The Issue Whether Respondent violated Pinellas County School Board policies related to sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual conduct with students, and inappropriate relationships with students, and if so, whether the violations constitute just cause for her dismissal as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dorothy Simon (Respondent), has been employed as a teacher by the Pinellas County School Board (School Board) since 1980. Her entire teaching career in the Pinellas County School District has been spent at the Pinellas Technical Education Center (PTEC). Pursuant to her employment, Respondent was issued a professional services contract. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent taught an electronics technology course at PTEC in which approximately twenty-six (26) to thirty (30) students were enrolled. The course lasted one year, and upon completion of the course work, the students received a certificate. Except for one seventeen year old who was enrolled in the course, all of the students in Respondent's class were between the ages of twenty (20) and forty-eight (48) years old. On or about March 1996, a male student named Thomas Mitchell, who was approximately forty (40) years of age, enrolled in the electronics technology course taught by Respondent. Mitchell, who was not married, held himself out as an ordained minister and told Respondent that he wanted to be called "Reverend Mitchell". Consequently, Respondent as well as students in the class referred to and addressed Thomas Mitchell as Reverend Mitchell. On or about July 15, 1996, Mr. Mitchell gave the Respondent a letter in which Mr. Mitchell expressed a physical and emotional attraction to her and discussed starting a relationship with the Respondent. Prior to July 19, 1996, while on school premises, Respondent approached Mr. Mitchell and asked him if he would accompany her and her thirteen year old daughter to the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, and act as their bodyguard during their stay. On or about July 19, 20 and 21, 1996, Mr. Mitchell accompanied Respondent and her daughter to the Summer Olympics in Atlanta. Mr. Mitchell drove the Respondent's car to Atlanta. While in Atlanta, Mr. Mitchell stayed with Respondent and her daughter in a hotel room which Respondent had reserved and paid for a year in advance. Respondent paid for Mr. Mitchell's meals and gave him $50.00 spending money. Mitchell later return the $50.00 to Respondent. After class, on or about July 22, 1996, Respondent drove several students to a nearby bus stop and Mr. Mitchell to Workforce, a center near PTEC where he tutored children. While Respondent was driving Mr. Mitchell to Workforce, she asked him if he would house-sit for her while she and her daughter were on vacation for two weeks. The Respondent offered to pay Mr. Mitchell $100.00 each week, and in return he was to feed her pets, clean her pool and live in her house while she was vacationing. Mr. Mitchell accepted the Respondent's offer. After class, on July 25, 1996, the last day of school before the summer break, Respondent drove several students to the bus stop and gave Mr. Mitchell a ride to his mother's apartment where he lived. Both the bus stop and Mr. Mitchell's mother's apartment were in the vicinity of PTEC. Respondent had given Mitchell a ride home on one other occasion and often gave other students rides to various places when they so requested. Shortly after Respondent dropped Mr. Mitchell off at his mother's apartment, while driving home, Respondent was involved in an automobile accident in which Respondent's vehicle struck a teen-age girl. After police and paramedics arrived at the scene of the accident, Respondent remained on the scene. However, about one hour after their arrival, the police who were investigating the accident advised Respondent to go home. Respondent was quite shaken, and did not feel that she was in any condition to drive herself home. Rather than driving herself home, Respondent went to Mr. Mitchell's residence, which was nearby, and asked him to drive her home. Mr. Mitchell complied with Respondent's request. On the way to Respondent's house, Mitchell and Respondent made two stops. The first stop was at a bank where the Respondent made a cash withdrawal for the $200.00 that she was going to give Mr. Mitchell for house-sitting. The second stop was at a liquor store where Mr. Mitchell, at the Respondent's request, went inside and purchased a bottle of vodka. Mr. Mitchell then drove Respondent home and when they arrived, Respondent had one drink of orange juice and vodka. Respondent then went into her swimming pool to calm herself and was shortly thereafter joined by Mr. Mitchell. While both were in the pool, Respondent asked Mr. Mitchell to hug her because she wanted to be comforted. Mr. Mitchell then hugged Respondent and the two engaged in sexual intercourse. On or about July 27, 1996, Respondent and her daughter drove to Mr. Mitchell's residence and picked him up. Mr. Mitchell accompanied Respondent and her daughter to a swim meet in which the daughter was participating. After the swim meet, Mr. Mitchell drove the Respondent and her daughter to the airport for their departure on a two-week vacation. Mr. Mitchell returned to Respondent's home and house- sat for Respondent for two weeks while she was away on vacation, pursuant to their previously made agreement. As promised, Respondent paid Mr. Mitchell $100.00 per week for house-sitting. While on vacation, Respondent received one phone call from Mr. Mitchell in which he requested an additional $100.00. Respondent wired Mr. Mitchell the $100.00. When Respondent returned from vacation, she found that Mr. Mitchell had trashed and vandalized her house. She later determined that Mitchell had run up an exorbitant phone bill and had stolen approximately $2,300 from her by making unauthorized cash withdrawals on a credit card that had been mailed to her home while she was away. When school began at PTEC in August 1996, Mr. Mitchell was still enrolled as a student in Respondent's electronics technology course. At that time Mr. Mitchell had approximately two weeks of course work remaining to be completed in order to receive a certificate of completion. Upon returning to PTEC after the summer break, Respondent went to see Dr. Warren Laux, Director at PTEC, concerning Mr. Mitchell. Respondent was afraid of Mr. Mitchell, and requested that he be removed from her class because she did not want to come in contact with him. Respondent explained that Mr. Mitchell house-sat for her during a two-week vacation and left the house a mess, stole money from her and ran up an exorbitant phone bill during his stay. Because she had notified police of these incidents involving Mr. Mitchell, the Respondent told Dr. Laux that the situation created a conflict for her if Mr. Mitchell remained in her class. During their discussion, Dr. Laux asked Respondent if there had been any sexual relationship between herself and Mr. Mitchell. The Respondent stated that she had sex with Mr. Mitchell on one occasion. However, Respondent did not give details of the time, place, or circumstances surrounding that encounter. Dr. Laux explained to Respondent that for the moment it appeared that Mr. Mitchell had done nothing which violated the Student Code of Conduct and, accordingly, there was no valid reason to remove him from her class. During August 1996, Respondent told some students in her class that the person who had house-sat for her when she was away on vacation had trashed her house. However, Respondent did not identify Mr. Mitchell as that person. During August 1996, while in her classroom, Respondent told Mr. Mitchell that she would rather scratch his eyes out than have him in her class. At the time this comment was made by Respondent, there were students in the classroom, but on the other side of the room. Respondent's comments to Mr. Mitchell were not made loudly enough for other students to hear. The School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted an investigation regarding the allegations that the Respondent had been involved with a student. As a part of this investigation, Respondent was interviewed on three occasions: August 28, 1996; September 3, 1996; and mid-September 1996. During each interview, Respondent admitted that on one occasion she had engaged in sexual intercourse with one of her students, Thomas Mitchell. Respondent's conduct impaired her effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent failed to maintain a professional relationship with her student Thomas Mitchell and used her position to enter into a personal relationship with him. Once that relationship deteriorated, as admitted by Respondent, it was impossible for her to work with that student, and her effectiveness was significantly impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be dismissed from her position as a teacher with the Pinellas County School Board.DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin Assistant School Board Attorney Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East Seventh Avenue Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Ms. Dorothy Simon 6315 Eight Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with Florida A & M University, as proposed in a termination letter dated August 19, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: In this employee termination case, Petitioner, Florida A & M University (FAMU), seeks to terminate the employment of Respondent, Calvin C. Miles, Jr., on the ground that he sexually harassed three female students and retaliated against two students in violation of Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Because FAMU is a part of the State University System, the Board of Regents was also identified as a Petitioner. Respondent has denied all allegations. FAMU has a non-discrimination policy and harassment complaint procedure codified in Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Paragraph (6)(b) of the rule prohibits sexual harassment while paragraph (11)(a) prohibits retaliation. Respondent was subject to this policy and procedure, and on August 26, 1998, he signed a paper indicating that he had read and understood the same. On August 22, 1997, Respondent was hired as General Manager of WAMF, a radio station owned and operated by FAMU and which employed a number of FAMU students. Whether he was considered a non-instructional or instructional employee is not clear. In any event, the station had been without a full-time manager "for a while," and Respondent was told to come in and "put in place some policies and format . . . and move the station in the direction that [FAMU] thought it should go." He was also told that the station should be operated as a teaching facility. FAMU agrees that some of Respondent's decisions in implementing these directives "caused some people to bristle." Respondent's immediate supervisor was Dr. Hawkins, Director of FAMU's Division of Journalism. As such, Dr. Hawkins was required to prepare Respondent's annual evaluations. The first evaluation was prepared on September 29, 1998, and was transmitted to Respondent with a letter of the same date. In his letter, Dr. Hawkins concluded that Respondent's "first year here has been a mixed bag." While he acknowledged that Respondent had "turned up the level of professionalism at the station substantially and in rather quick fashion," he noted other matters of concern. Among these was a concern that at least three female students said that you had made inappropriate remarks to them. While none of these students have filed a complaint, I believe I have a responsibility to mention them now. In addition to the comments of these students, other female students have said that they just plan to stay away from the station so they do not have to be bothered. This is not the climate we want. This letter placed him on official notice that some female students perceived his conduct towards them as offensive and having an improper sexual connotation. In response to his evaluation, Respondent wrote Dr. Bryant a lengthy letter dated October 22, 1998. As to the allegations of sexual misconduct, Respondent "strongly suggest[ed] that the University conduct a thorough investigation of all complaints of this nature." During his tenure with FAMU, Respondent had two or three meetings with the Dean of the School of Journalism, Media, and Graphic Arts, Dean Ruggles, and his immediate supervisor, Dr. Bryant, regarding the foregoing complaints of sexual misconduct. Respondent was urged to use "extreme caution," to reassess his behavior with female students, and warned that "if these allegations were taken to the complaint stage" by a student and found to be substantiated, there would be severe consequences. In addition, on at least one occasion, Respondent met with the Director of FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs regarding a complaint by another student. Therefore, it is fair to infer that Respondent was well aware of on-going accusations being made against him, and that he should be extremely cautious in his behavior around female students. After formal complaints of sexual harassment were filed by three female students in February 1999, FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs conducted an investigation. On May 11, 1999, the President of FAMU notified Respondent that the findings of the investigation revealed that Respondent had violated Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code, and that FAMU intended to terminate his employment. Respondent then availed himself of the right to have an "investigatory interview" by a University Personnel Committee on July 13, 1999. When the committee determined that no new facts had been presented, Respondent was dismissed from employment effective August 26, 1999. This appeal ensued. Although the termination letter does not identify the specific allegations which form the basis for the termination, in a Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, FAMU has alleged that Respondent "engaged in conduct and actions toward[s] [Symphony] Parson, [Deanna] McKinley[,] and [Jackeline] Pou that rose to the level of sexual harassment in violation of Rule 6C3- 10.103(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code." FAMU further alleged that Respondent "exhibited behavior towards Ms. Parson and Ms. Maria Williams, a witness in this matter, that rose to the level of retaliation as set forth in [Rule] 6C3-10.103(11)(a), F.A.C." However, there was no evidence regarding retaliation against Maria Williams, who was not a witness in this case, and that portion of the charges has been disregarded. Parson, McKinley, and Pou testified at the final hearing, and although Respondent disputed the accuracy of their allegations, their testimony has been accepted as being the most persuasive on these issues. Findings with respect to those allegations are set forth below. Deanna McKinley Deanna McKinley (McKinley) enrolled at FAMU in the fall of 1996 and was a senior at the time of hearing. On September 1, 1998, McKinley began working at WAMF and hosted an Inspirational Gospel Morning Show using the on-air name of "Deanna Devine." Respondent was her supervisor. Throughout her employment at the radio station, McKinley felt "uncomfortable" around Respondent. This was because he would stare at her breasts, always place his hands on her shoulders when speaking to her, squeeze her shoulders, touch her hand in the Disc Jockey (DJ) booth, and stand extremely close to her while the two spoke. She was especially uncomfortable "being in the same studio with him, because the studio was in a different part of the building, it was locked, it was dark, [and] usually [she] was the only one there." Although she disliked Respondent's conduct and on occasion had told him that she disapproved of it, McKinley was under the impression that unless she tolerated Respondent's actions, she would not be allowed to continue as a DJ or "make progress" at the station. Besides the foregoing conduct, Respondent made personal remarks of a sexual nature to McKinley. For example, when she would bend over, he would say something like "Don't bend over like that, you will get someone excited." He also made a comment about how "adorable" and "kissable" she was, and that if he were her man, he "would just kiss [her] all the time." Once, when McKinley remarked ". . . little old me?", Respondent stared at her breasts and replied "Nothing on you is little, Deanna. But that's all right. It's all good." In January 1999, McKinley accidentally dropped something on the floor in the studio and bent over to pick it up. Respondent again stated "You should not bend over like that, Deanna, you may get someone excited." This latest incident triggered a decision by McKinley to leave the radio station. It is fair to infer from the evidence that McKinley perceived the radio station to have a hostile working environment, and that Respondent's conduct unreasonably interfered with her educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 1, 1999, McKinley submitted her letter of resignation to the radio station. On February 11, 1999, she filed a complaint with FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. Symphony Parson Symphony Parson enrolled at FAMU in the fall of 1997 with a major in broadcast journalism. She began working at WAMF that same year as a music director and on-air personality. Respondent was her supervisor. In April 1998, and while on duty at the station, Parson was taking a telephone message for the station secretary late one afternoon when Respondent came up behind her and began rubbing her shoulders and then moved his hand onto her breast. She told him to stop, "cursed him," and then left the station. In November 1998, Parson was in the station "writing on the file cabinet" when Respondent came up behind her and "brushed up against her" rubbing his shoulders against her. She again "cursed him out." A month later, he repeated the same conduct. According to Parson, she felt "violated" and "horrible" whenever this conduct occurred. Respondent also engaged in inappropriate conversations with Parson when she was on duty at the station. For example, he asked her if she was having sex with her boyfriend, and he told her how "cute" and "sexy" she was. These conversations made her feel extremely uncomfortable and led Parson to try to avoid Respondent whenever possible. At the same time, however, Parson felt that she had to tolerate this conduct to keep her position at the station. It is fair to infer from the evidence that Parson found the station to have a hostile working environment, and that Respondent's conduct unreasonably interfered with her educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 8, 1999, Parson filed a charge of sexual harassment against Respondent with the Equal Opportunity Office. A few days later, Respondent was placed on administrative leave. When he returned to his office to clean out his personal items, he passed by Parson and said "You're dead." Parson reported this to the police, was forced to get a cell phone out of fear for her personal being, and asked her parents to temporarily move into her apartment. Jackeline Pou Jackeline Pou (Pou) enrolled in FAMU's journalism program in August 1996. She began working at WANF in September 1997. Respondent was her supervisor. While working at the station, Respondent would sometimes brush his body against Pou or touch her shoulders, which made her feel uncomfortable. Almost on a daily basis, he would make comments about how pretty she was or make comments about her "eyes". When he spoke to her, he would stare at her breasts. Once, she observed him staring at her "behind when [she] was walking away." In the summer of 1998, and just after Pou finished speaking on the telephone with a friend, Respondent asked who she was speaking with. When Pou responded "It's none of your business," Respondent said, "It couldn't have been a guy or the seat would have been wet." Respondent's conduct made Pou feel intimidated and uncomfortable, and she disliked being alone in the radio station with Respondent during the evening hours. Besides creating a hostile work environment, such conduct also unreasonably interfered with Pou's educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 11, 1999, Pou filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Respondent with FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. Respondent's contentions Respondent has steadfastly denied all allegations of sexual misconduct since they first surfaced in 1997 or 1998. At hearing, Respondent contended that he was an unpopular figure among the students due to his strong disciplinary measures. While this may be true, it does not justify his actions towards McKinley, Parson, and Pou. He suggested that McKinley's complaint was motivated by her displeasure with his disciplinary measures and failure to obtain her a parking pass. Respondent further suggested that Parson bore him ill-will after he demoted her to a different position at the station. He also contended that out of revenge, the three women met and conspired to file false complaints in an effort to have him removed from the station. Finally, Respondent suggested that each of the complainant's testimony was full of inconsistencies and lacked specificity as to certain dates and times. These contentions have been considered by the undersigned and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida A & M University enter a final order confirming the dismissal of Respondent as an employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 29th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bishop C. Holifield, General Counsel Florida A & M University Suite 300, Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Avery D. McKnight, Jr., Esquire Ruth N. Selfridge, Esquire Florida A & M University Suite 300, Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Calvin C. Miles, Jr. 501 Blairstone Road, Apartment 123 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Lloyd Wright, was a teacher employed by the St. Lucie County School District at Westwood High School. Tenecia Poitier was, during the 1986-1987 school year, a student of Respondent in his world history class. In early February, 1987, she filed a complaint against him with school officials because, she says, she got tired of his repeated comments to her of a sexual nature. Reportedly, on one occasion, Respondent indicated to her that he was going to "... fuck her brains out." This comment was overheard by another student in the class, Tony Lee, who believed Respondent was only joking with her. No follow-up action was taken by Respondent on this threat. Ms. Poitier also alleges that on one occasion, while in the school library, Respondent came over and sat down next to her and touched her on the leg. This was observed by Felicia Newton who was sitting across the library table from Ms. Poitier and who, because she was sitting out somewhat from the table, could see Respondent touch her on the outside of the leg. The hug Respondent also gave Ms. Poitier was more of a friendly hug than one with sexual overtones as was the touch. When Ms. Poitier told him to stop, he did and immediately thereafter left the table. Respondent has never hugged or touched Ms. Newton and she has never heard any other girl say Respondent has hugged or touched them except Ms. Poitier, who had told her prior to the library incident that she didn't like the way Respondent was always touching her. On one other occasion, according to Ms. Poitier, when she got chocolate on her pants in class, she asked to go to the rest room to wash it off. In response, she claims, Respondent grabbed her "butt" and commented, "Girl, I want that thing" or words to that effect. Ms. Poitier claims that when he did that, she "cussed him out." Ms. Poitier filed her complaint with school officials after reporting the incident to her father. It would appear, however, that the complaint was motivated by fear of punishment herself, as Respondent contends that on the day prior to the complaint, he observed her doing her math homework in his history class and confiscated and destroyed it. When he did this, she became irate and indicated she was going to tell her father. With that, Respondent summoned a representative of the administration and had her ejected from class. He also wrote a letter to her counselor complaining that she refused to follow class rules and was disruptive and requested she be taken out of his class because she was not doing the required work. There is ample independent testimony from others, including Ms. Poitier herself; that she curses frequently in class and her reputation for telling the truth is not good. In addition, Respondent had notified Ms. Poitier that she had been denied membership in the Millionaire's Club which he sponsored, because she would not follow club rules. She was also dismissed from membership in the Pep Club because of her forgery of Respondent's name to hall passes. Neither these latter actions nor the allegations of her removal from class, testified to only by Respondent, were corroborated by independent evidence. Ms. Poitier denies being put out of the Pep Club and claims she quit the Millionaire's club to join another one. Ms. Poitier indicates, on the other hand, that she was written up because she had threatened to tell her father what Respondent had said and done to her. Her veracity being successfully attacked, however, it is found that Respondent's story is more believable. Respondent, Ms. Poitier claims, also hugged other girls and touched at least one, Ms. McGee, on the leg when she came up to his desk on one occasion. In fact, she claims, he will touch any girl who will put up with it. McGee, on the other hand, denied that Respondent touched her on the leg as alleged by Poitier, but contends he did hug her around the shoulder from the side on one occasion. More significant, however, is the fact, admitted by the Respondent, that early one morning, while driving his mother to the grocery store, he saw Ms. McGee walking with two boys, one of whom was her brother. Respondent drove up beside them, waved and blew his horn to get their attention, and then told her he was going to take her to the woods. He claims he did not mean the comment to be taken literally but more as a joke like the kids would make. He did not believe that McGee took the comment seriously but, in fact she did, and the comment was totally inappropriate for a teacher to make to a female student under any circumstances. Other students, such as Eugenia Lunsford, report improper comments by Respondent to them or others. Ms. Lunsford claims she heard him tell girls, in the classroom, that he liked them and ask them if he could have a chance with them. She contends she heard him state that he'd like to "fuck" Cochina Hall and Tenecia Poitier. Ms. McGee remembers Respondent stating he would like to do something sexual to her, and on one occasions, when she asked him to stop peeling a grapefruit in class, he asked her if he could touch her. He never did, however, except to give her a hug. She considers the term "touch" to mean a sexually oriented touching of a girl's private parts. She also recalls an incident where she saw Respondent pull Ms. Foster's shirt away from her body by the pocket and look down the front. She thinks he was looking at her breasts. Ms. Foster, however, denies this incident happened. In light of this, Ms. McGee's testimony is suspect and, like Ms. Poitier, her credibility is slight. There is no evidence that by any of the hugs that he gave the various girls he in any way committed any inappropriate touching of the breasts or any place else or that though unwelcome, they were sexual in nature. The report by Ms. Lunsford of Respondent's touching Ms. Foster's "butt" was denied by Ms. Foster. In substance, Ms. Lunsford's testimony is not credible and Ms. Foster considers Respondent a good teacher. She would not fear going back into his class. Tony Lee, who heard Respondent make the inappropriate comment to Ms. Poitier, also heard him say to a female student, "Pull your pants down and let me touch you." At the time, Respondent and a group of female students were laughing and joking together and he does not feel that Respondent's comment was seriously made. In fact, Respondent frequently joked with his students, both male and female, making suggestive comments, and everyone knew they were jokes. Lee knows of no incident where Respondent ever attempted to follow up on these comments. He denies ever hearing that Respondent attempted to touch Ms. McGee. To the contrary, she allegedly told Lee she had attempted to touch Respondent and Lee told her she was crazy to do that. Only one parent had direct knowledge of Respondent's relationship with his students. At one parent/teacher night, Mrs. Johnson was attending Respondent's presentation to a group of students and parents when he reportedly stopped in mid- sentence and ogled one or more female students who came into the room. Mrs. Johnson felt his stare, which, she claimed, constituted a visual undressing of the girls, was inappropriate and embarrassing. Her comments were endorsed by her daughter Josephine, who would not want to go back into Respondent's class. In this incidents however, Respondent neither said anything to or about these girls nor did he attempt to touch them. Petitioner presented testimony to establish that at one time, Respondent humiliated a male student in his class by implying he was a homosexual. Both the student and his mother were permitted to testify to this incident without objection by Respondent. This is, however, irrelevant to the issues framed by the Notice of Charges and in any case, the student admits that he and another student were smirking at allegedly inaccurate statements made by Respondent during his lecture, misconduct and out-of-line behavior in and of itself. Assuming, arguendo, that Respondent's reaction to the student was inappropriate, it has no relevance to the conduct complained of in the Notice of Charges. Other present and former students of Respondent indicated that he had a good rapport with his students and is a good teacher. None of these individuals including, Ms. Shaw, Ms. Donovan, Ms. Fuller, Ms. Frazier, and Ms. Diaz have ever seen him be improper or sexual in orientation with students notwithstanding numerous observations. He is not known by these people to flirt with or improperly touch students or to make suggestive comments to them though he would hug from time to time. The extent of his familiarity would be comments like, "Hey, baby. How ya doin'?," or words to that effect, comments readily admitted by Respondent. According to Ms. Frazier, a student in Respondent's class with Ms. Poitier, some students would speak improperly to Respondent by cussing at him. Usually, he would warn them but if they got out of hands he would write them up. Respondent is described by some, and by himself, as a friendly, outgoing, caring person who tries to get his students to achieve their potential. He is a tough taskmaster who expects his students to do their best. By his own admission, he tries to relate to his students by speaking their language and using their phrases. He tries to get his students to relate to him by relating to them and in 9 1/2 years as a teacher he has never before been told this was improper. He admits to hugging his students from the side and to touching them on the arm or head in encouragement while teaching. He rides up and down the aisles in his classroom on a rolling chair so he can sit next to students who are having trouble to help them. He uses flattery, even personal comments such as "You are beautiful" in an effort to motivate his students and denies that any of his comments or touchings were salacious or sexually oriented. From an evaluation of the evidence, it becomes clear that Respondent did not touch or handle his female students in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner. It is equally clear, however, that on several occasions he did make lewd, lascivious, or indecent comments to female students which could be construed as advances though it is doubtful he would have followed through on them. These comments, however, in the expert opinion of Ms. Bretherick, an experienced teacher, are never appropriate for a teacher to make to a student. A teacher who made such comments would be ineffective as a teacher. Exposure to such a teacher adversely effects the students' capacity to learn the subject matter and clouds or distorts the concept of the teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lloyd Wright, be discharged from employment with the St. Lucie School District because of misconduct in office. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1366 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner Petitioner, by letter, specifically declined to submit proposed findings of fact. By Respondent Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Accepted as to the ultimate fact that the comment was made. Motivation is irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. First sentence is. Accepted and incorporated in the Finding of Fact. Second Sentence is irrelevant to the issues. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: George R. Hill, Superintendent School Board of St. Lucie County 2909 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Jack Gale, Esquire The Boston House 239 South Indian River Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire Asst. Gen. Counsel FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel B. Harrell, Esquire First Citizens Federal Building 1600 South Federal Highway, Suite 200 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 1988 LLOYD WRIGHT, Appellant, DOAH CASE NO: 87-1366 CASE NO. 87-2723 v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee. / Decision filed December 28, 1988 Appeal from the School Board of St. Lucie County. Lloyd Wright, Fort Pierce, pro se appellant. Daniel B. Harrell of Gonano, Harrell & Sherrard, Fort Pierce, for appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. HERSEY, C.J., DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. MANDATE from DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT This cause having been brought to this Court by appeal, and after due consideration the Court having issued its opinion; YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further proceedings be had in said cause in accordance with the opinion of this Court, and with the rules of procedure and laws of the State of Florida. WITNESS the Honorable George W. Hersey, Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, and seal of the said Court at West Palm Beach, Florida on this day DATE: January 13, 1989 CASE NO.: 87-2723 COUNTY OF ORIGIN: School Board of St. Lucie Co. T.C. CASE NO.: 87-1366 STYLE: Wright v. School Board of St. Lucie Clyde Heath Clerk of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District ORIGINAL TO: School Board of St. Lucie county cc: Lloyd Wright, pro se Daniel B. Harrell, Esquire
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause, within the meaning of Section 231.36(1), Florida Statutes (1999), to terminate Respondent's employment as a non-instructional employee for alleged sexual harassment of a co-worker. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has employed Respondent as a maintenance worker at Yulee Primary School in Yulee, Florida (the "school") for approximately 18 years. Petitioner has employed Ms. Joyce Sullivan as a food service worker for approximately three years. Respondent and Ms. Sullivan are co-workers. Respondent has no supervisory authority over Ms. Sullivan, has no authority to discipline Ms. Sullivan, and has no authority to affect the conditions of employment for Ms. Sullivan. The material facts in this case transpired over approximately ten minutes during work hours on April 6, 2000. Respondent approached Ms. Sullivan in the back kitchen of the school cafeteria shortly after breakfast and asked to speak to her privately. Ms. Sullivan agreed, and the two moved to the adjacent serving area near the checkout counter in the cafeteria. Respondent asked Ms. Sullivan to pose for pictures that would be nude, semi-nude, or partially clothed and that Respondent would enter into a contest on the internet. Respondent explained that the pictures would not identify Ms. Sullivan because the pictures would be taken from the neck down and that Ms. Sullivan could wear a bikini, a thong, or a bra. Ms. Sullivan asked Respondent what he was talking about. Respondent assured Ms. Sullivan that she would not be identified because the pictures would not identify Ms. Sullivan's face. Ms. Sullivan told Respondent that he was crazy. The entire conversation lasted approximately three minutes. Ms. Sullivan left Respondent and walked to the cash register to "ring up" the school principal who purchased some food. Ms. Sullivan went to an office in the back of the cafeteria with Ms. Sullivan's assistant manager. Respondent went to the back room and told Ms. Sullivan that he would show her some pictures on his computer. Respondent exited the room through the back door of the room to retrieve a laptop computer. Ms. Sullivan and her assistant manager went outside the back room and discussed the situation. Ms. Sullivan was embarrassed. After four or five minutes, Respondent returned to the back room and placed the laptop on the desk in front of Ms. Sullivan. The assistant manager was in the same room at another desk engaged in a telephone conversation. It took about 1.5 minutes for Respondent to turn on the laptop and display some pictures. The pictures included pictures of partially clad women and topless women. The situation terminated after 1.5 minutes when the assistant manager ended her telephone conversation, a child asked Ms. Sullivan to "ring up" some papers, and Ms. Sullivan's manager approached the room. Respondent changed the computer screen to a picture of his daughter and began talking to Ms. Sullivan's manager. Respondent left the school with the computer. Ms. Sullivan reported the incident to her manager, but Ms. Sullivan did not file a complaint for sexual harassment or state to her manager that she had been sexually harassed. Ms. Sullivan's manager relayed the information to Respondent's supervisor who discussed the matter with Respondent. Respondent admitted to the facts and expressed regret. Respondent's manager relayed the information to the Superintendent. The Superintendent investigated the matter and determined that Respondent had engaged in sexual harassment. The Superintendent based his determination on the definition of sexual harassment in the Board's Official Rule 3.54I.C. Rule 3.54I.C., in relevant part, states that sexual harassment consists of: . . . unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate oral, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: . . . such conduct substantially interferes with an employee's work performance . . . or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work . . . environment. Respondent's request for Ms. Sullivan to pose for sexually revealing pictures was either an unwelcomed sexual advance, request for sexual favor, or other inappropriate oral or written conduct of a sexual nature within the meaning of Rule 3.54I.C. Respondent's conduct substantially interfered with Ms. Sullivan's work performance or created an offensive work environment. The Superintendent testified during cross-examination that he would not have determined that Respondent engaged in sexual harassment if Ms. Sullivan had not said no to Respondent's request. A preponderance of the evidence fails to show that Ms. Sullivan expressly said "no" when asked pose or view pictures. However, a preponderance of the evidence shows that Ms. Sullivan was embarrassed and that the entire episode was unwelcomed and offensive within the meaning of Rule 3.54I.C. Respondent has no previous discipline history. Article VII of the collective bargaining agreement between the Board and its employees prescribes progressive discipline procedures for this case. Except in unusual circumstances, employment can be terminated only after an oral warning for a first offense, a reprimand for a second offense, a written warning for a third offense, and suspension for a fourth offense.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of sexual harassment and suspending Respondent from employment for the time of the current suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. John L. Ruiz, Superintendent Nassau County School Board 1201 Atlantic Avenue Fernandina Beach, Florida 32304 Brent P. Abner, Esquire Suite F 4741 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Brian T. Hayes, Esquire 245 East Washington Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Martha F. Dekle, Esquire 806 G Street Post Office Box 1644 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in computer programming and networking at the College. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1983. Since the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent has worked under a continuing contract of employment. A continuing contract is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent has received at least above-average evaluations of his job performance both from the institution and from his students during his tenure at the College. Respondent has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings of any kind prior to or since the incidents giving rise to this proceeding. Kimberly Zemola, a married woman in her late twenties, was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II and Session III of the 1994-95 academic year. In January 1995, while she was a student in Respondent’s class, Ms. Zemola wrote an anonymous note to Respondent suggesting that they commence a relationship and that Respondent should indicate his interest by wearing a certain sweater to class on a certain day. Respondent wore the sweater as suggested in the note. Respondent testified that his purpose in doing so was not to initiate a relationship, but to identify the author of the note, discover her problem, and direct her into obtaining assistance. Respondent and Ms. Zemola met. Their testimony was consistent in describing that they were both involved in troubled marriages, spent a great deal of time discussing their problems with each other, and, over a period of weeks, became close friends and confidants. During the period of January through May 1995, the relationship was not sexual, though there was some holding of hands and kissing during their meetings. During the summer session of 1995, while Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent's class, Respondent and Ms. Zemola engaged in consensual sex. Both Respondent and Ms. Zemola testified that this occurred on only one occasion, in June 1995. Respondent and Ms. Zemola continued their relationship until December 1995, at which point Ms. Zemola ended it. Ms. Zemola testified that in January 1996, after she ended the relationship with Respondent, she was diagnosed as clinically depressed. She testified that she believed Respondent took advantage of her depressed condition in pursuing a relationship with her. Respondent testified that Ms. Zemola mentioned suicidal thoughts on one occasion in late 1995, and that she revealed to him that she had been addicted to drugs and was a victim of child abuse. Nonetheless, Respondent testified that he had no knowledge Ms. Zemola was fighting depression during the period of their relationship. In January 1996, John Zemola, the husband of Kimberly Zemola, phoned Myrtle Williams, Associate Provost of the Gibbs Campus, to complain that Respondent had an affair with his wife. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated, so she invited him to her office to discuss the matter. Mr. Zemola met in person with Ms. Williams, and a little later in the day had a second meeting with both Ms. Williams and Charles Roberts, the Provost of the Gibbs Campus. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated and upset, expressing a great deal of anger toward Respondent. Mr. Zemola repeatedly demanded to know what the College was going to do about the situation. Shortly after his meeting with Mr. Zemola, Dr. Roberts called Respondent and asked him to come over to his office. Dr. Roberts testified that his main concern in calling Respondent was to warn him of Mr. Zemola’s angry and agitated state. Dr. Roberts also alerted campus security of the situation. At this meeting with Dr. Roberts, Respondent openly and voluntarily acknowledged his relationship with Ms. Zemola, including the romantic aspects thereof. The only discrepancy was that Respondent recalled the sexual encounter as having occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in his class, whereas Ms. Zemola recalled that it occurred when she was a student in Respondent’s class. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts investigated the matter further, attempting to set up a meeting with Ms. Zemola herself. It took them roughly ten days to two weeks to set up this meeting, which finally occurred in Dr. Roberts’ office. Present at the meeting were Dr. Roberts, Ms. Williams, and the Zemolas. At this meeting, Ms. Zemola acknowledged the relationship with Respondent, and acknowledged that it was she who initiated it. Both of the Zemolas were adamant that Respondent should not be permitted to continue teaching at the College. \ 18. Mr. Zemola in particular seemed intent on seeing Respondent punished. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola telephoned her “all the time talking about what are we going to do about Mr. Brooks.” Mr. Zemola’s threatening demeanor led Ms. Williams to move Ms. Zemola’s classes to a different campus, so that Respondent and Ms. Zemola would not be in each other’s presence. Ms. Williams testified that this precaution was taken, not because of Respondent or Ms. Zemola, but because of John Zemola. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever attempted to contact Ms. Zemola after she ended the relationship. In January 1996, Ms. Williams began attempting to get Ms. Zemola to sign an affidavit stating the facts of the situation. Ms. Zemola initially declined to do so, her stated reason being that she feared Respondent’s influence in the local market could jeopardize her academic future. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever took any action to adversely affect Ms. Zemola’s academic standing or career, either within or outside of the College setting. In a memorandum to Respondent, dated February 8, 1996, Dr. Roberts recounted the details of the charges leveled by the Zemolas, as well as Respondent’s admissions regarding his relationship with Ms. Zemola. The memorandum recited portions of the College’s “Sexual Harassment Policy and Definitions” (the “Policy”). Under the Policy, “sexual harassment” is defined as: An employee’s or a student’s unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, sexually related jokes, display of pornographic material in the workplace or an academic or student setting (An academic or student setting includes all settings on campus, off-campus clinical programs, off- campus courses, and off-campus college- sponsored events), when submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or an individual’s treatment as a student; submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or the treatment of a student affecting such individual; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or a student’s academic performance or creating a sexually intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment. The definition quoted above does not apply to the conduct alleged against Respondent, though a later section of the Policy, labeled “Instructor-Student Relationships,” appears to broaden the definition, as indicated in the relevant portion quoted below: This rule applies to instructor-student relationships. In the instructor-student context, the term sexual harassment has a broader impact. The fundamental element of such behavior is the inappropriate personal attention, including romantic and sexual relationships with a student by an instructor or staff member who is in a position to determine a student’s grade or otherwise affects the student’s academic advancement. Because the instructor-student relationship is one of professional and client, the above inappropriate behavior is unacceptable in a college; it is a form of unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic setting. Both President Kuttler and Dr. Roberts testified that, in their opinion, the language quoted in the preceding paragraph broadened the definition of “sexual harassment” as applied to the instructor-student relationship, such that any form of romantic or sexual relationship between an instructor and a student constitutes sexual harassment, at least when the instructor is in a position to determine the student’s grade or otherwise affect the student’s academic advancement. The Policy also forbids retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint or complained about sexual harassment. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent took any retaliatory action against Ms. Zemola. The Policy states that discipline for violation of its provisions “will depend on the nature of the incident,” but that the range of such discipline is from admonishment to dismissal. The February 8, 1996, memorandum goes on to state that, because of the seriousness of the alleged violations and because a violation of the Policy could lead to a recommendation of suspension or dismissal, Dr. Roberts was scheduling a meeting on February 13 with Ms. Williams, Martha Adkins, who was the Assistant Director of Business Technologies, and Nevis Herrington, Vice President of Human Resources, for the purpose of permitting Respondent to tell his side of the story in full. Ms. Williams was the only witness who testified as to the February 13 meeting, but her recollection was unclear as to the details of this meeting as distinguished from others involving Dr. Roberts, Respondent, and her. She recalled generally that Respondent was made aware of the Policy and potential penalties for violation thereof. Some delay ensued in the disciplinary process, because Dr. Roberts and Ms. Williams were waiting for the affidavit from Ms. Zemola, which was not forthcoming as spring turned into summer of 1996. At length, Dr. Roberts issued a memorandum to Respondent, dated August 13, 1996, and titled “Reprimand.” In the memorandum of reprimand, Dr. Roberts found that the facts to which Respondent had already admitted, characterized by Dr. Roberts as “a romantic relationship, including sexual relations, following the time that the student was a student in your class,” were sufficient to warrant a written admonishment. The memorandum stated that there were certain mitigating factors that caused Dr. Roberts not to recommend suspension or dismissal: that the student’s initiating the contact led to the relationship; that, according to Respondent, no romantic relationship or sexual relationship occurred while Ms. Zemola was Respondent’s student; and that Ms. Zemola had thus far refused or failed to provide her version of the facts in writing. However, Dr. Roberts’ memorandum went on to state: On the other hand, if the student had confirmed in an Affidavit what she originally advised us took place, I do not believe that I would have any choice but to consider recommending dismissal since such conduct would be a gross and direct violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy. Such conduct would not only be in violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Rule and Procedure but it would be unprofessional, immoral and constitute misconduct in office. Should confirming or additional information come forward to support the verbal statements we were given by the student and her husband, further consideration of an additional discipline including up to dismissal will be necessary. (Emphasis added.) The August 13, 1996, memorandum placed dispositive emphasis on the timing of the romantic and/or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Zemola. As of August 13, Dr. Roberts accepted Respondent’s version of the facts, i.e., that the romantic and sexual aspects of the relationship occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent’s class. Dr. Roberts found that this version, while contrary to the spirit of the Policy, and constituting misconduct in office and immorality, merited only a written admonishment. Dr. Roberts testified that “the power relationship is there whether the student is a student in that individual’s class or not,” somewhat contradicting the distinction he drew in his memorandum regarding the timing of the affair and its impact on the proposed discipline. Dr. Roberts testified that the admonishment was based on his judgment that Respondent’s relationship with the student violated the Policy “in terms of creating a threatening or offensive or intimidating environment.” He testified that Ms. Zemola had clearly complained that she felt intimidated and reluctant to take classes. Dr. Roberts’ conclusion in this regard was based on Ms. Zemola’s subjective apprehensions. No evidence was produced, at any point in these proceedings, that Respondent engaged in any behavior that could have caused Ms. Zemola to feel “intimidated” or “reluctant to take classes.” Ms. Zemola testified that she heard students at other campuses discussing the incident, and that an instructor in one of her classes talked about the case in front of the class. She believed that Respondent was the source of these persons’ knowledge of the situation. Ms. Zemola offered nothing more than her suspicions in this regard, and Respondent resolutely and credibly denied having discussed the affair with students or fellow instructors. In fact, the weight of the credible evidence leads to the finding that John Zemola was the likely source of any campus gossip regarding the incident. On at least one occasion, Mr. Zemola disrupted a College class by writing accusations against Respondent on the blackboard. Dr. Roberts’ August 13 reprimand memorandum left open the possibility that further disciplinary measures might be taken, should Ms. Zemola come forward with a sworn affidavit confirming her version of the timing of the romantic and sexual aspects, i.e., that they occurred while she was a student in Respondent’s class. In a sworn affidavit dated October 24, 1996, Ms. Zemola attested that, while she was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II, 1994-95, they had an affair which consisted of “a great amount of time talking, and some time kissing, hugging, and holding hands.” She attested that during Session III, 1994- 95, while she was still a student in Respondent’s class, Respondent told her that “if our affair did not go any further, then it had to end.” She attested that at this time she was constantly fighting suicidal thoughts, and believed that if she lost Respondent, the only person she could talk to, she might no longer be able to fight those thoughts. Therefore, during Session III, 1994-95, she engaged in a single sexual encounter with Respondent. By memorandum dated December 11, 1996, Dr. Roberts informed Respondent that the affidavit has been filed and offered Respondent an opportunity to meet with Dr. Roberts and two other officials “to respond to the allegations and share your side of the story.” There is no record evidence that this meeting ever took place. On May 8, 1997, the College filed the Petition. The essential allegation was framed as follows: The faculty member entertained romantic and sexual relations with a student while that student was in the faculty member’s class. This relationship continued after the student was no longer in the faculty member’s class for a period of several months while the student continued her course of education at the College. Such conduct therefore occurred during a time when the faculty member could influence and affect the student’s academic advancement. In addition to the allegations regarding Respondent’s romantic and/or sexual relationship with Ms. Zemola, the Petition alleged: The faculty member thereafter encouraged students of his to pressure the woman with whom he had had the romantic relationship to refrain from stating charges against him in order that it not jeopardize the faculty member’s career. Petitioner offered no evidence to support this allegation, and it is thus assumed that it has been dismissed. The remaining factual allegations contained in the Petition are for the most part conclusions alleged to arise from Respondent’s conduct: Said conduct seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the student/instructor relationship, and further is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace the faculty member’s profession and impair the faculty member’s service to the community and to students. The faculty member’s conduct had serious adverse consequences upon the student, the student’s relationship with her husband, as well as adverse impact on other students, faculty, staff, and upon members of the community, impairing his effectiveness. The effect of the faculty member’s aforesaid conduct was the creation of an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others. No evidence was presented of any “adverse consequences” to other students, faculty, staff, or members of the community, caused by Respondent’s actions. None of the College administrators who testified could recall receiving any complaints regarding Respondent. Dr. Roberts recalled an inquiry from the campus newspaper, but testified that no article ever ran in that or any other newspaper regarding this situation. Ms. Zemola testified that she heard some gossip around the campus, though none of it mentioned the parties by name. Such talk naturally affected Ms. Zemola, but could not be said to have had any other adverse impact. Ms. Zemola’s relationship with her husband was plainly affected by this incident. However, testimony from both Respondent and Ms. Zemola indicated that neither of their marriages was happy at the outset of their relationship. In fact, their testimony indicated that mutual unhappiness in their marriages was one of the main reasons they were drawn together in the first place. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Zemola’s grades or academic advancement were in any way compromised by her affair with Respondent. Ms. Zemola received grades of “A” in both classes she took from Respondent. Both Ms. Zemola and Respondent testified that these grades were earned by Ms. Zemola based entirely on her work in those classes. Respondent has continued to work as an instructor at the College since the affair and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. His work has been performed competently and completely without incident. The episodes of disruption and/or diminished effectiveness cited by the College’s administrators were in fact caused by John Zemola, not by Respondent. When asked for evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished as a result of the relationship, President Kuttler related an incident in which John Zemola disrupted a class to inform the students about Respondent’s situation, and another incident in which John Zemola harassed Respondent at his home, telling Respondent’s neighbors about the incident. President Kuttler concluded that Respondent’s effectiveness was diminished by the fact that it became known on the campus that there was a teacher/student sexual relationship. However, all the credible record evidence indicates no one involved in the incident or the subsequent disciplinary proceedings other than John Zemola ever publicly disclosed the relationship. Respondent cannot fairly be blamed for the actions of Mr. Zemola in publicizing the incident. Several of Respondent’s colleagues testified to attest to Respondent’s outstanding ability in the classroom. All opined, based on their experience as instructors at the College and their knowledge of Respondent’s character and abilities, that Respondent could continue to perform as an effective instructor at the College. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent’s actions created “an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others.” Respondent acknowledged the impropriety of his actions, and the impact they have had on his personal life, but testified that it has had no impact on his professional life.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the “Instructor-Student Relationships” portion of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy, and suspending Respondent from his position at the College for a period not to exceed one Session. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Shannon Bream, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Tampa, Florida 34684 Charles L. Roberts, Provost St. Petersburg Junior College St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus Office of the Provost St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 District Board of Trustees St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Carl M. Kuttler, Jr., President St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent should be suspended without pay for five days from employment with the School Board because of the matters alleged in the charging letter issued herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Polk County School Board, (Board), was the county agency responsible for the provision of public instruction from pre-kindergarten through secondary and adult education in Polk County, Florida, and operated Haines City High School in Haines City. Respondent had been employed at HCHS for eight years and in the last two years prior to the incidents in issue, taught in the school's Diversified Cooperative Training Program, (DCT) under a continuing contract of employment. In January, 1994, Respondent was administered a verbal reprimand as a result of reports that she has been consuming alcohol in the presence of her students at an out of town conference. A part of the basis for that reprimand was her reported comments to students to the effect that her predecessor as DCT instructor had advised her not to let Black students into the program because they caused trouble. These comments by Respondent were communicated to Black students who were upset by them. At some point during the 1993-1994 school year, Respondent reportedly overheard a student, Alisha Tanner, (now, Forsythe), in a discussion with another student regarding her breakup with her boyfriend. Respondent is alleged to have stated to Ms. Tanner that, "...if you have a vibrator, you won't need a boyfriend." Both Ms. Tanner and another female student who allegedly heard the statement, claim to have been shocked and embarrassed by hearing a teacher make such a statement, and a third student, Delana Muncy, indicated Ms. Tanner was crying as a result of the comment made to her. Evidence was also presented to indicate that about the same time, Respondent was overheard by several other students to have asked a male student, Jonathan Bradley, if he masturbated. Respondent does not deny using the term, "vibrator" to the female student. Her version of the conversation is somewhat different than those of the students, however. Respondent admits that she overheard the two girls discussing one's breakup with her boyfriend and that she joined the conversation. She, however, indicates that she did so to remind them of the dangers of reckless sexual behavior and suggested that the young lady find other ways, including the use of a vibrator, to satisfy her sexual needs. Respondent denies, however, the use of the word "masturbate" to Bradley. Only two of the students in or near the conversation recall Respondent making such a comment. Notwithstanding these comments were alleged to have been made during the early or middle part of the school year, no mention of them was made by any of the students to Respondent, her immediate supervisor, parents, school administration, or Board personnel until late in the school year, just shortly before graduation. At that time, a group of the students allegedly involved met for lunch at Pizza Hut off campus and in the course of their conversation, Respondent's alleged indiscretions surfaced. Prior to leaving campus, some of these students who now testify against Respondent passed a list of complaints against her around and, though denied, there is at least some indication the students were trying to get Respondent fired. Some of the students refused to sign the list. It was only several months after the inappropriate comments were allegedly made that the first official complaint was made. Other information presented at hearing indicates that during the school year several of the students involved in the reporting of this incident became dissatisfied with Respondent's conduct of her class. Respondent was alleged by students to have used such words in class as "shit", "hell", and "pissed off", and is reported to have commented, on a hot day, "I've got sweat running down between my breasts and the crack of my ass." No specific incident was presented to explain or elaborate on this. In addition, Respondent allowed a class discussion on marketing to inappropriately discuss the sale of condoms as a demonstrative example. In this case, she allowed any student who was offended by the discussion to leave the room, but this was not a satisfactory solution, as the students' excusal served only to focus unwelcome attention on the excused students. More specifically, Respondent was alleged to have become upset with student Bradley because, contra to the instructions she had given him about picking up the DCT jerseys from the printer, he disobeyed her instructions and picked them up without her permission. Respondent chastised Bradley for this. It is entirely possible the allegations against Respondent are the result of her disciplining of Mr. Bradley, thereby antagonizing him and his clique. Another allegation made against the Respondent by the Principal is her reported permission to several of her students to grade, average and record student grades, which allowed them access to her grade book. The HCHS teacher handbook, of which Respondent had previously been given a copy, specifically prohibits teachers from making grade books available to students and proscribes allowing students to record grades. Both the principal, Mr. Partain, and the Board's Director of Employee Relations indicated, without specific examples being provided, that Respondent's sexually inappropriate comments and her failure to abide by Board rules have impaired her effectiveness as a teacher in the school system. In general, her misconduct diminished her stature as a role model for her students, and her failure to obey Board rules compromised her ability to enforce discipline, but not to the degree that her effectiveness as a teacher was destroyed. Prior to the initiation of this action, the only disciplinary action taken against Respondent since she started working for the Board in 1988 was the verbal warning, (reduced to a letter), in January, 1994 regarding the drinking in front of students at conference and the untoward reference to Blacks. Other than that, her personnel record, commencing with the teacher evaluation done during the 1988-1989 school year, reflects positive comments and no criticism.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Mary L. Canova be reprimanded for improperly allowing students to grade the papers of other students, to average grades, and to have access to her grade book. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 6th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 94-4483 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted. Conclusions as to misconduct rejected. Accepted that a comment was made by Respondent to a student which included a reference to a vibrator. Exact wording as alleged not proven. Not proven. Accepted that condoms were discussed, but it is not established that the suggestion to use condoms as an example came from Respondent or that she agreed to the discussion other than reluctantly. In any event, this discussion was not listed as a basis for discipline. Not proven and not a listed basis for discipline. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted as a restatement of the witnesses' testimony. FOR THE RESPONDENT: - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein with the exception of the last sentence which is not proven. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First two sentences accepted. Third sentence a non proven conclusion. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Lane, Tron, Clarke, Bertrand, Vreeland & Jacobsen, P.A. Post Office Box 1578 150 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 24650 U.S. 19 North Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 John A. Stewart Superintendent Polk County Schools Post Office Box 391 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Steven G. Miller, is a teaching veteran in excess of 20 years and holds Florida teaching certificate #524693, valid through June 30, 1995, covering the area of social science. During times material herein, Respondent was assigned as a teacher to St. Petersburg High School. During times material, Respondent's wife, Claudia Miller, was also a teacher at St. Petersburg High School and their daughter was a student there. During the 1989-90 school year, Respondent taught an African/American student, Leslie Kemp, in his sociology class. Kemp attended St. Petersburg High School for approximately six months. During Kemp's enrollment at St. Petersburg High School, Respondent told her he was attracted to her, asked if she had a boyfriend and inquired if he could get to know her outside school. These questions and statements were embarrassing to Kemp and as a result, she altered her schedule to avoid contact with Respondent. After Kemp graduated, Respondent called her at home and went uninvited to her home during the school day. During the occasion on which Respondent went uninvited to Kemp's home, Kemp called another teacher at St. Petersburg High School, Kenneth Jackson, and told him that Respondent was, at that point in time, returning to the school. Jackson, on receiving that phone call from Kemp during the morning hours of a school day, went into the parking lot of the school and observed Respondent walking from his van toward the school. As a result of Kemp's call to Jackson, and based on his belief that Respondent had been attempting to contact Kemp at home, Jackson approached a mutual acquaintance and teacher, Coach Al Davis, and advised Davis to "tell [your] boy to back off." Jackson referred to Respondent as "your boy" when speaking to Coach Davis and did not specifically identify Respondent otherwise. Because of the close relationship enjoyed between Miller and Davis, Jackson assumed that Coach Davis understood that he was talking about Miller. As Jackson in fact assumed, Coach Davis conveyed Jackson's message to Respondent. Respondent acknowledged receiving the message to "back off" from Coach Jackson through Coach Davis, but claimed never to have given it a thought or to have asked Coach Jackson what was meant. However, Coach Davis did not indicate any playfulness in his comments to Respondent. Thereafter, Kemp did not receive any further contacts, either by phone or personal visits at her home, from Respondent. During times material, another African/American student, Mackalia Hadley, also attended St. Petersburg High School. Hadley played varsity basketball and Respondent was her coach. While attending school, Hadley was told by Respondent that his fantasy was to have sex with a "black lady." Respondent asked Hadley if she ever had sex with an older white man and inquired of her preference about sexual positions, asking if she would rather be on top or the bottom. Respondent told Hadley that he was afraid of having sex with her as she could probably "handle him." Respondent would usually always preface his conversations with young female students by telling them that if the topic offended them, they should advise him and he would stop. On one occasion, Respondent patted Hadley on the "butt" as she exited his classroom. Ms. Hadley was not offended by Respondent's remarks to her or having touched her on the butt as she did not want him to be penalized on the basis of his actions towards her since she considered that Respondent was a friend. However, Hadley was led to believe that had she been so inclined, Respondent was available for sex with her. Hadley never affirmatively filed a complaint about Respondent's behavior, either while a student or afterwards. Hadley became aware of the disciplinary action against Respondent based on newspaper and other media coverage and during a counselling session with Ms. Christine Albino, Hadley's former "parenting" instructor, subsequent to graduation. Hadley did not want to be a witness in any disciplinary action against Respondent, although Ms. Albino advised Hadley that she would have to provide the information that she had about Respondent to Petitioner Board's personnel director, S. Crosby, who was investigating Respondent. Barbara Gamble, another African/American female student who attended St. Petersburg High School during the fall semester of 1991, was a student of Respondent. Respondent made frequent comments to Gamble, which she understood to be sexual. One such remark was "Oh Barbara, you're so fine. You turn me on. You have to stop doing this." Respondent inquired if Gamble would ever consider cheating on her boy friend. Respondent knows that Gamble had two children at the time of her enrollment in his class. On one occasion while in class, Respondent told her "If you ever want to have another kid, I'm always available." On one occasion, during his fourth period class, Respondent asked Gamble to come to his room during seventh period to review a test. Upon her arrival, Respondent placed the exam on his desk. He then told her that if anyone came into the room, they would pretend that the test was being reviewed, but he assured her that he had called her there for other reasons. Respondent told Gamble how physically attracted he was to her and asked if they could meet somewhere to be together. He also inquired of her if she had anything against him being white, older and married as far as the two of them being with each other was concerned. Shortly thereafter, Gamble withdrew from Respondent's class citing her fear of Respondent and of being alone with him. Gamble contacted Christine Albino who had been informed of Respondent's behavior toward Gamble through a conversation with another of Respondent's students, Janice Polk. Gamble's recall, which was confirmed by Principal Broughton after review of the official school records, indicates that she had no apparent problem with academics in Respondent's course. Janice Polk is also an African/American female student who was in Respondent's class from August 1991 through January 1992. Polk became acquainted with Respondent in his third period class, and as his teacher assistant during the sixth period. During the time when Respondent was Polk's instructor, he told her that he was physically attracted to her and asked her if she would consider cheating on her boy friend. Respondent cautioned Polk that his comments should not be disclosed because he could lose his job and his family. He also stressed that he would deny ever making any sexual comments to her if his remarks ever surfaced. On one occasion while Polk was working with Respondent alone as his assistant, during a Friday afternoon while most students at school were preparing for a football pep assembly, Respondent grabbed Polk from slightly to the side, put his arm around her waist and placed his hands on her butt and pulled her to him. Respondent grabbed Polk's breast, commenting that she was very "grown." He attempted to kiss Polk on the mouth and asked her if she wanted to touch him. Respondent told her that she didn't have to be afraid because he too was scared. Polk was in a position to notice that Respondent had an erection during their contact. Polk retracted and declined Respondent's advance. Respondent then let go of Polk without a physical struggle advising her not to tell anyone about the incident. Upon leaving Respondent's class, Polk encountered a friend, Alvie "Nikki" Poole, in the hallway. Poole observed that Polk was in a state of shock and she inquired if Polk had seen a ghost. Ms. Polk told Nikki about the incident and she (Polk) thereafter withdrew from Respondent's class and her assistantship as a result of Respondent's advances. Polk was afraid, embarrassed and felt disparaged based on Respondent's advances. Respondent's classroom, while situated in a relatively high student traffic area, and although his classroom was unlocked at the time of the encounter with Ms. Polk, was in a section of the building which was abnormally quiet and unoccupied since the pep assembly was ongoing. Students who did not attend the assembly were taking the opportunity to leave the campus early thereby significantly reducing the chances of a student unexpectedly entering Respondent's classroom and interrupting his encounter with Polk. The behavior engaged in by Respondent in relation to students Leslie Kemp, Hadley, Gamble and Polk included sexual innuendos, invitations, propositions, comments about physical attractiveness and attractions, and were laden with sexual implications. Respondent's conduct and behavior was therefore inappropriate and diminished his effectiveness as a School Board employee and a responsible instructional certificate holder. Respondent had been looked upon and has shown a sense of being sensitive to the needs and concerns of minority students who regarded him as their mentor. Respondent has, in the past, assisted a number of students become enrolled in college and was, indeed, in a position to be a role model for such students. Respondent was well respected by minorities, including Blacks and Asians, and they often turned to him for advice. A large number of the minority student population at St. Petersburg High School regarded Respondent as an informal counselor and he was universally regarded as such. Respondent was extremely popular with the student body and he spent a great deal of time shaping his students' lives. That fact, however, does not detract from the seriousness of the conduct which he engaged in relative to students Kemp, Hadley, Gamble and Polk. It is indeed unfortunate that a teacher of Respondent's caliber and ability to shape the lives of their vulnerable students 1/, would engage in acts of immortality as noted. Respondent's conduct toward these students cannot be overlooked. Respondent's contention that these students engaged in a plot to get back at him was considered and rejected. First, there was no showing that the students were motivated to devise such a scheme. A review of the students' academic transcripts indicated that, during times material, they were making satisfactory progress from an academic standpoint. In the one instance where it was shown that one student received an incomplete grade due to a failure to complete the required coursework, there was no nexus shown between the incomplete grade and Respondent's conduct which was inappropriate. Moreover, the transcripts fail to demonstrate that the students were receiving failing grades and therefore motivated to get rid of him (as a teacher). Finally, Respondent's contention that the order in which the complaints were filed against him evidenced a scheme by the Board to build a case to terminate him is likewise without basis in fact. The facts lend no support for Respondent's contention and more to the point, the evidence shows that the students, in the main, barely know each other and were reluctant to testify against Respondent. As to the Board's involvement, its agents were simply fulfilling their duties and responsibilities as school officials concerned about the well-being of its students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent's employment as an instructor from the Pinellas County School System. Petitioner Commissioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years, followed by a two year probation upon re-entry, conditioned upon a psychiatric evaluation, clearance and counseling as well as appropriate remedial course work to be specified by the EPC. Additional specific terms and conditions of probation, including restrictions on student contact, should be determined as appropriate by the EPC. DONE and ORDERED this 3 day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3 day of September, 1992.
The Issue In Case No. 88-3425, Mr. Bradley Thomas challenges the termination of his employment at the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind. The issue is Case No. 88-5675 is whether Mr. Thomas committed the acts alleged by the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty may be appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Bradley Thomas holds Florida Teaching Certificate #486268, valid through June 30, 1993. Mr. Thomas is certified to teach secondary levels, vocational education and printing, and was initially employed by the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind (FSDB) in 1980. Mr. Thomas taught phototypesetting in the FSDB Vocational Department. Mr. Thomas was described by his immediate supervisor as highly-motivated and conscientious. He has received satisfactory and above-satisfactory performance evaluations. Mr. Thomas is 57 years old and has been deaf since the age of 12. He communicates through signing and speech. According to section 242.331(4), Florida Statutes, the Board of Trustees of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is authorized to appoint and remove teachers "as in its judgement may be best". By Rule 6D- 4.002(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, the Board of Trustees has delegated responsibilities related to employment and termination of academic personnel to the President of FSDB. By letter from FSDB President Robert Dawson, dated February 15, 1986, such authority has been delegated to Samuel R. Visconti, Director of Personnel for the FSDB. The Board of Trustees has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind Teachers United, an affiliate of the Florida Teaching Profession-NEA and the National Education Association. Article 13, section E, of the 1986-89 agreement between the Board of Trustees and the FSDB Teachers United, FTP-NEA, in relevant part, provides that Mr. Thomas may not be discharged from employment by the Board of Trustees except for "just cause", which is defined to mean job- related incompetence or misconduct. The professional competence of Mr. Thomas as a teacher is not at issue in this proceeding. During the second semester of the 1986-87 school year, Holly Middlebrooks was enrolled with five other students in Mr. Thomas' class. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Middlebrooks was 19 years old and a senior at FSDB. On more than one occasion, Mr. Thomas "rubbed" Ms. Middlebrooks' back and shoulders during class, in a massaging manner, which made her uncomfortable and confused. The contact occurred while Ms. Middlebrooks was seated at and using a computer terminal and while she entered and left the classroom. Although she attempted to convey her discomfort with Mr. Thomas' touching by repositioning herself in her chair as she worked at the computer, she did not instruct Mr. Thomas to stop. Ms. Middlebrooks saw Mr. Thomas touch other students in a similar manner. Although other students indicated to Ms. Middlebrooks that Mr. Thomas discussed sexual topics in class, she did not hear and could not recall specific incidents of sexually-oriented language on Mr. Thomas' part. Nadine Lents was enrolled with four or five other students in Mr. Thomas' class during the second semester of the 1986-87 term and for the full 1987-88 school year. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Lents was 18 years old. On occasion, Mr. Thomas would massage Ms. Lents' neck and shoulders while she worked at the computer terminal. At times she feared that he would touch her breasts but he did not. She did not instruct him to stop. On at least one occasion, Mr. Thomas rubbed her leg while she sat at the terminal and she instructed him to stop, to which he replied that there was no cause for her concern. Mr. Thomas "often" hugged Ms. Lents, sometimes pressing himself against her breasts or in a manner which she found to be "too hard", and she would push Mr. Thomas away. Ms. Lents sometimes would lightly hug Mr. Thomas as a means of greeting, but was careful to maintain distance. Mr. Thomas discussed sexual matters with Ms. Lents. He asked her if she "liked oral sex", talked about the size of her breasts, and discussed other sexual matters in vulgar terms. The sexual discussions sometimes made Ms. Lents uncomfortable and embarrassed. During both the 1986-87 and 1987-88 school terms, Karen Warfel was enrolled with "about six" other students in Mr. Thomas' class. At the time of her testimony at the administrative hearing, Ms. Warfel was 20 years old and had graduated from the FSDB. More than once, Mr. Thomas rubbed her back under blouses which she described as "loose". Once, Ms. Warfel instructed Mr. Thomas to stop, and he complied with her request, but Mr. Thomas subsequently resumed touching Ms. Warfel in a similar manner and she did not stop him. Mr. Thomas also occasionally rubbed Ms. Warfel on her leg, "above the knee", in an attempt "to calm me down when I get frustrated on the computer". The physical contact with Mr. Thomas made her feel uncomfortable. Ms. Warfel would, on occasion, request a piece of candy from a supply which Mr. Thomas kept in his desk drawer. Mr. Thomas would ask Ms. Warfel to kiss his cheek prior to giving her candy, and Ms. Warfel would comply with his request. Sometimes Mr. Thomas would tickle Ms. Warfel near her rib cage or below her belt and to the sides of her abdomen, in an area Ms. Warfel described as near her ovary. Mr. Thomas discussed sexual matters in the classroom in Ms. Warfel's presence, including discussing his sexual relationship with his wife. Ms. Warfel was embarrassed by Mr. Thomas' conduct. Marisol Eschevarria-Sola was enrolled in Mr. Thomas' class during the first semester of the 1986-87 school year and the first semester of the 1987-88 school year. There were approximately five students in the class. At the time of her deposition, Ms. Eschevarria-Sola was 20 years old. Mr. Thomas, at least once, touched or stroked Ms. Eschevarria-Sola's leg, around her knee and thigh, and also touched her back. The physical contact, which occurred while she was seated at the computer console, made her uncomfortable. She expressed her discomfort when such touches occurred. Mr. Thomas explained that he was attempting to warm his hands. She saw Mr. Thomas touch other students in her class in like manner. At least once, Mr. Thomas requested that Ms. Eschevarria-Sola kiss him in exchange for a pencil she wanted to borrow. Although she was uncomfortable with the situation, she complied with his request. On another occasion, Mr. Thomas requested that he be permitted to kiss her and she complied. Ms. Eschevarria-Sola recalled Mr. Thomas discussing sexual matters in class, including his relationship with his wife, but could not specifically recall the details of the discussion. Mr. Thomas also joked about the bodies of the students in his class. Ms. Eschevarria-Sola was embarrassed by the jokes or language. Students at the FSDB are required to attend a course entitled "Talking About Touching", which provides instruction related to self-protection from potential physical abuse. Students are taught to classify physical contact as "good", "bad" or "confusing". "Good" touches would include such positive contact as a pat on the back. "Bad" touches would include touches which are physically uncomfortable and negatively perceived by the recipient, such as slapping or inappropriate sexually-oriented contact. "Confusing" touches are those which may be positively intended but which are perceived by the recipient to be inappropriate or which make the recipient uncomfortable. Students are taught that "confusing" and "bad" touches should be reported to responsible authorities at the school. The record is unclear as to whether the students alleging that Mr. Thomas' touches were "confusing" had taken the course prior to being in Mr. Thomas' classroom. Some students at the FSDB may have reached majority. Students may remain enrolled at the FSDB beyond the age of students enrolled in other high schools. A teacher is held to the same standards of classroom behavior regardless of the students ages. Mr. Thomas had been present during an FSDB staff meeting during which reference to appropriate and inappropriate classroom conduct was made by supervisory personnel, and consequences of improper conduct were discussed. Officials at the FSDB became aware of allegations related to the classroom conduct of Mr. Thomas, when, on May 24, 1988, the allegations were reported to Mr. Robert Dawson, President of the FSDB, by a female student, Marisol Eschevarria-Sola. Ms. Eschevarria-Sola had, on the previous evening, participated in a dormitory gathering with other female students during which Mr. Thomas' conduct was discussed. (Some students are enrolled at the FSDB on a residential basis and live in dorms at the school.) At the direction of the FSDB President Robert Dawson, the allegations were immediately investigated by Ms. Debra Boles, Assistant Principal for Academic Instruction. Ms. Boles initially interviewed five hearing-impaired female students, including Ms. Eschevarria-Sola and Ms. Warfel, who provided information substantially similar to their testimony at the administrative hearing. The initial interviews were solely between the individual students and Ms. Boles, who is skilled at signed communication. The student interviews indicated that some students were "confused" by Mr. Thomas' conduct. Ms. Boles immediately reported her findings to Mr. Dawson, who directed that Mr. Thomas be placed on administrative leave with pay pending further inquiry into the allegations. On May 24, 1988, Ms. Boles verbally informed Mr. Thomas and his immediate supervisor that Mr. Thomas was being placed on administrative leave with pay pending further investigation. Ms. Boles explained that there were allegations of inappropriate physical contact made by unidentified female students of Mr. Thomas. Ms. Boles informed Mr. Thomas that such inappropriate contact included touching female students "on the back, on the shirt or on the thighs. " By letter dated May 24, 1988, Mr. Dawson confirmed that Mr. Thomas was placed on administrative leave with pay, effective May 25 through June 8, 1988, while under investigation for "inappropriate Staff/Student Relationships" constituting violation of referenced sections of the Florida Administrative Code related to the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. At Mr. Dawson's direction, Ms. Boles, on or about May 27, 1988, interviewed 29 students, all of whom are hearing-impaired, who had been students of Mr. Thomas at some time during their enrollment at the FSDB. The interviews were conducted individually. The interviews between Ms. Boles and the individuals were conducted through a registered interpreter. Of the 29 interviewed, 22 of the students expressed no concern related to Mr. Thomas' classroom conduct. Among the students interviewed were Ms. Middlebrooks and Ms. Lents, who provided information substantially similar to their testimony at the administrative hearing. Ms. Boles provided the information gained through the student interviews to Mr. Dawson. The matter was referred to the FSDB Personnel Director for further action. Pursuant to the aforementioned letter of delegation, Samuel R. Visconti, Director of Personnel for the FSDB, is responsible for employee disciplinary actions, including employment termination procedures. At the time Mr. Visconti was informed of the allegations, Mr. Thomas had been placed on administrative leave and the school was investigating the matter. Mr. Visconti was aware of the recommendations made by Dr. Randall, Mr. Dawson and Ms. Boles. Ms. Boles recommended that Mr. Thomas' employment at the FSDB be terminated for violation of professional standards. Dr. Randall recommended that Mr. Thomas' employment at the FSDB be terminated due to inappropriate conduct in the classroom. Dr. Randall has substantial experience with the deaf and observed that the physical contact which occurred in Mr. Thomas' classroom was not of the type which one hearing- impaired person would use to gain the attention of another. Mr. Dawson recommended that Mr. Thomas' employment at the FSDB be terminated. Mr. Dawson, who has extensive experience with the deaf, believed that the physical contact, sexual discussions, and attempted equalization of the teacher-student relationship had rendered Mr. Thomas ineffective as a teacher. According to Mr. Visconti, the termination procedure at FSDB requires notification to the employee of the intended action which is predicated on the allegations of either incompetence or misconduct. Prior to termination, the employee may or may not be placed on administrative leave during the school's inquiry into the allegations. Following the school's investigation, the employee is contacted and offered the opportunity for a predetermination hearing at which the employee may provide information relevant to the proposed disciplinary action. Within five days following the hearing, the employee is notified in writing, and perhaps verbally, of the school's decision. Mr. Visconti contacted Mr. Thomas either late in the afternoon of June 6 or early in the morning of June 7, 1988, to arrange a predetermination hearing. The communication between Mr. Visconti and Mr. Thomas was through telephone and TDD, a device that permits the transmission of apparently written communication through telephone lines. Mr. Visconti is not hearing-impaired. The record does not indicate whether Mr. Visconti understands signed communication. By agreement between Mr. Visconti and Mr. Thomas, the conference was scheduled for the afternoon of June 7, 1988. During the TDD communication, Mr. Visconti explained to Mr. Thomas that the school had completed the investigation of the allegations of improper classroom conduct, and restated the allegations. Mr. Visconti explained that Mr. Thomas was being offered the opportunity to meet with Mr. Visconti and present "his side of the story...." Mr. Thomas was informed that he could provide information orally or in writing, and was further informed that he could "bring anyone with him that he felt would help him in supporting anything that he wanted to present...." Mr. Thomas and Mr. Visconti agreed that Dr. Randall would serve at the meeting as interpreter. Mr. Visconti received from Ms. Boles, a package of materials, dated June 7, 1988. The package included Ms. Boles' notes taken during or subsequent to her interviews with the students. Present at the June 7 meeting were Mr. Visconti, Mr. Thomas, Dr. Randall, and Mr. Thomas' wife. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Visconti informed Mr. Thomas that the sexually-related allegations would be specifically addressed and inquired as to whether Mrs. Thomas would be embarrassed. Mr. Thomas indicated that the meeting could proceed. At that time, Mr. Visconti restated the incidents of inappropriate conduct upon which the school intended to base the disciplinary action and explained the authority under which the FSDB was acting. Mr. Thomas attempted to address the allegations at that time, but offered no witnesses. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Visconti informed Mr. Thomas that a decision would be issued within several days. On the morning of June 8, 1988, Mr. Thomas contacted Mr. Visconti and requested an additional meeting to offer further explanation. The meeting, held that afternoon, was attended by Mr. Thomas, Mr. Visconti, and Dr. Randall. Mr. Thomas offered a typewritten statement, suggesting a rationale for the accusations made against him, which apparently reiterated information he had provided at the prior conference. Upon the conclusion of the June 8, 1988 meeting, Mr. Visconti terminated Mr. Thomas' employment, effective immediately. Mr. Thomas was officially dismissed by letter of June 10, 1988 from Mr. Visconti. The June 10 letter states that he was dismissed from employment for "doing the following to female students: rubbing backs, tickling backs under student's blouses, rubbing student's thighs, asking sexually related questions of students, discussing sexually related topics regarding your personal life, and asking for kisses in exchange for items such as pencils or pieces of candy." The letter informed Mr. Thomas of his right to appeal the determination through the administrative process and his union grievance procedure. Mr. Visconti determined that, based upon the information and recommendations presented to him by Dr. Randall, Mr. Dawson, Ms. Boles and Mr. Thomas, that just cause existed for the termination of Mr. Thomas' employment at the FSDB. Mr. Visconti determined that Mr. Thomas had violated the Code of Ethics as set forth in administrative rules and that the improper classroom conduct had rendered Mr. Thomas ineffective as a teacher and had placed students at risk. At the administrative hearing, Mr. Thomas sought to explain the physical contact as serving to gain the attention of, or to calm, hearing- impaired students. Mr. Thomas claims that he touched Ms. Middlebrooks' back as a means of addressing the frustration she supposedly felt at the difficult computer work required in the class and stated that he did not know she found it objectionable. Mr. Thomas testified that Ms. Lents instigated the hugging incidents, and that he told her to stop, but she continued. Mr. Thomas claimed that he once touched Ms. Warfel's back under her blouse on a day when Ms. Warfel wore a prohibited bare midriff blouse to class and that his hand accidently touched her bare skin while he was reminding her that such blouses were prohibited. Mr. Thomas denied that he requested a kiss from Ms. Warfel, but suggested that Ms. Warfel kissed him because he was her "favorite teacher". Mr. Thomas denied tickling Ms. Warfel. Mr. Thomas explained that he possibly touched Ms. Eschevarria-Sola's leg as a means of gaining her attention while she sat at the computer console, but claimed he never touched the inside of her thigh. Mr. Thomas denied that Ms. Eschevarria-Sola kissed him or that he kissed her. As to sexually-oriented conversations, Mr. Thomas denied having made such remarks. Mr. Thomas' testimony was less credible than that of the students who testified at the hearing. At the administrative hearing, Mr. Thomas offered no rationale to suggest the reason behind the student's allegations. The typewritten statement provided to Mr. Visconti on June 8 by Mr. Thomas suggests that the allegations were the work of Senior class students, supposedly disappointed with his decision not to invite them to his home for a social event, as he had apparently done on an occasional and irregular basis in previous years. However, those students testifying generally had favorable opinions of Mr. Thomas, other than as to his specific conduct to which they objected. There is no evidence to support the inference that the allegations were untruthful and that they were intended as retribution for the omitted social activity. Evidence was introduced indicating that hearing-impaired persons are more likely to touch each other than are non-hearing-impaired persons. Such touches are to gain another's attention or to express emotion. The evidence does not support the suggestion that Mr. Thomas' classroom conduct was designed to gain the attention of the students or express emotion. Ms. Boles testified that some of Mr. Thomas' classroom behavior indicated the potential for sexual abuse by Mr. Thomas, however, the testimony to this point was not persuasive. Ms. Boles' opinion was, at least in part, based upon her discussions with an independent psychologist who serves as a consultant to the school on matters related to sexual abuse prevention. According to Ms. Boles, the consultant stated that a "psychosexual evaluation" of Mr. Thomas was necessary to determine the potential for sexual abuse. The school did not follow the consultant's recommendation. Although Mr. Thomas' behavior was inappropriate, the evidence does not suggest that Mr. Thomas sexually abused students and the testimony related to Mr. Thomas' potential for sexual abuse is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees for the Florida school for the Deaf and the Blind enter a Final Order finding that just cause exists for terminating the employment of Bradley Thomas. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking teaching certificate, #486268, held by Bradley Thomas. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 19th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NOS. 88-3425 and 88-5675 Proposed findings of fact were filed by the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, Respondent, Case No. 88-3425 and Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, Case No. 88-5675. The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. The proposed findings of fact are adopted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, Respondent, Case No. 88-3425 4. Reference to contact with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services rejected, immaterial. 6. Reference to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative services rejected, immaterial. Reference to conversations with "Dr. DiAmatto" rejected as non-corroborated hearsay. 15. Rejected, irrelevant. Last sentence rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. The testimony cited does not clearly indicate that the statement was made in the classroom. 20. Reference to witness' testimony related to sexual content of discussion is rejected, not supported by the evidence. The testimony indicates that the witness was told by others that the discussion related to sex. 26. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. The testimony cited does not clearly indicate that the statement was made in the classroom. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. The testimony cited does support the proposed finding. Reference to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services rejected, immaterial. Betty Castor, as commissioner of Education, Petitioner, Case No. 88-5675 7. Reference to contact with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services rejected, immaterial. 9. Reference to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services rejected as immaterial. Reference to conversations with "Dr. DiAmatto" rejected as non-corroborated hearsay. 15. Reference to witness' testimony related to sexual content of discussion is rejected, not supported by the evidence. The testimony indicates that the witness was told by others that the discussion related to sex. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. The testimony cited does not clearly indicate that the statement was made in the classroom. Rejected, unnecessary. 29. Characterization of testimony as evasive and inconsistent is rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Sheppard, Esq. 215 Washington Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Barbara J. Staros, Esq. State Board of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Betty J. Steffens, Esq. 106 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Robert Dawson, President Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind 207 San Marco Avenue St. Augustine, FL 32084
The Issue Whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct and/or immorality in office (in the nature of suggestive and degrading sexual innuendoes and remarks to several female students) pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a) F.S. and Rules 6B- 1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009 F.A.C. so as to be subject to dismissal by the Nassau County School Board. Although some evidence of other years was presented, the August 8, 1991 Statement of Charges herein covers only the 1990-1991 school year. Accordingly, only evidence from that school year may be considered for purposes of discipline in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was a teacher at the Hilliard Middle- Senior High School and the holder of a professional services contract with Petitioner Nassau County School Board. He is certified by the State of Florida in the areas of mathematics, psychology, and broad field social studies. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner for the nine years immediately preceding his suspension for the charges involved in this case. During the whole of that time he received good job evaluations. He has had no prior disciplinary charges against him. On or about May 9, 1991, Petitioner, pursuant to the recommendation of the Nassau County Superintendent of Schools, suspended Respondent without pay. This followed the Superintendent's suspension of Respondent with pay on May 2, 1991. During his employment with Petitioner, Respondent has taught geometry, algebra II, trigonometry, one class of general math, and a class of compensatory mathematics. Respondent has had a practice of greeting his students at random as they enter the classroom each day and while they are taking their seats and settling down to work. At all times material, these greetings were offered in the presence of students of both genders. Respondent teased the boys about sports and commented on the girls' appearance. The comments made most frequently by the Respondent to the football players were that they had not done well in the immediately preceding game. The comments made most frequently by the Respondent to all the female students were, "You're looking good; you're looking fine; you're looking hot;" or, more simply, "you're fine; you're hot." None of the comments were exclusive to any particular female student. All comments were made out in the open, without any physical touching or aggression on Respondent's part. He made these comments with no intended sexual connotation, and no female student ever expressed to him directly that she objected to these greetings either because they sounded sexual in nature, were too familiar, or were made in the presence of the female students' male peers. Generally, Respondent's comments were recognized as kidding and not taken seriously or considered objectionable by the students. There is no evidence that the Respondent's comments delayed the commencement of class, caused disruptive behavior on the part of either the male or the female students who heard them, or inhibited any student learning the academic material. One female student who testified that she found the foregoing practice objectionable was Shannon Lysitt, a student of Respondent's during both the 1989-1990 and the 1990-1991 school years. Ms. Lysitt testified at formal hearing that she "took [these comments] to be sexual but not as in a sexual manner." She considered the comments embarrassing and a display of inappropriate conduct by a teacher but knew Respondent was being friendly and joking. Ms. Lysitt admittedly never told Respondent she felt embarrassed or asked him to stop making such comments. Although she was used to his comments from the previous school year, Ms. Lysitt did not request to be assigned to another class for the 1990-1991 school year. In one isolated conversation, Respondent told Ms. Lysitt that, due to her poor math grades, she would probably wind up as a secretary being chased around a desk by her boss instead of achieving her desired career of psychiatrist. The Respondent denied making that comment specifically, but testified that he had made chiding or derrogatory comments about career plans of college preparatory students to motivate them to do better on tests when they had been doing poorly. By all accounts, Ms. Lysitt was doing all right in Respondent's course but could have done better. Ms. Lysitt's testimony was credible as to what was said, but Respondent's testimony was equally credible as to why he said it. Upon the evidence as a whole, it is found that the Respondent's comment may have been temporarily embarrassing to Ms. Lysitt, and may have, as she testified, made her feel bad or stupid for a short time, but that it did not degrade or humiliate her or adversely affect her classroom performance or overall self-image. Sherry Meziere was a student in Respondent's fourth period general math II class during the 1990-1991 school year. She also was embarrassed by Respondent's compliments to her, but she never told him so. When Ms. Meziere complained to Respondent that her semester grade was a "C" rather than the "B" she wanted, he told her she could stay after school and she would get her "B". Ms. Meziere is a particularly sensitive and shy teenager, and she took offense at the Respondent's comment because she interpreted it as a sexual come-on. Respondent denied having any sexual intent behind his comment to Ms. Meziere. At formal hearing, he explained that Ms. Meziere would have been entitled to a "B" if she had turned in all her homework, as required, but she had not. Because her grade was borderline due to the missing homework, Respondent had meant by his remark to Ms. Meziere that if she would come to the classroom after school and work the homework problems in his presence, he would retroactively give her credit for doing the homework and turning it in and this would accordingly alter her semester grade to a "B". Respondent's explanation for why he took this approach is reasonable: he would not accept students bringing in the homework later from home because it might be done anew or copied from someone else. Perhaps Respondent fell short in not clearly indicating all his reasoning and purpose to Ms. Meziere, but he also had no notice from her that she had misunderstood his offer. On balance, Ms. Meziere's explanation of why she took Respondent's neutral remark sexually is weak. She testified, A: I took it sexually. I don't know. Q: Why did you take it sexually? What is it about it that made you think that because you would agree, wouldn't you, that that could also be nonsexual the way you stated it, correct? A: Yes. Q: So what was it about the way he said it that made you think that it was sexual? A: I don't know. I just didn't feel comfortable with it. Q: But he didn't say anything explicit-- A: No. Q: --about sex or anything like that? A: No. (Exhibit P-2, page 10) Ms. Meziere considered Respondent a good teacher, not really strict, and pretty friendly. She felt he was giving her and one of her girl friends many more compliments of the nature described above in Finding of Fact 5 than he was giving other female students in their particular class. Respondent conceded that perhaps he had complimented Ms. Meziere more than some other female students in her class because he had tried to build up Ms. Meziere's self-esteem while the class was going to and from the cafeteria during the lunch recess which occurred in the middle of that class period, so that she would eat and not diet excessively. When she felt "uncomfortable" about Respondent's offering to see her after school, Ms. Meziere was not aware that Respondent frequently tutored students after school. Shanna Higginbotham, another one of Respondent's female students, confirmed that she had been tutored by him after school on several occasions, without any sexual innuendoes or overtures. Although what Respondent did not do with Ms. Higginbotham is not corroborative of Respondent's testimony that he did not intend his remark to Ms. Meziere to be sexual, it is supportive of his testimony that he was in the habit of having one or more students in his classroom after school. It also supports a reasonable inference that the Respondent's classroom was hardly the place for a private rendezvous. Respondent was approached during an inactive period in one of his classes by a senior mathematics student named Monica Adamczewski, who was simultaneously taking a college-level psychology class in child development at Florida Community College, Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Adamczewski, knowing of Respondent's background in psychology, addressed a question to Respondent involving Freudian theory and child psychology on the issue of whether or not little children have sexual feelings, as hypothesized by Freud. Respondent responded by describing how he had handled an incident involving his own four year child's masturbation. Although the conversation was conducted in low tones with Ms. Adamczewski and Respondent in their respective desks, another student, Darlene Kelly, came up to Respondent's desk in the course of the conversation and heard only part of the conversation. Ms. Kelly was not aware of the context in which the subject arose, did not approve of certain language Respondent employed in discussing his child's activity, and felt it was an inappropriate conversation for the classroom, but Ms. Kelly also testified that the conversation did not embarrass her. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the foregoing incident occurred during the period covered by the Statement of Charges in this case. It is found that it did not occur during the period of time covered by the charges and accordingly that it cannot constitute grounds for disciplining Respondent in this proceeding. Jessica Smith testified to three incidents that allegedly occurred during the 1989-1990 school year. Because the Statement of Charges against the Respondent is silent as to any allegations of misconduct or immorality that occurred other than during the 1990-1991 school year, these incidents may not be used to discipline Respondent in this proceeding. 1/ Tammy McClamma graduated from Hilliard Middle-Senior High School in May 1990. She was not one of Respondent's students in either her junior or senior year, but she knew him from being around school. The events she described also could not have occurred during the time frame set out in the Statement of Charges and therefore cannot be used to discipline the Respondent in this proceeding. 2/ Respondent acknowledged that he may have been careless and used poor judgment in some of the statements he made to his female students. However, he never intended to harm or embarrass any of them and was simply guilty of allowing himself to get too close to the students as friends rather than maintaining the appropriate distance required of the student-teacher relationship. All the student witnesses, including those who were offended by isolated remarks they regarded as inappropriate, agreed that Respondent has a friendly and jocular manner in and out of the classroom. Respondent's classroom clearly has a "laid back" style. Overall, his students seem to appreciate and enjoy his familiar manner and to learn well in his classes. The consistent testimony of the students was that he is generally well-regarded and "everybody's favorite teacher." Superintendent Marshall opined as a professional educator that the Respondent's effectiveness as an educator had been undermined and eliminated by a continuing pattern of serious misconduct. However, no evidence of lost effectiveness beyond the temporary embarrassment and self-doubt experienced by Ms. Lysitt appears of record, and Mr. Marshall's opinion as rendered at formal hearing was based in part upon incidents outside the dates alleged in the Statement of Charges and also based in part upon the total investigation of this case, which investigation clearly included material not in evidence here.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Nassau County enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent and returning him to full duty with all back pay and benefits retroactive to May 9, 1991. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1992.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Jean- Baptiste Guerrier, made inappropriate comments to, or engaged in inappropriate conduct with, female students, or inappropriately discussed the topic of sex with his class, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanction is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals holding Florida educator's certificates. Mr. Guerrier held Florida Educator's Certificate 596926, covering the areas of English and middle grades, which was valid through June 30, 2015. At all times pertinent hereto, Mr. Guerrier was employed as a vocational education teacher at D.A. Dorsey Education Center School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Guerrier primarily taught English to students who had dropped out of school earlier and were returning for vocational education. Some of his students were adults, and some were still minors. On August 2, 2012, Ms. Ana Sanchez, an investigator for the Miami-Dade County School Board, received a case alleging that Mr. Guerrier had made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to his students and had inappropriately touched female students. Ms. Sanchez interviewed students and prepared an investigative report detailing what each student told her regarding Mr. Guerrier's conduct in class. She did not personally observe Mr. Guerrier's conduct in the classroom. On September 6, 2012, Mr. Guerrier wrote a letter to Ms. Anne-Marie DuBoulay, the district director of the Office of Professional Standards. In the letter, Mr. Guerrier indicated that he had read the allegations and that he denied them. On or about October 5, 2012, the Miami-Dade County School District notified Mr. Guerrier that he would be recommended for suspension without pay and dismissal. On or about October 8, 2012, Mr. Guerrier submitted his resignation from his position at the Miami-Dade County School District. On October 10, 2012, Ms. DuBoulay prepared a memorandum for the file indicating that Mr. Guerrier had resigned and that the investigative information had been transmitted to Professional Practices Services of the Florida Department of Education. On August 12, 2013, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Mr. Guerrier by the Commissioner. It was subsequently sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At hearing, Ms. Sanchez testified that she interviewed several students from Mr. Guerrier's classes. She testified that some students told her that Mr. Guerrier often made inappropriate comments about sex and female anatomy to his students. She testified that students told her that he inappropriately touched students. She testified that students told her that he had asked female students, "What would you do for a grade?" She testified that Elijah Del'Valle, a 21-year-old student, told her that he saw Mr. Guerrier pulling a female student's G-string, confirming the female student's statement to her. The investigative report prepared by Ms. Sanchez indicated that D.W., a 25-year-old female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier would make sexual comments to his female students on a daily basis. The report indicates that D.W. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier asked her in class if he could see her private parts and asked "what she would do for the grade." The report indicates that K.L., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier rubbed her stomach and asked her to kiss him. The report indicates that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told a story in class about a student who had reported him and that he told his class that the student was mad because he would not have sexual relations with her. The report indicates that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told K.L. that her boyfriend "could not handle her." The report says that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that she witnessed Mr. Guerrier pull G.C.'s underwear in class. The report indicates that J.S., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier always used inappropriate slang terms for female anatomy in class and that she heard Mr. Guerrier ask K.L. to show him her private parts. The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that she saw Mr. Guerrier touching K.L.'s stomach. The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told one female student, "What if I turn off the lights and tell you to undress?" The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that she did not recall which student Mr. Guerrier made this comment to. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle, an adult male student, told Ms. Sanchez that he observed Mr. Guerrier flirting with female students and making sexual remarks in class. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier would ask his female students what they would do for a grade. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that he saw Mr. Guerrier pull a student's pants from behind during class and then ask the young lady where she was going. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier was always looking at the female students when they walked by and would rub his shoulder and arm against them. The report indicates that G.C., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that she saw Mr. Guerrier rub K.L.'s belly area and say, "let me lick that belly ring of yours." The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier is always brushing himself up against the female students. The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told a story in class about a student who had reported him and that that student was mad because he had not had sexual relations with her. The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that she once asked Mr. Guerrier for help with a lesson and that he pulled her G-string when she was getting up from the chair and pulled her back down. Mr. Guerrier testified at hearing that he did not do any of the things he was accused of. Mr. Guerrier said that his accusers had a motive to fabricate their stories because they were very poor students. He said that some of them slept in class, others texted throughout class, and others did not show up at all. He stated that some of them had no grades in his grading book and that he had no basis to give them a grade. He stated the students went to a counselor and fabricated the stories.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Jean-Baptiste Guerrier. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 20th day of June, 2016.
