The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke, suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2016). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 829054, covering the areas of Education, Leadership, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Holly Hill School in the Volusia County School District. Holly Hill School is a combined K-8 school. During the time in question, Respondent shared a small office with Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards. The office was formerly a teachers’ lounge/lunchroom. It still had a counter, sink, and refrigerator, and had bathrooms that continued to be used on occasion by other teachers. Each of the three teachers who shared the office had their own desk. The office also included two smaller tables at which the teachers could provide service to their ESE students when necessary. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Pollok knew Mr. Edwards, who had been in the ESE program, but did not know Respondent. The incidents described herein occurred between the start of the 2013-2014 school year on August 13, 2013, through late November, 2013, when Respondent was removed from the classroom. Racial Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent made numerous statements of a racial nature. While on hall duty between classes, Respondent would occasionally call African-American children “Bebe’s kids.” The reference was to an animated television show in which “Bebe’s kids” were unruly and ill-mannered African-American children. Mr. Edwards understood the comment to be derogatory, and noted that the children hearing the comment would occasionally react, even to the point of commenting that they did not want to be referred to as such. Respondent’s statements were also heard by Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who likewise understood the term to be derogatory, and observed that the children at the receiving end of the comment looked shocked. She advised Respondent that he should not call them that name. Ms. Pollok testified that Respondent routinely called children “nappy” during hall duty when students transition from one period to the next. The comments were directed to middle school students, whose reactions were perceived by her as being ones of humiliation or embarrassment.1/ Mr. Edwards testified that he heard Respondent refer to African-American children as “nappy,” though not with the frequency with which he called them “Bebe’s kids.” Respondent testified that he only called one child “nappy” at the request of the child, an ESE student -- though not one of his students -- who wanted to be called “napster” or “nappy.” There was no competent, substantial evidence to support that claim. No other teacher substantiated such a request, and Mr. Edwards and Ms. Burnam-Hoyt testified credibly that the term was used more broadly. In any event, as stated by Ms. Fisher, there would be no reason to address any student by that type of obviously inappropriate term, even if requested. Mr. Edwards perceived Respondent’s comments as inappropriate, and they made him uncomfortable. He believed, rightfully, that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable as well. There was no evidence that any student’s learning ability or mental health was actually adversely affected by Respondent’s racially-demeaning statements. Nonetheless, under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students at Holly Hill School from humiliation and embarrassment, conditions reasonably understood to be harmful to their learning environment and their mental health. Sexual Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent repeatedly made statements of a sexual nature. On occasion, when Ms. Pollok arrived to work in less than a cheerful mood, Respondent would state to the effect of “What's the matter, Pollo[]k, why are you grumpy? Am I going to have to go downstairs and talk to your husband about how to wake you up properly?” The first time he made the comment, he accompanied it with hip thrusts and grunts, i.e., sounds that people make when they're having sex, thus accentuating the sexual nature of the comment. The first time Respondent made the statement, Ms. Pollok felt awkward, left the office, and went to her husband’s classroom (he was also a teacher at Holly Hill School) where she stayed until the school day started. When he continued to make such statements on a more regular basis, it made her uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards heard Respondent make the statement to Ms. Pollok on one or two occasions. Respondent denied having ever made the comments, attributing them to Mr. Anderson, who laughingly took credit. Regardless of whether Mr. Anderson may have also made comparable statements, the testimony of Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that Respondent made the statements at issue is more credible, and is accepted. Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who enjoys a well-known and long-term relationship with her wife, would occasionally visit the office. On one occasion, while in the presence of Mr. Edwards, Respondent told Ms. Burnam-Hoyt that she looked nice that day and said “I wish you would switch teams.” Though she gave an off-hand reply, Ms. Burnam-Hoyt did not discuss her sexuality, especially in the workplace, and was offended by the comment. On several other occasions, when Ms. Burnam-Hoyt was not in the room, Respondent commented in the presence of both Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that he wished “she didn’t bat for the other team.” On one occasion, when Ms. Pollok had returned from ESE training and asked Respondent about his day, he replied that “it was pretty boring until your old boss, what's her name, Mandy [Elzy], bent over and showed me her boobs.” Respondent commented, with regard to Anna Garces, that “she was spicy and he'd like to make her his consuela.” When Donna Mounts, a P.E. instructor, would come to the office, Respondent’s favorite phrase was that he “would like to mount Coach Mounts.” Respondent did not make the statement directly to Ms. Mounts, but he made it in the office on a routine basis. Respondent commented regarding Marcie Lockamy, an African-American assistant principal, that “I don’t normally do black ladies, but she’s pretty hot . . . I’d get at that.” Respondent’s denial that he made the statement, or that he even knew who Ms. Lockamy was, was not convincing. Respondent’s comments were repetitive, and he would make some statement every day. Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards told Respondent that he should “tone it down.” In particular, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that he advised Respondent “at different points” that his comments about women were not appropriate, not only because of his own view of the matter, but because he believed them to be disturbing to Ms. Pollok. The requests and recommendations had no identifiable effect. Mr. Anderson’s testimony in this case, apparently designed to exonerate Respondent and transfer responsibility for many of the statements to himself, was not persuasive, and in several instances, conflicted with the more credible testimony of other witnesses.2/ Respondent’s general defense to his sexual comments was that he was just “joking around,” that they occurred when he and the target of his comments “were talking and laughing and having a good time in between classes,” that they were a “jovial gesture,” and the like. He denied that they were perceived as offensive by any the persons within earshot, a statement denied by the persons exposed to his comments. Individually, Respondent’s comments could be categorized as puerile. Collectively, and over time, they rose to the degree that they created a hostile, abusive, offensive, and oppressive environment in the small office that constituted the workplace for the three teachers. Threatening Comments The Administrative Complaint alleges that, over the period of time in question, Respondent made “threatening comments to or around [Ms. Pollok].” As to comments regarding Respondent’s prior work- history as a police officer, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that they were nothing more than “experiences that people have or wanted to share.” Mr. Edwards did not take those statements as threatening. When Respondent discovered that he was being investigated by Holly Hill School, he was understandably upset. He made some comments that expressed his frustration. However, Mr. Edwards testified that Respondent did not threaten him or Ms. Pollok. Respondent admitted to being upset and frustrated, but denied either expressing, or having the intent to harm anyone. The comments, under the circumstances, were not so out of line as to objectively constitute a threat to one’s safety or welfare. Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s allegedly threatening statements created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment in violation of rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). Holly Hill School’s Response Ms. Pollok complained of Respondent’s behavior to various administrators at Holly Hill School, including Mr. Strother, and went so far as to request a reassignment of her duties so as to avoid Respondent. On November 1, 2013, Mr. Strother spoke with Respondent. The conversation was “short and brief,” and non-specific, with Mr. Strother generally advising Respondent to “be cognizant of conversations you're having and what you're saying around other people.” On or about November 4, 2013, Ms. Pollok renewed her complaint to Mr. Strother about Respondent’s comments about “the ladies,” and their looks and sexual preferences. Mr. Strother could tell that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards had also spoken to Mr. Strother regarding Respondent’s comments. As a result of those complaints, Mr. Strother sent out an email directing all teachers to have “professional conversations,” and to lead “by example with appropriate conversation.” Though the email was not specific, included other topics, and was sent to a number of Holly Hill School employees, it nonetheless should have placed Respondent on notice to heed not only Mr. Strother’s earlier advice, but also the earlier admonitions from Mr. Edwards and Ms. Pollok to “tone it down.” It did not have the intended effect. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Pollok reported Respondent’s unabated comments about women and those made towards students to Ms. Fisher. Ms. Pollok was upset and crying during their discussion. Ms. Fisher then spoke with Mr. Strother to confirm Ms. Pollok’s earlier complaints. Ms. Fisher reported the allegations to the school district, and on November 21, 2013, an investigation of Respondent’s conduct was initiated. The investigation delved into the sexually-inappropriate comments, and extended into areas that are not the subject of this proceeding, for which Respondent received a reprimand. As to the comments directed to students, which were determined to be violative of principles of professional conduct and school board policy for failing to protect students or exposing them to excessive embarrassment or disparagement, Respondent was suspended without pay for five days, and transferred from Holly Hill School.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d). It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission impose a suspension of the Respondent's educator certificate for a period of one year, and a probationary period of one year upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Educational Practices Commission determines are necessary to prevent recurrences of the conduct proven in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Michael A. Graham, was a middle school teacher at West Miami Junior High School (WMJHS) in Miami, Florida. He is under a continuing contract as a teacher for petitioner, School Board of Dade County (Board). He has been an employee in the school system since 1975 and a full-time teacher since 1981. Graham holds bachelor and master degrees from the University of Miami and is currently taking course work at Florida International University towards a second master's degree. On January 12, 1988 the Board voted to suspend Graham without pay for thirty days effective January 20, 1988 for "just cause and misconduct in office." On July 1, 1988 the Board issued a Notice of Charges containing six counts of alleged misconduct. 1/ The charging document alleged that respondent failed to disclose on his job application dated September 24, 1981 that he had been previously arrested on numerous occasions, (b) intentionally exposed a student, I.M., to unnecessary embarrassment, (c) intentionally exposed a student, V.E., to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, (d) intentionally committed a battery on U.C., a student, (e) continually and intentionally refused to discontinue uttering profane and/or vulgar language in his classroom during school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, and (f) continually and intentionally refused to discontinue excessive tardiness and excessive absences during the same school years. These charges will be taken up separately below. Filing A False Application (Counts I and II) During the course of his employment with the Board, Graham has filled out various applications and other informational forms. Relevant to this proceeding is an application for an instructional position filed with the Board on September 24, 1981. The application asked the following question: Have you ever been convicted of anything other than minor traffic violations? Graham responded in the negative. Sometime after Graham filed the above application, the Board had an occasion to run a background check on him. Among other things, the Board uncovered the fact that Graham had been arrested on February 29, 1976 for resisting an officer without violence to his person and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors. The first charge was nolle prossed while Graham was found guilty of the second charge and received a suspended sentence. Certified copies of these records have been introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 10. Although petitioner did not introduce into evidence certified copies of other arrests, there was testimony, without objection, that Graham had been arrested for the following charges: 12/17/71 - public drunkenness 6/05/74 - theft 5/14/76 - worthless checks 4/08/77 - "warrant arrests" 5/18/77 - worthless checks 9/11/79 - worthless checks 9/17/81 - aggravated battery 11/05/82 - worthless checks 2/21/86 - worthless checks During a conference with a school administrator on August 21, 1987, Graham acknowledged that, with the exception of the May 14, 1976 arrest which he did not remember, and the April 8, 1977 matter which he stated involved a voluntary return on his part to the State of Indiana, all other arrests occurred. However, there is no evidence that Graham was convicted of any of these charges, and his testimony that all charges were later dropped was not contradicted. At hearing Graham explained that he thought the question concerning prior arrests on the employment application meant whether his civil rights had ever been taken away. Since they had not, he stated he believed his negative answer was appropriate. Exposing Students to Embarrassment or Disparagement (Counts III and IV) It is alleged that in school year 1986-87, respondent exposed I.M., a seventh grade female student, to "unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement." The student did not appear at hearing but gave post-hearing deposition testimony. As clarified at hearing, this charge stems from alleged off-color remarks about I.M.'s clothing made by Graham to I.M. in front of the class. I.M. was a student in Graham's history class in school year 1986-87. While in class on May 11, 1987, I.M. left her desk to go to the restroom. She was wearing tight fitting pants. When she returned, Graham remarked in a loud voice, and in front of the class, that her pants were so tight he "could see her crack and count the hairs." Graham also made her perform a "fabric test" to ascertain whether she could pinch the cloth on the pants without pinching her skin. If I.M. pinched both skin and cloth, this confirmed that the pants were too tight. After Graham made his comments and required I.M. to take the "fabric test," I.M. became embarrassed, felt "cheap," began crying and left the room. She reported the incident to her counselor and prepared a written statement which is attached to her deposition. Also, she described the incident to a school investigator the same day, giving essentially the same version of events described above. This account is deemed to be more accurate and credible than a slightly different version of events given by I.M. by deposition some fifteen months later. Graham recalled the incident differently. According to his recollection, when I.M. returned from the bathroom to the classroom, he told her she had "inappropriate clothing," and if she disputed this, she would be given a hall pass to visit the principal. If the principal approved the pants, she could wear them to school. Otherwise, Graham told her not to wear them to his class in the future. Graham contended also that he said "Your clothing is too tight around the hips and crotch" and denied using the words "hairs" or "crack." He conceded he may have asked her to perform a "fabric test." However, this version of events is not deemed to be credible and is hereby discredited. Student V.E. is a fundamentalist Christian who was in Graham's American History class for the first three days of school year 1987-88. On the first or second day of class Graham gave a class assignment requiring the students to use the Bible as a historical reference but to explain the story without the (i ideas of miracles and deity. V.E. understood this to mean that she was to "take all miracles" out of the story and to "not have God in it." During class that day, V.E. asked a question about a Bible parable being discussed by Graham and, after she gave the biblical version of what happened, Graham asked her if she believed in magic. V.E. felt "bad" and "intimidated" by Graham's question. When she went home that evening, V.E. told her mother about the class assignment. The mother was upset and prepared a letter for Graham and the assistant principal questioning the subject matter of the assignment. V.E. was told by her mother to hand carry a copy of the letter to Graham the next day. Before she could do this, the assistant principal told Graham that V.E.`s mother had sent a letter. When she entered the classroom the next day, V.E. was asked by Graham if she had a letter for him. After being handed the letter, Graham asked V.E. why she told her mother about the assignment and added "I'm pissed." This episode took place in front of the entire classroom. This caused V.E. to be very "upset" and "embarrassed." She immediately transferred out of Graham's class. Graham countered that there was no "homework assignment" per se and that he was merely seeking to obtain "critical thinking" from his students. According to Graham, his discussion was consistent with the approved curriculum and was intended to have the students reconcile biblical stories with other theories of evolution of men. Graham believed that V.E. had misunderstood the discussion as being an attack on religion when in fact it was not. He added that, of all the students, only V.E. reached that erroneous conclusion. He conceded that he "may have" used the words "I'm pissed" but contended that he was justified in questioning her in front of the entire classroom because students frequently hurried off to other classes once the end-of-period bell rang. Battering Urbano (Count IV) In school year 1986-87, Urbano was a fifteen year old male student. He has since departed the state. It is alleged that Graham committed battery on Urbano. According to Graham, who gave the only eyewitness account of the entire fray, Urbano was still a student when the incident occurred but was in the process of withdrawing from school and moving to California. Urbano had been in several classes taught by Graham and had a history of disruptive conduct. Urbano returned to the campus one day to speak with a girlfriend who was in Graham's classroom. Urbano entered the classroom during a change in classes. Not wanting a confrontation, Graham requested the girl to ask Urbano to leave. When she did this, Urbano began cursing Graham and slowly backed into the hallway outside of Graham's classroom. As Graham attempted to close his door, Urbano blocked the door and pushed Graham who responded by pushing Urbano out of the doorway. Urbano then threw a four pound textbook into Graham's chest. After Graham asked Urbano to follow him to the principal's office, Urbano drew back his fist to strike Graham. At that point, and in self-defense, Graham struck Urbano with a blow to the side of his face. In retaliation, Urbano threw a karate kick into Graham's left knee. Graham followed by administering a second blow to Urbano's face. A female physical education teacher then approached the melee, grabbed Urbano on the shoulder and escorted him to the principal's office. According to Graham, Urbano was immediately suspended from school. This was not contradicted. There is no evidence that Graham was criminally charged with battery or disciplined by the school for the incident. Using Profane and Vulgar Language in Class (Count V) It is charged that in school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 Graham was given direct orders to discontinue "uttering profane and/or vulgar language while in the performance of assigned duties as a classroom teacher," and that respondent "continually and intentionally refused to discontinue" doing so. The allegations stem from disciplinary action taken in the fall of 1985. On October 17, 1985 respondent participated in a conference for the record with WMJHS principal Kavenaugh for using "very salty language" in the classroom. Neither Kavenaugh or Graham could recall what words were actually used by Graham. As noted in finding of fact 11, Graham used the words "I'm pissed" while talking to student V.E. in September, 1987. About the same time, he recited a "parable" in V.E.'s class which went generally as follows: A large flock of birds immigrated south one winter but one bird's wings froze, and it fell to the ground. A horse came along and deposited cow shit on the bird. Although the cow shit did not smell good, it kept the bird warm. A cat then came upon the fallen bird, wiped the cow shit off of its wings and ate it. The moral: not everyone who shits on you is your enemy, and not everyone who does you a favor is your friend. Graham acknowledged reciting the above story in class but claimed he used the word "chip" instead of "shit." However, V.E. stated she heard the word "shit," and this version of the events is accepted as being more credible. Principal Kavenaugh gave some vague testimony about other incidents of vulgarity but could not give specifics as to when this occurred or what was said. Other than the order to quit using "very salty language" in October 1985, there is no evidence of any other orders given to Graham by a principal or administrative officer directing him to refrain from using vulgarity or profanity. Excessive Tardiness and Absences (Count VI) The notice of charges alleges that in school years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 Graham was "given direct orders to discontinue his excessive tardiness and/or excessive absences," and that he "continually and intentionally refused to discontinue" doing so. Assistant principal Sotolongo authored memoranda to respondent on May 27, 1986 and March 25, 1987 regarding class absences. The first concerned respondent sitting in the teacher's lounge ten minutes after class had started on May 23, 1986. For this infraction, Graham received a reprimand. The assistant principal stated that Graham was "periodically" absent from class but could not recall the number of times this occurred or the dates of such absences. The second memorandum was prompted by Graham being absent from school during the afternoon of March 24, 1987. Graham's explanation of having to see a doctor for a workers' compensation injury was not accepted as being satisfactory. Principal Kavenaugh authored a memorandum on May 6, 1986 concerning punctual attendance by Graham. The memorandum was prepared after Graham had been late to school at least ten times between January 10, 1986 and May 5, 1986. Respondent promised to make an "extra effort" to comply with attendance requirements. There is no evidence that, after the May 6, 1986 memorandum, Graham was late for school or that he refused to comply with attendance requirements. Miscellaneous Graham was told by principal Kavenaugh on one occasion "to be courteous and free of sarcasm" while teaching his students. This order was memorialized in a memorandum dated June 19, 1987. There is no evidence he disobeyed this order. On November 10, 1987 Graham was placed on prescription for one item of performance. This meant he had to correct a deficiency in professional performance and responsibilities. The prescription was prompted primarily by the V.E. incident and the parable given in the history class, both occurring in September, 1987. There is no evidence that Graham did not fulfill the terms of the prescription. According to Dr. D. Patrick Gray, who was accepted as an expert in professional ethics, performance appraisal and professional or personnel management, Graham violated the teachers' code of ethics by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, unreasonably denying a student access to a diverse point of view, and failing to keep the confidence of personally identifiable information concerning a student. He opined further that, given respondent's conduct as described in the Notice of Charges, Graham's effectiveness as a teacher had been seriously impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of those charges in Counts I and II and a portion of Count III. All others should be dismissed. Respondent should also be suspended without pay for thirty days as proposed by the agency in its suspension notice effective January 20, 1988. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1988.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the head of the Florida Department of Education, the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints of violations of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, against teachers holding Florida educator's certificates. Respondent, who has no prior disciplinary history, holds Florida Educator's Certificate 709850, covering the area of mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2014. The Events The incident that gives rise to this proceeding occurred during the morning of April 8, 2011, at Dillard High School ("Dillard"), where Respondent has taught mathematics since 2004. At that time, Respondent was lecturing to his Algebra I honors class, which comprised approximately 15 students. During the lecture, one of the male students, 15-year- old D.P., took out his cell phone and viewed it, contrary to one of Respondent's classroom rules. Respondent immediately directed D.P. to put the phone away, and the student complied; a few moments later, however, D.P. again took out his phone, which resulted in the same reaction from Respondent. For reasons known only to D.P., he took out his phone a third time——conduct that prompted Respondent to confiscate the item. Later, during the same class period, D.P. inquired of Respondent as to when his phone would be returned. Respondent replied that the phone could be retrieved at the end of the day from Mr. Levinsky, one of Dillard's assistant principals. None too happy with this turn of events, D.P. stewed for several minutes, at which point he got up from his table and approached the front of the room, where Respondent was seated behind his desk. Suspecting that D.P. might attempt to recover the phone (which lay on Respondent's desk), Respondent picked it up. At that point, and in an audacious move, D.P. grabbed Respondent's cell phone off the desk and stated, in an angry tone, that he would return Respondent's phone when Respondent relinquished possession of his (D.P.'s). Understandably disinclined to negotiate, Respondent calmly directed D.P. to return his property. D.P. refused. Respondent again asked, to no avail, that D.P. place the phone on the desk. After a third request, which, like the others, went entirely unheeded, Respondent stood up, walked around his desk, positioned himself near D.P., and instructed D.P.——for the fourth time——to put down the phone. D.P. complied, only to pick up the phone once again just seconds later. (While doing so, D.P. remarked that he was not going to return Respondent's "mother-fucking phone.") It is at this point that the witness' accounts diverge: D.P. and student S.H. contend that Respondent reached out with one hand and, in an unprovoked act of violence, grabbed D.P. by the throat and pushed him backwards, which resulted in D.P. falling over several desks that had been placed together; students A.A., R.B., and A.P. claim that Respondent, without provocation, slammed D.P. onto the desks after taking hold of the student's throat; finally, Respondent asserts——as corroborated by student T.F.——that D.P. moved toward him in a threatening manner and that he (Respondent) simply defended himself5/ by extending his arm, which made contact with D.P.'s upper chest or neck area. Respondent and T.F. further testified that, as a result of the defensive contact, D.P. moved backward and either tripped or fell over the desks. Before the undersigned resolves the question of how D.P. wound up on the floor, a brief rehearsal of the relevant subsequent events is in order. Moments after the physical encounter, Respondent informed D.P., who was uninjured, that he intended to escort him to one of Dillard's administrators. Enraged, D.P. removed his shirt and followed Respondent into the hallway; as D.P. did so, he directed several vulgar threats toward Respondent, such as, "I'm going to fuck you up" and "I'm going to kill you." Moments later, Respondent encountered one of Dillard's security guards, Noel Buhagiar, from whom Respondent requested assistance. Mr. Buhagiar proceeded to restrain D.P., at which point Respondent made his way to school administration. Once in the front office, Respondent provided a brief description to Mr. Levinsky (as noted previously, an assistant principal) concerning his incident with D.P. Mr. Levinsky instructed Respondent to return to class and issue D.P. a referral. While en route to his classroom, Respondent walked by D.P., who, still restrained, repeated his earlier crude threats. From what can be gleaned from the record, D.P.'s behavior ultimately earned him a five-day suspension from school. Shortly after the incident, Respondent was questioned by Edward Jackson, a school resource officer assigned to Dillard. During the interview, Respondent explained that D.P. had approached him in a "fighter's stance" and that, as a result of this aggressive behavior, he feared for his safety and used an open hand (which made contact with D.P.'s neck) to ward D.P. away. Subsequently, Officer Jackson conducted an interview of D.P. in the presence of Mr. Levinsky and the student's father, during which D.P. provided a description of the incident that largely coincided with Respondent's version of events. These statements were credibly recounted during the final hearing by Officer Jackson, who testified: The child told me, in front of his father, and A.P. [Levinsky], that there was a conversation about a cell phone. He went to get his cell phone back, in an aggressive manner, and that's when [Respondent], fearing for his safety, extended his arms out, and I guess in such force, that he caused the student to fall over some chairs. I then asked, well, Mr. [Levinsky] asked the student, did at any time, did [Respondent] use his hand to choke, choke you. And D.P. answered, to the question, indicating that [Respondent] did not use his hands to choke him. And that was said in front of his father, and in front of Mr. Levinsky, so, there was no choke at all. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 173 (emphasis added). Upon the conclusion of his investigation, Officer Jackson charged D.P. with misdemeanor assault,6/ at which time the matter was forwarded to the State Attorney's Office.7/ Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner has failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of the Amended Administrative Complaint's principal allegation—— namely, that Respondent grabbed D.P. in a "choking manner and pushed him onto [a] desk." In so finding, the undersigned rejects the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses on this issue, which, for several reasons, is less persuasive than that of Respondent and T.F. First, had Respondent committed the act alleged, it is reasonable to expect that D.P. would have suffered some form of harm, particularly since Respondent, a football coach, outweighed D.P. by at least 608/ pounds. Yet, and as D.P. conceded during the final hearing, he sustained no marks, bruises, or injuries of any kind.9/ In addition, D.P.'s present description of the event is highly dubious in light of Officer Jackson's credible testimony, which establishes D.P.'s admission during the police interview that he (D.P.) had moved toward Respondent aggressively and that Respondent had merely extended his arm for protection. Finally, D.P.'s wholly outrageous conduct, both before and after the incident——taking Respondent's property and refusing to return it, removing his shirt, and threatening to "kill" Respondent——is far more suggestive of his culpability as the aggressor. Owing to the undersigned's crediting of Respondent's final-hearing testimony, it necessarily follows that Respondent's report of the incident to law enforcement, in which he claimed self-defense, was in no manner false or dishonest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Education Practices Commission dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 30th day of May, 2013.
The Issue The issues presented for determination are the following: Whether Respondent has violated rules of the School Board of Palm Beach County so as to constitute misconduct in office. If Respondent has committed misconduct in office, what penalty is to be imposed, including whether Respondent is entitled to back pay and in what amount.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Dr. James McCabe, was employed by Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, as the Assistant Principal for Student Services in charge of special education at Crestwood Community Middle School. In this capacity, Respondent's duties include the supervision of the students and teachers in special education. He is responsible for parent contact and involvement in addition to student discipline. He manages the dropout prevention and honors program. Additionally, he has other administrative duties which relate to the migrant and alternative education programs. Although he is primarily assigned to the special education program, he assists in other areas such as school-wide discipline. On December 14, 1989, in the early afternoon, Respondent was called to Mr. Mundt's shop class with Mrs. Satchel, another Assistant Principal for Student Services, by the school's walkie-talkies. Responden1t was informed by Mr. Mundt, the shop teacher, that a baseball card worth in excess of $50 was missing. The baseball card had been displayed in the same class during the beginning of the period. The period was split by a lunch break. It was after the students returned from lunch that Respondent and Ms. Satchel were called to investigate its loss. The parties stipulated that, "Presumably, it [the card] had been taken by someone in the class." According to Respondent, the card was owned by a student with cerebral palsy. The student was limited physically and could not participate in sports at the school. He collected baseball cards as his sport. When they arrived, Respondent took charge of the male students while Ms. Satchel assumed the responsibility for the female students, as the logical separation of duties. Respondent asked the boys to go to one side of the room and told them that he would like the baseball card to appear on the table. He told them he would turn his back to them, and that if the baseball card appeared, that would be the end of it. Respondent then turned his back, and the baseball card did not appear. Prior to this incident, thefts of other valuable merchandise had occurred around the area of the shop class. A wallet was stolen from a teacher's car which was parked immediately outside the shop class just a week prior to the incident at issue. Respondent did not think that a particular student had stolen the card. Instead, he reasonably suspected that someone in the group had taken it. The period was coming to an end and another class was due in the room. Respondent did not attempt a lesser method of searching the boys for the baseball card, nor was a lesser method of searching the boys proven at the hearing. Instead, Respondent, in accordance with the procedure at Crestwood, instructed the boys to all go down to the clinic which is not within the immediate vicinity of the shop class where they were temporarily detained. He chose to remove the boys from the classroom because he did not want to subject them to the confusion from the incoming class or to any unnecessary embarrassment which might be caused by questioning them in front of it. He also wished to protect the learning environment for the incoming students. The clinic is a three room complex. To avoid unnecessary embarrassment of the students, Respondent took one student at a time into one of the outer rooms of the complex. He then asked the student to remove his shirt. He felt the shirt and handed it back to the student. He then requested their shoes and socks and handed those back after searching them. He then asked for the students outer pants. He did not request that any student remove his undergarments; their underpants and undershirts or T-shirts, if any, remained on. As Respondent completed his check of each piece of clothing, he handed the article back to the student. If the student was slow in completing his dressing, he then asked that student to finish dressing in the back of the room. At times, while the slow student was completing his dressing, the next student was asked to come in and commence the disrobing procedures. At times, more than one student was in the room. One was tying his shoes while the other was handing his shirt to Respondent. Respondent believed that he had the right to search the students to the extent necessary after having received instruction to that effect from school security and after having read the school board rule on detention, search and seizure. He apologized to the group for having to perform the search in this manner which was necessary under the circumstances. According to Respondent, sometime during the search, a couple of boys came into the room and asserted that one of the boys, who had not been searched at the time, had the card. The boys suggested that Respondent search just this one student and stop the search of each student. In reply, Respondent said, "I don't want to embarrass him anymore than anybody else. I really don't want to put any suspicion on him. Let's just take him in the normal course of events, when his turn comes up," and continued the search of each student in his charge. Each student cooperated with Respondent. Out of the twelve or thirteen students involved, only one student objected to the search procedure. In response to the objection, Respondent gave the student the opportunity to call the school security or to call his mother and ask her to come to the school. The student chose neither option and participated in the search. As Respondent reached the last student, Mr. Hagan, the principal at Crestwood, came into the room and asked Respondent to step outside. He told Respondent that he did not see how the school could benefit from the search and told him to stop the search. The baseball card had not been located at that point. Respondent stopped immediately. If Mr. Hagan believes that a teacher or administrator is not effective at his school, there is a procedure for asking that teacher or person to be removed from the staff. Mr. Hagan chose not to commence the procedure in this instance. Prior to this incident, searches of students occurred at Crestwood, but no search had involved the removal of the students clothes. The guidelines for detention, search and seizure of students in the Palm Beach County School District is contained in Palm Beach County School Board Rule 5.18(5). The rule authorizes school personnel, such as Respondent, to temporarily detain students for questioning, upon reasonable indication of wrongdoing, and to search, to the extent necessary, students upon reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. The rule, however, does not establish the permissibility or impermissibility of any specific search procedure, i.e., pat down, strip search or other means of locating the missing items. Although the School Board gives periodic seminars, and Respondent has attended every seminar at which his attendance was required, no seminar has given specific instruction on the procedures to be used when searching students. Respondent had read the rule on detention, search and seizure prior to the December 14 incident. Also, prior to the incident, Respondent had requested the advice of the school security director assigned to Crestwood, Mr. Willie Noland, about his right to search and has discussed procedure relating to specific incidents with Mr. Noland. From Mr. Noland, Respondent was assured that he had the right to search students. One incident, in particular, on which Respondent sought Mr. Noland's advice involved a student who allegedly had threatened another student with a knife. Respondent was asked to look into the threat fifteen minutes prior to the end of the school day. When Respondent asked the student if he had a knife, he voluntarily emptied his pockets. Respondent did not ask him to remove his clothes. Unfortunately, the student did have a knife lodged in the mid-seam of his trousers. After that incident, Mr. Noland advised Respondent that students do not hide things in their pockets. Instead, Mr. Noland recommended checking down in the student's waistbands and in their shoes and socks for the missing items. Mr. Hagan had also informed the school personnel not to be alone with students and to avoid situations which could be embarrassing. His purpose in giving the admonition was to avoid the potential for child abuse allegations. It was with the direction given by Mr. Noland and Mr. Hagan, combined with Respondent's understanding of the governing rules, that he undertook the type of search he performed. With reasonable concern that he might be subjecting himself to a potential child abuse allegation and in a diligent attempt to locate the missing baseball card, Respondent chose to ask the students to remove their clothes, rather than search the clothes while on their bodies. Under the circumstances, the search procedure was necessary and reasonable. After the December 14 incident, Respondent, as was his usual behavior, cooperated completely with the directives of his superiors. He voluntarily completed an incident report in which he related the facts surrounding the search. An investigation into the incident by the School Board was performed, and a report from the investigation was given to the Superintendent of the Palm Beach County School District. Without performing a personal investigation, talking with Respondent or with Respondent's coworkers about the incident, the Superintendent suspended Respondent and recommended to the School Board that Respondent be suspended without pay and terminated. The Superintendent based his recommendation on his belief that Respondent's conduct violated the school board rule and the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for educators in Florida to the extent that his effectiveness in the school system was impaired. The School Board accepted Respondent's recommendation and this proceeding ensued. At the time of the incident, Crestwood had four assistant principals in addition to Respondent. At the hearing, three of the four, each of whom had worked with Respondent, had observed Respondent and had shared responsibilities with him, unanimously agreed that his performance in the school system up to the time of the incident was effective and each agreed that they would not object to his return to the school. The fourth was not asked the questions at the hearing. Also, approximately eighty signatures appear on a petition in support of Respondent's effectiveness from the faculty and staff of Crestwood to Petitioner dated January 17, 1990. l6. Since 1964, except for a brief period, Respondent has been involved in education and primarily working with, teaching about or studying exceptional students. His tenure in the Palm Beach County School District began as Director of Special Education in September 1, 1981 where he was assigned until June 30, 1983. From August 1983 to June 1986, Respondent served in the capacity of a Specialist in Education. In July, 1986, Respondent was appointed as an Assistant Principal at Gove Elementary School. At the request of Mr. Hagan, Respondent was transferred to the Crestwood Community Middle School in January, 1987 and has served in his present capacity since then. While employed as an assistant principal, Respondent has received nothing but outstanding evaluations. Respondent holds a regular instructional certificate in the area of administration and supervision. Respondent is a credible individual, and an experienced educator who has the interest of his students as his main concern. At no time during the incident in question, did Respondent intend to embarrass or disparage any of the students. Instead, in his best professional judgment, under the circumstances, he attempted to protect the students from unnecessary embarrassment and made reasonable efforts to protect the learning environment of all the affected students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County issue a Final Order reinstating Respondent with full back pay and benefits retroactive to January 24, 1990. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of June, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Teresa Wimmer, violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.080, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics), or 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct), as alleged in the Hernando County School Board’s March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination, and March 24, 2015, modification of that notice; and, if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Hernando 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. Respondent has been a teacher at Pine Grove for roughly 11 years. During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was a teacher of first-grade students, with a class of approximately 18 students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2014-2015 Staff Handbook. Among the provisions applicable to Respondent was the following: TOUCHING STUDENTS Employees are advised that they should not touch students in any way except for the protection of the health, safety and/or welfare of a student or for protection of themselves. Respondent has been the subject of several disciplinary proceedings over the years. In September 2004, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for grabbing a student’s arm on two occasions to correct misbehaviors, the result of which appeared to be a reprimand. The report of the employee conference was to remain in the school file for one year. In January 2006, Respondent was involved in an employee conference for making derogatory comments regarding a student and allowing classmates to do the same. Respondent was required to re-read the Code of Ethics and Professional Practice forms and write a letter of apology to the student and parents. The employee conference report closed with “[a]ny further behaviors involving embarrassment to students will result in further disciplinary action.” In September 2013, Respondent was involved in an incident that is of more direct relevance to this proceeding. In that instance, Respondent was accused of roughly handling students in her classroom. As a result, she was offered, and accepted, a Stipulation for Employee Discipline and Last Chance Agreement (Stipulation). In the Stipulation, Respondent acknowledged that she “engaged in misconduct by having inappropriate and unprofessional interactions with students in her classroom” and that such conduct “warrants disciplinary action up to and including termination.” In lieu of termination, the School Board and Respondent agreed that she would be suspended for ten days and, thereafter, serve a probationary period for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year. The Stipulation further provided that Respondent “agrees that she will not engage in the conduct which gave rise to this Stipulation at any time or any place so long as she is an employee of the Hernando County School District. Further, [Respondent] understands that if she does engage in misconduct, it will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Respondent successfully completed the terms of her probation without incident. School principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, and persons in similar duties are trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI), which is an approved method of restraining or transporting completely out-of-control students or removing children from the classroom. CPI training is not provided as a matter of course to classroom teachers. Respondent has not received CPI training. Holding a student’s hand is not a CPI hold. There is nothing inherently inappropriate with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. The 2014-2015 Staff Handbook provides, in the section entitled “Return of Students to Classroom (Authority of the Teacher),” that: Teachers should follow their school’s procedure for the removal of students who are acting out. Suggestions include: having an adult accompany the student from the class or requesting an administrator to come to the class. (emphasis added). The routine procedure for removal of a disruptive or unruly student from the classroom is for the classroom teacher to call the office, whereupon Ms. Johnson, Ms. Kasten, or a guidance counselor, each of whom are trained in CPI, would go to the room, try to calm the student, and, if warranted, take the student to the office. Despite the procedure described above, Ms. Kasten testified that teachers, on occasion, “would bring the student down for me to talk to or the guidance counselor to talk to.” In such instances, “[t]hey would just walk them down” to the office. Although the teacher would usually call the office first, the evidence did not support a finding that a call was required or necessary, or that it happened in each event. Although the timing of those other events of taking students to the office was described as generally occurring “during their planning period or whatever, if they were at specials or whatever,” the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the act of walking a student to the office, per se, does not constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook and that the school has not previously determined it to be so. Among the reasons for having teachers call the office for assistance with disruptive students is to limit those periods in which a teacher may leave students unattended or, as in this case, leave a co-teacher responsible for up to 36 students while the disruptive student was walked to the office. However, Ms. Tyree testified that there have been times when she would ask Respondent to “keep an eye on [her] class” while she went to attend to other things, and vice versa. There was no suggestion that asking a co-teacher to watch over a class was improper, as long as “your class is covered.” In the weeks prior to February 4, 2015, J.S., a student in Respondent’s classroom, had become increasingly disruptive in the classroom. The behaviors ranged from J.S. talking in “baby-talk” and rolling crayons on his desk, to choking another student with a lanyard. Respondent did not know why J.S.’s behavior had spiraled out of control, but indicated to Ms. Kasten that it was creating a problem for her ability not only to teach J.S., but to teach the other students in her classroom. The office was called on three occasions to deal with J.S., and Ms. Kasten went to the class to address the situations. On two occasions, J.S. remained in the classroom after Ms. Kasten’s intervention. On one occasion, Ms. Kasten removed J.S. from the classroom. On the occasion when Ms. Kasten removed him from Respondent’s classroom, J.S. was walking around the room and disturbing the other students. Ms. Kasten could not get J.S. to listen to her. Thus, she decided to take J.S. to the office. She did not employ her CPI training or use a CPI hold, but took him by the hand “with the idea of keeping him from getting away.” During the walk to the office, J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away.1/ There was no suggestion that the actions of Ms. Kasten in taking J.S. by the hand and walking him to the office were inappropriate or contrary to the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. On the afternoon of February 3, 2015, Ms. Kasten met with Respondent to discuss the behavior of J.S. in her classroom. Respondent was upset and frustrated with J.S.’s unruly behavior and wanted to know what could be done about it. Ms. Kasten suggested that the two of them could work to develop a behavior plan for J.S. and indicated that she would bring a plan to Respondent the next day for them to work on. The incident that forms the basis of this proceeding occurred on February 4, 2015. As students were entering the class for the day, Respondent heard screaming and the words “stop hitting me.” She turned and saw J.S. striking a female student with his fists. Respondent was able to verbally quell the disturbance. However, after initially returning to his seat, J.S. went to the back of the room where he began kicking table legs and other items. Respondent asserted that prior to her taking the student to the office, she called Ms. Kasten to advise her that she would be doing so and received permission from Ms. Kasten. Ms. Kasten had no recollection of having received any such call. The telephone records admitted at the hearing do not reflect that any calls were placed between Respondent’s line and the office.2/ There was no evidence to support a finding that the telephone records maintained by the school were unreliable. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not receive prior approval before taking the student to the office on the morning of February 4, 2015. However, the issue of whether Respondent received or did not receive permission to take J.S. to the office, and whether the act of doing so violated any school policy, was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On her way out of the classroom with J.S., Respondent passed through the classroom of her co-teacher, Ms. Tyree, with whom she shared a paired classroom, and stated to her something to the effect of “[c]an you watch my class? They told me to take [J.S.] to the office.” Although not a frequent occurrence, it was not unusual for Respondent and Ms. Tyree, as paired teachers, to watch one another’s classes while the other was out for short periods. In this case, Respondent’s class was covered while she walked J.S. to the office. Respondent took J.S. by the hand and tucked his arm inside her arm. Although J.S. did not want to go to the office, his resistance was described by Ms. Tyree as “verbal like ‘I don't want to go, I don't want to go.’ But there wasn't a, like, a tug of war going on there.” Respondent indicated that she took J.S. by the hand in order to keep him safe. Given J.S.’s actions of physically assaulting a fellow student, followed by continued physical agitation at the back of the room, Respondent’s concern for safety, not only for J.S., but for the other students in her charge, was warranted. The walk to the office was captured by the school’s video system. The video covered the time from 8:33:00 to 8:33:58. Respondent and J.S. are clearly visible in the video for approximately 30 seconds, from frame 08:33:04 to frame 08:33:32. The video is somewhat grainy, and certain details are not readily observable. However, the video is consistent with Respondent’s statement that she was holding J.S. by the hand. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Respondent was holding J.S. by the hand as she walked with him to the office and not by the “wrist area,” as surmised by Ms. Johnson. At frames 08:33:12 and 08:33:13, J.S. appears to briefly resist Respondent’s efforts to take him to the office by trying to remove his hand from Respondent’s hand as they walked side-by-side. Despite his resistance, Respondent was not “pulling/dragging” J.S. during those frames. At frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19, J.S. appears to briefly pull away from Respondent. The action was that of J.S., not of Respondent. Respondent did not release J.S., but neither did she pull or drag J.S. The action at frames 08:33:18 and 08:33:19 is entirely consistent with that described by Ms. Kasten when giving the account of her earlier walk to the office with J.S. -- which did not involve a CPI hold -- when J.S. “was pulling a little bit” to try and get away. Despite J.S.’s efforts to pull away in both instances, neither Respondent nor Ms. Kasten was “pulling/dragging” J.S. during their walks to the office. For the remainder of the walk to the office, Respondent and J.S. walked side-by-side at a consistent pace. The evidence suggests that J.S. was vocal in his reluctance to be taken to the office, consistent with the description of his verbal resistance when being taken from the classroom as described by Ms. Tyree. The verbal resistance apparently continued, as evidenced by the reaction of the boy using the walker, who comes into the picture at frame 08:33:22. However, J.S.’s verbal protestations did not involve pulling or dragging and do not form the basis of a violation of the Code of Ethics, the Principles of Professional Conduct, or the School Board Staff Handbook. Respondent’s actions, though firm, did not appear to be aggressive. They were consistent with the description offered by Ms. Tyree, who testified that, as to the Respondent’s walk through her classroom, “there wasn't an altercation of, like, dragging or, you know -- it wasn't -- she was walking, he was walking. But he wasn't happy, you could tell that he didn't want to.” As Respondent entered the office with J.S., Ms. Kasten, the elementary assistant, was in the office, though on the other side of the office. Respondent approached the office with J.S. The door to the office opens out. It occasionally slams, and Ms. Kasten has seen it slam on students. In order to ensure J.S.’s safety, Respondent placed both of her hands on his arms to move him through the door and into the office. Respondent yelled for Ms. Kasten to “take him.” Ms. Kasten observed that Respondent was trying to get J.S. into the doorway to someone who could help. Although Respondent’s calls for Ms. Kasten to take J.S. were loud, her tone of voice was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. Upon their entry into the office, Ms. Kasten went over to Respondent and J.S. J.S. stopped resisting once he saw Ms. Kasten. There was no evidence that J.S. was physically harmed in any way, i.e., there were no bruises, scratches, or marks of any kind. Respondent indicated to Ms. Kasten that J.S. had come to class very angry and was physically fighting with his female cousin. Ms. Kasten’s contemporaneous statement of the incident indicated that J.S. was “very upset that he had a fight with his sister.”3/ There was no suggestion that J.S. was upset about his walk to the office with Respondent. Ms. Kasten took J.S. off to the side and talked with him. After J.S. calmed down, Ms. Kasten advised Respondent that she would handle the situation from there, and Respondent left the office. J.S. was ultimately kept in the in-school suspension room for an hour or two. Ms. Kasten reported the incident to Ms. Johnson, who was not in her office or out front and did not witness the event. Shortly thereafter, in a conversation regarding other matters, Ms. Johnson reported to Ms. Martin at the District office that Respondent “brought a student in yelling and dragging.” Ms. Johnson was instructed to immediately remove Respondent from student contact. Ms. Johnson called to Respondent’s classroom and left a message with Respondent that she needed to speak with her. The following day, a meeting was convened to discuss the incident. Present at the meeting were Ms. Johnson, Respondent, and Respondent’s union representative. The confidential secretary to the school principal, Mr. Deen, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During her February 5, 2015, interview regarding the incident, Respondent indicated that “I was keeping him safe. I was holding his hand at first and he was okay. Then he started pulling away from me and I wanted to make sure he didn't hurt himself.” Her statement is consistent with the video. During the meeting, Respondent remained adamant that she had called Ms. Kasten and received the instruction to bring J.S. to the office. In conjunction with the investigation of the incident by Petitioner, Ms. Johnson reported the incident to the Department of Children and Families. The School Board received nothing from the Department of Children and Families to suggest that it found wrongdoing on the part of Respondent. Ms. Johnson believed, based on the information conveyed to her, that there was no reason for Respondent to remove the disruptive student from the classroom and that such action did not follow the protocol for the school for the removal of an unruly student. The alleged breach of protocol involved in taking the child to the office was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. On February 18, 2015, Respondent was advised of the opportunity for a pre-determination meeting to be held the following week. Respondent took advantage of the opportunity. The pre-determination meeting was held on February 25, 2015. In attendance were Respondent, Ms. Martin, labor counsel Tom Gonzales, Ms. Johnson, and Joann Hartage, who appeared to be representing Respondent. Ms. Martin’s secretary, Sherrie Kudla, was also in attendance to take minutes of the meeting. During the pre-determination meeting, Respondent gave her account of the incident and was questioned, primarily by Ms. Martin. In addition to questions regarding the walk to the office, Ms. Martin asked about interviews of Respondent’s students undertaken by Ms. Johnson, which Ms. Martin found to be “very concerning.” Among the issues raised by Ms. Martin was “their perception [] that you yell and get aggravated with students and that you’re mean to [J.S.].” Although Respondent stated that she had read the statements, she was not involved in the interviews, and had no opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of the statements. More to the point, whether Respondent yelled or was a mean teacher was not pled as a basis for Respondent’s termination. At the conclusion of the pre-determination meeting, Ms. Martin conferred with the school superintendent, and the decision was made to recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated from employment. By letter dated March 9, 2015, Respondent was advised that, as a result of her “pulling/dragging a student to the front office,” the District determined that she had violated rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), rules 6A-10.81(3)(a) and (3)(e), and the School Board Policy/Staff Handbook; that she was suspended with pay; and that she had the right to appeal the recommendation of termination. On March 23, 2015, Respondent appealed the recommendation of termination. By letter dated March 24, 2015, Respondent was notified that the recommendation to the School Board would be modified to one of suspension without pay, effective April 22, 2015, and referral of her appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the April 21, 2015, meeting of the School Board, the School Board authorized that this case be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whereupon this case ensued. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based upon the facts as set forth herein, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in an incident of “pulling/dragging a student to the front office.” The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Respondent walked J.S. to the office and, despite J.S.’s verbal protestations and brief efforts to resist, did so in a safe and effective manner. Any “pulling” was brief and on the part of J.S., not on the part of Respondent. There was no “dragging.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a teacher’s act of walking an unruly or disruptive student to the office is not, in and of itself, a violation of any applicable procedure or standard and has not been determined to be so in the past. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that there is nothing inherently inappropriate or improper with a teacher taking a student by the hand and walking with the student. Issues of whether Respondent received telephonic approval to take J.S. to the office, should have left Ms. Tyree to watch her class, spoke to Ms. Kasten in a loud voice, or was loud or mean with her students were not pled as bases for Respondent’s termination, and, thus, cannot form the basis for any disciplinary sanction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Hernando County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing the March 9, 2015, notice of recommendation of termination; reinstating Respondent to a position equivalent to that previously held with the Hernando County School Board; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or collective bargaining agreement that authorizes back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful termination/suspension without pay, Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2015.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner demonstrated just cause for the dismissal of the Respondent from employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact In a Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed to the following facts: At all times material hereto, Respondent, Marlon J. Pearce was employed by Petitioner as a school teacher within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, assigned to Lawton Chiles Middle School. Respondent was employed by Petitioner pursuant to the Contract between the Miami- Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, and subject to the rules and regulations of the State Board of Education and of the School Board in accordance with § 1012.33(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to § 4(b) of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida and § 1001.32(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). On November 5, 2000, a conference-for- record (CFR) was held with the Respondent by the principal at North Glade Elementary School. On March 7, 2001, another CFR was held with the Respondent by the principal at North Glade Elementary School. On March 15, 2002, a CFR was held with the Respondent at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. On May 28, 2002, a meeting was held with the Respondent at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. At its regularly scheduled meeting of June 19, 2002, the School Board took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against the Respondent. John Schoeck is currently and for the last two years has been the Principal of North Hialeah Elementary School. For the preceding five years, he was the Principal at North Glade Elementary School. While at North Glade, Mr. Schoeck hired the Respondent, Mr. Pearce, to teach physical education. (Tr. 13) After a November 5, 2000, conference-for-record (CFR) with Mr. Pearce, Mr. Schoeck issued certain directives to Mr. Pearce. Among those directives were the requirement for professional conduct with parents, students and staff, and prohibitions on using profanity, on making verbal or physical threats to parents, students or staff members, and on having verbal or physical confrontations with coworkers. (Tr. 18, 208- 209, P-6) Mr. Schoeck also referred Mr. Pearce to the Employee Assistance Program based on interpersonal behavior observed on the job. (Tr. 9, P-5) An allegation that the Respondent hit a student in the back with his fist was unsubstantiated, in March 2001. The Respondent testified that the student was loud, easily influenced and had an attitude. (Tr. 185) Another student at North Glade Elementary School became involved in a rock-throwing incident with the Respondent. The Respondent described the student as defiant. He testified that after the student threw a rock and hit him, he grabbed her arm to make eye contact, but after she "started going wild and shaking," he let her go and she fell to the ground. There was testimony that her shirt was torn when she reached the principal's office, but the Respondent denied that it was ripped when she left him. (Tr. 186-188, 212-213) On March 7, 2001, Mr. Schoeck held another CFR with Mr. Pearce, as a result of certain allegations by a student and his mother that Mr. Pearce called the student a "punk." Mr. Schoeck found Mr. Pearce insubordinate and reiterated the directives issued after the November conference. (Tr. 24-25, 209-210, 215-216, P-9) The Miami-Dade Schools Police Department ("the school's police") investigated several students' complaints alleging that Respondent had subjected them to corporal punishment. The police found the complaints to be unsubstantiated. Each time there was an incident, the Respondent was reminded of the School Board's policy prohibiting corporal punishment. (Tr. 32-33) Late in the 2000-2001 school year, the Respondent was reassigned to the region office and, subsequently, for the 2001- 2002 school year to Lawton Chiles Middle School (Tr. 33 and Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation) On November 7, 2001, a charge of verbal abuse, for calling a student "stupid," was substantiated against the Respondent. (Tr. 219, P-17) The Respondent testified that what he said was "stop acting stupid" because the student was loud and saying she knew why he had been fired from his other job and was quoting the Bible. (Tr. 197-198) He also said that, in the heat of the moment, he also called her stupid. (Tr. 200) On November 8, 2001, the Respondent violated the School Board policy against "unseemly conduct, or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace," by using the word "nigga." (Tr. 60-67 and P-16) The Respondent testified that the racial slur was made "under his breath" and not intended to be heard by students. He testified that what he said was "you're going to drive a nigga crazy," and that the comment was directed to himself, not the student. (Tr. 195) The Respondent testified that he told a student "If I was your dad, I would ring your neck," because the student was disruptive, defiant and not following directions. (Tr. 195-196, 218-219) In December 2001, a student was playing with a toilet valve and water was squirting out on the floor in the boys' locker room. After the student left the stall and walked over towards him, the Respondent grabbed him by the neck and shoved him. After an investigation by the school's police, the charge was found to be substantiated. (Tr. 69-88, 113-117 and P-18) The Respondent testified that he grabbed the student's shoulder but did not push him. (Tr. 201-202) Although the student had stopped spraying water at the time he confronted him, the Respondent considered his intervention appropriate because the wet floor created a safety concern. (Tr. 205, 214-215, 217-218) At the same time, other students began slamming locker doors in the locker room. The Respondent called the students involved "a bunch of assholes," and said "If you do this one more time, I could lose my job for hurting you." (Tr. 69-88, 113-117 and P-18) About the same time, the Assistant Principal at Lawton Chiles Middle School, Alberto Iber, received a complaint from the parents of another student. While he was playing with an injured student's aluminum walker, the Respondent grabbed him to try to retrieve the walker and pushed him to the ground. He also said to the student "fuck you." Charges of corporal punishment and the use of profanity were substantiated. (Tr. 93-112 and P-19) The Respondent admitted that he pulled the student down after saying "This is going to be the final time I ask you to sit down." (Tr. 204) He said he used the "f" word under his voice. (Tr. 205) When the Respondent was first assigned to Lawton Chiles Middle School, the Principal, Karen Robinson met with him to discuss the previous incidents at North Glade Elementary School and to discuss expectations that he would abide by the School Board's rules. Each time there was an incident involving the Respondent, Ms. Robinson called the District's Professional Standards Office which referred the matters to the school's police to conduct the personnel investigations. (Tr. 119-133, 219-220) After the fourth personnel investigation at Lawton Chiles Middle School, Ms. Robinson contacted the personnel director for the region. She was concerned that the incidents involving the Respondent were escalating from inappropriate verbal to more serious physical interactions with students. As a result, she recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. (Tr. 135-136 and P-21) Barbara Moss, the District Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, agreed with Ms. Robinson's and the region personnel director's recommendations to terminate the Respondent's employment. (Tr. 164-165, P-22 and 23) Ms. Moss, in turn, recommended that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment. She met with Respondent to notify him of the proposed action. (Tr. 165-166) The Superintendent of Schools also recommended that the School Board take action to terminate Respondent's employment and notified the Respondent of that recommendation. (P-24 and 25) The Superintendent also notified the Respondent when the School Board, at its meeting on June 19, 2002, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against him for misconduct in office, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.108, on Violence in the Workplace; 6Gx13-4A-1.21, on Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment - Prohibited. Notice of the availability of an administrative hearing to contest the action was also included. (P-24 through 26)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay on June 19, 2002, terminating Respondent's employment, and denying the Respondent back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 2nd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merritt R. Stierhelm, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade - Law Department 2200 Biscayne Boulevard, 5th Floor Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue The issues in this case are whether just cause exists to discipline Respondent based on allegations that he used inappropriate language when talking to students, in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Woodard has worked in the Duval County public school system since 2002. There was no evidence presented of any prior incidents of inappropriate behavior, or of discipline being imposed upon Woodard by the School Board. During the 2014-2015 school year, Woodard was employed by Petitioner as an In-School Suspension (“ISSP”) teacher at Northwestern. The ISSP teacher is an instructional and leadership position, and the ISSP teacher is supposed to set an example for students and help them modify their behavior. The ISSP class was created to allow students who engage in disciplinary misconduct to remain in school rather than being removed from the classroom environment. The referral of students to ISSP can come from administrators, teachers, or any other employee who observes student misconduct. Although Woodard taught the ISSP class, he did not discipline students or assign them to ISSP, and he did not give students grades. During the 2014-2015 school year at Northwestern, Woodard was assigned to the gym in the mornings, where sixth- graders were directed to go after eating breakfast in the cafeteria, to wait for their teachers to pick them up and take them to class. On January 23, 2014, the Duval County School District’s (“District”) Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation of allegations that Woodard used inappropriate communications with and/or in the presence of students. The investigation, which was conducted by Investigator Reginald Johnson in the District’s Office of Professional Standards, sustained the allegations. On September 29, 2015, Woodard received a Step III Progressive Discipline – Reprimand and Suspension Without Pay (Revised 9/29/15) for conduct the District alleged violated the Florida Code of Ethics, rules 6A-10.080(2) and 6A-10.080(3) and the Principles of Professional Conduct, rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). The Step III Progressive Discipline alleged that Woodard used the term D.A.N. or DAN when talking to or referring to students at Northwestern, which the District alleged was an acronym for “dumb ass niggers.” In his defense, Woodard testified that in mentoring students, he shared stories from his childhood and his own life in order to be more relatable to students. According to Woodard, he used the story of his childhood friend Dan to impress upon students that it is not where you start, it is where you end up. Woodard’s friend Dan used to skip school, get to school late, fight, and disrespect authority, and Woodard urged his students not to be a Dan. As discussed below, Woodard’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Student D.M. testified that Woodard called students D.A.N.s in the gym and in ISSP class when the students were either acting up or in trouble. D.M. also testified Woodard wrote the word D.A.N. on the board in ISSP class with periods in the word, and the word stayed on the board in ISSP class. D.M. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. Student H.N.J. was in ISSP class with about seven other students when Woodard told them that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. said Woodard called students D.A.N.s when they were acting up and disrespectful, and that Woodard gave two meanings of the word D.A.N.-–“dumb and nobody” and “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. does not remember Woodard relating a story about a friend named Dan. Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward students made H.N.J. feel put down and “sad and mad at the same time,” and the fact that Woodard was a teacher made this worse. Student B.S. stated Woodard yelled at students and called them D.A.N.s in the gym whenever they were talking loud or would not listen. B.S. does not recall Woodard telling a story about a friend named Dan. B.S. learned that D.A.N. means “dumb ass niggers” from A.W., another student. Woodard’s reference to students as D.A.N.s made B.S. feel “sorry and mad,” and she began crying on the witness stand. Student K.H. testified that Woodard called her a D.A.N. when she stepped out of line in the gym and that he called other students D.A.N.s when they were misbehaving, fighting, or being loud. K.H.’s friend told her that D.A.N. means “dumb ass nigger.” K.H. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. K.H. and her brother, student D.H., complained to their mother about Woodard calling students D.A.N.s. The mother of K.H. and D.H. contacted Northwestern and later the media after the school did not do anything about the complaint. Woodard’s use of the term D.A.N. made K.H. “feel disrespected and low life because it’s not supposed to be used towards children” and because Woodard is a teacher and the same race as K.H. During the 2014-2015 school year, student D.H., was in the seventh grade at Northwestern. D.H. heard his friends in math class calling each other D.A.N.s. So he asked one of his friends what D.A.N. meant. D.H.’s friend (a student named “J”) told D.H. that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers” and that Woodard called kids that word. D.H. was bothered that someone of his own race was calling him that, and also that it came from a teacher. The students’ descriptions of Woodard’s comments and behavior were fairly consistent. The things they reported hearing and observing were very similar to contemporaneously written statements from them and other students. The alleged remarks were similar in nature to one another but not exactly the same, so the comments did not seem rehearsed or planned. The students were very direct and unwavering when testifying at final hearing. The testimony of H.N.J. was particularly persuasive and clearly established that Woodard intended to use the term D.A.N. as a derogatory epithet: either “dumb and nobody”; or “dumb ass niggers.” Significantly, none of the students who appeared at hearing would have had a motive to testify falsely. As noted, Woodard did not assign grades to any of these students or assign them to ISSP, so none would have had an axe to grind with Woodard. The testimony of the students is credible. Teacher Linda Raggins testified that she heard Woodard tell students in the gym “to not act like Dan.” Toward the end of the school year, Raggins asked Woodard “who is Dan?” Woodard gave Raggins two explanations, the first of which she did not recall. The second explanation Woodard gave Raggins was that “some people use Dan to mean dumb ass niggers, but that’s not how I – that’s not what I’m talking about.” Raggins did not recall Woodard providing any other meaning for the word D.A.N. Raggins is a union representative and first agreed to provide a written statement, but then declined to provide a statement on the advice of counsel. Raggins did not tell Investigator Johnson that Woodard told a story about someone named Dan. Former teacher Jason Ludban heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. a handful of times. Ludban said that Woodard used the term D.A.N. “openly and loudly for all to hear,” which made Ludban believe it was acceptable. Ludban learned from a student that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” Ludban never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. If Ludban believed that Woodard was using the term D.A.N. to mean “dumb ass niggers,” Ludban would have had a duty to report it. Woodard gave Investigator Johnson the names of three additional student witnesses, whom Johnson interviewed. One of the students confirmed that Woodard wrote the word “D.A.N.” with periods on the board in ISSP class. Two of the students told Johnson that Woodard told them the story of a friend named Dan, but this occurred about two weeks prior to the date Johnson interviewed them, after the allegations were reported in the media and when Woodard was already facing discipline. Despite Woodard’s claim that Dan was a real person, Investigator Johnson does not recall Woodard telling him the last name of Dan or giving him any contact information for “Dan.” Johnson would have interviewed Dan if Woodard had provided that information. Woodard also did not provide Investigator Johnson with the names of any adults at Northwestern to whom Woodard told the Dan story. None of the witnesses Investigator Johnson interviewed--students or adults-- stated that Woodard told them a story about a friend named Dan. It is within management’s discretion to skip a step of progressive discipline if the conduct is severe. Assistant Superintendent Sonita Young recommended Step III discipline against Woodard because he was in a position of authority and his role was to provide support to students in terms of behavior modification, but Woodard used derogatory language that was offensive toward students. In deciding whether discipline is warranted, the District looks at the totality of the circumstances, including the number of times an incident occurred, how many witnesses there were to the incident, the severity of the incident, whether harm occurred to the child’s physical or mental well-being, whether the employee has been previously disciplined for the same conduct, and whether the employee acknowledged his behavior and is willing to modify his behavior. According to Assistant Superintendent Young, the factors supporting the Step III discipline were that Woodard said the derogatory word D.A.N. to multiple students, the students were middle school students, the student population was fragile and of very low socioeconomic status, and the conduct was repeated over a period of time rather than a singular incident. The fact that this language was used by a teacher, a person in a position of authority whom students have the right to feel “safe” around, were additional factors supporting the discipline. Young believes that Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward or around students showed poor judgment and was damaging to them. Respondent called various character and fact witnesses (Jasmine Daniels, Tiffany Thomas, Tabitha Johnson, Pastor Fredrick Newbill, Niger Lambey, Ricky Stanford, and Daniel Drayton) who testified that Woodard told the story of his friend Dan at a church youth group, in his sermons, or that they knew the story from growing up with Woodard. However, none of the witnesses testified that they heard Woodard tell the Dan story to District students or in a District classroom. Pastor Newbill testified that in his community, D.A.N. has been used as a racial epithet for “dumb ass niggers” for at least the last 25 years. Dr. Arvin Johnson, the former principal of Northwestern, received a complaint about Woodard from a parent in May 2015, near the end of the 2014-2015 school year. Dr. Johnson, who is a friend of Woodard, heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. with students once or twice, but he never heard Woodard tell students a story about a friend named Dan. Although Dr. Johnson has known or worked with Woodard for approximately 12 years, the first time Woodard told Dr. Johnson the story of a friend named Dan was in connection with the parent’s complaint against Woodard in May 2015. Although Woodard has been employed with the District since 2002, he admitted that he did not tell the Dan story to students during the first 12 years of his employment. Woodard did not begin telling the Dan story to District students until the 2014-2015 school year. After not speaking to Daniel Drayton for several years, Woodard called Drayton in 2015 to remind him of the Dan story. Woodard stated that if he knew there was a negative interpretation of D.A.N. he would not have used the term, but his explanation to Ms. Raggins shows that he knew that a racially derogatory meaning of the word D.A.N. existed. Woodard claims that the students lied about him using D.A.N. as an acronym for “dumb ass niggers,” but he could not offer an explanation as to why students, whom he claims “loved” him, and were excited to attend his class, would lie about him. The greater weight of the evidence supports the contention that Woodard used the term D.A.N. in the presence of his ISSP students as a derogatory racial epithet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board, rescinding its suspension of the employment of Ernest Woodard and, instead, issuing a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 30th day of November, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code rules, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, is responsible for determining whether there is probable cause to warrant disciplinary action against an educator's certificate and, if probable cause is found, for filing and prosecuting an administrative complaint pursuant to chapter 120. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 803275, valid through June 30, 2021, covering the areas of elementary education, exceptional student education, middle grades integrated curriculum, and social science. At the time of the final hearing in this proceeding, Respondent had taught for approximately 17 years. The Complaint The Complaint alleges that Respondent spoke ill of student E.J.'s work on an assignment in front of the whole class, including, but not limited to, calling it pathetic. As a result, E.J. was embarrassed. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Respondent spoke ill of student A.S.'s work on an assignment in front of the whole class, including, but not limited to, calling it pathetic. As a result, A.S. was embarrassed. The Complaint also alleges that Respondent criticized student J.P.'s work on an assignment, including, but not limited to, saying he had not put any work into it. As a result of this alleged conduct, the Complaint charges Respondent with having violated section 1012.795(1)(j), and rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 6A-10.081(2)(a)5. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing Respondent began teaching in the St. Lucie County School District ("District") on August 1, 2016. At the time of Respondent's conduct that is alleged to violate section 1012.795 and rule 6A-10.081, Respondent was employed as an eighth grade social studies teacher at West Gate K-8 School ("West Gate"), in the District. The 2018-2019 school year for the District began on August 13, 2018. September 14, 2018, was Respondent's last day of employment with the District. The alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding occurred at some point between August 13, 2018, and September 14, 2018. On or about September 14, 2018, the District initiated an investigation into Respondent's conduct while she had been employed at West Gate. E.J. was a student in Respondent's eighth grade history class. Respondent assigned the students to complete a history project. After E.J. turned in his project, Respondent called him up to her desk and told him, in the front of the class, that his work on the project was "lazy" and "pathetic." Other students in the class saw Respondent's conduct and heard her comments to E.J. E.J. testified, credibly and persuasively, that he was embarrassed and hurt by Respondent's comments, and that he went back to his desk in tears. The credible evidence establishes that after seeing E.J.'s reaction to her comments, Respondent called E.J. outside of the classroom and apologized. Respondent testified, credibly, that she felt "terrible" about making E.J. cry, and that she had made the comments because she was frustrated with the quality of the students' work on the project. E.J.'s father, Jermaine Jones, who had picked him up from school on the day of the incident, confirmed that E.J. was upset by Respondent's comments on his project. Jones immediately set up a meeting with Assistant Principal Guzman and Respondent for the following day. At that meeting, Respondent apologized to E.J.'s parents and said she was having a stressful day when she made the comments to E.J. According to Jones, the incident made E.J.—who normally is quiet— further withdrawn, and he became, in Jones's words, "a little depressed." According to Jones, following the incident, E.J. did not want to go to Respondent's class. Other student witnesses testified at the final hearing, credibly and consistently, that they saw and heard Respondent's comments directed at E.J., and that E.J. was upset by her comments and started to cry. Another student, J.P., testified that he had been unable to complete the project for Respondent's class because his grandfather was ill and had been hospitalized, and that he and his family had been spending time at the hospital. J.P. took a note from his mother, to Respondent, on the day the project was due, explaining the reason why J.P. had been unable to complete his project. J.P. testified, credibly, that Respondent told him, in front of the class, that she really did not care about the note, and if he did not turn in the completed project by the following day, he would receive a grade of "zero." J.P. credibly testified that other students in the class heard Respondent's comments to him, and that he was "very shocked" and felt "very embarrassed." J.P. did not turn in a project. Student A.S. testified, credibly, that Respondent told him that his work on the project was unacceptable and "pathetic." Respondent made these comments in front of the entire class. A.S. testified, credibly, that he felt "very embarrassed and upset." He testified, credibly, that Respondent did not apologize to him. Respondent testified on her own behalf. She acknowledged calling E.J.'s work "lazy" and "pathetic," but testified that she had not intended to hurt his feelings, and when she realized that she had, she "felt terrible about it." She acknowledged that she has "a deep voice, and I come off harsher than I mean to." She called E.J. outside to explain that she had not intended to hurt his feelings, and there would be other opportunities to make up the bad grade he received on the project. She testified that as a result of their talk, E.J. calmed down, and that she did not have any further issues with him in class. She confirmed that on the day following the incident with E.J., she met with E.J.'s parents to discuss the incident. She testified that the meeting was "civil," and that she left the meeting feeling like "it was taken care of." Regarding the incident with J.P., Respondent testified that the students had two weeks in which to complete the project, and that when J.P. approached her with the note regarding his grandfather's illness, she told him to turn in, the following day, what he had completed to that point. She confirmed that J.P. did not turn in a project. She also testified that she did not hear from J.P.'s mother regarding the project. Regarding student A.S., Respondent testified that she did not call his work "pathetic," and that, given E.J.'s reaction, she would not have used that word again.4 Respondent also presented the testimony of K.K., who also had been a 4 Respondent acknowledged that the alleged incidents with E.J., J.P., and A.S. involved the same project, and that E.J. and A.S. had turned the project in on the same day. Thus, the undersigned questions whether Respondent would have had sufficient time to reflect on the effect that the word "pathetic" had on E.J., such that she would not have used that word in speaking with A.S. on the same day. student in Respondent's eighth grade history class in the 2018-2019 school year. K.K. testified that Respondent discussed E.J.'s paper with the class because it was a good paper, and that she did not see anyone cry in Respondent's class. She also testified that Respondent did not speak in negative terms about anyone's project in front of the class. However, K.K.'s testimony and written statement are directly contradicted by the testimony of four other students, as well as by E.J.'s father and Respondent herself, who admitted having called E.J.'s work on the project "lazy" and "pathetic" in front of the class. Accordingly, K.K.'s testimony and statement are not deemed credible. Respondent has been a teacher for 17 years. She testified that her educator's certificate has never been subjected to discipline, and no evidence was presented showing that disciplinary action has ever been taken against her educator's certificate. Findings of Ultimate Fact Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Complaint. Whether particular conduct constitutes a violation of the applicable statutes and rules is a factual question to be decided in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Whether specific conduct constitutes a deviation from the required standard is an ultimate finding of fact. Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, requires a teacher to make reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and to the student's mental health. It is determined that by disparaging E.J.'s work in front of the entire class—which caused him to suffer distress, withdraw, and avoid going to Respondent's class—Respondent violated this rule. Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, requires a teacher to avoid intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. As found above, Respondent intentionally engaged in conduct that resulted in unnecessary embarrassment to students E.J., J.P., and A.S. Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent violated this rule. By violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j).
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 For Respondent: Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner and Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2020 version.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order placing Respondent's educator's certificate on probation for a period of one year from the date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Diane Tirado 3502 Southwest Vollmer Street Port St. Lucie, Florida 34953 Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 Lisa Forbess, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
