The Issue Whether Respondent, a teacher and basketball coach, engaged in sexual misconduct, including lewd or lascivious molestation, with student athletes; if so, whether disciplinary action, up to and including permanent revocation, should be taken against his educator certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Javier Cuenca ("Cuenca") holds Florida Educator Certificate 958539, which covers the areas of educational leadership, mathematics, and physical education and is valid through June 30, 2022. During the time relevant to this case, Cuenca worked as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School District ("District"). For the 2011-2012 school year, Cuenca was employed by Mater Academy, a charter School in Hialeah Gardens, Florida, after which he took a yearlong leave of absence from the District to work for a private company as a tutor. Otherwise, Cuenca taught in traditional public schools. In addition to teaching, Cuenca served as a basketball coach at several schools, including Hialeah Gardens Middle School and Hialeah Gardens Senior High School. Cuenca continued coaching for these schools on a part-time basis even while on leave from his teaching position. Cuenca's employment with the District ended on November 7, 2013, simultaneously with the commencement of an investigation into allegations that he had engaged in sexual misconduct with male students on the basketball teams he coached. The facts giving rise to these allegations are relevant to some of the instant charges against Cuenca and will be addressed further below in this Recommended Order. Cuenca was arrested in 2014 and charged under three separate criminal informations with multiple felonies arising from allegations of lewd or lascivious child molestation. The alleged victims were Students D.N., D.F., and R.D., each of whom was a basketball player coached by Cuenca. Later, a fourth criminal information was filed, charging Cuenca with lewd or lascivious conduct against O.Q., another student athlete whom Cuenca had coached. On October 4, 2016, Cuenca accepted a deal under which he agreed to plead nolo contendere to the reduced charge of felony battery in the cases involving D.F. and O.Q., which would be consolidated in the process, in exchange for the dismissal of the cases involving D.N. and R.D. Accepting the plea that same day, the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami- Dade County, immediately entered a Finding of Guilt and Order of Withholding Adjudication/Special Conditions.2/ Cuenca was placed on probation for a period of two years. The upshot is that Cuenca has a criminal record comprising a pair of felony batteries committed, on separate occasions, against two student athletes. At the same time, however, Cuenca was not "found guilty" by a jury; was not adjudicated guilty by the court; and did not plead guilty to, or otherwise admit committing, these crimes. In short, strange as it might seem, Cuenca——who was sentenced and punished as a felon——is not a convicted felon. As we will see, moreover, although entering a plea of nolo contendere to a criminal charge is a disciplinable offense under current law, the statute in effect at the time Cuenca entered his plea did not authorize the Education Practices Commission ("EPC") to discipline a teacher for pleading no contest to a crime. If Cuenca has committed a disciplinable offense, it is because of his conduct leading to the criminal proceedings, not his criminal background per se. The evidence of underlying wrongdoing in this case concerns Cuenca's interactions with three players, O.Q., D.N., and D.F. The most serious allegations involve O.Q., a young man who, unlike D.N., D.F., and Cuenca himself, appeared at hearing to testify, rather than testifying via deposition as did the others. O.Q. testified credibly that, when he was between the ages of 15 and 16, his basketball coach, Cuenca, had "inappropriately touched" him on multiple occasions. O.Q. was unable to remember how many times. There was "one incident," however, which stands out in O.Q.'s mind as the "main incident" that will "stay with [him] for the rest of [his] life." O.Q. says that this incident is "constantly on the back of [his] mind," having left a "scar," which "haunts" him "[e]ven though it was years ago." For O.Q., it is "embarrassing even to mention or speak about" this incident. The incident happened at Cuenca's house, in "his room." According to O.Q., on this particular occasion, Cuenca grabbed and fondled O.Q.'s penis, for the purpose of masturbating O.Q., which he did.3/ The undersigned believes O.Q. and finds that this incident did, in fact, take place as O.Q. described it.4/ As a practical matter, this finding, alone, is dispositive because, obviously, a teacher found to have masturbated a 16-year-old student will be guilty of one or more disciplinable offenses sufficient to revoke his or her certificate. Here, the Commissioner has proved additional acts of misconduct involving D.N. and D.F., which should be addressed nonetheless, if for no other reason than to reinforce the inevitable outcome. Cuenca's modus operandi for exploiting his relationships with these players relied on his authority as a coach to pressure them into exposing themselves. He frequently asked them questions to determine whether they were sexually active, ostensibly to urge abstinence and warn against becoming involved in situations that might interfere with school work and athletics. To some extent, these conversations were unobjectionable. Coaches should not be discouraged from counseling student athletes about age-appropriate sexual behavior. Cuenca, however, overreached. Using the abstinence angle as a pretext, Cuenca pestered the players to show him their "virgin lines." There is, of course, no such thing as a "virgin line." Cuenca used this mumbo jumbo to trick his young players into believing that there is some sort of physical mark of virginity visible on the penis. Cuenca constantly demanded to see this "proof" of virginity to confirm that his players were not misbehaving. Another approach that Cuenca used was the offer of steroids, which athletes sometimes take illicitly to gain muscle mass and improve their performance. Cuenca told the boys that he needed to examine their genitals to ascertain their steroid readiness.5/ If they refused, Cuenca used the stick of retaliation, such as the threat of reduced playing time or expulsion from the team. Cuenca used these methods on D.N. and D.F. In February 2013, Cuenca succeeded in convincing D.N., then a junior in high school, to drop his shorts while the two were alone together in the weight room. Cuenca stared at D.N.'s penis and testicles, and declared that D.N. soon would be ready for steroids.6/ For D.F., the violation occurred in October 2012, when he was a 15-year-old freshman. Under the guise of inspecting D.F.'s "virgin line," and to gauge his readiness for steroids, Cuenca directed D.F. to sit on a table in an empty classroom for an examination. D.F. pulled down his pants, Cuenca took a look, and then he reached in to touch D.F.'s genitals. D.F. slapped Cuenca's hand, and Cuenca withdrew. In D.F.'s words, which the undersigned credits as truthful and telling, the incident left D.F. "in a dark place," "depressed," and "sad," and "nothing has been the same [for him] since" this happened. The Charges In the Amended Administrative Complaint against Cuenca, the Commissioner accused Cuenca of having committed six disciplinable offenses, namely those defined in subsections (1)(d), (1)(f), and (1)(g) of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes; and violations of subsections (2)(a)1., (2)(a)5., and (2)(a)8. of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081, which are part of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.7/ If proved by clear and convincing evidence, the alleged rule violations would be grounds for discipline under section 1012.795(1)(j). It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that Cuenca is guilty of gross immorality, which is an offense punishable under section 1012.795(1)(d); and that he exploited his relationships with O.Q., D.N., and D.F. for personal gain or advantage, namely sexual gratification, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)8., which is an offense punishable under section 1012.795(1)(j). It is further determined that Cuenca is not guilty of having been convicted or found guilty of, or of having pleaded guilty to, any criminal charge; such a criminal record, if established, would have constituted a disciplinable offense under section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2016). As for the remaining charges, to determine Cuenca's guilt or nonguilt would require the undersigned to explicate the meaning of statutory and rule provisions whose applicability to the facts at hand is not readily apparent. Because there are ample grounds for permanently revoking Cuenca's educator certificate without these additional legal conclusions, the undersigned makes no findings of ultimate fact regarding Cuenca's alleged violations of section 1012.795(1)(g) and rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 5. If the EPC determines that such findings are necessary, it may remand this case to the undersigned for the entry of a supplemental recommended order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Cuenca's educator certificate and deeming him forever ineligible to apply for a new certificate in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 26th day of November, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 6A-10.081(2)(c)1., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, testimony, and stipulated facts, the following Findings of Fact are made. The Commissioner is the head of the state agency, the Florida Department of Education, responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, if the educator disputes the allegations in the complaint. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 834897, covering the areas of elementary education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (“ESOL”), and varying exceptionalities, which is valid through June 30, 2023. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an exceptional student education (“ESE”) teacher at Wyomina Park Elementary School (“WPES”) in the Marion County School District (“MCSD”). Ms. Miller has served as an elementary education teacher since the 2000-01 school year. Thus, she has a 20-year career with MCSD. From 2008 to 2018, Respondent taught third, fourth, and fifth grades at Reddick Collier Elementary (“Reddick Collier”’). Since she holds certification in ESE, she also taught ESE inclusion students in her general education classrooms. However, she has never taught a classroom of only ESE students. In 2018, Respondent’s value-added model (commonly referred to as VAM) scores rendered her ineligible to continue teaching at Reddick Collier because it was one of the District’s lowest performing schools. As a result, she was involuntarily transferred to WPES. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent was initially assigned to teach students with academic issues, not behavioral issues. The initial assignment was consistent with her experience and previous work with ESE inclusion students. Respondent had maintained certification in ESE so that she could better serve academically low-performing ESE students in a general education inclusion environment. While Respondent had training in an inclusion environment, she did not have training or certification in Treatment and Education of Autistic and Communication Handicapped Children (“TEACCH”) or Crisis Prevention Intervention de-escalation techniques for use with students with behavioral issues. Ms. Baxley believed that Respondent had been trained to work with children with behavioral issues. After the initial assignment, students were reassigned between Ms. Miller and Patricia Poag. Respondent became responsible for only students with behavioral issues. Some of the students assigned to Respondent had extensive behavioral issues to the extent they required medication treatment. Respondent’s new assignment was a kindergarten through second grade self-contained ESE class of 12 to 13 students. Generally, a self- contained ESE classroom is a group environment with students who have special needs. Respondent’s students required increased supervision, structure, visuals, and very specific direct instruction. Respondent, Ms. Davis, and Ms. Poag testified that the classroom assignment was very “challenging, overwhelming, and distressing.” The new classroom structure included six or seven more students than previously assigned. Respondent had one paraprofessional to assist with supervision of the students. Respondent requested additional staff support, but never received it. In addition to learning to navigate the struggles with the student’s behavioral issues, Respondent was struggling with paperwork. Respondent made the effort to get help with completing necessary documents and learning how to complete IEP’s and behavior plans. She had no experience in completing these documents, or in working with “severe maladaptive behaviors” before being assigned to WPES. Allegations Involving Classroom Management As an ESE instructor, Ms. Miller’s primary responsibility was to ensure compliance with services or accommodations required for ESE students assigned to her classroom. Gina Gazzaniga is the MCSD ESE specialist. Her primary responsibility is to ensure compliance with services/accommodations required for all ESE students. Ms. Gazzaniga visited Respondent’s classroom. While in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Gazzaniga observed students run on tables, throw items, and elope from the classroom unsupervised. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that while students were engaged in this conduct, Respondent did not intervene. Ms. Gazzaniga also testified that when students eloped from the classroom, they would typically go to the Guidance office or the Dean’s office. Ms. Gazzaniga had the Behavior Team (behavior tech, behavior specialist and analyst, and school academic coaches) assist with structure and behavior/classroom management strategies in Respondent’s classroom. The team implemented procedures to help prevent students from eloping. However, Respondent would change the practices the behavior team implemented. Respondent testified that some of the practices put into place were not effective. For example, when tables were lowered, the students increased their jumping from table to table. In addition, the assistance button was not within the reach of the teachers in the classroom. Ms. Gazzaniga’s overall assessment was that she saw “limited improvement, or refusal to follow taught strategies.” Other members of the WPES administration expressed concerns about Respondent’s classroom management. While visiting Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley, along with Kendra Hamby, saw student W.H. pulling the hair of M.D. W.H., a male student, dragged M.D., a female student, by her hair as she screamed. Ms. Baxley testified that she heard Respondent say “stop.” Ms. Baxley then approached the students and removed W.H.’s hand from M.D. so that he would “stop pulling M.D. around like a caveman on the floor.” Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did not intervene to help M.D., but rather “she just stood there.” Ms. Hamby testified that “Ms. Miller was standing there, not intervening, not saying or doing anything. So that was extremely concerning.” On another occasion, while in Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Baxley saw students hitting each other with containers. Ms. Baxley testified that Respondent did nothing to intervene. Respondent testified that she approached the students and instructed them to return the containers. Jennifer Foster was a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent’s classroom. On one occasion two students were running around the room, fighting, and chasing each other. Ms. Foster tried to “get in the middle to separate them and they both ran behind the big solid wooden table.” When Ms. Foster went in front of the table in an effort to separate them, the two students picked up the table and tossed it over on the side. Ms. Foster was able to move one foot out of the way, but the table landed on her other foot. Ms. Foster testified “I eventually got up and hobbled over to push the panic button and asked for assistance.” Her foot was injured as a result of the incident involving the students. Ms. Foster indicated that Respondent did not assist her. Allegations Involving Failure to Supervise Students In addition to concerns about classroom management, the Administrative Complaint alleged Respondent failed to supervise students. One of those incidents involved K.C. K.C. was one of Respondent’s kindergarten students. He is an ESE student with a medical condition. On September 6, 2018, a teacher informed Assistant Principal Troy Sanford that Respondent’s student, K.C., was found standing at the exit door of a hallway that opens to the playground. Mr. Sanford saw K.C. approaching the exit doors to the playground alone at 11:24 a.m. K.C. stood there alone until 11:29 a.m., at which time the teacher spoke to K.C. After consulting with another teacher, Ms. Hawthorne, about where K.C. belonged, the teacher took him to Respondent’s classroom. Respondent denied allowing K.C. to stand alone in the hallway for several minutes. She testified that while standing at her classroom door, awaiting the arrival of students coming from the restroom, K.C. began to walk from Ms. Davis toward her. This was customary for her students if children needed additional time in the restroom. As K.C. got close to Respondent, L.G.R. began climbing on the top shelf of a bookcase in the classroom. Since their routine was for the students to come into the classroom, she assumed K.C. would follow the customary practice and enter the classroom. Respondent testified that she made a judgment call to turn her attention to L.G.R. to ensure his safety and prevent harm to him. Instead of entering the classroom, K.C. walked down the hallway. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s actions were reasonable. A second incident involved a different student. Two first-grade teachers, Nancy P. Neal and Ireina Hawthorne, were outside on the playground with their students. When recess was over, they were gathering their students and doing a head count to go back inside to their classrooms when they noticed there was “an extra child” in line. The student did not belong in their classroom. The student was nonverbal so they could not determine to which classroom he belonged. Ms. Hawthorne assumed that he belonged in Respondent’s class and took the student to Respondent’s classroom. When Ms. Hawthorne took the student to Respondent’s classroom, Respondent “ushered him into the classroom.” Respondent testified that she was in the hallway, counting her students before going to her classroom. She explained that she had a substitute paraprofessional, Ms. Foster, who did not know all of her students. In addition, this was the first time she had Ms. Foster serve as a substitute. To help remedy the issue regarding the student left outside, Respondent asked her assigned paraprofessional not to take breaks or lunch during recess. Whether Respondent was in her classroom (as stated by Ms. Hawthorne) or in the hallway, the student was left outside without her supervision, which could be harmful to the student’s safety. A third incident related to supervision involved student L.G.R. On October 19, 2019, L.G.R. entered Ms. Gazzaniga’s office and hid under a table. The evidence offered at hearing demonstrated that when the student eloped from the classroom, Respondent immediately followed the student into the guidance office. However, she did not see the L.G.R., so she continued to search for him. A minute or so later, Ms. Gazzaniga saw Respondent walk down the hallway towards the main office. Respondent later learned the student was in the guidance office at the time she initially searched that location. However, Ms. Gazzaniga did not alert Respondent that L.G.R. was in her office. Ms. Gazzaniga testified that she “kept an eye on him while he was there.” After a short time, Ms. Gazzaniga went over to L.G.R. and spoke to him. He came from under the table and went to the doorway of the office. At the same time, Respondent was walking back down the hallway and saw L.G.R. and took him back to her classroom. The credible evidence demonstrates that Respondent made reasonable efforts to locate the student by searching for him immediately after his elopement from the room. DP-3 Assessment On September 10, 2018, Ms. Scott gave Respondent a Developmental Profile Third Edition (“DP-3”) to complete for student A.M.S. Students who are developmentally delayed must have a DP-3 completed for re-evaluation to determine what ESE services need to be continued. A DP-3 is an assessment tool used to evaluate nonverbal or low achieving students that have not reached the cognitive level to take an IQ test. MCSD uses the DP-3 to assess the student’s level of achievement. The DP-3 assesses five areas of development, including the child’s cognitive functioning, physical development, communication skills, social, emotional, and adaptive skills. The assessment is completed by completing a series of questions on whether a student can or cannot perform a particular task. Respondent returned the DP-3 to Ms. Scott on September 25, 2018. Respondent circled items indicating a “yes” response. During the hearing, however, Respondent acknowledged the student would not be capable of performing the tasks. In addition, Ms. Scott did not believe A.M.S. could perform the skills for which Respondent answered yes. Based on the evidence offered at hearing, some of the responses Respondent provided on the DP-3 were inaccurate. Performance Assessments Throughout her career, Respondent had been assessed as progressing or effective related to instructional practice as an educator. For the 2018 informal classroom teacher instructional assessment performed by Ms. Baxley, Ms. Cino, and Mr. Sanford, Ms. Miller was assessed as unsatisfactory in multiple areas.1 However, in the areas of criticism, it was also noted that Ms. Miller was engaged in instruction of students. Interestingly, she was criticized for a child wandering to her desk, and then, criticized for leaving the group of students she was working with to redirect the wandering student. In another instance, the observers were critical of a Positive Behavioral Interventions Support plan but Ms. Miller was never trained in the area of behavioral management. For the 2019 informal classroom teacher evaluation, Ms. Miller was assessed effective in each category, including areas where she was assessed unsatisfactory in 2018. Disciplinary Action at WPES For the first time in her career, Respondent received disciplinary action while working at WPES. On or about September 10, 2018, Respondent was issued an oral reprimand for purported failure to supervise the students assigned to her. On or about September 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for misconduct for purported falsification of documents. On or about October 26, 2018, Respondent was issued a written reprimand for alleged failure to supervise a student assigned to her. On or about November 26, 2018, Respondent was issued Step One progressive discipline for substandard performance due to behavioral concerns in her classroom and failure to report grades. On or about December 11, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Two verbal reprimand regarding substandard performance. 1 In 2018, Ms. Miller was assessed unsatisfactory in the following areas: 2b. establishing a culture for learning, managing student behavior; 3b. using questioning and discussion techniques; and 3c. engaging students in learning. On or about December 18, 2018, Respondent was issued a Step Three progressive discipline written reprimand regarding substandard performance. Respondent’s educator certificate has no prior discipline.
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 violated the statues and rules as referenced above; Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 31st day of March, 2021. Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lisa M. Forbess Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street, Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 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
The Issue Whether the Florida Educator Certificate held by Respondent, Carl Moore, should be disciplined for conduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case by Petitioner, Jim Horne, in his capacity as Commissioner of Education.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held Florida Educator Certificate No. 822030, covering the area of music. This certificate is valid through June 30, 2003. Respondent was employed at Neptune Middle School, Osceola County, Florida. On July 20, 2004, A.H., who was 17 years old at the time of the alleged incident, was in a hot tub at the Marriott Hotel, in Orlando, Florida. While she sat in the hot tub, she was approached by a young man in a white shirt and khaki trousers who stated "it would be nicer if the jets to the hot tub were on," or words to that effect. A.H. agreed, and the young man walked over to the control panel and attempted to activate the jets. The young man appeared to be unable to activate the jets and walked away from the area. A.H. then got out of the hot tub and attempted to activate the jets herself. As she attempted to activate the jets, the young man approached A.H. and grabbed her right breast. After removing his hand from A.H.'s breast, the young man stated "those are nice." A.H. retreated from the young man, shocked by his actions, and asked why he had touched her. She then began calling for help; the young man walked away. The lighting and proximity of the young man to her allowed A.H. to get a good look at her assailant. A.H. then called her father, who was at the hotel with her, on her cell phone. Her father joined her in the area contiguous to the pool area and called for assistance. A.H. and her father returned to the pool area. A.H. observed the attacker on the other side of the pool and alerted her father who shouted at the attacker. The attacker immediately fled the pool area. Hotel security was, however, able to maintain observation of the attacker. As a result, hotel security officers were able to block the attacker's path of exit from a parking lot resulting in the attacker's automobile crashing into a tree. After the attacker was taken into custody by the hotel security officers, he was identified as Carl Moore, the Respondent herein. Orange County Sheriff's Department deputies arrived shortly thereafter and took charge. A.H. was brought to the parking lot where she observed Respondent and identified him as her assailant. After further investigating the incident, Deputy Sheriff Don Doyle placed Respondent under arrest, charged him with battery, and transported him to jail. Respondent acknowledged that he did not report the arrest to the Osceola County School Board within 48 hours as required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding respondent guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(c) and (i), Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(m) and revoking Respondent's Florida Educator Certificate No. 822030. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, Leboeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carl Moore 910 South Park Court Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent committed offenses, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, sufficient to justify the imposition of discipline with regard to Respondent's Florida educator's certificate, and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Education Certificate No. 720360, covering the area of business education, and was employed in the Santa Rosa County School system during the 2000-2001 school term as a business education teacher at Milton High School. Student S.B. was born April 19, 1983, and attended Milton High School for four years. During that time, she knew Respondent as a teacher and coach at the school. As a senior during the Fall of 2001-2002 school year, S.B. and her friend, J.N., another female student, called Respondent on the telephone as a joke. They told him they were coming to see him at his house. He said okay. That night, as the two female students left Respondent's home after staying about an hour, Respondent kissed S.B. on the mouth. Later, Respondent called S.B. at her home or placed calls to her cellular telephone on several occasions. S.B. also called Respondent. Sometimes, these telephone calls lasted for an hour or more. During the 2000-2001 school year, S.B. visited Respondent at his home on at least four and possible as much as six different occasions. Each visit occurred in the evening at Respondent's home when S.B. and Respondent were the only persons present. Respondent was a 33-year-old teacher and S.B., a 17-year-old student. Respondent and S.B. kissed and embraced each other on each of the visits by S.B. to Respondent's home. On the last visit, Respondent removed S.B.'s shirt, fondled her breasts through her bra and touched her vaginal area through her clothing. Respondent laid on top of S.B. and pressed his penis against her vagina through their clothing. Respondent professed his love for S.B. and talked to her about a future together following her graduation from high school. Respondent and S.B.'s relationship became the subject of rumors at Milton High School in March of 2001. Approximately three teachers had conversations with the Milton High School assistant principal that something was going on between S.B. and Respondent. The assistant principal confronted Respondent on March 16, 2001. Respondent denied any involvement with the two female students, S.B. and J.N., beyond two visits with them at his home where, he claimed, nothing happened between him and S.B. The assistant principal spoke with S.B. on March 16, 2001, and again confronted Respondent. This time, Respondent confessed to the relationship. He admitted to three or four occasions when he had kissed S.B. in the course of her visits to his house and that he had rubbed her breasts over her shirt. Respondent's improper conduct with S.B. became common knowledge among faculty, parents, and students at Milton High School. As a result of his admitted misconduct with S.B., the Santa Rosa County School District suspended Respondent on April 12, 2001, and that suspension continues in effect pending the outcome of this proceeding. Respondent's actions with regard to S.B. is immoral. A 33-year-old male teacher kissing, fondling, and hugging a 17-year-old student is an act of moral turpitude. Respondent's involvement with S.B. and the resulting publicity have seriously reduced Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent's conduct and actions with S.B. exposed the student to conditions which were, or could have been, harmful to her mental and physical health. Respondent's actions knowingly and intentionally exposed S.B. to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Respondent exploited his relationship with S.B. for personal gain. Respondent carried on a romantic relationship with a 17-year-old girl in order to satisfy his own romantic and sexual desires.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and revoking Respondent's Florida Educator Certificate No. 720360. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be subject to discipline for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 7, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent, Raymond J. Agostino, holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 385460, covering the areas of educational leadership, elementary education, and English to Speakers of Other Languages, which is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Agostino was employed as an assistant principal at North Fort Myers High School in the Lee County School District. On the morning of May 16, 2003, at about 5:34 a.m., a 911 emergency call was received by the Cape Coral Police Department. A female voice could be heard screaming on the line. The 911 operator asked the caller to state the nature of the emergency. The caller did not identify herself but could be heard screaming, "Get the fuck off of me! Get the fuck off of me!" Michael Carroll, the 911 operator who received the call, testified that when he answers an emergency call, his equipment provides a readout of the caller's phone number and address. Mr. Carroll relays the call to the police department's dispatcher, who in turn dispatches officers to the indicated address. In this instance, the caller identification equipment indicated that the call came from a telephone with the number "458-5077." At the time, this was the phone number of Mr. Agostino and his wife, Pamela Agostino. They resided at 1943 Northeast Fifth Terrace in Cape Coral. Officers Don Donakowski and Jason Matyas of the Cape Coral Police Department were dispatched to the Agostino house at about 5:35 a.m. on May 16, 2003, and arrived in separate cars at about 5:39 a.m. From outside the house, they observed a shirtless male, later identified as Mr. Agostino, in the living room area. They did not see Mrs. Agostino. They knocked on the front door, and Mr. Agostino answered. The officers identified themselves, told Mr. Agostino why they had been sent to the house, and asked him what happened. Mr. Agostino told the officers that he and his wife had been arguing over financial matters but denied that there had been any kind of physical confrontation. Officer Matyas noted that Mr. Agostino was reluctant to provide details of the incident. The officers noted no visible injuries on Mr. Agostino. While talking to Mr. Agostino in the doorway, they observed Mrs. Agostino emerge from the master bedroom. Officer Donakowski went inside the house to speak with Mrs. Agostino, who appeared very emotional, scared, and crying. Officer Donakowski observed that she appeared to have been in a physical altercation. There were scratches and a lump over her right eye and dried blood in her hair. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she and her husband had an argument. She told Officer Donakowski that her husband was bipolar and sometimes would go on binges, including spending money he didn't have. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that her husband asked her for a $500 check to pay the mortgage. She told him she didn't have the money, and he became angry and began screaming at her. Fearing for her safety, she ran into the bedroom and locked the door. When Mr. Agostino broke down the door to get to her, Mrs. Agostino grabbed the bedroom telephone and dialed 911. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that when her husband saw her dialing 911, he threw her down, knocked the phone out of her hand, gouged at her eyes, and pulled out a handful of her hair. It was during this attack that she screamed at her husband to get off of her. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she was then able to escape her husband's grasp and run into another room. She also told Officer Donakowski that her husband had attempted to strangle her in a confrontation on the previous day. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that she would not give a written statement because she feared retaliation from her husband. After he interviewed Mrs. Agostino, Officer Donakowski went outside and spoke with Mr. Agostino, while Officer Matyas conducted his interview with Mrs. Agostino. Mr. Agostino told Officer Donakowski that the only thing that happened was an argument, though he did admit to breaking down the bedroom door. Mr. Agostino stated that he had never physically abused his wife in seven years of marriage. Officer Matyas noted that Mrs. Agostino was visibly upset and shaken. He observed fresh bloody scratches and swelling around her right eye, as well as blood in her hair near the scratches. Officer Matyas also noted several broken panels in the master bedroom door. When Officer Matyas asked Mrs. Agostino what had happened, she told him that she and her husband had been in the living room. Mr. Agostino asked her for a $500 check to pay the mortgage, because he had spent $600 on a sprinkler system. She told him that she could not give him the money because she needed it for a car payment. Mr. Agostino became angry and verbally abusive. Mrs. Agostino became fearful and locked herself in the bedroom. Mr. Agostino began banging on the bedroom door. As Mrs. Agostino picked up the phone to call 911, Mr. Agostino broke through the door and entered the bedroom. He forced Mrs. Agostino's head down to the floor while gouging at her eyes with his fingers and thumbs. She agreed to give him the money and he let her up. Mrs. Agostino told Officer Matyas that there had been a physical confrontation on the previous day in which her husband attempted to strangle her. She believed her husband was bipolar, though he had not been medically diagnosed. She told Officer Matyas that she did not want to press charges because her husband could be fired from his job. Based on the physical evidence and witness statements, the officers arrested Mr. Agostino and charged him with Battery--Domestic Violence. Officer Donakowski took photographs of Mrs. Agostino's injuries, the broken door, and a clump of hair that Mrs. Agostino stated had been pulled from her head by Mr. Agostino. The photographs were admitted into evidence at this proceeding. The charges against Mr. Agostino were subsequently dismissed. The Lee County School District investigated allegations of misconduct against Mr. Agostino arising from his arrest. At his predetermination conference, Mr. Agostino denied that any physical confrontation took place between his wife and him. The school district concluded that there was no probable cause to impose discipline on Mr. Agostino. At the hearing in this matter, Mrs. Agostino testified that on the morning of May 16, 2003, it was, in fact, she, who attacked her husband. She testified that at the time, she was taking medication for petit mal seizures that made her very agitated, violent, and confused. She stated that the medication also caused her hair to fall out in clumps, accounting for the hair observed by the police officer. The medication named by Mrs. Agostino was Keflex. In fact, Keflex is a marketing name for cephalexin, a cephalosporin antibiotic unrelated to treatment of seizures. However, the symptoms described by Mrs. Agostino are consistent with common reactions to seizure medications. It is within reason that Mrs. Agostino, who is not a medical professional, simply confused Keflex with another medication she was taking for seizures. Mrs. Agostino testified that on the morning of May 16, 2003, she was attempting to confront Mr. Agostino about their finances, but he would not talk to her. Mrs. Agostino testified that his silence infuriated her, and she became violent. Mr. Agostino retreated into the bedroom. She broke through the door and attacked him, hitting him with the telephone, then throwing the telephone at him. Mrs. Agostino testified that she did not know how the 911 call was made. She theorized that the speed-dial may have been activated when she threw the phone at Mr. Agostino. She also had no idea how the scratches appeared around her eye, unless she hit her head on the bedroom door as she broke it down. Mrs. Agostino testified that she told the police officers that her husband attacked her because she was mad at him. At the hearing, Mr. Agostino testified that he and his wife were arguing about money. Mrs. Agostino became very agitated and started to become violent. Mr. Agostino retreated to the bedroom, closing and locking the door behind him. Mrs. Agostino "came through the door" and attacked Mr. Agostino, who put out his hands to fend her off. Mrs. Agostino started hitting him with the telephone. Mr. Agostino tried to get away, and she threw the phone at him. Mr. Agostino went into the living room. Mrs. Agostino followed and continued screaming at him. Mr. Agostino kept the couch between himself and his wife. At that point, the police knocked at the front door. Steven DeShazo, the principal of North Fort Myers High School, testified that he has worked with Mr. Agostino for eight years. Mr. DeShazo has had conversations with Mr. Agostino about scratches and abrasions on the latter's arms, presumably caused by Mrs. Agostino. Mr. DeShazo testified that he has had conversations with both Agostinos about their need for counseling, but that Mr. Agostino did not want to discuss his family problems. Mr. DeShazo discussed the May 16, 2003, incident with Mr. Agostino a few days after the events. Mr. Agostino told him that Mrs. Agostino had attacked him, and he had tried to fend her off. Mr. DeShazo had no personal knowledge of the events of May 16, 2003. The testimony of the Agostinos at the hearing completely contradicted the statements that Mrs. Agostino gave to the police on the morning of May 16, 2003, as well as Mr. Agostino’s admission to Officer Donakowski that he broke down the bedroom door. Only one version of these events can be true. It is found that the version of events related by Mrs. Agostino to the police officers was the truth. The police officers were at the Agostino house within four minutes of the 911 call. They observed that Mr. Agostino was pacing the living room floor and was out of breath. Both officers observed that Mrs. Agostino was very emotional, crying, scared, and upset. These observations lead to the finding that Mrs. Agostino was still suffering under the stress of the attack, and in her emotional state did not have time to contrive a false story. This finding is supported by the fact that Mrs. Agostino's statements to the police officers were consistent with all the other evidence: the 911 call, the broken door, the clump of hair, her own physical injuries, and the fact that she was in the bedroom when the police arrived. At the hearing, Mrs. Agostino attempted to make her new story comport with the physical evidence but was far from convincing. The clump of hair was plausibly explained as a reaction to medication, but she had no explanation at all for the scratches above her eye. Mr. Agostino's testimony hinted that he might have scratched her eye while trying to fend her off. Mrs. Agostino theorized that throwing the telephone might somehow have caused it to speed-dial 911. Even if the undersigned accepted the phone-throwing theory, there is no explanation for why the female voice on the 911 call was screaming, "Get the fuck off of me," if Mrs. Agostino was the aggressor and Mr. Agostino's only physical reaction was to fend her off. There is also no explanation for why Mrs. Agostino was in the bedroom when the police arrived. Mr. Agostino testified that she was in the living room when the police knocked on the front door, directly contradicting the testimony of both police officers. At the hearing, Mr. Agostino testified that he told the police and school officials that there was no physical confrontation in order to protect his wife, who is also an employee of the Lee County School District. He feared that she would lose her job if it became known that she attacked him. Given the evidence presented at the hearing, it is far more likely that Mrs. Agostino changed her story in order to protect her husband’s job. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Mr. Agostino committed an act of moral turpitude when he broke down the bedroom door, forced his wife's head down to the floor and gouged her eyes, releasing her only when she agreed to give him the money he wanted. This was an act of serious misconduct in flagrant disregard of society's condemnation of violence by men against women. The evidence presented is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Agostino attempted to strangle his wife on May 15, 2003. In this instance, there was no physical or other evidence to corroborate Mrs. Agostino’s hearsay statement to the police officers that her husband had attempted to strangle her. Although the evidence establishes that Mr. Agostino committed an act of moral turpitude, the only evidence offered regarding any notoriety arising from the May 16, 2003, incident was Mr. DeShazo's testimony that there was news coverage of the arrest. Mr. DeShazo stated that several students approached him expressing concern about Mr. Agostino and their hope that he would be allowed to remain at the school. Mr. DeShazo testified that no parents came to him expressing concern about the incident. There was no evidence to prove that Mr. Agostino's conduct was sufficiently notorious to cast him or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect or to impair Mr. Agostino's service in the community. There was insufficient evidence presented to establish that Mr. Agostino's performance as a teacher and an employee of the Lee County School District was diminished as a result of the May 16, 2003, incident and its aftermath. Mr. DeShazo testified that Mr. Agostino is the assistant principal for student affairs, which he described as the most high pressure, stressful job at the school. Mr. Agostino has never lost his temper at work, even in situations in which he has been hit and spat upon by unruly students. Mr. DeShazo testified that Mr. Agostino has been at work every day and has handled this uncomfortable situation with complete professionalism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued placing Respondent on a two-year period of probation, subject to such conditions as the Commission may specify, including the requirement that Mr. Agostino undergo a full psychological evaluation and receive any necessary counseling to ensure that he is fully capable of performing his assigned duties with no further incidents such as those of May 16, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert B. Burandt, Esquire Roosa, Sutton, Burandt, Adamski & Roland, LLP 1714 Cape Coral Parkway, East Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9620 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 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 (a) pushed a ten-year-old student against a wall and struck his arm with a closed fist; and/or (b) falsely answered a question on the application for renewal of her educator certificate, as Petitioner alleges; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be taken against Respondent's educator certificate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against holders of Florida Educational Certificates who are accused of violating section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and related rules. Respondent holds Professional Educators Certificate 730057 (certificate). Valid through June 30, 2018, the certificate covers the areas of Mathematics, Business Education, Teacher Coordinator of Cooperative Education, Teacher Coordinator of Work Experience Programs, and Exceptional Student Education (ESE). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at WHGES in the Miami-Dade County School District (District). Respondent has been employed by the District in a variety of capacities for a total of 25 years and in a teaching capacity for the last 17 years. The charges against Respondent arise from an altercation Respondent had with a then 11-year-old fourth grade ESE student, E.A., on September 27, 2011. On that date, E.A. returned to Respondent's classroom after an in-school appointment with his therapist. Rather than entering the classroom, E.A. stood outside the closed door and knocked on the door intermittently for approximately five to ten minutes. Several students in the classroom went to the door to tell E.A. that the door was unlocked and to come in. When E.A. continued to knock on the door and disrupt the classroom, Respondent went to the door. Respondent was able to open the door part of the way and get her hand and part of her body in between the door and the door frame when E.A. pushed the door closed on Respondent and held it shut with his foot. Respondent shouted at E.A. to open the door and said repeatedly, "it's the teacher, open the door!" When E.A. removed his foot from the door, the door swung out towards the wall, trapping E.A. in a corner between the open door and the wall. Respondent yelled at E.A. to get into the classroom and struck him on the upper arm at least two times. Respondent also picked up E.A.'s backpack and threw it in the classroom. According to Respondent, she made physical contact with E.A. when he raised his arm and she believed he was about to hit her. Respondent claims she used a "defensive move" to prevent E.A. from striking her. Respondent's testimony is inconsistent with that of E.A. and several students who witnessed the event, and deemed not credible by the undersigned. According to E.A., Respondent definitely meant to hit him although he was not hurt physically by the contact. E.A. entered the classroom crying because he was very embarrassed that this occurred in front of his fellow classmates. This altercation was witnessed by another teacher who reported it immediately to administration. Assistant Principal Mary Pineiro (Pineiro) was sent to the classroom to determine what happened. Pineiro observed E.A. crying and holding his arm. Pineiro heard another student say, "I cannot believe you did that to my friend," to Respondent. Respondent refused to answer Pineiro's questions regarding the incident. The teacher and other students who witnessed the event were sent to the office and asked to provide written statements of what they observed. The statements were provided independently and students were separated when they wrote their statements. They were not told what to write and their statements were not edited. The statements corroborated E.A.'s version of events that he was playing around outside the door when Respondent came out and struck him on the arm several times. On February 15, 2012, Respondent was suspended without pay from her teaching position for 25 days which was later upheld after a formal hearing (DOAH Case No. 12-0808TTS). By certified letter dated March 14, 2012, Petitioner informed Respondent that PPS opened a case to investigate her use of inappropriate discipline.2/ On August 9, 2012, another certified letter was sent from Petitioner to Respondent advising that Petitioner had "concluded its preliminary investigation" and wanted to provide Respondent an opportunity to review the materials and respond to the allegations. The letter states that Respondent is not required to respond and that an informal conference was scheduled for August 29, 2012. Respondent wrote back to Katrina Hinson (Hinson) with PPS on August 31, 2012, thanking PPS for "putting me on this pedestal of honor" and giving her the opportunity to refute the allegations of misconduct. Respondent asserts in this letter that she is the victim of a "mafia-type, posse ring" and the victim of a conspiracy including Pineiro and others at WHGES. Rather than respond to the allegations of misconduct, Respondent's three-page letter appears to be a plea for help from Respondent to protect her teaching position from the "obsessive hate" of the alleged conspirators. Petitioner sent a memo to Respondent on August 30, 2012, enclosing a copy of the materials assembled during the preliminary investigation conducted by PPS. The purpose of this memo appears to be to notify Respondent to keep the materials confidential during the proceedings. This memo and the materials were received by Respondent on September 8, 2012. On September 17, 2012, Respondent wrote another letter to Hinson at PPS in which she states, "to be in compliance with your office's investigation, I am writing for professional guidance in regard to curtailing the constant bare-faced humiliation and bait-and-switch torture by Dade County Public School's [sic] employees, as my soul is longing for peace to have solace to grieve my loss in every respect of life fulfillment." Respondent asks whether PPS is part of the DOAH process, complains about the union attorney and the school board attorney and asserts that the "mafia-type posse wants me to be on an accelerated program for homelessness and malnutrition." This letter, and its reference to an "investigation," is not a response to allegations of misconduct but rather appears to be Respondent's attempt to seek help from PPS with regard to the DOAH proceeding. The final hearing in the DOAH proceeding regarding Respondent's suspension without pay occurred before Administrative Law Judge Stuart M. Lerner on September 24, 2012. On October 1, 2012, Respondent wrote another letter to Hinson which states in the opening paragraph: To be in compliance with your office's investigation, I am writing for professional guidance in regard to my mental faculty due to my mild malnourished and homeless states, as I am constantly being deprived of rightful income due to a group of vicious, hateful, and jealous so-called professional educators and so-called professional administrators of Dade County public schools. This letter states, "I am being sanctioned (mentally slaved [sic]) that if I return to employment of Dade County Public Schools. I cannot communicate further with your office, neither through writing or telephone." In this letter, Respondent asserts that E.A. and the student witnesses were "coached to give false witness against me." Regarding the incident with E.A., Respondent states, "the student kidnapped me between the door and the door jamb, and battered me with the door to my head and upper torso, that left me with a mild head trauma." A similar letter was written by Respondent to Hinson on October 5, 2012. Respondent does not mention any "investigation" but again asks for help from Hinson stating: May you please go another extra mile to help me? I beg of you. My grasp to hope is weakening as my resilience to these evil ones has been for many, many years. They have cornered me by attacking my every phase of bottom line. Please, do not allow evil to have dominion over good. A final letter by Respondent to Hinson was written on October 19, 2012, in which Respondent complains that she is being unfairly harassed by the principal at her new assigned school, Aventura Waterway K-8 Center. Notably, Hinson did not reply to any of the correspondence from Respondent. According to Hinson, PPS has no authority to address concerns or complaints about harassment or discrimination. This information was not communicated by PPS to Respondent. What is clear from these letters is that Respondent had no understanding that she was under investigation by DOE. Rather, Respondent erroneously believed that PPS would intervene on her behalf with regard to her then-pending matter before DOAH or with her assigned schools. The final order upholding Respondent's suspension without pay was issued by the District on February 13, 2013. Respondent alleges that, at that time, she was advised by her union representative that the matter was concluded and that she did not have to worry about this incident any further. On March 18, 2013, Respondent filed her annual application for renewal of her educator's professional certificate with the District. In response to the question, "Do you have any current investigative action pending in this state or any other state against a professional license or certificate or against an application for professional license or certificate?" Respondent answered "No." Respondent certified by her application signature that all information provided in the application was "true, accurate and complete." When the District received and reviewed the application, a computerized alert was received from Petitioner indicating that an investigation was pending with PPS. Jose Garcia, Certification Officer for the District, notified Respondent by memorandum dated April 17, 2013, that Respondent needed to return a corrected application. Respondent did not believe she was under investigation and thought that by indicating "yes" on the form, she would be incriminating herself. Respondent wrote Governor Scott an email on May 17, 2013, alleging that PPS and the District Certification Office were wrongfully preventing the renewal of her application in an attempt to prevent her from working with children with disabilities. As a result of this email, the alert was removed from Respondent's certificate and it was reissued by the District. Respondent never acknowledged the DOE investigation in her application for renewal. Petitioner considers Respondent's refusal to acknowledge the pending PPS investigation as an attempt to renew her certificate by fraudulent means. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent as follows: STATUTE VIOLATIONS COUNT 1: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent obtained or attempted to obtain a teaching certificate by fraudulent means. COUNT 2: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education. COUNT 3: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board. COUNT 4: The Respondent is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules. RULE VIOLATIONS COUNT 5: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. COUNT 6: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. COUNT 7: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6A- 10.081(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to maintain honesty in all professional dealings. Respondent filed a Motion for a Formal Hearing on December 26, 2013, with the EPC in which she disputed all of the allegations of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for the incident with E.A., with a copy to be placed in Respondent's certification file, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of 90 school days. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2015, 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 22nd day of January, 2015.
The Issue Case Number 95-l967: Whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with the Duval County School Board [School Board] for the violations alleged in the Superintendent's Notice of Dismissal dated April 7, 1995. Case Number 95-l987: Whether the Education Practices Commission [EPC] should revoke or suspend the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate, or impose any other penalty provided by law, for the violations alleged in the Commissioner's Administrative Complaint dated February 23, 1995.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner takes exception to the findings of fact contained in the Recommended Order at paragraphs 12, 19, and 27, wherein the Hearing Officer found that the evidence did not prove that the Respondent had committed the violations charged as referenced in each finding. This conclusion is not supported by competent and substantial evidence as required by section 120.57(1)(a)10., Florida Statutes. The Hearing Officer was convinced that the altitude of forms utilized by the Respondent in selling the non-insurance products (motor clubs) to Hulan Mitchell, Jenna Chester and Michele Humose demonstrated that they had given their informed consent. However, the Hearing Officer overlooked the blatant misrepresentation and false statement contained in the "premium" receipts issued to each of the insured. Although the Hearing Officer is free to determine the credibility of the witness' testimony, the Hearing Officer cannot ignore or reject unrefuted competent and substantial evidence in the record that clearly and convincingly demonstrates that the premium receipts are a misrepresentation of fact or false statement. No witness testimony is necessary to make this finding. The documents speak for themselves and were not otherwise questioned or refuted. The record unequivocally established the following: Hulan Mitchell - The "premium" receipt (Pet. Ex. "1") issued to Mr. Mitchell indicates a total premium of $378. The actual cost of the "insurance" was $328 with a downpayment of $98 required. See Premium Finance Agreement (Pet. Ex. "1") This is absolutely unrefuted on the record. The premium receipt includes $50 for the cost of the motor club, which is not a policy of insurance and accordingly is not "premium". Also the downpayment required, purportedly for insurance, included $50 for the motor club ($98 + $50 = $148). Furthermore, based on clear documentary evidence in the record, Mr. Mitchell was again subject to a misrepresentation of fact (undisputed) wherein on July 9, 1993 he received a letter (Pet. Ex. "1") threatening to cancel his "insurance" policy because he did not pay a $48 balance due on the motor club. Accordingly the record clearly indicates that the Respondent has made a false or misleading statement with reference to the insurance transaction for Mr. Mitchell. The fact that the Hearing Officer held that Mr. Mitchell knew (despite his testimony otherwise) that he had purchased a motor club, does not negate the fact that the Respondent made a false or misleading statement. JENNA CHESTER - The deceptive premium receipt practice was visited upon Ms. Chester on two occasions. First on February 1, 1994 a "premium" receipt (Pet. Ex. "2") was issued in an amount of $670 for "total premium" due and a required downpayment of $261. The actual cost of the "insurance" was $585 with a required downpayment of $176. See Premium Finance Agreement (Pet. Ex. "2") The "premium" receipt and downpayment included a non-insurance fee for a motor club in the amount of $85. On May 23, 1994 Ms. Chester went to the Respondent to repurchase coverage which had been cancelled. At that time, another "premium" receipt was issued to her in the amount of a "total premium" of $719 and a required downpayment of $286 (Pet. Ex. "2") The actual cost of the insurance was $619 and a required downpayment of $186. See Premium Finance Agreement (Pet. Ex. "2") The additional $100 was for the non-insurance motor club which was sold to Ms. Chester. Although the Hearing Officer held that Ms. Chester knew she was purchasing this motor club (despite Ms. Chester's testimony otherwise) this does not negate the fact that the Respondent has made false or misleading statement in this insurance transaction with Ms. Chester. Michelle Humose - The unrefuted documentary evidence indicates that on May 5, 1994, Ms. Humose was issued a "premium" receipt (Pet. Ex. "3") indicating a "total premium" in the amount of $92 and a required downpayment of $348. The actual cost of the "insurance" was $826 with a required downpayment of $248 See Premium Finance Agreement (Pet. Ex. "3") The additional $100 included in the "premium" receipt was for the non-insurance motor club sold to Ms. Humose. Again despite the Hearing Officer's finding contrary to Ms. Humose's direct testimony that she did not know she was purchasing a motor club, the Respondent has clearly and convincingly made a false or misleading statement with respect to this insurance transaction with Ms. Humose. It is implicit in the Findings of Fact by the Hearing Officer that each referenced transaction took place as described herein. The Hearing Officer merely failed to explicitly state in the Recommended Order that the unrefuted documentary evidence establishes a prima facie misrepresentation of fact. Indeed, the exact factual scenario established herein was determined to constitute a misrepresentation in In the Matter of: Kenneth Michael Whitaker, Case Number 93-L-432DDH (Final Order dated July 3, 1995). It was specifically determined "that the Respondent's standard business practice of combining the costs of insurance overages with the costs of the auto club memberships and then calling such costs "total premium" on receipts issued to customers constituted a misrepresentation and was deceptive." Also, it was further determined "that the Respondent's standard business practice of deducting all or part of the ancillary product fee up front resulted in false statements on other documents that the full downpayment for premium or financing of premium had been made, when in actuality it had not." Whitaker Final Order at pp's 9-10. The Department determined that this activity was a violation of section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes. This finding was also affirmed on appeal in Whitaker v. Department of Insurance and Treasurer, Case No. 95-2702, (21 FLW 1353, Slip Opinion dated June 13, 1996). The court upheld this violation when it summarized the practice in the opinion as follows: Appellant took all or part of the ancillary product from the required premium downpayment and gave the consumer a receipt which listed the full downpayment as "Total Premium". The receipt did not reveal that part of the "premium" went to purchase an ancillary product. Whitaker Slip Opinion at pp's 3-4. This type of fraudulent and deceptive practice also constitutes a violation of section 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by placing before the public a representation or statement which is untrue, deceptive or misleading. The Hearing Officer has already considered the unrefuted facts on the record and was clearly in error to make a finding otherwise. Accordingly, pursuant to section 120.57(a)(a) 10., Florida Statutes, which reads in part: 5 The agency may not reject or modify the findings of fact, including findings of fact that form the basis for an agency statement, unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record, and states with particularity in the order, that findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law. the Department may modify the findings of fact. In this case there was no competent and substantial evidence to make a finding that the Respondent did not make a false or misleading statement with the premium receipts issued in this cause. A review of the entire record demonstrates unrefuted documentary evidence which supports the modified findings of fact contained herein. Therefore, Petitioner's exceptions to findings of fact 12, 19 and 27 are hereby GRANTED. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Petitioner takes exception to conclusions of law at paragraphs 30 and 31, based on the Hearing Officer's rejection of unrefuted facts established on the record, i.e., deceptive and misleading premium receipts. Conclusions of Law 30 and 31 are revised to reflect that the premium receipts issued to insureds constitute fraudulent and deceptive practices as well as placing before the public a representation or statement which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading. Conclusion of Law 30 is modified as follows: In this case, the Respondent was charged with violating sections 2.11 (4), 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9541(1)(b), 626.9541(1)(e), 626.9541(1)(k)1., and 626.9541(1)(z), Florida Statutes. Boiled down to the essentials the Department alleged that Respondent violated the provisions listed above by unlawfully selling insured motor club memberships without their informed consent, made false and misleading statements regarding the coverage provided and falsely represented and illegally required insured to purchase motor club membership as part of their purchase of automobile insurance and that Respondent engaged in the prohibited practice of "sliding" additional coverages or products into the purchase of the insured without the informed consent of the insured. This revision is necessary because the Hearing Officer failed to include sections 626.9541(1)(b) and 62.9541(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as alleged violations. Conclusion of Law 31 is likewise revised as follows: The Department failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent attempted to "slide" coverage or ancillary products involved in this case. Likewise, the evidence did not clearly or convincingly demonstrate that Respondent did not obtain the informed consent of her customers prior to selling them the auto club memberships involved here. However, based on the unrefuted evidence in the record, the Respondent has violated sections 626.611(9) and 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by issuing "premium receipts" which falsely and deceptively represented "total premium" which included a fee for a non-insurance product, ie. motor club membership. Accordingly, the Respondent is guilty of three counts of violating sections 626.611(9) and 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's exceptions to conclusions of law 30 and 31 are-hereby GRANTED. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDATION The Petitioner takes exception to the recommendation that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. The Penalty Guidelines contained in Chapter 4-231, Florida Administrative Code, should be applied in this case. There are three documented violations (one for each count) of engaging in fraudulent and dishonest practices as prohibited in section 626.611 (9), Florida Statutes, and placing before the public a representation 6r statement which is untrue, deceptive or misleading in violation of section 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Under the penalty guidelines, a violation of section 626.611(9), Florida Statutes, requires a suspension of 9 months per count. Under the penalty guidelines, a violation of section 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires a suspension of 6 months per count. Based on Rule 4-231.040, Florida Administrative Code, the highest penalty per count should be assessed, therefore the appropriate penalty is three counts at 9 months for a total suspension period of 27 months. Since the total required suspension exceeds 2 years, the appropriate sanction is the revocation of the Respondent's licenses in accordance with section 626.641(1), Florida Statutes. The violation of section 626.9541(1)(b), Florida Statutes, permits the assessment of an additional fine on top of any other administrative sanction, pursuant to section 626.9521, Florida Statutes. This section permits fines for wilful violations of up to $10,000 per violation not to exceed $100,000. The Petitioner recommends that a fine of $3,000 be assessed against the Respondent. However, insufficient grounds have been demonstrated to justify the assessment of a $3,000 administrative fine. Therefore, Petitioner's exceptions to the recommendation are hereby GRANTED, except for the Petitioner's argument for an additional sanction in the form of a $3,000 administrative fine which is hereby DENIED. PENALTY Rule 4-231.160, Florida Administrative Code, prescribes the aggravating and mitigating factors which the Department shall consider and, if warranted, apply to the total penalty in reaching the final penalty. Aggravating factors in this matter, as delineated in Rule 4-231.160, Florida Administrative Code, are the willfulness of the Respondent's conduct and the existence of secondary violations established in Counts I-III of the Administrative Complaint. Only minimal mitigating factors exist which are outweighed by the aggravating factors. The existence of these aggravating factors would increase the Respondent ` s total penalty, thereby resulting in a higher final penalty. Increasing the Respondent's total penalty would be pointless, however, for section 626.641(1), Florida Statutes, limits a licensee's period of suspension to a maximum of 2 years. The Respondent's 27-month total penalty already exceeds the two-year statutory limit. Consequently, the Department has determined that a revocation of the Respondent's insurance agent license is warranted and appropriate in this matter, and is necessary to adequately protect the insurance-buying pubic. IT IS THEREBY ORDERED: All licenses and eligibility for licensure held by TARA JEANNE SMITH, are hereby REVOKED, pursuant to the provisions of sections 626.611, 626.621, 626.641(2) and 626.651(1), Florida Statutes, effective the date of this Final Order. As of the date of this Final Order, the Respondent shall not engage in or attempt or profess to engage in any transaction or business for which a license or permit is required under the Florida Insurance Code, or directly or indirectly own, control or be employed in any manner by an insurance agent or agency. Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to seek review of this Final Order pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a Notice of Appeal with the General Counsel, acting as the agency clerk, at 612 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333, and a copy of the same and the filing fee with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of rendition of this Order. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. BILL NELSON Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner COPIES FURNISHED: Tara Jeanne Smith 2588 Panther Creek Road, Apt. A Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5628 Charles J. Grimsley, Esquire Charles J. Grimsley and Associates, P.A. 1880 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Diane Cleavinger, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Stephen C. Fredrickson, Esquire Division of Legal Services 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, as to DOAH Case Number 95-1987, the Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, by violating Rules 6B-1.006(4)(b) and (5)(a), (g), (h), and (i), Florida Administrative Code. It is further recommended that: Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for a period of one year. Respondent shall pay the EPC a fine in the amount of $2,000.00. Prior to being recertified in the State as an educator, Respondent shall successfully complete one three-hour college level course in the area of ethics. Should the Respondent be recertified as an educator in the State of Florida after his period of revocation, Respondent shall be placed on probation for a period of three years, under such terms and conditions as the EPC may prescribe. During the period of probation, Respondent's scope of practice shall be restricted so that he shall have no administrative authority over any employee. Respondent receive a letter of reprimand. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, as to DOAH Case Number 95-1967, the Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, by violating Rules 6B-1.006(4)(b) and (5)(a), (g), (h), and (i), Florida Administrative Code. It is further recommended that: 1. The School Board of Duval County take such actions as it deems appropriate to include suspension and discharge, however, because of the lack of general public knowledge, that the Respondent be considered for reinstatement after having completed any penalties imposed by the Department, and being recertified. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 24th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 95-1967 and 95-1987 The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following sates where the findings were adopted or where they were rejected: DOE'S FINDINGS RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraphs 1-18 Adopted as 1-18 Paragraph 19 Conclusion of law Paragraphs 20-46 Adopted, although renumbered in some instances. DUVAL COUNTY'S FINDINGS Duval County's findings were a verbatim repetition of the DOE's findings. TASKETT'S FINDINGS RECOMMENDED ORDER Paragraphs 1-22 Adopted or subsumed in the findings. Paragraphs 23 and 24 Are not necessary to the factual conclusion reached. Paragraph 25 Adopted or subsumed in the findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Thomas E. Crowder, Esquire 600 City Hall 220 East Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32207 John M. Merrett, Esquire 220 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Karen Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Larry Zenke, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207-8154
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 962539, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, and Reading, which is valid through June 30, 2017. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Sims Middle. He continued teaching at Sims Middle for the 2014- 2015 school year, and currently teaches at Woodham Middle School in Escambia County. Among his teaching assignments, Respondent taught an eighth-grade honors science class during the school day’s first period. Among his students in that class was T.L. T.L had, in 2010, been diagnosed with Type I diabetes. By her eighth-grade year, T.L. was an “independent diabetic,” using an insulin pump and capable of carrying her meter and lancing device with her. On March 6, 2014, during a discussion of the consequences of the failure of various organs, Respondent made a comment that was substantially similar to that alleged in the Administrative Complaint, i.e., “Your pancreas can die and you could go into sugar shock; go into a coma and die, like (T.L.) could.” Respondent was standing in front of T.L.’s desk at the time. His position meant that the students were, or should have had their attention directed to Respondent. Thus, his statement would have been obvious. The investigation performed by Mr. Stokes indicated that comments similar to that involving T.L. “are often made” by Respondent; that T.L. likely took the statement “the wrong way” due to Respondent’s “dry sense of humor”; that Respondent “often makes comments trying to be funny but it usually just makes people feel weird”; and that he has made similar comments regarding other students in the past. The statements contained in Mr. Stokes’ report are not accepted for the truth of the matters asserted, but are used herein as evidence of Respondent’s overly loose and unsuccessfully “funny” teaching style. The statements contained in Mr. Stokes’ report also support a finding, made herein, that Respondent did not single T.L. out for disparate treatment, but (misguidedly) used her condition, with benign intent, to reinforce the importance of his lesson plan. In that regard, even T.L.’s mother, who was aggravated by the incident, admitted that the instruction as to what can happen when one’s pancreas dies “would have been appropriate in the classroom,” with her concern being the personalization of the instruction. However, she acknowledged that Respondent’s “unprofessional” comments had previously been directed to other students, and were not restricted to T.L. The evidence suggests that T.L.’s diabetic condition was not unknown. T.L.’s close circle of friends knew, having been told by T.L. C.P. testified that T.L.’s diabetes was fairly common knowledge. On at least one occasion prior to Respondent’s statement, the alarm on T.L.’s insulin pump went off during class. Respondent asked the class whether the sound was a cell phone, to which T.L. replied “Oh, that is my pump, sorry,” and turned the alarm off. T.L. carried the pump in her pocket, and she testified that the other students “probably just thought I had something weird in my pocket, but didn’t really know what it was.” T.L.’s mother testified that “her tubing was usually visible, depending on what she was wearing.” Finally, the topic of T.L.’s award-winning science project was the effect of contaminants at the site of a finger stick when testing one’s blood for glucose. While there was no evidence that T.L.’s diabetes was the subject of a general announcement, or that it was a topic of particular concern amongst her peers, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that it was unlikely that her condition was unknown to those in her class. The comment that forms the basis for the Administrative Complaint, though related to the class lesson plan, was inappropriate and unnecessary. Despite the fact that T.L.’s diabetes was not unknown to her peers, Respondent’s act of using her as an example was embarrassing to her. Respondent’s testimony that his use of T.L. as an example of an unchecked diabetic reaction was purely happenstance is not plausible. The evidence is convincing that Respondent was well aware of T.L.’s diabetes, and used her as an example of someone who had the condition that was the topic of discussion. However, there was no evidence that Respondent made the statement maliciously, or with the intent to embarrass or humiliate T.L. Prior to the incident in question, T.L., along with other students, used her telephone with Respondent’s permission in his class after completing Florida Writes testing, and Snapchatted a video to a friend. That became known when the friend asked Respondent why students in her later class period could not use their phones in similar circumstances. Respondent verbally admonished both T.L. and her friend, with his primary concern seeming to be that he could get in trouble for having allowed his first-period students to use their phones in class. T.L. was not written up for the incident, and there was no adverse effect on her grades. On March 5, 2014, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from Sims Middle regarding the incident of allowing students to use telephones in class. Although the incident that forms the basis for the Administrative Complaint occurred on March 6, 2014, there is insufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between the two. The suggestion that the incident in question was retaliation, or was otherwise precipitated by the Snapchat incident, is not accepted. On March 28, 2014, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from Sims Middle for the incident in question. Other than the two reprimands described herein, both having been issued in the span of little more than three weeks, he had not been the subject of any previous disciplinary actions during his eleven-year period of employment with the Santa Rosa County School District. There was no evidence that T.L.’s mental health was actually affected by the incident. The testimony of T.L. and her mother is evidence that she was, and remains, a bright, articulate, well-adjusted, straight-A student. However, rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [T.L.]'s health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. vs. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL ¶ 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, though without specific intent or malice, failed to make reasonable effort to protect T.L. from embarrassment, a condition reasonably contemplated to be harmful to her mental health pursuant to rule 6A-10.081(3)(a).
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that Respondent be issued a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 7th day of December, 2016.
