Findings Of Fact On May 11, 1977, at an establishment advertised as Mr. Big Stuff's Bedroom, female topless dancers were observed either straddling customers legs or dancing between customers legs while either placing their breasts close to or touching the customers' faces. No evidence was introduced purporting to establish that any of the performers were agents, servants or employees of Central Florida Clubs. Accordingly, it is found, as a matter of fact, that the performers were not agents, servants or employees of Central Florida Clubs. No evidence was introduced purporting to demonstrate whether, to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the dance, taken as a whole, appealed to prurient interests. Accordingly, it is found, as a matter of fact, that to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the dance presented at Mr. Big Stuff's Bedroom, taken as a whole, did not appeal to prurient interests. No evidence was introduced purporting to demonstrate whether Mr. Big Stuff's Bedroom was operated under the auspices of the licensee, Central Florida Clubs. Accordingly, it is found, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Big Stuff's Bedroom was not operating under the auspices of the licensee, Central Florida Clubs. On May 11, 1977, an unidentified person declared that if one drink were purchased, then a second drink, at a reduced price, would be provided for a waitress. No evidence was introduced as to the identity of the person nor purporting to establish that such person was an agent, servant or employee or entertainer of Central Florida Clubs. Accordingly, it is found, as a matter of fact, that the unidentified person was not an agent, servant, employee or entertainer of Central Florida Clubs. No evidence was introduced purporting to establish that Harold Ernest Squires, Jr., was an agent, servant or employee of Central Florida Clubs, or that Harold Ernest Squires, Jr., did knowingly permit one Joyce Marie Polakowski to loiter in or about the licensed premises for the purpose of begging or soliciting a person, customer or visitor, to purchase a beverage. Accordingly, it is found, as a matter of fact, that Harold Ernest Squires, Jr., was not an agent, servant or employee of Central Florida Clubs and that Harold Ernest Squires, Jr., did not knowingly permit Joyce Marie Polakowski or any other person to loiter in or about the license premises for the purpose of begging or soliciting a customer to purchase a beverage.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed offenses, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, sufficient to justify the imposition of discipline with regard to Respondent's Florida educator's certificate, and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Education Certificate No. 720360, covering the area of business education, and was employed in the Santa Rosa County School system during the 2000-2001 school term as a business education teacher at Milton High School. Student S.B. was born April 19, 1983, and attended Milton High School for four years. During that time, she knew Respondent as a teacher and coach at the school. As a senior during the Fall of 2001-2002 school year, S.B. and her friend, J.N., another female student, called Respondent on the telephone as a joke. They told him they were coming to see him at his house. He said okay. That night, as the two female students left Respondent's home after staying about an hour, Respondent kissed S.B. on the mouth. Later, Respondent called S.B. at her home or placed calls to her cellular telephone on several occasions. S.B. also called Respondent. Sometimes, these telephone calls lasted for an hour or more. During the 2000-2001 school year, S.B. visited Respondent at his home on at least four and possible as much as six different occasions. Each visit occurred in the evening at Respondent's home when S.B. and Respondent were the only persons present. Respondent was a 33-year-old teacher and S.B., a 17-year-old student. Respondent and S.B. kissed and embraced each other on each of the visits by S.B. to Respondent's home. On the last visit, Respondent removed S.B.'s shirt, fondled her breasts through her bra and touched her vaginal area through her clothing. Respondent laid on top of S.B. and pressed his penis against her vagina through their clothing. Respondent professed his love for S.B. and talked to her about a future together following her graduation from high school. Respondent and S.B.'s relationship became the subject of rumors at Milton High School in March of 2001. Approximately three teachers had conversations with the Milton High School assistant principal that something was going on between S.B. and Respondent. The assistant principal confronted Respondent on March 16, 2001. Respondent denied any involvement with the two female students, S.B. and J.N., beyond two visits with them at his home where, he claimed, nothing happened between him and S.B. The assistant principal spoke with S.B. on March 16, 2001, and again confronted Respondent. This time, Respondent confessed to the relationship. He admitted to three or four occasions when he had kissed S.B. in the course of her visits to his house and that he had rubbed her breasts over her shirt. Respondent's improper conduct with S.B. became common knowledge among faculty, parents, and students at Milton High School. As a result of his admitted misconduct with S.B., the Santa Rosa County School District suspended Respondent on April 12, 2001, and that suspension continues in effect pending the outcome of this proceeding. Respondent's actions with regard to S.B. is immoral. A 33-year-old male teacher kissing, fondling, and hugging a 17-year-old student is an act of moral turpitude. Respondent's involvement with S.B. and the resulting publicity have seriously reduced Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent's conduct and actions with S.B. exposed the student to conditions which were, or could have been, harmful to her mental and physical health. Respondent's actions knowingly and intentionally exposed S.B. to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Respondent exploited his relationship with S.B. for personal gain. Respondent carried on a romantic relationship with a 17-year-old girl in order to satisfy his own romantic and sexual desires.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and revoking Respondent's Florida Educator Certificate No. 720360. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 5th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Elizabeth Stuglik ("Respondent" or "Stuglik") committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated August 9, 2010, and, if so, whether such violations are just cause for any discipline against her license.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Stuglik holds Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 1052905, covering the area of Foreign Language Spanish, which is valid through June 30, 2012. She graduated from college in May of 2007 with a Bachelor's of Science in secondary Spanish education from Indiana University. At all times material to this proceeding, Stuglik was employed as a Foreign Languages Spanish teacher at H.L. Watkins Middle School (Watkins) in the Palm Beach County School District. (School District). Her employment at Watkins was for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years. Stuglik started her teaching career during the 2007- 2008 year. Respondent taught seventh and eighth-grade Spanish. Her classroom was located in the chorus room in a stand-alone building apart from the main school building, across the courtyard area connected to the cafeteria. Stuglik's chorus room was adjacent to Heath Miller's ("Miller") classroom. He was the band teacher. An office divided the two classrooms, which both teachers shared. The shared office had two doors, and each was for entrance into the two classrooms. Each door had the capacity to be locked from the classroom side. The classroom doors could be opened from the office side, even though the classroom doors were locked from the classroom side. Miller and Stuglik saw each other on a daily basis. Stuglik felt that Miller started out their relationship by approaching her as a mentor, offering to assist her with anything she needed including discipline of the students. In the second or third week of school during August 2007, Miller told Stuglik that it was too bad she was married because it would be fun if they could get together. Stuglik failed to respond to the comment. She thought it was his way of being polite and giving her a compliment. Miller made other inappropriate unprofessional related comments to Stuglik afterwards and she never told him the comments were personally offensive or to stop. Miller also tried to grab Stuglik's buttocks quite of few times. The first time was in the shared office. Miller told Stuglik that he and his wife had an open marriage, and that his wife allowed him to have multiple sexual partners. As Respondent admitted in her deposition, Respondent had sex with Miller either three or four times at Watkins. Each time Miller took Stuglik by the hand without protest, took her to the storage room, undressed her by unfastening the top portion of her pants, lowered her pants and then she would cooperate with him by having providing sexual intercourse. Each sexual liaison Stuglik had with Miller was consensual.1 Neither Stuglik nor Miller used protection such as a condom, during sexual intercourse. Stuglik admitted that she wasn't concerned about getting pregnant because she was on birth control. The first sexual encounter took place one morning in September 2007. Miller went in Respondent's classroom before school while she was sitting at her desk, grabbed her hand, and led her "not in a hard manner" without protest to the storage room. Respondent also failed to resist when Miller undid her pants by undoing the buttons, took off her pants with her underwear, and she stepped out of her pants. Respondent, who was naked from the waist down, mounted Miller, who was sitting in a chair with his penis exposed, for the sexual act and hugged him as he instructed during sex intercourse.2 Respondent's response to Miller's actions while they engaged in sex were, "I'm married; I don't believe in this." And, "That's you; that's not me; I'm married; I don't do that." She never told him to stop what he was doing.3 Stuglik put on her clothes after sex with Miller and returned to her class and taught that day. Miller never threatened Stuglik or physically tried to harm or force her to have the sexual liaisons. At no time, did Stuglik refuse, fight, yell, or pull away forcefully during the encounters. Stuglik paused during a sexual liason but never said no or attempted to stop it. Stuglik also testified to a second sexual encounter with Miller. She admitted that several weeks later Miller got to school early again, grabbed Stuglik's hand, and led her back to the storage room where the two of them had sex again without any conversation. Respondent testified that she didn't say anything because she didn't know what was going to happen. At least a third sexual encounter occurred between Stuglik and Miller at either the end of October or the beginning of November. After the 2007 Thanksgiving break, Stuglik did not have sex with Miller again. Respondent never reported any of the sexual encounters with Miller to anyone until April 27, 2009. During the summer of 2008,, Respondent's husband divorced her. During Stuglik's 2008-2009 school year, Respondent taught sixth, seventh, and eighth-grade Spanish. She moved to a different classroom, the general music classroom, in the same music building. Stuglik was provided a key to the classroom that provided a lock for the door, which prevented anybody from entering the classroom without her allowing the individual inside. The principal informed Stuglik that Miller had asked for a key to her room, stating that he needed access to the storage room. The principal provided the option to Stuglik as to whether she provided Miller the key to Stuglik's classroom. Studlik requested that the principal provide Miller a key, which allowed Miller access to her classroom. Several times during the 2008-2009 school year, while Stuglik was working at her desk, Miller approached Respondent, sat on the desk in front of her, and put her hand on his penis. Each time he placed her hand there, he would say, "Let's do it again." During her second year teaching at Watkins, Stuglik volunteered to help with Miller's band activities on weekends and during the evenings, including going on field trips every couple of months or so. Respondent's social relationship continued with Miller and his wife. Stuglik had a discussion with Miller's wife regarding children. Miller's wife informed Respondent that she badly wanted to have a baby. Stuglik also initiated contact with Miller during the 2008-2009 school year and requested concert tickets from him after she heard he could get discounted tickets to see a show. Stuglik obtained the tickets by getting them from Miller's wife. Stuglik took her boyfriend to the concert for Valentines Day. She and her boyfriend sat next to Miller and his wife at the concert. Stuglik attended the Waterway Cafe, a restaurant bar, and socialized with a group of teachers including Miller and his wife. She went there several times. Stuglik had K.H. and T.B. in her second period class and, A.P. in her sixth-period class during the 2008-2009 school year. Miller would ask that K.H., the drum major, and T.B. come to his classroom from out of Stuglik's class. She would allow the female students to leave during her class core time and go with Miller. Other teachers also allowed Miller to remove female students from their classrooms during class and take them to his class. Approximately at the beginning of April 2009, Miller informed Respondent and several other teachers at lunch that there was a rumor that he was involved sexually with students. Respondent was shocked to hear the rumor and did not believe Miller would harm students. On or about April 16, 2009, district officials started an investigation into allegations that Miller had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a female student during the 2008-2009 school year. On Friday, April 17, 2009, K.H. came to Respondent's class crying and upset. Respondent had her step outside and wait while she took attendance. When Stuglik went in the hall to check on K.H., she was gone. When K.H. returned to Respondent's class, she didn't stay long before a person from the main office removed her. Stuglik never talked to K.H. about the crying incident. Friday was also the day Miller was removed from the school for allegedly having sex with female students. Stuglik was in Miller's classroom where he was about to update her on the rumor when the police arrived to remove him from the school. After Miller was removed from the school, he called Stulik on her cell phone at least one time at 4:16 p.m. on Friday; two times on Saturday at 10:11 a.m. and 3:53 p.m.; and one time on Sunday at 6:47 p.m. asking for information regarding the investigation. On April 21, 2009, during the investigative process, Respondent gave a sworn statement to the school detective, Vincent Mintus ("Mintus"), where he asked her, "did she date Miller" and "was she romantically involved with him." Stuglik responded no to both questions.4 Stuglik did not disclose that she had a sexual relationship with Miller during the interview. Subsequently, during the investigation, Mintus discovered that from September through November of 2007, Stuglik engaged in sex with Miller on the school campus during school hours. Stuglik admitted in her deposition that she didn't initially tell the investigator she provided about the sexual relationship with Miller because "I didn't want anybody to know." On April 27, 2009, Respondent provided a second sworn statement to Mintus where she was told by him that she was a victim, and she agreed. The Mintus interview included the following questions and answers: Q. And did it involve sexual intercourse? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Was it here at school? A. Yes. Q. Yes? Um . . . are you . . .when did that occur? Now let me ask you . . .you are a victim in that. A. Yes. Q. Do you understand that? A. Uh-huh (yes) Q. That was against your will? A. Yes. *** Q. Okay, you understand you are a victim? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Um . . . and your . . . our explanation to me is that it was absolutely non-consensual. A. Yes. Q. So you were a victim of sexual battery. A. It's . . . don't know what the terminology is, but . . . Q. Okay, um . . . okay. It was non- consensual though, right? A. Correct. After the interview, Mintus contacted the Victim's Advocate of Palm Beach County for Stuglik and started a criminal investigation into her rape allegations. Stuglik went to see the Victim's Advocate after Mintus called them. The rape investigation required a third interview of Stuglik. Respondent only agreed to provide the statement with the assurance that Miller would not be criminally prosecuted for her allegations. On July 29, 2009, Almarie Thompson ("Thompson"), a Victim's Advocate for Victim Services, and an attorney went with Stuglik to her third interview with Mintus. During that sworn interview, Mintus asked Studlik if she were taken advantage of [by Miller]. She answered, "A little bit, yeah." Thompson referred Stuglik to Norma Asencia ("Asencia"), a licensed mental health provider with Palm County Victim Services. Asencia had an intake visit with Stuglik on December 14, 2009. Asencia did not diagnose Stuglik but determined that she had common symptoms of a rape victim and structured her remaining four sessions to deal with the symptoms.5 The last session was on March 3, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner finding Stuglik did not violate Subsection 1012.795(1)(b), 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)9a), 6B-1.006(4)(b), and 6B-1.006(5)(m); finding that Stuglik did violate Subsections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(a), and suspending her educator's certificate for one year followed by probation for one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2010, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Florida Educator Certificate held by Respondent, Carl Moore, should be disciplined for conduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case by Petitioner, Jim Horne, in his capacity as Commissioner of Education.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held Florida Educator Certificate No. 822030, covering the area of music. This certificate is valid through June 30, 2003. Respondent was employed at Neptune Middle School, Osceola County, Florida. On July 20, 2004, A.H., who was 17 years old at the time of the alleged incident, was in a hot tub at the Marriott Hotel, in Orlando, Florida. While she sat in the hot tub, she was approached by a young man in a white shirt and khaki trousers who stated "it would be nicer if the jets to the hot tub were on," or words to that effect. A.H. agreed, and the young man walked over to the control panel and attempted to activate the jets. The young man appeared to be unable to activate the jets and walked away from the area. A.H. then got out of the hot tub and attempted to activate the jets herself. As she attempted to activate the jets, the young man approached A.H. and grabbed her right breast. After removing his hand from A.H.'s breast, the young man stated "those are nice." A.H. retreated from the young man, shocked by his actions, and asked why he had touched her. She then began calling for help; the young man walked away. The lighting and proximity of the young man to her allowed A.H. to get a good look at her assailant. A.H. then called her father, who was at the hotel with her, on her cell phone. Her father joined her in the area contiguous to the pool area and called for assistance. A.H. and her father returned to the pool area. A.H. observed the attacker on the other side of the pool and alerted her father who shouted at the attacker. The attacker immediately fled the pool area. Hotel security was, however, able to maintain observation of the attacker. As a result, hotel security officers were able to block the attacker's path of exit from a parking lot resulting in the attacker's automobile crashing into a tree. After the attacker was taken into custody by the hotel security officers, he was identified as Carl Moore, the Respondent herein. Orange County Sheriff's Department deputies arrived shortly thereafter and took charge. A.H. was brought to the parking lot where she observed Respondent and identified him as her assailant. After further investigating the incident, Deputy Sheriff Don Doyle placed Respondent under arrest, charged him with battery, and transported him to jail. Respondent acknowledged that he did not report the arrest to the Osceola County School Board within 48 hours as required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding respondent guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(c) and (i), Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(m) and revoking Respondent's Florida Educator Certificate No. 822030. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 15th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, Leboeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carl Moore 910 South Park Court Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Miami- Dade County School Board should be suspended or terminated for the reasons specified in the letter of notification of suspension and dismissal dated September 6, 2012, and the Notice of Specific Charges filed on January 10, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board (School Board) is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Ms. Isabel Diaz-Almarez was employed as a full-time dance teacher at South Miami Senior High School (South Miami), within the School District of Miami-Dade County. Ms. Diaz- Almarez also served as coach of the Cobra Charmers Dance Team and sponsor of the Booster Club for the Cobra Charmers. Ms. Diaz-Almarez was employed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools (MDCPS) pursuant to a professional services contract beginning in July 2009. In July 2012, as a result of parental concerns voiced to the administration, an investigation was initiated and conducted by the MDCPS Civilian Investigative Unit. MDCPS sent Ms. Diaz-Almarez a letter of notification of suspension without pay and initiation of dismissal proceedings dated September 6, 2012, advising her of the alleged grounds for termination and of her right to an administrative hearing. Ms. Diaz-Almarez is substantially affected by action of the School Board to suspend or terminate her employment. Ms. Diaz-Almarez was a dance teacher, the coach of the dance team, and the sponsor of the Booster Club. Testimony of a parent and several students indicated that Ms. Diaz-Almarez was a good teacher and was effective in performing her roles. She was popular with students, some of whom referred to her as “Mrs. D.” Ms. Diaz-Almarez had an intern assigned to her class through MDCPS. The intern’s name was Ivonna Ledon, and she passed the required background clearance and was fingerprinted. After the internship ended, Ms. Ledon would occasionally teach one of Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s classes during the day, and continued to come in after school to work with the students on the dance team. She was paid by Ms. Diaz-Almarez with checks from Booster Club funds. Ms. Ledon described her position as the assistant coach of the Cobra Charmers dance team. Classes at South Miami are set up in three periods each day, with each period lasting two hours: periods one, three, and five on one day; periods two, four, and six the next day; in alternating fashion. The Dance Team class met in periods five and six, a two-hour block at the end of each day. One of these periods was officially called “ballet.” Ms. Diaz-Almarez also hired Ms. Priscilla Marrero to come to her fifth and sixth period classes, usually once or twice a week, to teach the Cobra Charmers Dance Team. Ms. Diaz- Almarez testified that she believed Ms. Marrero had been fingerprinted through the “Arts for Learning” program before she came to South Miami because Ms. Marrero told her so. Ms. Diaz- Almarez did not send an e-mail to the district to verify if Ms. Marrero had been cleared to work with students. Ms. Diaz- Almarez would sometimes watch Ms. Marrero teach her class, sometimes participate in the class, and sometimes do other work related to planning and preparation for upcoming events and performances. The instructors hired by Ms. Diaz-Almarez were not hired by the administration of South Miami or MDCPS. Teachers are permitted to have volunteers. A one-time volunteer must go through the main office at South Miami in order to sign in. Longer-term volunteers must complete background forms with MDCPS and be cleared with a background check. Ms. Ledon and Ms. Marrero were paid from Booster Club funds and were not volunteers. South Miami students Dayron Davilla, Felipe Gonzalez, Ernie Diaz, and Marcelo Gonzalez were not enrolled in dance classes during the 2011-2012 school year, and did not have Ms. Diaz-Almarez as a teacher. These students nevertheless frequented Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s classroom. Felipe testified that he would go to Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s classroom three or four times a week. He testified that he would get a pass to do things like help Ms. Diaz-Almarez “move a couch or something” and that he never went to Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s classroom without a pass. Felipe was seen sleeping on the couch in Ms. Diaz- Almarez’s classroom on more than one occasion. Felipe testified he did fall asleep on the couch “once or twice” but that it was during lunch or after school. He testified that on one occasion he had ordered food from a nearby restaurant that was delivered to him at the school, so he was not hungry when lunch period came and he fell asleep on the couch. The principal at South Miami during the 2011-2012 school year was Mr. Gilberto Bonce. On one or two occasions, Mr. Bonce discovered the boys in Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s classroom when they were not supposed to be there, and sent them back to their classroom. Ms. Diaz-Almarez set up a collection box in her room in which the students would deposit payments to the Booster Club. The child of the Booster Club treasurer would collect payments from the box and give them to her mother, and the student would return with Booster Club checks made out to whoever was to get the money. Periodically during the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Diaz-Almarez would receive checks from the treasurer of the Booster Club with which she would then pay the choreographers (she also sometimes paid them in cash). This was all Booster money, and Ms. Diaz-Almarez did not go through the school’s internal fund accounting processes. Ms. Diaz-Almarez also had an ATM card from the Booster Club’s bank account, which had been given to her by the treasurer to purchase items that the Booster Club did not have time to handle, such as first aid supplies, fundraising supplies, ribbon for costumes, or awards and trophies. Again, these were Booster funds and Ms. Diaz-Almarez did not go through the school’s internal funds for these purchases. Ms. Diaz-Almarez was aware of the guidelines for managing a Booster Club and knew that, as faculty advisor, she was not permitted to handle Booster Club funds. Only students and parents are permitted to handle Booster Club funds under these guidelines. During the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Diaz-Almarez maintained accounts on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. On Facebook, Ms. Diaz-Almarez was “friends” only with students who were seniors or 18 years of age. On Instagram, Ms. Diaz-Almarez was at first unaware that she could set up a private account in which she would be able to approve each person wanting to “follow” her. Instead, she initially had a public account, which allowed anyone to read the content and view the pictures on her account. Later, she established a private account. She also “followed” some seniors at South Miami on her Instagram account, including some students who were not students in her classes. On Twitter, she also was unaware that there was a private setting. She would try to block non-senior students who were “following” her on Twitter when she caught them, but she allowed seniors to follow her. She communicated with her students on these social media sites. Some of these communications were not dance-related. Shortly before the winter break of the 2011-2012 school year, Ms. Diaz-Almarez posted a picture of Felipe Gonzalez, Dayron Davilla, Kassandra Llanes, Marcelo Gonzalez, Sara Sigel, and Kayan Fernandez (all students at South Miami) on her Facebook page. The picture was taken in Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s office. Several of the students can be seen smiling and holding up miniature bottles of alcohol and shot glasses. Ms. Diaz- Almarez testified she could not remember how she got the picture. Ms. Diaz-Almarez testified she did not realize the picture showed the students with alcohol. The evidence showed that at one point, she said she thought the bottles contained perfume, and she also testified that she just saw a picture of a group and posted it. Her testimony was not credible. Ms. Diaz- Almarez knew that the picture showed students with alcohol. Although the School Board alleged that Ms. Diaz- Almeraz gave the small bottles of alcohol and the shot glasses to the students, this was not proven. Ms. Diaz-Almarez denied it. A student by the name of Alex Martinez testified that he and another student, Kassandra Llanes, gave the boys in the picture the small bottles of alcohol and that he took the picture. Another student also testified that she saw Alex taking the photograph. The classroom used by Ms. Diaz-Almarez included three smaller rooms connected to the open studio: a dressing room, a storage room where costumes and props were kept, and the office. The dressing room and the storage room did not have doors that could be locked from the inside. A “Do Not Disturb” sign was kept so that when privacy was needed in these rooms, Ms. Diaz- Almarez could put up the sign on the outside of the doors. Ms. Diaz-Almarez testified that on one occasion after school she put up the “Do Not Disturb” sign on the storage room door and told her students that she was going to be getting waxed, but she testified that she had only said that as a joke, and that she actually was going into the storage room to show a visitor costumes. At the end of the 2011-2012 school year, students began planning for the prom. About 15 students, many of whom were associated with the Cobra Charmers, collected money to rent a hotel penthouse suite for the weekend after the prom. The suite rented for more than $1,000. Ms. Diaz-Almarez testified that the hotel in Miami would only accept “Paypal” and not credit cards. She testified that at the last minute the students were in danger of losing their reservation because neither they nor any of their parents had a Paypal account and they could not wait the three days it required to open one, so she put the suite on her Paypal account. The Friday afternoon of the prom, Ms. Diaz-Almarez took a half-day of sick leave and went with some students to get the suite ready. Ms. Diaz-Almarez drove with Dayron Davilla, while Javier Trujillo drove another vehicle. They unloaded food from the two cars and took it upstairs to the suite, where Ms. Diaz-Almarez helped put it away in the kitchen. Ms. Diaz- Almarez testified that there was no alcohol in her car and that she saw no alcohol in the suite. Dayron asked Ms. Diaz-Almarez to help him create a little gift display with rose petals and mints for his girlfriend, and she did. Ms. Diaz-Almarez also left a number of items in the suite that she had bought as gifts for the students. She testified that “[i]t was for them to possibly use. It was a little bit of a joke, and I bought them things that I knew that they probably would forget to take on purpose.” She testified she gave them a first aid kit, sunscreen, after-sun lotion, mouthwash, mints, toothpaste, freeze pops, Gatorade, and Jolly Ranchers. She denied arranging these items in a display on a tray and denied that she also gave them Jell-O, lemons, two bottles of alcohol, or condoms. Javier’s screen name on Instagram was “javixxt.” A picture of a tray containing most of the above-mentioned items, including the Jell-O, lemons, two bottles of alcohol, and condoms, was posted to his account, along with the notation, “Thank you Mrs. D!!!(:” Felipe testified that Javier read out a card to the students in the suite from Mrs. Diaz-Almarez that said, in substance, “I’m proud of you. Have a good weekend. Be safe.” Felipe said he never saw where the card came from and did not know if it was sitting on the tray. As Janette Vazquez and Xaylin Garza -- two of the students who stayed in the after-prom hotel suite -- testified, each of the roughly 15 students staying there brought their own bottle of alcohol. These were full size bottles, that is, liters, quarts, or “fifths.” The alcohol was put in the kitchen. The suite was fairly large and a person had to walk by the kitchen to get to the bedrooms. Ms. Diaz-Almarez returned to the hotel room the following day around lunchtime with her husband. Her husband made steaks in the oven because there was no grill. As Felipe testified, Ms. Diaz-Almarez was also in the kitchen. After lunch, Ms. Diaz-Almarez talked with the girls in one of the bedrooms, then went down to the pool and the sauna with them. They then returned to the suite, watched television, and had dinner. After this, Ms. Diaz-Almarez and her husband left. Ms. Diaz-Almarez testified that she never saw any of the students drinking alcohol. She testified she never saw any alcohol in the suite. Several students testified that they never saw Ms. Diaz-Almarez drinking alcohol or taking “Jell-O shots.” Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s testimony that she did not see any alcohol in the suite is not credible, and is rejected. Given the testimony of numerous witnesses as to the amount of alcohol in the suite, and the credited testimony that the bottles were in the kitchen and that Ms. Diaz-Almarez spent time in the kitchen, a bedroom, and the living room, it is determined that she saw the alcohol. Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s interactions with her students reflect a deep immaturity and craving for their approval. She dealt with them as if she wanted to be popular with them and be their peer, rather than assume an appropriate role displaying strong leadership and character for their benefit. Ms. Diaz-Almarez failed in her obligation to protect students from conditions harmful to their mental and physical health. Assisting students to rent a hotel suite and fraternizing with students in after-prom activities where there was alcohol were completely incompatible with maintaining a position of authority with respect to students, and were so serious as to impair Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s effectiveness as a teacher in MDCPS. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez intentionally exposed any student to embarrassment or disparagement. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez intentionally violated or denied a student’s legal rights. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez harassed or discriminated against any student, or failed to protect any student from harassment or discrimination. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s conduct in posting a picture showing students in her office with alcohol on her Facebook page, as well as in assisting students to rent a hotel suite and fraternizing with them in after-prom activities where there was alcohol was conduct inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s conduct in posting the Facebook picture and her conduct surrounding the after-prom weekend was not sufficiently notorious to bring public disgrace or disrespect to herself or to the education profession. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s conduct in posting the Facebook picture and her conduct surrounding the after-prom weekend impaired her service in the community. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez failed to teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and by rules of the State Department of Education. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez failed to maintain honesty in all her professional dealings. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez failed to maintain, prepare, or submit promptly any report that was required by State law, State Department of Education rule, Board rule, or administrative directive. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez used abusive or profane language or displayed unseemly conduct in the workplace. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez made malicious or intentionally false statements about a colleague. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez submitted fraudulent information on any document in connection with professional activities. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez failed to obey local, State, and national laws, codes and regulations. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez unreasonably denied any student access to diverse points of view. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez sent any students on non-school-related errands. Ms. Diaz-Almarez inappropriately associated with students in a manner which gave the appearance of impropriety, including participation in situations that were sexually suggestive and which involved alcohol. Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s inappropriate association with students in a manner which gave the appearance of impropriety, including participation in situations that were sexually suggestive and which involved alcohol, impaired Ms. Diaz- Almarez’s effectiveness in the school system. The facts did not show that Ms. Diaz-Almarez engaged in unacceptable relationships or communications with students in the nature of dating; any form of sexual touching or behavior; making sexual, indecent, or illegal proposals, gestures or comments; or exploiting her teacher-student relationship. Ms. Diaz-Almarez transported a student in a private vehicle without the approval of the principal. Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s transportation of a student in a private automobile did not impair Ms. Diaz-Almarez’s effectiveness in the school system. The actions of Ms. Diaz-Almarez constitute misconduct in office and just cause for suspension or termination of her employment as a dance teacher at South Miami.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order finding Ms. Isabel Diaz-Almarez guilty of misconduct in office, suspend her employment without pay for a period of 180 school days, and place her on probation for a period of two years. Because Ms. Diaz-Almarez has already been suspended for more than 180 school days, it is RECOMMENDED that her employment be reinstated, with the calculation of back pay not to include pay for the 180-day suspension period. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 30th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether or not on or about December 5, 1975, the Respondent, Evelyn R. Doege, licensed under the beverage law, did allow or permit Angela Davies an employee to conduct herself in a lewd and lascivious manner to wit; performing in the nude and the placing of foreign objects on or into Angela Davies vagina, the touching or rubbing the vaginal area with Angela Davies fingers to simulate masturbation, in violation of Section 847.011(4), Florida Statutes, thereby violating Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about January 23, 1976, the Respondent, Evelyn Christine Doege, licensed under the beverage law, did knowingly allow or permit a person or persons, to wit; William Thomas Hogan, Robert Joseph Ruchanelli, Leroy Francis Bonifay, Hervert Ronnie Milstead and Joseph Stephen Tronie, to roll dice on the countertop of the bar in her licensed premises for money and/or beer, in violation of Section 849.01, Florida Statutes, and thereby violating Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Evelyn Christine Doege, is the holder of license no. 27-374, series 2-COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. The Respondent held such license on December 5, 1975 and January 23, 1976, the operative dates of the complaints under consideration. On December 5, 1975 the Respondent was operating under the aforementioned license at 508 South Navy Boulevard, Escambia County, Florida. Among the employees of the Respondent were certain topless dancers. These dancers had been instructed by the Respondent to act decent and to keep their clothes on, with the exception of the tops of their clothing. These dancers mentioned were female. On that same date, to wit; December 5, 1975, between the hours of 3:00 P.M. and 3:30 P.M., one of the employees, employed on that day and time was Angela Davies. While dancing in the bar proper, Angela Davies removed the top and bottom of her clothing to include the T-string which she was wearing as a bottom part of her undergarment and left the stage area where she was performing. She then proceeded to a patron's table and thrust her vagina at the patron seated at that table. This course of conduct went on for a couple of songs over a period of five to ten minutes. Angela Davies then went back to the stage and continued to expose her vagina, she took eye glasses from one of the patrons and placed the ear piece into her vagina. She then squatted down and removed a dollar bill from the mouth of a patron with her vagina and then took the dollar bill out with her hand. Still in the presence of patrons she fondled her breasts with her fingers and inserted her fingers in her vagina simulating masturbation. At this point in time a female patron identified as Rhonda or Debbie, who had formally been a dancer in the bar, was challenged by the patrons in the bar to, "show Angela how to do it." At which time Rhonda or Debbie got up on the stage with Angela Davies, took off all her clothes and began dancing. In the course of the performance Angela and Debbie or Rhonda fondled each others breasts and vaginal area. Rhonda or Debbie then exited from the stage. Angela then took an advertising figure made out of cardboard which was in the form of a man, placed that figure between her legs and thrust her vagina at the figure. When Angela had concluded this she took a wine bottle and placed the wine bottle in the pubic area. The wine bottle was then broken on the stage. During the course of Angela Davies' performance the Respondent, Evelyn Doege had come to the back of the stage and thrown water at Angela Davies and attempted to make her stop. In addition, when the bottle was broken she made another attempt to have the employee, Angela Davies, cease her dance. She was unsuccessful in her attempts. Agent David Cobb had witnessed Angela Davies activities. He took the Respondent from the bar into the parking lot, and placed her under arrest. He then reentered the bar and placed Angela Davies under arrest. Angela Davies had been drinking and appeared not to be in control of her faculties. It was established that the employee, Angela Davies, was a roommate of Rhonda or Debbie, and the Respondent knew of this fact prior to the actions of those two persons. Moreover, the Respondent was able to see these actions from her location within the bar during the course of the dances. On January 23, 1976, while serving a notice to show cause for the events of December 5, 1975, certain patrons within the Respondent's bar at 508 South Navy Boulevard, Escambia County, Florida, were observed rolling dice on the countertop of the bar. The Respondent was standing at the bar while this activity was occurring. Those patrons stated that they were rolling the dice to see who would buy a round of beer. The Respondent admitted seeing this activity but stated that she felt it was not illegal. The dice and cup in which the dice had been placed were not the property of the Respondent.
Recommendation For the violations as established in the notice to show cause, it is recommended that the Respondent be suspended for a period of 90 days and fined in the amount of $500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Anthony E. Fiorentino, Esquire 105 South Navy Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32507
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be liable for two claims against its security deposit for allegedly failing to provide services to two customers, as alleged in Petitioner's letters dated August 3 and 19, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department), has initiated an action against Respondent, The Forever Dance Company, doing business as Forever Dance, seeking to recover refunds on behalf of two of Respondent's customers, Addie J. Downey (Downey) and Albert C. Zierer (Zierer), who contend they failed to receive the services promised them under contracts they entered into with Respondent. In their complaints, Downey asked for a refund of $4,828.00, later amended to $4,284.00, while Zierer requested a refund "for lesson[s] [he] did not use." In its response to the complaints, Respondent has asserted that "no clients . . . past or present are owed ANYTHING!" and that Zierer actually owes Respondent $3,995.00. Respondent once operated a ballroom dance studio within the meaning of Section 501.143(2)(a), Florida Statutes, at several locations in or around the City of New Port Richey, Florida. As such, Respondent was subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department. By law, it was required to annually make application for registration with the Department. In addition, Respondent was required to "establish and maintain a mechanism for ensuring customer refunds." To this end, Respondent posted two certificates of deposit jointly in the name of Respondent and the Department with the NationsBank (formerly the Barnett Bank of Pasco County) in Port Richey, Florida, to ensure customer refunds, each in the amount of $5,000.00. Respondent first registered with the Department in February 1995, and it continued to obtain annual registrations for the following two years. Although its most recent registration expired on February 23, 1998, Respondent continued to hold itself out as a registered dance studio and periodically operate at various locations without a certificate until around May 1999. Most recently, its owner, Anthony T. Carico (Carico), has been employed as a dance instructor at the Spotlight Ballroom in New Port Richey, Florida. The actual dates of operation of Respondent's dance studio are not altogether clear. It appears to have continuously operated a studio in 1997, but the studio was closed in January 1998 until Carico reopened the facility in Holiday, Florida, that summer or early fall. The studio again closed down permanently around May 1999 when Carico was incarcerated for unknown reasons in a local jail. Over a period of time, Downey entered into a number of contracts with Respondent wherein she paid a total of $13,825.00 in return for dancing instruction. Relevant to this controversy is her most recent contract executed on December 8, 1997, in which Respondent agreed to provide 75 hours of instruction consisting of 75 private lessons, 75 class lessons, or 75 dance party lessons for $5,100.00. At the same time, however, Downey sometimes volunteered to help clean Respondent's studio, or she won "free tickets," both of which entitled her to free lessons which were not charged against her account. From December 15, 1997, forward, Downey maintained a contemporaneous calendar of all lessons received from Respondent. According to her calendar, which has been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 9, she received only a small part of the promised lessons. In all, Downey received 12 hours of instruction at Carico's studio before it shut down permanently; therefore, she is entitled to a refund of $4,284.00, which represents the amount she paid for the remaining 63 hours of untaught lessons. At hearing, Carico contended that he, or one of his employees, also maintained a calendar during the relevant time period; those documents have been received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2. They reflect that the studio provided Downey with 18 hours of instruction after she executed the contract. Even if the accuracy of these recordings is accepted, this amount still falls far short of the 75 contracted hours. In any event, Downey's calendar is accepted as being the most credible and persuasive evidence on this issue. At hearing, Carico also contended that Downey received numerous lessons in excess of those required under prior contracts, and thus she still owes him for 8 1/2 hours of instruction, even after considering the latest contract which called for 75 hours of lessons. This assertion was not supported by any documentary evidence, and Carico's self-serving statement is not found to be credible. Finally, Carico pointed out that Downey received an undisclosed amount of dance lessons at the Spotlight Ballroom after his facility closed, and that these hours should apply towards the contract in dispute. Even if this assertion is true, however, that facility is owned by another individual, and any lessons given there do not absolve Carico of liability for those contracted with his studio. Zierer is an elderly gentleman who obviously enjoys dancing, but whose memory is not clear and precise. He signed at least five contracts with Respondent, some of which clearly overlapped each other and were executed before the services under the earlier contracts had been performed. For example, although Zierer signed one contract on October 26, 1998, for 80 hours of private lessons at a cost of $5,400.00, he signed another contract on February 24, 1999, or less than four months later, for even more lessons costing another $1,400.00. When asked why he did this, he stated that Carico "would just get [him] back in the office and . . . tell [him] to sign another contract." In both cases, Respondent represented in the contract that it was registered with the Department and held a valid registration, even though the registration had expired in February 1998. Zierer contends that he was "short-changed" on the lessons promised under the contract he executed on October 26, 1998. In fact, he could not recall any lessons given at Respondent's studio after the contract was signed; however, Zierer did remember receiving "1 or 2" lessons in 1999 at Spotlight Ballroom, where Carico now works as an instructor. Carico confirmed this when he acknowledged that his own records show that Zierer received a single lesson on November 3, 1999, at the Spotlight Ballroom. As noted above, this does not absolve Respondent of liability for services contracted before the studio closed. Although no receipts were produced at hearing to verify payment under the contract, Zierer recalled that he always paid for his contracts by check from a cash management account or by a Visa credit card. Moreover, he pointed out that Carico "would never give you a contract without you paying for it first." The undersigned also finds it highly unlikely that Respondent would have entered into a contract to provide services without demanding payment from its customers when the contracts were executed. Therefore, Zierer is entitled to a full refund of his money, or a total of $5,400.00. At hearing, Carico suggested, without any evidentiary support, that Zierer is confused, "has no clue what he's paid for," is a heavy drinker, and is now taking lessons at three different studios under various contracts. In addition, as a setoff, Carico contended that Zierer still owes him $3,995.00 on an earlier contract Zierer signed involving a cruise which Zierer cancelled at the last moment. These assertions have been rejected as not being credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding in favor of Addie Downey and Albert C. Zierer in the amounts of $4,284.00 and $5,400.00, respectively. If Respondent fails to make those refunds within a time certain to be established by the Department, the amounts should be paid to the claimants from the two certificates of deposit posted by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 17th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James C. Goodlett, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Bulding Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Anthony T. Carico 3220 Brooksfield Drive Holiday, Florida 34691 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Pinellas County School Board policies related to sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual conduct with students, and inappropriate relationships with students, and if so, whether the violations constitute just cause for her dismissal as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dorothy Simon (Respondent), has been employed as a teacher by the Pinellas County School Board (School Board) since 1980. Her entire teaching career in the Pinellas County School District has been spent at the Pinellas Technical Education Center (PTEC). Pursuant to her employment, Respondent was issued a professional services contract. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent taught an electronics technology course at PTEC in which approximately twenty-six (26) to thirty (30) students were enrolled. The course lasted one year, and upon completion of the course work, the students received a certificate. Except for one seventeen year old who was enrolled in the course, all of the students in Respondent's class were between the ages of twenty (20) and forty-eight (48) years old. On or about March 1996, a male student named Thomas Mitchell, who was approximately forty (40) years of age, enrolled in the electronics technology course taught by Respondent. Mitchell, who was not married, held himself out as an ordained minister and told Respondent that he wanted to be called "Reverend Mitchell". Consequently, Respondent as well as students in the class referred to and addressed Thomas Mitchell as Reverend Mitchell. On or about July 15, 1996, Mr. Mitchell gave the Respondent a letter in which Mr. Mitchell expressed a physical and emotional attraction to her and discussed starting a relationship with the Respondent. Prior to July 19, 1996, while on school premises, Respondent approached Mr. Mitchell and asked him if he would accompany her and her thirteen year old daughter to the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, and act as their bodyguard during their stay. On or about July 19, 20 and 21, 1996, Mr. Mitchell accompanied Respondent and her daughter to the Summer Olympics in Atlanta. Mr. Mitchell drove the Respondent's car to Atlanta. While in Atlanta, Mr. Mitchell stayed with Respondent and her daughter in a hotel room which Respondent had reserved and paid for a year in advance. Respondent paid for Mr. Mitchell's meals and gave him $50.00 spending money. Mitchell later return the $50.00 to Respondent. After class, on or about July 22, 1996, Respondent drove several students to a nearby bus stop and Mr. Mitchell to Workforce, a center near PTEC where he tutored children. While Respondent was driving Mr. Mitchell to Workforce, she asked him if he would house-sit for her while she and her daughter were on vacation for two weeks. The Respondent offered to pay Mr. Mitchell $100.00 each week, and in return he was to feed her pets, clean her pool and live in her house while she was vacationing. Mr. Mitchell accepted the Respondent's offer. After class, on July 25, 1996, the last day of school before the summer break, Respondent drove several students to the bus stop and gave Mr. Mitchell a ride to his mother's apartment where he lived. Both the bus stop and Mr. Mitchell's mother's apartment were in the vicinity of PTEC. Respondent had given Mitchell a ride home on one other occasion and often gave other students rides to various places when they so requested. Shortly after Respondent dropped Mr. Mitchell off at his mother's apartment, while driving home, Respondent was involved in an automobile accident in which Respondent's vehicle struck a teen-age girl. After police and paramedics arrived at the scene of the accident, Respondent remained on the scene. However, about one hour after their arrival, the police who were investigating the accident advised Respondent to go home. Respondent was quite shaken, and did not feel that she was in any condition to drive herself home. Rather than driving herself home, Respondent went to Mr. Mitchell's residence, which was nearby, and asked him to drive her home. Mr. Mitchell complied with Respondent's request. On the way to Respondent's house, Mitchell and Respondent made two stops. The first stop was at a bank where the Respondent made a cash withdrawal for the $200.00 that she was going to give Mr. Mitchell for house-sitting. The second stop was at a liquor store where Mr. Mitchell, at the Respondent's request, went inside and purchased a bottle of vodka. Mr. Mitchell then drove Respondent home and when they arrived, Respondent had one drink of orange juice and vodka. Respondent then went into her swimming pool to calm herself and was shortly thereafter joined by Mr. Mitchell. While both were in the pool, Respondent asked Mr. Mitchell to hug her because she wanted to be comforted. Mr. Mitchell then hugged Respondent and the two engaged in sexual intercourse. On or about July 27, 1996, Respondent and her daughter drove to Mr. Mitchell's residence and picked him up. Mr. Mitchell accompanied Respondent and her daughter to a swim meet in which the daughter was participating. After the swim meet, Mr. Mitchell drove the Respondent and her daughter to the airport for their departure on a two-week vacation. Mr. Mitchell returned to Respondent's home and house- sat for Respondent for two weeks while she was away on vacation, pursuant to their previously made agreement. As promised, Respondent paid Mr. Mitchell $100.00 per week for house-sitting. While on vacation, Respondent received one phone call from Mr. Mitchell in which he requested an additional $100.00. Respondent wired Mr. Mitchell the $100.00. When Respondent returned from vacation, she found that Mr. Mitchell had trashed and vandalized her house. She later determined that Mitchell had run up an exorbitant phone bill and had stolen approximately $2,300 from her by making unauthorized cash withdrawals on a credit card that had been mailed to her home while she was away. When school began at PTEC in August 1996, Mr. Mitchell was still enrolled as a student in Respondent's electronics technology course. At that time Mr. Mitchell had approximately two weeks of course work remaining to be completed in order to receive a certificate of completion. Upon returning to PTEC after the summer break, Respondent went to see Dr. Warren Laux, Director at PTEC, concerning Mr. Mitchell. Respondent was afraid of Mr. Mitchell, and requested that he be removed from her class because she did not want to come in contact with him. Respondent explained that Mr. Mitchell house-sat for her during a two-week vacation and left the house a mess, stole money from her and ran up an exorbitant phone bill during his stay. Because she had notified police of these incidents involving Mr. Mitchell, the Respondent told Dr. Laux that the situation created a conflict for her if Mr. Mitchell remained in her class. During their discussion, Dr. Laux asked Respondent if there had been any sexual relationship between herself and Mr. Mitchell. The Respondent stated that she had sex with Mr. Mitchell on one occasion. However, Respondent did not give details of the time, place, or circumstances surrounding that encounter. Dr. Laux explained to Respondent that for the moment it appeared that Mr. Mitchell had done nothing which violated the Student Code of Conduct and, accordingly, there was no valid reason to remove him from her class. During August 1996, Respondent told some students in her class that the person who had house-sat for her when she was away on vacation had trashed her house. However, Respondent did not identify Mr. Mitchell as that person. During August 1996, while in her classroom, Respondent told Mr. Mitchell that she would rather scratch his eyes out than have him in her class. At the time this comment was made by Respondent, there were students in the classroom, but on the other side of the room. Respondent's comments to Mr. Mitchell were not made loudly enough for other students to hear. The School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted an investigation regarding the allegations that the Respondent had been involved with a student. As a part of this investigation, Respondent was interviewed on three occasions: August 28, 1996; September 3, 1996; and mid-September 1996. During each interview, Respondent admitted that on one occasion she had engaged in sexual intercourse with one of her students, Thomas Mitchell. Respondent's conduct impaired her effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent failed to maintain a professional relationship with her student Thomas Mitchell and used her position to enter into a personal relationship with him. Once that relationship deteriorated, as admitted by Respondent, it was impossible for her to work with that student, and her effectiveness was significantly impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be dismissed from her position as a teacher with the Pinellas County School Board.DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin Assistant School Board Attorney Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East Seventh Avenue Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Ms. Dorothy Simon 6315 Eight Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Findings Of Fact Central Florida Clubs Number 2 was the holder of the State of Florida Alcoholic Beverage License-Number 58-696 for the period October 1, 1976 through September 30, 1977. DABT seeks to assess a civil penalty against Central Florida Clubs Number 2 or to suspend or revoke its beverage license on the grounds that nine (9) violations of Section 847.011, Florida Statutes, occurred on the premises of the Central Florida Clubs Number 2 on May 11, 1977. On that date, dance routines involving topless female dancers touching male customers in a sexually suggestive manner occurred on the premises. No evidence was introduced purporting to establish that any of the dancers were agents or employees of Central Florida Clubs Number 2. Accordingly, it is found as a matter of fact that the dancers were not agents or employees of Central Florida Clubs Number 2. No evidence was introduced purporting to demonstrate whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appealed to prurient interest. Accordingly, it is found as a matter of fact that to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material presented at the Booby Trap taken as a whole did not appeal to prurient interest. No evidence was introduced purporting to establish that David Lee Feller was an agent or employee of Central Florida Clubs Number 2., Accordingly, it is found as matter of fact that David Lee Feller was not an agent or an employee of Central Florida Clubs Number 2.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes (2000), and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 711503, covering the areas of elementary education, varying exceptionalities, and pre-kindergarten handicapped. Respondent's certificate was valid at all times material to this proceeding. Respondent began teaching in 1995. There have been no complaints against Respondent prior to the allegations in this case. Over the years, Respondent has attempted to help students over and beyond her classroom duties. On at least two occasions, she temporarily has taken students into her home in time of need. Flagler County School Board employed Respondent as an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher at Flagler Palm Coast High School (FPC) in the Flagler County School District during the 2000-2001 school year. That school term was her first year on the faculty at FPC. J.E. was a 17 year-old male student who attended FPC during the 2000-2001 school year. J.E. was classified as an 11th-grade ESE student because he suffered from attention deficit disorder. J.E. also worked as a part-time firefighter with the Flagler Beach Fire Department. J.E.'s employment as a firefighter was sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America Explorer Program. At some point during the month of October 2000, J.E. transferred into Respondent's math class. Initially, J.E. was unable to make a passing grade in math due to his learning disability. J.E.'s academic problems were aggravated by several in-school and out-of-school disciplinary suspensions, which caused him to miss class. Toward the end of November or the beginning of December 2000, J.E. was arrested for fighting with his sister. He was in the custody of the juvenile authorities for several days before being placed on juvenile home detention. When J.E. returned to school, Respondent contacted J.E.'s mother, D.B. Respondent requested permission to tutor J.E. after school to help him make up missed assignments. After receiving the approval of the juvenile authority staff, D.B. agreed that Respondent could tutor J.E. Respondent and D.B. agreed that, after each tutoring session, Respondent would transport J.E. to the place where D.B. was employed. Respondent then informed the assistant principal that she would be assisting J.E. after school in her classroom. The tutoring sessions began on December 12, 2000, and lasted for almost two weeks. The sessions terminated when FPC recessed for the holidays. During the tutoring sessions, Respondent and J.E. spent time working on J.E.'s math assignments. However, as time passed, they progressively spent more time discussing personal issues. These conversations included discussions regarding J.E.'s problems and history of abuse, as well as the physical abuse that Respondent experienced during her marriage to her ex-husband. Respondent revealed that she had been molested as a child, a fact that Respondent had shared only with her long-term boyfriend, her sister, and her closest friends. Respondent told J.E. about her two children and her relationship with her boyfriend. At times, Respondent spoke negatively about her boyfriend, referring to him as an "asshole." Respondent and J.E.'s student-teacher relationship became more personal as they spent more time together. J.E. began visiting Respondent during her planning period, during which they would discuss personal issues. Occasionally, J.E. would visit Respondent during her science class even though he was scheduled to be in another class. The personal conversations continued during the time that J.E. waited in Respondent's car for his mother at the school bus compound, sometimes for 20 to 30 minutes. Prior to one tutoring session, Respondent allowed J.E. to ride with her to a fast-food restaurant. She then took J.E. by the fire station before returning to the school. Respondent did not have anyone's permission to transport J.E. off campus. Sometime before the holiday break, J.E. told Respondent that he liked the music of a certain rap artist. The last day of school before the holiday break, Respondent gave J.E. a gift bag containing a compact disk (CD) of the artist's music. The gift bags that Respondent presented to other students contained only cookies and trinkets. On the afternoon of December 27 or 28, 2000, J.E. invited Respondent to visit the fire station with her children, a 9-year-old son and an 11-year-old daughter. Respondent and her children spent approximately one hour at the station while J.E. showed them the facility and firefighting equipment. Next, J.E. told Assistant Fire Chief Shane Wood (Chief Wood), that he was going to a nearby park with Respondent and her children. He advised Chief Wood that he would return to the station if it received a call. J.E. rode to the park in Respondent's vehicle. Francis Abramczyk, another student firefighter and J.E.'s friend, rode a bike to the park at J.E.'s request. When the group arrived at the park, Respondent asked Mr. Abramczyk to watch her children so she and J.E. could talk in a nearby gazebo. About 45 minutes after Respondent and J.E. left to go to the park, Chief Wood got off from work. Chief Wood then rode his motorcycle to his parent's house near the park. Chief Wood visited his parents for 10-15 minutes before riding his motorcycle to the park where he spoke briefly to J.E. Respondent and J.E. were sitting in the gazebo when Chief Wood came by on his motorcycle Once in the gazebo, Respondent and J.E. spent at least 30 minutes talking about Respondent's recent trip to North Carolina, among other things. During this time, Respondent and J.E. sat side-by-side. At one point in time, Mr. Abramczyk saw Respondent's hand resting on J.E.'s hand, which was resting on his leg. Respondent jerked her hand back when she made eye contact with Mr. Abramczyk, who was retrieving a ball from the far side of the gazebo. While sitting in the gazebo, Respondent asked J.E. if he was willing to baby-sit for her that evening while she went out with a girlfriend. Respondent told J.E. that she would not be returning home until late and suggested that he spend the night at her residence. J.E. did not think his mother would approve of Respondent's suggestion. In the meantime, Mr. Abramczyk decided to walk to a nearby store to get some ice cream. Respondent's son tagged along with Mr. Abramczyk. When Mr. Abramczyk returned to the park, Respondent and J.E. were sitting in Respondent's vehicle. While J.E. was sitting in Respondent's vehicle, two or three girls came to the park in a car. One of the girls was J.E.'s former girlfriend. At first J.E. did not want the girls to see him, but eventually he got out of Respondent's vehicle and talked to Mr. Abramczyk and the girls. During this conversation, J.E. was teased about hanging out with his teacher. Mr. Abramczyk rode the bike back to the fire station after this conversation. At approximately 5:00 p.m., J.E., Respondent, and Respondent's children went back to the fire station. J.E. then called his mother to ask permission to baby-sit for Respondent. D.B. told him that he could baby-sit. In a later conversation between Respondent and D.B., Respondent stated that she would not be home that evening until approximately 2:00 a.m. Respondent asked D.B. if J.E. could spend the night at her residence. D.B. responded negatively, telling Respondent to take J.E. home or to the fire station where there was adult supervision at all times. After leaving the fire station, J.E. rode with Respondent and her children to a convenience store where Respondent purchased soft drinks and snacks for her children. She also purchased several wine coolers for herself. At approximately 6:00 p.m., Respondent, her children, and J.E. arrived at Respondent's residence. J.E. changed out of his work uniform before walking to a nearby beach with Respondent and her children. The children played on the beach and in the clubhouse area while Respondent talked to J.E. During this time, Respondent consumed one of her wine coolers. J.E., Respondent, and her children returned to Respondent's home after spending about an hour at the beach. Next, Respondent prepared dinner for J.E. and her children. She then got dressed to go out while J.E. played video games with the kids in the living room. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent walked out of her bedroom into the living room wearing only a skirt and bra during this time. Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. Respondent left her residence to meet her girlfriend, taking her wine coolers with her. The girlfriend was not at home, so after waiting for a while, Respondent returned to her home between 9:30 and 10:30 p.m. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent was heavily intoxicated when she returned. Respondent's long-term boyfriend was spending time that evening with one of his male friends. The boyfriend usually stayed with Respondent but decided that evening to stay at his separate residence in St. Augustine, Florida, because he had consumed some beer and did not want to risk driving back to Respondent's residence. However, Respondent did not know that the boyfriend would not come to her house later that evening. When Respondent returned to her residence, her children were asleep and J.E. did not want to go home. Without checking with J.E.'s mother, Respondent decided to let J.E. stay. J.E. listened to music in Respondent's bedroom while she straightened up the house and did the laundry. Respondent took time to talk to J.E. and to listen to some music with him. Sometime during the evening, Respondent spoke to her boyfriend on the telephone. During this call, Respondent learned for the first time that her boyfriend probably would not be returning to her home that night. Respondent talked to her boyfriend a second time that night from her garage. When she went back into the house, J.E. pretended to be asleep but when Respondent approached him, he sat up and appeared to have been crying. Respondent assumed that J.E. was upset because he was jealous of her boyfriend. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent provided J.E. with alcohol or engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with him while he was in her home. However, Respondent admitted during the hearing that J.E. might have consumed beer kept in her refrigerator while she was gone because she found one beer can in her closet weeks later. At approximately 2:00 a.m., Respondent drove J.E. to the fire station. The lights were off in the station. After waiting a few minutes to see if any of the adult firemen were going to return to the fire station, Respondent drove J.E. home, arriving there between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m. On the way to J.E.'s house, Respondent made J.E. promise not to tell anyone that he baby-sat at her residence. She paid J.E. $20 for baby-sitting. When J.E. got home, his mother was asleep on the couch. D.B. woke up as J.E. entered the house. She did not smell any alcohol on him or see any signs of intoxication. Respondent went with her children to the fire station two days later on December 29, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to return one of J.E.'s CDs that he had left at her house. Respondent visited with J.E. for about 15 minutes. During the visit on December 29, 2000, J.E. appeared upset. He told Respondent that he was worried because a man from his past was about to be released from jail. He also stated that he had been fighting with his mother. J.E. told Respondent that he was afraid the fire chief would not like him having visitors. He wanted Respondent to leave, telling her that he would talk to her later. By the end of December, Respondent knew that the other students were teasing J.E. about their close relationship and that he was embarrassed about the situation. J.E. and Respondent had agreed that they would not continue with the after-school tutoring and that they would not socialize at school or at the fire station. Despite this agreement, Respondent returned to the fire station on December 31, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to give J.E. a six-page handwritten letter that included references to Respondent's personal experiences. Several of J.E.'s friends from FPC were at the fire station when Respondent arrived. When J.E.'s friends told him that Respondent was in the lobby area, he told them he did not want to see her and hid in a back room in an effort to avoid her. Two of J.E.'s friends then told Respondent that J.E. was not at the fire station. Respondent started to leave when she realized that her son, who had been waiting in the car, had probably gone into the fire station through the open bay doors. Respondent then went into the station through the bay doors to look for her son. Upon entering the bay, Respondent noticed that J.E. was at work. Instead of asking about her son, Respondent approached J.E. holding the letter. As Respondent walked toward J.E., his friends began to tease him again. J.E. was visibly upset and demanded to know what Respondent was doing at the station. Respondent knew or should have known that she was giving the other students reason to pick on J.E. J.E. was angry and embarrassed by Respondent's presence. He told Respondent to come back later just to hasten her departure. He shredded the letter as soon as she left the station. Notwithstanding J.E.'s extreme displeasure during Respondent's visit, Respondent returned to the fire station later that day about 5:00 p.m. J.E. was not there when Respondent arrived. At that time, Chief Wood told Respondent that J.E. was gone and that she needed to stop visiting him at the station because it did not look right for her to be there "hanging all over J.E." The relationship between J.E. and Respondent dropped off beginning in early January 2001. Shortly after the holidays, J.E. became angry with Respondent. He told her to go screw her boyfriend. Respondent just ignored this comment. On another day during the first week of January, J.E. attempted to leave Respondent's class on a pretext that he was required to go to the school attendance office. J.E. became angry when Respondent would not let him leave the classroom. A short time later, during the same class period, two of J.E.'s friends walked by and looked into the classroom through the window in the door. J.E. noticed his friends, went to the door to speak with them, and asked them to help get him out of class. Respondent again refused to let him leave, causing him to be even more angry. Respondent told J.E. that if he left the class without permission, she would write him up. He then said, "You're gonna write me up? Well, I could do something about that." The first semester ended on January 8, 2001. Although J.E. was failing math in early December, he received a grade of B in Respondent's class for the semester. He then transferred to another teacher's math class for the second semester. After the transfer, J.E.'s grades began to decline again. The other students continued to tease J.E. about Respondent. On or about January 19, 2001, a rumor surfaced that Respondent was pregnant with J.E.'s child. Respondent first learned about the rumor during her science class. The class discussion involved the harmful effect of fumes from spray bottles on the environment and humans. Someone in the class stated that fumes could harm a fetus like Respondent's fetus. Another student said, "Oh, I wonder who the father is." A third student responded, "Oh, it's J.E." The class then began laughing. Respondent made no effort to report the incident to FPC's administrators. Instead, on a day when Respondent was extremely depressed and disillusioned with her career, and when she was feeling "emotionally cheated" and/or "manipulated" by J.E., Respondent wrote J.E. an e-mail message that states as follows: Hi I hope your Term 2 classes are going well so far, and life in general. I heard you're in Mr. Krenichen's class for Algebra now. If you need any help or need a place to escape to you know where to go. I still have 3rd period planning, except for lunch duty 3rd lunch. Even if you still are or stay mad at me forever, I'm still rooting for you to make it. I hope you're staying out of trouble. Well, I just wanted to say hi. I was thinking about you and my kids have been asking about you too. They think you're so cool! Yeah, I guess you're all right most of the time. Ha Ha. I miss you. I miss you talking to me every day most of all. Well, see you around. K. p.s. I also wanted to thank you for keeping your word. Means a lot. Gives me a little bit of hope the whole thing wasn't a lie all along. That helps even if that's all I'll ever have. Well, there's other things I need to talk to you about but don't want to say in an e-mail, so will just let you go now. Bye. Respondent's statement in the e-mail that she hoped J.E. was not still mad at her referred to her refusal to let J.E. leave class. She thanked him for keeping his word about not dropping out of school, not telling anyone that he baby-sat at her home, and not revealing her personal confidences. The e-mail was not specifically romantic in nature but clearly and convincingly evidences an inappropriate personal relationship between Respondent and J.E. After receiving this e-mail, J.E. asked Chief Wood to help him draft a reply that would break off his relationship with Respondent. Chief Wood declined to help but told J.E. he would proofread the message after J.E. wrote it. After reading the e-mail, Chief Wood decided that J.E. had adequately communicated his message to Respondent and did not make any changes. On or about January 24, 2001, a fellow student told J.E. that Respondent had said she was pregnant with J.E.'s child. J.E. became frightened by the false rumor. That same day, J.E. lied to his mother, stating that Respondent had given him alcohol and that, while he was in an intoxicated state, Respondent had forced him to have sexual intercourse on the night that he visited her home. D.B. immediately contacted the sheriff's office. On January 26, 2001, the principal of FPC confronted Respondent with J.E.'s allegations regarding the alcohol and sexual misconduct. During this conversation, Respondent stated that she wished she had never had J.E. baby-sit in her home. She admitted that her relationship with J.E. was inappropriate. Respondent immediately drafted and submitted her resignation effective February 6, 2001, the day of the next scheduled school board meeting. Following Respondent's resignation, J.E. continued to endure severe teasing at the hands of his classmates. Some students referred to J.E. as a "teacher fucker." Understandably, such comments caused J.E. a great deal of stress. J.E. eventually dropped out of FPC and entered the adult education program, where he admitted to one student that he did not have sex with Respondent. He told the student that he wished he could take it all back. Respondent is now employed in a real estate office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That EPE enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificate for two years followed by five years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 2nd day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
