The Issue Whether Petitioner, Sarasota County School Board (Petitioner or School Board), had just cause to terminate Ernest Curry (Respondent) for misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for operating, controlling, and supervising the public schools in the School District. See § 1001.32(2), Fla. Stat. At all times material, Respondent was employed as a groundskeeper for the School Board. Groundskeepers are educational support employees. On September 2, 2020, while at work at Tuttle Elementary School, Respondent submitted to a reasonable-suspicion urine drug screen. The final test results returned positive for marijuana. As an educational support employee, Respondent’s employment with the School District is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 1 Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 is a copy of an excerpt of the Classified Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association and the School Board of Sarasota County, FL (Collective Bargaining Agreement). The undersigned takes official recognition of the entire Collective Bargaining Agreement, which may be accessed at https://www.sarasotacountyschools.net/cms/lib/FL50000189/Centricity/Domain/143/2019- 20%20Classified-Final-Rev%20052620.pdf. (Last visited Jan. 6, 2021).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE 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 January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Ernest Curry 3408 16th Court East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Robert K. Robinson, Esquire Rob Robinson Attorney, P.A. 500 South Washington Boulevard, Suite 400 Sarasota, Florida 34236 (eServed) Dr. Brennan W. Asplen, III, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34321-3365 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary L. Martin, has been a Gadsden County school teacher with a continuing contract of employment since August 18, 1967. For almost all of her teaching career, the Respondent has been a full-time elementary school teacher. During a number of her years teaching, the Respondent also taught some evening adult education courses, but she has not done so since the 1983/1984 school year. Numbered paragraph 4 of the Respondent's Continuing Contract of Employment with the School Board provides in pertinent part: The County Board may, upon recommendation of the County Superintendent, transfer and assign the Teacher to a similar position in any other school of the county, provided that the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned and the salary shall be in accordance with the salary schedule. Gadsden County School Board Rule 4.113, provides in pertinent part: TRANSFERS.--The assignment of an employee shall be the responsibility of the Board upon recommendations of the Superintendent. Employees who desire a change in assignment involving a transfer to another school or position shall file a written statement of such desire . . .. * * * (2) In order to meet the staffing needs of the district, it is occasionally necessary to transfer an employee involuntarily. Such transfer shall be effective after consultation with and notice to the employee involved. Article VII, Section C., of the Collective Bargaining between the School Board and the Gadsden County Classroom Teachers Association in effect from 1992 through 1995, governing Transfer and Reassignment, provides in pertinent part: The Board and the GCCTA recognize that the transfer of employees shall be the responsibility of the Board upon recommendation of the Superintendent. Any teacher who desires a change in grade and/or subject assignment in the following year or who desires to transfer to another school in the following year shall file . . . a written request to that effect . . .. * * * In making transfers, the Board will first review requests of volunteers. . . .. During the 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 school years, the Respondent was teaching third grade at the Stewart Street Elementary School in Quincy. During those years, the Respondent suffered from a certain amount of stress, and she made her complaints of stress known to her principal, Douglas Black, as well as to some of her coworkers and, during the spring of 1992, to Harold Henderson, who was a member of the School Board at the time, but who also was running for election as School Superintendent. Henderson won the election and became the Gadsden County School Superintendent. From approximately the time that Harold Henderson became School Superintendent, Douglas Black began asking him to transfer the Respondent to another school in order to resolve certain difficulties he was having at the school that involved the Respondent. One less than satisfactory aspect of the Respondent's performance as an elementary school classroom teacher in recent years was that she frequently was tardy. Out of 196 work days in the school year, the Respondent was tardy 64 days in 1990/1991, 60 days in 1991/1992, and 105 days in 1992/1993. Since she had the key to her classroom, children in her class would have to wait in the hall for her to arrive, and other teachers would have to leave their classrooms unattended to either monitor the children in the hallway or to get a master key to let the children into the Respondent's classroom. The tardiness of course came to Black's attention, and conflicts developed between the Respondent and Black when Black tried to enforce his policies against tardiness. (These conflicts certainly also contributed to the Respondent's stress.) The Superintendent denied Black's initial requests that the Respondent be transferred, but major new problems developed during one lunch period in February, 1993, when a fellow teacher, Juanita Austin, attempted to prevent children from the Respondent's class from cutting in front of Austin's class in the lunch line. Accusations of misconduct flew between the Respondent and Austin, and at least the children from the Respondent's class became embroiled in the controversy. Unable to resolve the problem between the two teachers any other way, Black was reduced to having change the lunch schedules of the two teacher's classes. But, when he instructed Austin to take her class to lunch earlier than the Respondent's, the Respondent accused Black of favoritism. The principal thought that he was doing the best he could to deal with the problems the two teachers were having and felt that the Respondent was being obstinate and difficult in opposing his proposed solution to the problem. As a result of the lunchroom dispute and its aftermath, all three became embroiled in ongoing disputes and arguments that were disruptive and that detracted from their performance of their assigned work. In addition, the Respondent began to accuse Black of other misconduct, including the alleged use of vulgar language. 1/ The situation was brought to the attention of the Superintendent and his staff. By the end of the 1992/1993 school year, Superintendent Henderson decided that it would be best for all concerned if he transferred the Respondent out of Stewart Street Elementary. He approached Black and confirmed that Black still was interested in having the Respondent transferred. He had Black put the request in writing. Black put his request for the transfer in writing on June 3, 1993. The next day, Superintendent Henderson formally granted the request in writing and initiated the mechanics of a lateral transfer at the same salary as for her previous position as elementary school teacher. The first step the Superintendent's staff had to take to implement the transfer was to locate a position to which to transfer the Respondent. The staff was able to identify an opening in its Adult Education Program for a teacher to provide education services at the adult mental health services center operated by Apalachee Community Human Services at a facility near the Gadsden Memorial Hospital. There was no evidence of any other teachers volunteering to transfer to this position, and no special certifications were required for the position so that the Respondent's certifications for the position fully qualified her for the job. (As noted, she had taught in the School Board's adult education program in the past.) When the opening was brought to the Superintendent's attention, he approved it. The new position would entail only two or three hours of actual classroom teaching a day, and class size would average only approximately 15 students per class, instead of approximately 30 elementary school children in each of the Respondent's elementary school classes. The Superintendent felt those differences between the two positions would help reduce the Respondent's job stress. In addition, in the new position, the Respondent would work much more independently than as an elementary school teacher. No School Board supervisors or administrators are housed at the adult mental health services center, and the Respondent would not be monitored very closely. Since, during the course of a normal work day, the Respondent would encounter no School Board personnel other than possible the two part-time teachers, the Superintendent felt that the new position would help minimize the personality conflicts the Respondent was encountering at Stewart Street Elementary. Finally, if the Respondent is tardy for class in the new position, it would not cause the same kinds of discipline and administrative problems as it did at Stewart Street Elementary. The School Board would not even monitor the Respondent for attendance and timeliness at the adult mental health services center, which the Superintendent felt also would serve to reduce the Respondent's job stress. The preliminary steps having been taken, the Superintendent made the transfer official by including it in a July 20, 1993, list of recommended transfers to be presented to the School Board for consideration at its July 27, 1993, meeting. Meanwhile, the Assistant Superintendent, Corbin Scott, telephoned the Respondent and informed her the next day that the transfer had been recommended. The Respondent objected to the transfer. The transfer was considered at the July 27, 1993, meeting of the School Board. The Respondent appeared at the meeting and spoke in opposition to the transfer. Over the Respondent's objection, the School Board voted to transfer the Respondent, as recommended by the Superintendent, effective August 9, 1993. The Respondent's salary in the new position is the same as for her previous position as elementary school teacher. At her new position, the Respondent's "students" actually are clients of the mental health services center. Most suffer from a mental or emotional condition that debilitates them in some way and makes it difficult for them to achieve academically; some also suffer from drug or alcohol dependence. Based on the evidence, there does not seem to be much semblance of continuity in the course of instruction the Respondent is able to give. There does not necessarily seem to be any educational logic or continuity to when they begin the mental health center's education program or when they discontinue it (sometimes when they destabilize mentally and have to be institutionalized.) When students are "enrolled," neither the Respondent nor the Gadsden County School Board seems to have any control over whether the "students" attend the classes offered to them; control over is left to the mental health services center. Nor does the Respondent have any real control over her "students" while they are in class with her. While "class" is in session, the "students" are free to do as they choose. They can pay attention or ignore the Respondent, sit down or stand up, and come or go as they choose. The Respondent is instructed not to attempt to discipline the "students" for not attending to and participating in class, or to attempt to require them to attend to or participate in class, primarily because there is the risk that the Respondent's actions could cause them to destabilize while they are in class with the Respondent. The Respondent's new position as a teacher at the adult mental health services center certainly is not identical to her former position as an elementary school teacher. In some ways, the positions are similar, but there also are significant differences between the two positions. Whether the two positions are "similar" for purposes of this case is a mixed question of both fact and law. There was no direct testimony or evidence on the question whether the Respondent's new position as a teacher at the adult mental health services center has the same "professional prestige" as the position of elementary school teacher. The answer to the question has to be inferred from evidence as to the nature of the two positions. It is found that, as compared to the elementary school teaching position the Respondent had, the adult education teaching position to which the Respondent was transferred does not have "similar professional prestige."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Gadsden County enter a final order: (1) either reinstating the Respondent, Mary L. Martin, to her former position as elementary school teacher at Stewart Street Elementary School or transferring her to a similar position at the same salary; but (2) denying her claim for the award of attorney fees and costs. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of June, 1994.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to terminate the employment of a non-instructional employee whose performance is alleged to have been unsatisfactory.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Ms. Dickerson was employed in the District as an education paraprofessional. For the 2000-01 school year, she was assigned to Meadow Park Elementary School (the "School"). That year, Ms. Dickerson worked under the supervision and direction of a special education teacher named Kimberly Vargas-Vila, whose half-dozen or so pupils, ranging in age from three to seven years, were children with autism. Ms. Dickerson was one of two paraprofessionals placed in Ms. Vargas-Vila’s classroom for the 2000-01 school year. In the discharge of her duties, Ms. Dickerson was required to feed students, help them in the toilet, assist the teacher in the classroom, assist children in play, watch them on the playground, make copies, and run errands for the teacher. Not long after the school year started, Ms. Vargas-Vila noticed that Ms. Dickerson resisted attempts by the other paraprofessional, who was a so-called "one-on-one" aide assigned to a specific student, to help Ms. Dickerson. Ms. Dickerson wanted to perform certain duties herself and often refused offers of assistance. Ms. Dickerson's unwillingness to share the work load was not initially disruptive but increasingly became so. In October 2000, another problem developed: Ms. Dickerson began to disobey Ms. Vargas-Vila's directions concerning the management of students' behavior. The teacher spoke with Ms. Dickerson about this issue, but Ms. Dickerson refused to discuss the matter with her. Instead, Ms. Dickerson sent a letter to the Board in which she unjustly accused Ms. Vargas-Vila of harassment. Unable on her own to resolve the problems she was having with Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila sought the advice of the School's Principal, Elizabeth Cardozo. After conferring, they decided that the three of them (the principal, the teacher, and the paraprofessional) should meet together. Accordingly, a meeting was held between Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila, and Ms. Cardozo on October 18, 2000. While the primary topic of discussion was Ms. Dickerson's allegation that Ms. Vargas-Vila had harassed her (which was groundless), other matters were discussed too, with the participants agreeing to reconvene if problems recurred. Despite this meeting on October 18, 2000, Ms. Vargas- Vila continued to have difficulties with Ms. Dickerson. Therefore, a few weeks later, on November 7, 2000, Ms. Vargas- Vila wrote a memorandum to Ms. Cardozo that related her concerns about Ms. Dickerson's ongoing failure to follow instructions relating to the behavior management techniques that she (the teacher) wanted to use with a particular student. In this memorandum, Ms. Vargas-Vila explained that she frequently had told Ms. Dickerson to ignore certain inappropriate behaviors in which the student in question was engaging, but Ms. Dickerson refused to comply. Rather than ignore the student, as directed, Ms. Dickerson would continue to talk and interact with the student. Ms. Vargas-Vila also had instructed that the student’s chair be placed slightly apart from the other students, but Ms. Dickerson, disobeying, had moved the student’s chair back towards the others in the group. Ms. Dickerson's defiance was causing friction in the classroom. When Ms. Vargas-Vila witnessed these insubordinate acts, she immediately discussed them with Ms. Dickerson, who either did not comment or expressed her opinion that the teacher's orders were inappropriate. Ms. Vargas-Vila's memorandum of November 7, 2000, reported as well that Ms. Dickerson continued to object when the teacher asked the other paraprofessional to handle duties that Ms. Dickerson felt were "her" tasks. As a result of Ms. Vargas-Vila's memorandum, a meeting was held on November 17, 2000, between Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Vargas-Vila, Ms. Cardozo, and a District official named John Stevens. The meeting was difficult because Ms. Dickerson became loud and angry, accusing the attendees, among other things, of plotting to violate her Constitutional rights. She also made the weird charge that Ms. Vargas-Vila had employed a "fake cough" to aggravate her in the classroom. Notwithstanding these impediments to productive discourse, Ms. Vargas-Vila reviewed "improvement strategies" with Ms. Dickerson, who said that she would follow this advice. Afterwards, Ms. Dickerson was provided a written summary of the November 17, 2000, conference, which specified the areas in which improvement was needed and the recommended improvement strategies. For a while after the November 17, 2000, meeting, Ms. Dickerson's performance improved. But before the month was out, Ms. Dickerson had resumed refusing to allow the other paraprofessional to perform certain duties, and she had begun once again to disregard the behavior management techniques that Ms. Vargas-Vila prescribed. These problems continued into the next calendar year. Throughout January 2001, Ms. Dickerson's performance- related problems persisted. Ms. Vargas-Vila talked specifically with Ms. Dickerson about the need for her to follow directions and allow other people to help out in the classroom, but Ms. Dickerson did not change her unsatisfactory behavior. As a result, another meeting with Ms. Cardozo was scheduled, for January 25, 2001. The January 25, 2001, meeting was attended by Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Vargas-Vila, and Ms. Dickerson. During the meeting, Ms. Dickerson was told that she had failed to follow the improvement strategies that had been recommended——and which she had agreed to implement——during the conference on November 17, 2000. Ms. Dickerson was notified that if she continued to disobey the teacher's directions, she would be subject to disciplinary action. Finally, more improvement strategies were discussed, and these were reduced to writing, as part of the principal's conference notes, a copy of which was provided to Ms. Dickerson on January 30, 2001. As of the January 25, 2001, meeting, Ms. Cardozo was convinced that Ms. Dickerson’s job performance was unsatisfactory and that her actions were interfering with the instructional process in the classroom. Consequently, Ms. Cardozo sought guidance from Diane Curcio-Greaves, a Professional Standards Specialist at the District's headquarters, in regard to the preparation of a performance evaluation of Ms. Dickerson. The conditions of Ms. Dickerson's employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement called the Agreement Between the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida and the Association of Education Secretaries and Office Professionals, dated July 1, 1997 - June 30, 2000 (the "Union Contract"). The Union Contract forbade the recommendation of an employee for termination based upon an unsatisfactory evaluation unless that employee had been given at least 30 days to improve his or her performance. In view of this contractual provision, Ms. Curcio- Greaves and Ms. Cardozo decided that Ms. Dickerson would be afforded 30 days from the date she received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation within which to correct the identified deficiencies. On February 2, 2001, based on Ms. Vargas-Vila's input as well as her own observations, Ms. Cardozo recorded her assessment of Ms. Dickerson's performance on a Noninstructional Evaluation form used by the District. Ms. Cardozo rated Ms. Dickerson unsatisfactory under the categories of self motivation, adaptability to change, interpersonal effectiveness, and assignments (specifically, under the last heading, for failing to follow directions easily and effectively). Ms. Cardozo assigned Ms. Dickerson an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, and Assistant Principal Diane Bell met with Ms. Dickerson on February 5, 2001, to discuss the unsatisfactory evaluation and to initiate a 30- day assistance plan. At this meeting, improvement strategies for each area in which her performance had been deemed unsatisfactory were recommended to Ms. Dickerson. These improvement strategies, together with a statement of the reasons why Ms. Dickerson's job performance was considered unsatisfactory, were set forth in a memorandum of assistance dated February 2, 2001, which Ms. Cardozo had prepared earlier. The evaluation and its attachments, including the memorandum of assistance, were presented to Ms. Dickerson on February 5, 2001. Ms. Dickerson acknowledged receipt of these documents, noting her disagreement with the contents and vowing to appeal "THIS FALSE PLOT!" In accordance with District policy and the Union Contract, Ms. Cardozo was responsible for monitoring Ms. Dickerson's progress during the 30-day assistance period and periodically meeting with Ms. Dickerson to review her performance and provide feedback. Ms. Cardozo scheduled several review conferences with Ms. Dickerson, to occur on Friday, February 16; Monday, February 26; and Monday, March 12, 2001. These dates were provided to Ms. Dickerson in a memorandum dated February 8, 2001, receipt of which was acknowledged by Ms. Dickerson that same day. The first review conference was held on February 20, 2001.1 Present were the same persons as on February 5: Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Bell, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, and Ms. Dickerson. Ms. Cardozo discussed each previously-identified area of deficiency with Ms. Dickerson and told Ms. Dickerson what was expected of her to correct these deficiencies, which persisted. Ms. Dickerson was not receptive to advice and indeed refused to acknowledge that her performance was unsatisfactory. Based upon Ms. Dickerson’s comments and the fact that she had not been following the implementation strategies described in the February 2, 2001, memorandum of assistance, Ms. Cardozo was of the opinion that as of February 20, 2001, Ms. Dickerson’s job performance had not improved. On February 22, 2001, Ms. Cardozo wrote a memorandum detailing the discussion that had taken place during the February 20, 2001, meeting. This memorandum specified the areas of Ms. Dickerson’s job performance that continued to be deficient, and spelled out the steps that Ms. Dickerson needed to take in order to improve. Ms. Cardozo gave Ms. Dickerson a copy of her memorandum on February 22, 2001, receipt of which was acknowledged by Ms. Dickerson. On February 23, 2001, Ms. Cardozo formally observed Ms. Dickerson in Ms. Vargas-Vila's classroom for one hour. She noticed that Ms. Dickerson continued to be performing unsatisfactorily in the area of interpersonal effectiveness. A few days later, on February 26, 2001, a second review meeting was held with Ms. Dickerson. In attendance were Ms. Cardozo, Ms. Curcio-Greaves, Ms. Bell, Jeanne Burdsall (a Manager in the District's Office of Professional Standards), and Ms. Dickerson. At this meeting, Ms. Dickerson informed the group that she had spoken with the "Assistant Superintendent" concerning her belief that people were trying to take her job away and give her a bad evaluation. Ms. Dickerson was reminded that on February 5, 2001, she had been advised about the grievance procedures available to union members. Ms. Dickerson was again informed of her right to contact a union representative if she wanted to file a grievance regarding her evaluation. It is evident that by the time of the February 26, 2001, meeting, Ms. Dickerson was not implementing previously- recommended improvement strategies and had no intention of doing so. She continued to deny having performance problems and stubbornly resisted attempts to help her improve. Ms. Dickerson repeated the now-familiar but utterly unsubstantiated accusation that Ms. Vargas-Vila and others were harassing her and plotting to take away her job. Ms. Dickerson's comments had become alarmingly irrational and paranoid. On March 6, 2001, Ms. Dickerson received a copy of Ms. Cardozo's detailed memorandum describing the February 26 meeting. Ms. Cardozo continued to hold the opinion that Ms. Dickerson had not improved her job performance to a satisfactory level. The next day, Ms. Dickerson refused to change a child's diaper at the direct request of Ms. Vargas-Vila, claiming that it was not her job and complaining that the teacher's directive constituted harassment. Ms. Vargas-Vila immediately brought this incident to Ms. Cardozo's attention. Within hours, the principal had notified Ms. Dickerson in writing that she wanted to meet with her the following day, March 8, 2001, in order to review the notes that Ms. Cardozo had made concerning her February 23, 2001, classroom evaluation of Ms. Dickerson. Later that afternoon, Ms. Dickerson appeared in Ms. Cardozo's office, ranting loudly that she was being harassed and asking why they needed to have a meeting. Ms. Cardozo advised Ms. Dickerson that the reason for the meeting was to go over the results of the February 23, 2001, observation. Ms. Dickerson alleged (again) that she could no longer do her job due to the supposed harassment. Ms. Cardozo asked Ms. Dickerson if she was refusing to meet with her, and Ms. Dickerson told her she was not. At that point, Ms. Cardozo told Ms. Dickerson that she would arrange to discuss the observation of February 23, 2001, at the upcoming assistance review meeting, scheduled for March 12, 2001. Thereupon, Ms. Dickerson left Ms. Cardozo’s office, only to return minutes later to tell Ms. Cardozo that she was sick and leaving for the day. In light of Ms. Dickerson's outburst and bizarre behavior, Ms. Cardozo began to worry that she or her staff might be in danger. Ms. Cardozo’s last meeting with Ms. Dickerson was on March 12, 2001. Ms. Cardozo gave Ms. Dickerson a copy of her memorandum of the observation that she had conducted on February 23, 2001. In the memorandum, Ms. Cardozo specifically commented on Ms. Dickerson's lack of interpersonal effectiveness. Ms. Cardozo also handed Ms. Dickerson a Noninstructional Evaluation form that she had completed on March 12, 2001, on which Ms. Dickerson was graded unsatisfactory in the areas of self motivation, adaptability to change, interpersonal effectiveness, and assignments——the same areas in which Ms. Dickerson's performance previously had been considered deficient. Overall, the evaluation was unsatisfactory. Because she had failed to correct the identified performance deficiencies within 30 days, Ms. Dickerson was informed via a letter from the Chief Personnel Officer, which she received on March 12, 2001, that effective March 13, 2001, she was being reassigned to her home with pay, pending the Board's next meeting on March 28, 2001, at which time action would be taken to dismiss her. By memorandum dated March 12, 2001, Ms. Cardozo notified the Director of Professional Standards that Ms. Dickerson had been given an unsatisfactory evaluation after the end of a 30-day assistance period. Based upon the unsatisfactory evaluation, Ms. Cardozo requested a District review to determine further action, up to and including termination of Ms. Dickerson's employment. In due course, pursuant to District policy, a competency hearing was convened before a committee of District employees, to review the evaluation process and Ms. Cardozo's recommendation that Ms. Dickerson's employment be terminated. The committee determined that all of the procedures for terminating a non-instructional employee for unsatisfactory performance had been followed, and it voted to uphold Ms. Cardozo's recommendation. The superintendent accepted the committee's recommendation, executing a petition on March 15, 2001, which urged the Board to suspend Ms. Dickerson without pay effective March 29, 2001, and to terminate her employment effective 15 days after the Board's decision or following an administrative hearing if timely requested. Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that the Board suspended Ms. Dickerson without pay effective March 29, 2001, as recommended. Ultimate Factual Determination Ms. Dickerson's job performance was unsatisfactory, and she failed to correct the identified deficiencies within the 30-day period prescribed under the Union Contract, despite the provision of ample assistance to improve her performance.
The Issue Whether Jessie M. Mitchell should be discharged from her employment as a teacher in the Duval County public school system for professional incompetency as set forth in Section 4(e) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, 1941 Laws of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenure Act")?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Mitchell was licensed as a public school teacher by the State of Florida. Her license was current and in full force and effect. Ms. Mitchell was licensed to teach in early childhood education. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Mitchell was employed as a tenured teacher by the Board. Ms. Mitchell received a Bachelor of Science degree from Edward Waters in 1962 and a Masters degree from Florida A & A University in 1965. During the 1985-1986 school year, Ms. Mitchell was assigned as a teacher at S. P. Livingston Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as "Livingston") in Jacksonville, Florida. Robert Strauss was the principal at Livingston during the 1985-1986 school year. Mr. Strauss had been the principal charged with evaluating Ms. Mitchell during the 1982-1983, 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 school years. Mr. Strauss had given Ms. Mitchell an overall satisfactory rating for these years. Ms. Mitchell received satisfactory ratings for the 1980 through 1985 school years. She did not receive an unsatisfactory rating until the 1985-1986 school year. During the 1985-1986 school year Mr. Strauss observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on four or five occasions. On February 14, 1986, Mr. Strauss extended the end of Ms. Mitchell's evaluation period for the 1985-1986 school year from March 15, 1986, the usual evaluation date, to May 2, 1986. In-service cadre were also requested to assist Ms. Mitchell improve her performance. John Williams was the primary in-service cadre member who provided assistance to Ms. Mitchell during the 1985-1986 school year. Mr. Williams observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on April 18, 1986 and May 22, 1986. After each observation, Mr. Williams met with Ms. Mitchell and discussed his observations. Written suggestions for improvement were also presented to Ms. Mitchell by Mr. Williams. Ms. Mitchell was also given the opportunity to observe other teachers. In addition to Mr. Williams, Cheryl Schang, Marilyn Russell and Carolyn Love provided assistance to Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Williams and Ms. Russell conducted a help session on planning and curriculum for Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell did not cooperate fully in the efforts of Mr. Williams and other in-service cadre members to assist her. She missed several meetings which had been scheduled with cadre members. Ms. Love observed Ms. Williams for approximately five hours. Based upon her observations, Ms. Love pointed out deficiencies and discussed ways of correcting those deficiencies with Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Williams provided Ms. Mitchell with language experience reading materials, teacher improvement packets and behavior management material in an effort to improve her performance as a teacher. Mr. Williams and Mr. Strauss developed a Professional Development Plan for Ms. Mitchell. The Professional Development Plan provided objectives and suggestions designed to assist Ms. Mitchell in improving her performance as a teacher. The Professional Development Plan was provided to Ms. Mitchell in April, 1986. It was not probable, nor was it anticipated, however, that Ms. Mitchell would complete the goals set out in the Professional Development Plan before the 1985-1986 school year ended. It was anticipated that the Professional Development Plan would be followed by Ms. Mitchell during the 1986- 1987 school year. The Professional Development Plan developed for Ms. Mitchell was adequate to assist Ms. Mitchell to improve her teaching performance. Ms. Mitchell did not carry out the objectives and suggestions contained in the Professional Development Plan during the 1985-1986 school year or the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell was given a written evaluation for the 1985-1986 school year by Mr. Strauss on May 2, 1986. Ms. Mitchell was evaluated unsatisfactory. Ms. Mitchell was notified by certified mail on May 16, 1986, that her performance as a teacher during the 1985-1986 school year had not been satisfactory. Ms. Mitchell was informed that she had the right to transfer to a new teaching position for the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell elected to transfer to a new teaching position for the 1986-1987 school year. She was assigned to teach kindergarten at Richard L. Brown Sixth Grade Center (hereinafter referred to as "R. L. Brown") for the 1986-1987 school year. William Permenter was the principal at R. L. Brown. In August, 1986, Mr. Permenter and Ms. Mitchell had a pre-planning conference. During this conference, the Professional Development Plan developed by Mr. Strauss and Mr. Williams for Ms. Mitchell was discussed with her and modified. Mr. Permenter made numerous suggestions to Ms. Mitchell to assist her in improving her teaching performance during the 1986-1987 school year. During the 1986-1987 school year Mr. Permenter observed Ms. Mitchell teaching on at least nine occasions. Conferences were held with Ms. Mitchell following these observations. Mr. Permenter also set out in writing suggestions intended to assist Ms. Mitchell in improving her teaching performance. Mr. Permenter's written suggestions to Ms. Mitchell contained clear and detailed concerns with Ms. Mitchell's performance. In October, 1986, Mr. Permenter gave Ms. Mitchell an interim evaluation of unsatisfactory. On January 30, 1987, Ms. Mitchell was informed by Mr. Permenter that she would receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1986-1987 school year unless she demonstrated an acceptable level of teaching performance by March 15, 1987. In March, 1987, Ms. Mitchell was given an unsatisfactory evaluation for the 1986-1987 school year by Mr. Permenter. During the 1986-1987 school year the primary in-service cadre member who assisted Ms. Mitchell was James Constande. Mr. Constande observed Ms. Mitchell on at least six occasions, conducted conferences with Ms. Mitchell, made suggestions to her and provided her with written materials designed to assist her in improving her teaching performance. Five of Mr. Constande's six observations were scheduled with the permission of Ms. Mitchell. Jayne Owens, another in-service cadre member, also assisted Ms. Mitchell. No observations were conducted by in-service cadre from September 27, 1986, through November 25, 1986 and from November 26, 1986, through January 21, 1987, because of Ms. Mitchell's reluctance to agree to such observations. On March 23, 1987, Ms. Mitchell told Mr. Constande that she did not want to continue with classroom observations. Mr. Constande contacted Ms. Mitchell in April and May of 1987, at least twice each month. Ms. Mitchell refused to allow any classroom observations. In-service cadre members encouraged Ms. Mitchell to contact them if she needed any additional assistance. Ms. Mitchell did so only on a few occasions. Jayne Owens, an in-service cadre member during the 1986-1987 school year, conducted class while Ms. Mitchell observed. During the 1986-1987 school year Ms. Mitchell believed that Mr. Permenter and the in-service cadre members were not trying to help her. This attitude was reinforced by advice Ms. Mitchell received from counsel for the Duval County Teachers' Union. Ms. Mitchell's attitude about Mr. Permenter and the in-service cadre deteriorated after she received an unsatisfactory rating for the 1986-1987 school year. She refused any further assistance from the in-service cadre. The unsatisfactory ratings which Ms. Mitchell received for the 1985- 1986 and 1986-1987 school years were based upon her deficiencies in the general areas of classroom management and teaching effectiveness. Ms. Mitchell's classroom management deficiencies included the following: (a) failure to maintain order in the classroom and school corridors; (b) failure to maintain an attractive, organized classroom (Ms. Mitchell did improve her performance in this area, however); (c) failure to keep students on- task by engaging in conversation unrelated to the subject of her class; (d) failure to maintain effective behavior management techniques such as the use positive reinforcement to avoid negative behavior; (e) failure to stop students who interrupted by calling out; (f) failure to explain the standard of behavior she expected; (g) failure to control the noise level; (h) failure to monitor rules and to timely issue desists orders; (i) failure to identify and discipline students actually causing disruptions; (j) failure to stop children from chewing on pencils, which may be a health hazard; and (k) failure to insure that usable school materials were picked up off the floor to avoid their being sweep up and thrown away. Ms. Mitchell's teaching deficiencies included the following: (a) failure to explain the purpose of lessons at the beginning of a class and to give a review at the end of the class to reinforce what had been taught; (b) failure to provide an explanation when moving from one subject to the next; (c) failure to use correct grammar; (d) failure to give praise; (e) failure to organize the classroom effectively into learning areas; (f) failure to correctly mark report cards; (g) failure to manage time properly, resulting in a loss of momentum; (h) failure to have materials and teaching aides ready to start class; (i) failure to select subject matter of a film suitable for her students; (j) failure to keep lesson plans in accordance with district guidelines; (k) failure to assign or prepare sufficient tasks for students; (1) failure to organize instructions; (m) failure to stop unison responses; (n) failure to be familiar with subject of a film; (o) failure to avoid providing too much information to students; and (p) failure to accurately present subject matter. Ms. Mitchell's deficiencies were observed over two school years by at least six observers on several occasions. Ms. Mitchell was unable to produce current lesson plans in May, 1986. Ms. Mitchell did not adequately plan. Therefore, she was unable to provide an effective learning environment and she was unable to reduce discipline problems. Ms. Mitchell failed to have a series of groups of students and a series of activities for each group throughout a school day. Ms. Mitchell failed to properly maintain cumulative folders during the 1986-1987 school year. Ms. Mitchell was given clear and detailed statements of her deficiencies throughout the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 school years. The Superintendent of Duval County Public Schools brought charges against Ms. Mitchell seeking to discharge her for professional incompetency by certified letter dated May 19, 1987. The charges were based upon Ms. Mitchell's teaching performance during the 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 school years, the two years for which Ms. Mitchell received unsatisfactory evaluations. Ms. Mitchell was afforded a hearing in conformance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Ms. Mitchell was afforded a speedy and public hearing, informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against her, confronted by accusing witnesses, given the opportunity to subpoena witnesses and papers and allowed to secure assistance of counsel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Ms. Mitchell be dismissed as a tenured teacher within the Duval County public school system. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4581 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Board's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3. 3 46. 4 38 5 39 and 41. 6 40-41. 7 6 and 9. 8 17. 9 Hereby accepted. 10-11 20. 12 11. 13 18. 14-15 21. 16-17 Irrelevant. 18 11. 19 17. 20 13. 21 12. 22 14. 23 13. 24 42. Hereby accepted. See 40. 27 16. 28 43. 29 42. 30 34. 31 15. 32 See 39. 33 19. 34 22. 35 23. 36 24-25. 37 18, 38 Hereby accepted. 39 26. 40 28. 41-42 Irrelevant. 43 45. 44 27. 45 Hereby accepted. 46-47 30. 48-49 Hereby accepted. 50 31. 51 30. 52 32. 53 35. 54 Hereby accepted. 55 32 and 37. 56 33. 57 See 40. 58-61 Hereby accepted. 62 44. 63 36. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant. 66 32 and 37. 67 36. 68-69 Hereby accepted. 70 45. 71 Cumulative. 72 47. 73 48. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 2 3. 3 46. 4 5. 5 6. 6 10. 7-8 21. Hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11-13 7. 14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 15-16 Hereby accepted. 17 17. 18 24. 19 23. Irrelevant. See 25. 22 27. 23 29. 24-29 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. 30 8. 31-43 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. 44 Hereby accepted. 45 4. 46 8. 47 Hereby accepted. 48 36. 49-52 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Dolores R. Gahan Assistant Counsel City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth Vickers, Esquire Suite 1 437 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Herb A. Sang, Superintendent School Board of Duval County 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Whether it was proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed the offense(s) charged in Petitioner's Petition; and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Stipulated Facts During the 2014-15 school year, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Frontier Elementary School ("Frontier"). Respondent is an experienced teacher. Facts Established at the Hearing Petitioner is the duly-constituted school board of Palm Beach County, Florida. It is charged with the duty to provide a public education to the students of Palm Beach County and to establish policies and programs consistent with state law and rules that are necessary for the efficient operation and general improvement of the Palm Beach County district school system. Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher in the Palm Beach County district school system for 16 years and has been teaching since 1996. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed at Frontier in Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent previously taught second grade, third grade, and fifth grade in self-contained class settings. During the events relevant to this action, she was an English Language Learners (ELL) resource teacher to children in grades first through fifth. Her performance evaluations had been positive up until the events which are involved in this matter. The employment relationship between Petitioner and Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Classroom Teachers Association of Palm Beach County ("CTA"). Petitioner has alleged in its Petition that Respondent is guilty of the following violations of statute, School Board policies, or administrative rules: School Board Policies 0.01(2)(c) and (2)(d) Commitment to the Student, Principle I; School Board Policy 3.02(4)(a), (4)(d), (4)(e), (4)(f), (4)(h), and (4)(j), Code of Ethics; School Board Policy 5.002, Anti-Bullying and Harassment, Expectations; School Board Policy 1.013(1), Responsibilities of School District Personnel and Staff, School Board Policies; School Board Policy 3.27, Criteria for Suspension & Dismissal and Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; Article II, Section M of the CTA Collective Bargaining Agreement; Rule 6A-5.056, F.A.C., (2) Misconduct in Office; H. Rule 6A-5.056(4), F.A.C., of [sic] Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; I. Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(e), F.A.C., Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. The facts underlying these alleged violations are outlined in paragraphs 8 through 12 of the Petition filed by the School Board dated March 2, 2016. See DOAH docket entry and Petition filed on March 2, 2016. Incident Involving Z.N. Z.N., a student of Respondent, was called by the School Board. On direct examination, he was unable to remember how he was treated by Turnbull when she was his teacher. Other than acknowledging that he remembered being pulled out of Petitioner's class, Z.N. articulated no credible, clear, or convincing testimony supporting any of the allegations lodged against Respondent regarding her interaction(s) with him. Z.N.'s mother, J.N., testified that Turnbull was her son's teacher when he previously attended H.L. Johnson Elementary School ("H.L. Johnson"). Z.N. would come home every day crying and seemed miserable in Respondent's class. These observations occurred when he was Respondent's student at that elementary school. He was moved to her class at Frontier on September 22, 2013. There were times when he attended her class at H.L. Johnson that he would come home from school and would be visibly shaking. He would throw up the night before school, and she would have to physically put him in the classroom while he would beg and scream not to stay. Prior to and after leaving her class, Z.N. did not exhibit those behaviors. She wrote a letter complaining to the principal about Respondent. His mother also testified that Z.N. has been diagnosed as having attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ("ADHD"). The mother observed that on days where he had to attend school with Respondent at H.L. Johnson, she noticed a big difference in his sleeping and his eating. His demeanor would change, and he became withdrawn. The mother of Z.N. did not personally observe any interaction between her son and Respondent in the classroom. The father of Z.N. testified as well. He recounted that his son did not want to attend school while he was previously in Respondent's class at H.L. Johnson. He would become upset, emotional, and withdrawn. His son "threw fits," broke down, and cried when he had to go to school. To investigate his son's disconcerting response, the father personally "observed" the class three times, from outside the door.1/ During one visit, he observed the class being somewhat reckless, and Respondent was trying to get her class under control. He heard Turnbull slam a book on the desk to get the attention of the class. He heard Petitioner use the "F bomb" on one occasion.2/ When Z.N. transferred out of Turnbull's class, he started doing very well, began to succeed, and started to come out of his shell. He began going to school with less of a problem. Like the mother, Z.N.'s father did not personally observe or witness any interaction between his son and Respondent. E.D. was a student in the same class with Z.N. and Respondent at H.L. Johnson. She testified that she found Respondent to be a great teacher, and she learned things in the class with her. She felt that Turnbull was very nice to other students and her. She never saw Turnbull pick on Z.N., or treat him in a way that she felt was unfair. On the other hand, E.D. testified that Z.N. was loud and disruptive in class. Z.N. caused problems in the class which prevented the class from moving forward. E.D. did not recall hearing Respondent yell at any students, other than perhaps once when the class was loud. She never saw or heard Z.N. cry in class. The testimony of E.D. was credible and gained from personal knowledge and actual observation of teacher/student interactions in the classroom. Turnbull testified about her involvement with Z.N. At some point in time, Z.N. eventually became her class student. He was bright, although he had a diagnosis of ADHD and had been prescribed medication, which he "took infrequently, at best." He acted out and was disruptive in class virtually every day. He was disruptive in different ways, sometimes calling out and sometimes making funny noises with his mouth. At times, he would bother the other children. The behavior of Z.N., combined with that of other students, was difficult and disruptive, preventing her class from moving along according to the curriculum. As a result, the class was falling behind the other classes academically. Respondent did yell at Z.N. but not as a first resort. She would first talk to him and ask him to stop. She tried different techniques with Z.N., but admitted that there could have been times when her voice got louder when she had to repeat the same thing to Z.N. six or seven times within a short time period. She has a loud voice, which some students can interpret as yelling, but that was not her intent. Until the time Z.N. left her classroom, she felt that the parents were supportive. The mother sent her emails thanking her partially for what she was doing for her son, including an email thanking her for easing his transition into her class. She felt compassion for Z.N. and believed that he could not control what he was doing, particularly when he was not regularly taking his prescribed medication. The more persuasive evidence is that Z.N. presented teaching problems and challenges to Respondent. He disliked going to school after he was assigned to Respondent's classroom, but the undersigned is not convinced that his reaction to school was based on any traumatic treatment by Respondent. Z.N. himself offered absolutely no evidence regarding any wrongdoing by Respondent. Based on this record, there was simply a lack of clear and convincing evidence to support the allegation(s) that Respondent violated any statute, policy, or rule regarding her interaction with Z.N. Incident Involving Student A.C. A.C. was called by the School Board. He was Turnbull's fifth-grade student at Frontier. A.C. is now 13 years old and in seventh grade. On direct examination, he testified that he liked having Respondent as his teacher. He also recounted that there was not a time he did not want her to be his teacher or a time he did not want to be taught by her. Inconsistently, however, he also testified that he talked to his parents about getting him out of Respondent's class because she was rude and he did not want to be in her class. After he was no longer in her class group, there came a time when Respondent wanted A.C. to return to her group. A.C. testified that Turnbull came to get him and took him outside to talk. She stood close to him outside in a hallway alcove. He said that he was scared and nervous because he did not like the idea of a teacher talking to him. However, Respondent did nothing else to make him feel uncomfortable while they were standing in the hall. Respondent was merely talking to him. A.C. testified that when he spoke with Respondent in the hallway, she told him how much she liked him. She was not yelling or rude to him. This same hallway discussion between Turnbull and A.C. was apparently observed by Jacquelyn Marie Smith, a ten-year teacher at Frontier. She testified that one day as she was walking down the hallway with a few students, she observed Respondent and A.C. in the alcove of a doorway outside a classroom, standing about eight inches apart. It appeared to her that Respondent was speaking to A.C. and reprimanding him for something. She observed the look on A.C.'s face and could tell that he was very uncomfortable. However, she did not hear anything said by either Respondent or the student. She assumed the student was being disciplined based on his body stance and facial expressions. She did not observe Respondent place her hands on A.C. in the hallway. She testified that she observed the situation for "maybe 10 seconds."3/ There was nothing about Respondent's demeanor, posture, or anything else that led her to believe that Respondent was angry or upset. She never observed A.C. crying during her brief observation of this hallway encounter. Another teacher, Rosa Cabrera, testified that as she was passing by, she also saw Respondent in the hallway with her finger pointed at "J," a second-grader. Respondent was crouched down in the student's face saying things which Cabrera could not hear. She had no idea what Respondent was saying to the child. She did not hear anything, although she passed very close to Respondent and the student. The two were talking in a tone lower than a typical conversational tone. Like Smith, Cabrera found the fact that Respondent was standing so close to the student to be improper.4/ Respondent testified that A.C. was removed from her group for a period of time. She understood that he had gone home one day and expressed to his father that he was upset because he felt that she did not like him or that she had been mean to him and he did not want to go back to her class. When he was removed from her teaching group, Turnbull became concerned about A.C. not being provided the teaching instructions he needed. It was unrebutted that she exchanged emails with the assistant principal expressing her concern for him and her desire to work with A.C. again. As a result of her request, she was directed by the assistant principal to work with A.C. again. Respondent decided to speak to A.C. first to be sure that he was comfortable with her. She asked A.C. to come out of his class into the hallway, and they spoke in the hallway alcove. The alcove was the width of the door and perhaps an additional six inches on either side. She did this so that their conversation would not be overheard by classmates, would not embarrass him, and to ensure that A.C.'s privacy would be protected. She stood close to A.C. because there was little room in the alcove and she could hear his voice. She wanted to speak quietly and gently to him so that she would be more reassuring to him.5/ Respondent told A.C. that she understood that he felt that she was angry at him for some reason. She told him that she wanted to reassure him that she was not angry with him. Respondent told A.C. that there had been some misunderstanding between them and she would like to try to clear it up. She asked him how he felt about coming back into her class group, and told him that they missed him because he was a great addition to it. By the time the conversation was over, A.C. was smiling. They shook hands and said that they would see each other in group later that day. A.C. came to her group later that day and had an excellent session, smiling more than he had before. At no time in her conversation with him was there any scolding, anger, or cross words used. The evidence from the student, A.C., did not support a finding of any violations by clear and convincing evidence. What he did recall, and testify to, did not amount to infractions by Respondent. Likewise, the fellow teachers' unfavorable conclusions about what they observed in the hallway alcove were based on brief observations and did not constitute clear or convincing evidence of any violations. Incident Regarding Marisa Madzi Respondent "pushed in" to the classroom of Marisa Madzi, a third-grade teacher at Frontier.6/ Madzi alleged that Respondent "corrected her" in front of the class, although Madzi could not recall specifically what the correction was about. She recalled that Respondent "chimed in," telling her that she was wrong about a point or topic she had been explaining to her class. Madzi felt that Respondent acted in an unprofessional manner and that if she had an issue, she thought she should have addressed it afterwards and not in front of the class. However, Respondent's statement in front of the class did not cause her to stop her teaching. Respondent previously complained to Madzi that Madzi was loud in the classroom when she taught and that it was interrupting Respondent while she was working with her small group.7/ Respondent explained the incident in a different way. She was working with her students when one of them shared with her his response to Madzi's explanation of the answer. The student explained to Turnbull that he did not understand why his answer was wrong. She looked at the question and could see where his confusion came from. Either Madzi walked over to her to determine what she was talking to the student about or Respondent gestured for her to come over. She told Madzi that "I explained it to him, but you may want to go further into explaining to him why that's the right answer." Madzi had a reaction to being called over by Turnbull and said, "Okay, I will take care of it." Madzi had a funny look on her face that made Respondent uncomfortable. Thinking that Madzi may have been upset by their interaction in class, Respondent sent her an email (Resp. Ex. 40), saying that she did not intend to step on Madzi's toes. The purpose of the email was to apologize for giving Madzi the impression that she was correcting her. Turnbull testified that during the entire time that Respondent worked at Frontier, Madzi never spoke to her to suggest that there was anything about her, her teaching style, or her dealings with her students that she was uncomfortable with. The undersigned finds that there was not clear or convincing evidence to conclude that the incident in Madzi's class constituted a violation of any statute, policy, or rule. Incident Involving Rose Cabrera Rose Cabrera has been a teacher at Frontier for 12 years. She was driving home from campus one day and felt that Respondent was driving behind her in an aggressive manner.8/ The next day Cabrera approached Respondent on campus and said that she was the one that Respondent was tailgating and yelling at. She claimed that Respondent immediately got upset and started yelling at her and telling her that she was unprofessional. Cabrera then walked away. The next work day, Respondent stopped Cabrera in the hallway and asked to talk. Cabrera claimed that Respondent told her that "there were two possible reasons why people tailgate; either they are crazy or they have a problem, like something's going on." Cabrera testified that she walked away; but, that Respondent continued to yell at her, saying that she was unprofessional and pointing her finger at her. No students or other employees were present at either of these encounters between Respondent and Cabrera, and none were called to testify about them. Turnbull testified that she recalled the incident. She was running late for an appointment and was driving in a rush. She did not recognize the person driving the car in front of her. The next day, as she left the mail room, a person whom she did not recognize was blocking her way. The woman began to berate her, stating that Respondent had been tailgating her, that she was crazy on the road, that the woman had recently had an accident and was very nervous on the road, and that Respondent should not have been doing what she did. Respondent "could not get a word in edgewise." Neither woman was shouting. Shortly thereafter, Respondent saw Cabrera in the hallway and asked to speak with her. She tried to explain to her that she was sorry if she had upset her on the road. The two were talking over each other, but Respondent tried to explain that if somebody is behind her or beeping or waving or tailgating, she usually just gets out of their way, as obviously they are in a hurry for some reason. Cabrera said that she did not want to talk to Respondent. She had upset her the other day and was upsetting her again, so she walked away. As Cabrera was walking away, Respondent told her she was being unprofessional because she was not allowing Respondent to reply to the accusation. They never spoke of the matter again. The off campus incident on the road and the follow-up discussions on campus do not support a violation of any statute, rule, or policy by clear and convincing evidence. There was no credible evidence presented to suggest that any students or other staff members were affected, and the dispute was in the nature of a personal disagreement between Turnbull and Cabrera. This conduct and personal encounter, while regrettable, did not rise to the level of a violation of a statute, policy, or rule by Respondent. Incident in Alyssia Liberati's classroom. Alyssia Liberati worked as a teacher at Frontier for approximately 15 years. Respondent was teaching two students at the back table in her classroom, while Liberati was teaching the main class a social studies lesson. Liberati asked her students a question and, when some raised their hands, Respondent inexplicably raised her hand as well. The students thought that was funny. Liberati did not find Respondent's action to be appropriate because she was asking the children the question, not Respondent. Liberati could not remember whether Respondent was working with her students on a separate matter or whether they were included as part of the social studies lesson. Respondent claims they were coordinating their work, and one of her students wanted to participate in Liberati's question. Turnbull further testified that when the class was asked this question by Liberati, one of Respondent's own students had the correct answer. She encouraged the student to raise his hand and answer Liberati's question. When he just smiled, she offered to raise her hand for him, and he agreed. When she raised her hand, Liberati called on her. When the student would not answer, despite her encouragement, Respondent announced the student's answer and attributed it to him. Liberati said nothing to her then or after class and did not chastise her in any way, then or later. Respondent testified that part of her job was to help the English for Speaker of Other Languages (ESOL) students acquire oral language and the ability to socially interact and participate. She wanted to show the student that he should not be afraid of participating. Liberati continued on with her class and never suggested to Respondent that by raising her hand and offering her student's answer, she had disturbed her class. Empty Classroom Incident with Alyssia Liberati On another occasion, Respondent went to Liberati's classroom to "push in" and found the classroom dark and empty. Respondent waited for approximately ten minutes, thinking that the students may have been out of the room for some reason and would be late getting back. When the class never appeared, Respondent left. She wrote an email to Liberati, asking that she be notified in the future if the class and teacher were not going to be in the room at her designated arrival time.9/ Pet. Ex. 12. Liberati testified that she received an email from Respondent that night, which she characterized as requesting that she let Respondent know next time in advance if she was not going to be in the classroom because her time is valuable, that she does not have much time to go from one classroom to the next, and that she had wasted her time trying to find out where her students were. She responded to the email late that night, explaining about her daughter. She found Respondent's email to be offensive and inappropriate. The next morning, Respondent read the late night email from Liberati and, for the first time, found out about Liberati's daughter's situation. She responded immediately to Liberati and explained that at the time that she wrote her email, she had not known that Liberati's absence had been due to a family emergency. She also inquired about the well-being of her daughter. Pet. Ex. 12. Respondent further wrote, "No offense was intended," and "[S]o I hope none was taken." She followed up by going to Liberati's room in the morning to ask her if she had seen her email from that morning. Liberati replied that she had not yet seen it. Respondent explained to her that had she known that Liberati's daughter was ill, she would have never sent the email. Respondent told Liberati that her daughter takes priority and that she inquired as to how her daughter was doing. Liberati testified that she was offended by the email and that Respondent did not have to send it. She felt that Respondent could have asked another teacher where her students were. Respondent tried to explain to her that she had been instructed not to knock on other teachers' doors for any reason, so she did not-–as she did not want to disturb other classes. Nonetheless, Liberati was very angry with her. During Respondent's follow-up about the second email the next morning, Liberati felt that Respondent was in her personal space and she felt uncomfortable. She noted that Respondent's tone was very rude and confrontational and felt Respondent should not be speaking to her like that in front of the children in the hall. However, Liberati acknowledged that Respondent expressed to her in one form or another that no offense was intended. Liberati's coworker, Tara Levine, saw Respondent come down the hallway the next morning in what she described as a fairly aggressive manner, at a fast pace and with an annoyed look on her face. Levine observed a conversation between Liberati and Respondent which she felt was "a little heated." However, Levine admitted that she could not remember the conversation or its tone. She felt it was necessary to remove students from the area, which was in the hallway just before school started. Levine testified that Respondent's finger was in Liberati's face, although she observed that Liberati is much taller than Respondent, who was standing very close to Liberati. Levine never reported the incident to any administrator. Based on an objective view of the facts involving Liberati's classroom hand-raising incident and their exchange of comments regarding the empty classroom incident, there is no clear and convincing evidence that these events constituted a violation of any statute or rule. Respondent was attempting to coach her student to raise his hand when he had the right answer, and then modeled the hand-raising for him. Rather than doing something improper, Respondent was serving her student in a manner that caused no problem to Liberati. While Liberati may have been taken back by this technique, it did not constitute a violation of any rule or policy. Likewise, there was nothing improper about the email written by Respondent, who did not know about the ill child. When she found out, she responded appropriately and with due concern for the child, explaining that she did not know of the circumstances. Although the undersigned credits the observation by Levine, the hallway confrontation between Liberati and Respondent does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence to support a violation of statute, policy, or rule. Incidents Involving J.B. Respondent taught in a class of students with Janet Vino, a teacher at Frontier. Vino testified that Respondent was very aggressive toward her student, J.B. Respondent would get "in his face," speaking loudly enough for the rest of the class to hear. While Vino conceded that there was nothing inappropriate about reprimanding a student who is having behavior issues, Respondent did so in a way that Vino could hear Respondent as she was teaching her lesson off to the side. Vino described Respondent's demeanor with J.B. as very loud, with her being very close to him and with her fingers pointing in his face. Vino said that Respondent on occasion would ask her in class whether she had issues with him too. On occasion, J.B. would hide in the bathroom to avoid going with Respondent. When he would come out to go with her, he would be sulking. J.B. was in the midst of a number of family and legal-related problems, and he also had discipline issues. Vino acknowledged that she was never trained to avoid pointing your finger and shaking it at a student or not to "get too close to a student." Respondent conceded that she had problems with J.B. He would not do his work and was disruptive. J.B. would do disruptive things, like crawl under the work table and lift it up with his shoulders, while she was working with the other students. J.B. spoke to her disrespectfully at times and would hold up the class by taking his time getting started and by not being ready when she would arrive to pick him up. Sometimes he would go in the bathroom and would not come out. The effect of J.B.'s behavior on her teaching was to limit the time that she had available to teach him and other students in his group. It often took ten minutes to get J.B. to the room and seated at the table, before they could even get started. His behavior interrupted the lessons that Respondent was trying to teach and interrupted the learning of the other students. Respondent sought help with J.B. from his teacher, Vino, and Assistant Principal Witt. Respondent sought help from Vino one time in her classroom, calling her to ask if she could come over and help with J.B. because he was refusing to work and instead was writing on the worktable with a crayon. Vino never complained to Respondent about her request for help but seemed unwilling to help her with J.B. As a result, Respondent did not seek her assistance again. Turnbull sent emails to the principal and the assistant principal concerning J.B. and his problems at school. Respondent felt that J.B. was a special child who came from a difficult situation and that people at the school should be working to help him. She wanted to keep the administration informed regarding her dealings with him and how he was doing with her. Resp. Exs. 10, 11, 12, 15, and 24. Respondent made efforts to try to work with and communicate with J.B., notwithstanding his behavioral issues. She tried speaking to him directly and told him that his behaving was keeping him from learning and preventing the other student from learning. Respondent testified that she liked J.B., and, as disruptive as he was, she felt a great deal of compassion for him. She understood his bad situation at home and knew that his family was split up among foster homes. She believed that his disruptive behavior was attention-seeking and that he was an angry boy. The undersigned finds that the more credible and persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent had trouble with J.B., who presented a formidable challenge to teach. This very likely would have been true for any teacher dealing with him. Respondent sought help from his teacher and the administration. The observations and concerns raised by Vino, while understandable, do not rise to the level of providing clear and convincing evidence of a violation of any statute, policy, or rule. Behavior Observed by Principal Susan Groth Susan Groth has been the principal at Frontier for six years. She felt that the collegial and helpful climate at her school changed after Respondent came to the school. While offering no causal or underlying link to Respondent, Groth claimed that teachers became more reserved, no longer left their doors open in the morning, and had fewer interactions with one another. She claimed that this collegial atmosphere changed with Respondent's arrival.10/ Groth claimed to have personally witnessed that after certain encounters with Respondent, Community Language Facilitator Melady Roque would be shaken and crying.11/ Groth personally encountered combative behavior from Turnbull when she would try to have conversations with her. She also started to receive complaints from other teachers about Turnbull.12/ In response, she offered Respondent different training opportunities, which Respondent attended. Groth provided Respondent with two mentors for advice because she was new to the "push in" and "pull out" class system at Frontier. Groth was made aware of issues involving Respondent from other teachers within her first three weeks at the school. She received reports about Respondent concerning intimidation, humiliation, interruptions, unprofessionalism, and Respondent being very defensive.13/ However, she did not witness those encounters or behaviors herself. She noted that Respondent was defensive when she would provide constructive feedback to her. During one of her classroom observations of Respondent at work, a student misread certain sight words. Respondent nonetheless praised his work. Groth addressed the matter with her. She felt that Respondent's response to her counseling was very defensive. Subsequently, Groth gave a written observation report to Respondent. Respondent disagreed with several observation points made by Groth. She provided Groth with a written explanation setting forth her rebuttal and verbally defended her position.14/ Despite this, when Groth provided her with helpful resources and training to review, Respondent participated. However, Groth felt that Respondent did not accept her criticism very well. The issues that Groth had with Respondent were becoming less serious as time went on. It appeared to Groth that by January of Respondent's first year at Frontier, Respondent was beginning to properly adjust to the school environment and personnel. However, shortly thereafter, during an investigative meeting with Turnbull, Groth confronted Respondent with the names of several teachers that had complained about Respondent's behavior.15/ During the meeting, Turnbull had a pad of paper out and was bearing down hard and writing every time a new name of a witness was disclosed by Groth. At one point, she threw down her pencil on the table in frustration and stated, "This is horse shit." She did not throw the pencil at any person, nor did Groth think that it was her intent to do so. Respondent's union representative, at one point, had to calm her down because Respondent's arms were flailing, and she was explosive. Respondent used profanity during the meeting.16/ Despite Turnbull's actions, the process went on to completion. Neither Respondent nor her union representative ever asked for the meeting to be adjourned. Respondent's actions during that meeting were documented.17/ Pet. Ex. 11. Turnbull provided her version of this investigatory meeting with Groth. She received notification that an incident involving A.C. was being investigated. The notice of the meeting advised her that there was going to be an inquiry into an incident regarding A.C. At the meeting, other matters, unrelated to A.C., were brought up by the principal. Respondent objected to the other matters being raised. She felt that she had been "blindsided" and was being treated unfairly by consideration of matters that were not part of the official notice to her. Respondent became upset and started crying because these issues were statements made against her by colleagues, and she did not know so many people were upset with her. She testified that none of her colleagues ever approached her about any of these complaints or issues. She thought that the meeting was called to discuss one specific incident regarding one specific child. She was overwhelmed when she learned that there were so many complaints against her by teachers who had never said anything to her. Respondent was completely unaware that the statements from other teachers had even been taken. She admitted she felt betrayed and was extremely upset, stunned, and shocked. She did not threaten any person and did not confront any of the complaining teachers or staff members. Groth claimed to be worried about the safety and security of her staff and students, because of Respondent's profanity, emotional state, and explosive behavior at the meeting. Groth worried about Respondent "going after" one of the people on the list of witnesses announced at the meeting. After the meeting, Respondent was escorted off the campus without incident. Groth's belief that the mood at her school changed after Respondent arrived, without her own specific observations of conduct by Respondent, is nonetheless credited. However, her "sense" of an atmospheric change falls short of clear and convincing evidence of a violation of a policy or rule by Respondent. While Groth had the responsibility to observe and evaluate Respondent's performance, Respondent had the right to professionally and respectfully defend that performance in the observation conference. The manner of her evaluation performance defense does not violate any statutory policy or rule. However, the undersigned finds that Respondent's use of profanity and her unrestrained and explosive conduct, at the investigative meeting, were inappropriate and insubordinate. Petitioner provided sufficient and credible evidence to prove a violation of the rules and policies by clear and convincing evidence regarding her actions and conduct during this investigatory meeting with Groth. Other Relevant Events and Testimony From Respondent Aside from teachers who claimed difficulties or hostile encounters with Respondent, there were also teachers and colleagues who complimented her work and teaching methods. Janine Brockelbank has been a "push in" teacher at Frontier since 2003, like Turnbull. When she worked together in the room, she did not observe any problems with Turnbull. She observed Respondent working with Lisa Caprio's students, and the interaction seemed positive and professional to her. Turnbull often spoke closely and quietly to children in consideration of the privacy of the children and to prevent embarrassment. Brockelbank also stated that Respondent was cooperative and collaborative when they compared lesson plans with one another. Caprio taught at Frontier since it opened in 2001. She found Respondent to be on time and was always prepared to work with students. She promptly got started with the students and seemed to be ready to work with them. Caprio never had any issues with Respondent in her classroom. Caprio stated she did not find any issues with a teacher interrupting her lesson for assistance with a student. In her view, it was appropriate for a "push in" teacher to ask for her help with a student. Jennifer Eddy taught at Frontier for 13 years. Eddy observed Respondent work with her students. There was nothing that Respondent did while she was teaching in the same room that disturbed her or kept her from doing her job, nor caused her concern for the well-being of Eddy's students while they were taught by Respondent. Eddy thought that Respondent's one-on-one instruction seemed appropriate, collaborative, positive, helpful, and beneficial to the students. Catherine Burda is a 14-year veteran teacher at Frontier. She observed Respondent work hard and well with one of her students and felt she learned a lot from Respondent. Respondent had a good relationship with her students and came prepared each day. Burda wrote a positive and praising email to the principal regarding Respondent's work. Resp. Ex. 16. Burda appreciated that Respondent always spoke honestly and freely with her. Karen Lundgren worked with Respondent at H.L. Johnson and considered her to be a good colleague. Lundgren worked closely with Respondent, who was cooperative, collegial, and friendly. Respondent got along with students and taught them well. She acted professional and caring towards both students and colleagues. Smyrna Daumec, an 18-year teacher, taught with Respondent at H.L. Johnson. She found Respondent to be a good colleague because Respondent would contribute ideas on how they could work together and they shared lesson plans. Notably, she witnessed Respondent having professional disagreements with colleagues, but none of those professional disagreements adversely impacted her ability to teach. Respondent knew the material that she was teaching and was a cooperative coworker. Respondent was kind to the students and not belittling or mean. Parent S.S. had a daughter in Respondent's third- grade, gifted math class at H.L. Johnson. Her child learned and made progress in Respondent's class. Respondent remains her favorite teacher to this day. Her child learned and achieved in Respondent's class. Respondent consistently kept S.S. updated on her child's progress through email or notes in the agenda. S.S. never had any problems with Respondent, and her daughter had a good year of school when she was with Turnbull. She observed that Respondent interacted warmly with students and parents and acted very friendly and cheerful. Parent C.B. knew Respondent as a teacher for her two children at H.L. Johnson. When her children had Respondent as a teacher, they never acted or manifested a desire not to go to school. Respondent kept her updated on her children's progress, and she had open communication with Respondent while she was the teacher for both of her children. She found Respondent to be volunteering and helpful. She saw Respondent interact with other children in addition to her own when she was on campus and did not observe anything that was negative in those interactions. Her children had good years in school when they were in Respondent's class and seemed happy with her as a teacher, despite Respondent being a strict teacher. As a parent, C.B. was very happy with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order withdrawing the proposed five-day suspension and issuing instead a letter of reprimand to Respondent regarding her conduct during the investigatory interview with her school principal. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 9th day of March, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp (Sapp), was nonrenewed for his annual teaching contract for constitutionally permissible reasons.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first employed by the Escambia County School Board for the 1984-85 school year in the compensatory education program at Bellview Middle School and later that school year he took the place of an eighth grade math teacher who was out on maternity leave. Sapp holds a Florida Teaching Certificate in elementary education and is not certified to teach in middle school. He has a bachelors degree. Sapp was asked by the School Board to take the courses necessary to become certified in middle school math, but did not do so because he was working at another job at the time. Petitioner was hired on annual contract by the principal of Bellview Middle School to teach seventh grade math during the 1985-86 school year and to teach sixth grade for the 1986-87 school year. For the most part, Sapp received excellent performance evaluations from the Bellview principal. In September, 1986, a mother of a Bellview Middle School student complained to the principal regarding what she believed to be unacceptable contact between Sapp and her son. The principal told Sapp to stay away from the student, but the parent's complaints continued. The student had been in Sapp's seventh grade math class the prior school year. On November 7, 1986, Sapp was arrested for lewd and lascivious assault on that student. As a result of these charges the Superintendent of the Escambia County School District recommended to the School Board that Sapp be suspended without pay. The School Board voted to disapprove the Superintendent's recommendation. Instead, Sapp was reassigned to administrative duties at the Hall Center. In the fall of 1986, Sapp was also notified by the Department of Education, Professional Practices Services (PPS), that an investigation of the allegations involved in the criminal charge had been instituted. On April 1, 1987, Sapp received the standard memo from the School Board, signed by the Bellview principal, indicating that his annual contract was going to expire at the end of the 1986-87 school year. The memo also indicated that the school district would move as rapidly as possible on the reappointment of the annual contract teachers recommended to the Superintendent for reappointment for the 1987-88 school year, but "personnel assignments resulting from the closing of the Beggs Center and the redistricting of all middle school boundaries greatly obscures the timeline for such reappointments." During the summer of 1987, Sapp talked to Dr. Roger Mott, the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Services of the school district, and others in his office regarding appointment to an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year. Sapp claims he was told by Mott that he would not be rehired until after his criminal trial. Mott denies telling this to Sapp. Because Sapp's testimony was very confused and contradictory regarding these alleged statements by Mott, Sapp's version is given little weight. Instead, it is found that Mott did not tell Sapp that he would be rehired after the criminal trial. During the discussions between Sapp and Mott in the summer of 1987, Mott did tell Sapp that he was free to interview with any principals in the district for open annual contract positions, however those principals who inquired would be told that there was a Professional Practices Services investigation. Sapp expressed interest only in employment at Bellview. During 1987 the middle schools of Escambia County were redistricted. As a result of redistricting, Bellview Middle School anticipated losing approximately 300 students and 10 teaching positions for the 1987-88 school year. After the jury found him not guilty on August 12, 1987, Sapp again inquired regarding employment. According to Charles McCurley, principal of Bellview Middle School, there were no positions available at Bellview. By letter dated August 21, 1987, Sapp was advised that the Professional Practices Services was investigating two complaints. The first related to the charge of lewd and lascivious assault on a child. The second complaint was that Sapp had received his teaching certificate by fraudulent means because he failed to disclose two criminal convictions on his applications. Mott became aware of the PPS investigation and he discovered that Sapp had apparently falsified the applications for his teaching certificate and the applications for employment with the Escambia County School District. Mott then informed Sapp that the chances of reemployment were not good and that he could not be considered for employment until the PPS investigation was complete. Mott also testified that Sapp was not reemployed because of the information that formed the basis of the second PPS investigation. While this is not the place to determine whether or not Sapp falsified these applications, it is necessary to determine what facts the Respondent acted on in not renewing Sapp's annual contract. Sapp's applications to both the school district and the state showed that he answered "no" when asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony or first degree misdemeanor or other criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. Sapp has, in fact, been convicted of at least two such violations which were not disclosed. Sapp approached Robert Husbands, Executive Director of the Escambia Education Association, for assistance in getting employment. Husbands talked to Mott. Mott informed him that Sapp could not be rehired until the PPS investigation was resolved. Husbands found that there were seven teaching positions in the whole county which were vacant at the beginning of the 1987-88 school year. Two of those positions were located some distance from Pensacola. Only one of those positions was known to have been filled by an annual contract teacher. There were 37 annual contract teachers in the school district who were not renewed for the 1987-88 school year. Eight others who were not renewed at the beginning of the school year were rehired during the year. Because of redistricting, Bellview had only one opening for an annual contract teacher after it placed its continuing contract teachers. That one opening was for reading and was filled by a reading teacher with a masters degree. Sapp was not qualified for that position. After the 1987-88 school year had begun, Bellview experienced increased enrollment and a resulting increase in teaching positions. Those positions were filled by teachers who were teaching in their field of certification and who were at least as qualified as Sapp. It was very important that Bellview have teachers working in their area of certification because the school was to be audited for accreditation in the 1987-88 school year. Sapp's former position at Bellview was filled by a continuing contract teacher who had previously taught seventh grade and who was certified to teach in both middle and elementary school. The teacher who took over Sapp's class in the 1986-87 school year was not rehired. During the first week of the 1987-88 school year, Sapp sought employment at Bellview and the principal correctly told him there were no jobs. Later, in October, 1987, a position opened up at Bellview and a continuing contract teacher with a masters degree in reading and 18 years of experience was transferred in at her request. Sapp believes he was not renewed as retaliation for the School Board's rejection of the Superintendent's recommendation for suspension on January 27, 1987. This allegation is based only on Sapp's personal feeling and no evidence was presented to substantiate his belief. Sapp also believes he was not renewed because of the arrest itself. Again, no evidence was presented to substantiate his belief. By letter of September 18, 1987, the School District, through counsel, advised Sapp's attorney that Sapp would not be considered for reemployment until the PPS investigation was concluded and the District was advised of the results. The PPS has not filed any complaint against Sapp based on either of its investigations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp, be DENIED relief from the nonrenewal of his annual contract and that his request for relief be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5059 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Finding's of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Ricky Lynn Sapp Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(10); 3(12); 4(14); 5(2); 6(2); 8(3); 9(3); 11(4); 12(5); 13(8); 15(6); 16(7); 18(23); 20(20); 21(24); 22(26); 23(26); and 25(27). Proposed findings of fact 7, 17, 28 and 29 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 10 is rejected as irrelevant. Propose findings of fact 14, 19, 24, 26, 27, and 30 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, School Board of Escambia County Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(9); 2(1 and 10); 3(11); 4(25); 5(25); 6(13); 7(14 and 16); 8(15 and 22); 9(18); 10(22 and 23); 11(6); 12(19); 13(29); 14(30 and 31); 15(32); 16(33); 18(19); 19(27); 20(28); 21(33); 22(34); and 23(35). Proposed finding of fact 17 is rejected as being unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 24 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: G. James Roark, III, Esquire 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Philip J. Padovano, Esquire Post Office Box 873 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mike Holloway Superintendent of School Board Escambia County 215 West Garden Street Post Office Box 1470 Pensacola, Florida 32597-1470 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has sufficient grounds to support dismissal of Respondent from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly- constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida (“School District”), pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an elementary school teacher by the School Board and currently holds a professional services contract. He began working for the School District on or about March 2007, in the middle of the 2006-2007 school year. His first assignment was at Holmes Elementary School where he worked on a “waiver,” since he did not have an elementary education certification. The principal asked him to get his certification in elementary education, which he did. According to Respondent, he was asked to start working early because the principal did not have enough teachers. During that year, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas of evaluation and was rehired for the 2007-2008 school year. Prior to becoming a teacher in Miami-Dade County, Respondent served in the United States military from 1978-1985, and had worked as a registered nurse. He holds an associate’s degree from Miami-Dade College, a bachelor’s degree from Florida International University (“FIU”), two master’s degrees from FIU, an academic certificate in gerontological studies from FIU, and an academic teaching certificate from FIU. For the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent worked at Little River Elementary School (“Little River”). The principal at Little River asked Respondent to work on another “waiver,” this time for teaching English as a Second Language students (“ESOL”). After completing the necessary coursework, Respondent received an ESOL certification. Respondent remained at Little River through the 2008-2009 school year until he was involuntarily transferred to Scott Lake Elementary School (“Scott Lake”) for the 2009-2010 school year. During the latter two years at Little River, he was evaluated as meeting standards in all areas. According to Respondent, he was transferred to Scott Lake because the administration of Little River objected to the number of student discipline referrals (“SCMs”) he was writing on students. Respondent reports having written somewhere between 600 and 700 SCMs on students over the years. Respondent freely admits he wrote many SCMs at every school he worked at and highlights that fact as an excuse for why he performed poorly. During Respondent’s first three years of employment at Holmes Elementary and Little River, he was evaluated across the board on his annual evaluations as “Meets Standards.” During this period of time, the only other rating an employee could receive was “Does Not Meet Standards.” During the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent’s principal for his first year at Scott Lake was Valerie Ward. During the 2009-2010 school year, the School District made changes to the teacher performance evaluation system. Use of the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System (“IPEGS”) was implemented. The IPEGS Summative Performance Evaluations (“SPEs”) were now comprised of eight Performance Standards, where a teacher could be rated “Exemplary,” “Proficient,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In her first year with Respondent, Ms. Ward rated him “Proficient” in all eight standards. At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Ward placed Respondent on a 90-day performance probation pursuant to section 1012.34. During this 90-day probation process, he was observed by administration on at least five different occasions, was put on several improvement plans, and had several meetings with administrators. The 90-day probation process is very time- consuming for both the subject employee and the employee’s administration. In other words, it is not the preferred task of a busy principal, unless he or she must, and then only when it is warranted by poor performance. Respondent believes Ms. Ward placed him on performance probation to retaliate against him because he complained about the temperature in his classroom. This is the first of many excuses and justifications Respondent has offered to explain criticisms of his performance by administrators. For the 2010-2011 school year at Scott Lake, Respondent was again evaluated as proficient in all areas. On or about April 2012, Principal Lakesha Wilson- Rochelle assumed Ms. Ward’s role at Scott Lake. Principal Rochelle signed off on Respondent’s summative evaluation during the 2011-2012 school year, but did not fill it out, since it had already been completed by someone else. The score placed Respondent in the “needs improvement” category. She signed it only because she was required to do so, and the summative evaluation rating she gave him for the next school year was even worse by several points. It was also during the 2011-2012 school year that IPEGS underwent another change. Now there were seven professional practice standards on which teachers were evaluated and one standard that was based on actual student data. Use of IPEGS IPEGS was approved by the Florida Department of Education (“FDOE”) for all years relevant to this case. The IPEGS processes from the 2013-2014 school year forward consisted of the following: Each teacher that had been teaching for more than two years received one formal observation. If during that observation the teacher’s performance was sufficient, nothing more need be done, outside of a summative evaluation at the end of the year. However, informal feedback is given to teachers throughout the year after classroom walkthroughs and through other means. If a teacher was observed to be deficient in one or more standards during the formal observation, the teacher and administration would engage in something called “support dialogue” in which support in various forms is provided to the teacher, so that the deficiencies can be remediated. If the teacher still exhibits performance deficiencies after the support dialogue, they are placed on the 90-day performance probation. While on performance probation, the teacher is observed another four times after the initial observation. After the second, third and fourth observations, if the teacher has not remediated, the administration develops an improvement plan, which must be followed. The improvement plan gives the teacher assignments and assistance to aid him or her in remediating any deficiencies. Also, each teacher, regardless of whether placed on performance probation, receives an SPE, as well as a Summative Performance Evaluation Rating (“SPE Rating”) of either “Highly Effective,” “Effective,” “Developing/Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory.” In addition to the seven professional practice standards, a data component is also factored into the SPE Rating known as the VAM. The VAM As explained by Director of Research Services Dr. Aleksander Shneyderman (“Dr. S”), the VAM is a statistical model that attempts to measure a teacher’s impact on student learning growth through the use of a multi-level lineal regression. Dr. S has been working with the VAM, since its inception in 2010-2011. He has studied it and keeps abreast of Florida’s rules and regulations of how to calculate it. Dr. S and his office calculate what is called “Local VAM” for the School District. He also provides trainings to School District employees on the use of the VAM. Dr. S was tendered and accepted in this proceeding as an expert in VAM calculation. Local VAM is usually calculated in September/October by his office after the previous year’s testing data become available. Various assessments are used to create the Local VAM. It is calculated in compliance with state statutes, and the methodology is approved each year by FDOE. Also, the methods for calculating the Local VAM are bargained for and ratified by the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”) teacher’s union. The Florida VAM is calculated by the State using a model that is approved by the Florida Commissioner of Education. The results of the Florida VAM are given to Dr. S’s office by the State. The Florida VAM is created using the Florida Standards Assessment (“FSA”). In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, Respondent’s Local VAM scores were calculated by Dr. S’s office and based upon his students’ results on the Stanford 8 Achievement Test, 10th edition. UTD approved the methodology in VAM calculation for both of these years. For the 2015-2016 school year, Respondent’s VAM score was the Florida VAM in English language arts for fifth grade. The goal of the VAM is to measure a teacher’s effectiveness on student learning growth. In order to do this as accurately as possible, students are compared to similar students for an “apples to apples” comparison. Only students with the same demographic characteristics, as well as the same prior year’s test scores are compared to one another. The demographic factors considered are English Language Learner (“ELL”) status, gifted status, disability status, relative age (which considers whether a child was retained in a previous grade), and attendance (which was added in 2014-2015). Student demographics and the prior year’s test scores must be exactly the same. Based on these demographics and past scores, an expected score is created for each student. If the student exceeds that score, the credit for that success is given to the teacher. The School Board and Dr. S concede that the VAM does not account for every possible student performance variable, because, simply put, this would be impossible, since there are a limitless number of factors that could be considered. Moreover, certain factors are forbidden to be used by the Legislature, including socioeconomic status, race, gender, and ethnicity. (See § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.). Respondent argues that because not every imaginable factor that might affect a student’s grade is captured, that the VAM is not useful. Respondent claims that factors beyond the teacher might be causing poor performance, for example: lack of parental engagement. While levels of parental engagement could impact student performance, the School Board states that it is following state statutes to the letter and doing the best it can within the applicable statutory framework. Moreover, just as factors outside of consideration might hurt student performance, other factors might enhance performance, and the teachers receive those possible benefits as well--for example, if parental engagement is good. Those benefits would flow to the teacher, despite not having earned them through his or her personal efforts. Moreover, the VAM score ranges that are used to classify teachers are bargained for with UTD. The ranges have confidence intervals developed through the application of margin of error calculations that mitigate uncertainty to protect and “safeguard” teachers from unfair classifications. In many instances these safeguards give the teachers the benefit of the doubt to make sure they do not fall into the lowest category, which is “unsatisfactory.” Noticeably absent from these bargained for “safeguards” is any mention of how much instructional time a teacher must have with a class before those students’ data can be used to calculate a teacher’s VAM score. UTD has not bargained for any special rules designating when teachers can and cannot be held accountable for their class’ data based on the time they have instructed that class. As such, the only relevant inquiry is whether those students are with that teacher during the FTE period in February. Also, the law (see § 1012.34, Fla. Stat.) makes no mention of any minimum length of instructional time necessary to hold a teacher accountable for his or her students. The 2013-2014 School Year at Scott Lake Refusal to teach basic Spanish In May 2013, near the end of the 2012-2013 school year, Principal Rochelle advised Respondent that he would be teaching a kindergarten class for the 2013-2014 school year and that he would be required to teach them one hour of introductory Spanish. In an email to Principal Rochelle, Respondent asserted that he believed he was being assigned to teach Spanish to the kindergarteners in retaliation for his extensive reporting of student SCMs. In that same email, he advised her that he did not want to teach Spanish. Prior to being advised of this assignment, the School District conducted a language proficiency assessment for Respondent with both a written and verbal component, which he passed. Principal Rochelle had personally seen Respondent speak fluent Spanish to her school secretary and the art teacher. Because Respondent spoke fluent Spanish, or, at least, “conversational” Spanish (as admitted by Respondent’s counsel in his opening), she gave him the assignment. Moreover, as a principal, she had the right to assign Respondent as she saw fit. School Board Policy 3130 - Assignments reinforces this assertion stating, in relevant part, “Instructional staff members may be reassigned to any position for which they are qualified in order to meet needs of the District and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.” In order to teach the one-hour basic Spanish component of the class, Respondent did not need to be certified to teach Spanish. He only needed an elementary education certification, which he had. He even attended a training class on the implementation of the Spanish program. Respondent admits he can speak Spanish, write basic Spanish, has taken Spanish classes and passed the School District’s proficiency exam. Curiously, he objected to them giving the proficiency exam to him based on the grounds he was “singled out” for having a Hispanic last name, having been overheard speaking the language, and because he is not from a Spanish-speaking country. These are not reasonable objections when the School District explained the objective reasons listed above regarding Respondent’s qualifications to provide the basic- level Spanish instruction. Respondent persisted in his belief that he is “not qualified” to teach kindergarten Spanish despite all the evidence to the contrary. Respondent simply refused to do something that he was entirely capable of doing and that was within his ambit of responsibilities. He described one of the lessons he was allegedly incapable of teaching as follows, “You put a CD in the player. The kids sing songs in Spanish. The kids cut out pictures of objects and match them to a picture with the word in Spanish.” The kindergartners in his class did not speak Spanish; they spoke English. The Spanish component of the class was very basic and involved things like vowels, colors, puppets, basic books, and vocabulary words. Contrary to Respondent’s assertions, no complex grammar or sentence structure was involved. Such things are not even part of ordinary English kindergarten instruction, as admitted by Respondent. Moreover, he was provided with materials from which to draw the instruction. Principal Rochelle does not speak Spanish herself, yet believes she could teach the Spanish component, as it is a “piece of cake.” Respondent filed a grievance regarding the Spanish assignment. In order to appease and accommodate Respondent, Principal Rochelle eventually sent a Spanish teacher to his room to teach the Spanish component. However, Respondent then complained that the grades she was entering still had his name attached to them in the computerized grading system. Finally, the principal decided to move him to a first-grade class in early November 2013. Undoubtedly, the requests of Respondent led to this assignment change. Formal IPEGS observation On March 11, 2014, Principal Rochelle performed her formal observation of Respondent pursuant to IPEGS. On that day, no performance deficiencies were noted. However, throughout the year, Principal Rochelle had conducted many informal observations and walkthroughs of his classroom and had already provided him feedback regarding his performance and her expectations. Examples of that feedback can be found in an August 27, 2013, email from Principal Rochelle to Respondent. Moreover, according to Principal Rochelle, teachers tend to be on their best behavior during these observations–-which makes sense, because they know the boss/evaluator is watching. The formal observation is also only a snapshot in time of the teacher’s performance on a particular lesson; it is not a reflection of the entire year’s performance. Respondent has argued that Principal Rochelle has retaliated against him. If that were the case, this observation would have been a perfect opportunity to retaliate against him. However, she found no deficiencies in his performance on this day. Scott Lake SPE—Professional Practice Throughout the rest of the school year, Principal Rochelle made other credible observations regarding Respondent’s performance. Despite her counseling that he meet with parents, he refused to do so. He refused to participate in activities, including field trips, school celebrations, and award ceremonies. Other teachers actually had to hand out awards for him at the ceremony. He refused to implement group instruction techniques and did not take advantage of the presence of reading and math coaches. He refused to implement progressive discipline and “red, green, yellow” behavior management techniques. He refused to implement various discipline strategies laid out in the Student Code of Conduct and school-wide discipline plan prior to writing SCMs on students. Principal Rochelle recalls that he wrote approximately 25 SCMs on one student within the first nine weeks of school and made no attempt to address the behavior issues with the student’s parents. At one point Principal Rochelle accommodated his request to have a student removed from his class. Since this was only Principal Rochelle’s first full year as principal of Scott Lake, and she was still new to the school, she tended to give the teachers the benefit of the doubt when completing their SPEs. She also had a few teachers who had to be terminated for lack of professionalism that were more of a priority for her than Respondent. As such, she rated Respondent as “effective” in six standards on his SPE and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Communication standard. In her view, “effective” is akin to a “C” grade, whereas “highly effective” is “A plus/high B” status, “developing/needs improvement” is a “D,” and “unsatisfactory” is an “F.” When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he testified he would have given himself five “highly effectives” and two “effectives.” He believes Principal Rochelle rated him lower than she should have as a result of retaliation against him for him not wanting to teach Spanish. This is Respondent’s second claim of retaliation against Principal Rochelle, and third claim of retaliation overall. Principal Rochelle’s denial of such retaliation is credited based upon her testimony at hearing and the exhibits offered in support. Despite the fact that Respondent’s 2013-2014 SPE seemed adequate to a casual observer (with the only obvious blemish being the “developing/needs improvement” in the Communication standard), when compared to his peers, a different story emerges. His professional practice points total put him in the bottom .8 percentile for all teachers district-wide and in the bottom 2.6 percentile for all first-grade teachers district-wide. Without belaboring the data, Respondent’s professional practice scores are at the bottom of the barrel, regardless of how you spin them. Scott Lake VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 12.5 points–-the lowest possible score. He was one of 11 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2013-2014 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 29 percent of his first-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent’s VAM was based on the performance of his first-grade students. Respondent believes that, since he was moved to the class in early November 2013, and the SAT exam was given in April, he should not be held accountable for their performance. In order for him to have a fair shake, he claims he would have had to be there instructing the students on week one. Respondent says the amount of time he was given was not fair because, “if I’m the lowest teacher in Miami-Dade County, and here for termination, no, sir, I don’t think it was fair.” If the rule Respondent proposes were implemented as policy, any teacher could simply avoid responsibility for their student’s performance by requesting a transfer sometime after the first week of the year. It is also not uncommon for teachers to have students added or subtracted from their classes throughout the year for a multitude of reasons. This is a fact of life that teachers have to be able to cope with in the ordinary course of business for the School District. Moreover, and somewhat ironically, if another teacher had been teaching Respondent’s students for a portion of the year, based on his SPE Ratings and student achievement data, Respondent probably would have had better scores. The students would likely have been getting a more effective teacher than he. Respondent also claims Principal Rochelle gave him a lower functioning group of students, who were behind in their learning. He explained that he knew they were low-functioning because he gave them “STAR tests” to gauge their ability levels. When pressed on cross-examination, Respondent admitted that he only tested his own students and never anyone else’s. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to know whether his students were any lower-functioning or further behind than any other teachers’ students. Respondent’s doubtful claim is further undercut by Principal Rochelle’s credible testimony that she selected the members of his first-grade class at random from overcrowded classrooms. Respondent’s claims that he was robbed of instructional time by field trips and fundraising activities, matters that are required of all teachers, are unconvincing excuses for his students’ poor performance. The 2014-2015 School Year at Norwood Shortly after the start of the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent requested a hardship transfer to Norwood Elementary School (“Norwood”) because the school day at Scott Lake was going to be increased by one hour. Despite the fact that he would have been compensated approximately $4,500.00 for this time, he chose to transfer schools. Principal Kevin Williams (or Dr. Williams) had a teacher on leave so he assigned Respondent to fill that gap. Respondent started teaching a kindergarten class, but was moved to a second-grade class during the first week of school. Prior to conducting a formal IPEGS observation of Respondent, Dr. Williams had performed several walkthroughs of his classroom. Based on these walkthroughs, Dr. Williams advised Respondent that he was not properly implementing the school discipline plan. Respondent also refused to implement “grouping” of the students during instruction time. Dr. Williams also had a reading coach model lessons for Respondent and assigned him a teaching assistant. Respondent was the only teacher who received this level of assistance. Dr. Williams even went so far as to have two meetings with UTD prior to his formal evaluation of Respondent in order to help him. By October 2014, Dr. Williams had already explained his expectations to Respondent. Formal IPEGS observation On October 1, 2014, Principal Williams performed the formal IPEGS evaluation of Respondent. Principal Williams noted no deficiencies on that day. Generally speaking, Principal Williams does not view these observations as punitive. Over the years, Dr. Williams has conducted approximately 240 observations of teachers, and, generally, the employees are “on point” when being watched. Moreover, like Principal Rochelle, Dr. Williams views these observations as a snapshot of teacher performance while the SPE captures the year- long performance. In the report of the observation, Dr. Williams suggested that Respondent promote interactions with students, encourage more student participation, connect to prior student knowledge and interests, and present concepts at different levels of complexity, among other items. Norwood SPE—Professional Practice After the formal observation, Dr. Williams continued to conduct walkthroughs of Respondent’s class. He observed the same issues with refusing to use “grouping” and refusing to properly implement the discipline plan. Respondent never took advantage of the modeling techniques that were provided for him. He also was not implementing differentiated instruction. Dr. Williams himself held a professional development class on campus for the school discipline plan, which, instead of attending, Respondent attended a social studies class off campus. Instead of following the prescribed discipline plan, Respondent was trying to control the behavior of his students with treats. Similar to his time at Scott Lake, he refused to participate in field trips, staff gatherings, award assemblies, and student activity days. Respondent had lesson plans, but did not always follow them. He would spend an inordinate amount of time on vocabulary. He gave some tests, but would refuse to grade other tests. The pattern of his teaching was inconsistent, at best. On his SPE, Principal Williams rated Respondent as “effective” in five standards, “highly effective” in one, and as “developing/needs improvement” for the Learning Environment standard. Dr. Williams’ rating for Learning Environment was lower because Respondent failed to implement appropriate discipline strategies despite being told to do so. In eight years of being a principal, this was the first time he had ever given a teacher a “needs improvement” rating. He mostly gives his teachers combinations of “highly effective” and “effective,” if they do what they are supposed to do. Nevertheless, Dr. Williams testified he still went easy on Respondent because he was new to the school. In terms of his SPE professional practice points, Respondent scored in the bottom two percentile for second-grade teachers district-wide and was the worst rated second-grade teacher at Norwood. Instead of following the discipline plan, Respondent was using the emergency call button, writing SCMs, and writing to the superintendent to have ten students removed from his class. Another teacher at the school, Mr. W, had the exact same set of students as Respondent, only he taught them in the afternoon and not in the morning. He had none of the same behavior management issues Respondent had with this same group of children. Respondent claimed that Mr. W was able to manage the children better because, like the students, he was African-American. When asked how Respondent would have rated himself in these seven SPE standards, he would have given himself six “highly effectives” and one “effective.” He believes Principal Williams rated him lower than he should have as a result of retaliation against him for writing SCMs and because he complained about the size of his initial kindergarten class. This marked Respondent’s fourth claim of retaliation overall. Principal Williams credibly denied such retaliation at the hearing. Norwood VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s Local VAM score for learner progress points was 8.75 points-–the lowest possible score, again. He was one of 50 first-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only six percent of his second-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from Norwood should not be considered because of his students’ behavioral issues. He also stated he did not have enough textbooks to send home with students. Much like at Scott Lake, he believes he was intentionally given bad students. This is peculiar for two reasons. First, Dr. Williams first tried to assign Respondent another class, but Respondent complained that one was too big. To accept this argument, the viewer would have to believe Dr. Williams knew Respondent would reject the larger class, and the principal had another one in the wings filled with “bad” students to make Respondent look ineffective. Second, Mr. W had none of the same problems Respondent did with this same group of students in the afternoon. To accept this contention, Principal Williams’ plan only “worked” on Respondent, since he was singled out for retaliation. This line of argument is nonsensical, at best. The 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 School Years at Aventura Waterways K-8 In looking for the right fit, Respondent was sent to Aventura Waterways K-8 (“AWK8”) for the 2015-2016 school year. He remained there for the 2016-2017 school year until he was dismissed from his employment in March 2017. As at his previous school assignments, the administrators at AWK8 tried to work with Respondent and the UTD to let him know their expectations prior to the formal observations. During these two school years Respondent was observed formally by Principal Luis Bello and Assistant Principal Ileana Robles on no less than nine occasions. In both years, during his initial observations, his performance was found to be deficient; and he was immediately placed on support dialogue and, eventually, 90-day performance probation. During these two probationary periods, he was provided assistance through improvement plans and completed all his improvement plan assignments. The goal was to help him remediate his deficiencies. The only change he ever implemented was switching from block to weekly lesson plans. Both his instructional delivery and the learning environment never improved. During these observations, Principal Bello and Assistant Principal Robles both observed the same repeated deficiencies, which they described in meticulous detail at the hearing. Summarizing their testimony, the issues concerning Respondent were: Pacing. Respondent spends too much time on issues and did not complete entire lesson plans. Questioning students. Respondent only uses basic, easy to answer questions; does not ask enough questions; or is dismissive of questions. Failing to properly explain concepts to students or to activate prior knowledge. Respondent fails to prompt students in order to generate interest in the subject matter and holds no conversations about the material in class. Not using challenging enough material. Respondent’s material was so basic that parents were concerned their children were getting grades they did not deserve and not learning grade- appropriate material. Principal Bello described Respondent’s instruction as “robotic” and lacking any semblance of “passion.” AWK8—Professional Practice On his SPE, Principal Bello rated Respondent as “effective” in two standards, and “unsatisfactory” in five standards. Principal Bello’s ratings were in line with the repeated deficiencies discussed above. He awarded Respondent “unsatisfactory” ratings because Respondent never remediated his deficiencies. Principal Bello credibly stands by his SPE Ratings as honest and admits to spending a great deal of time on them. In terms of his SPE professional practice points for 2015-2016, Respondent scored in the bottom (0) percentile for fifth-grade teachers at AWK8, all teachers at AWK8, fifth-grade teachers district-wide, and all teachers district-wide. When asked what Respondent would have rated himself in these seven standards, he would have given himself seven “highly effectives.” He believes Principal Bello rated him lower than he should have been rated, but could not say why. AWK8 VAM and overall SPE Rating Respondent’s State VAM score for learner progress points was 8.5 points-–the lowest possible score, for the third year in a row. He was the only one of 98 fifth-grade teachers district-wide who scored the bare minimum, putting him in the lowest (0) percentile. His overall SPE Rating for the 2014-2015 school year was “Needs Improvement.” Only 32 percent of his fifth-grade students met or exceeded their performance expectations. Respondent believes that his VAM points from AWK8 are not legitimate for a variety of reasons, none of which relate to his own shortcomings. Respondent’s excuses and the reasons not to credit those excuses are as follows: Respondent argues that his VAM cannot be counted against him because his afternoon class of fifth graders were ELL, and they spoke a variety of languages, including French, Russian, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. His theory was that they performed poorly because of their poor grasp of the English language. For VAM scoring purposes, this excuse should not be credited because the VAM already takes into account their ELL status by comparing them only to other ELL students with identical demographics and prior test scores; and they are not expected to perform as well as non-ELL students. However, by Respondent’s own admission his afternoon ELL class was the best class he had had in ten years of teaching. He said they had emotional balance, presence of mind, and good parental engagement. He even explained how his ESOL certification assisted him in understanding how to teach them. According to him, by the end of the year, the students were at the level where they would be having conversations. Respondent also had another ESOL-certified teacher assist him for a portion of the year, which was a standard practice. Finally, ELL students, who are brand new to the country, are not calculated into the VAM because there are no prior year scores for which they can be compared “apples to apples.” Respondent himself testified that the lowest level ELL students did not get graded. This makes sense because Respondent testified that his afternoon ELL class was 31 students-–yet only 15 ELL students were factored into the data used to calculate his VAM score for 2015-2016. In sum, the grades of the lowest English language functioning students were not even held against him. Respondent next argues that the numbers of students in both his morning and afternoon classes at AWK8 exceeded class size restrictions. Respondent “believes” his morning class had 24 or so students, but only 18 after the special education students were removed. When the student data is examined, it appears that Respondent only had 15 non-ELL students factored into his VAM score. As for the afternoon ELL class, otherwise considered by him the best class he has ever had, Respondent claims there were 31 in that class. Even assuming Respondent’s numbers are accurate (and they do not seem to be, given the VAM data), these class sizes do not run afoul of class size restrictions and are commonplace at AWK8. The School District operates on averages for class size compliance and everyone teaching fifth grade at AWK8 had similar class sizes. None of those other teachers had the same problems Respondent did. Moreover, Respondent reported the alleged class size violations to the FDOE, and they did nothing about it. Respondent further argues that his morning group of students was once again a “bad” group that did not give him a “fair shot.” According to Respondent, he had a student who would sit in a garbage can and another that would tell him “F_ _k you” every day. He had behavior concerns with four to five students in the morning class. Eventually, the student who sat in the garbage can was removed from the class. Respondent then testified that these behavior issues were exacerbated by his absence from the classroom when he was performing his improvement plan activities. He now appears to be placing his behavior concerns on the administration for doing their job by trying to assist him and by remediating his deficiencies. Behavior management is integral to being a teacher. A teacher must not be allowed to escape his or her own responsibility for performance shortcomings by blaming it on the students. At every school where Respondent has taught, he has admittedly written a large number of SCMs, had behavior issues with his students, and believes he was purposely given “bad” students. The only common thread among these schools is Respondent. Nevertheless, he refuses to acknowledge that he might possibly be even a part of the problem and believes he has done nothing wrong. Respondent also blames his poor VAM on the fact that fundraising activities, book fairs, student activity days, and dances all detracted from instructional time at AWK8. This is the same excuse he used for his poor VAM at Norwood and holds no weight, since these are activities that all teachers at all schools must cope with as part of the instructional process. Respondent’s Termination by the School Board Respondent’s case was the first of its kind brought pursuant to section 1012.33(3)(b) (“3-year provision”), since this was the first time the School District had the requisite number of years’ data available. Of the thousands of teachers working for Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Respondent was part of a singular group of seven to nine teachers who fell into the three-year provision of the statute having the necessary combination of “needs improvement” or “unsatisfactory” final overall SPE Ratings. Of that handful of teachers, Respondent was the single worst. Respondent’s performance actually declined each year despite the assistance provided for and made available to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent’s employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 430 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Polk County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause for terminating the employment of Respondent, David McCall.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner under a professional services contract as a classroom teacher at Lake Region High School, a unit of the Polk County Public School System. On Wednesday, October 3, 2007, a student entered the Respondent’s classroom approximately ten minutes after class had commenced. The student’s tardiness was apparently related to her participation as a donor in a blood drive occurring at the school on that date. At the time the student entered the classroom, the Respondent was engaged in administering a standard quiz, and the time allotted for the quiz was about to end. The Respondent directed the student to remain outside the classroom and take the quiz. The student advised the Respondent that she donated blood and, feeling dizzy, had hit her foot on a doorway. She told the Respondent that she injured her toe and requested that she be allowed to go to the school clinic. The Petitioner presented a statement allegedly written by the student asserting that her toe was bleeding at the time the Respondent observed the toe. The student did not testify, and the written statement is insufficient to establish that the toe was bleeding at the time she entered the classroom. The Respondent testified that he observed the toe and saw perhaps a minor abrasion but saw no evidence of serious injury. The Respondent declined to refer the student to the clinic and again instructed the student to remain outside the classroom and complete the quiz. The student remained outside the classroom and presumably began taking the quiz. Shortly thereafter, another teacher walking in the hallway observed the student sitting outside the Respondent’s classroom with a paper towel under her foot. The teacher observed the student shaking and blood on the towel and asked the student about the situation. The student advised the teacher of the circumstances, stating that she felt like she was going to “pass out.” The teacher, with the assistance of a third teacher, obtained a wheelchair, retrieved the student’s belongings from the Respondent’s classroom, and advised the Respondent that the student was being taken to the clinic. After the student was transported to the clinic, her mother was called. The mother came to the school and retrieved her daughter, observing that the toe was bloody and swollen. The mother subsequently took her daughter to a doctor and testified that the student was referred for x-rays of the injured toe. Later on October 3, 2007, the student’s mother contacted the school principal, Joel McGuire, to inquire as to the manner in which the matter had been handled by the Respondent. The principal advised the mother he would follow up on her inquiry. On Thursday morning, October 4, 2007, Principal McGuire sent an email to the Respondent and asked him to come to Principal McGuire’s office during a planning period or after 2:30 p.m. “to confirm some information” about the student. The Respondent did not respond to the email and did not comply with Principal McGuire’s request to meet at that time. After receiving no response from the Respondent, Principal McGuire left a copy of the email in the Respondent’s mailbox at approximately 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 4, 2007, with a handwritten note asking the Respondent to come to the principal’s office on the following Friday morning “before school.” The Respondent did not respond to the note left in the mailbox and did not appear at the principal’s office prior to the start of Friday classes. Based on the lack of response, Principal McGuire sent another email to the Respondent on Friday, October 5, 2007, and asked him to come to the principal’s office at 6:30 a.m. on Monday. The email advised that the meeting was “to discuss the situation which occurred on Wednesday, October 3rd” so that the principal could respond to the mother’s inquiry. Although the Respondent was routinely present on the school campus by 6:30 a.m. on school days, the Respondent replied to the principal and declined to meet at that time, stating that the “proposed meeting time is not within my contracted hours.” The principal thereafter emailed the Respondent and requested that he come to the principal’s office at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, October 8, 2007. The email stated as follows: Mother is really needing information concerning the situation which took place in your class. I do need to meet with you and provide a response to her. I believe 10:30 a.m. is during your planning period. Thanks for coming by my office. The principal received no response to this email and the October 8, 2007, meeting did not occur. The principal thereafter sent a letter to the Respondent dated October 12, 2007, which stated as follows: I am requesting a meeting with you Monday, October 15, 2007, at 8:00 a.m. I will provide a substitute in your classroom in order for you to meet with me. The meeting will be very brief. I need some information about [student], a student you had in 2nd period geometry, in order to inform her mother. This is the sixth request for a meeting. Failure to comply with my request will be deemed insubordination and will require additional actions. The Respondent attended the meeting, but refused to provide any information, stating, “I am not going to respond to you.” By letter dated October 22, 2007, the Respondent received a written reprimand for his “refusal to assist in the investigation of an incident involving [student] on October 3, 2007." The letter advised that the first step of progressive discipline, a verbal warning, was being omitted because of the “seriousness of your actions and the possible consequences.” In relevant part, the letter provided as follows: Attached to this letter is my memorandum setting forth the events and facts as I have best been able to determine. As indicated, you have been uncooperative in our effort to investigate the facts surrounding this incident. Most significantly, when we were finally able to meet in my office on October 15, 2007, you refused to discuss the circumstances surrounding [student’s] situation and you stated specifically, “I am not going to respond to you.” This situation involved an injured student and our school’s response to that incident. Your refusal to assist or participate in the investigation is contrary to your obligation as a teacher to respond suitably to issues of a student’s health and welfare, is adverse to the school’s obligation to address concerns of the parents, and is completely contrary to your obligations as an employee of the Polk County School Board. Please understand that this letter of reprimand is addressed solely to your refusal to participate, cooperate or assist in the investigation of this incident. Should the outcome of the investigation indicate that your conduct in dealing with the student was inappropriate, I am reserving the right to request further disciplinary action by the Superintendent. Please note that a suspension without pay is the next step in progressive discipline as set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In conclusion, the letter directed the Respondent to prepare a signed “full written report” of the incident, including “your recollections and observation of the events and your justification for your actions you took in response to this incident.” The letter directed the Respondent to deliver the report within five days of the Respondent’s receipt of the letter and, further, stated that “refusal to take such action and to cooperate in the investigation may have serious consequences regarding your employment.” The memorandum attached to the letter provided a chronology of events identifying all participants and specifically referencing the principal’s multiple attempts to obtain information from the Respondent. The Respondent failed to provide the written statement as required by the October 22, 2007, letter of reprimand and failed to otherwise provide information to the Petitioner. By letter dated November 15, 2007, from Principal McGuire to Superintendent Dr. Gail McKinzie, the principal requested that the superintendent issue a five-day suspension without pay to the Respondent for “gross insubordination.” The letter misidentified the date of the incident as October 4, 2007. By letter dated November 29, 2007, the superintendent suspended the Respondent without pay for five days. The letter, repeating the misidentification of the date of the incident, stated in relevant part as follows: On October 4, 2007, you denied a student’s request to go to the school clinic. It was determined that the student had a broken toe. Your administrator, Joel McGuire, has made six verbal requests and two written requests for information on this incident. The last request was made on October 22, 2007, in a formal letter of reprimand which stated “your refusal to take such action and to cooperate in this investigation may have serious consequence for your employment. This recommendation for a five day suspension without pay is provided for in Article IV section 4.4-1 of the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement and is a result of your continued insubordination and refusal to follow the requests of your immediate supervisor. Please be advised that future incidents of this nature may result in additional disciplinary action. The letter of suspension advised the Respondent that the suspension would be in effect from December 5 through 7, 10, and 11, 2007, and that he should report back to work on December 12, 2007. The Respondent served the suspension without pay. In a letter dated December 13, 2007 (“Subject: October 4, 2007, incident”), from Principal McGuire, the Respondent was advised as follows: I have made repeated verbal and written requests from you for your explanation of the events in which you participated on October 4, 2007, involving a student requiring medical attention. This is my final request to you for a written explanation of those events. You are herby directed to report to my office at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, December 17, 2007, and you are instructed to have with you at that time a written explanation of the events in question. You shall also be prepared to answer any questions regarding what occurred on that day and the actions you took. You should not have any classes at that time, but I will provide coverage for you if for any reason that is required. Please understand that this is a very serious matter, and you have previously received a five day disciplinary suspension. The next step in progressive discipline is termination, and insubordination can be just cause for termination. I hope that you will conduct yourself appropriately, if you wish to remain an employee of the Polk County School Board. On December 17, 2007, the Respondent appeared at the principal’s office at the appointed time, but asserted that he had not been involved in any incident on October 4, 2007, and declined to otherwise provide any information. Although the date of the incident, October 3, 2007, had been misidentified as October 4, 2007, in the referenced series of letters, there is no evidence that the Respondent was unaware of the specific event about which the information was being sought. It is reasonable to presume that the Respondent was fully aware of the matter being reviewed by Principal McGuire. In response to the December 17, 2007, meeting, Principal McGuire issued a letter dated December 18, 2007 (“Subject: October 3, 2007, incident”), essentially identical in most respects to the December 13, 2007, letter and correcting the referenced date. The letter scheduled another meeting for 10:30 a.m. on December 19, 2007. On December 19, 2007, the Respondent appeared at the principal’s office at the appointed time and declined to answer any questions, stating that he was invoking his rights under the Constitutions of the State of Florida and the United States of America. By letter to Superintendent McKinzie dated January 2, 2008, Principal McGuire recommended termination of the Respondent’s employment. Principal McGuire restated the chronology of the October 3, 2007, incident and wrote as follows: I have made repeated verbal and written requests of Mr. McCall to provide an explanation of the circumstances in order to include them in our investigation of the events. He refused to comply with each of those requests. He received a formal letter of reprimand and a five-day suspension without pay for his gross insubordination. Since his suspension, I have made written requests of Mr. McCall to provide an explanation of those events, and he has blatantly refused to do so. By letter also dated January 2, 2008, Superintendent McKinzie notified the Respondent that he was being suspended with pay and that she would recommend to the full school board that his employment be terminated. The letter set forth the grounds for the termination as follows: Since the incident on October 3, 2007, you have refused repeated verbal and written requests by the school administration to provide an explanation of the events which occurred on that date or to otherwise participate in the investigation of those events. As a result of your refusal to provide an explanation or participate in the investigation, you have received a formal written reprimand and a five-day suspension without pay. Since your suspension, you have again refused specific requests by your principal to provide an explanation of these events. Based on these facts, it is my opinion that you have intentionally violated the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education in Florida by failing to make reasonable efforts to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety (Rule 6B-1.006 FAC). Further you have engaged in ongoing, gross insubordination by repeatedly refusing to take certain actions which are a necessary and essential function of your position as a School Board employee. Progressive discipline, as specified in the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement, has been followed in this case, and the next step of progressive discipline is termination. Therefore, it is my conclusion that "just cause" exists for your termination as an employee of the Polk County School Board. The Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge the termination, and the Petitioner referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to the instant hearing, the Respondent made no effort to provide any information to the Petitioner regarding the events of October 3, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the employment of David McCall. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 David McCall 3036 Spirit Lake Drive Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Dr. Gail McKinzie, Superintendent Polk County School Board Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831-0391 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Did Petitioner, Gregory K. Adkins, as Superintendent for the Board of the School District of Lee County, Florida (Superintendent), prove just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres?
Findings Of Fact The Superintendent, on behalf of the School Board of Lee County (Board), is responsible for hiring, overseeing, and terminating, all employees in the school district. At all times material to this case, the Board employed Mr. Torres as a security specialist at East Lee County High School (East Lee). Mr. Torres also sometimes served as an assistant coach and/or substitute athletic trainer. Mr. Torres has worked for the Board since August 5, 2011. For the 2011 through 2015 school years Mr. Torres’ received a final Performance Evaluation with a score of “Effective” in all areas assessed. The "Manager Comments" on Mr. Torres' Final Performance Evaluations consisted of the following: "Mr. Torres is an integral part of the MLE [Mirror Lakes Elementary] team. He has been a great addition to our staff [2014-2015 Evaluation]”; "Mr. Torres is a very valuable asset and is well respected and supported as an integral part of the MLE team [2013-2014 Evaluation]"; "Orlando performs various duties at East: security and coaching. He has done a good job with both. Orlando was accepting of taking on the night security position until a candidate was hired [2012-2013 Evaluation]"; and "Orlando is a team player and is always willing to go above and beyond to help staff and students [2011-2012 Evaluation]." Mr. Torres is a member of SPALC and was a member during all periods relevant to this matter. On February 4, 2016, the Board’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (PS&E) received reports that on several occasions Mr. Torres made inappropriate comments and sexual remarks in the presence of or to female high school students. The comments included suggestions that Mr. Torres was interested in sex with the students. The comments caused the students extreme discomfort and embarrassment and created an inhospitable learning environment. The Board investigated. The information it collected caused the Board to terminate Mr. Torres’ employment. PS&E Coordinator, Andy Brown, conducted an investigation that included interviews of several students and of Mr. Torres. When Mr. Torres met Mr. Brown for his interview, Mr. Torres did not know the reason for the interview. Mr. Brown advised Mr. Torres that he was the subject of an investigation and asked him if he knew what it was about. Mr. Torres said: “When I meet with a female, I always have another female present.” This was not true. Mr. Torres’ spontaneous and dishonest statement in response to simply being asked if he knew what the investigation was about is persuasive evidence that he had improper conversations with female students and is a contributing factor to concluding that his testimony denying the charges is not credible. In November and December of 2015, and January 2016, Mr. Torres made several sexually charged, inappropriate comments to students. Five of the incidents involved N.M., who was an eleventh grade student at the time. N.M.’s mother worked at the school. Consequently, N.M. stayed at school after classes until her mother left work. N.M.’s mother arranged for N.M. to assist Mr. Torres in his training tasks after school. This is how she met Mr. Torres. The arrangement lasted about a week. Around November 2015, Mr. Torres gave N.M. a “high-five.” He prolonged the contact by grabbing her hand and intertwining his fingers with hers. In a separate incident, while giving N.M. a “bandaid” for a scratch, Mr. Torres asked her if she would ever get involved with a married man. She said no and walked away. On another occasion, N.M. encountered Mr. Torres while she was walking to lunch. N.M. was wearing what she described as a “burgundy semi-see-through” shirt. Mr. Torres told her to cover up her “goodies” or her “girls,” referring to her breasts, so nobody else could see them. N.M.’s testimony used the word “girls” while her statement in February 2016 said “goodies.” This minor discrepancy is understandable given the passage of time and the stresses of an interview and testimony. On yet another occasion, Mr. Torres remarked in Spanish, when N.M. bent down, “I like ass.” Mr. Torres spoke to N.M. after she had been called to the school office to provide a statement about a conflict that Mr. Torres had with another student. When he learned the purpose of the request for a statement from N.M., Mr. Torres said, “I thought I was gonna get in trouble for flirting with you; thank god we didn’t take it to second base.” In early February, N.M. was walking with her then- friend S.S., when Mr. Torres exited a room and saw them. He said “you look delic . . ., beautiful,” to N.M., shifting from “delicious” to “beautiful” when he noticed S.S. Mr. Torres also made a comment about wishing N.M. was 18. Another Security Specialist, Russell Barrs, who N.M. considered a friend, overheard bits of a conversation between N.M. and S.S. about the encounter. He asked N.M. about it. She replied with generalities A day or two later N.M. met with Mr. Barrs and provided complete information about Mr. Torres’ comments to her. Mr. Barrs reported this to Assistant Principal Edward Matthews. Mr. Matthews launched the investigation. It is noteworthy that S.S., whose friendship with N.M. ended, still testified to the same events as N.M. did. The two had a falling out sometime in 2016. The testimony of S.S. was not a matter of loyal support for a friend. In fact, the tone and body language of both students gave the distinct impression that the end of the friendship was not pleasant. N.M.’s mother had just started working at the school. N.M. did not immediately report Mr. Torres’ advances to her mother or other adults. When she did report them, her initial statements were incomplete and vague. She just told her mother she was not comfortable being in the room with Mr. Torres. She also told her mother that Mr. Torres “says things.” Later, after speaking to Mr. Barrs, N.M. provided her mother a complete description of the comments. After classes, Mr. Torres spent a good deal of time in the training room where first aid supplies and ice are stored for student-athletes. The training room was divided into two smaller rooms separated by a door that was usually shut. One room contained the ice machine, other equipment, and supplies. The other part of the room served as an office for Mr. Torres. Students, including N.M. and C.P., assisted or visited with Mr. Torres in the training room at times. C.P. was a female student who served as one of the managers for the girls’ basketball team. Once while observing her prepare an ice pack by sucking air out of it, Mr. Torres said words to the effect of “like how you suck a boy’s dick.” C.P. was a ninth grader at the time. Mr. Torres also told her that he would like to marry her when she turned 18. Another time, Mr. Torres tried to hug C.P. Mr. Torres also told C.P. that they should not talk in the hall because the security video cameras may record them. Another time, after overhearing a discussion in Spanish by several female students about sexual activity, Mr. Torres told C.P. that if he ever had sex with her he would break her. Two or three times Mr. Torres told C.P. that she was beautiful and he wanted to marry her after she graduated. The comments made C.P. extremely uncomfortable and unsure of what to do. She was scared. She quit her position as manager to avoid contact with Mr. Torres. Like N.M., C.P. was slow to report the comments to an adult. When she first told her step-mother she described Mr. Torres’ comments as coming from a substitute teacher. C.P. was scared and did not want to get involved. When she did, the details understandably came out in bits and pieces. Mr. Torres’ improper familiarity with students N.M. and C.P. and his sexually charged comments were frequent and varied. They were improper and detrimental to the emotional and mental health of the students. The crux of Mr. Torres’ defense is that none of the testimony about his actions is true. His testimony is not as credible as that of the students who testified to his offenses. One reason, mentioned earlier, is Mr. Torres’ spontaneous statement when Mr. Brown met him for the interview that he was never alone with a female. It manifests guilt and anxiousness that would not be present without his being aware of his improper behavior. Another reason is that the testimony of the students is sufficiently consistent to provide credibility. And N.M., C.P., and S.S. all made reports within a few months of Mr. Torres’ comments. A third reason is that N.M.’s testimony was supported by S.S. at hearing even though their earlier friendship had ended. A fourth reason is that there is no evidence of a motive for N.M., S.S., and C.P to fabricate their reports. For the time period when Mr. Torres made the comment to C.P. about “breaking her,” several students offered differing testimony about who was in the room when and whether Mr. Torres was giving a student instruction on a trumpet. This testimony is not sufficient to impeach the credibility of N.M. and C.P. Those were not the students to whom the offending remarks were made. The details of that day would not have been noteworthy to them at the time. Similarly, given the nature of Mr. Torres’ comments, the details of exactly who was present when would have been secondary to N.M. and C.P. Finally, Mr. Torres made one particularly transparent and deliberate effort to manipulate the truth during cross-examination that undermines relying on Mr. Torres’ testimony. Early in the hearing, in Mr. Torres’ presence, the Board attempted to enter evidence that during prior employment as a detention officer with the Sheriff of Lee County, Mr. Torres reacted to teasing by other officers by drawing his service pistol. The objection to the evidence was sustained. Later Mr. Torres testified that the testimony against him was not credible because he would never take such risks at a school where his wife was also employed, his children were students, and N.M.’s mother was employed. This testimony opened the door to the pistol drawing incident as evidence of Mr. Torres taking risky actions at work. The exchange about the incident, starting at page 329 of Volume II of the Transcript, follows: Q: But you engaged in risky behavior in your two law enforcement jobs prior, did you not? A: I don’t consider that risky behavior. Q: Well, you don’t consider pulling your service revolver as risky behavior? [objection and ruling] A: I have never carried a revolver. Q: Your service weapon, sir? ALJ: You said you never carried a revolver. Have you ever carried a pistol? A: Yes sir. ALJ: Next question. Q: Would you consider pulling your service pistol in an inappropriate manner risky behavior, sir? A: Yes, sir. Mr. Torres testified with full knowledge from the earlier attempt to introduce evidence of the incident to what the question referred. His answer was hair-splitting at best and demonstrated a willingness to shade, if not evade, the truth that significantly undermines his credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order finding just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres, and dismissing him from his position with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 31st day of October, 2016.
