The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in computer programming and networking at the College. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1983. Since the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent has worked under a continuing contract of employment. A continuing contract is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent has received at least above-average evaluations of his job performance both from the institution and from his students during his tenure at the College. Respondent has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings of any kind prior to or since the incidents giving rise to this proceeding. Kimberly Zemola, a married woman in her late twenties, was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II and Session III of the 1994-95 academic year. In January 1995, while she was a student in Respondent’s class, Ms. Zemola wrote an anonymous note to Respondent suggesting that they commence a relationship and that Respondent should indicate his interest by wearing a certain sweater to class on a certain day. Respondent wore the sweater as suggested in the note. Respondent testified that his purpose in doing so was not to initiate a relationship, but to identify the author of the note, discover her problem, and direct her into obtaining assistance. Respondent and Ms. Zemola met. Their testimony was consistent in describing that they were both involved in troubled marriages, spent a great deal of time discussing their problems with each other, and, over a period of weeks, became close friends and confidants. During the period of January through May 1995, the relationship was not sexual, though there was some holding of hands and kissing during their meetings. During the summer session of 1995, while Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent's class, Respondent and Ms. Zemola engaged in consensual sex. Both Respondent and Ms. Zemola testified that this occurred on only one occasion, in June 1995. Respondent and Ms. Zemola continued their relationship until December 1995, at which point Ms. Zemola ended it. Ms. Zemola testified that in January 1996, after she ended the relationship with Respondent, she was diagnosed as clinically depressed. She testified that she believed Respondent took advantage of her depressed condition in pursuing a relationship with her. Respondent testified that Ms. Zemola mentioned suicidal thoughts on one occasion in late 1995, and that she revealed to him that she had been addicted to drugs and was a victim of child abuse. Nonetheless, Respondent testified that he had no knowledge Ms. Zemola was fighting depression during the period of their relationship. In January 1996, John Zemola, the husband of Kimberly Zemola, phoned Myrtle Williams, Associate Provost of the Gibbs Campus, to complain that Respondent had an affair with his wife. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated, so she invited him to her office to discuss the matter. Mr. Zemola met in person with Ms. Williams, and a little later in the day had a second meeting with both Ms. Williams and Charles Roberts, the Provost of the Gibbs Campus. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated and upset, expressing a great deal of anger toward Respondent. Mr. Zemola repeatedly demanded to know what the College was going to do about the situation. Shortly after his meeting with Mr. Zemola, Dr. Roberts called Respondent and asked him to come over to his office. Dr. Roberts testified that his main concern in calling Respondent was to warn him of Mr. Zemola’s angry and agitated state. Dr. Roberts also alerted campus security of the situation. At this meeting with Dr. Roberts, Respondent openly and voluntarily acknowledged his relationship with Ms. Zemola, including the romantic aspects thereof. The only discrepancy was that Respondent recalled the sexual encounter as having occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in his class, whereas Ms. Zemola recalled that it occurred when she was a student in Respondent’s class. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts investigated the matter further, attempting to set up a meeting with Ms. Zemola herself. It took them roughly ten days to two weeks to set up this meeting, which finally occurred in Dr. Roberts’ office. Present at the meeting were Dr. Roberts, Ms. Williams, and the Zemolas. At this meeting, Ms. Zemola acknowledged the relationship with Respondent, and acknowledged that it was she who initiated it. Both of the Zemolas were adamant that Respondent should not be permitted to continue teaching at the College. \ 18. Mr. Zemola in particular seemed intent on seeing Respondent punished. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola telephoned her “all the time talking about what are we going to do about Mr. Brooks.” Mr. Zemola’s threatening demeanor led Ms. Williams to move Ms. Zemola’s classes to a different campus, so that Respondent and Ms. Zemola would not be in each other’s presence. Ms. Williams testified that this precaution was taken, not because of Respondent or Ms. Zemola, but because of John Zemola. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever attempted to contact Ms. Zemola after she ended the relationship. In January 1996, Ms. Williams began attempting to get Ms. Zemola to sign an affidavit stating the facts of the situation. Ms. Zemola initially declined to do so, her stated reason being that she feared Respondent’s influence in the local market could jeopardize her academic future. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever took any action to adversely affect Ms. Zemola’s academic standing or career, either within or outside of the College setting. In a memorandum to Respondent, dated February 8, 1996, Dr. Roberts recounted the details of the charges leveled by the Zemolas, as well as Respondent’s admissions regarding his relationship with Ms. Zemola. The memorandum recited portions of the College’s “Sexual Harassment Policy and Definitions” (the “Policy”). Under the Policy, “sexual harassment” is defined as: An employee’s or a student’s unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, sexually related jokes, display of pornographic material in the workplace or an academic or student setting (An academic or student setting includes all settings on campus, off-campus clinical programs, off- campus courses, and off-campus college- sponsored events), when submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or an individual’s treatment as a student; submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or the treatment of a student affecting such individual; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or a student’s academic performance or creating a sexually intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment. The definition quoted above does not apply to the conduct alleged against Respondent, though a later section of the Policy, labeled “Instructor-Student Relationships,” appears to broaden the definition, as indicated in the relevant portion quoted below: This rule applies to instructor-student relationships. In the instructor-student context, the term sexual harassment has a broader impact. The fundamental element of such behavior is the inappropriate personal attention, including romantic and sexual relationships with a student by an instructor or staff member who is in a position to determine a student’s grade or otherwise affects the student’s academic advancement. Because the instructor-student relationship is one of professional and client, the above inappropriate behavior is unacceptable in a college; it is a form of unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic setting. Both President Kuttler and Dr. Roberts testified that, in their opinion, the language quoted in the preceding paragraph broadened the definition of “sexual harassment” as applied to the instructor-student relationship, such that any form of romantic or sexual relationship between an instructor and a student constitutes sexual harassment, at least when the instructor is in a position to determine the student’s grade or otherwise affect the student’s academic advancement. The Policy also forbids retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint or complained about sexual harassment. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent took any retaliatory action against Ms. Zemola. The Policy states that discipline for violation of its provisions “will depend on the nature of the incident,” but that the range of such discipline is from admonishment to dismissal. The February 8, 1996, memorandum goes on to state that, because of the seriousness of the alleged violations and because a violation of the Policy could lead to a recommendation of suspension or dismissal, Dr. Roberts was scheduling a meeting on February 13 with Ms. Williams, Martha Adkins, who was the Assistant Director of Business Technologies, and Nevis Herrington, Vice President of Human Resources, for the purpose of permitting Respondent to tell his side of the story in full. Ms. Williams was the only witness who testified as to the February 13 meeting, but her recollection was unclear as to the details of this meeting as distinguished from others involving Dr. Roberts, Respondent, and her. She recalled generally that Respondent was made aware of the Policy and potential penalties for violation thereof. Some delay ensued in the disciplinary process, because Dr. Roberts and Ms. Williams were waiting for the affidavit from Ms. Zemola, which was not forthcoming as spring turned into summer of 1996. At length, Dr. Roberts issued a memorandum to Respondent, dated August 13, 1996, and titled “Reprimand.” In the memorandum of reprimand, Dr. Roberts found that the facts to which Respondent had already admitted, characterized by Dr. Roberts as “a romantic relationship, including sexual relations, following the time that the student was a student in your class,” were sufficient to warrant a written admonishment. The memorandum stated that there were certain mitigating factors that caused Dr. Roberts not to recommend suspension or dismissal: that the student’s initiating the contact led to the relationship; that, according to Respondent, no romantic relationship or sexual relationship occurred while Ms. Zemola was Respondent’s student; and that Ms. Zemola had thus far refused or failed to provide her version of the facts in writing. However, Dr. Roberts’ memorandum went on to state: On the other hand, if the student had confirmed in an Affidavit what she originally advised us took place, I do not believe that I would have any choice but to consider recommending dismissal since such conduct would be a gross and direct violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy. Such conduct would not only be in violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Rule and Procedure but it would be unprofessional, immoral and constitute misconduct in office. Should confirming or additional information come forward to support the verbal statements we were given by the student and her husband, further consideration of an additional discipline including up to dismissal will be necessary. (Emphasis added.) The August 13, 1996, memorandum placed dispositive emphasis on the timing of the romantic and/or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Zemola. As of August 13, Dr. Roberts accepted Respondent’s version of the facts, i.e., that the romantic and sexual aspects of the relationship occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent’s class. Dr. Roberts found that this version, while contrary to the spirit of the Policy, and constituting misconduct in office and immorality, merited only a written admonishment. Dr. Roberts testified that “the power relationship is there whether the student is a student in that individual’s class or not,” somewhat contradicting the distinction he drew in his memorandum regarding the timing of the affair and its impact on the proposed discipline. Dr. Roberts testified that the admonishment was based on his judgment that Respondent’s relationship with the student violated the Policy “in terms of creating a threatening or offensive or intimidating environment.” He testified that Ms. Zemola had clearly complained that she felt intimidated and reluctant to take classes. Dr. Roberts’ conclusion in this regard was based on Ms. Zemola’s subjective apprehensions. No evidence was produced, at any point in these proceedings, that Respondent engaged in any behavior that could have caused Ms. Zemola to feel “intimidated” or “reluctant to take classes.” Ms. Zemola testified that she heard students at other campuses discussing the incident, and that an instructor in one of her classes talked about the case in front of the class. She believed that Respondent was the source of these persons’ knowledge of the situation. Ms. Zemola offered nothing more than her suspicions in this regard, and Respondent resolutely and credibly denied having discussed the affair with students or fellow instructors. In fact, the weight of the credible evidence leads to the finding that John Zemola was the likely source of any campus gossip regarding the incident. On at least one occasion, Mr. Zemola disrupted a College class by writing accusations against Respondent on the blackboard. Dr. Roberts’ August 13 reprimand memorandum left open the possibility that further disciplinary measures might be taken, should Ms. Zemola come forward with a sworn affidavit confirming her version of the timing of the romantic and sexual aspects, i.e., that they occurred while she was a student in Respondent’s class. In a sworn affidavit dated October 24, 1996, Ms. Zemola attested that, while she was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II, 1994-95, they had an affair which consisted of “a great amount of time talking, and some time kissing, hugging, and holding hands.” She attested that during Session III, 1994- 95, while she was still a student in Respondent’s class, Respondent told her that “if our affair did not go any further, then it had to end.” She attested that at this time she was constantly fighting suicidal thoughts, and believed that if she lost Respondent, the only person she could talk to, she might no longer be able to fight those thoughts. Therefore, during Session III, 1994-95, she engaged in a single sexual encounter with Respondent. By memorandum dated December 11, 1996, Dr. Roberts informed Respondent that the affidavit has been filed and offered Respondent an opportunity to meet with Dr. Roberts and two other officials “to respond to the allegations and share your side of the story.” There is no record evidence that this meeting ever took place. On May 8, 1997, the College filed the Petition. The essential allegation was framed as follows: The faculty member entertained romantic and sexual relations with a student while that student was in the faculty member’s class. This relationship continued after the student was no longer in the faculty member’s class for a period of several months while the student continued her course of education at the College. Such conduct therefore occurred during a time when the faculty member could influence and affect the student’s academic advancement. In addition to the allegations regarding Respondent’s romantic and/or sexual relationship with Ms. Zemola, the Petition alleged: The faculty member thereafter encouraged students of his to pressure the woman with whom he had had the romantic relationship to refrain from stating charges against him in order that it not jeopardize the faculty member’s career. Petitioner offered no evidence to support this allegation, and it is thus assumed that it has been dismissed. The remaining factual allegations contained in the Petition are for the most part conclusions alleged to arise from Respondent’s conduct: Said conduct seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the student/instructor relationship, and further is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace the faculty member’s profession and impair the faculty member’s service to the community and to students. The faculty member’s conduct had serious adverse consequences upon the student, the student’s relationship with her husband, as well as adverse impact on other students, faculty, staff, and upon members of the community, impairing his effectiveness. The effect of the faculty member’s aforesaid conduct was the creation of an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others. No evidence was presented of any “adverse consequences” to other students, faculty, staff, or members of the community, caused by Respondent’s actions. None of the College administrators who testified could recall receiving any complaints regarding Respondent. Dr. Roberts recalled an inquiry from the campus newspaper, but testified that no article ever ran in that or any other newspaper regarding this situation. Ms. Zemola testified that she heard some gossip around the campus, though none of it mentioned the parties by name. Such talk naturally affected Ms. Zemola, but could not be said to have had any other adverse impact. Ms. Zemola’s relationship with her husband was plainly affected by this incident. However, testimony from both Respondent and Ms. Zemola indicated that neither of their marriages was happy at the outset of their relationship. In fact, their testimony indicated that mutual unhappiness in their marriages was one of the main reasons they were drawn together in the first place. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Zemola’s grades or academic advancement were in any way compromised by her affair with Respondent. Ms. Zemola received grades of “A” in both classes she took from Respondent. Both Ms. Zemola and Respondent testified that these grades were earned by Ms. Zemola based entirely on her work in those classes. Respondent has continued to work as an instructor at the College since the affair and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. His work has been performed competently and completely without incident. The episodes of disruption and/or diminished effectiveness cited by the College’s administrators were in fact caused by John Zemola, not by Respondent. When asked for evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished as a result of the relationship, President Kuttler related an incident in which John Zemola disrupted a class to inform the students about Respondent’s situation, and another incident in which John Zemola harassed Respondent at his home, telling Respondent’s neighbors about the incident. President Kuttler concluded that Respondent’s effectiveness was diminished by the fact that it became known on the campus that there was a teacher/student sexual relationship. However, all the credible record evidence indicates no one involved in the incident or the subsequent disciplinary proceedings other than John Zemola ever publicly disclosed the relationship. Respondent cannot fairly be blamed for the actions of Mr. Zemola in publicizing the incident. Several of Respondent’s colleagues testified to attest to Respondent’s outstanding ability in the classroom. All opined, based on their experience as instructors at the College and their knowledge of Respondent’s character and abilities, that Respondent could continue to perform as an effective instructor at the College. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent’s actions created “an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others.” Respondent acknowledged the impropriety of his actions, and the impact they have had on his personal life, but testified that it has had no impact on his professional life.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the “Instructor-Student Relationships” portion of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy, and suspending Respondent from his position at the College for a period not to exceed one Session. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Shannon Bream, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Tampa, Florida 34684 Charles L. Roberts, Provost St. Petersburg Junior College St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus Office of the Provost St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 District Board of Trustees St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Carl M. Kuttler, Jr., President St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of alleged acts of misconduct set forth in an Administrative Complaint. In the six-count Administrative Complaint it is charged that the Respondent violated three specific statutory provisions and three specific rule provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 355910, covering the areas of Spanish, Supervision, and Social Science, which is valid through June 30, 2002. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed as a Social Studies teacher at Hammocks Middle School in the Miami-Dade County School District. The Respondent first became employed as a teacher at the Hammocks Middle School on or about 1984. At Hammocks Middle School the Respondent taught sixth, seventh, and eighth grade American History. He also taught Geography to sixth graders as part of the Bilingual Content Curriculum Program. As of April 1999, the Respondent had been employed by Miami-Dade County Public Schools for approximately twenty-five years. The Respondent had never been the subject of any disciplinary action by his employer or by the Education Practices Commission at any time prior to April 1999. The Respondent has been a naturist since approximately 1971. The Respondent belongs to a local naturist organization and subscribes to naturist publications. On April 26, 1999, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m., before the start of the school day and while there were no students in his classroom, the Respondent executed an Internet search by typing the word "naturism" into the search engine on his school-provided computer. Of the several "hits" resulting from the search, a website entitled Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider, caught the Respondent's attention because it appeared to have the word "naturist" in its foreign title. The Respondent "clicked" on and accessed the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider website. On April 26, 1999, the Respondent viewed the website for about one minute and "bookmarked" the site. The Respondent did not access the website again on April 26, 1999, at any time. On April 27, 1999, before the start of the school day and while there were no students in his classroom, the Respondent accessed the site Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider via the "bookmark" he had created on April 26, 1999. On that day, the Respondent exited the website before any students arrived at his classroom for his first period class. On the same day, during his third period planning period, while no students were present in the classroom and while the door to his classroom was closed, the Respondent again accessed the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider website. The Respondent left the accessed naturist site on his computer at the end of the planning period but he covered the site by opening his electric gradebook over it. The Respondent did not view the website during the fourth period. During the last ten minutes of the fifth period on April 27, 1999, the Respondent entered student grades into his electronic gradebook while clicking on and viewing some of the photographs from the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider website. Students were present in the classroom but there is no evidence that any student saw naturist photographs on the Respondent's computer monitor during the fifth period. During his sixth period class on April 27, 1999, the Respondent viewed some more naturist photographs on the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider site while grading geography projects at his desk. The Respondent's geography students were working on an in-class vocabulary assignment. The Respondent's computer monitor was facing away from his students and images on the monitor could not be seen by the students while they were at their desks. However, during the course of the Respondent's sixth period class on April 27, 1999, several of the students had occasion to approach the Respondent's desk or to otherwise be in a position to see the monitor on the Respondent's computer. Several of those students were able to see photographic images of nude people on the monitor, even though the Respondent made efforts to cover the monitor when students approached his desk. Shortly after the end of the sixth period on April 27, 1999, several of the students reported to the school administration that they had seen photographs of nude people on the Respondent's computer. An investigation was promptly initiated; written statements were obtained from the students, and the Respondent's classroom computer was removed and locked in a secure place until it could be examined. The photographs of nude people that were seen on the Respondent's computer monitor during his sixth period class on April 27, 1999, were all photographs from the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider website.3 The photographs from that website depict nude men, women, and children of various ages engaged in a variety of outdoor recreational activities such as sunbathing, walking on the beach, sitting or standing by a swimming pool, swimming, boating, and water skiing. The photographs from that website do not depict any acts of sexual intercourse, any acts of sexual touching, or any acts suggestive of sexual conduct. None of the photographs from that website include any sexual innuendo, nor could any of them be fairly described as provocative. Specifically, none of the photographs from that website were obscene or pornographic. But all of the photographs from that website were distinctly inappropriate for display to sixth grade students in a geography class. Examination of the computer that was removed from the Respondent's classroom revealed that the computer had been used to gain access to the Forste side af ialt 6 Naturistsider website. During the course of the investigation, the Respondent admitted that he had viewed that website during his sixth-grade class on April 27, 1999. Examination of the computer also revealed that it had been used to gain access to other websites that contained images of a sexually suggestive or sexually explicit nature. However, there is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent was the person who gained access to the websites that contained sexually suggestive or sexually explicit images.4 There is no clear and convincing evidence that, in the words of the statute, the Respondent "has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the district school board."5 The Respondent's act of having photographs of nude people displayed on his computer monitor on April 27, 1999, created a condition harmful to learning, as well as potentially harmful to the mental health of the students. That act also exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment. That act was also a use of institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage. On or about August 25, 1999, the Respondent was terminated from his position with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered to the following effect: (a) dismissing the charges in Counts 1 and 2 of the Administrative Complaint; (b) finding the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6; and (c) imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00), and a suspension of the Respondent's certificate for a period of six (6) months. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 16th day of May, 2001.
The Issue Whether or not during the period of April, 1975 until September, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, the President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed an unlicensed person, namely one, Dennis R. Nevels, to teach at the school, in violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes; thereby violating Section 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Whether or not during the period of April, 1975 until September, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, the President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed an unlicensed person, namely one Cora Bracy, to teach at the school, in violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes; thereby violating Section 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Whether or not during the period of April, 1975 until September, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, the President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed an unlicensed person, namely one Renee Boren Hayes, to teach at the school, in violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes; thereby violating Section 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Whether or not during the period of April, 1975 until September, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, the President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed an unlicensed person, namely one, Annette Calloway, to teach at the school, in violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes; thereby violating Section 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about December 10, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon as President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed the school to operate on members of the public without any licensed instructor being present in violation of Rules 21F-2.24 and 21F-2.25, Florida Administrative Code; thereby violating Section 477.15(9), Florida Statutes, and Section 477.27(12), Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about September 4, 1976, Henry Dixon, was drinking and became publicly intoxicated during the day time hours at his school and in doing such violated Section 477.15(6) and (7), Florida Statutes. Whether or not between September, 1976 and January, 1977, the students of the Respondent were not receiving experience and a receptionist in violation of Rule 21F-2.16, Florida Administrative Code; the school did not have an adequate library in violation of Rule 21F-2.20, Florida Administrative Code; the school did not have the required number of thermal units, heat caps or steamers, in violation of Rule 21F-2.07, Florida Administrative Code; the school did not have separate junior and senior departments in violation of Rules 21F-2.23, 21F- 2.24 and 21F-2.25, Florida Administrative Code; the school did not have the required minimum equipment of six shampoo bowls and six manicure tables in violation of Rule 21F-2.08, Florida Administrative Code; and the Respondents had not posted their inspection rating sheets as required by Rule 21F-2.07, Florida Administrative Code; thereby violating Sections 477.08, 477.15(7), (8) and (9) and Section 477.27(8) and (12), Florida Statutes. Whether or not during the period of April, 1975 until September, 1976, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, the President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, allowed an unlicensed person, namely one, A. J. Quentaro, to teach at the school, in violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes; thereby violating Section 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes. Whether or not between September, 1976 and February, 1977, Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon as President, Manager and Licensed Instructor, failed to issue and post student permits and identification badges in spite of repeated warnings from the Board's inspector, and for that reason were in violation of Rule 21F-2.07(4), Rule 21F-2.25, and Rule 21F-2.28, Florida Administrative Code; thereby violating Sections 477.08, 477.15(7)(8) and (9), and 477.27(8) and (12), Florida Statutes. Whether or not between the period September, 1976 and February, 1977, the Respondents allowed students without required hours to work unfettered on the public; misrepresented the amount of hours certain students had to members of the public, and posted on a bulletin board for the public to discern the names of certain students whom the Respondents favored; in violation of Rules 21F-2.23, 21F-2.24, 21F-2.25, 21F-2.28 and 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code, thereby violating Sections 477.08, 477.15(7), (8) and (9), 477.27(8) and , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the administrative complaint, up to and including the date of the hearing in this cause, the Florida Beauty College, Inc. was the holder of license no. 043, held with the Florida State Board of Cosmetology, and Henry Dixon was licensed as an instructor by the Florida State Board of Cosmetology under license no. 22909. The licenses were held for the purpose of doing business in Jacksonville, Florida. From April, 1975 through February, 1977, the relevant periods in the administrative complaint, the Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon, as the President, Manager and a Licensed Instructor, operated a cosmetology school in Jacksonville, Florida. In an effort to prove the allegations set forth in the administrative complaint the Petitioner offered the testimony of Linda Geiger and Brenda Gene Schwerm, former students of the Florida Beauty College, Inc. Part of their testimony pertained to counts 1 - 4 and count 8. These five counts alleged that Dennis R. Nevels, Cora Bracy, Renee Boren Hayes, Annette Calloway and A. J. Quentaro had been allowed by the Respondents to teach in the cosmetology school at a time when the aforementioned persons were unlicensed as instructors. Ms. Geiger and Ms. Schwerm, collectively, gave testimony to the effect that on one or more occasions Novels, Bracy, Hayes, Calloway and Quentaro taught other students at the Florida Beauty College, with the permission of Henry Dixon, and at times his insistence, that the students attend sessions being taught by the five named individuals. This testimony of Ms. Geiger and Ms. Schwerm was opposed through the testimony of James Burdett and Cynthia Kinser, former students of the Florida Beauty College; and through the testimony of Michell Johnson, the daughter of Henry Dixon and a licensed instructor in the Florida Beauty College and Henry Dixon, one of the Respondents. The testimony of Mr. Burdett, Ms. Kinser, Ms. Johnson and Mr. Dixon was to the effect that the students Nevels, Bracy, Hayes, Calloway and Quentaro never taught other students in the beauty college under the permission of Dixon or other members of the staff. Their recollection was that some of the named students; specifically Novels, Calloway and Quentaro demonstrated certain techniques used in the cutting of hair or the treatment of hair and other cosmetology needs. In analyzing the competing points of view of the witnesses offered in the hearing, it should be noted that there is a clear and apparent interest on the part of Mr. Dixon the Respondent, and his daughter, Ms. Johnson, one of the instructors within the school. It should also be noted that Ms. Geiger had been suspended from the school on November 19, 1976 and had been dismayed by the dismissal of one Ken Branson, a licensed instructor at the school, whom she felt was a more qualified instructor than either Mr. Dixon or his daughter Ms. Johnson. Ms. Geiger had also been ostracized for filing a complaint against the school which lead to the present administrative complaint and was upset because she felt the necessity to apologize to the other students in the school at the time the complaint was made known. Ms. Schwerm was concerned about the dismissal of Mr. Branson and expressed this concern in terms of feeling that the quality of instruction had been lowered once Branson left the college. The background of the witnesses Burdett and Kinser lead to the conclusion that they had no apparent interest in the hearing. In view of all the facts on the question of whether or not the named individuals were teaching in the school, it is concluded that those individuals did not teach and at most only demonstrated certain techniques for the benefit of other students. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that these named individuals, to wit: Nevels, Bracy, Hayes, Calloway and Quentaro, were not licensed instructors, there has been no violation of Rule 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 477.08(1), Florida Statutes, to cause a violation of Sections 477.15(7) and (9), Florida Statutes, because neither the Florida Beauty College, Inc. or Henry Dixon, allowed any unlicensed person to teach at the school as alleged in counts 1 - 4 and 8. In count 5, the administrative complaint accuses Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon of allowing the operation of the school in terms of the service to the public without any licensed instructor being present in violation of Rules 21F-2.24 and 21F-2.25, Florida Administrative Code, which allegedly constitutes a violation of Section 477.15(9), Florida Statutes and Section 477.27(12), Florida Statutes. The testimony in the hearing revealed that on a routine basis between 9:30 and 10:30 a.m., students with the requisite number of hours were allowed to service customers without any licensed instructor being directly in the room. Mr. Dixon was in the adjacent office which has an observation window, that would allow him to see the work being done by the students and to give necessary instructions. The language of Rules 21F-2.24 and 21F-2.25, Florida Administrative Code reads as follows: 21F-2.24 Health Certificates. A permanent health certificate showing results of a blood test and chest x-ray or equivalent respiratory communicable disease test must be submitted with each application for examination by any applicant. 21F-2.25 Permit Cards (Student Identification) Identification cards will be issued for each student in school showing student's name, date of enrollment, permit number and classification. These cards are to be inserted in badges furnished by the school and worn on the student uniform at all times while attending school. If evening classes are held, permits for those attending each session should be posted separately and designated as "Day Class", "Evening Class" or "Part-time Class". An examination of the above cited provisions demonstrates that they do not pertain to the question of allowing unauthorized persons to operate on members of the public without a licensed instructor being in attendance. Therefore, those provisions do not apply to the facts. Count 5 also charges a violation of Section 477.15(9), Florida Statutes, which imposes suspension or revocation for violations of any of the provisions of Section 477.23, Florida Statutes. A review of the provisions of Section 477.23, Florida Statutes, demonstrates that none of those provisions have application to an allegation of allowing unauthorized persons to operate on members of the public without licensed instructors being in attendance. Finally, count 5 alleges a violation of Section 477.27(12), Florida Statutes. This provision pertains to the penalties to be assessed for violations of any of the rules or regulations of the Petitioner. There have been no violations alleged or shown, consequently the penalties are not relevant. Count 6 of the administrative complaint charges Henry Dixon with drinking and becoming publicly intoxicated during the daytime hours at his cosmetology school in violation of Section 477.15(6) and (7), Florida Statutes, those provisions state the following: 477.15 Suspension or revocation of certificate; grounds.-- The board may either refuse to issue, or renew, or may suspend or revoke any certificate of registration for any of the following causes: * * * Habitual drunkenness or habitual addiction to the use of morphine, cocaine or other habit- forming drugs; Immoral or unprofessional conduct; The facts indicate that on September 4, 1976, while the business was still in operation and patrons were being attended, Henry Dixon came into the service part of the salon with a beer in his hand and was acting in a festive mood. The occasion of his actions was a party that was being held for the benefit of one of the students. Although there is some testimony that Dixon was getting intoxicated there is no showing that Mr. Dixon was in fact intoxicated. An analysis of this testimony leaves the impression that the Petitioner has failed to show any habitual drunkenness or addiction to morphine, cocaine or other habit-forming drugs, as alleged. Likewise, the conduct was not immoral. However, such conduct is unprofessional. Count 7 of the administrative complaint has numerous provisions. The first of those provisions is a contention that the students in the college from September, 1976 to January, 1977 were not afforded an opportunity to receive experience as a receptionist in violation of Rule 21F-2.16, Florida Administrative Code. A complete review of the facts indicate that the students were given that opportunity and took advantage of such opportunity. Count 7 additionally accuses the school of not having an adequate library in violation of Rule 21F-2.220, Florida Administrative Code. A review of the facts indicates that there was sufficient literature available to the students to constitute a library within the meaning of provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. One of the allegations set forth in count 7 pertains to the failure of the school to have the required number of thermal, heat caps or steamers, in violation of Rule 21F-2.07, Florida Administrative Code. There was no testimony offered to demonstrate a lack of those items of equipment; therefore there has been no violation shown of Rule 21F-2.07, Florida Administrative Code. Count 7 contained a provision which claimed that there was no separate junior and senior departments in violation of Rules 21F-2.23, 21F-2.24 and 21F- 2.25, Florida Administrative Code. None of these provisions of the Florida Administrative Code pertain to the question of the requirement of separating junior and senior departments; nonetheless, the testimony reveals that the classes were divided into freshmen, junior and senior, with the freshmen being those students who had not obtained their necessary 200 hours which is a prerequisite to practicing on customers who are not members of the class or members of their immediate family. Count 7 contains an additional allegation that there were insufficient numbers of shampoo bowls and manicure bowls in violation of Rule 21F-2.08, Florida Administrative Code. The testimony showed that there were eight shampoo bowls and six manicure tables and thereby were in compliance with the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. Finally, there was insufficient proof to establish the failure to post inspection rating sheets as allegedly required by Rule 21F-2.07, Florida Administrative Code. It should also be noted that Rule 21F-2.07, does not pertain to the requirement for posting of inspection rating sheets. In summary, there have been no violations of Sections 477.08; 477.15(7), (8) and (9), and 477.27(8) and (12), Florida Statutes, as alleged in count 7. Count 9 of the administrative complaint charged Florida Beauty College, Inc. and Henry Dixon with the failure to issue and post student permits and identification badges in spite of repeated warnings from the Board's inspector in violation of Rule 21F-2.07(4), Rule 21F-2.25 and Rule 21F-2.28, Florida Administrative Code. This was felt to constitute a violation of Sections 477.08, 477.15(7), (8) and (9) and 477.27(8) and (12), Florida Statutes. The facts in this cause demonstrate that in spite of an initial warning to the Respondents, a second inspection revealed that student permits were not posted on the second visit as required by Rule 21F-2.25, Florida Administrative Code. No other violation as alleged in count 9 is shown. Count 10 of the administrative complaint charged that between September, 1976 and February, 1977 students were allowed unfettered on the public, and that the Respondents misrepresented the amount of hours certain students had to members of the public and in addition posted on the bulletin board for the public to discern, the names of certain students whom were favored by the Respondent; in violation of Rules 21F-2.23, 21F-2.24, 21F-2.25, 21F-2.28 and 21F-2.17(b), Florida Administrative Code, thereby violating Sections 477.08, 477.15(7), (8) and (9), 477.27(8) and (12), Florida Statutes. Certain testimony was offered by Ms. Geiger to the effect that students were allowed to work on the public who had less than 200 hours. In view of the opinion of the undersigned of the creditability of the witness Geiger, that testimony is rejected and no other showing was made to establish that students were allowed to administer to the needs of the public when those students were not duly qualified. There was no testimony to show that the names of students were posted on bulletin boards for the public to discern, thereby creating a favorable impression to the public about those certain students. Therefore there has been no showing of any violation of the Florida Administrative Code or Florida Statutes as set forth in count 10.
Recommendation For the violations as established against Florida Beauty College, Inc. license no. 043 and Henry Dixon, licensed instructor, license no. 22909, it is recommended that these Respondents be suspended for a period of two weeks. (This suspension recommendation would only pertain to the Florida Beauty College, Inc., license No. 043, if the Florida Beauty College, Inc. is still in operation at the time of the entry of the final order of the Petitioner). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel J. Wiser, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Seelie, Esquire Suite 1103, Blackstone Building East Bay and Market Streets Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct and/or immorality in office (in the nature of suggestive and degrading sexual innuendoes and remarks to several female students) pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a) F.S. and Rules 6B- 1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009 F.A.C. so as to be subject to dismissal by the Nassau County School Board. Although some evidence of other years was presented, the August 8, 1991 Statement of Charges herein covers only the 1990-1991 school year. Accordingly, only evidence from that school year may be considered for purposes of discipline in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was a teacher at the Hilliard Middle- Senior High School and the holder of a professional services contract with Petitioner Nassau County School Board. He is certified by the State of Florida in the areas of mathematics, psychology, and broad field social studies. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner for the nine years immediately preceding his suspension for the charges involved in this case. During the whole of that time he received good job evaluations. He has had no prior disciplinary charges against him. On or about May 9, 1991, Petitioner, pursuant to the recommendation of the Nassau County Superintendent of Schools, suspended Respondent without pay. This followed the Superintendent's suspension of Respondent with pay on May 2, 1991. During his employment with Petitioner, Respondent has taught geometry, algebra II, trigonometry, one class of general math, and a class of compensatory mathematics. Respondent has had a practice of greeting his students at random as they enter the classroom each day and while they are taking their seats and settling down to work. At all times material, these greetings were offered in the presence of students of both genders. Respondent teased the boys about sports and commented on the girls' appearance. The comments made most frequently by the Respondent to the football players were that they had not done well in the immediately preceding game. The comments made most frequently by the Respondent to all the female students were, "You're looking good; you're looking fine; you're looking hot;" or, more simply, "you're fine; you're hot." None of the comments were exclusive to any particular female student. All comments were made out in the open, without any physical touching or aggression on Respondent's part. He made these comments with no intended sexual connotation, and no female student ever expressed to him directly that she objected to these greetings either because they sounded sexual in nature, were too familiar, or were made in the presence of the female students' male peers. Generally, Respondent's comments were recognized as kidding and not taken seriously or considered objectionable by the students. There is no evidence that the Respondent's comments delayed the commencement of class, caused disruptive behavior on the part of either the male or the female students who heard them, or inhibited any student learning the academic material. One female student who testified that she found the foregoing practice objectionable was Shannon Lysitt, a student of Respondent's during both the 1989-1990 and the 1990-1991 school years. Ms. Lysitt testified at formal hearing that she "took [these comments] to be sexual but not as in a sexual manner." She considered the comments embarrassing and a display of inappropriate conduct by a teacher but knew Respondent was being friendly and joking. Ms. Lysitt admittedly never told Respondent she felt embarrassed or asked him to stop making such comments. Although she was used to his comments from the previous school year, Ms. Lysitt did not request to be assigned to another class for the 1990-1991 school year. In one isolated conversation, Respondent told Ms. Lysitt that, due to her poor math grades, she would probably wind up as a secretary being chased around a desk by her boss instead of achieving her desired career of psychiatrist. The Respondent denied making that comment specifically, but testified that he had made chiding or derrogatory comments about career plans of college preparatory students to motivate them to do better on tests when they had been doing poorly. By all accounts, Ms. Lysitt was doing all right in Respondent's course but could have done better. Ms. Lysitt's testimony was credible as to what was said, but Respondent's testimony was equally credible as to why he said it. Upon the evidence as a whole, it is found that the Respondent's comment may have been temporarily embarrassing to Ms. Lysitt, and may have, as she testified, made her feel bad or stupid for a short time, but that it did not degrade or humiliate her or adversely affect her classroom performance or overall self-image. Sherry Meziere was a student in Respondent's fourth period general math II class during the 1990-1991 school year. She also was embarrassed by Respondent's compliments to her, but she never told him so. When Ms. Meziere complained to Respondent that her semester grade was a "C" rather than the "B" she wanted, he told her she could stay after school and she would get her "B". Ms. Meziere is a particularly sensitive and shy teenager, and she took offense at the Respondent's comment because she interpreted it as a sexual come-on. Respondent denied having any sexual intent behind his comment to Ms. Meziere. At formal hearing, he explained that Ms. Meziere would have been entitled to a "B" if she had turned in all her homework, as required, but she had not. Because her grade was borderline due to the missing homework, Respondent had meant by his remark to Ms. Meziere that if she would come to the classroom after school and work the homework problems in his presence, he would retroactively give her credit for doing the homework and turning it in and this would accordingly alter her semester grade to a "B". Respondent's explanation for why he took this approach is reasonable: he would not accept students bringing in the homework later from home because it might be done anew or copied from someone else. Perhaps Respondent fell short in not clearly indicating all his reasoning and purpose to Ms. Meziere, but he also had no notice from her that she had misunderstood his offer. On balance, Ms. Meziere's explanation of why she took Respondent's neutral remark sexually is weak. She testified, A: I took it sexually. I don't know. Q: Why did you take it sexually? What is it about it that made you think that because you would agree, wouldn't you, that that could also be nonsexual the way you stated it, correct? A: Yes. Q: So what was it about the way he said it that made you think that it was sexual? A: I don't know. I just didn't feel comfortable with it. Q: But he didn't say anything explicit-- A: No. Q: --about sex or anything like that? A: No. (Exhibit P-2, page 10) Ms. Meziere considered Respondent a good teacher, not really strict, and pretty friendly. She felt he was giving her and one of her girl friends many more compliments of the nature described above in Finding of Fact 5 than he was giving other female students in their particular class. Respondent conceded that perhaps he had complimented Ms. Meziere more than some other female students in her class because he had tried to build up Ms. Meziere's self-esteem while the class was going to and from the cafeteria during the lunch recess which occurred in the middle of that class period, so that she would eat and not diet excessively. When she felt "uncomfortable" about Respondent's offering to see her after school, Ms. Meziere was not aware that Respondent frequently tutored students after school. Shanna Higginbotham, another one of Respondent's female students, confirmed that she had been tutored by him after school on several occasions, without any sexual innuendoes or overtures. Although what Respondent did not do with Ms. Higginbotham is not corroborative of Respondent's testimony that he did not intend his remark to Ms. Meziere to be sexual, it is supportive of his testimony that he was in the habit of having one or more students in his classroom after school. It also supports a reasonable inference that the Respondent's classroom was hardly the place for a private rendezvous. Respondent was approached during an inactive period in one of his classes by a senior mathematics student named Monica Adamczewski, who was simultaneously taking a college-level psychology class in child development at Florida Community College, Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Adamczewski, knowing of Respondent's background in psychology, addressed a question to Respondent involving Freudian theory and child psychology on the issue of whether or not little children have sexual feelings, as hypothesized by Freud. Respondent responded by describing how he had handled an incident involving his own four year child's masturbation. Although the conversation was conducted in low tones with Ms. Adamczewski and Respondent in their respective desks, another student, Darlene Kelly, came up to Respondent's desk in the course of the conversation and heard only part of the conversation. Ms. Kelly was not aware of the context in which the subject arose, did not approve of certain language Respondent employed in discussing his child's activity, and felt it was an inappropriate conversation for the classroom, but Ms. Kelly also testified that the conversation did not embarrass her. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the foregoing incident occurred during the period covered by the Statement of Charges in this case. It is found that it did not occur during the period of time covered by the charges and accordingly that it cannot constitute grounds for disciplining Respondent in this proceeding. Jessica Smith testified to three incidents that allegedly occurred during the 1989-1990 school year. Because the Statement of Charges against the Respondent is silent as to any allegations of misconduct or immorality that occurred other than during the 1990-1991 school year, these incidents may not be used to discipline Respondent in this proceeding. 1/ Tammy McClamma graduated from Hilliard Middle-Senior High School in May 1990. She was not one of Respondent's students in either her junior or senior year, but she knew him from being around school. The events she described also could not have occurred during the time frame set out in the Statement of Charges and therefore cannot be used to discipline the Respondent in this proceeding. 2/ Respondent acknowledged that he may have been careless and used poor judgment in some of the statements he made to his female students. However, he never intended to harm or embarrass any of them and was simply guilty of allowing himself to get too close to the students as friends rather than maintaining the appropriate distance required of the student-teacher relationship. All the student witnesses, including those who were offended by isolated remarks they regarded as inappropriate, agreed that Respondent has a friendly and jocular manner in and out of the classroom. Respondent's classroom clearly has a "laid back" style. Overall, his students seem to appreciate and enjoy his familiar manner and to learn well in his classes. The consistent testimony of the students was that he is generally well-regarded and "everybody's favorite teacher." Superintendent Marshall opined as a professional educator that the Respondent's effectiveness as an educator had been undermined and eliminated by a continuing pattern of serious misconduct. However, no evidence of lost effectiveness beyond the temporary embarrassment and self-doubt experienced by Ms. Lysitt appears of record, and Mr. Marshall's opinion as rendered at formal hearing was based in part upon incidents outside the dates alleged in the Statement of Charges and also based in part upon the total investigation of this case, which investigation clearly included material not in evidence here.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Nassau County enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent and returning him to full duty with all back pay and benefits retroactive to May 9, 1991. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1992.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Pinellas County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause for terminating the employment of Gerald A. DiPanfilo (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner under a professional services contract. The Respondent has worked as a Pinellas County teacher for approximately 27 years, serving as an art teacher at Seminole High School for approximately one-half of his career with the Petitioner. On July 11, 2007, the Respondent went to "Grand Central," an apparently "gay bar" located in downtown St. Petersburg, Florida. The Respondent testified at the hearing that he had been at the lounge with friends. After drinking excessively, he decided to go home and asked the bartender to call for a cab to transport him to his condominium. As he waited for the cab to arrive, he sat at the bar. J.G., a male who had just turned 17 years old on June 23, 2007, and who was enrolled in the Pinellas County School System, was also in the lounge as the same time as the Respondent. The Respondent testified that he had limited conversation with J.G. while in the tavern. There is no evidence that the Respondent knew that J.G. was enrolled in the Pinellas County School System. The Respondent testified that, when the cab arrived, he got into the cab and that J.G. "forced" himself into the cab with the Respondent. He testified that he exited the cab at a Publix grocery store about one and a half blocks from his residence, that he apparently walked alone to his condominium, and that, when he entered the ground-floor garage to obtain cigarettes from his car, he discovered J.G. waiting. The Respondent's testimony failed to indicate at what point J.G. exited the cab, why the Respondent would have exited the cab at Publix, or how J.G. would have known where the Respondent's condo was located. The Respondent testified that J.G. asked for a drink of water and the Respondent, despite asserting that he "was a little nervous," admitted the stranger into his residence. The Respondent testified that, after entering the residence, J.G. began "pulling his shirt up." The Respondent also testified as follows: I'm not sure whether he was taking his pants off or not. But at the time I made a gesture of some sort, and I said Whoa. And he said, May I borrow your cell phone or may I borrow your phone. And he took my phone, and he went out into the hallway, which I started to get suspicious at that point of why did he need to use--talk out in the hall. So I went out there immediately. The Respondent testified that he re-entered his condo and noticed his car keys were missing. He testified that he called the cell phone and J.G. answered. The Respondent testified that he then called the police and reported his car as stolen. The Respondent testified that there was never any discussion with J.G. about obtaining drugs. The Respondent denied any discussion with J.G. about having sex or paying for sexual activity. The Respondent denied that J.G. made any statement about age. The Respondent's testimony as to the events of the evening lacked sufficient clarity to be reliable and are not credited. J.G. testified that he entered the "Grand Central" to get a glass of water. J.G. testified that he was not gay, but acknowledged being aware that "Grand Central" was apparently widely-known to have gay customers "because it's full of gay people in there." J.G. testified that he interacted with the Respondent with the intention of hustling him for money. J.G. testified that the Respondent offered to buy him a drink, but that the bartender refused to serve alcohol to J.G., who did not have identification. J.G. testified that the Respondent offered him a "ride home" and he accepted. J.G. testified that the two took the cab to the Respondent's condo and did not talk during the cab ride. J.G. testified that, after arriving at the condo, the Respondent asked if J.G. could obtain drugs, and J.G. said he could; that J.G. and the Respondent then walked to a nearby Publix; and that the Respondent obtained money from the ATM. J.G. testified that they returned to and entered the Respondent's condo and that the Respondent "approached him" with his pants down. J.G. testified that he remained fully clothed while at the Respondent's residence, while the Respondent touched J.G.'s body "everywhere" including his genitals for a period of five to seven minutes. J.G. testified that he told the Respondent at some point during the evening that he was 17 years old "because I wasn't feeling what was going on at the time." While at the Respondent's residence, J.G. pretended to call the supposed resource (his cousin) to obtain drugs, after which J.G. left to obtain the drugs with the Respondent's cash, his car, and his cell phone. J.G. testified that he had no intention of returning to the Respondent's residence. As part of an investigation into the alleged auto theft, the Respondent was interviewed by a law enforcement officer and submitted a written statement to the police. In the written statement, the Respondent wrote that he "messed around briefly" with the person who had allegedly stolen the vehicle. After reviewing the information, the matter was subsequently referred to a second law enforcement officer for the purpose of conducting an investigation into the alleged sexual activity with a minor. According to the testimony of the officer investigating the sexual activity, the Respondent stated that he and J.G. had been kissing in the cab and that, after arriving at the condo, the two had undressed and had rubbed each other's penises. The officer noted that the Respondent stated he might have given money to the minor, but was not sure. The Respondent indicated that he believed J.G. to have been of legal age. At the hearing, the Respondent testified that he had no recollection of making the admissions of sexual activity between himself and J.G. to the police investigator and was unsure why he made the statements. The officer also interviewed J.G. and testified that J.G. stated that he had advised the Respondent of his age during the cab ride. The officer also testified that J.G. stated that the Respondent gave money to J.G. in exchange for sex and drugs and that, after returning to the Respondent's residence, the two had physical contact but that J.G. remained dressed during the contact. J.G. has a substantial criminal arrest record, given his age, for various drug offenses as well as battery, burglary, and grand theft. He was charged with auto theft in connection with taking the Respondent's car. J.G. acknowledged at the hearing that he had previously stated that he was willing to allege sexual activity with the Respondent in an attempt to avoid being charged with auto theft. The greater weight of the evidence presented at the hearing established that the Respondent engaged in sexual activity with J.G. on July 11, 2007, or very early on the morning of the following day. This finding is specifically based upon the admissions made by the Respondent to the investigators; admissions that the Respondent continued to make over a period of several days as the investigation proceeded. As a teacher, the Respondent has an obligation to ascertain the age of persons with whom he is involved. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent realistically considered whether or not J.G. was of legal age. Students at Seminole High School became aware of publicity related to the events of July 11, 2007, and some students posted copies of newspaper articles on campus. Administrators were contacted by some parents who had various concerns. The school principal and a district administrator testified that they believed the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired as a result of the events of July 11, 2007. Prior to the date of these events, the Respondent had been convicted of a DUI offense, but the Petitioner had not yet taken any related disciplinary action. The employment of a Pinellas County teacher would not be routinely terminated on the basis of the Respondent's DUI conviction. While the allegations related to the events of July 11 were being investigated, the Petitioner reassigned the Respondent to work in the district warehouse, where he had numerous absences from work. The Respondent testified without contradiction as to his mental state of mind during this period to explain the absences. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent's employment should be terminated solely on the basis of the absences.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the employment of Gerald A. DiPanfilo. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 July, 2008.
The Issue Should Respondent be terminated from his employment as a member of Petitioner's instructional staff for his alleged relationship with Kristie Lynn Smith, who at the time of the alleged misconduct was a minor student and member of Respondent's household? In particular, Petitioner accuses Respondent of a romantic involvement with Ms. Smith, to include sexual intercourse.
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent has been employed as a classroom teacher, part of instructional staff with the Putnam County School Board. His employment has been at Interlachen High School in Interlachen, Putnam County, Florida. Respondent has taught Driver Education and Health and Life Management Skills. Respondent has also served as coach for the girls' varsity basketball team. Kristie Lynn Smith was born November 24, 1980. At the times relevant to the inquiry she was a student in the Putnam County School District. Ms. Smith met Respondent as a student in Respondent's Health and Life Management Skills class, in the second semester of her ninth grade year. In January 1997, Ms. Smith was placed in foster care in the custody of Respondent and his wife, Teresa Dorsey. Ms. Smith lived with the Dorseys in their home from January 1997 through August 1997. Other children residing in the Dorsey home were Respondent's children Mikey, Jeanny, and Raymond. Another foster child, K.W., lived in the home during Ms. Smith's residency. The expectation of foster parenting for the benefit of Ms. Smith and K.W. was that Respondent and his wife would exercise parental authority over the foster children. After Ms. Smith was placed with the Dorseys for foster care, she began to ride to her school with Respondent in his automobile. On these occasions Respondent and Ms. Smith would engage in conversation that was not unexpected. In latter May 1997, Respondent began to discuss his marital problems with Ms. Smith. In these discussions Respondent confided that Respondent's marriage with his wife, Teresa, was over and that Respondent was contemplating the formal dissolution of his marriage. Respondent's discussions with Ms. Smith extended to expressing Respondent's feelings towards Ms. Smith by telling her he cared for her. This was followed by Respondent's statement to Ms. Smith that he was in love with her. Ms. Smith replied that she had similar feelings for Respondent. Respondent and Ms. Smith in their discussions talked about having sexual relations with each other. Expression was given to their affection by flirting, hugging, and kissing each other with open mouths. The relationship between Respondent and Ms. Smith progressed to the point where Ms. Smith agreed to have sexual intercourse with Respondent. Within a few days beyond reaching the agreement to have sexual intercourse, Respondent, in their home, took Ms. Smith from the room she shared with K.W. into the bedroom shared by Mikey and Jeanny, placed a mattress on the floor, removed his and Ms. Smith's clothing and engaged in sexual intercourse with Ms. Smith. This same activity took place three or four more times in the home in the month of May 1997. While on a vacation in West Virginia that began the last week of May 1997, Ms. Smith confided in K.W. that Ms. Smith and Respondent had an ongoing romantic relationship. K.W. observed some of the contacts between Respondent and Ms. Smith that involved hand holding, hugging, and what K.W. described as "French kissing," meaning that the tongues of Respondent and Ms. Smith were in each other's mouth. Upon the return from West Virginia, in the first part of June 1997, Respondent and Ms. Smith continued their liaison, to include sexual intercourse that took place on numerous occasions either in Jeanny and Mikey's bedroom, Ms. Smith's bedroom, or Respondent's bedroom. The sexual encounters that have been described took place at night when other persons had retired to sleep. The numerous occasions of sexual relations between Respondent and Ms. Smith took place over the period from the end of May 1997 into August 1997. Those encounters were such that in June 1997, Ms. Smith believed that she had become pregnant by Respondent. To confirm her suspicion Ms. Smith went with a friend, Lisa Comeau, and purchased a pregnancy test kit. At that time Ms. Comeau was also a student at Interlachen High School. Ms. Comeau was mindful of the relationship between Ms. Smith and Respondent to the extent that Ms. Comeau had been told by Ms. Smith that Respondent and Ms. Smith were having sexual relations. Respondent had taught Ms. Comeau as a Driver's Education and Health class teacher. The results of the pregnancy test as administered at Ms. Comeau's home revealed that Ms. Smith was not pregnant. In June 1997, Ms. Smith enrolled in a Driver's Education Course that was being taught at Palatka High School, part of the Putnam County School District. Respondent taught Ms. Smith in that class and was responsible for assigning Ms. Smith's final grade. During this time period Respondent and Ms. Smith were having sexual relations. During the period May 1997 through August 1997, Respondent and Ms. Smith exchanged letters describing their affection. Those letters were passed directly from Respondent to Ms. Smith and from Ms. Smith to Respondent or on other occasions letters were being indirectly transmitted through K.W. Respondent would also leave letters for Ms. Smith in a dresser drawer in the home. The letters were being written and exchanged sometime between May 1997 and August 1997. K.W. and Lisa Comeau were aware of the contents of some of this correspondence. Through the letters which Respondent wrote to Ms. Smith he expressed his love and devotion, the anticipation of having children with Ms. Smith, the desire to be Ms. Smith's husband, and the specific statement of wanting to make love to Ms. Smith and to hold her in his arms and to lay there for hours. The contents of some of the letters are more completely described in the Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 4-13. Although Respondent expressed some reservation in testimony concerning their relationship, about first receiving letters from Ms. Smith which expressed her feelings towards Respondent, his manner of addressing his concerns was to begin writing letters back to Ms. Smith of the nature that has been described previously. While Respondent in his testimony concerning the relationship with Ms. Smith has denied the finding made here that he had engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Smith, he does not deny discussion of their intention to have sexual relations at a time in the future. Neither does Respondent deny having written the letters that have been discussed which describe lovemaking and fathering Ms. Smith's children. The July 24, 1998, edition of the Palatka Daily News reported some of the contents of correspondence from Respondent to Ms. Smith that have been described, in particular, the reference "I want to make love to you . . . and hold you in my arms and lay there for hours." The article also referred to Respondent's admission that he loved Ms. Smith at the time of their relationship and hoped the two of them would be married and have a family. As reported in the newspaper article Respondent had testified in the trial that he had "fallen" for Ms. Smith. The account of Respondent's statement that he loved Ms. Smith, as found in the newspaper was consistent with his trial testimony. Respondent's trial testimony constituted testimony for the present proceeding. Mr. David Buckles, District School Superintendent for Putnam County School District, testified concerning his opinion on Respondent's loss of effectiveness as a teacher. Before offering that testimony Mr. Buckles had been accepted as an expert to provide opinion testimony concerning loss of effectiveness in the community to teach. Upon reviewing the contents of correspondence from Respondent to Ms. Smith, Mr. Buckles opined that the authorship of that item, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4 and its delivery to Ms. Smith, then a 16-year- old student, followed by public admission of such contact between Respondent and Ms. Smith would cause Respondent to be less than effective in teaching. Respondent in his testimony at trial, had acknowledged writing the correspondence found in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. Additionally, Mr. Buckles offered the opinion that a teacher would lose effectiveness in the instance where the teacher stated a desire to father a child by one of his students, as published in the community. Respondent in his trial testimony acknowledged that in one of the letters written to Ms. Smith, he had stated that he wanted to father Ms. Smith's children. Moreover, Mr. Buckles offered the opinion that a teacher would lose effectiveness in the community to serve as a teacher if the teacher admitted in a public forum that the teacher was in love with a 16-year-old student. Respondent in his trial testimony acknowledged that he loved Ms. Smith at the time of their relationship. Respondent in his trial testimony also acknowledged writing letters to Ms. Smith which expressed his love for her. Mr. Buckles expressed the opinion that a teacher, who in a public forum acknowledges having discussed having sexual intercourse with a student on a future date, had lost effectiveness. In the trial testimony Respondent indicated that he had talked with Ms. Smith about having sex after they were going to be married, and that it was something Respondent and Ms. Smith knew would take place as part of the marriage. Additionally, Mr. Buckles' opinion countenances the previously mentioned discussion in correspondence from Respondent to Ms. Smith, reported in the newspaper and testified about in hearing, in which Respondent acknowledged authoring the correspondence which includes the phrase "I want to make love to you . . . and hold you in my arms and lay there for hours." Eventually, the relationship between Respondent and Ms. Smith was found out. Although Ms. Smith denied their relationship initially, upon its discovery, out of fear of losing her attachment to Respondent and getting in trouble, eventually, Ms. Smith admitted to the relationship. Ms. Smith and K.W. were removed from Respondent's home. Respondent did not carry forward his stated intentions to divorce his wife and marry Ms. Smith. Respondent continues to be married to Teresa Dorsey.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Putnam County School Board dismissing Respondent from his employment with the Putnam County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 7th day of May, 1999.
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
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
