Smith directed that he prepare new work schedules and that, under her administration, his absenteeism would have to cease. The new work schedules prepared by respondent were not significantly different than those previously used. While they purported to assign cleaning duties to him, respondent did not fulfill those duties but, rather, continued to place that burden on the sole custodian. While directed by Ms. Smith on July 27, 1987, to maintain a good attendance record, respondent promptly ignored such direction. Respondent was absent one-half day on July 28 and all of July 29, 1987, ostensibly attending an aunt who had suffered a heart attack. On July 30, 1987, respondent was present for work, but on July 31, 1987, a Friday, he was absent from the school to attend an in-services training session for custodial forepersons. While scheduled for a full day, respondent only attended until 1:30 p.m. 3/ On August 3, 1987, Ms. Smith received a phone call from respondent's aunt. She advised Ms. Smith that respondent was en route to New York to visit his ill mother. Ms. Smith told the aunt to have respondent call her as soon as possible. Fifteen minutes later, respondent telephoned Ms. Smith, ostensibly from the West Palm Beach Airport. He told Ms. Smith that his mother was very sick and that he was en route to New York to visit her. However, at no time did respondent disclose the nature of his mother's illness to Ms. Smith, and no proof was offered at hearing to demonstrate its nature or severity. During this same telephone conversation, respondent also advised Ms. Smith that he had borrowed $35 from the school coke machine. Ms. Smith told respondent he had no authority to borrow the monies. She also told respondent that he was needed to ready the school for the returning teachers and that she was not approving his absence. Notwithstanding such advice, respondent was absent from the school the week of August 3, 1987. Upon his return to the school on August 10, 1987, respondent was suspended. On September 2, 1987, respondent was suspended without pay, and thereafter the petitioner commenced this proceeding for his dismissal. On August 21, 1987, respondent delivered to the school a $35 check as a reimbursement for the monies removed from the coke machine. Respondent's contention that he did not borrow the monies but merely took them to safeguard them is not creditable. Rather, the proof demonstrates that respondent misappropriated such funds to his own use.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order sustaining the suspension of respondent and dismissing him from employment. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of March, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1988.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Lontay Finney's employment with Palm Beach County School Board based upon the allegations made in its Petition.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Palm Beach County, Florida. Article IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Finney started his employment with the School Board on December 19, 2005. He was employed pursuant to an annual contract. Finney taught at Glades Central High School ("Glades Central") from 2010 through 2015. He was last employed as both a science teacher and assistant athletic director. Finney's annual evaluations were acceptable and effective during each year of his employment at Glades Central. As a teacher, Finney was expected to comply with the Code of Ethics. On June 1, 2010, he signed an acknowledgment that he received training, read, and would abide by School Board Policy 3.02, Code of Ethics. Reniqua Morgan ("Morgan") was a female student at Glades Central from 2011 to 2015. She was a cheerleader athlete but never had Finney as a teacher. Finney knew of Morgan as one of the daughters of his teacher colleague, Renee Johnson Atkins ("Atkins") and from seeing Morgan around school. Morgan and Finney also knew who each other were because they had a niece in common and lived in the small town of Belle Glade. However, Finney and Morgan did not associate with one another directly before March 2015. On or about March 22, 2015, Finney initiated contact, reaching out to Morgan by poking her on Facebook. Morgan poked him back and then Finney followed up by inboxing her next. Morgan was surprised that Finney was conversing with her. They continued to chat for several weeks not on an open feed of Facebook but messaging each other's inbox privately. Between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 12, 2015, Finney initiated a conversation with Morgan and they chatted on Facebook. Finney suggested that the two of them get together and asked Morgan, do you want to "chill?" Morgan agreed and said "I don't mind." They then decided to meet up. Finney did not offer to pick Morgan up at her house. Finney instructed her to meet him at the stop sign, around the corner and down the street from where she lived.1/ Morgan, unbeknownst to her mother, met Finney by the stop sign. At the stop sign, Morgan got in Finney's mother's truck with Finney. When Finney first made contact with Morgan that night, he gave her a hug. He then drove her to his home. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Morgan was a 17-year-old minor. Finney did not have permission from Morgan's parents to either pick her up or take her to his house. His inappropriate actions were outside of school and not in connection with any school-related activity in any way. At approximately 12:24 a.m. on Monday, April 13, 2015, Morgan's mother, Atkins, was at her residence and went to use the restroom and she then discovered that Morgan was not at home. Morgan had left home without her permission. Atkins was worried about Morgan being out that early in the morning because it was "unsafe because [of] the neighborhood that [she] live[d] in, there [were] some people in that neighborhood that [were] unsafe."2/ While at Finney's house, Finney and Morgan remained in the parked truck alongside of the house alone together for approximately an hour and a half to two hours and spent some of the time talking and scrolling through Netflix on Finney's phone. Neither Morgan nor Finney can recall the name of any of the movies they watched on Netflix. Morgan's mother was looking for Morgan and found out from Bethanie Woodson ("Woodson"), Morgan's friend, that her daughter was with Finney. Atkins took Woodson with her and drove to Finney's house looking for Morgan. While in the truck with Finney, Morgan's friend contacted her and let her know that her mother was looking for her. Morgan told Finney she needed to go home. Atkins also learned while at Finney's house that Morgan was on the way home, so she got back in her vehicle and returned home. Morgan told Finney to drop her off near the railroad track, which is not the same place he picked her up. He then dropped her off where she suggested near Avenue A, a neighborhood on the opposite side of the railroad tracks from where Morgan lived, and several blocks away from her home. After Finney dropped Morgan off in the early school day morning while it was dark outside, Morgan had to walk down the street, come through the neighborhood and then walk across the bushy railroad tracks to get to her residence. The foot path Morgan took was also unlit, grassy, and rocky near the train tracks. No streetlights were near the tracks.3/ When Morgan got home, her mother, sister, and Woodson were waiting for her. Morgan's mother was irate that Morgan had been with Finney and drove Morgan back to Finney's home to address his actions with her daughter. Finney lived with his parents. When Atkins knocked on the door, Finney's father came to the door and Atkins requested to see Finney. Atkins confronted him angrily and berated him for being a teacher, picking up Morgan, and taking her to his house at that hour of the night. Atkins also informed Finney's mother what occurred while she was at their house. Morgan and Finney have had no contact since the incident. Morgan's mother reported the incident to Glades Central. As a result, the principal assigned Finney to his residence by letter, with pay, starting April 13, 2015, pending the investigation or notification of a change in assignment in writing. On April 15, 2015, Finney was assigned to temporary duty at Transportation Services pending investigation. An investigation by the school police found no violation of a criminal law by Finney, and the case was referred to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards, which is charged with conducting investigations into alleged violations of School Board policy. On or about May 11, 2015, the Office of Professional Standards opened an administrative investigation. Dianna Weinbaum ("Weinbaum"), now director of Office of Professional Standards and former human resources manager, was assigned to investigate the matter. Around the time the investigation was being conducted, Finney deactivated his Facebook page due to the mostly negative comments and statuses, as well as rumors surrounding the incident of him picking up Morgan and taking her to his house. Finney was able to finish the school year working back at Glades Central between investigations. Weinbaum performed a thorough and complete investigation regarding the allegations against Respondent. She interviewed all the witnesses and obtained statements, as well as visited the locations where Finney picked up and dropped off Morgan. On August 4, 2015, consistent with District policy, Respondent was removed from the classroom and reassigned from his teaching position back to a temporary duty location again. On October 8, 2015, a pre-determination meeting was held with the director of the Office of Professional Standards and Finney, who was represented by counsel regarding the interactions between Finney and Morgan. Finney was provided a copy of the investigative file. At the end of the investigation, it was determined that Finney's actions were both an inappropriate relationship with Morgan and posed a clear threat to Morgan's health, safety and welfare. Weinbaum recommended discipline for Finney consistent with discipline received by other employees based on the superintendent and School Board's position that employees who engage in inappropriate relationships with students and who endanger the health, welfare and safety of a child will be terminated. On November 19, 2015, Petitioner notified Finney of the superintendent's recommendation for termination of his employment at the School Board Meeting set for December 9, 2015. The School Board accepted the superintendent's recommendation and voted to suspend Finney for 15 days and thereafter terminate his employment. Finney timely requested a hearing to contest the superintendent's recommendation. Finney's disciplinary history does not include any discipline for actions similar to these for which suspension and termination are recommended. Petitioner charged Finney by Petition with soliciting an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare. The Petition charged Finney with the following violations: School Board Policies 0.01(2)(c),(2)(f) Commitment to the Student Principle 1; 3.02(4)(a)(b)(d)(e),(g); 3.02 5(a),(a)(iii),(a)(v),(a)(vii); Code of Ethics; 1.013(1) and (4), Responsibilities of School district Personnel and Staff; School Board Policies 1.013 and 3.27, Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal, and Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article II, Section M; and (C) Rule 6A-5.056 (2)(a),(b) and (4) F.A.C., Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal; 6A-10.081 (3)(a) and (3)(e), F.A.C.; 6A-10.080(1),(2) and (3) F.A.C. Code of Ethics for the Education Profession of Florida; and 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(h) F.A.C. Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. During the final hearing in this matter, Finney testified that his decision to drive Morgan to his house "was a lapse in judgment and it was just a bad decision that I made." At hearing, the testimony and exhibits established that Finney initiated contact with Morgan and solicited an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing charges of violations of policies 0.01(2)6., 3.02(4)(a), (d), (e), and (g); 5(a), (a)(iii), (a)(v), and (a)(viii); 1.013(4); and rule 6A-10.081(3)(e) and (h); finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), 6A-5.056(2), 6A-10.081(3)(a), policies 0.01(2)3., 1.013(1), 3.02(4)(b), and 3.02(5)(a)(vii), as charged; and upholding Respondent's suspension without pay and termination for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 4th day of January, 2017.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent without pay for 30 days from her employment as a paraprofessional II with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the duly constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a paraprofessional II at Gateway Environmental K-8 Learning Center (Gateway), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has been employed in the public school system for approximately 25 years. Beginning in September 2012, Respondent was assigned to provide classroom support to a second and third grade combined special education class for students with learning disabilities. Her duties included assisting the classroom teachers and physical education (P.E.) instructors with the students as needed, assisting the students when moving from one part of the school to another, and assisting with the sanitary needs of some disabled students. On January 28, 2013, during the second interval class of the school day, Respondent escorted her students to P.E. and stayed with them to assist. Shortly after the P.E. class began, Respondent had a verbal altercation with a student, J.D. Prior to the altercation with Respondent, J.D. was standing with her classmates while receiving warm up exercise instruction from Coach Darryl Nattiel (Nattiel). J.D. was not observed disturbing other students or being disruptive in any way. Nattiel did not tell Respondent that J.D. was forbidden from participating in class or that J.D. was refusing to respond to his instructions, nor did he instruct Respondent to move J.D. to sit by the wall.1/ Respondent directed J.D. to "go sit by the wall." When J.D. did not respond, Respondent repeated the directive several times in a stern manner. This was heard by Coach Juan J. Fernandez (Fernandez) who was present on the playground and was taking attendance when the altercation began. Fernandez said something to J.D. in an attempt to get her to sit in order to end the confrontation. When J.D. refused to follow Respondent's directive, Respondent grabbed J.D. by the arm, swung her around, and pulled J.D. to a point where J.D.'s back was against the wall. Respondent continued aggressively directing J.D. to sit. J.D. did not immediately sit. While facing J.D., Respondent bent forward, grabbed J.D. by the legs, pulled them forward, and forced her into a sitting position on the ground. Although Fernandez observed this interaction from a short distance away, he did not address it with Respondent immediately because he did not want to overstep Respondent's authority. J.D. appeared to be upset by the incident. The incident between Respondent and J.D. was recorded by a video camera which overlooks the playground area where this occurred. In the video, the view is partially obstructed by a column. However, the interaction between Respondent and J.D. immediately before J.D. is placed against the wall is clearly visible in the video. J.D. does not appear to be disrupting the class in any way and does not physically show aggression towards Respondent. The recording does not contain audio. Prior to the end of the class, Respondent filled out an incident report in which she complained that J.D. failed to respond to her instructions, was aggressive towards Respondent, and used profanity directed at Respondent. The alleged aggression and use of profanity by J.D. was not observed by Fernandez or Nattiel. When the class was returning to the classroom, Fernandez notified J.D's teacher about the incident with Respondent. The teacher advised Fernandez to report the situation to the main office. Fernandez reported the situation to Carmen Gutierrez (Gutierrez), who was principal of Gateway at that time. On March 20, 2013, a conference for the record (CFR) was held with Respondent and her union representative. Respondent was apprised of the probable cause finding against her for violations of the following School Board Policies: 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare; and 5630, Corporal Punishment and Use of Reasonable Force. A 30-day suspension without pay was the recommended discipline. Respondent contends that she was merely trying to redirect a disruptive student who had cursed at her and is known for kicking others. Respondent's claims, that the student was not allowed to participate in class, failed to follow Nattiel's instructions, was disruptive and verbally abusive towards Respondent, and needed to be placed against the wall, were not persuasive in light of the more credible testimony of the other witnesses and the video recording of the incident. Ultimate Factual Determinations The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent was guilty of misconduct in office. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent violated the Standards of Ethical Conduct. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent violated the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession. The School Board failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated School Board Policy 3214 regarding student supervision and welfare. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent, when dealing with the student, used excessive force.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order sustaining the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 14th day of October, 2013.
Findings Of Fact This matter comes on before the undersigned for consideration following an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, against Robert J. Browne, Respondent. No genuine factual issue is in dispute because no communication, including an election of rights or an appearance from the Respondent, has ever been received. Pursuant to the above-cited rule, the matter was required to proceed to hearing before the undersigned for the presentation of a prima facie case by the Petitioner, regarding the establishment of the reputed facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint upon which the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's Certificate. The Administrative Complaint is dated July 1, 1981. After the Administrative Complaint was filed, various efforts were made to achieve service of the same on the Respondent. The Respondent never responded to the Administrative Complaint. Diligent search and inquiry failed to locate the Respondent, or a means or location whereby he might be served with the Complaint. Attempts to serve him at his last-known forwarding address resulted in the certi- fied mail being returned unclaimed and unforwardable. The undersigned attempted to serve notice of this proceeding itself upon the Respondent at the last known address with the same result. Service by publication of the Administrative Complaint was achieved by the Petitioner. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate Number 440435, Post Graduate, Rank II, which expires on June 30, 1998, authorizing him to engage in the profession of teaching in the areas of mental retardation, junior college, administration, and supervision. At all times pertinent hereto, he was employed at the Exceptional Student Educational Center in Broward County, Florida, at Eastside Elementary School. The Respondent's position was that of administrator or assistant principal at the school. The Respondent was employed at the school during the summer of 1980. Mrs. Annie Turner was employed at the school as the custodian during that same summer. She worked from the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the evening. She often took her son Ronnie, who was the youngest of seven children, to the school with her during her working hours. She did this in order for him to assist her in her job duties. On an early visit to the school, Ronnie met the Respondent, Mr. Browne. They met on frequent occasions thereafter, when Ronnie was at the school with his mother and talked of sports and other things of interest to Ronnie, and they ultimately struck up a friendship. Mrs. Turner began noticing that her son would go to a distant bathroom in the school and stay an inordinate period of time. This happened on a number of occasions and she noticed that Mr. Browne would follow her son into the mens' bathroom while she was engaged in cleaning another room nearby in the school. She did not feel anything was amiss until this happened on a regular basis. Finally, on a Thursday evening (she does not remember the date), in the summer of 1980, Mr. Browne and Ronnie entered the bathroom and stayed so long she opened the door to check on her son and observed the Respondent on his knees committing a homosexual act on the person of her son. She was not observed by Mr. Browne. She ultimately informed-the County Superintendent and Mr. Browne was confronted with the subject accusation by his superiors. Sometime thereafter the Respondent resigned his position at the school. Mrs. Turner no longer respects Mr. Browne and would not want one of her children in a school where he was principal or a teacher due to her apprehension regarding their physical and emotional welfare. The testimony of Ronnie Turner corroborates that of his mother, Annie Turner, and in addition, establishes that the homosexual act observed by Mrs. Turner occurred on three (3) other occasions in a substantially similar fashion and location. The occasion when Annie Turner discovered the Respondent committing a homosexual act on her son was the fourth and last of those occasions, all of which occurred during a three-week period during the summer of 1980. Ronnie Turner sougnt on several occasions to avoid association with the Respondent during this time after he became aware of the Respondent's intentions. He would not want to attend a school at which the Respondent was employed and fears that the same fate will befall other children at any school at which the Respondent should be employed. Ronnie Turner was fourteen years of age at the time the pertinent events occurred. After the Respondent resigned from his position with the Broward County School System, there ultimately ensued an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph Turlington, Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, seeking revocation of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel for the Petitioner, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Robert J. Browne, have his Teacher's Certificate in and for the State of Florida revoked permanently. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER 203-B South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert J. Browne 1771 Northeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board ("Petitioner" or "School Board") proved by clear and convincing evidence that it has just cause to discipline Respondent, Jeffrey Schector, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: The School Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Palm Beach County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent was employed as a math teacher at Eagles Landing Middle School in the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. A Collective Bargaining Agreement existed, which governed relations between the School Board and certain employees, including Respondent. Resp. Ex. 7. Article II, Section M of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline), provided, in relevant part: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrong doing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. * * * 5. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph 7 below may be cited. * * * 7. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the district or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation * * * Written Reprimand * * * Suspension Without Pay * * * Dismissal . . . . Respondent acknowledged receipt of the School Board's Code of Ethics on October 13, 2010. See Pet. Ex. 1. While teaching at Eagles Landing Middle School, Respondent received a Memorandum of Specific Incident dated January 29, 2013, for a lack of professionalism displayed during interactions with the mathematics team. Pet. Ex. 2. Written Reprimand on December 2, 2013 Respondent was disciplined and issued a written reprimand on December 2, 2013, for violations of School Board policies regarding Commitment to Student Principles, Code of Ethics, and state statutes regarding the education professional. He had been found to have engaged in inappropriate horseplay with a student which ended with the student falling to the floor. Additionally, Respondent tossed a student's crutches from his classroom and referred to the student as a "cripple." In the reprimand, Respondent was advised to cease and desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future, and, if he did not, he would be subject to further discipline up to and including termination. Pet. Ex. 7. The evidence during the hearing reflected that Respondent had received several recent performance evaluations during his tenure with the School Board. For the 2013 school year, his performance evaluation was "effective." For an evaluation submitted April 17, 2014, he received "highly effective" marks in instructional practice. For the 2015 school year, he received an annual evaluation of "highly effective" for instructional practice, "effective" for student growth, "highly effective" for deliberate practice, and "highly effective" for evaluation level. Resp. Ex. 4. Classroom Incident on May 4, 2015 Respondent was teaching math to eighth-grade students in a portable building at Eagles Landing Middle School. Near the end of the lesson, Respondent became aware that two male students were engaged in horseplay with another student, J.G.1/ One of the two male students grabbed a water bottle from J.G. intent on annoying and/or harassing J.G. This horseplay caused the water bottle top to come off, resulting in water spewing on several of the boys and also dousing several school documents Respondent had on his desk. Upon seeing the mess that was created, Respondent stood up and screamed "I am fucking tired of this shit and I don't appreciate having my stuff destroyed." The comment was not directed at anyone in particular. Respondent then took the water bottle, walked to the back door of the classroom, and threw it outside. He then went back to his desk and, as he put it, "was stewing about what had happened." Sometime later, just before the end of the class period, Respondent noticed that one of the males had dropped his cell phone on the floor by his desk. Respondent walked over, bent down and picked up the phone, and put it in his pocket. Apparently, the student was not aware that Respondent had picked up his phone. Respondent admitted that he had taken the cell phone for the purpose of teaching the student a lesson and that he intended to hold on to it until dismissal. As he put it, "it would be nice to watch G.P. [the student who owned the phone] squirm for a little bit." When the dismissal bell rang, the student started looking frantically for his cell phone. At that point, J.G. went over to G.P. and told him that Respondent had his phone. This made Respondent angry. He stated that he felt that J.G. "had sabotaged his plans." Respondent raised his voice and began yelling at J.G. claiming that he had "sold him out" and why could he do such "an idiotic thing." There was conflicting evidence concerning whether or not any profanity was used by Respondent.2/ Respondent then followed J.G. outside the classroom and continued to berate him. Respondent used some other choice words against J.G. including calling him "stupid" and "idiotic." Respondent admitted that the May 4, 2015, incident was not the first time he used profanity in the classroom and that it was not the first time he ever become angry, or made any harsh comments to a student. J.G. testified by way of deposition taken on February 1, 2016. He claimed that when the water bottle incident occurred, Respondent was yelling in general.3/ J.G. testified that the conduct of Respondent shocked him and made him nervous because he had never seen a teacher react like that to anything. When J.G. told the other student that Respondent had his phone, Respondent started screaming at him and had a "melt down," as he described it. J.G.'s recollection of the event was fairly detailed and consistent. He said that Respondent called him "stupid," "retarded," and an "idiot." He cursed at J.G. using the F_ _ _ word, the S_ _ _ word, and accused J.G. of being a "F_ _ _ing idiot." When Respondent cursed at him, it made J.G. feel very shocked and embarrassed, particularly in front of the other students. He acknowledged, however, that this was the first time that Respondent ever got in his face and yelled or cursed at him. Notably, J.G. admitted that since the May 4, 2015, incident his academic career has been the same and that he is actually doing better this year, than last year. Also, after the incident on May 4, 2015, J.G. testified that much of the harassment decreased. Apparently, one of the male students involved in the incident received an in-school suspension for the name-calling incident and stayed away from J.G. The other student, as well, was not making fun of him like he had done previously. Several students, including the two male students involved, testified by way of their deposition transcripts. Each recalled the incident on May 4, 2015. The students each had a similar recollection of the basic events. They confirmed that Respondent got very upset, was screaming, and used some curse words and demeaning language. Several of the students acknowledged, in general, that the incident resulted in the classroom antics and horseplay subsiding. Each provided a written statement which was reviewed by the undersigned. Following the incident on May 4, 2015, Respondent was removed from the classroom, but was allowed to return to school on May 11, 2015, to begin teaching again. He taught until the end of that school year-–until approximately June 6, 2015. During the summer of 2015, Respondent received a letter from the principal reappointing him to his teaching position at Eagles Landing Middle School for the 2015-2016 school year. Approximately 11 days after the new school year began, Respondent was requested to attend a pre-disciplinary hearing relating to the May 4, 2015, incident. After the pre- disciplinary meeting, he was allowed to return to his classroom until October 9, 2015. In early October 2015, Respondent was directed to attend several Employee Assistance Program meetings. He attended four different sessions through November 4, 2015, when he was terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board discipline Respondent with an unpaid suspension covering the period of time Respondent has been suspended from his teaching duties, but immediately reinstate him to his teaching duties. No back pay is recommended. The undersigned also recommends that Respondent be required to attend and successfully complete an anger management class after reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 April, 2016.
