Findings Of Fact Respondent, Steven G. Miller, is a teaching veteran in excess of 20 years and holds Florida teaching certificate #524693, valid through June 30, 1995, covering the area of social science. During times material herein, Respondent was assigned as a teacher to St. Petersburg High School. During times material, Respondent's wife, Claudia Miller, was also a teacher at St. Petersburg High School and their daughter was a student there. During the 1989-90 school year, Respondent taught an African/American student, Leslie Kemp, in his sociology class. Kemp attended St. Petersburg High School for approximately six months. During Kemp's enrollment at St. Petersburg High School, Respondent told her he was attracted to her, asked if she had a boyfriend and inquired if he could get to know her outside school. These questions and statements were embarrassing to Kemp and as a result, she altered her schedule to avoid contact with Respondent. After Kemp graduated, Respondent called her at home and went uninvited to her home during the school day. During the occasion on which Respondent went uninvited to Kemp's home, Kemp called another teacher at St. Petersburg High School, Kenneth Jackson, and told him that Respondent was, at that point in time, returning to the school. Jackson, on receiving that phone call from Kemp during the morning hours of a school day, went into the parking lot of the school and observed Respondent walking from his van toward the school. As a result of Kemp's call to Jackson, and based on his belief that Respondent had been attempting to contact Kemp at home, Jackson approached a mutual acquaintance and teacher, Coach Al Davis, and advised Davis to "tell [your] boy to back off." Jackson referred to Respondent as "your boy" when speaking to Coach Davis and did not specifically identify Respondent otherwise. Because of the close relationship enjoyed between Miller and Davis, Jackson assumed that Coach Davis understood that he was talking about Miller. As Jackson in fact assumed, Coach Davis conveyed Jackson's message to Respondent. Respondent acknowledged receiving the message to "back off" from Coach Jackson through Coach Davis, but claimed never to have given it a thought or to have asked Coach Jackson what was meant. However, Coach Davis did not indicate any playfulness in his comments to Respondent. Thereafter, Kemp did not receive any further contacts, either by phone or personal visits at her home, from Respondent. During times material, another African/American student, Mackalia Hadley, also attended St. Petersburg High School. Hadley played varsity basketball and Respondent was her coach. While attending school, Hadley was told by Respondent that his fantasy was to have sex with a "black lady." Respondent asked Hadley if she ever had sex with an older white man and inquired of her preference about sexual positions, asking if she would rather be on top or the bottom. Respondent told Hadley that he was afraid of having sex with her as she could probably "handle him." Respondent would usually always preface his conversations with young female students by telling them that if the topic offended them, they should advise him and he would stop. On one occasion, Respondent patted Hadley on the "butt" as she exited his classroom. Ms. Hadley was not offended by Respondent's remarks to her or having touched her on the butt as she did not want him to be penalized on the basis of his actions towards her since she considered that Respondent was a friend. However, Hadley was led to believe that had she been so inclined, Respondent was available for sex with her. Hadley never affirmatively filed a complaint about Respondent's behavior, either while a student or afterwards. Hadley became aware of the disciplinary action against Respondent based on newspaper and other media coverage and during a counselling session with Ms. Christine Albino, Hadley's former "parenting" instructor, subsequent to graduation. Hadley did not want to be a witness in any disciplinary action against Respondent, although Ms. Albino advised Hadley that she would have to provide the information that she had about Respondent to Petitioner Board's personnel director, S. Crosby, who was investigating Respondent. Barbara Gamble, another African/American female student who attended St. Petersburg High School during the fall semester of 1991, was a student of Respondent. Respondent made frequent comments to Gamble, which she understood to be sexual. One such remark was "Oh Barbara, you're so fine. You turn me on. You have to stop doing this." Respondent inquired if Gamble would ever consider cheating on her boy friend. Respondent knows that Gamble had two children at the time of her enrollment in his class. On one occasion while in class, Respondent told her "If you ever want to have another kid, I'm always available." On one occasion, during his fourth period class, Respondent asked Gamble to come to his room during seventh period to review a test. Upon her arrival, Respondent placed the exam on his desk. He then told her that if anyone came into the room, they would pretend that the test was being reviewed, but he assured her that he had called her there for other reasons. Respondent told Gamble how physically attracted he was to her and asked if they could meet somewhere to be together. He also inquired of her if she had anything against him being white, older and married as far as the two of them being with each other was concerned. Shortly thereafter, Gamble withdrew from Respondent's class citing her fear of Respondent and of being alone with him. Gamble contacted Christine Albino who had been informed of Respondent's behavior toward Gamble through a conversation with another of Respondent's students, Janice Polk. Gamble's recall, which was confirmed by Principal Broughton after review of the official school records, indicates that she had no apparent problem with academics in Respondent's course. Janice Polk is also an African/American female student who was in Respondent's class from August 1991 through January 1992. Polk became acquainted with Respondent in his third period class, and as his teacher assistant during the sixth period. During the time when Respondent was Polk's instructor, he told her that he was physically attracted to her and asked her if she would consider cheating on her boy friend. Respondent cautioned Polk that his comments should not be disclosed because he could lose his job and his family. He also stressed that he would deny ever making any sexual comments to her if his remarks ever surfaced. On one occasion while Polk was working with Respondent alone as his assistant, during a Friday afternoon while most students at school were preparing for a football pep assembly, Respondent grabbed Polk from slightly to the side, put his arm around her waist and placed his hands on her butt and pulled her to him. Respondent grabbed Polk's breast, commenting that she was very "grown." He attempted to kiss Polk on the mouth and asked her if she wanted to touch him. Respondent told her that she didn't have to be afraid because he too was scared. Polk was in a position to notice that Respondent had an erection during their contact. Polk retracted and declined Respondent's advance. Respondent then let go of Polk without a physical struggle advising her not to tell anyone about the incident. Upon leaving Respondent's class, Polk encountered a friend, Alvie "Nikki" Poole, in the hallway. Poole observed that Polk was in a state of shock and she inquired if Polk had seen a ghost. Ms. Polk told Nikki about the incident and she (Polk) thereafter withdrew from Respondent's class and her assistantship as a result of Respondent's advances. Polk was afraid, embarrassed and felt disparaged based on Respondent's advances. Respondent's classroom, while situated in a relatively high student traffic area, and although his classroom was unlocked at the time of the encounter with Ms. Polk, was in a section of the building which was abnormally quiet and unoccupied since the pep assembly was ongoing. Students who did not attend the assembly were taking the opportunity to leave the campus early thereby significantly reducing the chances of a student unexpectedly entering Respondent's classroom and interrupting his encounter with Polk. The behavior engaged in by Respondent in relation to students Leslie Kemp, Hadley, Gamble and Polk included sexual innuendos, invitations, propositions, comments about physical attractiveness and attractions, and were laden with sexual implications. Respondent's conduct and behavior was therefore inappropriate and diminished his effectiveness as a School Board employee and a responsible instructional certificate holder. Respondent had been looked upon and has shown a sense of being sensitive to the needs and concerns of minority students who regarded him as their mentor. Respondent has, in the past, assisted a number of students become enrolled in college and was, indeed, in a position to be a role model for such students. Respondent was well respected by minorities, including Blacks and Asians, and they often turned to him for advice. A large number of the minority student population at St. Petersburg High School regarded Respondent as an informal counselor and he was universally regarded as such. Respondent was extremely popular with the student body and he spent a great deal of time shaping his students' lives. That fact, however, does not detract from the seriousness of the conduct which he engaged in relative to students Kemp, Hadley, Gamble and Polk. It is indeed unfortunate that a teacher of Respondent's caliber and ability to shape the lives of their vulnerable students 1/, would engage in acts of immortality as noted. Respondent's conduct toward these students cannot be overlooked. Respondent's contention that these students engaged in a plot to get back at him was considered and rejected. First, there was no showing that the students were motivated to devise such a scheme. A review of the students' academic transcripts indicated that, during times material, they were making satisfactory progress from an academic standpoint. In the one instance where it was shown that one student received an incomplete grade due to a failure to complete the required coursework, there was no nexus shown between the incomplete grade and Respondent's conduct which was inappropriate. Moreover, the transcripts fail to demonstrate that the students were receiving failing grades and therefore motivated to get rid of him (as a teacher). Finally, Respondent's contention that the order in which the complaints were filed against him evidenced a scheme by the Board to build a case to terminate him is likewise without basis in fact. The facts lend no support for Respondent's contention and more to the point, the evidence shows that the students, in the main, barely know each other and were reluctant to testify against Respondent. As to the Board's involvement, its agents were simply fulfilling their duties and responsibilities as school officials concerned about the well-being of its students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent's employment as an instructor from the Pinellas County School System. Petitioner Commissioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years, followed by a two year probation upon re-entry, conditioned upon a psychiatric evaluation, clearance and counseling as well as appropriate remedial course work to be specified by the EPC. Additional specific terms and conditions of probation, including restrictions on student contact, should be determined as appropriate by the EPC. DONE and ORDERED this 3 day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3 day of September, 1992.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to accommodate exceptional education students, directed derogatory comments to students, and disclosed test grades in class in violation of Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e); and, if so, whether the proposed penalty is reasonable. (Statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2000). References to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in 2000.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is authorized to teach physical education in Florida pursuant to Florida Educator's Certificate Number 666407. The Certificate is valid through June 30, 2007. The Pinellas County School District (the District) employed Respondent as a physical education teacher at Gibbs High School (Gibbs) during the 2000-2001 school year (the school year). Respondent's students included students in the exceptional student education program at Gibbs (ESE students). Faculty and staff at Gibbs had tested ESE students in Respondent's classes, identified them as disabled, developed an individual education plan (IEP) for each student, and placed each student in a special education program. The IEPs for some students allowed the students to leave the classroom during testing for a learning lab or other supervised environment. Respondent refused to allow several ESE students to leave the classroom during testing. The students are identified in the record as A.A., A.S., J.T., and J.F. in order to protect their confidentiality. Respondent sometimes afforded ESE students an opportunity to hear their tests read to them at the front of the class. That opportunity violated each student's IEP. Respondent did not have discretion to deviate from an IEP. Some ESE students transferred from Respondent's class. Other ESE students refused to enroll in Respondent's class because of Respondent's reputation among ESE students for refusing to accommodate ESE students during testing. A number of parents complained to school officials about Respondent's failure to accommodate ESE students. Faculty and staff attempted to correct Respondent's behavior through informal conferences. A varying exceptionalities specialist, a teacher assistant, and an administrator with the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) each met with Respondent. Respondent answered an allegation and complaint from one parent by stating to a Gibbs administrator that the student was not an honor roll student, so Respondent's refusal to accommodate the student did not make a difference. Respondent complained to an assistant principal at Gibbs that, "They are ESE students. What are they doing here [in Respondent's class]? They shouldn't be here anyway." Respondent made derogatory comments to students during the school year. The derogatory comments included terms such as: fat, little slacker, stupid, sorry bunch of kids, Gomer Pyle, and Dutch Boy. Respondent asked one of her students, "What's a black boy doing with a Dutch last name?" Respondent asked another student if the student was tired from walking the streets at night and called her "sleeping booty." Respondent directed derogatory comments to students identified in the record as D.V., M.F., J.I., and A.W. Respondent referred to D.V., an African-American, as Dutch Boy because D.V.'s last name sounded Dutch to Respondent. Respondent suggested that D.V. should change names with a white student having a last name that Respondent believed was more appropriate for an African-American. Respondent used the terms "fat" and "stupid" when referring to M.F. and other students in M.F.'s class. Respondent used the term Gomer Pyle to refer to J.I. because J.I. was in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. (ROTC) program at Gibbs. Respondent told A.W. that larger people don't belong in the physical education class. The derogatory comments degraded students, embarrassed them, were inflammatory to some students, and violated District policy. Respondent violated the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Processional Conduct for Educators by making embarrassing or disparaging remarks and by failing to make reasonable efforts to protect students from mental harm. Respondent has made derogatory comments to students in previous school years. During the 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 school years, an assistant principal received complaints from students about Respondent's use of derogatory comments toward students. The assistant principal held a conference with Respondent on September 15, 1997, and completed a Conference Summary that instructed Respondent to use better communication with students and parents; and to be more professional in addressing students. The complaints against Respondent continued. On September 30, 1997, an assistant principal held a formal conference with Respondent to discuss Respondent's use of derogatory comments to students. The assistant principal again instructed Respondent to refer to students only by their given name and use more professionalism in addressing students. An assistant principal met with Respondent on October 1 and 7, 1997; and on February 13, April 1, and May 4, 1998. In addition to several "walk-throughs," the assistant principal visited Respondent's classroom for an evaluation on March 31, 1998. The annual evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year rated Respondent's judgment as an "I," meaning that improvement was expected in addressing students. The "I" on Respondent's annual evaluation required school administrators to prepare a "Success Plan" to help Respondent address the issues that resulted in the "I" rating. The Success Plan that Respondent signed required Respondent to use positive comments that enhance the self worth of students. Respondent's use of derogatory comments toward students continued during the 1998-1999 school year. An assistant principal held conferences with Respondent on: October 12, 26, and 27, 1998; November 11, 1998; and January 28, March 11, Aril 15, May 3, and May 4, 1999. The assistant principal visited Respondent's classroom on: November 3, 1998; and January 28, March 1, March 11, and April 7 and 15, 1999. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998-1999 school year contained more "Is" than the previous evaluation. Respondent received an "I" rating for: (1) Instructional Strategies Conducive to Learning and Critical Thinking; (2) Assessment of Students; and (3) Judgment and Professional Ethics. During the school year at issue, the OPS administrator and Respondent discussed a letter from a parent regarding Respondent's use of derogatory comments. The parent complained that Respondent asked H.T., the parent's daughter, if H.T. was going to be a dentist. H.T.'s last name is related to a dental term. Respondent denied she ever made the comment and then told the OPS administrator, "I can look at her mouth and tell you no." Respondent subsequently told H.T. not to go running to H.T.'s mom if H.T. had a problem with Respondent. Respondent read student grades aloud in class without the permission of the affected student in violation of District policy. Respondent also read the names of students receiving a grade of "A," "B," or "C" thereby disclosing the names of students with lower grades. Disclosing the grades of students in class without the permission of the student invades the privacy of the student and exposes the student to embarrassment. Respondent has a history of disclosing student grades in class. On May 17, 2000, the OPS administrator issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent for disclosing student grades during the 1999-2000 school year. In relevant part, the letter of reprimand stated: I advised you that one concern was related to your announcing student grades of students in front of the entire class. You said that the Governor had given schools grades and that you could tell students their grades. I advised you that was not so; that student information was protected and confidential and I directed you to refrain from the practice. You said that you didn't read all of the grades. I noted that students said you read grades of students who had A's, B's, and C's. I said that some students who had lower grades were embarrassed. I again reiterated that you should cease reading the grades. Respondent continued to disclose student grades during the school year at issue. Respondent read to the class the grades of A.A., A.S., A.W., C.A., and M.F. Each had failing grades. Respondent passed a test completed by A.S. down a row of students so that each student could see the test score on the front of the test and stated audibly that the only thing A.S. "got right" on the test was the date. The comment embarrassed, upset, and humiliated A.S. The District placed Respondent on administrative leave in October 2000. After Respondent returned from her administrative leave, the OPS administrator received more complaints about Respondent's behavior, and issued another letter of reprimand to Respondent on April 27, 2001. Respondent wrote the following message on the letter prior to returning the signed copy to the OPS administrator: "This is BS. Thank you [OPS administrator]." The District transferred Respondent from Gibbs to a school where Respondent works with another teacher. The transfer shows that Respondent had lost her effectiveness at Gibbs, but not as an employee. The District had a lot of complaints at Gibbs about Respondent. There were issues with Respondent's effectiveness at the school. The District determined that a transfer to another school might help Respondent "get a new start."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(c) and (f); guilty of violating Subsection 1012.795(1)(i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e); suspending Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate during the summer session after the current school year; and, on the date of the Final Order, placing Respondent on probation for two consecutive years, including the period of suspension, subject to the conditions prescribed in Petitioner's PRO. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly B. Holbrook, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Post Office Box 3310 Tampa, Florida 33602-3310 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly & McKee 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 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 Respondent is guilty of immorality and unprofessional conduct as is more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 25, 1991.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered permanently revoking the Florida teaching certificate of Robert M. Dodd, Jr. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 14th day of October, 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Robert M. Dodd 38124 Townview Avenue #106 Zephyrhills, Florida 33540 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400
The Issue Whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Roosevelt Harvey (Respondent) held Florida teaching certificate numbered 134571, valid through June 30, 1997. He is certified in the areas of mathematics, junior college, and administrative supervision. He has been employed by the Escambia County School Board for approximately 25 years, and scheduled to retire on August 1, 1991. During the 1987-88 and 1988-89 school years, Respondent was assigned to the Judy Andrews Middle School Center. 1/ In May 1989, Respondent was specifically assigned to assist Marc Brown, a classroom teacher, with maintaining discipline in Brown's classroom. The class was comprised of students with learning difficulties related to behavioral problems and lack of self control. The students had difficulty focusing on and completing tasks, and were often disruptive. On May 18, 1989, Brown's class was particularly disruptive. Respondent was first required to escort one sixth grade student, D. S., to the school dean's office to resolve a disciplinary referral submitted to the dean by Brown on the day before. The student was suspended. However, because there was no transportation available, the suspension was effective the following day and D. S. was returned to Brown's classroom. On May 18, 1989, other students in Brown's classroom were involved in altercations and leaving the classroom without approval. Respondent was subsequently directed to remain outside Brown's classroom and prevent students from leaving the area. Respondent was in the habit of using a double edged shaving razor blade to scrape errant marks off of duplicated copies of various written materials. The blade was not attached to any type of handle. On May 18, 1989, he was using the razor blade to remove stray marks from duplicated "National Geographic" articles which were to be used as part of a school project, while he monitored the hallway outside Brown's classroom. As Respondent stood outside Brown's classroom, the already suspended D. S. approached. Upon Respondent's inquiry, D. S.'s stated that he was on his way to the restroom. D. S. had no written restroom pass and Respondent instructed D. S. to return to the classroom. D. S. approached a second time and inquired about Respondent's razor blade. Respondent held the blade so that D. S. could see it, moved his hand holding the blade up and down vertically and stated, "Do you know what blood is? I'll show you blood." Respondent did not attempt any physical contact with D. S. and did not move towards the student. D. S. reentered the classroom. Some time thereafter, Respondent entered Brown's classroom to ascertain the whereabouts of another student. Upon Respondent's entry into the room, student J. C. approached and inquired about the razor blade. Respondent, otherwise occupied, ignored J. C., who persisted in his efforts to see the blade. Respondent eventually held the blade toward J. C. and stated, "I'm want to see some blood. Do you want to show me some of yours?" J. C. walked away from Respondent. Brown's classroom was in such a disorderly state, that Brown was distracted during the razor blade incidents. He did see student J. C. near the Respondent, and partially overheard Respondent's comment to J. C., but saw nothing that would suggest that the students were threatened by Respondent's behavior. Respondent believed that the students were "playing games" with him during the razor blade incidents. The razor blade was visible while he worked on the articles. He did not intend to harm or embarrass the students. Other than to encourage D. S. to return to the classroom, there is no behavior which directly involved an attempt to discipline a student. Although D. S. testified that he was "starting to get scared", neither D. S. nor J. C. yelled or attempted to run from Respondent. However, Respondent acknowledges that the actions were inappropriate and ill-advised. In 1986, Respondent received a three day suspension without pay from the Escambia County School Board for striking a student. In 1988, Respondent received A ten day suspension without pay from the Escambia County School Board for absences without authorization. Prior to the May, 1989 incident, the Respondent had sought transfer into a regular teaching position. Following the incident, he was suspended with pay from the Judy Andrews Center and then transferred to Pine Forest High School where he returned to classroom teaching. Other than the timing of the transfer, there is no evidence that the reassignment as directly related to the razor blade incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order suspending the teaching certificate of Roosevelt Harvey for a period of one year during which time Mr. Harvey shall be required to complete college-level course work on the subjects of assertive discipline and classroom management, followed by a one year probationary period. It is further recommended that, prior to employment in a classroom situation, Respondent submit to a psychological evaluation, to be supervised by the Education Practices Commission, in order to determine that the Respondent poses no threat of harm to students. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Lloyd Wright, was a teacher employed by the St. Lucie County School District at Westwood High School. Tenecia Poitier was, during the 1986-1987 school year, a student of Respondent in his world history class. In early February, 1987, she filed a complaint against him with school officials because, she says, she got tired of his repeated comments to her of a sexual nature. Reportedly, on one occasion, Respondent indicated to her that he was going to "... fuck her brains out." This comment was overheard by another student in the class, Tony Lee, who believed Respondent was only joking with her. No follow-up action was taken by Respondent on this threat. Ms. Poitier also alleges that on one occasion, while in the school library, Respondent came over and sat down next to her and touched her on the leg. This was observed by Felicia Newton who was sitting across the library table from Ms. Poitier and who, because she was sitting out somewhat from the table, could see Respondent touch her on the outside of the leg. The hug Respondent also gave Ms. Poitier was more of a friendly hug than one with sexual overtones as was the touch. When Ms. Poitier told him to stop, he did and immediately thereafter left the table. Respondent has never hugged or touched Ms. Newton and she has never heard any other girl say Respondent has hugged or touched them except Ms. Poitier, who had told her prior to the library incident that she didn't like the way Respondent was always touching her. On one other occasion, according to Ms. Poitier, when she got chocolate on her pants in class, she asked to go to the rest room to wash it off. In response, she claims, Respondent grabbed her "butt" and commented, "Girl, I want that thing" or words to that effect. Ms. Poitier claims that when he did that, she "cussed him out." Ms. Poitier filed her complaint with school officials after reporting the incident to her father. It would appear, however, that the complaint was motivated by fear of punishment herself, as Respondent contends that on the day prior to the complaint, he observed her doing her math homework in his history class and confiscated and destroyed it. When he did this, she became irate and indicated she was going to tell her father. With that, Respondent summoned a representative of the administration and had her ejected from class. He also wrote a letter to her counselor complaining that she refused to follow class rules and was disruptive and requested she be taken out of his class because she was not doing the required work. There is ample independent testimony from others, including Ms. Poitier herself; that she curses frequently in class and her reputation for telling the truth is not good. In addition, Respondent had notified Ms. Poitier that she had been denied membership in the Millionaire's Club which he sponsored, because she would not follow club rules. She was also dismissed from membership in the Pep Club because of her forgery of Respondent's name to hall passes. Neither these latter actions nor the allegations of her removal from class, testified to only by Respondent, were corroborated by independent evidence. Ms. Poitier denies being put out of the Pep Club and claims she quit the Millionaire's club to join another one. Ms. Poitier indicates, on the other hand, that she was written up because she had threatened to tell her father what Respondent had said and done to her. Her veracity being successfully attacked, however, it is found that Respondent's story is more believable. Respondent, Ms. Poitier claims, also hugged other girls and touched at least one, Ms. McGee, on the leg when she came up to his desk on one occasion. In fact, she claims, he will touch any girl who will put up with it. McGee, on the other hand, denied that Respondent touched her on the leg as alleged by Poitier, but contends he did hug her around the shoulder from the side on one occasion. More significant, however, is the fact, admitted by the Respondent, that early one morning, while driving his mother to the grocery store, he saw Ms. McGee walking with two boys, one of whom was her brother. Respondent drove up beside them, waved and blew his horn to get their attention, and then told her he was going to take her to the woods. He claims he did not mean the comment to be taken literally but more as a joke like the kids would make. He did not believe that McGee took the comment seriously but, in fact she did, and the comment was totally inappropriate for a teacher to make to a female student under any circumstances. Other students, such as Eugenia Lunsford, report improper comments by Respondent to them or others. Ms. Lunsford claims she heard him tell girls, in the classroom, that he liked them and ask them if he could have a chance with them. She contends she heard him state that he'd like to "fuck" Cochina Hall and Tenecia Poitier. Ms. McGee remembers Respondent stating he would like to do something sexual to her, and on one occasions, when she asked him to stop peeling a grapefruit in class, he asked her if he could touch her. He never did, however, except to give her a hug. She considers the term "touch" to mean a sexually oriented touching of a girl's private parts. She also recalls an incident where she saw Respondent pull Ms. Foster's shirt away from her body by the pocket and look down the front. She thinks he was looking at her breasts. Ms. Foster, however, denies this incident happened. In light of this, Ms. McGee's testimony is suspect and, like Ms. Poitier, her credibility is slight. There is no evidence that by any of the hugs that he gave the various girls he in any way committed any inappropriate touching of the breasts or any place else or that though unwelcome, they were sexual in nature. The report by Ms. Lunsford of Respondent's touching Ms. Foster's "butt" was denied by Ms. Foster. In substance, Ms. Lunsford's testimony is not credible and Ms. Foster considers Respondent a good teacher. She would not fear going back into his class. Tony Lee, who heard Respondent make the inappropriate comment to Ms. Poitier, also heard him say to a female student, "Pull your pants down and let me touch you." At the time, Respondent and a group of female students were laughing and joking together and he does not feel that Respondent's comment was seriously made. In fact, Respondent frequently joked with his students, both male and female, making suggestive comments, and everyone knew they were jokes. Lee knows of no incident where Respondent ever attempted to follow up on these comments. He denies ever hearing that Respondent attempted to touch Ms. McGee. To the contrary, she allegedly told Lee she had attempted to touch Respondent and Lee told her she was crazy to do that. Only one parent had direct knowledge of Respondent's relationship with his students. At one parent/teacher night, Mrs. Johnson was attending Respondent's presentation to a group of students and parents when he reportedly stopped in mid- sentence and ogled one or more female students who came into the room. Mrs. Johnson felt his stare, which, she claimed, constituted a visual undressing of the girls, was inappropriate and embarrassing. Her comments were endorsed by her daughter Josephine, who would not want to go back into Respondent's class. In this incidents however, Respondent neither said anything to or about these girls nor did he attempt to touch them. Petitioner presented testimony to establish that at one time, Respondent humiliated a male student in his class by implying he was a homosexual. Both the student and his mother were permitted to testify to this incident without objection by Respondent. This is, however, irrelevant to the issues framed by the Notice of Charges and in any case, the student admits that he and another student were smirking at allegedly inaccurate statements made by Respondent during his lecture, misconduct and out-of-line behavior in and of itself. Assuming, arguendo, that Respondent's reaction to the student was inappropriate, it has no relevance to the conduct complained of in the Notice of Charges. Other present and former students of Respondent indicated that he had a good rapport with his students and is a good teacher. None of these individuals including, Ms. Shaw, Ms. Donovan, Ms. Fuller, Ms. Frazier, and Ms. Diaz have ever seen him be improper or sexual in orientation with students notwithstanding numerous observations. He is not known by these people to flirt with or improperly touch students or to make suggestive comments to them though he would hug from time to time. The extent of his familiarity would be comments like, "Hey, baby. How ya doin'?," or words to that effect, comments readily admitted by Respondent. According to Ms. Frazier, a student in Respondent's class with Ms. Poitier, some students would speak improperly to Respondent by cussing at him. Usually, he would warn them but if they got out of hands he would write them up. Respondent is described by some, and by himself, as a friendly, outgoing, caring person who tries to get his students to achieve their potential. He is a tough taskmaster who expects his students to do their best. By his own admission, he tries to relate to his students by speaking their language and using their phrases. He tries to get his students to relate to him by relating to them and in 9 1/2 years as a teacher he has never before been told this was improper. He admits to hugging his students from the side and to touching them on the arm or head in encouragement while teaching. He rides up and down the aisles in his classroom on a rolling chair so he can sit next to students who are having trouble to help them. He uses flattery, even personal comments such as "You are beautiful" in an effort to motivate his students and denies that any of his comments or touchings were salacious or sexually oriented. From an evaluation of the evidence, it becomes clear that Respondent did not touch or handle his female students in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner. It is equally clear, however, that on several occasions he did make lewd, lascivious, or indecent comments to female students which could be construed as advances though it is doubtful he would have followed through on them. These comments, however, in the expert opinion of Ms. Bretherick, an experienced teacher, are never appropriate for a teacher to make to a student. A teacher who made such comments would be ineffective as a teacher. Exposure to such a teacher adversely effects the students' capacity to learn the subject matter and clouds or distorts the concept of the teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lloyd Wright, be discharged from employment with the St. Lucie School District because of misconduct in office. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1366 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner Petitioner, by letter, specifically declined to submit proposed findings of fact. By Respondent Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Accepted as to the ultimate fact that the comment was made. Motivation is irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. First sentence is. Accepted and incorporated in the Finding of Fact. Second Sentence is irrelevant to the issues. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: George R. Hill, Superintendent School Board of St. Lucie County 2909 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Jack Gale, Esquire The Boston House 239 South Indian River Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire Asst. Gen. Counsel FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel B. Harrell, Esquire First Citizens Federal Building 1600 South Federal Highway, Suite 200 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 1988 LLOYD WRIGHT, Appellant, DOAH CASE NO: 87-1366 CASE NO. 87-2723 v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee. / Decision filed December 28, 1988 Appeal from the School Board of St. Lucie County. Lloyd Wright, Fort Pierce, pro se appellant. Daniel B. Harrell of Gonano, Harrell & Sherrard, Fort Pierce, for appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. HERSEY, C.J., DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. MANDATE from DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT This cause having been brought to this Court by appeal, and after due consideration the Court having issued its opinion; YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further proceedings be had in said cause in accordance with the opinion of this Court, and with the rules of procedure and laws of the State of Florida. WITNESS the Honorable George W. Hersey, Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, and seal of the said Court at West Palm Beach, Florida on this day DATE: January 13, 1989 CASE NO.: 87-2723 COUNTY OF ORIGIN: School Board of St. Lucie Co. T.C. CASE NO.: 87-1366 STYLE: Wright v. School Board of St. Lucie Clyde Heath Clerk of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District ORIGINAL TO: School Board of St. Lucie county cc: Lloyd Wright, pro se Daniel B. Harrell, Esquire
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, William Doran, committed the acts alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Ten-Day Suspension Without Pay, and, if so, the discipline to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at SMS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately eight years. Respondent most recently provided individualized instruction and assistance to students with individualized education plans. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie Classroom Teachers’ Association. Lydia Martin, principal of SMS, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year On November 8, 2010, Respondent was counseled by Principal Martin for discourteous and disparaging remarks to students causing them to feel unnecessary embarrassment. Students and parents reported that Respondent made comments in the classroom including “the Bible is crap and we should not believe it,” told students they could not work in groups because they “would just bullshit,” called a student “stupid,” and referred to a group of African-American students as the “black coffee group.” Parents also expressed concern that Respondent discussed prostitution and told students that, in some countries the younger the girls are, the better it is considered because they have not lost their virginity. Respondent denied saying that the Bible is “crap” but admitted telling students that he did not believe in it. Respondent denied calling a student stupid but admitted that he told a student certain choices may be what a “not so smart” person would do. Respondent admitted to referring to a group of black students as a “coffee klatch,” but denied any reference to race or ethnicity. Respondent admitted discussing prostitution in the context of human rights and his personal observations of sex trafficking while serving in the military in East Germany. Principal Martin provided Respondent with a written Summary of Conference that stated, “In the future, do not make comments to students that may cause them embarrassment or that are unprofessional. My expectation is that you will treat students with respect and follow the district guidelines under 6.302 Employee Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics for Educators.” On May 2, 2011, Principal Martin gave Respondent a Letter of Concern for making comments to a student that caused embarrassment to the student when Respondent stated that, “somebody cried about not getting their stupid PTO FCAT Goodie bag” and that “they were filled with cheap candy.” The daughter of the PTO president was in the class. The 2011-2012 School Year During the fall of 2011, Respondent was accused of inappropriately touching students.1/ As a result, on December 5, 2011, Respondent was removed from the classroom at SMS and placed on Temporary Duty Assignment at the School Board district office pending an investigation into the allegations. In a letter from Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, dated December 14, 2011, Respondent was directed not to engage witnesses, their parents, or potential witnesses during the open investigation. While he was working at the district office, two co- workers of Respondent overheard Respondent contact the parents of one of the student witnesses involved in the investigation by telephone to discuss the investigation. Also, during the investigation, it was discovered that Respondent had taken pictures of students when they were misbehaving in his class as a means of disciplining those students. On February 13, 2012, Principal Martin provided Respondent a Letter of Reprimand for the violation of the administrative directive (not to contact witnesses and parents during a pending investigation) and inappropriately disciplining students. This Letter of Reprimand reminded Respondent of his previous counseling and Letter of Concern and notified Respondent that his failure to follow the prior directives or violation of any other School Board policy would result in more severe disciplinary action being taken against him. In May 2012, Respondent received a three-day suspension without pay for embarrassing students. Respondent is alleged to have announced a student’s name in class and stated that he (Respondent) was “just wasting red ink” by grading the student’s paper. Respondent does not deny the statement, but claims he muttered it under his breath, and it was overheard by several students. Respondent embarrassed another student by sharing personal information about her family with the class. A student’s mother had privately discussed with Respondent the fact that her daughter might act out in class due to the distress she was experiencing as a result of her parents’ divorce. During a classroom discussion about families, this student made a comment that she had a “normal” family. Respondent said to the student, in front of the class, “If you’re so normal, where is your father?” Respondent admits this was inappropriate behavior on his part. The 2012-2013 School Year On May 3, 2013, Respondent was in the classroom of another teacher for the purpose of providing additional teaching assistance for several students. On this date, the usual classroom teacher was absent, and a substitute teacher was present. While walking around the classroom, Respondent observed two students, M.M. and A.L., engaged in a game of “slaps,” in which both students tried to hit each other’s hands. Respondent directed M.M. to stop and asked why he was doing the game during class time. M.M. responded that he was trying to cheer up A.L., it felt good, and they liked playing the game. At this time, Respondent was approximately eight to ten feet away from M.M. who was sitting at a desk. Respondent told M.M. that he didn’t care if it felt good for M.M. to “jump off a bridge,” it was not to go on in the classroom and to get back to work. M.M. asked Respondent what he meant and the two began to argue. Respondent approached M.M. and bent over him while M.M. remained seated at his desk. Respondent testified that he closed the gap between him and M.M. when he felt M.M. told him to shut up by saying “get out of my face.” Respondent stated, “At that point I decided I wasn’t going to let him push me around and I decided to engage him.” The credible testimony from several of the student witnesses was that Respondent approached M.M. and stood over him and that M.M. repeatedly asked Respondent to “please, get out of my face” and to leave him alone. M.M. also cursed and used a racial slur directed at Respondent.2/ Respondent told M.M. to get up and get out of the classroom. When Respondent did not move away from looming over M.M., M.M. said something to the effect of “I don’t want to do any of this.” M.M. stood up, and he and Respondent were face to face, only a few inches apart. M.M. told Respondent that he was a grown man and that he was “acting like a bitch.” Respondent repeatedly mocked M.M., yelling in his face, “Come on big man-- What are you going to do about it, hit me?” and told M.M. to hit him because it would “make my day.” Respondent called M.M. a coward several times when M.M. refused to hit Respondent and backed away. While this was going on, the other students in the classroom believed that Respondent and M.M. were going to have a physical fight, and they stood up, pushed the desks and chairs back, and got out their cell phones to take photos and video. Several of the students began screaming and yelling.3/ M.M. left the classroom and continued to curse at Respondent as Respondent followed him to the Dean’s office. During this altercation, the substitute teacher did not intervene or attempt to help or contact the SMS office. Respondent admits that, once M.M. told Respondent to “get out of his face,” Respondent did nothing to de-escalate the situation. To the contrary, Respondent intentionally escalated the altercation. According to Respondent, “He [M.M.] needed to be shown you can’t tell an adult to shut up.” Respondent testified that he believed that he was teaching M.M. a “life lesson”-–that “you can’t engage an adult and expect to get away with it.” SMS has a protocol for handling belligerent students in the classroom. Teachers receive training at the beginning of each school year regarding the difference between classroom managed behaviors and office managed behaviors. Teachers are trained not to engage a belligerent student but rather to use the buzzer which is tied to the intercom or telephone, available in every classroom, to notify the main office of the situation. In response, someone from the trained management team will come to the classroom to retrieve the student and bring them back to the Dean’s office. As explained by Principal Martin, the purpose of sending an adult from out of the classroom to retrieve a disruptive student is to minimize the possibility of harm to either the student, teacher, or other students, and to allow a “cooling off period” while the misbehaving student is escorted to the Dean’s office. During the altercation with M.M., Respondent made no effort to use the buzzer or the telephone or ask anyone else to notify the office of the escalating situation. Respondent was aware of the protocol but chose to ignore it. According to Respondent, “[M.M.] wanted to intimidate me and he failed and I let him know about it.” Respondent was purposely confrontational and testified that he wanted to show M.M. that Respondent “was not going to back down.” Respondent disregarded the protocol because he believed it would be ineffective and he wanted to teach M.M. a “humility lesson.” Respondent’s explanation, that he thought using the buzzer or telephone would be ineffective because sometimes the buzzer does not work or he was blocked from reaching the buzzer by M.M., was not supported by credible evidence. Further it was directly contradicted by Respondent’s explanation that he didn’t contact the office because M.M.’s behavior problems likely started in elementary school and that at this point, M.M. was not responsive to “conventional means of disciplining students.” While the undersigned is sensitive to the difficulty faced by teachers when dealing with confrontational and unruly students, no rational justification was provided for Respondent’s extreme and outrageous act of attempting to engage M.M. in a fight and labeling him a coward in front of his peers. Respondent’s actions were an unwarranted attempt to bully and belittle a middle school student. In May 2013, Respondent received a letter from then Superintendent Michael Lannon advising Respondent that he was recommending him to the School Board for a ten-day suspension without pay. During the School Board’s investigation and at the final hearing of this matter, Respondent expressed no remorse regarding his actions towards M.M. and testified that, despite knowing his actions constitute a violation of School Board policies, he would do the same thing again. Respondent received all the necessary steps of progressive discipline required by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties prior to receipt of the recommendation for the ten-day suspension without pay. As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding William Doran guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of ten school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should revoke or otherwise discipline the Respondent’s educator certificate for allegedly making disparaging or embarrassing comments to and about students in his classroom, including calling them idiots or dumb.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent has a bachelor’s degree in astrophysics and a master’s degree in physics from the University of Central Florida. He has worked for Disney World’s education programs and at the Orlando Science Center. When he decided to go into teaching, he got a temporary certificate in February 2013. He started teaching at East River High School in Orange County in April 2013, as an end-of-the-year replacement. When he completed his master’s degree, the certificate was made permanent, and he holds Florida Educator Certificate 1191412 in the area of physics, valid through June 30, 2019. He was hired as a full- time science teacher at East River in the fall of 2013. In September 2013, a student complained that the Respondent insulted the school band and some of its members. The Respondent wrote a letter in response to the charge in which he denied any knowledge of what he might have said to insult any student or disparage any extracurricular activity of any student and absolutely denied any intent to insult or disparage the band or any band member. He also made an impassioned statement of his deep concern for his students and of the many ways in which he had been supporting the extracurricular activities of his students. The only other evidence on the subject was in the form of hearsay statements written by students who did not testify. Some of the students wrote that they never heard the alleged insults and disparagements. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding that there were any insults or disparagements. The September 2013 band complaint was found by the school administration to be unconfirmed. Nonetheless, the Respondent was given a letter of guidance, also called a directive to: exercise good judgment when engaging in discussions with students; use positive, encouraging comments to motivate and inspire students; take appropriate measures in discussions with students, so as not to expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and protect all students from conditions harmful to learning and mental and/or physical harm. A letter of guidance or directive is not disciplinary in nature. In January 2014, a female student complained that the Respondent made her feel uncomfortable by standing close to her and by staring at her chest. The only evidence on the subject was in the form of hearsay statements written by students who did not testify. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding of fact in this case. Nonetheless, the January 2014 complaint was found by the school administration to be confirmed, and the Respondent was given another letter of guidance or directive to: consider in advance how to respond to various situations involving students and always maintain respectful distance so as not to invade personal space of individual students; and exercise care and professional judgment when engaging with students so that others would not perceive or misinterpret his behavior as inappropriate. No other incidents came to the attention of the school’s administration until May 27, 2014. Meanwhile, the Respondent’s performance as a teacher for 2013/2014 was evaluated by the school’s administration to be highly effective. On May 27, 2014, a student named Tanner Hearn complained to the school’s administration that the Respondent had been unfair, mistreated him, made negative comments about him, and called him names. The Tanner Hearn complaint was triggered by events beginning at the end of April or early May of 2014. Tanner wanted to raise a grade he got on one of his assignments. His mother, who is a teacher, suggested that Tanner ask the Respondent if he could redo the assignment. The Respondent refused because the assignment was 2-3 weeks late. After the refusal, Tanner told his mother that the Respondent had allowed other students to redo assignments to raise their grades. Tanner’s mother advised Tanner to ask again. The Respondent again refused. After the second refusal, now believing the Respondent was treating her son unfairly, Tanner’s mother advised him to e-mail the Respondent, which he did three times. Each communication with the Respondent was more demanding than the last. Finally, Tanner’s mother e-mailed the Respondent to support her son and strongly suggested that the Respondent let Tanner redo the assignment rather than make them set up a parent- teacher meeting with guidance and the school’s administration. The Respondent defended himself and refused to budge. The Respondent testified that his policy on redoing assignments evolved during the school year. Earlier in the year, he allowed student assignments to be reopened after the due date. Later, he settled on a policy that requests to redo an assignment had to be made before the due date. He testified that Tanner knew the policy and acknowledged it during a discussion they had earlier in the school year when Tanner was considering dropping physics. In late May 2014, when Tanner and his friends were at his house discussing the Respondent’s perceived unfairness towards him, the discussion turned to negative comments and name- calling by the Respondent directed towards Tanner previously during the school year. Tanner’s mother overheard the discussion. She thought the negative comments and name-calling were inappropriate and evidence of the Respondent’s unfairness towards her son. Mrs. Hearn called East River’s assistant principal, whom she knew personally, to complain and demand that something be done. This triggered an investigation by the school. As part of the investigation, the school’s administration interviewed numerous students to see if they ever heard the Respondent call any student derogatory names or embarrass or disparage them. Some students answered in the affirmative and reported what they remembered hearing. Others answered in the negative. Rachel Johnson, one of the students who reported hearing the Respondent call Tanner names, also stated that the Respondent embarrassed her by insulting her religion in the course of a discussion about a film he showed in class. The school’s administration investigated this new charge as well. Several students gave statements saying no improper commentary occurred. No other student statements corroborated the new charge. In her statement to the school’s administration, Rachel Johnson also complained that the Respondent gave exams early, contrary to school policy. No other student statements or testimony supported this charge. The school concluded its investigations in late August 2014. The school’s administration found that the Tanner Hearn and Rachel Johnson charges were confirmed by the investigation. The Respondent was given another letter of guidance or directive, this time accompanied by a reprimand, for failure to follow the approved exam schedule, improper use of video, and negative comments made to students. The Respondent testified that he disputed the reprimand and it was withdrawn, but there was no other evidence that it was withdrawn. In December 2014, Rachel Johnson gave another statement, which included a charge that the Respondent called her a dumb blonde and a stereotypical female. No witness statements corroborated this charge. Rachel Johnson testified in support of the charge. There was no other testimony or evidence in support of the charge. Only a few of the students who gave written statements testified at the hearing. Several testified that on occasion the Respondent would call certain students names like idiot, jackass, and stupid. They testified that the Respondent seemed to do this mostly to the three football players in the class, especially Tanner Hearn. There also was testimony that the Respondent would sometimes ask for a volunteer to answer a question but say something like, “anyone but Tanner since he won’t know the answer.” The context of these kinds of comments by the Respondent was not clear from the evidence. Probably, some were made out of anger or frustration after Tanner disrupted the class or acted out. Some were made jokingly as part of banter back and forth. The impact of these kinds of comments by the Respondent on Tanner and the other students also was not clear from the evidence. No student complained about them at the time they were made. Often, Tanner would appear to shrug them off and say something like, “ha, ha, very funny.” Tanner testified that, however he may have responded at the time, he was affected by the comments, and they made him less likely to participate in class. Some of the students testified that the comments were not made in a joking manner and that they were embarrassed for Tanner and sometimes said to him something like, “I can’t believe he said that to you.” Rachel Johnson testified in support of her anti- religion and dumb blonde charges. There was no other testimony in support of those charges. The Respondent denied them. After the investigations began in May 2014, Tanner’s demeanor and attitude towards school changed markedly. Before the investigations, he was a good if not a model student. He had a positive and enthusiastic attitude about school earlier in the year, especially during football season. During the investigations, he seemed to some to be quieter and less enthusiastic. In his mother’s words, the controversy of the investigations put a damper on the last few weeks of the school year. The precise reason for Tanner’s change of attitude towards school during the investigations is not clear. He and his mother agreed that he was not confrontational, and he did not want his mother to complain to the school. In addition, Tanner soon found himself the subject of another investigation. When the Respondent started hearing rumors that Tanner was telling other students he was going to get the Respondent fired, the Respondent told the school’s administration and asked for an investigation. Tanner testified that he asked the school’s administration what he should do at that point that he was advised to stop talking about the investigations. These developments may have been factors in Tanner’s change of demeanor at the end of the school year. The Respondent testified that he was not guilty of any of the charges. East River’s assistant principal testified that the Respondent admitted to her during the investigation that he called Tanner Hearn an “idjiout” (a variation of the word idiot). The Respondent testified that he did not remember making that admission. The evidence was clear and convincing that the Respondent called Tanner and other students names like idiot, jackass, or stupid on occasion during the course of the 2013/2014 school year. Sometimes this was done out of anger or frustration after Tanner disrupted the class or acted out. Sometimes the words were spoken loud enough to be overheard. Sometimes, it was done in a joking manner, as part of banter back and forth. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the Respondent reasonably knew or should have known that the student involved would be embarrassed or humiliated. None of the other charges against the Respondent were proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Respondent continued teaching at East River during the 2014/2015 school year. The school’s administration evaluated the Respondent’s performance as a teacher for the 2014/2015 school year to be effective. The Respondent did not return to teaching after the 2014/2015 school year because the investigations and their outcomes took a toll on him and he felt burnt out on teaching.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Melissa C. Mihok, P.A. Suite 445 201 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner terminated Respondent's annual contract as a teacher for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner hired Respondent, an inexperienced teacher who had recently graduated from college, and assigned him to teach and serve as an assistant basketball coach at Dixie Hollins High School during the 2000-01 school year. For the 2001-02 school year, Petitioner reassigned Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School, where Respondent assumed the duties of head basketball coach. During both school years, Respondent was on annual contract. Initially, an administrator at Tarpon Springs High School informed Respondent that he would teach American history and economics, which are the subjects that he had taught at Dixie Hollins High School. When Respondent reported for duty at Tarpon Springs High School, administrators did not give him a schedule until a couple of days before classes started. At that time, Respondent learned that, during the first quarter, he was to teach counseling and personal fitness, neither of which he had taught before. He also learned that, the following quarter, he was to teach Freshman Experience, which was a relatively new course, and personal fitness. In the third quarter, he was due to teach earth-space science in place of personal fitness. At least for the first two quarters, Respondent was assigned students in the GOALS program, which is designed for students who have not made substantial academic progress due to social problems. In this program, the students take only four classes per quarter. Each class runs one hour and forty-five minutes, five days weekly. Respondent had difficulties assembling materials for the peer counseling course. Teachers who had previously taught the course were not available. Extensive renovations at the school made it difficult to locate materials for this and other courses. Respondent finally visited a teacher at another school and obtained books, guides, and tests for peer counseling. These materials advised Respondent to help the students learn to settle their disputes peaceably without adult intervention and suggested that the teacher supplement the book with relevant movies dealing with peer pressures, conflict, and social issues. Respondent experienced similar difficulties with the personal fitness course, for which he had books, but no teacher edition or worksheets. However, Respondent's background in athletics presumably prepared him to teach this course. Although Respondent voiced similar complaints about Freshman Experience, he had a quarter to try to obtain materials. Also, no one else at the school had any experience with this course, which the District had abruptly required the high schools to teach. Similar to peer counseling, Freshman Experience is a motivational course that also covers personal and academic issues, as revealed by the titles of the required books, Chicken Soup for the Soul and Ten Steps for How To Manage Time. The seven charges listed in the Preliminary Statement fall into four groups. Charges 1 and 2 are the most serious; they allege that Respondent kissed two students and touched the vaginal area of one of these students. Charges 3 and 4 are also sexual in nature; they allege that Respondent made inappropriate comments to female students about their appearance and inappropriate sexual comments to or in front of students. Charges 5 and 6 pertain to classroom management; they allege that Respondent allowed students to come to his classroom for no legitimate purpose and encouraged students to leave campus to get him food. Charges 7-9 pertain to curriculum, administration, and instruction; they allege that Respondent used noncurriculum-related materials (such as videos), lacked appropriate recordkeeping, and lacked appropriate classroom instruction. Petitioner wisely dropped Charges 6, 8, and 9. No evidence in the record supported these allegations prior to Petitioner's announcement that it was not pursuing these allegations. Charges 5 and 7 require little more analysis. The evidence supports neither of these allegations. Concerning Charge 5, unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom included basketball players. While Respondent remained the basketball coach, these players briefly visited the room from time to time to discuss something about the basketball program. Petitioner did not show the extent of these visits or that they were illegitimate. Unenrolled students who were not participating in the basketball program infrequently visited Respondent's classroom. Although the principal testified that one of his assistant principals told him that there was a problem with unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom, he added that she rejected his offer to talk to Respondent and said she would handle it. After that conversation between the principal and assistant principal, the principal said the problem was eliminated. Interestingly, though, neither the assistant principal nor anyone else ever talked to Respondent about this issue, which appears not to have loomed large at the time. Concerning Charge 7, Petitioner never proved the rating of any of the films mentioned during the hearing as shown in Petitioner's classroom. Films mentioned during the hearing as shown in one of Respondent's classes include With Honors, Rudy (shown repeatedly), Finding Forrestor, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurricane, [The Mask of] Zorro, and assorted basketball videotapes. The record reflects disagreement among Petitioner's administrators as to the policy concerning the application of the District policy regarding R-rated films. According to the representative of the Office of Professional Standards, The Patriot (apparently an R-rated film) "could" violate this policy, but, according to the principal, who is now handling workforce development in the District office, The Patriot "probably" would not be a problem. Even if The Patriot were a problem, as an R-rated film, it would be so only if Respondent had not obtained permission slips from parents to show this and perhaps other R- rated films. Respondent testified that he did so. Notwithstanding the testimony of one student to the contrary, Petitioner never proved that Respondent failed to obtain permission slips. The issue of the relationship, if any, between the films and the courses fails because Petitioner failed to prove the contents of the films or to prove adequately the prescribed content of the courses, so as to permit a finding that the films were irrelevant to the courses. The broad outlines of peer counseling in particular, at least as established in this record, would appear to accommodate a vast array of films. A sufficient number of students testified in sufficient detail to a broad array of bookwork, class discussion, and other instructional and assessment methods in both peer counseling and Freshman Counseling to overcome whatever proof that Petitioner offered in support of Charge 7. The crux of this case lies in the charges involving sexual improprieties, as alleged in Charges 1-4. The quality of proof was considerably different between Charges 1 and 2, on the one hand, and Charges 3 and 4, on the other hand. Analyzing Charges 3 and 4 first may help explain the findings as to Charges 1 and 2. Concerning Charges 3 and 4, Petitioner proved that Respondent made numerous inappropriate comments to female students, of a sexual nature, that understandably made the students feel uncomfortable. Respondent directed three of these comments and one behavior to T. R., a junior. While walking around the track during the personal fitness class that T. R. was taking from Respondent, he asked her what she thought of a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. T. R. was either 18 years old or Respondent implied that the dating would await her 18th birthday; either way, T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant her. Although actually 29 or 30 years old at the time, Respondent typically told his students that he was only 26 years old, so T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant him. T. R. was so uncomfortable with this question that she mentioned it to a female teacher at the school, Cheryl Marks- Satinoff. Thoughtfully considering the matter, Ms. Marks- Satinoff found that the question was "odd," but not "extremely inappropriate" and "on the fence." Ms. Marks-Satinoff's characterization of the question, in isolation, is fair. In the context of other comments to T. R. and other female students during the relatively short period of two school quarters--little else, if any, of which was Ms. Marks-Satinoff was then aware--the comment acquires its proper characterization. To T. R., Respondent also said, "If I were still in high school, I'd be climbing in your window at night." T. R. was "shocked" by this comment, but her mother or stepmother, when told by T. R. about the comment--again, in isolation--did not attach much importance to it. On another occasion, when a female student asked why T. R.'s grade was better than D. P.'s grade, Respondent replied, "T. R. and I have an agreement." While taking Respondent for personal fitness, T. R. found Respondent staring at her repeatedly. Accordingly, T. R. switched from stretch pants to baggies. T. R.'s testimony is credible. She spoke with adults about two of the comments roughly at the time that they were made. Also, T. R. bore no grudge against Respondent. She said that she did not think twice about the dating comment, although she obviously gave it enough thought to raise it with Ms. Marks- Satinoff. T. R. freely admitted that Respondent made the comment about crawling into her window in a joking manner. She discredited D. P., who is the alleged victim of the most serious sexual incident, discussed below, as a person who always lies, convincingly. T. R. added that D. P. told her once that Respondent "tried" to kiss her and put his hand up her skirt and did not understand why D. P. confided in her initially. T. R. testified that she never heard Respondent do or say anything inappropriate in the personal fitness class that she took with D. P. T. R. testified that Respondent made her and her friends leave if they disturbed his class the few times they got out of their assigned class to visit his office and watch movies. T. R. described another female student, B. H., who testified to several inappropriate comments made by Respondent, as someone who "likes to stir the pot." To A. T., an 18-year-old who graduated from Tarpon Springs High School in June 2002, Respondent alluded to the size of her breasts, in front of the class, and used his hands to frame them. Although done in connection with a warning that A. T. was violating the school dress code due to the revealing nature of her shirt, Respondent delivered this warning in a sexual manner that was obviously unnecessary for the purpose of reminding the student to conform to the dress code. A. T. testified that she liked Respondent as a teacher, but he made her uncomfortable, and he should be more a teacher than a friend. Like T. R., A. T. seemed not to bear any negative feelings toward Respondent, but instead merely seemed to be describing an insensitive incident as it happened. To N. S., a junior at the time, Respondent said, upon learning that she had surgically implanted rods in her back, that he wanted to have sex with her. N. S. testified that she was not bothered by the remark. N. S.'s testimony is credited. She was friendly toward Respondent and had long dated Respondent's teacher assistant. To A. M., Respondent said that she looked pretty and could get any guy she wanted. A. M.'s testimony is credited. She did not have much interaction with Respondent and was not part of any group interested in causing him trouble. She seems simply to have truthfully reported an ill-advised comment that Respondent made to her, although she did not describe her reaction to the comment. To L. D., Respondent said that he had a bracelet of hers that she had lent him and that, whenever he looked at it, it reminded him of her. L. D. felt uncomfortable about this remark. L. D. also testified that Respondent sometimes tried to get the boys to treat the girls with respect, and her testimony is credited. Other witnesses, especially D. P. and B. H., described other comments, but their credibility is poor, and their testimony cannot be credited. The demeanor of two witnesses favorable to Respondent revealed something bordering on exasperation with him, even as they testified that he never said anything sexually inappropriate in class. The demeanor of each witness was consistent with someone who believed that Respondent was only joking around in class, when making sexually charged comments, and had suffered more than enough due to the consequences of lies told by two female students, as described below. In isolation, the comment about having sex with a student with orthopedic rods in her back is sexually offensive, as is the sexual comment and gesture framing a female student's breasts is sexually offensive. The comments about the agreement between T. R. and Respondent, the bracelet reminding Respondent of L. D., and A. M. being able to sufficiently pretty to get any boy are not sexually offensive, in isolation, but, even in isolation, betray a tendency by Respondent to regard certain of his female students as females more than students. With the exception of the comment to A. M., all of the comments, gesture, and behavior, in the aggregate during a relatively short period of time, depict a transformation by Respondent of the relationship between a teacher and several of his students to a more ambiguous relationship, at times resembling the relationship that might exist between these girls and the boys with whom they attended high school. Nearly all of these incidents embarrassed the female students; all of them, except perhaps A. M., reasonably should have been embarrassed by them. Several of these incidents suggest that Respondent regarded these female students as available for him in some role other than that of student--for instance, as females with whom to flirt. Petitioner has proved that Respondent exploited these female students, with the possible exception of A. M., for personal gain. This characterization of these comments, gesture, and behavior is confirmed by Respondent's implausible assertion that all of these students, except N. S., are lying. If confident that the comments, gesture, and behavior were innocuous or at least not improper, Respondent could have gained credibility by admitting these incidents and explaining their innocence. With one exception, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent sexually harassed or discriminated against his female students or these students in particular. The record does not suggest any quid pro quo in the sexual incidents, although the agreement with T. R. approaches the type of proof required. Nor does the record suggest that the sexual commentary, gesturing, or behavior were so pervasive as to create a hostile environment. Two students, N. S., A. M., and L. D., were each the subject of a single comment. One student, A. T., was the subject of a single incident, which consisted of a comment and gesture. On this record, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's treatment of these students rose to harassment or discrimination of them or of his female students in general. However, Respondent's treatment of T. R. rose to harassment and sexual discrimination because he made three sexually inappropriate comments and engaged in one sexually inappropriate behavior that caused her to alter her mode of dress. Respondent implicitly asked her to think about dating him--now or later--with the comment about a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. Respondent implicitly identified the possibility of their having sex with the comment about climbing in her window. Respondent alluded to the possibility of sex between T. R., a student, and himself, a teacher with the power of the grade, with the comment about her grade resulting from an agreement. And Respondent leered at T. R. sufficiently to cause her to change her workout clothes. In partial mitigation of the sexual comments, gesture, and behavior, but not the harassment or discrimination, no one seems to have provided Respondent with any timely feedback on this manner of interacting with certain female students. The only reports to adults seem to have been of isolated comments. In addition to the two reports noted above, a male student reported inappropriate comments, midway through the first quarter, to the teacher who was head of GOALS. Although the teacher did not describe the inappropriate comments, she said that she talked only to the two female students involved and evidently decided that the matter was not sufficiently important to discuss with Respondent or the administration. As noted above, Ms. Marks-Satinoff learned from T. R. of a borderline inappropriate comment. Sometime later, in January, she spoke briefly with Respondent and advised him to watch inappropriate comments. This marks the only feedback, and it was too late to alter the course of events. However, for the same reason that this lack of feedback does not mitigate at all the harassment and discrimination involving T. R., the value of this mitigation is largely undermined by the fact that the knowledge of the need to refrain from improper personal references to students is not granted only to the most experienced teachers or administrators. Perhaps Respondent was not fully aware that his comments, gesture, and behavior were sexually charged and did not realize the effects of these comments, gesture, and behavior on his students, as some teachers may not be fully aware of their sarcasm and its effect on their students. However, Respondent, as a teacher, remains responsible for determining the effect of his interaction upon his students and ultimately must bear the consequences if he fails to identify the problem. D. P. is the complainant in Charge 1. She was born in September 1984 and was a senior during the 2001-02 school year. Respondent taught her peer counseling during the first quarter and personal fitness during the second quarter. D. P. testified that on Monday, January 14, 2002, she approached Respondent to ask if she could exempt a final exam. She testified that he said to return after lunch. When she did, she testified that they met in his office where he kissed her and moved his hand up her leg until he digitally penetrated her vagina. D. P.'s testimony is unbelievable for several reasons. First, two different students testified that they heard her say that she would get Respondent into trouble. One of the students testified that he heard her say this immediately after an argument D. P. had with Respondent over absences and tardies. D. P. was upset with Respondent because her numerous absences and tardies prevented him from exempting her from the final examination in his class. D. P. did not tell anyone of the alleged incident until immediately after she found that she could not obtain an exam exemption from Respondent. Second, D. P.'s testimony is unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. Some inconsistencies are not fatal to credibility, but the number and importance of inconsistencies in her testimony and statements preclude a finding of credibility. Numerous material discrepancies exist between D. P.'s testimony at the hearing and her testimony in a prehearing deposition. Other discrepancies exist between her testimony at the hearing and earlier statements given to law- enforcement officers or made to others. These discrepancies include differences of two hours as to when during the day the incident occurred and one day as to which day on which it occurred. D. P.'s implausible implication is often that the persons taking down her version of events made a mistake. Third, D. P.'s testimony is improbable. First, Respondent was aware of the investigation into his dealings with female students by the morning of January 14. The investigation was already underway by the end of the prior week. For instance, D. P. had given her first statement on January 11. It is unlikely that Respondent would engage in such egregious sexual abuse of a student while he knew that he was under investigation. Second, Respondent's teacher assistant testified that he was in the office during the entire time that the incident supposedly would have taken place, and he never saw D. P. Fourth, D. P. has a poor reputation for honesty among her peers who know her well. D. P. testified that she told several persons about the sexual abuse, but they all denied such conversations. At one point during her testimony, she stated that everyone at school had his or her own opinion concerning rumors as to with which student Respondent was accused of having an improper relationship. As she testified, D. P. seemed clearly to have relished the attention that she had gained by making the charge. S. Y. is the complainant in Charge 2. S. Y. was born in April 1987 and was a sophomore during the 2001-02 school year. She was a student of Respondent. She testified that Respondent taught her Freshman Experience during the third quarter, although she was not a freshman and Respondent did not teach very long into the third quarter before he was terminated, as described below. S. Y. testified that Respondent kissed her one day while they were alone in his office. A number of reasons exist that undermine the credibility of this assertion. First, S. Y.'s testimony is also unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. At different times, she has attested that the kiss occurred between Thanksgiving and Christmas, before Thanksgiving, and in January. Second, S. Y.'s timing in reporting the kiss is suspect. First, three times she told investigators nothing about a kiss. Second, she reported the kiss only after she knew that D. P. had accused Respondent of sexual improprieties. S. Y. admitted that emotions were running "sky high" at the time. Unlike D. P., who did not like Respondent, S. Y. liked him, at one time even having a crush on him. S. Y. appeared capable of jealousy regarding her feelings about Respondent, as evidenced by the following facts. Third, S. Y. reported the kiss immediately after he referred her to the office for abruptly interrupting his class and loudly demanding that he tell her who else he was "fucking." Although she denied knowledge that Respondent was having sexual intercourse with any students, including herself, S. Y. admitted that the referral prompted her to report the kiss to an investigator. Fourth, S. Y. engaged in embellishment concerning her relationship with Respondent, as would be consistent with a fantasy attachment to him. Although S. Y. implausibly denied it, she told Ms. Marks-Satinoff that she had been to Respondent's home, which was in a poor section of Clearwater. Respondent's home is not in a poor section of Clearwater. S. Y. also has said that Respondent proposed that she and another girl perform in a porn movie that he would make. The reality is either that she proposed it to Respondent, who told her never to suggest such a thing again, or that a former boyfriend proposed the porn movie--without Respondent's involvement. For the reasons listed above, it is impossible to credit the testimony of D. P. or S. Y. that Respondent sexually abused them. Although the presence of multiple accusations of this type may sometimes be indicative of their reliability, they are more likely due to Respondent's sexual banter and flirtation and repeated failure to maintain appropriate boundaries between the professional and the personal. Both D. P. and S. Y. were doubtlessly aware of Respondent's tendencies in this regard, and, from this sexually charged atmosphere, which Respondent himself had helped create, they struck back at Respondent by making sexual allegations. D. P. chose to strike out at Respondent for not granting her an exemption to which she was not entitled, and S. Y. chose to strike out at Respondent for referring her to the office and not meeting the unrealistic expectations that she and her infatuation on Respondent had generated. Shortly after D. P. and possibly S. Y.'s charges emerged, law enforcement officers arrested Respondent, who remained in jail for nine days. In June 2002, the state attorney's office dropped the charges, although D. P. testified at the hearing that she intended to sue Respondent and Petitioner. Petitioner then terminated Respondent's employment six weeks prior to the end of the term of his annual contract. A proper penalty must reflect the nature of the offense and its impact on the students. Some students who were the subject of improper comments, gesture, and behavior denied embarrassment. Of those admitting to embarrassment, it does not seem to have been traumatizing or even especially painful. Not entirely without reason, some of the students implied that Respondent had already suffered enough, having been fired and served nine days in jail on accusations that were not established on this record. Also, the mitigation discussed above, as to the failure of authority figures to provide Respondent with timely feedback as to the improper comments, gesture, and behavior, but not harassment and discrimination, plays a role in setting the penalty. Petitioner's representative from the Office of Professional Standards testified that Charges 3 and 4 would suffice to warrant dismissal, depending on the frequency of the improper comments. The improper comments warrant, at most, an unpaid suspension of three days, but the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. warrant a more serious penalty. In the absence of the other sexually inappropriate comments and gesture, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. probably would warrant a long suspension. However, two facts warrant termination. First, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. are accompanied by the sexually inappropriate comments and gesture involving the other students. Second, still not grasping the requirements of a professional's proper relationship toward his students, Respondent has continued, implausibly, to deny all of the sexually inappropriate comments, except for an admission of a vague version of the comment about the orthopedic rod in N. S.'s back. By branding these students liars when he himself is lying, Respondent makes the case for Petitioner that termination is the proper remedy.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jacqueline M. Spoto, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942
