The Issue The issue presented here concerns the question of the entitlement of Petitioner to be granted certification as a law enforcement officer under the provisions of Section 943.13, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 11B-16, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, the matter to' be determined deals with the propriety of the denial of certification based upon the belief on the part of the Respondent that Petitioner does not have the requisite good moral character necessary for certification. See Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Sheriff's Office of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, had submitted an Affidavit of Certification for Petitioner Harold B. Walbey, Jr. In response to that affidavit, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issued a Statement of Denial, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The basis of denial was related to the belief that Petitioner did not evidence the requisite good moral character required for certification. See Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes. In particular, the denial related to a series of events leading to the revocation of Petitioner's Florida Teaching Certificate by order of the State Board of Education entered on October 12, 1979. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 is a copy of that order of revocation together with the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings. The revocation of the teacher's license was premised upon a conclusion of law that Petitioner had committed acts of gross immorality and moral turpitude in his relationship with junior high school female students in the school in which he taught. Those acts had sexual connotations. It was also determined in law that Respondent had lost his effectiveness as a teacher in view of the underlying circumstances. Petitioner took issue with the denial of his law enforcement certificate and requested a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. The matter was then referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and a hearing was held on October 8, 1982, in Jacksonville, Florida. On November 2, 1981, Petitioner was employed as a temporary or probationary employee of the Sheriff's Office, in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, in the position of Correctional Officer at the County Prison Farm and remains in that employment at this time. Duties of the Petitioner would include floor assignment, medication, food, preparation for commitment, booking, releasing and other functions. Among those other functions Petitioner transports female inmates, by motor vehicle, with no other law enforcement official or other person in attendance. These trips in which Petitioner has custody and control over female inmates are infrequent. Officials within the Duval County Sheriff's Office who presented Petitioner's Affidavit of Certification maintain a neutral posture on the question of his certification and have vouched for Petitioner to the extent necessary to elicit a final decision from Respondent on the question of certification. The chief personnel officer for the Duval County Sheriff's Office feels that the Petitioner would make a good employee if he has become sufficiently rehabilitated following the incidents which led to the revocation of his Florida Teaching Certificate. Petitioner is well accepted by his superiors in his capacity as Correctional Officer and has received acceptable performance evaluations. Petitioner has been married three (3) times and is the father of twelve (12) children, none of which reside with him. He is responsible for furnishing support to his children. Petitioner holds a BS degree from Edward Waters College and a Masters degree from Florida A & M University. He has served in the military, both in the Air Force and the Army National Guard. Walbey is now forty-five (45) years of age. Testimony from community leaders and neighbors and acquaintances of Petitioner show him to be a person deemed to be reputable and hard working and a fine neighbor. No testimony was offered related to efforts which Petitioner had made in trying to effect his rehabilitation through professional assistance on the topic of those matters which caused him to lose his teaching certificate or opportunities in which Petitioner had conducted himself with proper decorum when in the presence of young women following that disciplinary action. Petitioner did not concede the facts of those incidents leading to the revocation as a part of his presentation.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Education Certificate No. 460644, covering the areas of Educational Leadership and Social Science. The license is valid through June 30, 2001. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a substitute teacher at Marathon High School in the Monroe County School District. On or about November 26, 1996, Respondent submitted an application for renewal of a Professional Florida Educator's Certificate to Petitioner's Bureau of Teacher Certification. On the application, Respondent checked "no" in response to the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendre or had adjudication withheld in a criminal proceeding; or are there any criminal charges now pending against you. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of certification. By indictment of the grand jury convened in Pickens County, South Carolina, on June 22, 1995, Respondent was charged with "Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature" and with the offense of "Disturbing Schools." Respondent pled guilty to the charge of Disturbing Schools and the lesser charge of "Simple Assault and Battery" on March 18, 1996. He received a sentence of a $200 fine and a suspended 90 days jail sentence. On or about October 6, 2000, Petitioner submitted its First Request for Admissions to Respondent. Respondent failed to answer, admit, or deny the truth of the matters asserted in the request; namely, that Respondent submitted the application for renewal of a Professional Florida Educator's Certificate in the manner and form described in paragraph 3, above, and that he pled guilty to the criminal charges described in paragraph 4, above. Pursuant to Rule 1.370(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., the truth of the matters asserted in the request is conclusively established.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Graham, Esquire Graham, Moody & Sox, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Costa Lempesis 1334 Bryjo Place Charleston, South Carolina 29407 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 614 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against his Florida teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Frederick Dingle Charles, holds teacher's certificate number 264894, issued by the Florida Department of Education, covering the area of substitute teaching. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1992. During the 1989-90 school year, respondent was employed by the Dade County School Board as a teacher at Homestead Middle School. On or about September 20, 1989, respondent was arrested and charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case Number 89-627-CR-Aronovitz. On October 15, 1990, he was found guilty of such charge and committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 121 months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the teaching certificate of respondent, Frederick Dingle Charles, be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of June 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 13th day of June 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Frederick D. Charles # 41454-004 Metropolitan Correctional Center 15801 S.W. 137th Avenue Miami, Florida 33177 The Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Bobby Leon Murphy holds a Florida teacher's certificate, No. 170876. He began his teaching career in Mobile, Alabama, at Satsuma High School, in 1958. Now 55 years old, he has served as aquatic coordinator for Escambia County and director of the Washington Aquatic Center since June 14, 1982, twelve days before he lost the eldest of his three sons in an automobile accident. Sherman L. Robinson, the black principal of Washington High School, was among the first to learn of the tragedy, and came promptly to the family home to console his friend, "Bobby Lee," as he is known. It was Mr. Robinson to whom Coach Murphy referred, on some ten occasions, in conversations with another employee of Washington Aquatic Center, as a "big nigger" or simply as a "nigger." He once called his principal "just a big nigger trying to throw his weight around." T.102. Wife To Blame Mr. and Mrs. Murphy were with friends at Rosie O'Grady's in Pensacola on April 14, 1968, when a dispute arose between respondent Murphy and another patron. The gentlemen decided to pursue the matter outside. Mr. Murphy landed the first and perhaps only blow before a policeman ended the altercation and placed him under arrest for "assault with hands." Eventually, Mr. Murphy paid a $50.00 fine on account of the incident, or so he testified at hearing. On his application for extension of certificate dated March 24, 1987, after these proceedings began, Mr. Murphy reported that he had been fined $75.00. The application for extension was granted. On three previous applications for teacher's certificates, dated November 16, 1971, July 27, 1973, and April 4, 1983, there was no mention of the arrest. In response to the question, "Have you ever been arrested or involved in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation?" the box in front of "No" had been checked on the 1971 and 1973 applications. On the 1983 application, "No" had been checked in response to the question "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Respondent testified that he had not meant to mislead anybody in submitting the applications he did after his arrest and before the present charges were laid. It was just that his wife had filled earlier applications out, he explained, while he himself had completed the most recent and only accurate application. Life at Poolside Mr. Murphy has coached swimming for many years, and enjoys an interstate (Florida and Alabama) reputation as a good swimming coach. Since former Superintendent Stokes named him director of the Washington Aquatic Center, however, his principal duties have been administrative. The Center was built on the campus of Washington High School, but is used by junior and senior high students from other Escambia County schools as well. The office Mr. Murphy occupied at the Center opens onto the pool deck, and the office door is mostly glass. Almost all of the office is visible from outside, but passersby cannot see the corner of the office into which he retreated one day in the summer of 1982, while addressing Susan Lynn Graham, then 18 years old, and the only other occupant of the office. He urged her to join him in the corner and rub her "boobs" against him, but she declined. Ms. Graham was a pool attendant at the time. Mr. Robinson, the principal, had delegated to Mr. Murphy authority to hire and fire pool attendants, young people paid minimum wage to work as lifeguards, and to help with teaching, coaching and keeping the Center clean. Coach Murphy regularly hugged the pool attendants and others, and Ms. Graham was no exception. A witness described these as lateral, as opposed to frontal, hugs. Standing beside the recipient, he placed an arm around his or her shoulders, and pulled, squeezing the near shoulder against the side of his chest. For the most part, these hugs were gestures of friendship, encouragement or commendation, but, in Ms. Graham's case, he whispered into her ear when he hugged her, "I'm going to make love to Sue Graham," or "I'm going to make love to Sue Graham before the summer's over," or "Don't you forget it, baby, or something of the kind. This happened repeatedly. Once, when just the two of them were in his office, he told her he would eat her "pussy," then stuck his tongue out, emitted a "kind of laugh," (T.22) and shook his head. At this, she left the office, shocked and embarrassed, telling him not to say things like that. He seemed to her always to be leering: sometimes he raised his eyebrows. He offered to meet her "any time" at his condominium. (T.24) He once told her he liked watching her jump up and down on the diving board and seeing her bosom bounce. Ms. Graham told co-workers that Mr. Murphy had made passes at her and asked them not to leave her alone with him. When she complained to Mike Haas, however, the Center's assistant director, he seemed to support Mr. Murphy. She decided against reporting Mr. Murphy's attentions to his superiors, and left her job in May of 1983. She "just decided that it was not worth the pressure [she] was under to continue to work there." (T.24) Ann Cobb Palmer had known Mr. Murphy since she was eight years old, maybe even longer. He had been her swimming coach. Hired by respondent as a lifeguard at Washington Aquatic Center, she felt intimidated and degraded one day at work when, in her presence, he said to two young men, Messrs. Haas and Martin, "I wonder what she would be like in bed." (T.70) Eighteen years old at the time, she burst into tears and left his office crying a few days later when, again in her hearing, Coach Murphy told Mike Martin, "I would like to get in her pants." Id. Teresa Hunter Murphy, no relation to the respondent, was a married college graduate when she began working as a swimming instructor at Washington Aquatic Center in the summer of 1982. In October of 1982, as she and Coach Murphy sat in his office, he "stared at [her] crotch and said, mmmmm, I think I could eat on that thing for a few days," (T.96) adding, "[B]aby, we'd have to send out for room service." (T.97) When she expressed dismay at his language and stood up to leave, he asked, "[D]on't you like it?" Id. During the three years or so she worked under respondent's supervision, Ms. Murphy's first marriage deteriorated and eventually came to an end. Coach Murphy, who was aware of her marital problems, said to his assistant Mike Haas, "Mike, Teresa is not getting any, can you handle that[?]" (T.94) Another time, Coach Murphy asked her if she would "go for" dating or having sex with either of the "PE coaches" at Washington High School. Looking at a picture of the Washington High School girls' swim team one day, Coach Murphy pointed out to Ms. Murphy that "several of the girls on the front row had shown through their bathing suits" (T.95) and said it "looked like they had been busted wide open . . . [meaning that they] were not virgins any longer." (T.96) The pool attendants had no guarantee of continued employment and, at least one, Katherine Taylor, was dismissed by Mr. Haas, who said he and Coach Murphy had reached the decision together. At the time, the only explanation he offered was that it was for her benefit. (T.53) At hearing, however, he testified she was fired because she had been unwilling to clean a toilet. Keys to the Condo Coach Murphy hired Julie Ann Halpern Schweitzer, 22 years old and unmarried, to work at the Washington Aquatic Center as a lifeguard in September of 1983. At school board expense, he sent her to a coaching convention in Orlando in the company of his assistant, Mike Haas, Teresa Murphy, and Mike Byrd, who did not work at the Center. Upon their return, Coach Murphy summoned Ms. Halpern, as she then was, to his office. When she arrived, Mike Haas was already there. Coach Murphy asked if anything had happened on the trip, "insinuating hanky-panky and asked Mike Haas if he made a pass at [Ms. Halpern]. Mike Haas said he had tried. But the truth was, he never had tried." (T.42) After more banter in "almost a sick joking manner," Id., Coach Murphy handed some keys to Ms. Halpern, saying, "Julie, these are the keys to my condo. I want you and Mike to go out there and finish your business." (T.43) Mike Haas drove Ms. Halpern to the condominium and, after she declined his invitation to go inside, to Cordova Mall where they bought a birthday card for a boy they worked with, before returning to Washington Aquatic Center. This excursion took place "on Aquatic Center time." (T.47) After it was over, Coach Murphy called them into his office and asked what had happened. When Ms. Halpern told him they had not even gone inside the condominium, "he was upset very . . .silent." (T.45) "[H]e was silent for two days straight. For that whole week, we didn't get much out of him. We had to walk on eggshells." (T.47) This lack of communication made him less effective as an administrator. Many of the young women working under Coach Murphy's supervision avoided him, even though they needed to communicate with him regularly to do their jobs as well as possible. His behavior toward young women impaired his effectiveness as an administrator. New employees were sometimes told to avoid him. Electioneering Ann Cobb Palmer, a pool attendant named Daniel, Katherine Taylor, Teresa Murphy, Mike Haas, Michael T. Martin all were directed by respondent to display signs or make telephone calls on behalf of Charles Stokes, the former superintendent of schools who sought reelection, and did so, many of them on school time, during the fall of 1984. Respondent gave Renee Branum permission to make telephone calls on behalf of the Stokes candidacy on school phones during her working hours. (T.305) Students Not Involved As far as the evidence showed, respondent never propositioned any student or discussed any sexual topic with a student. He testified without contradiction, "I don't even have sex, and I haven't for the past three or four years." (T.295)
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4.; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who testified, the evidence admitted in the record at the final hearing, and the documents officially recognized, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the agency head of the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is responsible for filing an administrative complaint, and prosecuting the case in an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, if the educator disputes the allegations. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 878903, covering the areas of Athletic Coaching and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2025. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as the athletic director at Evans High School (Evans) in the Orange County School District (District). Respondent was first employed by the District from 2004 to 2008, when he worked at Evans as a basketball coach and physical education teacher. He was re-employed by the District from 2014 until late in the 2017-2018 school year. He worked at Freedom High School (Freedom) as a physical education teacher and assistant athletic director through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. He then was employed at Evans as athletic director for most of the 2017-2018 school year. He resigned on April 5, 2018, pursuant to a settlement agreement with the School Board of Orange County (School Board), which is the District's governing body. Rolando Bailey was the assistant principal at Evans when Respondent was first employed there, and Mr. Bailey was the principal at Freedom when Respondent worked there through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. Mr. Bailey acknowledged "situations" during Respondent's earlier time at Evans and while at Freedom that involved "conflict" and "communications" issues with Respondent and required administrative intervention, but these problems were handled without involving the Employee Relations office (now called the Employee Standards office) to impose discipline. Mr. Bailey left Freedom to become principal at Evans beginning in the 2017-2018 school year. He thought Respondent would be a good candidate for the athletic director position at Evans, because Respondent was familiar with the community and Mr. Bailey thought he would be good at program building, which is what Mr. Bailey thought the athletic department needed. When Mr. Bailey made the move from Freedom to Evans, he brought not only Respondent with him, but also, at least 15 other administrators and teachers. This set a bit of an "us against them" tone between the existing faculty and staff at Evans and the Freedom transplants. Respondent and Mr. Bailey had a close working relationship. The perception among Evans personnel, based on observed interactions between Respondent and Mr. Bailey, was that they were also close personal friends. At the hearing, Mr. Bailey and Respondent both denied being close personal friends, but they were alumni of the same college, members of the same fraternity, and would frequently meet after regular school working hours. Mr. Bailey acknowledged these frequent meetings, although he said that they were work-related: "The role itself gave us the opportunity to talk outside of hours." (Tr. 200-01). These meetings did nothing to dispel the perception among Evans personnel that Mr. Bailey and Respondent were close personal friends. Evans presented challenges for Mr. Bailey as incoming principal. The school had not been performing well academically, with a "D" rating by the state, and he was intent on improving that performance. As for the athletic department, Mr. Bailey saw the need for "program building," noting that facilities were in disrepair and resources such as uniforms and equipment were scarce, resulting in a lack of school pride. Respondent's objective was to turn the Evans sports teams into winning programs. Respondent's charge was to "lead and direct" the athletic department and allow Mr. Bailey to focus on academics. However, Mr. Bailey made a commitment to the Evans coaches who were already in place when Mr. Bailey came over from Freedom. Mr. Bailey told the Evans coaches that the 2017- 2018 school year would be an evaluative year, and there would not be any changes made until after the end of the year. Mr. Bailey committed to personally participating in each coach's evaluation at year-end, along with Respondent, and Mr. Bailey would make the decision then regarding whether changes were needed to move in a different direction. Mr. Bailey was of the view that certain changes would be needed after the evaluative year. For example, he noted that several coaches held more than one head coaching position, which he generally disagreed with except for certain "related" sports, such as cross-country and track, which had separate seasons so one individual could be head coach of both. Mr. Bailey also was of the view that an individual should probably not serve as both a head coach and an administrative dean, although exceptions could be allowed and Mr. Bailey was willing to wait and see if individuals at Evans were handling it well.2 For the 2017-2018 "evaluative" school year, Mr. Bailey was willing— and had committed—to not make changes to conform the staffing to his views, and instead, to await year-end evaluations to make these decisions. Respondent expressed a different view, stating that if it had been up to him, he would have terminated all existing coaches when he started at Evans and he would have made them all reapply. But it was not up to Respondent, and Mr. Bailey's commitment stood. Respondent started working at Evans during the last few days of July 2017. He immediately implemented some changes in how the athletic 2 For example, Mr. Thompson was an administrative dean and head football coach at Evans for years before Mr. Bailey became principal and he remained in both positions after Mr. Bailey became principal. department was run. One change involved employing Ms. Woodard, who came over from Freedom with Mr. Bailey and the others, as assistant athletic director with the responsibility for inputting team roster information, including documenting compliant physicals and grade point averages (GPAs) for the students on the roster. This apparently had the effect of revealing students who were disqualified because they did not meet the minimum requirement of a 2.0 GPA. Previously, coaches were responsible for inputting their own team rosters. The claim asserted at hearing was that coaches were "padding" their rosters with disqualified students3 or inactive students.4 The motive suggested for "padding" a roster would be that for "minor" sports like cross-country, track, swimming, golf, and others, higher roster numbers could result in supplements being authorized for assistant coaching positions. A reduction in roster numbers could mean a reduction or loss of supplements, which could mean that assistant coaches would have to coach on a volunteer basis, or a head coach might have to do without, or without as many, assistant coaches. There was no competent credible evidence proving specific instances of wrongful or inappropriate roster padding.5 3 Respondent explained how students without qualifying GPAs might have been mistakenly listed on rosters showing qualifying GPAs. He acknowledged that coaches did not have access to detailed GPA data, and instead, might input a student's cumulative GPA as shown on the prior year's report card. However, that GPA might include grades for classes that were not eligible for purposes of meeting the minimum GPA required to participate in sports. 4 Ms. Bellamy, the girls' basketball head coach, said she discouraged "her" girls from going out for cross-country, because they "probably" would not be allowed to compete in meets. Her comments were more suggestive of a turf war than credible evidence of roster padding. 5 Several witnesses who were not at Evans until 2017-2018 offered their belief that roster padding occurred before the 2017-2018 school year. The credible testimony established only that when rosters were prepared or updated under Respondent's system beginning in August 2017, inputting updated GPAs resulted in some students being disqualified. Ms. Woodard, who implemented the new system, admitted she was not sure how many supplements were lost or in which sport. She thought cross-country may have lost supplements, but then said the sport previously had four or six supplements and that it had four supplements after she updated the rosters. Whitney Poole claimed that rosters had been padded the previous year, but she did not explain how she could have known that, since she was not at Evans before August 2017, and then was only a math teacher. She did not have any position in the athletic department before January 2018 when she became an assistant coach. In general, Ms. Poole was not a credible witness, and with one exception, her testimony was not credited. Sheree Carter Sheree Carter was a coach and administrative dean at Evans in 2017- 2018, when Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and others came to Evans from Freedom. She had been employed at Evans since 2012. She remains employed at Evans to this day. During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Carter held the following positions at Evans: administrative dean over attendance; head coach of girls' cross-country and girls' track; and assistant coach for girls' weightlifting. Ms. Carter was slated for those same positions headed into the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Carter took comfort from Mr. Bailey's assurance that no changes would be made until he made the decisions after personally participating in the year-end evaluations. Ms. Carter testified that she met Respondent at the end of July, during the two-week pre-planning period before classes started. Within a week or two after they met, Respondent started saying things to let her know that he was interested in her. He made her uncomfortable, and she rebuffed his advances. But rather than discouraging his comments, the intensity and frequency of Respondent's advances escalated. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent would walk by her office, which was at the back of the front office, and he would poke his head in to see if anyone else was with her. Respondent never came into her office if someone else was with her; he waited until she was alone, and then he would come in. His conversation opener was that he was recently divorced and was trying to get his feet wet getting back into the dating game. She responded by saying okay, cool, good luck with that. Respondent then started coming by Ms. Carter's office to ask if she wanted to grab lunch together or come eat lunch in his office. She declined each time he asked. After the rebuffed lunch offers, Respondent started asking Ms. Carter if she wanted to go to the movies with him or grab drinks after work. Again, she turned him down each time. Respondent's next approach was to let Ms. Carter know that he had a sofa in his office, followed by repeated invitations to Ms. Carter to hang out and chill with him on the sofa in his office. These invitations were conveyed with a personal, intimate air. Ms. Carter always turned down these advances and let Respondent know she was uncomfortable with what he was asking. Respondent approached Ms. Carter with these advances not only when she was alone in her office, but also, on the practice fields and in the hallways or courtyard, if she was alone. Respondent only approached Ms. Carter to make these advances when no one else was around.6 Ms. Carter described it as "creepy," like "in a stalking type of way. Like he would just wait for that right moment to approach you when you're by yourself and then throw these advances at me." (Tr. 74). Respondent's stalking-type behavior and frequent approaches affected Ms. Carter's ability to do her job. She delayed or avoided communicating with Respondent about coaching matters, despite needing to communicate with the athletic director. She would check hallways before freely moving around to make sure Respondent was not present, and she took to closing her office door to give the impression she was not there. Ms. Carter's testimony was credible and clear. Her demeanor was earnest and believable. In contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the advances claimed by Ms. Carter lacked credibility. Respondent was evasive. He frequently avoiding a direct answer to the question, as illustrated by the following: Q: And did you invite her to your office to chill? A: I was hardly ever in the office. I mean, so, it's very hard to chill in there. I was very, very on the go. I was very, very on the go. You know, Mr. Bailey was big on the look and appearance. So there was stuff always that needed to be done with the field and 6 Mr. Bailey testified that he never observed Respondent engage in sexual harassment, but conceded that sexual harassment is not normally something that he sees people doing out in the open. with the cosmetics. So I was hardly ever in the office. The only time I was in the office if I had to be [sic]. But I was hardly ever in the office, so I definitely couldn't be there just to chill because it was just too much work to do. (Tr. 324). * * * Q: Did you ever invite her to eat lunch in your office? A: I never ate lunch. It's hard for me to eat lunch because I had lunch duty and we had three lunches. So, when am I going to eat lunch when I'm constantly being fussed at by Mr. Bailey about not answering e-mails. Because I was never in my office so my e-mails were forwarded to Ms. Woodard so I didn't have to hear from him about why I don't answer e-mails. So I never ate lunch during the day. (Tr. 327). Respondent avoided answering the questions posed—whether he ever invited Ms. Carter to chill or eat lunch in his office. Respondent danced around the subject, never denying or refuting Ms. Carter's clear testimony that he had, in fact, invited her multiple times to eat lunch in his office and to chill on the sofa in his office, but she turned him down each time. Respondent did deny that he had asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies7 or out for drinks with him, but he offered weak explanations, which were not persuasive, for why he would not have extended these invitations. When asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies with him, he responded: "No. I was too busy to be trying to go to the movies and live in a whole different county and try to work. You know, Evans was an hour and 20 minutes away. Freedom was 38. So there's no time to go to the movies. Especially with a person you don't know, you know." (Tr. 325-26). And when 7 Ms. Poole, a witness for Respondent who generally went out of her way attempting to testify favorably for Respondent, said that she had been friendly with Ms. Carter at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Poole admitted that during this time, Ms. Carter told Ms. Poole that Respondent had asked her out to the movies. To that extent, Ms. Poole's testimony was credible, and it corroborated Ms. Carter's testimony. asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter out for a drink, he said: "No, because I don't drink. … I just never had a drink, never smoked. So I don't drink. And because I don't drink, I'm not going to invite somebody out to watch them drink. So." (Tr. 326-27). Respondent's testimony on these points was less credible than Ms. Carter's testimony, and her testimony is credited. Ms. Carter testified that her discomfort with Respondent's advances came to a head at a soccer game, when he approached her and once again asked her out for drinks, and she got upset. She said that she blew up, emphatically reiterating (punctuated with curse words) that she had told him before she was not interested and expressing her frustration that he had not yet accepted the message that she wanted him to stop making advances at her. This was on a weeknight during the week of December 4, 2017. On Friday, December 8, 2017, Respondent went to Ms. Carter's office and told her: (1) that she was immediately removed, mid-season, from the assistant coach position for weightlifting, though she could keep the supplement; (2) that they would be moving in a different direction and she would no longer be head coach for girls' cross-country (which had ended its season one month earlier); and (3) that they would evaluate her position as head coach for girl's track after the spring. Respondent told Ms. Carter that he and Mr. Bailey had made these decisions because Mr. Bailey did not want her coaching and serving as an administrative dean at the same time.8 Ms. Carter was very upset because she loves coaching. She broke down crying and was so distraught, she was unable to perform her job duties to supervise during either lunch periods that day. Ms. Carter believed that 8 Respondent admitted to delivering this news to Ms. Carter, although he said it was in a routine meeting in his office that he had scheduled to give Ms. Carter her end-of-season evaluation for coaching girls' cross-country (conflicting with Mr. Bailey's clear testimony that he always participated in evaluations, which were done at the end of the year). Curiously, Respondent testified that his evaluation had no meaning, and its only purpose was to give coaches something for possible future employers wanting to see evaluations. Respondent failed to explain, if the meeting was only to address a meaningless end-of-season evaluation for one sport, why he used the occasion to deliver meaningful consequences or why he addressed more than that one sport. Respondent took this action to retaliate against her because she had rebuffed his advances, particularly after her strong rebuke of him earlier that week. Up to this point, Ms. Carter had confided in two different colleagues regarding Respondent's advances and her discomfort with them, but she had not lodged a formal complaint against Respondent with Mr. Bailey. She was concerned that Mr. Bailey would take Respondent's side in a dispute because of their longstanding relationship and apparent close personal friendship. Previously, when she had confided in Mr. Thompson, he had told her she should talk to Respondent regarding her discomfort, but she had tried that repeatedly. When she confided again in Mr. Thompson upon being reduced to tears on December 8, 2017, this time he told her she should not be talking with colleagues rather than going through proper channels, and he urged her to file a complaint. Ms. Carter followed that advice, submitting a complaint in an email to Mr. Bailey, which she sent to him just after midnight, very early on Monday morning, December 11, 2017. She asked if she could meet with Mr. Bailey to discuss what Respondent had told her regarding her coaching responsibilities and her concern that Respondent had taken this action because she had turned down his advances. Directly contradicting Respondent's claim, Mr. Bailey testified that he did not make the decision to remove Ms. Carter from her coaching duties during the 2017-2018 school year, nor did he direct Respondent to tell Ms. Carter in December—in the middle of the "evaluative year"—that she could not remain as coach and administrative dean.9 Instead, as he had committed to do at the beginning of the year, Mr. Bailey waited until the end of the school year to have the conversation with Ms. Carter about changes going forward. At that time, he informed her that he did not want her to continue in the dual roles of coaching and administrative dean in the 2018- 9 When Mr. Bailey found out that Respondent had that conversation with Ms. Carter on December 8, 2017, he had a meeting with Respondent to find out why he did that. 2019 school year. Ms. Carter wanted to remain in coaching to continue building her programs. With Mr. Bailey's agreement, she gave up the administrative dean position and returned to classroom teaching the next school year so she could continue coaching. Mr. Bailey was a witness for Respondent and he attempted to be supportive of Respondent in his testimony. However, Mr. Bailey clearly and directly contradicted Respondent's claim that he had instructed Respondent to remove Ms. Carter from coaching on December 8, 2017. Mr. Bailey was surprised by Ms. Carter's email reporting that Respondent had done so and had attributed the decision to Mr. Bailey. After meeting with Ms. Carter, Mr. Bailey reported Ms. Carter's complaint to the Employee Relations office for investigation.10 In contrast to the "situations" involving Respondent when he was first at Evans and again while at Freedom, which were handled by administrative interventions without involving Employee Relations, this time Mr. Bailey found it necessary to involve Employee Relations. Jamila Mitchell Jamila Mitchell, Ph.D., also provided testimony regarding inappropriate statements and conduct by Respondent that made her feel very uncomfortable and that interfered with her doing her job. Dr. Mitchell has been working at Evans since 2014. Her doctorate degree is in computer science. She has been the computer science instructor at Evans and the sports media sponsor. She held those two positions during the 2017-2018 school year. She was not a coach or assistant coach. As sports media sponsor, Dr. Mitchell is involved in all sports-related media, including film, photography, social media, and the school's website. 10 Two separate investigations were initiated: the first addressed alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by Respondent, pursuant to the District's responsibilities under civil rights laws as Ms. Carter's employer not to commit unlawful employment practices. When that investigation was completed with a finding of probable cause to believe there was sexual harassment, Mr. Ganio, then-manager of the District's Employee Relations office, completed an investigation into whether Respondent had engaged in misconduct, which would provide just cause for the School Board to take action against him as a District employee. Her responsibilities include managing sports-related website content and ensuring information is disseminated for all sports-related events. She must keep up with schedules, rosters, college recruiting activities, and events such as college scholarship signing days and awards banquets. Frequent communications with the Evans athletic director are essential to her job duties, at least by the time sports activities are in full swing after the first couple of weeks of each school year. Dr. Mitchell testified that beginning in September 2017, when her job required her to be in frequent communications with Respondent, he started saying and doing things that made Dr. Mitchell uncomfortable. On several occasions, Respondent referred to Dr. Mitchell as his "little Mexican." Dr. Mitchell is not Mexican. Respondent would say this when passing her in the hallway, if they were both at a game or event, or when he came to her classroom. Sometimes she was alone when he said this, but sometimes other people overheard what Respondent said. She was offended by Respondent's words, and also, uncomfortable having to explain to others who heard Respondent call her his little Mexican that she was not Mexican, but was biracial. Despite taking offense, she tried to ignore it or laugh it off. Respondent frequently came by Dr. Mitchell's classroom during her planning period when she was the only one there. At least initially, they would discuss sports media matters. But then the conversations would turn to Respondent telling Dr. Mitchell that he "liked the way her butt looked" in the pants she was wearing that day, or how whatever she was wearing accentuated some part of her body. She tried to change the subject back to work, but his comments made her feel weird and "creeped out." Respondent's frequent comments about her clothing and body impeded communications regarding sports media issues. Respondent's comments also caused Dr. Mitchell to stop wearing form-fitting clothing, pants that were a little bit tight, or shirts cut a little bit low.11 She began wearing loose clothing and when Respondent came by her classroom, she stayed seated behind her desk so he would not comment on "how her butt looked." Her discomfort and worries distracted from needed communications and interfered with getting the job done. It got to the point where Dr. Mitchell avoided communicating in person with Respondent, resorting to communicating by text or phone call. Dr. Mitchell described the "tipping point" for her was when she was walking through a courtyard to go to the front office and Respondent was coming out of the front office. Dr. Mitchell was wearing her hair down (loose), which she rarely did. When they passed in the courtyard, Respondent commented that he liked it when she wore her hair down because it gave him something to grab onto. There were other people in the courtyard—teachers and students—and Dr. Mitchell testified that she just prayed that nobody heard what Respondent said to her. She was highly embarrassed by what she reasonably interpreted as a sexual reference. Dr. Mitchell did not immediately complain about Respondent's inappropriate conduct, in part because she was embarrassed, but also, because she did not know to whom she could complain. She had seen how Mr. Bailey interacted with Respondent, and observed that they seemed to have a very friendly, personal relationship. She was concerned that if she said anything, it would be her job on the line. But when she was contacted by an investigator looking into Sheree Carter's complaint, who had been told that Respondent may have also harassed Dr. Mitchell, she spoke with the 11 Respondent suggested in his PRO that Dr. Mitchell should be faulted for her choice of attire in a school "full of hormonal high school students that most likely has a dress code, stated or implied, for teachers." (Resp. PRO at 28). No credible evidence supports a finding that Dr. Mitchell's attire was provocative, inappropriate, or contrary to any dress code, and none was cited. Respondent's argument is, in effect, that Dr. Mitchell "asked for it"—a classic means to deflect blame and excuse inappropriate sexual conduct, which is, or should be, a relic of the past. Respondent's veiled hint that Dr. Mitchell asked for it is tantamount to a concession that "it" occurred, necessitating an excuse for his behavior. There is no excuse. investigator and provided the same information about Respondent's offensive conduct to which she testified at the hearing. Dr. Mitchell was very credible and genuinely distraught as she described these uncomfortable encounters with Respondent. As with Ms. Carter's specific complaints, Respondent denied (or gave evasive, less-than-clear answers) that he said or did the things described by Dr. Mitchell.12 Respondent's testimony was not as credible as Dr. Mitchell's testimony. Dr. Mitchell's testimony is credited. Jessica Kendrick Jessica Kendrick was the head swim coach at Evans, coaching both the boys' and girls' swim teams, from 2013 through the 2018-2019 school year. Her testimony was fairly narrow in scope, but clear and to the point: when Respondent was the head of the athletics department in the 2017-2018 school year, he made her uncomfortable by standing very close whenever they talked with no one else nearby—that is, when there were no witnesses. Ms. Kendrick is five feet, eight inches in height. Respondent is six feet, one inch tall. He used his height advantage to intimidate Ms. Kendrick, making her feel like he was towering over her when he stood very close and looked down at her. Ms. Kendrick's vivid description was that Respondent would be standing so close to her that she could tell what he had for lunch. Ms. Kendrick's reaction to these close encounters was to back up to create space between Respondent and herself. But Respondent would quickly move forward to close the space she had created. She would inch back again; he would inch toward her to close the gap again. Respondent made Ms. Kendrick feel very uncomfortable. 12 In contrast, the investigative summary of the District's investigation into Ms. Carter's sexual harassment complaint reported that Respondent stated he "does not recall if he made inappropriate comments to [Dr.] Mitchell." (Pet. Ex. 14, Bates p. 35). Although statements of non-party witnesses reported in the investigative summary are hearsay, and thereby limited in use to supplementing or explaining competent evidence, Respondent's statements reported in the investigative summary that was offered against him are party admissions, excepted from hearsay, and admissible for all purposes. See § 90.803(18)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Kendrick had been the head swim head coach at Evans for four years before Respondent became athletic director. He made her so uncomfortable when they spoke in person that she went out of her way to avoid him. She told the two assistant swim coaches, Mr. Rivers and Mr. Ross, about her discomfort with Respondent. She asked her assistants to take her place for in-person meetings or discussions with Respondent so she could avoid any more uncomfortable close encounters with Respondent. It affected her job; communications with the athletic director were necessary for her to function effectively as head coach. Ms. Kendrick testified that rather than having to interact with Respondent, if Respondent had continued on as athletic director at Evans, she would have given up the head coaching position. Instead, Respondent resigned, and Ms. Kendrick decided to remain head swim coach at Evans for the 2018-2019 school year. Respondent testified that he had no idea what Ms. Kendrick was talking about. Ms. Kendrick's testimony was more credible than Respondent's and is credited. At the hearing, Respondent made the blanket statement that all the witnesses testifying against him were lying. He claimed that Ms. Carter and Ms. Kendrick were lying to get back at him for changing the procedures to prevent roster padding and costing them coaching supplements.13 He claimed that their colleagues, in whom they had confided and who corroborated their testimony, were also lying. Respondent's attempted attacks on the credibility 13 Ironically, the suggestion that Ms. Carter was mad because she lost supplements as a result of the changed roster procedures was contradicted by Respondent's own testimony. As for her head coaching positions, Respondent testified that head coaches receive supplemental pay irrespective of roster numbers. Ms. Carter might have lost those supplements as a result of Respondent's unauthorized attempt to remove Ms. Carter from cross-country head coach and to threaten removal from track, had those actions stood, but they were reversed by Mr. Bailey. As for the supplement Ms. Carter received as assistant weightlifting coach, Respondent admitted that when he told Ms. Carter she was relieved of her assistant coaching duties mid-season, he told her she could retain the supplement. Respondent's actions had nothing to do with supplements or rosters; Respondent acted to retaliate against Ms. Carter for rebuffing his repeated advances. of the witnesses testifying against him were not persuasive and did not undermine their clear, credible testimony. Most notably, although Respondent claimed some witnesses had a motive to lie to get back at him because of lost coaching supplements, no such motive was or could be attributed to Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell was not a coach or an assistant coach. Respondent offered no cogent theory to explain why Dr. Mitchell would fabricate her testimony. Respondent's accusation that Dr. Mitchell's testimony was invented does not square with her display of emotions at the hearing. She was visibly shaken and crying when she described her embarrassment with Respondent's sexual innuendos, and when she explained why she did not complain about Respondent at the time. Ulunda Frazier The pattern of behavior evident from the complaints of Ms. Carter, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Kendrick is further buttressed, at least generally, by court records regarding Ulunda Frazier and Respondent. Ms. Frazier is a teacher. At the time pertinent to this case, she taught at Oak Ridge High School (Oak Ridge), within the District. At the hearing, Respondent described Ms. Frazier as a longtime personal friend he has known for 15 or 16 years. He said Ms. Frazier used to babysit for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant and toddler. Respondent admitted that his personal relationship with Ms. Frazier had turned "toxic." He did not offer any details to explain in what way the relationship turned toxic. Instead, alluding to a close intimate relationship gone bad, he said only that his relationship with Ms. Frazier "had become toxic and out of control that was actually birthed out of both of our pains. We -- she was going through an ugly divorce and I was going through my treatments and stuff. And so the relationship had just got toxic and it had -- it was no longer a friendly environment." (Tr. 351). Court records in Frazier v. Crawford, Case No. 48-2018-DR-000923-O, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, were officially recognized. The records reflect that on January 24, 2018, Ms. Frazier filed a Petition for Injunction Against Stalking under section 784.0485, Florida Statutes, seeking to enjoin Respondent from stalking her. That same day, the court issued a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Stalking. On January 25, 2018, the Polk County Sheriff's Office served the Temporary Injunction, Ms. Frazier's Petition, and a Notice of Hearing on Respondent at his residence. The hearing was scheduled for February 6, 2018, and was held as noticed. Both Ms. Frazier and Respondent attended. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking (Stalking Injunction). Respondent received a copy by hand delivery in open court, as acknowledged by his signature on the Stalking Injunction. He is therefore "deemed to have knowledge of and to be bound by all matters occurring at the hearing and on the face of" the Stalking Injunction. (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 51-52). The Stalking Injunction contains the following finding: "After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consent of Respondent, the Court finds, based on the specific facts of this case, that Petitioner is a victim of stalking."14 (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 47). On that basis, the Stalking Injunction ordered as follows: "Respondent shall not commit, or cause any other person to commit, any acts of stalking against Petitioner, including stalking, cyberstalking, aggravated stalking, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death. Respondent shall not commit any other violation of the injunction through an intentional unlawful threat, word or act to do violence to Petitioner." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 50). The Stalking Injunction is in effect until February 26, 2021. 14 "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree[.]" § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). Section 784.0485 creates a cause of action for a person who is a victim of stalking to obtain an injunction for protection against stalking. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Stalking Injunction "reduced Respondent's effectiveness as an athletic director because it limited his ability to travel to that school and perform his duties." The terms of the Stalking Injunction do not support this allegation. While the Stalking Injunction generally and broadly prohibited Respondent from having any contact with Ms. Frazier, including at Oak Ridge where she worked and at her residence (both of which were in Orlando), there is an express exception to the no-contact prohibition, as follows: "The Respondent may go to Oakridge [sic] High School only for a valid business reason. If any contact occurs, it shall be non-hostile contact." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 49). In several respects, however, the Stalking Injunction contradicts Respondent's testimony. Respondent denied that he would have made advances on Ms. Carter because he was married and had been married to the same woman since 2010. Yet his close personal relationship with Ms. Frazier predated his marriage by five or six years. Respondent testified that Ms. Frazier babysat for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant. The fact that Respondent got married to someone else five years later did not prevent Respondent from engaging in a first "friendly" and then "toxic" close relationship with Ms. Frazier, or from stalking Ms. Frazier before the Stalking Injunction was issued against him on February 6, 2018. Whatever the details may be regarding Respondent's stalking of Ms. Frazier, it is noteworthy that she lived and worked in Orlando. This belies Respondent's claim that he could not have harassed Ms. Carter with the repeated advances she described, because he would not have had time to go to the movies or out for drinks near where he worked in Orange County. He attempted to paint the picture that he spent every moment in Orange County working or commuting to and from his home in distant Polk County. The Stalking Injunction stands as evidence that, contrary to Respondent's claim, in addition to working at Evans and commuting to and from Polk County, Respondent found time to have a first friendly, then toxic relationship with Ms. Frazier and to stalk Ms. Frazier where she lived and worked in Orange County. Respondent's Separation from the District The investigation into Ms. Carter's complaint identified individuals who were potential witnesses with relevant information or possible victims. After conducting interviews, the District held a pre-determination meeting on March 7, 2018, to share with Respondent the information learned during the investigation and give him an opportunity to respond. Respondent appeared with a union representative, who instructed him not to respond. On March 27, 2018, Respondent was suspended from work with pay while the District completed its investigation. This "Relief of Duty" status is employed when warranted by the seriousness of the allegations. "Relief of Duty" included an immediate suspension of network access, including email. During the process of completing the investigation, the District discovered a new allegation of inappropriate conduct by Respondent. The District learned of Ms. Frazier's Petition and the resulting Stalking Injunction. It held a second pre-determination meeting on April 3, 2018, to inform Respondent that it had learned about the Stalking Injunction. Again, Respondent was given the chance to respond, but again, he refused to say anything on advice of his union representative. On the same day as the second pre-determination meeting, Barbara Jenkins, the District Superintendent, issued a memorandum to the School Board, transmitting a complaint charging Respondent with misconduct in office and conduct unbecoming a public employee, and recommending that Respondent be terminated from employment for the charged violations. Immediately after the complaint and recommendation for termination were released, Respondent negotiated and finalized a Settlement Agreement and General Release (Agreement) with the School Board. The Agreement expressly stated that it was not to be construed as an admission by Respondent or the District of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent was required to resign as of April 5, 2018, and to tender a written letter of resignation. Pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent agreed "he will not reapply for or accept employment [at a District school] at any time in the future." Respondent also acknowledged that the District would be submitting its investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct to the Department of Education Professional Practices Commission, as required by section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes. In form and substance, the Agreement is a common vehicle utilized for resignation of an employee in lieu of the employee having to answer to charges and face the prospect of termination. Respondent attempted to suggest that his resignation was purely voluntary, based on his decision that he did not want to work in a place where people would lie about him. His claim was not credible. Respondent fully understood when he took the position at Evans, along with at least 15 others brought over from Freedom by Mr. Bailey, that there would be an "us against them" air that he would have to overcome. Mr. Bailey attempted to set the stage for developing good relationships with existing Evans coaches and other staff, by deeming the first year an "evaluative year" in which there would not be any position changes until the evaluative year was discussed with Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and the coach at the end of the year. Respondent knew that Evans had challenging problems to overcome, with scarce resources in terms of facilities, equipment, and uniforms, and that he was expected to build winning programs and instill school pride. He knew he was expected to put in place the systems, policies, and procedures that would allow for program building, and he was well aware that his changes would be unpopular with some. It defies logic and credibility for Respondent to suggest that he chose to walk away from his commitment before completing one school year only because existing Evans coaches and assistant coaches were lying about him. Mr. Bailey acknowledged that, as principal, he was compelled to let the investigation process be carried out. As he put it: "[W]hat I performed is my role as a principal. That when there's conduct that's unbecoming of an employee, or an employee feeling as if they have been, in this case, harassed, I'm going to follow the guidance that has been presented to me in my role as the leader of the school." (Tr. 209). He acknowledged that at the culmination of that process, when it was reported to him, he followed the guidance that he was supposed to follow, and as a result, Respondent was no longer at his school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) through a violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., and imposing the following as penalties: suspension of Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of three years from the date of the final order; probation for a period of three years after the suspension, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission, which should include a requirement that Respondent take two college level courses, one in professional ethics for educators and one related to women's rights in the workplace; and payment of a $750.00 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2021. Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 1980, Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate in the areas of biology, chemistry, and general science. Petitioner had been certified by the State of Florida from August 20, 1974, through 1979 in these subjects. Petitioner allowed his prior certificate to lapse in 1979 as he was not sure he wanted to continue to be a teacher. At the time he allowed his certificate to lapse, he was involved in a drug problem, which drug problem resulted in the three arrests at issue herein. Petitioner was arrested in 1977, in 1978, and in 1979 for possession of controlled substances. Each of the arrests resulted in the withholding of adjudication. None of the arrests involved the sale of drugs, and Petitioner has never sold drugs. Petitioner has not used drugs since January of 1979, the date of his last arrest, and the drug used that date was a drug prescribed for him by a doctor. Prior to this application, Petitioner had reapplied for his teaching certificate. That application was denied since Petitioner was on probation from his arrests. Petitioner has completed all of his probationary periods. During the last year and a half, Petitioner has been teaching at the Miami Shores Preparatory School. He was hired to start a science department and has been teaching seventh and eighth grade life science, ninth and tenth grade biology, eleventh and twelfth grade honors biology, and eleventh and twelfth grade honors chemistry. He is also the swimming coach and serves as a counselor for seventh and eighth graders. Since he has been teaching at Miami Shores Preparatory School, a student has written an essay about him in describing the characteristics of an ideal teacher for a literary contest. The students at Miami Shores have dedicated the school yearbook to him. He has started a program at that school for students with drug problems by enlisting the aid of persons in the drug program which he himself successfully completed. Petitioner has had no difficulty in his present teaching position. However, in order for him to continue teaching at Miami Shores Preparatory School, a Florida teaching certificate is required. He is supported in his application for a teaching certificate by the principal of that school as well as by some of the other teachers, students, and parents of students at that school. Petitioner meets all requirements for issuance of a Florida teaching certificate, and the only basis for Respondent's denial of his application involves his three arrests.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered approving Petitioner's application for a Florida Teacher's Certificate, providing that Petitioner be issued a Teacher's Certificate on a probationary basis for a period of five years, and further providing that such certificate be automatically revoked if Petitioner be arrested for possession of any controlled substance during his five-year probationary period. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Roberts, Miller, Baggett, LaFace, Richard & Wiser Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Samuel Vinson, has violated sections 1012.795(1)(d), (f), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a), (e), and (h), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed educator in the State of Florida, holding certificate number 735373. His certificate covers health, general science, and physical education, and is valid through June 2017. At all times relevant, Respondent was employed by the Pinellas County School District (District) as a physical education teacher at Dunedin High School (Dunedin) or as a science teacher at Clearwater Intermediate School (Clearwater).4/ Between February and April 2008, when Ms. Gilbert was a senior at Dunedin, Respondent engaged in inappropriate behavior towards her. One day, when Ms. Gilbert received a hall pass from Respondent, Respondent kissed her on her hand. Another day, Respondent kissed Ms. Gilbert on the cheek. On yet another day, Respondent made a suggestive and inappropriate comment to Ms. Gilbert about her clothing.5/ And on another day, Respondent insinuated that Ms. Gilbert was staying late at her employment because she was sleeping with her boss. Respondent’s actions and comments made Ms. Gilbert uncomfortable. Ms. Gilbert's testimony is credible. Ms. Gilbert was uncomfortable and upset as a result of Respondent's conduct. Ms. Gilbert went to talk with the assistant principal at Dunedin, Ms. Riel. According to Ms. Riel, Ms. Gilbert was visibly upset as she described Respondent’s actions. Ms. Gilbert left Dunedin and did not experience her senior graduation exercises because she was so distraught, and fearful of seeing or being around Respondent. Ms. Riel immediately contacted the school resource officer, Deputy Gregory. Both the Pinellas County Sheriff's office and the District conducted independent investigations of Ms. Gilbert's allegations. Respondent was removed from the classroom during the criminal investigation, and directed to work at the school board’s "warehouse," away from students. Respondent was initially charged with criminal battery; however, in August 2011, he pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct with respect to his behavior towards Ms. Gilbert. The criminal court withheld adjudication on this charge and ordered Respondent to pay court costs and the cost of prosecution. In March 2009, Respondent operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and was involved in a traffic accident. Respondent was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. Respondent pled guilty and was adjudicated guilty. In November 2011, Respondent was in his seventh-grade class. For some inexplicable reason, Respondent "lost it" and yelled obscenities at his students. Although the sequence of words used is uncertain, there is no doubt that Respondent called the students “little bastards,” and used the “F” word. As his outburst was on-going, one student went to an adjoining classroom and asked Ms. Holston to help. Ms. Holston was able to effectively remove Respondent from his classroom for the students’ safety. Respondent admitted that he “blew up,” and that he used “a few obscenities” with his students. Respondent resigned his position with the District, effective January 10, 2012.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated sections 1012.795(1)(d), (f), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (e), and (h), and revoking his teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 29th day of January, 2015.
