The Issue The first issue in this case is whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher abused, mistreated, or otherwise behaved inappropriately towards one of his special-needs students; if the allegations of wrongdoing are proved to be true, then it will be necessary to decide whether the school board has just cause to terminate the teacher's employment.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Edouard Jean ("Jean") was employed as an Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher in the Broward County public schools, a position which he had held for the preceding 16 years. During that period, Jean taught students with disabilities, who typically receive specially designed instruction and related services pursuant to individual educational plans. Ahead of the 2013-14 school year, Jean was transferred to Crystal Lake Middle School, where he had not previously worked. He was placed in an "SVE" class and assigned to teach ESE students having "varying exceptionalities." Jean's class contained a mix of high- and low-functioning students, about nine in number. Jean's colleague, Ray Montalbano, taught a similar SVE class in a nearby room. At the beginning of the school year, the two ESE teachers agreed to share responsibility for their respective students under an arrangement that separated the higher functioning students from the lower functioning students. Jean and Mr. Montalbano took turns teaching the two groups, exchanging one for the other at midday. In this way, each teacher spent roughly equal time with the respective sets of students. For the last hour of the day, they combined the two groups and jointly instructed the approximately 18 students in Mr. Montalbano's classroom, which was larger. There were two paraprofessionals, or teacher's assistants, working in Jean and Mr. Montalbano's SVE classes. One, named Lisa Phillips, was assigned to both teachers; she alternated between their classrooms during the day. The other, Donna Rollins, was assigned to Mr. Montalbano's class, where Jean spent an hour each afternoon. In view of the cooperative arrangement between Jean and Mr. Montalbano, both of the teacher's assistants regularly worked in the same classroom as Jean and assisted with the provision of instruction and services to the 18 students for whom Jean and Mr. Montalbano were responsible. On October 15, 2013, Jean was removed from his classroom and informed that he was the target of a criminal investigation arising from allegations that he recently had abused one of his pupils, a 13-year-old boy with Down Syndrome named Z.P., who was among the lower functioning students. Jean's accuser was an occupational therapist named Lisa Taormina, who at all relevant times worked as an independent contractor for the School Board, providing services to students at various public schools in Broward County. Jean consistently has denied Ms. Taormina's allegations, which shocked and surprised him. Ms. Taormina, who that year was seeing students at Crystal Lake Middle School once per week each Friday, reported having observed Jean mistreat Z.P. on October 4, 2013, and again on October 11, 2013. Ms. Taormina claimed that the alleged events of October 4 took place in Jean's classroom with Ms. Phillips in attendance. The alleged events of October 11, in contrast, purportedly took place in Mr. Montalbano's classroom during the hour when the two SVE classes were combined. Thus, the alleged abuse supposedly occurred in the presence of Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and a substitute teacher named Shirley Ashcroft who happened to be there that day. Ms. Taormina's allegations were investigated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office and the Broward District Schools Police Department. During these investigations, neither Z.P. nor any of the other students were interviewed, because most of them (including Z.P.) are either nonverbal or too intellectually limited to be reliable witnesses.1/ All of the adults were questioned, however, and none of them corroborated Ms. Taormina's allegations. Unsurprisingly, therefore, no criminal charges were brought against Jean. On the strength of Ms. Taormina's allegations, the School Board nevertheless determined that Jean had abused Z.P. and thus should be fired. As it happens, Ms. Taormina's final hearing testimony is the only direct evidence against Jean, whose colleagues Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and Ms. Ashcroft, to a person, credibly denied under oath having ever seen him mistreat Z.P. or any other student. The outcome of this case, therefore, depends on whether Ms. Taormina's testimony is believed likely to be an accurate account of the relevant historical events. In assessing Ms. Taormina's credibility, the undersigned finds it especially significant that Jean's co- workers, who were able to observe him for extended periods of time on a daily basis in the classroom, never witnessed him engage in any troubling or suspicious behavior during the roughly seven weeks he taught at Crystal Lake Middle School; to the contrary, everyone who testified (except Ms. Taormina) who had seen Jean in the classroom praised his performance generally, and his relationship with Z.P. in particular. The undersigned credits the consistent, mutually corroborative, and overwhelmingly favorable testimony about Jean's exemplary conduct. Because an isolated incident, however out of character, can be squared with evidence of otherwise superlative performance, the fact that Jean was well regarded by the employees with whom he closely worked does not exclude the possibility that Jean abused Z.P., but it does diminish the likelihood that he could have abused Z.P. on multiple occasions. For that reason, if Ms. Taormina claimed only to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P. once, her testimony likely would have been more believable. Ms. Taormina claims, however, to have seen Jean abuse Z.P. on two separate days——on consecutive weekly visits to the school, no less. If Ms. Taormina is to be believed, Jean's alleged abuse of Z.P. was not an isolated incident but was rather, if not necessarily part of a pattern of behavior, at least something Jean was capable of repeating. Here it bears emphasizing that Ms. Taormina saw Jean, at most, once per week for relatively brief periods of less than 30 minutes apiece. Within the context of this limited contact, Ms. Taormina (if she is believed) happened to witness Jean abuse Z.P. on back-to-back visits, while Jean's colleagues, who saw him every workday, never noticed anything amiss. Logically, there are, broadly speaking, two possible explanations for this anomalous situation. First, Jean might have abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was present in the classroom, which would explain why no one else ever saw him mistreat the student, so long as the failure of the four other adults in the room on October 11 to witness the alleged misconduct——a lack of attentiveness that defies reasonable expectations——is overlooked. Given that Ms. Taormina's brief weekly visits comprised such a tiny percentage of Jean's total time with the students, however, to abuse Z.P. only in her presence probably would have required Jean to act according to a plan, which beggars belief;2/ otherwise, Ms. Taormina's presence at the very moments that all such abuse occurred was a most remarkable coincidence. At any rate, while the probability that Jean abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was around to witness his misdeeds is perhaps greater than zero percent, the undersigned regards this explanation as far too implausible to be considered likely. Alternatively, and likelier, Jean might have abused Z.P. not only in Ms. Taormina's presence, but also in her absence. Because Ms. Taormina is the only person who has ever claimed to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P., however, to accept this explanation requires believing that Jean's co-workers never saw him abusing Z.P., or that everyone who witnessed such abuse except Ms. Taormina resolved not to report it.3/ Yet both situations are unworthy of belief. More likely than not, if Jean were abusing Z.P. at times when Ms. Taormina was not in the room, which was most of the time, then at some point over the course of seven weeks Mr. Montalbano or one of the paraprofessionals would have noticed something wrong4/——and none of them did, as found above. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine——and impossible reasonably to infer in the absence of any supporting evidence——that another teacher or paraprofessional, or some combination of these employees, would fail to report suspected child abuse and lie under oath to protect Jean. In any event, the undersigned has found that Jean's fellow employees never saw Jean abuse Z.P., which means that, in all likelihood, Jean did not abuse Z.P. when Ms. Taormina was not in the room. In sum, it is unlikely that Jean repeatedly abused Z.P. only in Ms. Taormina's presence; and yet, it is unlikely that Jean ever abused Z.P. during the vast majority of the time when Ms. Taormina was not in the room (but another adult or adults typically were). Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Jean likely never abused Z.P. at all, contrary to Ms. Taormina's allegations. The foregoing reasons are sufficient for the undersigned to reject Ms. Taormina's testimony as ultimately unpersuasive and to find that the School Board has failed to prove its allegations against Jean. Nevertheless, Ms. Taormina was a good witness in many respects. Her story has been consistent, her recollection seemingly clear, her testimony vivid and detailed. Ms. Taormina is articulate and her demeanor at hearing suggested sincerity. She had barely known Jean before the events at issue and was not shown to have had grounds to dislike him or any other motive for damaging him with false allegations of misconduct. Thus, while not necessary to the disposition, it is desirable to examine Ms. Taormina's specific accusations in greater detail. Ms. Taormina claims that on October 4, 2013, while Z.P. was lying on his back on the floor, Jean spun Z.P. around, using the student's legs as a handle for twirling the boy's body. Then, she says, Jean tapped Z.P. with a ruler to prod him into getting up from the floor. Z.P. refused to rise, and Jean resumed spinning the student. Ms. Taormina recognized that Jean and Z.P. were "playing around" and concluded nothing "abusive" had occurred, but she deemed Jean's conduct "inappropriate." As mentioned, Z.P. is cognitively limited in consequence of Down syndrome. He was also, at the time of the events at issue, aggressive, sometimes mean and abusive towards teachers, including Jean, and known to bite, scratch, kick, and spit on others. Z.P., who was a big boy, could be difficult to redirect. By October 2013, however, Jean had established a rapport with Z.P. The student liked his teacher, and Jean and Z.P. would play with each other. One activity that they enjoyed entailed Jean spinning Z.P. around——which is what Ms. Taormina observed. Except for Ms. Taormina, no one who witnessed Jean playfully spinning Z.P.——which Jean admits doing——considered this activity to be inappropriate. There is no persuasive evidence in the record establishing an objective standard of conduct that Jean might have violated when he played with Z.P. in this manner. Striking Z.P. with a ruler would be another matter, of course. Jean denies ever having done that, however, and no one but Ms. Taormina claims to have observed Jean misbehave in such fashion. The undersigned finds, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean did not hit Z.P. with a ruler on October 4, 2013, as alleged, but rather tapped the floor with it, as he testified. According to Ms. Taormina, Jean's conduct the following week, on October 11, was worse. She testified that, upon arriving in the classroom, she noticed that Jean's fingers were resting on the back of Z.P.'s neck as he (Jean) moved the student around. To Ms. Taormina, "it looked . . . like [Jean] was searching for, like, a pressure point or tender point . . . ." In fact, Jean was not searching for a pressure point, and he did not dig his fingers into a tender spot on Z.P.'s neck, which explains why no one (including Ms. Taormina) saw or heard the student cry out or grimace in pain. The undersigned credits Jean's testimony that he touched Z.P.'s back and shoulders to guide or comfort him, not to hurt him. Ms. Taormina asserted that after putting his fingers on the back of Z.P.'s neck, Jean gave Z.P. a "violent shaking" which caused Z.P.'s head to rock up and down ("just flapping back and forth") so fast that Z.P.'s features were an unrecognizable blur, but only for "just a few seconds." Somewhat incongruously, however, she characterized this "mockery" as being "more, like, playing" and noted that Jean, who was smiling, did not appear to be acting out of anger. The behavior that Ms. Taormina recounted is indeed disturbing. Yet some of the details seem a bit off. For example, although no expert testimony was presented, the undersigned's rudimentary understanding of simple biomechanics makes him think that violently shaking a passive or helpless person so hard that his features become blurry (assuming this could be accomplished in just a few seconds' time) would cause the victim's dangling head, not to flap up and down (rapidly nodding), as Ms. Taormina described, but to rotate uncontrollably. The undersigned finds it difficult, too, to imagine that such abuse could ever look "like playing." Moreover, it seems peculiar, given the number of adults in the room, that Ms. Taormina did not immediately intervene or speak up to protect Z.P., if Jean were harming the student as she has stated. More important, it is likely that a vigorous physical battery such as the attack on Z.P. that Ms. Taormina recalls would have caused a considerable commotion. And yet, even though there were four other adults in the room besides Jean and Ms. Taormina, no one but the occupational therapist noticed Jean inflicting this alleged abuse. The undersigned cannot find, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean violently shook Z.P. as alleged. This incident, therefore, was not proved. After Jean allegedly shook Z.P., according to Ms. Taormina, the student climbed up on a table, where he proceeded to eat a banana. Ms. Taormina testified that all of the students and adults in the room (except her) laughed at Z.P. when someone exclaimed that he looked like a monkey. She said that Jean then led Z.P. to a garbage can and made him spit out the piece of banana in his mouth. When Z.P. got down on the floor afterwards, said Ms. Taormina, Jean hit the student with a broom to compel him to stand and, having no success with that, lifted Z.P. by his shirt and pants and shook him a few times before standing the boy upright. Once on his feet, Z.P. wet his pants, Ms. Taormina stated. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the undersigned finds that Z.P. did, in fact, eat a banana while standing on a table. Further, Jean did hustle Z.P. to the garbage can to spit out the banana in his mouth because the boy was gagging on the fruit. The evidence does not support a finding that the adults laughed at Z.P., although one student did call him a monkey, which prompted Jean to reprimand the offender. The evidence does not support a finding that Jean struck Z.P. with a broom, an act of abuse which Jean credibly denied, or that Jean picked up Z.P. and shook him, a feat which likely could not be accomplished, given the student's size and weight, and which Jean credibly denied. Z.P. did urinate on himself, as Ms. Taormina reported, but the greater weight of the evidence establishes that this was not a response to stress, fright, or abuse, but a common occurrence. In sum, the evidence does not support a determination that Jean likely mistreated Z.P. as alleged. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of immorality as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(1).5/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(2).6/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of incompetency, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(3).7/ It is undisputed that Jean was never charged with, much less found guilty of, any crime as a result of the events which gave rise to this proceeding. Therefore, the School Board does not have just cause to terminate his employment pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for "being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order exonerating Jean of all charges brought against him in this proceeding, reinstating him as an ESE teacher, and awarding him back salary as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2014.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a high school teacher assigned to Miami Norland Senior High School. Respondent holds a continuing contract. Respondent began teaching for the Dade County Public Schools during the 1968-69 school year. During that school year, the annual evaluation form utilized by Petitioner provided that a score of below 3.5 indicated unsatisfactory work. During that, his first year of teaching, Respondent received a score of 3.2 on his annual evaluation. For the next 15 years thereafter, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluations for each and every year. During the 1984 summer session, an incident occurred between Respondent and one of his students. As a result of Petitioner's investigation into the allegation that Respondent had committed a battery on that student, conferences were held between Respondent and administrative personnel. Respondent requested a leave of absence for the 1984-85 school year due to personal reasons, and his request for leave of absence was granted. Respondent was required, however, to undergo a psychological evaluation prior to returning to his duties as a classroom teacher. During that school year while Respondent was on leave of absence, he was evaluated by Dr. Gail D. Wainger, a psychiatrist to whom he was referred by Petitioner. Respondent thereafter saw Dr. Albert C. Jaslow, a private psychiatrist, on two occasions. Dr. Jaslow submitted two reports which contained, inter alia, a recommendation that Respondent be transferred to a different school. Dr. Wainger reviewed Dr. Jaslow's reports and her own earlier report and, on May 21, 1985, submitted a report to Petitioner stating, inter alia, that there was no barrier to Respondent's being reinstated into active teaching. Based upon that evaluation, Petitioner permitted Respondent to return to the same teaching position previously held by him for the 1985-86 school year. At the conclusion of that school year, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluation. Respondent again received acceptable annual evaluations for the following two years, i.e., the 1986-87 and the 1987- 88 school years. On his annual evaluation for the 1988-89 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the area of classroom management, one of the six categories of classroom performance. Pursuant to the rules governing the TADS evaluation system, a rating of unacceptable in any of the categories covered by the annual evaluation instrument requires an overall rating of unacceptable. On his annual evaluation for the 1989-90 school year Respondent was rated as being acceptable in all six categories of classroom performance, including the area of classroom management. It was specifically noted on his annual evaluation form that Respondent had performed satisfactorily during both of the official observations made of his classroom performance. However, Respondent was rated as unacceptable in the non-classroom category entitled professional responsibility. That rating of unacceptable in that one category required that Respondent's overall rating be unacceptable. The basis for the unacceptable rating in the area of professional responsibility involved the determination that Respondent had been disrespectful to students on two separate occasions. On April 16, 1990, one of Respondent's students called another of his students who had an unusual skin pigmentation condition "two-toned." Respondent immediately told the offending student, "do not call the girl two-toned." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent on April 30, 1990, and Respondent was given a supervisory referral to the Employee Assistance Program. During the week of May 7, 1990, one of Respondent's students was being verbally abusive to the other students, and Respondent told him to stop. That student thereupon began being verbally abusive toward Respondent and using profanity. Respondent then said to that student, "you should talk. You look like Mr. Spock from Star Trek." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent, and he was issued a formal reprimand. The summary of the conference for the record dated June 1, 1990, prepared by the principal of Miami Norland Senior High School states that the student involved has physically-deformed ears. On his annual evaluation for the 1990-91 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and professional responsibility. Accordingly, he received an overall evaluation of unacceptable. During the 1990-91 school year there were no reported incidents of Respondent allegedly making disrespectful remarks to students. That basis for being rated unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility during the prior academic year was cured. The rating of unacceptable in the area of classroom management was based upon a number of observations of Respondent during the school year wherein the observers noted a lack of control in the classroom, Respondent's failure or inability to re-direct students who were off-task, Respondent's failure or inability to enforce classroom rules, and Respondent's failure or inability to deal with students who were tardy in coming to his class. As to his techniques of instruction, observers during that school year noted that Respondent was teaching from sub-standard books (without noting whether that was a matter within Respondent's control), that the students were confused by Respondent's directions on several occasions, that the students did not understand the lessons being taught, and that on several occasions Respondent made errors in math when writing examples on the board. Some of the observers also noted that Respondent spent too much time on some of the lessons that he was teaching. Numerous prescriptions were given to Respondent during that school year to improve his instruction and to manage his classroom, such as reading sections of the TADS manual and observing other teachers. Respondent complied with each and every prescription given to him. As to being unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility, Respondent failed to properly maintain student folders reflecting their work to justify grades being given to the students, and there were errors in Respondent's gradebook. It also became apparent that Respondent was not making parental contact for students that were performing unsatisfactorily. By March of the 1990-91 school year Respondent was directed in writing to make parental contact as required by Dade County Public School policy. By memorandum dated June 3, 1991, Respondent was notified that he was required to produce within 48 hours a complete up-to-date gradebook, a parent contact log substantiating parent contacts for the entire school year, and all student folders substantiating Respondent's gradebook. He was advised that if he did not do so, he would receive an unsatisfactory rating in the area of professional responsibility. The principal and assistant principal understood the directive to mean that Respondent must produce those documents by noon on June 6, and Respondent understood the directive to mean that he was to produce the documents on June 6. At noon, the principal was not available to Respondent. Respondent did produce many of the documents later that day. There was, of course, no parental log for the entire year since one did not exist. At the end of the 1990-91 school year a recommendation for dismissal was made. Based upon that recommendation, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, suspended Respondent from his employment effective at the close of the workday on July 25, 1991, for incompetency and gross insubordination. In 1984 Respondent filed a grievance against Assistant Principal Wessel and Principal Fowler at Miami Norland Senior High School. The subject of the grievance was that Assistant Principal Wessel had in a loud voice and in a demeaning manner criticized Respondent's lesson plans in front of other teachers, staff and students. The grievance was also filed against Principal Fowler to enlist his assistance in making Wessel refrain from repeated conduct of that nature. The Union considered the grievance to be valid and processed it through the grievance procedures. Thereafter, Respondent was advised by Fowler and Wessel that he had made a big mistake and he would be sorry for having filed that grievance. Respondent began to believe that he had lost the support of the administration and that his job was in jeopardy. When Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year he was moved to a classroom directly across from the main office. Respondent considered that action to be demeaning. He still achieved acceptable evaluations for that year and the following year. During the next school year, in the middle of February, the administration moved Respondent to an old metal shop room and gave his classroom to a new teacher. He still achieved an acceptable annual evaluation that year. For the following school year the administrators assigned Respondent to teach five low-level math classes using five different classrooms. For the last three years of his teaching career, the ones during which he received unacceptable ratings in different categories, Respondent was required to teach all low-level math classes. Although administrative personnel testified that some teachers like low-level classes, Respondent repeatedly made it clear that he did not want that assignment. Further, there is a specific contract provision between the Dade County Schools and the teachers' union prohibiting teachers from being locked into low-level classes year after year, as Respondent was. During the last several years while Respondent was achieving unsatisfactory ratings in some categories, while he was being switched from classroom to classroom, and while he was being required to teach only low-level classes year after year, the administrative staff actively undermined Respondent's authority and demeaned him in front of students and other teachers. They told teachers and students that they were trying to get rid of Respondent and that Respondent was a bad teacher. When Respondent referred disruptive students to the office, the administrative staff laughed or simply refused to take any follow-up action. On one occasion when Respondent referred a student to the office for throwing an eraser at another student, an assistant principal told the misbehaving student that he should have thrown the eraser at Respondent instead. Respondent "lost face" around the school. It became known that the students could misbehave in Respondent's classes with impunity. Even the students understood that Respondent was assigned only the most difficult of students. Although there was a new principal at Miami Norland Senior High School during Respondent's last year of teaching, the new principal, coincidentally, had been the principal for the 1984 summer session at Parkway Junior High School where Respondent had been involved in an incident with a student prior to taking his year's leave of absence from teaching. Under the new principal's administration, Respondent was retained in his assignment of five low-level math classes and was moved to the classroom directly across from the office. No evidence was offered that the new principal understood that efforts had been made to keep Respondent's authority undermined and to make him quit. It is clear, however, that no steps were taken to stop or reverse the damage to Respondent's reputation and ability to teach. In response to Respondent's referral to the Employee Assistance Program, Respondent did make the contact required of him. In fact, there were numerous contacts between Respondent and the personnel involved in that program. Additionally, Respondent was seen by Dr. Goldin, a mental health professional, on four occasions between April and June of 1990. Between June and September of 1990, he also saw an associate of Dr. Goldin eight times in individual sessions and four times in joint sessions with his wife. Respondent repeatedly requested transfers from his teaching assignment at Miami Norland Senior High School. Some of the requests were made to his principals and some of them were sent to the Office of Professional Standards. From the time that Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year, he requested transfers each and every year. He requested a transfer at least twice during his last year of teaching. Some of the requests for transfer were hardship requests and others were normal requests. Additionally, both Dr. Jaslow in 1985 and Dr. Goldin in 1990 recommended to the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent be transferred to a different school. All requests for transfer were ignored. During the last years of Respondent's teaching career, in addition to the stress placed upon him by the administrative staff's efforts to undermine and ridicule him, he experienced additional stress as a result of his wife's serious illness. He told a number of the administrative staff about the problem at home. The difficulty under which that placed him was part of the reason for the referral to the Employee Assistance Program. During those last years, during conferences with administrative staff regarding his performance, Respondent exhibited anxiety and showed signs of stress. He accused the administration of undermining him and of treating him unfairly. He even attributed some of the problems he was experiencing in the classroom to the administrators. Their reaction to Respondent's accusations was to accuse Respondent of being paranoid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered suspending Respondent without pay for the 1990-91 school year and reinstating him as a full-time classroom teacher thereafter at a school other than Miami Norland Senior High School. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 27th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-4936 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 33, 35-37, 65, 67, 68, 72, and 74 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 8, 11, 19, 32, 38, 58, 71, 75, and 77 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5-7, 9, 10, 12-18, 20-31, 39-57, 59-64, 66, 69, 70, 73, and 76 have been rejected as being unnecessary in determining the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 34 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4-11, 13, and 14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 12, and 15 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Copies furnished: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent without pay for thirty days for misconduct in office, as provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2) and School Board Policies 3210, 3210.01, and 3213, for using profanity toward a student and engaging with the student's parent in a violent confrontation with profanity and threats.
Findings Of Fact For the 2015-16 school year, Petitioner employed Respondent as a physical education teacher at Homestead Middle School. On May 27, 2016, Respondent and another physical education teacher, George Malvestutl, had instructed the students to leave the girls' locker room after physical education class. About 20 minutes later, the teachers saw a student hiding in the locker room. The teachers entered the locker room and found three students still in the locker room without permission. When Respondent directed the students to leave the locker room, one or more of the students became belligerent and yelled at him in defiance. Mr. Malvestutl called security to escort the girls out of the locker room. About one minute after Respondent had first engaged with the students and before security could arrive, the students left the locker room, but the situation escalated when the teachers directed the students to report to the office. At this point, the students used profanity toward Respondent, and one of them threatened to call her father to come to school and "kick [Respondent's] ass." After several minutes, they left the area and walked toward their class in direct defiance of the teachers' directive to report to the office. Respondent did not have time to report the incident to the office because he had a class to teach. But, about 30 minutes after the confrontation had ended, Respondent received a call from the principal's secretary directing Respondent to come to the office. When he entered the office, the secretary pointed him to a man who was waiting to see Respondent. Without introducing himself or informing himself about what had happened, the man immediately threatened to "kick [Respondent's] ass" and said something about his daughter. Respondent answered that the man needed to learn about what had taken place and walked away from the man, leaving the office. The man followed Respondent into the hallway and, standing about ten feet from Respondent, continued to threaten Respondent, who suggested that the daughter was misbehaving due to the misbehavior of the father, who was behaving "like an idiot," Respondent added. The exchange was briefly heated, although probably more while in the office than in the hallway. The exchange in the hallway lasted no more than one minute, and the exchange in the office was even briefer. At no time did either man place a hand on the other. Eventually, the angry father calmed, as he realized that his daughter had not told him the entire story. During the exchange in the hallway, the assistant principal entered the hallway, but did not say anything and quickly retreated to his office to call the police, although the entire incident had ended before the police arrived on the scene. The principal entered the hallway and, at one point, blocked the father's path toward Respondent, but the principal did not say anything either. After the incident, Respondent asked the principal if he could go home for the day, but the principal asked him to remain if he could, and Respondent agreed to remain at school. Later that day, the principal visited Respondent and asked him if he was okay. Respondent replied that he was fine, and the principal smiled. On direct, the principal testified that Respondent uttered profanity during his confrontation with the parent-- specifically using the "f" word several times and the "n" word once. Respondent, who is black, denied the use of any profanity, including these words. The principal's credibility was undermined by the fact that he omitted these important details when he gave his statement to the school police a few days after the incident. Based on the testimony that has been credited, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent mishandled in any way the two exchanges with the angry parent, who clearly either misunderstood what his daughter had told him or was misled by his daughter.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that the 30-day suspension of Respondent without pay lacked just cause and, pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a), reinstate Respondent, if necessary, and pay Respondent his back salary. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Kim M. Lucas, Esquire Miami Dade County Public Schools School Board Attorney's Office 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, William Doran, committed the acts alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Ten-Day Suspension Without Pay, and, if so, the discipline to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at SMS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately eight years. Respondent most recently provided individualized instruction and assistance to students with individualized education plans. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie Classroom Teachers’ Association. Lydia Martin, principal of SMS, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year On November 8, 2010, Respondent was counseled by Principal Martin for discourteous and disparaging remarks to students causing them to feel unnecessary embarrassment. Students and parents reported that Respondent made comments in the classroom including “the Bible is crap and we should not believe it,” told students they could not work in groups because they “would just bullshit,” called a student “stupid,” and referred to a group of African-American students as the “black coffee group.” Parents also expressed concern that Respondent discussed prostitution and told students that, in some countries the younger the girls are, the better it is considered because they have not lost their virginity. Respondent denied saying that the Bible is “crap” but admitted telling students that he did not believe in it. Respondent denied calling a student stupid but admitted that he told a student certain choices may be what a “not so smart” person would do. Respondent admitted to referring to a group of black students as a “coffee klatch,” but denied any reference to race or ethnicity. Respondent admitted discussing prostitution in the context of human rights and his personal observations of sex trafficking while serving in the military in East Germany. Principal Martin provided Respondent with a written Summary of Conference that stated, “In the future, do not make comments to students that may cause them embarrassment or that are unprofessional. My expectation is that you will treat students with respect and follow the district guidelines under 6.302 Employee Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics for Educators.” On May 2, 2011, Principal Martin gave Respondent a Letter of Concern for making comments to a student that caused embarrassment to the student when Respondent stated that, “somebody cried about not getting their stupid PTO FCAT Goodie bag” and that “they were filled with cheap candy.” The daughter of the PTO president was in the class. The 2011-2012 School Year During the fall of 2011, Respondent was accused of inappropriately touching students.1/ As a result, on December 5, 2011, Respondent was removed from the classroom at SMS and placed on Temporary Duty Assignment at the School Board district office pending an investigation into the allegations. In a letter from Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, dated December 14, 2011, Respondent was directed not to engage witnesses, their parents, or potential witnesses during the open investigation. While he was working at the district office, two co- workers of Respondent overheard Respondent contact the parents of one of the student witnesses involved in the investigation by telephone to discuss the investigation. Also, during the investigation, it was discovered that Respondent had taken pictures of students when they were misbehaving in his class as a means of disciplining those students. On February 13, 2012, Principal Martin provided Respondent a Letter of Reprimand for the violation of the administrative directive (not to contact witnesses and parents during a pending investigation) and inappropriately disciplining students. This Letter of Reprimand reminded Respondent of his previous counseling and Letter of Concern and notified Respondent that his failure to follow the prior directives or violation of any other School Board policy would result in more severe disciplinary action being taken against him. In May 2012, Respondent received a three-day suspension without pay for embarrassing students. Respondent is alleged to have announced a student’s name in class and stated that he (Respondent) was “just wasting red ink” by grading the student’s paper. Respondent does not deny the statement, but claims he muttered it under his breath, and it was overheard by several students. Respondent embarrassed another student by sharing personal information about her family with the class. A student’s mother had privately discussed with Respondent the fact that her daughter might act out in class due to the distress she was experiencing as a result of her parents’ divorce. During a classroom discussion about families, this student made a comment that she had a “normal” family. Respondent said to the student, in front of the class, “If you’re so normal, where is your father?” Respondent admits this was inappropriate behavior on his part. The 2012-2013 School Year On May 3, 2013, Respondent was in the classroom of another teacher for the purpose of providing additional teaching assistance for several students. On this date, the usual classroom teacher was absent, and a substitute teacher was present. While walking around the classroom, Respondent observed two students, M.M. and A.L., engaged in a game of “slaps,” in which both students tried to hit each other’s hands. Respondent directed M.M. to stop and asked why he was doing the game during class time. M.M. responded that he was trying to cheer up A.L., it felt good, and they liked playing the game. At this time, Respondent was approximately eight to ten feet away from M.M. who was sitting at a desk. Respondent told M.M. that he didn’t care if it felt good for M.M. to “jump off a bridge,” it was not to go on in the classroom and to get back to work. M.M. asked Respondent what he meant and the two began to argue. Respondent approached M.M. and bent over him while M.M. remained seated at his desk. Respondent testified that he closed the gap between him and M.M. when he felt M.M. told him to shut up by saying “get out of my face.” Respondent stated, “At that point I decided I wasn’t going to let him push me around and I decided to engage him.” The credible testimony from several of the student witnesses was that Respondent approached M.M. and stood over him and that M.M. repeatedly asked Respondent to “please, get out of my face” and to leave him alone. M.M. also cursed and used a racial slur directed at Respondent.2/ Respondent told M.M. to get up and get out of the classroom. When Respondent did not move away from looming over M.M., M.M. said something to the effect of “I don’t want to do any of this.” M.M. stood up, and he and Respondent were face to face, only a few inches apart. M.M. told Respondent that he was a grown man and that he was “acting like a bitch.” Respondent repeatedly mocked M.M., yelling in his face, “Come on big man-- What are you going to do about it, hit me?” and told M.M. to hit him because it would “make my day.” Respondent called M.M. a coward several times when M.M. refused to hit Respondent and backed away. While this was going on, the other students in the classroom believed that Respondent and M.M. were going to have a physical fight, and they stood up, pushed the desks and chairs back, and got out their cell phones to take photos and video. Several of the students began screaming and yelling.3/ M.M. left the classroom and continued to curse at Respondent as Respondent followed him to the Dean’s office. During this altercation, the substitute teacher did not intervene or attempt to help or contact the SMS office. Respondent admits that, once M.M. told Respondent to “get out of his face,” Respondent did nothing to de-escalate the situation. To the contrary, Respondent intentionally escalated the altercation. According to Respondent, “He [M.M.] needed to be shown you can’t tell an adult to shut up.” Respondent testified that he believed that he was teaching M.M. a “life lesson”-–that “you can’t engage an adult and expect to get away with it.” SMS has a protocol for handling belligerent students in the classroom. Teachers receive training at the beginning of each school year regarding the difference between classroom managed behaviors and office managed behaviors. Teachers are trained not to engage a belligerent student but rather to use the buzzer which is tied to the intercom or telephone, available in every classroom, to notify the main office of the situation. In response, someone from the trained management team will come to the classroom to retrieve the student and bring them back to the Dean’s office. As explained by Principal Martin, the purpose of sending an adult from out of the classroom to retrieve a disruptive student is to minimize the possibility of harm to either the student, teacher, or other students, and to allow a “cooling off period” while the misbehaving student is escorted to the Dean’s office. During the altercation with M.M., Respondent made no effort to use the buzzer or the telephone or ask anyone else to notify the office of the escalating situation. Respondent was aware of the protocol but chose to ignore it. According to Respondent, “[M.M.] wanted to intimidate me and he failed and I let him know about it.” Respondent was purposely confrontational and testified that he wanted to show M.M. that Respondent “was not going to back down.” Respondent disregarded the protocol because he believed it would be ineffective and he wanted to teach M.M. a “humility lesson.” Respondent’s explanation, that he thought using the buzzer or telephone would be ineffective because sometimes the buzzer does not work or he was blocked from reaching the buzzer by M.M., was not supported by credible evidence. Further it was directly contradicted by Respondent’s explanation that he didn’t contact the office because M.M.’s behavior problems likely started in elementary school and that at this point, M.M. was not responsive to “conventional means of disciplining students.” While the undersigned is sensitive to the difficulty faced by teachers when dealing with confrontational and unruly students, no rational justification was provided for Respondent’s extreme and outrageous act of attempting to engage M.M. in a fight and labeling him a coward in front of his peers. Respondent’s actions were an unwarranted attempt to bully and belittle a middle school student. In May 2013, Respondent received a letter from then Superintendent Michael Lannon advising Respondent that he was recommending him to the School Board for a ten-day suspension without pay. During the School Board’s investigation and at the final hearing of this matter, Respondent expressed no remorse regarding his actions towards M.M. and testified that, despite knowing his actions constitute a violation of School Board policies, he would do the same thing again. Respondent received all the necessary steps of progressive discipline required by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties prior to receipt of the recommendation for the ten-day suspension without pay. As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding William Doran guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of ten school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2014.
The Issue The issues to be decided are: Whether Ms. Banfield should be terminated from her employment with the School Board of Palm Beach County effective July 22, 1987, for misconduct in office and gross insubordination based upon an alleged inability to work in a cooperative manner with her peers and supervisors after repeated counseling and warnings were given to her to adjust her attitude. Whether if there is no basis for discharge, the evidence supports some lesser penalty. Whether Ms. Banfield is entitled to back pay if she is not terminated. Whether an award of attorney's fees is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Banfield is a non-instructional employee of the School Board of Palm Beach County. She was initially employed at Pahokee Jr.-Sr. High School as an Office Assistant II on an interim basis, effective September 21, 1981. She resigned from that position effected November 13, 1981. Ms. Banfield was re-employed by the School Board at Pahokee Jr.-Sr. High School an a Media Clerk I, effective August 17, 1982. She was transferred to the position of School Office Assistant II, effective August 4, 1983, and has served in that position since that time. Ms. Banfield received formal evaluations of her work performance on February 17, 1984; June 4, 1984; October 1, 1984; January 10, 1985; June 12, 1986; and June 16, 1987. Ms. Banfield received memoranda from two principals at Pahokee Jr.-Sr. High School (Jack Redding and Eugenia Jones) regarding her work performance. She received these on September 17, 1984, January 24, 1986, and August 29, 1987. On May 11, 1987, Ms. Banfield was involved in a discussion with a classroom teacher at Pahokee Jr.-Sr. High School, Kay Ventura. On June 19, 1987, Ms. Banfield received a notice of suspension with pay, recommendation for suspension without pay, and recommendation for termination of employment based upon the charge of misconduct in office and gross insubordination. The School Board of Palm Beach County suspended Ms. Banfield without pay effective July 8, 1987, pending final action on the superintendent's recommendation for termination. The following Findings of Fact are based on evidence adduced at the hearing. As an Office Assistant II, Ms. Banfield has been assigned to work as a receptionist and secretary in the guidance department of the school which is located in a trailer apart from the main school building. Ms. Banfield is employed under an annual contract of employment which had been renewed yearly. The Superintendent of Schools recommended that Ms. Banfield receive an annual contract of employment for the 1987-88 school year. Before the event which is the focus of this dismissal proceeding, Ms. Banfield had received prior notices that her work performance was inadequate due to the "nasty, harsh, abrupt" manner in which she dealt with persons she came in contact with (Petitioner's exhibit 4, dated September 17, 1984). Ms. Banfield was informed that "unless her performance was entirely satisfactory, her continued employment with the District School Board would be in jeopardy." (id.) On October 1, 1984, her employment evaluation contained the comment that I strongly recommend that you seek to improve the tone quality of your voice, however, improvement is noted. Further improvement is needed. (Plaintiff's exhibit 5) Ms. Banfield was recognized as "a very hard worker," however, (id.) in spite of these criticisms, Ms. Banfield's contract was renewed. By January 1985, the employment evaluation noted that the tone quality of her voice had improved tremendously (Petitioner's exhibit 7). By January 1986, however, the new principal of Pahokee Jr.-Sr. High School, Eugenia Jones, wrote Ms. Banfield about the unpleasant attitude and negative tone of voice Ms. Banfield used in the guidance office and on the telephone. Ms. Jones made it clear that such behavior to parents and visitors to the guidance office was unacceptable. (Petitioner's exhibit 8). The June 1986 employment evaluation of Ms. Banfield pointed out that when informed of deficiencies, Ms. Banfield was pleasant but soon reverted back to the same negative behaviors. It was also noted that Ms. Banfield displayed a negative attitude when given additional assignments, and needed to improve her tone of voice. She was also recognized for knowing her job and keeping accurate records. (Petitioner's exhibit 9). Near the opening of the 1986-1987 school year, Ms. Banfield was given a written reprimand by the school principal as the result of an incident which involved the assistant principal, Mr. Thompson. A parent with a child was at the school office trying to find out where to register. The school secretary asked Ms. Banfield where registration was taking place and Ms. Banfield responded, "In our [the guidance) office" and walked away. The assistant principal saw this, and called Ms. Banfield back to escort the parent to the guidance office. After she had been called the first time she did not respond, so the assistant principal called her again. She told the assistant principal in an arrogant voice, "I said in my office, good God." The assistant principal then told her that he only had called her back to escort the parent to the guidance office. Ms. Banfield replied, "Then send her on." Ms. Banfield later was informed by the assistant principal that a display of an attitude problem in front of parents would not be tolerated, and he made a memorandum of the incident which he sent to Ms. Jones, the principal. (Petitioner's exhibit 10). This resulted in a follow-up reprimand from Ms. Jones to Ms. Banfield pointing out that Ms. Banfield's working relationships, unpleasant attitude, and telephone manners had been discussed with her on numerous occasions and that it was expected that Ms. Banfield would provide a warm welcome to all parents and others visiting the school. (Petitioner's exhibits 11). She was also informed that further incidents would result in proceedings to terminate her employment. Ms. Banfield acknowledges she had received warnings from both her former principal (Mr. Redding) and current principal (Ms. Jones) about her attitude. A classroom teacher assigned to teach educable mentally handicapped students entered the guidance office to leave a note for one of the guidance counselors, Joy Gates, on May 11, 1987. At that time, Ms. Banfield's immediate supervisor, Gwendolyn Johnson, the guidance coordinator for the school, was in her own office which is in the trailer where Ms. Banfield serves as secretary and receptionist. Ms. Johnson was meeting with a classroom teacher, Kent Heitman. The door to Ms. Johnson's office was open. Also present in the office suite was a student assistant, Teresa Young. Ms. Ventura asked Ms. Banfield whether Ms. Banfield had an envelope or piece or paper in which she could cover the note she wished to leave for Ms. Gates. The note had to do with a student and Ms. Ventura wished to enclose it to keep the matter confidential. Ms. Banfield told Ms. Ventura she did not have an envelope or any paper to give her. Ms. Banfield was standing at the copy machine at the time. She was responsible for the operation of the copier. Ms. Ventura approached the copy machine and removed a piece of paper from the tray which was not being used at that moment by Ms. Banfield for copying to enclose the note. Ms. Banfield became very angry with Ms. Ventura and began shouting at her. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Heitman heard the shouting and came out of Ms. Johnson's office. Ms. Ventura then went into Ms. Gates' office and stated that she was not going to put up with Ms. Banfield's conduct. Ms. Ventura closed the door to Ms. Gates' office and respondent continued to shout at Ms. Ventura through that closed door. Ms. Ventura had closed herself in Ms. Gates' office because she was afraid of the respondent. Ms. Gates then entered the trailer and found Ms. Ventura in her office. While Ms. Gates discussed the incident with Ms. Ventura, they could hear Ms. Banfield outside the door talking loudly about what Ms. Banfield was going to do as a result of the incident. It is not clear, however, that there was anyone to whom Ms. Banfield was speaking. Ms. Banfield was obviously extremely upset by Ms. Ventura's self-help in obtaining a piece of paper from the copy machine at which Ms. Banfield had been standing, but which Ms. Banfield had not been using at the time. Ms. Ventura removed the sheet of paper from the feed mechanism. Ms. Banfield's expression of anger to Ms. Ventura, and her continued tirade after Ms. Gates returned to the office and was discussing the matter with Ms. Ventura in Ms. Gates' office, was wholly out of proportion to whatever offense Ms. Banfield believed she had suffered from Ms. Ventura. Ms. Banfield reported the incident to the principal, Eugenia Jones, at the suggestion of Gwen Johnson. When Ms. Banfield discussed the incident with Ms. Jones, she was still speaking loudly, shaking, and enraged. Ms. Jones thereafter requested that the assistant superintendent for personnel relations investigate the matter and recommended that disciplinary action be taken against Ms. Banfield. After the incident with Ms. Ventura, Ms. Gates discussed with Ms. Banfield concerns about Ms. Banfield's behavior. For example, on one occasion Ms. Gates was looking for a form usually kept on a file next to Ms. Banfield's desk. While standing along side Ms. Banfield's desk looking for the form, Ms. Banfield asked Ms. Gates what her problem was and made it clear that she did not want Ms. Gates looking for forms on Ms. Banfield's desk. The forms Ms. Gates was looking for are ones which Ms. Gates uses in the performance of her duties. Ms. Gates had also been told by school personnel that they did not like to come to the guidance office because of Ms. Banfield's behavior. On June 16, 1987, Ms. Jones gave Ms. Banfield a written performance evaluation which found that her conduct was unsatisfactory in dealing with fellow staff members, and on June 19, 1987, informed Ms. Banfield that charges of misconduct in office and gross insubordination were being brought due to Ms. Banfield's deficient record of performance in dealing with others. Ms. Banfield was suspended without pay from her position effective July 8, 1987, and this proceeding ensued.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered terminating the employment of Ms. Banfield as an annual contract employee with the School Board of Palm Beach County for misconduct and gross insubordination. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of March, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1060 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-2964 The following are my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 129.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are as follows: Covered in Conclusions of Law. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Generally covered in finding of fact 3, otherwise rejected as cumulative. Covered in finding of fact 3, otherwise rejected as cumulative. Generally covered in finding of fact 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Generally covered in the final sentence of finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 6. 12-15. Covered in finding of fact 5. 16-18. Covered in finding of fact 7. 19-20. Covered in finding of fact 8. 21-22. Covered in finding of fact 9 and 10. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12. 26-29. Rejected as argument rather than a finding of fact. The Hearing Officer agrees that Ms. Young's version of the incident is not the more credible, and has accepted the version explained in the testimony of Gwendolyn Johnson, Kent Heitman, Joy Gates, and Kay Ventura. Rulings on Respondent's proposed finding of fact. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected because of the incident recounted by Assistant Principal Thompson did occur as explained by Mr. Thompson in his testimony and his contemporaneous memoranda, and does constitute a behavior problem of Ms. Banfield. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected, the version of the event which is accepted is found in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected because whether Ms. Ventura may be aloof or unfriendly has nothing to do with the extreme reaction of Ms. Banfield, and aloofness would be an inadequate provocation for the reaction exhibited by Ms. Banfield. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7. 17-18. Rejected because the Hearing Officer finds that at the time Ms. Ventura removed the paper from the feed tray of the copy machine, Ms. Banfield was not operating the copy machine. Generally covered in findings of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 7 but I do not find that Ms. Ventura slammed the door to Ms. Gates' office. Rejected because the Hearing Officer does not find that Ms. Ventura emerged from Ms. Gates' office and yelled at Ms. Banfield. Rejected because the Hearing Officer cannot accept the version of the incident portrayed in the testimony of Ms. Young. Without ascribing any motivation to Ms. Young, the Hearing Officer find that the more credible testimony was given by other witnesses. Generally covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in the prehearing stipulation. Covered in finding of fact 3. That Ms. Banfield was recognized for performing her job functions is covered in findings of fact 3 and 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Abbey G. Hairston, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690 Mark A. Cullen, Esquire 1030 Lake Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certification should be sanctioned for alleged gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, and other offenses in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(c), (e), (f) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Daniel Ayers, holds Florida Educator Certificate number 735644, which was valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant hereto Respondent was employed as a second grade teacher at Gulfport Elementary School in the Pinellas County School District during the relevant school year. On July 5, 2000, at about 8:15 p.m., Respondent entered the public restroom at Lake Seminole Park, Pinellas County Florida, where he was observed by Deputy James Brueckner of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. It is a well-used park, and people were present that evening. It was still light at that time, and Lake Seminole Park was being used by families and children. The playground is close to the northeast corner of the restroom Respondent entered. Respondent approached a urinal, and, after facing it for about 30 seconds, he went to the back wall where it was possible for him to observe, through the openings, anybody approaching the restroom. At that point, Respondent had his penis in his hands and was masturbating by holding his penis and fondling it. He then replaced his penis in his pants through the fly, pulled down his shorts, and began moving his hand up and down on his penis in a rapid motion. Deputy Brueckner, who was inside the restroom, removed his badge and identified himself to Respondent. He told Petitioner that he was a detective and showed him the badge. He told Respondent that he was under arrest, but that he should be calm. They would go out to his vehicle to do the paperwork. Respondent made a move towards the door, as if he was going to run. Deputy Brueckner grabbed him, and Respondent shoved the deputy and fled. Deputy Brueckner pursued Respondent and caught him. Respondent swatted the deputy several times. Two other deputies came to Deputy Brueckner's assistance, and Respondent was subdued. Respondent was charged with indecent exposure of sexual organs (a misdemeanor) and with resisting arrest with violence (a felony). He subsequently entered a plea of No Contest to the charge of indecent exposure of sexual organs and to the reduced charge of resisting arrest without violence in Pinellas County Circuit Court. He was adjudicated guilty on both charges by the court and placed on probation. Respondent admitted to Michael Bessette, an administrator in the office of professional standards, Pinellas County School District, that he was the person arrested and charged as a result of the incident on July 5, 2000. In Bessette's expert opinion, the public would not tolerate the type of behavior exhibited by Respondent on July 5, 2000, at Lake Seminole Park. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was seriously reduced to the point where the school district had to remove him from teaching duties. In Bessette's opinion Respondent engaged in conduct that constitutes gross immorality and would not be tolerated under state or local ethical standards. Respondent resigned his teaching position with the Pinellas County School District on April 25, 2001, following his conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent did violate the provisions of Section 231.2615(1)(c), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for three years, imposing a $1,000 fine for the above violations, and that upon re- application for certification, imposing such conditions as are just and reasonable. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 14th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Daniel Ayers 7096 111th Street, North Seminole, Florida 33772 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mary Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, George L. Johnson (Johnson), has been continuously employed as a teacher by Petitioner, School Board of Dade County (School Board), since 1982. 1/ The 1982-83 School Year In August 1982, Johnson was employed by the School Board as an occupational specialist, and assigned to Jan Mann Opportunity School. During the course of that employment, two events transpired which foreshadowed Johnson's conduct during the 1985-86 school year, and which precipitated this disciplinary proceeding. The first event occurred on March 9, 1983, when Johnson struck Pierre Sylla, an 8th grade student. On that date, Pierre had been disruptive in class, and had referred to Johnson by the nickname of "Flash". Pierre's conduct apparently offended Johnson's sense of decorum since he excused the class, called Pierre into a smaller room and, upon stating "this is why they call me Flash", punched Pierre in the left eye. The second event occurred on April 27, 1983, when Johnson struck Derrick Corner, a 14 year old student. On that date, Johnson was on leave, but reported to the school to pass out lunch cards. When Derrick approached Johnson to retrieve his card, he smelled alcohol on Johnson's breath and announced "I smell some Bacardi" rum. At that time, Johnson backhanded Derrick across the face, knocking him over a chair to the floor. On July 13, 1983, a conference was held between the School Board and Johnson to discuss the battery committed upon Pierre Sylla and Derrick Corner, as well as any disciplinary action to be taken against Johnson. The School Board concluded that Johnson would be referred to the employee assistance program, transferred to a regular school setting, and that no further disciplinary action would be taken. Johnson was, however, directed to comply with School Board rules for handling disruptive student behavior, and to discontinue the use of his hand in disciplining students. 2/ Notwithstanding Johnson's battery upon Pierre Sylla and Derrick Corner, Johnson's annual evaluation for the 1982-83 school year rated his performance acceptable in all categories, and recommended him for continued employment. The annual evaluation did note, however, that: Mr. Johnson's techniques for handling disciplinary problems need to be improved. Otherwise, he has potential for becoming a good teacher. The 1983-84 and 1984-85 School Years During the 1983-84 school year, Johnson was employed by the School Board as a physical education teacher at McMillan Junior High School. Johnson's annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year rated his performance acceptable in all categories, and recommended his continued employment. The only negative remark contained on his evaluation was: Although your overall performance during the past year has been acceptable, I would recommend that you carefully self-evaluate your performance with regard to your professional responsibilities, i.e., punctuality. During the 1984-55 school year, Johnson was employed by the School Board as a physical education teacher at Riverside Elementary School and Douglas Elementary School. Johnson's annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year rated his performance acceptable in all categories, and recommended his continued employment. The only negative remark on his evaluation was: You need to be on time every day and the same applies to lesson plans and reports. Adherence to school board policies is of the utmost importance -- also getting along with your peers. The 1985-86 School Year For the 1985-86 school year, Johnson was employed under a continuing contract with the School Board, and assigned to Silver Bluff Elementary School as a physical education teacher. The proof establishes that during the course of that school year Johnson reacted violently toward students for minor breaches of discipline, and that he failed to comply with lawful orders to refrain from the use of physical force to discipline students. That Johnson was fully cognizant of Silver Bluff's policy against the use of physical force is not disputed. At the school's first faculty meeting of August 28, 1985, Johnson was specifically advised that teachers were not to hit or paddle a child, and that they were not authorized to inflict corporal punishment. On September 16, 1985, following a complaint from a mother that Johnson had grabbed and shaken her son, the principal, Margarita Alemany, again cautioned Johnson that she did not approve of physical discipline, and that he was not to touch his students in any way. Notwithstanding the lawful directives of his principal, the evidence establishes that Johnson routinely relied upon physical and verbal abuse to discipline students for minor transgressions. From late September 1985 to December 1985, the proof establishes that Johnson committed the following abuses toward fourth grade students in his charge: Estany Carballo, who should have been standing in line, was playing in a mud puddle with a toy car. Johnson approached Estany from behind, grabbed his neck, and forced his head downward toward the water. Johnson pulled Estany up by the neck, admonished him "not to do that again", and returned Estany to his place in line. The force exerted by Johnson upon Estany was sufficient to traumatize his neck, inflict pain and limitation of movement, and require the treatment of a physician. Noah Verner and Aramis Hernandez were standing out of line and talking. Johnson grabbed each by the hair with a clenched fist, banged their heads together, and ordered them back into line. Robert Diaz, while standing in line, was talking to a girl behind him. Johnson approached Robert from behind, grabbed him by the hair and, exerting enough force to almost lift him from the ground, stated "who do you think you are asshole?" James Worthington was leaning against a fence, an apparent violation of a Johnson directive. Johnson grabbed his head between his hands and, shaking the child violently enough to induce pain, admonished James not to lean on the fence. Roberto Sanchez was attempting to perform an exercise with the rest of the class, but was unsuccessful. Johnson noted Roberto's failing to the class and opined vocally that if a boy couldn't do an exercise when he was in school, the whole class would beat the boy up. Johnson also embarrassed Roberto by referring to him as "fatso" in the presence of the class. While not exhaustive of the litany of incidents established at the final hearing in this case, the events related in paragraph 11, supra, establish Johnson's failure to abide by lawful directives of his superior, as well as a penchant toward a violent behavior which was harmful to the health and safety of his students. Due to the notoriety of his conduct, Johnson's service in the community, as well as his effectiveness in the school system, was severely impaired. In addition to its claims of insubordination and misconduct in office, the School Board also seeks to discipline Johnson under a claim of incompetence. The predicate for the School Board's charge are the results of three formal observations of Johnson's performance at Silver Bluff Elementary School between October 17, 1985 and January 10, 1986. On October 17, 1985, Ms. Catherine Day, assistant principal of Silver Bluff Elementary School, conducted a formal observation of Johnson's 1:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m., second grade physical education class. It is worthy of note that the impetus for the October 17, 1985, observation was Johnson's request that the 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. class be observed. That class was a double class, over 60 students, and unwieldy. Ms. Day found that the session taught by Johnson did not comport with the mandatory objectives or activities contained in his lesson plan, that he did not explain to the students the objectives or activities for that day, that he provided no feedback to the students regarding their performance that day, that he allowed students to stand idle for 10 minutes and dismissed them 10 minutes early, and that his class record book contained no grades. Accordingly, Ms. Day rated Johnson's performance as unacceptable in the categories of (1) preparation and planning, (2) knowledge of subject matter, (3) classroom management, (4) techniques of instruction and (5) assessment techniques. Ms. Day reviewed the results of her observation with Johnson, provided Johnson with a prescription for improvement, agreed to provide Johnson with an assistant for the 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. class, and established a deadline of November 1, 1985, to correct the deficiencies. On November 20, 1985, the principal, Ms. Alemany, conducted a formal observation of Johnson's 10:15 a.m. second grade class and 10:45 a.m. sixth grade class. Ms. Alemany found, inter alia, that the lesson plan for Johnson's sixth grade class contained no objectives, that he failed to provide feedback or suggestions to improve performance, and that after 9 weeks his grade book for the sixth grade class failed to indicate the activity graded and for the second grade class failed to show any grades -- the grade book should have reflected one grade per week for a designated activity. Accordingly, Ms. Alemany, as did Ms. Day, rated Johnson's performance as unacceptable in categories (1) preparation and planning, (4) techniques of instruction, and (5) assessment techniques. On January 10, 1986, Ms. Alemany conducted the final observation of Johnson's performance. While Johnson's overall performance had improved, he was still rated unacceptable in categories (1) preparation and planning, since he failed to have lesson plans available, (4) techniques of instruction, since he failed to provide feedback or suggestions to improve performance, and (5) assessment techniques, since he failed to have any grades for the second, third, fifth or sixth grade classes. Ms. Alemany reviewed the results of her observation with Johnson, provided a prescription for improvement, and established a deadline of January 16, 1986, to correct the deficiencies. On January 17, 1986, a conference-for-the-record was held between Ms. Alemany and Johnson. At that time, Johnson's performance assessments were reviewed and he was advised: It should be noted for the record that you were advised that noted deficiencies must be remedied by your next observation which (sic) approximate date is 1-24-86. Failure to do so ... will have an adverse impact upon your employment. We will continue assisting you as we have in the past. Johnson was not, however, to be accorded any further observations. As events transpired, January 17, 1986, was his last day of employment at Silver Bluff Elementary School; thereafter, he was assigned to the South Central Area office pending School Board action. On February 19, 1986, the School Board suspended Johnson and initiated these dismissal proceedings. Johnson resists the School Board's suspension and proposed dismissal for incompetency on several grounds. First, he avers that Ms. Alemany harbored some animosity toward him because of his service as a United Teachers of Dade union representative. The proof fails to support such a finding. Second, Johnson avers that his request for an independent observation following Ms. Alemany's observation of November 20, 1985, should have been granted. While it may have been better practice to grant such a request, the School Board was bound to no such requirement. Finally, Johnson avers that the School Board's failure to accord him an independent observation following two unacceptable "summative observations" requires that his suspension and proposed dismissal for incompetence not be sustained. 3/ Johnson's final assertion is also without merit. While the proof established that the School Board routinely employed an independent observation following two unacceptable summatives before it recommended dismissal for incompetence, Johnson's removal from the classroom prevented further observation. Where, as here, the School Board removes a teacher from the classroom for cause, i.e.: battery upon a student, it is not thereby barred from seeking the suspension and dismissal of a teacher for incompetence even though an independent observation was not performed. While the School Board is not precluded from maintaining its charge of incompetence, it has failed to demonstrate that Johnson's unsatisfactory performance, observed on three occasions, deprived the students in his charge of a minimal educational experience, or that such performance failed to comply with the rules of the School Board or the terms of the parties' contract. Johnson's deficiencies, absent such proof do not demonstrate incompetence by reason of inefficiency. Further, the physical and verbal abuses Johnson was shown to have visited upon students, while improper, do not establish a lack of emotional stability. Therefore, the School Board also failed to demonstrate that Johnson was incompetent by reason of incapacity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent, George L. Johnson, from his employment, and dismissing Respondent, George L. Johnson, from his employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Respondent currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 576645, which covers the areas of elementary education and mathematics. Respondent's certificate is valid through June 30, 1992. During the 1990-91 school year, Respondent was employed as a third grade teacher at Markham Elementary School in the Broward County School District. 1/ On an undetermined date during the 1990-91 school year, Respondent hit, M.R., a female student, with a wooden ruler that was twelve inches long and one inch wide. Respondent's action was in response to M.R.'s behavior of talking in class without permission. M.R. was hit on the palm of her hand with the ruler in front of the class. M.R. was embarrassed by the incident, but she did not cry. On another occasion, M.R. was talking in class. There was a dispute in the testimony as to whether M.R. was using profanity. Respondent testified that M.R. was using profanity, while M.R. denied using profanity. Respondent took M.R. to the bathroom at the rear of the classroom, told M.R. to place soap on her hands, and made M.R. wash her mouth out with soap. 2/ During the 1990-91 school year, Respondent hit K.S., a female student, on the palm of the hand with the twelve inch wooden ruler. This discipline occurred at the door to the bathroom at the rear of Respondent's classroom. K.S. became upset and began to cry. Another student saw K.S. crying. On one occasion, while talking to K.S. in the bathroom, Respondent told K.S. to pretend to cry to make the other students believe that she had been punished. Respondent had not administer corporal punishment to K.S. on that occasion, but Respondent wanted the other students to believe that they would be punished if Respondent took them to the bathroom. The Respondent hit K.C., a male student, on the palm of the hand with a wooden ruler, and on the buttocks with a small board. On one occasion the Respondent took K.C. into the bathroom and hit him with a ruler. The Respondent threatened on other occasions to hit K.C. with a ruler. The Respondent threatened to hit L.S., a female student with a ruler. L.S. witnessed the Respondent hitting other students on the hand with a ruler. The Respondent hit V.D., a female student, on the palm of the hand with a ruler. V.D. cried after being hit with the ruler. The Respondent hit K.C., a female student, on the palm of the hand and buttocks with a ruler. The Respondent hit K.C. in the bathroom and in the classroom. The Respondent hit S.T. 3/, a female student, on the palm of the hand with a wooden ruler, causing S.T. to cry. The Respondent hit or tapped T.B., a male student, on the hand with a ruler. The Respondent's conduct in hitting the students with a ruler was not done in self-defense, but as a disciplinary measure that was intended to both punish and intimidate the students. At hearing, the Respondent offered a composite exhibit of permission forms, purporting to demonstrate parental permission to use corporal punishment against K.S., T.B., K.C. (female student) and D.R. (a student who did not testify). Respondent did not offer any permission forms from the parents of M.R., S.T., K.C. (male student), or V.D., although the evidence established that Respondent struck these students with a ruler. Regardless of parental permission, the discipline administered by Respondent violated district policy, which forbids corporal punishment of any kind. After an investigation into allegations that the Respondent had struck students, students were called to the school office to be interviewed. The Respondent discussed the pending investigation with her class. Several students recalled that on the day that they were to be interviewed she told them she might go to jail if students told the investigators that she had hit them. None of the students testified that Respondent told them, as a group, to lie to the investigators. In fact each of the students testified that the Respondent told the class to tell the truth. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent told S.T. and V.D. individually not to reveal that she had hit them, or to say that she had hit them fewer times than she actually had. This conflict is resolved by finding that Respondent's denial that she told either S.T. or V.D. to lie is more credible than the testimony to the contrary from S.T. and V.D. Therefore, it is found that Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent told her students to lie about her discipline practices.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of facts and conclusions of law contained herein, which provides that a letter of reprimand be issued Respondent by the Education Practices Commission, and which places Respondent's certification on probation for a period of two years. It is further recommended that the terms and conditions of probation be identical to those recommended by Petitioner in its post-hearing submittal. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of May, 1992. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 May, 1992.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the School Board has proven the allegations set forth in the Notices of Specific Charges dated April 3, 2001, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The incident giving rise to this case occurred on November 14, 2000. At that time, Respondents Gregory Adams (Adams) and Brett T. Scanlon (Scanlon) were employed as teachers by the School Board and assigned to William Chapman Elementary School (Chapman). Adams has been employed by the School Board since August 1996, and has taught at Chapman since 1998. Scanlon has been employed by the School Board at Chapman since October 1999. Adams and Scanlon shared a second grade classroom during Scanlon's first year at Chapman, and Adams became a mentor to him. At the start of the 2000/2001 school year, Scanlon was assigned to teach third grade, while Adams continued to teach second grade. The complaining witness against Adams and Scanlon, Miguel Suarez (Miguel), was nine years old at the time of the incident. Like many of the teachers and administrators at Chapman, Miguel is of Hispanic origin. English is his second language. Miguel's academic functioning is quite low. In terms of expressing himself, he functions at a four or five-year-old level. His memory functions no better than that of a five- year-old. He was not sure, for example, what school he had attended last year. Miguel is unable to reliably sequence events. He is eager to please and, at least in the presence of the undersigned, attempted to ascertain what adult authority figures wanted and to give it to them. Miguel's learning disabilities are not the first thing one notices about Miguel. Indeed, Miguel began the 2000/2001 school year as a second grade student in a regular education class. It was not until mid-October that the professional educators who worked with him daily mustered sufficient evidence to identify his learning disabilities and appropriately place him into a learning disabilities (LD) program for part of the day. Miguel's family is not adept at communicating effectively with school teachers and administrators. Miguel's mother, Silvia Gomez (Gomez), does not strive for a united front between home and school. In addition to his mother, Miguel resides with her live-in boyfriend. Both are irregularly employed. Sometime prior to the incident on November 14, 2000, Miguel's father had committed suicide. Miguel was aware that his father had died, but had never received counseling directed to this loss. Adams is an African-American from an impoverished, hardscrabble background. Out of seven siblings, he and one other have achieved a college education. Adams feels an obligation to encourage children of similar background. Scanlon is a white male, who previously served in the armed forces. His professional bearing is reminiscent of what official Miami used to look like. He too is committed to teaching. At the time of the final hearing, Chapman’s racial and ethnic composition, as well as the mix of English and Spanish spoken as first languages, typifies the rich diversity of Miami-Dade County in the 21st century. But it also provided fertile ground for misunderstanding, miscommunication, and mixed signals. Compounding the potential for trouble at Chapman, at the time of the incident, some teachers employed a practice called ”time-out” to deal with students with whom they were having a problem at a moment when they were not able or willing to deal with the problem themselves. Time-out, though not part of the officially approved discipline program at Chapman, was widely known in the school. The practice was discontinued after and as a direct result of this incident. At the time of the incident, Adams and Scanlon had a good faith belief that it was a form of professional courtesy within the school, and not an act which would place one’s career in jeopardy. Time-out was initiated by the teacher having difficulty with a particular student. She would take or send the disruptive student to a fellow teacher who would use his own discretion in returning the child to a compliant mode. Sometimes, the mere act of sending the child to another teacher was sufficient to inspire contrition. Sometimes it wasn't. Sometimes a child would join the time-out teacher's classroom. Sometimes the child would be taken to a private area and given a stern lecture. Miguel, due to his learning disabilities and in particular his extremely poor communication skills, was not a good candidate to respond positively to a stern lecture. Rather, it was frightening to him, particularly when delivered by two adult male teachers previously unknown to him. Adams, on the other hand, had good results in the past with students referred to him for time-out. Adams was experienced in administering time-outs for fellow teachers, and the record reflects no complaints about either Respondent's techniques with reference to their handling of time-outs. Adams and Scanlon had no knowledge of Miguel’s limitations and special circumstances on November 14, 2000, when one of Miguel’s teachers, Leah Gilliard (Gilliard), was angry at Miguel for “helping” to collect books without permission. Gilliard delivered Miguel to Adams, who in turn sought the assistance of his colleague Scanlon. Miguel’s time-out ended in a student bathroom, where Respondents used language and metaphors which may have been effective with a third grader of average communication skills, but which served only to frighten Miguel. In particular, Scanlon asked Miguel why he wanted to throw his life away and if he wanted to flush everything down the toilet. Asked by Scanlon questions to the effect of why he was throwing his education away like he was flushing it down the toilet, Miguel started laughing. It may well be that Miguel laughed out of fear, or confusion, but Scanlon and Adams perceived disrespect. Rather than switch metaphors, Adams took Miguel to a child-size toilet stall and said “This is your life going down the drain if you don't get serious about education.” As he said this, he flushed the toilet with his foot. Miguel was sufficiently chastened to obey Adams' direction to apologize to Scanlon for having been (in Respondents' perception) rude. Miguel did not cry or exhibit other signs of distress to Respondents as they escorted him from the bathroom. Scanlon returned to his own classroom and Adams returned Miguel to Gilliard. At Adams' direction, Miguel apologized to Gilliard and the time-out ended. Miguel said nothing of the incident until later that night. At bedtime, Miguel told Gomez that “a brown man and a white man” had “put his head in the toilet.” Gomez did not take the claim seriously, and Miguel was not agitated or upset. Gomez told Miguel to go to sleep and he did so. The next morning, however, Miguel said he did not want to go to school, so his mother went to school with him. In the presence of Miguel, she first met with Gilliard, and next with teacher Millie Johnson (Johnson). Johnson, on hearing the toilet story, said to Miguel in a loud and “forceful” voice, “They didn't really do that, did they?” Miguel answered, “They almost.” Adams was summoned, and admitted to having had Miguel in his custody for time-out, but not to any type of physical abuse. By this time, Miguel had told at least three adults, his mother, Gilliard, and Johnson, that he, Adams, Scanlon, and a flushing toilet were all in proximity to one another while Miguel was being sternly double-teamed on the subject of his behavior—-a fact which Adams and Scanlon do not dispute. Dissatisfied with Adams’ explanation, an angry Gomez left an upset Miguel behind at school to be cared for by teachers, administrators, and counselors who were busy with their regular work. As the day progressed, Miguel was required to tell his story to no fewer than four more teachers and administrators. Miguel began to add substantially and horrifically to the story he had told his mother the night before. Meanwhile, Adams and Scanlon were immediately transferred out of Chapman and assigned to a district office. At different times and places, Miguel has claimed that Adams kicked walls and slammed doors; that Scanlon threatened to cut off his tongue and his fingers; that Adams threatened to cut out his tongue and teeth; and that Adams pushed his head just inside the rim of the toilet seat, near the water, and asked, “Do you want to drown?” In addition, Miguel has claimed that both teachers took him to a stairwell where Adams told Miguel that he would drop him down the stairs, pull out his teeth, and do "something" to him if he told his mother. Miguel's story has grown to include allegations that one or both teachers made him stand on one foot and pretended to push him down the stairs. It is also alleged that Adams made him run up and down the stairs chasing an unidentified boy that they had picked up on their way to the stairs. For reasons not reflected in the record, a couple of days after the incident, Miguel's mother's live-in companion came to the school office screaming, “How could teachers do this!” For several days following his mother's visit to Chapman, Miguel was agitated and did not want to go to his homeroom. The record is unclear as to whether his agitation was the product of the November 14th incident, or adult reaction to it as horrific details were added, or being simply overwhelmed by the attention. Soon after the incident, Miguel was administratively promoted to a third grade homeroom. He continues to be enrolled at Chapman. Gomez retained an attorney to pursue a civil action on Miguel's behalf. At the time of the final hearing in this case, the incident which occurred on November 14 is in active litigation and requires a significant amount of Miguel's time. He is fearful of failing this year because he is missing a lot of school due to the legal proceedings. Gomez and her lawyer sought and received publicity for their claims against Petitioner. In seeking media coverage they knowingly and voluntarily made Miguel's identity a matter of public notoriety for purposes of influencing the outcome of the litigation. Because Petitioner's case rests entirely upon Miguel's claims that he was subjected to criminal conduct far beyond the time-out described by Adams and Scanlon, the undersigned paid careful attention to his demeanor under oath. Miguel attended a significant portion of the final hearing accompanied by his mother and his lawyer, and listened again to teachers' accounts of what he had allegedly told them about the incident. Miguel's time on the witness stand was prolonged because he had significant difficulty understanding questions and even more difficulty in recalling and recounting facts crucial to the allegations against Respondents. On several occasions his attempted answers were simply unintelligible. Miguel's family, by virtue of its lawsuit against Petitioner, had an obvious financial stake in telling as horrifying a tale as possible. Similarly, Adams and Scanlon, whose careers and livelihoods are at stake, are motivated to downplay the extent of their efforts to intimidate Miguel into improving his behavior. The undersigned, therefore, carefully observed Respondents' demeanor as they testified. The testimony of the Respondents and of Miguel, when evaluated in the context of the entire record, reveals that Petitioner has failed to establish that Miguel was abused in the manner described in the Notice of Specific Charges. Rather, the version of the incident recounted by Adams and Scanlon is far closer to the truth. The Petitioner's allegations are utterly inconsistent with any evidence presented about the character and professional career of Adams and Scanlon. In addition, they are so horrific that one would expect that a child who had suffered such treatment would be far more traumatized than the cheerful, if intimidated, little boy who testified at the final hearing. The undersigned attaches particular significance to Gomez' claim at the final hearing that on the night of the incident, Miguel reported to her most, if not all, of the abuse allegations against Adams and Scanlon. Yet, all of Petitioner's witnesses agree that when Gomez confronted Adams and school authorities the following day, she said nothing of the alleged threats of violence and death made against her son. Gomez claims she did not mention the abuse allegations the next day because she deemed them unimportant when measured against the fact that--taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Petitioner--Miguel's head had been placed near, but not in, the toilet water. The undersigned rejects Gomez' testimony that Miguel in fact claimed, on the night of November 14th, that he had been subjected to violence, physical abuse, and death threats. Not only did Gomez fail to mention these most serious charges to any of the teachers or administrators, she never mentioned them to school police. It is also significant that the day after the incident, Miguel did not suggest to anyone that any other children were present on the stairs. It was not until his deposition was taken in May 2001, that Miguel stated that another little boy was on the stairs and that the “Brown man” pulled the little boy from class and made both of them run up and down stairs. There is no corroborating evidence that this child exists, or this incident took place on November 14th nor at any other time. Neither is there any corroboration of any kind for Miguel's testimony that several children were in the bathroom at one time or other during the course of the incident and each of these children was ordered out by Adams or Scanlon. Such witnesses, if they existed, would be of obvious value in providing disinterested testimony as to, at a minimum, the demeanor of the Respondents during the incident. Being kicked out of a bathroom by a teacher is not a daily occurrence. Had multiple children been subjected to this unusual behavior by two teachers who were preparing to or were in the process of abusing a second grader, it should not have been difficult to identify them 24 hours later. Petitioner attempted to corroborate Miguel's testimony through a school psychologist, Diane Cotter (Cotter). She opined that the alleged abuse actually occurred. Cotter has no personal knowledge of the incident, does not treat Miguel, and has no credentials in forensic psychology. With deference to the witness, the undersigned disagrees with her opinion as to Miguel's reliability. The record as a whole establishes that Miguel's story grew in direct response to the attention and reinforcement he was receiving as the flushing toilet story was embellished with allegations of criminal child abuse. Petitioner, at its duly-noticed meeting of March 14, 2001, took action to suspend Adams and Scanlon without pay and to initiate dismissal proceedings against them pursuant to Sections 230.23(5)(f) and 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board issue a final order reinstating Gregory Adams and Brett T. Scanlon with back pay. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _______________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 26th day of October, 2001.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as alleged in the letter from Duval County School Board dated May 25, 2017; and, if so, the appropriate disciplinary action.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Duval County, Florida. Art. IX, § (4)(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell is a teacher covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between Duval Teachers United and the Duval County School Board for 2014-2017. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was a teacher assigned to Hyde Grove. During the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach second-grade students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2016-2017 staff handbook which required staff members to strive to achieve ethical conduct and to familiarize themselves with the Code of Ethics. Teachers are trained to avoid touching students aggressively and to avoid leaving students unsupervised. The staff handbook provides that students should not be left unsupervised in a classroom or other area. The policy also provides that no student should be sent to the playground without teacher supervision. Ms. Sapp, the principal of Hyde Grove, provided training to the staff during pre-planning training and orientation week. One of those trainings was on Ethics and Professionalism. The training in-service record reflects that Respondent completed the training. During the training, Ms. Sapp provided guidelines for interaction with students and demonstrated the training principles. To avoid aggressive touching of students, she gave examples as follows: “[i]f a student falls down to the floor, pouting, as children would do, . . . basically ask for them to get up, but, rule of thumb, just not to put your hands on the student.” Ms. Sapp testified that teachers could exercise various strategies to diffuse a situation with a student engaged in disruptive behavior. Teachers are trained to create distance between the child who is being disruptive and the adult, until someone else could remove that child. Another strategy is to transfer the disruptive student to the partner-teacher for time- out. A teacher could also send the classroom partner for help or call the administration for assistance. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that her partner-teacher, Ms. Hinton, was absent on the day of the incident so she did not use that strategy. However, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell did not otherwise use any of the suggested strategies during the incident with the student. The facts that serve as the basis for this case occurred in April 2017. On April 20, 2017, at approximately 2:45 p.m., classes were preparing for afternoon dismissal. At around the same time, Ms. Jones, the Team-Up instructor arrived at the classroom she shared with Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. Team-Up is an after-school program that provides academic enrichment, arts and crafts, and homework assistance. The Team-Up program operates from 2:55 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. each day. As she entered the classroom, Ms. Jones saw Ms. Stripling-Mitchell talking to students to prepare them for dismissal. The students were working on the iReady program using laptops. Respondent was working with three students who were seated in the back left corner of the classroom. Ms. Jones noticed that J.K. was being noncompliant with Ms. Stripling- Mitchell’s requests to continue working on the iReady program. As a result of the disruptive behavior, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell directed the student to return his laptop to the laptop cart and leave her classroom. The student continued to be disruptive and stated that he was not going to leave. Ms. Jones heard Ms. Stripling-Mitchell say, “[l]et me help you out with it,” and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell led the student by his left arm to the front of the classroom. Ms. Jones also heard the student say, “[n]o. I didn’t do anything. Get your hands off me.” While the student walked with Respondent side by side, he continued to resist. When the two arrived at the front of the classroom, the student turned and faced Respondent. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell bent over toward the student’s face. Her face was a few inches from the student’s. Ms. Jones saw Ms. Stripling-Mitchell pointing and waving her finger in the student’s face while saying, "[w]hat did your mother tell you? Didn't she tell you to respect me? I'm going to call your mother and she's going to beat your butt." Ms. Jones testimony about this statement is different in her written statement, which states, “[M]s. Stripling-Mitchell said, What did your mother tell you about being disruptive? What did your mother tell you about being disrespectful to me? I am going to call your mother and tell her everything you have done here today so she can get on your butt!” Ms. Jones was at the back of the room, near the sink, on the opposite side of the room from Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student. Although the statements are different, the difference is of minor significance. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell threatened to call the student’s parent while she and J.K. were at the front of the classroom and in front of other students. The student in turn yelled at Respondent to get out of his face. At the same time, he raised the laptop above his head and swung it at Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. Respondent blocked the laptop and took it from the student. The student then attempted to punch Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. She dropped the laptop and blocked his punch. Although Ms. Jones witnessed the events, she had not intervened to assist Ms. Stripling-Mitchell at this point. Ms. Jones contacted the administration office two times, but the teachers did not receive assistance in the classroom. After Ms. Stripling-Mitchell struggled with the student, she restrained him against one of the two dry-erase boards using her hand and forearm. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was directly facing the student with her back to the classroom, and the student’s back was against the dry-erase board. Ms. Jones testified that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student continued to argue and they moved along the dry-erase board laterally, for approximately eight feet. Ultimately, Ms. Jones separated Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student. Ms. Jones walked the student to Ms. Sapp’s office. During the walk to the principal’s office, the student complained of shortness of breath and was breathing heavily. Ms. Sapp was notified that a student was in her office and there was an issue she needed to address. Ms. Sapp testified that when she initially saw the student, he was crying, huffing and puffing, and breathing hard. When Ms. Sapp asked what happened, the student told Ms. Sapp that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell placed her hands around his throat and that he could not breathe. After J.K. told his account of the incident, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell arrived in the office. Ms. Sapp then met with J.K. and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. During the meeting, J.K. repeated that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choked him. Ms. Stripling- Mitchell interrupted J.K. and engaged him in reenactment of the incident. The reenactment consisted of Ms. Stripling-Mitchell demonstrating how she restrained the student using her hand near his neck. Ms. Sapp then stopped the reenactment and asked the student to wait outside her office. Ms. Sapp told Ms. Stripling-Mitchell she should not touch the children, and Ms. Stripling acknowledged in agreement this was the school policy. Ms. Sapp testified that it was unacceptable for Ms. Stripling-Mitchell to instruct the student to leave her class and go sit at the picnic bench without supervision. Ms. Sapp finished her meeting with Ms. Stripling- Mitchell, and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell returned to her classroom. Before Ms. Sapp met with J.K. and Ms. Stripling- Mitchell, she contacted the Office of Professional Standards for guidance regarding the appropriate next step. Ms. Sapp was advised to obtain statements regarding the incident. Ms. Sapp later asked Ms. Jones to send students who had knowledge of the incident to her office. After speaking with the students, Ms. Sapp asked the students to write statements about the incident as requested by the Office of Professional Standards. The statements were provided to the investigator conducting the investigation of the allegations, Mr. Gregory. Mr. Gregory collected the written statements and interviewed five students the day following the incident. Overall, the students provided varied descriptions of what happened. Mr. Gregory also conducted an interview of Ms. Jones, a portion of which occurred in the classroom, and requested that she provide a written statement. In addition to obtaining witness statements, Mr. Gregory researched Ms. Stripling-Mitchell’s discipline history. He discovered that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell had been the subject of prior investigations that resulted in disciplinary action. On May 18, 2012, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was investigated for use of profanity, demeaning, and derogatory communication directed toward employees. She was issued a written reprimand, a Step II disciplinary action. In December 2016, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was involved in an incident with a different student that is of direct relevance to this proceeding. In that incident, a parent complained about Ms. Stripling-Mitchell’s interaction with their child. It was determined that during an interaction with a disruptive student, Respondent pushed that student to the floor and verbally reprimanded him in front of other students. The incident resulted in the child being subject to embarrassment and physical aggression. On January 9, 2017, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was issued a written reprimand, her second Step II disciplinary action. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was also directed to seek assistance from the Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”) to obtain training on strategies for deescalating situations. After the interviews and review of the statements, Mr. Gregory concluded that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell used inappropriate physical contact with J.K. by restraining him against the wall with her hand and arm against his throat, after J.K. swung the laptop at her. Although not specifically alleged in the Notice, there was a dispute whether the student was choked. Ms. Jones testified that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choked the student during the incident. However, she did not mention choking in her written statement. At hearing, Ms. Jones was confronted with a text message addressing that issue. The texts were as follows: Ms. Stripling-Mitchell: I was told that Ms. Timberlake planned or plans to call DCF or someone since J.K. told her I choked him that why he tried to hit me. LIES!! Ms. Jones: What!!! That’s a freaking lie!!! You did not choke him!!! Ms. Jones’ testimony regarding Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choking J.K. was not credible. There was also a dispute regarding whether Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist toward the student. Ms. Jones testified Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist and threatened to strike the student. Ms. Jones did not mention this allegation in her written statement provided days after the incident. Ms. Jones also did not mention this alleged observation when Mr. Gregory interviewed her. Ms. Stripling- Mitchell testified that she did not raise her fist to strike J.K. The student provided a statement describing the incident in his own words. He indicated that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell placed her hand on his neck. There was no reference in the student’s statement that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell tried to punch him. Several other students provided written statements which also did not include any indication that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell raised her fist toward the student. The undersigned finds no credible evidence that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist to strike the student. There was much discussion at hearing regarding the description and behavioral history of the student. Ms. Jones described the student as a seven-year-old, scrawny boy, standing at four feet, nine inches. She also stated that the student could be sweet, but could be provoked “if things don’t go his way, if you threaten him or when the children . . . play a game called “the dozens.”2/ Ms. Stripling-Mitchell, on the other hand, described the student as routinely disruptive and noncompliant with staff. Between October 2016 and April 2017, J.K. engaged in conduct that resulted in six referrals. The referrals involved pushing another student, attempting to trip a student multiple times, stabbing a student in the arm with a pencil, and fighting. There were no referrals that involved a confrontation with a teacher. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell provided her account of the incident at hearing. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that she became the student’s teacher in August 2016. Shortly after he became her student, she became aware of his disruptive behavior. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell had a practice of telling J.K., “[I]’m going to call your mom if you don’t settle down,” to encourage him to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior. On April 20, 2017, Respondent was working with three students on the iReady system when she heard someone say “[t]he folder hit me.” When she approached a group of three boys, including J.K., one student said, “J.K. just hit me with a folder.” Ms. Stripling-Mitchell instructed the boys to get back to work. Before she returned to her seat, she heard someone say “Stop.” She then returned to J.K. and told him, “[y]ou’re going to need to go sit on the picnic table.” J.K. agreed to return to the iReady activity. However, a short time later, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell heard a loud yell from one of the boys at J.K.’s table. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell then repeated to J.K., “[y]ou’re going to have to leave.” Ms. Stripling-Mitchell recalls that Ms. Jones arrived and sat at a table in the opposite corner of the room and began changing her shoes. During this time, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell continued to engage in a back-and-forth exchange with J.K. Similar to Ms. Jones’ account of the incident, J.K. swung the laptop at Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and she blocked it. Then, J.K. tried to punch her, which she also blocked. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that after she blocked his punch, J.K. continued to attack her by trying to throw her to the floor. She testified that she had to restrain him against the dry-erase board to avoid falling. It is disputed whether the student continued to attack Ms. Stripling-Mitchell after she took the laptop and blocked his punch. Ms. Jones testified the student was not attacking Ms. Stripling-Mitchell, but rather he was trying to get away while Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was restraining him. On the other hand, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that the student was trying to “flip” her, which is why she restrained him. The undersigned finds Ms. Jones’ testimony more credible. After J.K.’s failed attempt to punch her, there was no evidence of a threat for which Ms. Stripling-Mitchell needed to defend herself. Even if there was a threat, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell inappropriately touched J.K. by restraining him against the dry-erase board using her hand against his neck area. Ultimate Findings of Fact Overall, the credible evidence demonstrates that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell restrained the student against the dry- erase board using her hand near his neck. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she told the student that his mother was going to discipline him at home for his behavior in front of other students. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she instructed the student to leave her classroom to sit at the picnic bench.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Duval County School Board, enter a final order sustaining the Step III written reprimand and suspension without pay disciplinary action imposed against Respondent, Stephanie Stripling-Mitchell, as an instructional employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 12th day of December, 2017.
