The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 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. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2009).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Peters has been employed by Petitioner as a Special Education Teacher for eight years. Her first two years of employment as a full-time teacher were at Edison Park Elementary School. Peters has been assigned to Morningside Elementary School ("Morningside") as a full-time Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher for approximately six years. She remains employed at Morningside presently. During the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Respondent worked as an ESE teacher dealing with kindergarten and first grades. Even though Peters had a room, she went to the classrooms of the students assigned to her to perform her duties. Peters' job duties and responsibilities included but were not limited to developing IEPs, maintaining attendance and grade records, keeping students records, participating in various meetings and in-services, and performing work as required or assigned by the supervising administrator or his/her designee. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was provided with an assigned class schedule. During Peters' employment at Morningside from August of 2005 through March of 2009, Respondent was disciplined numerous times for not complying with her job duties. Peters repetitively failed to adhere to her class schedule; failed to request administrative permission to leave the worksite; failed to follow faculty sign in/out procedures; left the school site during scheduled classroom work time; failed to complete student IEPs; failed to keep student grading, attendance, and other student records; and continually refused to obey the direct and reasonable orders given by her supervisors, Morningside Principal Ms. Kathleen John-Lousissaint ("Principal" or "John- Lousissaint"), and Morningside Assistant Principal Ms. Sandra Cue ("Assistant Principal" or "Cue").2 The School Board kept a record of the occurrences in Peters' personnel file and went through all the required procedures for disciplining Peters, including repetitive verbal directives, approximately 47 written directives by memorandums, numerous Conferences-for-the-Record ("CFR"), and ultimately written reprimands after Respondent continuously refused to comply with previously given directives. From October 4, 2006, to March 16, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written and was issued 16 written directives, including two written reprimands, to adhere to her class schedule and not to make any changes to the class schedule unless approved by the Principal or Assistant Principal.3 On September 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2008, Peters did not adhere to her daily schedule as written when she didn't report to her assignment. Peters received her first written reprimand for failing to adhere to her schedule on September 21, 2008.4 The Principal went out of her way to work with Peters constantly and met with her numerous times providing verbal directives to follow the school policies including adhering to the class schedule. After the first reprimand, Peters continued to fail to adhere to her class schedule numerous times in November and December 2008 and January 2009. Peters received a second written reprimand for failing to adhere to her class schedule on March 16, 2008. Peters signed both of the written reprimands dated September 21, 2008, and March 16, 2008. Each informed Peters that "Any recurrence of the above infraction [would] result in further disciplinary action." By failing to adhere to her schedule, Peters burdened the Morningside administrators and other teachers who had to cover for Respondent or do her work. Peters also impaired the learning environment for the ESE students when she didn't show up, since she was responsible for educating the students assigned to her. Further, when Peters did not report to her assigned classes, she jeopardized the health, safety, and welfare of the children assigned to her care. From November 8, 2006, to February 16, 2009, Peters was issued several written directives including one written reprimand for failing to request authorization from the administration before leaving the school site, and three written directives for failing to sign in and out when leaving and returning to the school site, as per school site policy.5 Peters received two written reprimands on March 27, 2007, and on March 16, 2008, for failing to comply with the established timelines in the execution of a variety of her duties including, but not limited to, recording student grades, failing to complete IEPs in a timely manner, and failing to utilize the WISE system to complete IEPs. When Peters failed to complete her IEPs, the Morningside administrators had to get other teachers to complete Peters' job in addition to their own assignments. On February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written. Peters was reprimanded on February 20, 2009, for numerous violations of school policy. The reprimand was entitled RESPRIMAND-INSUBORDINATION and stated: On the following dates, November 3, 6, 18, 20, and 25, 2008, December 1, 5, 8, and 9, 2008, January 12, 13, 15 and 21, 2009 and February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, you did not adhere to your schedule as written. On December 10 and 11, 2008, you attended a two day WISE training without prior approval from this administrator. On January 13, 2009, you refused to meet with this administrator. On January 14, 2009, you did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting. Since your Conference-For-[the-]Record meeting in September, you have failed to follow your schedule on 16 occasions, did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting, and have refused to meet with this administrator on five different occasions and refused to meet with the Assistant Principal on one occasion. Your continuous defiance and compliance with the site directives issued on September 25, 2008 and reissued on October 20, 2008, is considered insubordination. It is your professional responsibility as a Miami-Dade County Public School employee to comply with directives issued by the site supervisor. You are hereby officially reprimanded for the following violations of your professional contractual responsibilities: Non-compliance with Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6GX13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties.[6] Refusal to meet with this administrator. Failure to adhere to school site procedures. Failure to adhere to assigned schedule as written. At hearing, Respondent answered in the affirmative that she believed that the directives relating to adhering to a work schedule, seeking administrative approval before leaving a school site, and signing in and out when leaving campus were reasonable. Peters' journal, submitted to the School Board detailing her responses to the disciplinary action of February 20, 2009, stated “I’m not following the schedule because it doesn’t make sense.”7 After receiving the reprimand of February 20, 2009, Peters failed to secure approval from an administrator on either February 26, 2009, or March 3, 2009, when she signed out on the staff sign out log and left the building at a time when she was scheduled to work with students. On March 5, 2009, Peters refused to sign the memorandum dated March 4, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that the Assistant Principal provided Peters. The memorandum advised Peters that she had been told on February 20, 2009, to "adhere to [her] schedule and secure administrative approval prior to leaving the building at a time other than the scheduled lunch time.” It also stated: This memorandum serves as a final reminder that you are to adhere to your schedule and you are to request prior approval from this administrator to leave the building at anytime other than your scheduled duty free half hour lunch block. On March 16, 2009, John-Lousissaint observed Peters in the hallway at approximately 8:30 a.m. and instructed her to report to her scheduled assignment. At approximately 8:40 a.m., the Assistant principal saw Peters and told her several more times to report to her scheduled assignment. At 9:00 a.m. Peters was not in her scheduled classroom assignment. On March 16, 2009, the Assistant Principal gave Peters a memorandum dated March 16, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that stated, "You are reminded that you are to adhere to school site procedures and your schedule as outlined unless notified by an administrator." As a result of Peters actions described in paragraphs 21 and 22 above, on or about April 16, 2009, a CFR was held with Peters. Administrators addressed Peters' gross insubordination and misconduct at the CFR. Peters was instructed yet again to adhere to the directives previously issued by the Principal on numerous occasions, and to comply with the reasonable requests of the Principal. Peters testified at hearing that her personal relationship with the school administrators has become strained and she felt she was being singled out. Peters felt as though she were not being treated like a teacher. Peters asserted that she should work with higher level students and didn't feel like she was part of the Morningside team since she didn't have a homeroom.8 On or about May 18, 2009, Morningside's Principal observed Peters in the school's resource room, sitting in front of a laptop, during a time when Respondent was scheduled to be instructing students. John-Louissaint instructed Respondent to follow her schedule and report to room 103. Peters refused and replied, "No, I don't think I will be going." The Principal left and went and brought a union steward back to the resource room, and repeated to Peters, "Ms. Peters as your supervisor and in front of your union steward, you are directed to report to your scheduled assignment." Peters was insubordinate and refused to go stating again, "No, I am not going." The students in room 103 were unattended. On May 20, 2009, the Principal issued a memorandum to Peters regarding the May 19, 2009, incident stating that Respondent's "continuous defiance and non-compliance with previously issued directives is considered blatant and gross insubordination." On or about August 26, 2009, Peters was notified by letter that the Superintendent of Schools was recommending to the School Board to suspend her without pay for 30 workdays. The letter further notified Respondent the reasons for the recommendation included, but were not limited to: gross insubordination and violations of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Code of Ethics. At a regularly scheduled meeting on September 9, 2009, the School Board of Miami-Dade County took action to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay for just cause including, but not limited to, gross insubordination and violations of those School Board Rules as set forth above in paragraph 28. Respondent was notified of the School Board's action by letter dated September 10, 2009. On March 15, 2010, the School Board filed its Notice of Specific Charges charging Respondent with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board rules regarding responsibilities and duties, and ethics.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Peters without pay for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 21st day of June, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Jean Berrouet, committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Jean Berrouet (Berrouet) has worked at Lakeview as a teacher from 1992 through October 2006 in Miami-Dade County Florida. He taught Haitian Creole to the ESOL students from Haitian background as well as basic science, social studies, and mathematics to the ESOL Level 1 and 2 Haitian Creole students. On or about June 1, 1998, Berrouet was officially reprimanded for using corporal punishment in disciplining students. He was specifically directed by memorandum "immediately to refrain from using physical means to affect student behavior" by Lakeview Principal, Edith Norniella. Berrouet's licensure was also previously subjected to disciplinary action in Florida. He was reprimanded by the Education Practices Commission for inappropriately disciplining a student in class by hitting a student with a pointer. On or about April 23, 1999, the Education Practices Commission placed Berrouet on two years of probation with the following terms: acceptance of a written reprimand, yearly probation fees of $150.00, completion of a three credit course on classroom management, participation in the recovery network program and prohibition from violating any laws as well as fully complying with all district school board regulations, school rules and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006. Prior to starting the 2006-2007 school year, Berrouet attended an in-service meeting at Lakeview where school policies were reviewed including student behavior, the code of conduct, and corporal punishment. Berrouet was also provided a Lakeview Elementary School Staff Handbook that included specific guidelines and procedures for student behavior including discipline. As a School Board employee, Respondent was expected to conduct himself in accordance with School Board rules. Respondent holds professional teaching certificate 677708 issued by the Florida Department of Education (DOE). His certificate is valid through June 30, 2009. Berrouet only teaches Haitain Creole students. Since 1992, he has used a technique to help the Haitian Creole students try to transition into the American culture and focus them on their lesson. The technique included Berrouet touching the students' ears to get their attention and saying "You have two ears, not one. You have one mouth, not two . . . So you should do more listening than talking." No parent ever complained about the technique to Berrouet or the Administration. Additionally, no administrator ever addressed that there was a problem with the technique Berrouet performed. The technique is not a punishment. Berrouet even used the technique at least once in the classroom on a student while being observed by the principal. Berrouet's testimony is more credible than the children because he has been using the focusing technique for 14 years, been observed by an administrator using the technique and it was never brought to his attention that it was inappropriate. On October 9, 2006, during the last period of the day, Berrouet had approximately 30 students in his mathematics tutorial after-school class from 5:00-6:00 p.m. His actual classroom size assignment was 15. However, a teacher had left early for the day and the other teacher's students were in Mr. Berrouet's classroom for him to oversee, even though the additional 15 students were permanently assigned to the teacher's classroom who had left early. An altercation occurred in Berrouet's classroom at approximately 5:45 p.m. between two students from the other class, A.B. and M.L. A.B ran behind Berrouet, who was standing at the door and asked Berrouet to help protect her from M.L. M.L. was running after A.B. Berrouet put his hand up and directed M.L. to go back to her seat. However, M.L. kept chasing after A.B. running toward Berrouet into his outreached arm and hand with her upper body (to the chest, neck or shoulder). A.B. left the room. Berrouet stood between A.B. and M.L. at the doorway to prevent M.L from going after A.B. M.L. continued to try to push through Berrouet trying to get to A.B. The incident took a few seconds. Berrouet did not make any effort to activate the button to call the office about the incident. If he had left the doorway to go across the classroom to push the office button, M.L. would have had access to attack A.B. Berrouet standing in the doorway was the only barrier preventing M.L. from reaching A.B. After Berrouet told M.L. to sit down and she was unable to get pass Berreout to A.B., she went to her seat and cried. M.L. cried because she was upset and couldn't get to A.B. Berrouet kept A.B outside and allowed another student to get her book bag and take it to her so she could leave for the day. Berrouet kept M.L. in the classroom a few minutes after A.B left to ensure that A.B. was gone and no further interaction would occur between the girls. Berrouet was not aware of the earlier kicking incident between M.L. and A.B. He first became aware of a problem between the girls when A.B. ran behind him for help. Berrouet did not write up a Student Case Management Referral Form since he had no knowledge of the kicking incident and because he thought he had diffused the potential altercation by him standing between the students. Berrouet's testimony and that of M.L. is deemed more persuasive then that of the other children witnesses. As the parties were directly involved in the incident, Berrouet and M.L. provided the most competent, credible testimony about the disputed matters. On October 10, 2006, the next morning after the incident, M.L.'s mother showed up with M.L. at Lakeview to meet with Mr. Jeffrey Hernandez, the principal. M.L.'s mother reported that Berrouet had grabbed M.L. by the neck on the previous day. Hernandez completed a Miami-Dade County Public Schools School Operations Incident Report regarding the matter. Berrouet was provided a memorandum dated October 10, 2007, entitled Notification of Allegation. Subsequently, the School Board of Miami-Dade County at a meeting on March 14, 2007, suspended Berrouet without pay and initiated dismissal proceedings. On May 3, 2007, the School Board filed its Notice of Specific Charges charging Respondent with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board policies regarding corporal punishment and responsibilities and duties.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing all charges against Respondent and Miami-Dade County School Board reinstate Respondent with full back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 9th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Janeen L. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Jeanine Blomberg, Interim Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the Broward County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed with Petitioner as an exceptional student education ("ESE") teacher at Silver Ridge Elementary School in Broward County, Florida. The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Respondent has extensive educational training and experience in working with disabled and special needs students for many years. Respondent worked in the school system in Long Island, New York, as a paraprofessional for an estimated 13 to 14 years. Her duties included working with exceptional students at a cerebral palsy center, where she assisted teachers in changing students' diapers, feeding them, and assisting them in using various types of adaptive equipment. She also taught and tested special needs students having physical disabilities but possessing greater cognitive awareness. At the encouragement of teachers with whom she worked, Respondent pursued and received her bachelor's degree in elementary education in 1999, while continuing to work as a paraprofessional in the school system. Thereafter, she pursued her master's degree while working as a substitute teacher during the school year and as a teacher for summer school during the summer months. Respondent received her master's degree in special education in 2003. Respondent began working as an ESE teacher at Silver Ridge Elementary School in 2003, shortly after she moved to Florida. The allegations giving rise to this proceeding span the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. During both school years, Respondent's ESE students were disabled and most of them were nonverbal. Petitioner alleges that during both school years, Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive actions toward students in her classroom in violation of Department of Education rules and Petitioner's policies. The 2011-2012 School Year Background Starting in August of the 2011-2012 school year, paraprofessionals Rostande Cherelus and Cara Yontz were assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom. Cherelus and Yontz both testified that they had a good working relationship with Respondent. However, this testimony is belied by the credible, persuasive evidence establishing that Respondent did not enjoy a smooth working relationship with either of them. The persuasive evidence establishes that the difficulties in Respondent's relationship with both paraprofessionals stemmed from their frequent tardiness, leaving the classroom during instructional time without Respondent's permission, and frequent use of their cell phones in the classroom during instructional time. Respondent let them know on many occasions that this behavior was not acceptable. The persuasive evidence further establishes that neither paraprofessional was particularly cooperative in assisting Respondent in the classroom. For example, when Respondent attempted to engage the participatory-level students in the various learning activities class, the paraprofessionals ——particularly Cherelus——would often respond with what Respondent characterized as "huffing and puffing," rolling of the eyes, crossed arms, and comments questioning the utility of engaging in activities to educate the students because "that kid can't do anything anyway." Respondent credibly testified that when admonished, Cherelus would make statements such as "thank God, God didn't give me a kid like that." Respondent consistently reported the ongoing problems with Cherelus and Yontz to then-Principal Marion Gundling and then-Assistant Principal Saemone Hollingsworth. However, it appears that this effort was in vain. By November 7, 2011, the situation in Respondent's classroom had deteriorated to the point that Respondent requested a meeting with Gundling and Hollingsworth to address the continuing problems with the paraprofessionals. After the November 7, 2011, the situation in Respondent's classroom did not improve. Respondent testified, credibly, that both paraprofessionals continued to be difficult to work with, that there was constant friction in the classroom, and that both paraprofessionals were aware of her lack of satisfaction with their behavior and job performance. They also knew that she communicated her dissatisfaction to the school administration. On December 1, 2011——notably, before Cherelus and Yontz alleged student abuse by Respondent1/——Respondent contacted Gundling and Hollingsworth by electronic mail ("email"), stating "[m]y classroom is an absolute disaster since our meeting." The email described in great detail2/ events, actions by the paraprofessionals, the dysfunctional atmosphere in Respondent's classroom arising from the paraprofessionals' behavior and poor job performance, and Respondent's continued dissatisfaction with them. On December 15, 2011, Yontz filed a written statement with the school administration alleging that Respondent had taken abusive actions toward students D.N. and J.M. Yontz's statement alleged that in October of that year, Respondent had become angry with D.N., screamed at her, and grabbed her hair from behind. The statement also alleged that in October of that year,3/ Respondent punished student J.M. by confining her to the classroom bathroom from 8:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. The statement further alleged that on December 15, 2011, Respondent had become angry with and screamed at student J.M., pushed her face, and attempted to secure J.M's glasses, which were too large for her face, with a rubber band. According to Yontz's statement, Respondent pulled J.M.'s hair, causing her to make noises indicating that she was in pain. Cherelus filed a written statement with the school administration on December 16, 2011, stating that when she had returned from break the previous day, J.M. was upset. According to Cherelus' statement, when she asked J.M. what was wrong, J.M. said "Ms. T. pull" and made a pulling motion while pointing to her glasses. On December 16, 2011, Respondent was removed from her classroom pending an investigation of the allegations against her made by Yontz and Cherelus. Ultimately, the investigation yielded insufficient evidence to support Yontz's and Cherelus' allegations and Petitioner took no disciplinary action against Respondent at that time. She was returned to her classroom in April 2012. Notwithstanding that the investigation absolved Respondent, Petitioner now seeks to take disciplinary action based on these accusations. Allegations in Amended Administrative Complaint In Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint filed in this proceeding on April 1, 2014, Petitioner alleges that during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive acts toward students D.N., J.M., A.S., and C.A., who were assigned to her class. Each of these allegations is addressed below.4/ Student D.N. Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that in October 2011, Respondent screamed at student D.N. for being unable to complete her work and pulled her hair. At the final hearing, Cherelus and Yontz both testified that one day in the classroom, Respondent grabbed D.N. by her ponytail. However, their testimony is inconsistent regarding key details and circumstances. Cherelus testified that Respondent grabbed D.N. and pulled her up from her chair because she had asked D.N. to get up and go get her classwork, and D.N. did not do so. Cherelus testified that Respondent said something to the effect of "[l]et's go, you don't want to do your work" and pulled D.N. up from her chair by her ponytail, causing D.N. to fall on the floor. Cherelus testified that D.N. screamed and Respondent let her go. Cherelus further testified that Respondent did not scream at D.N. Yontz, on the other hand, testified that Respondent screamed at D.N. because she was not focusing on the classwork in front of her on her desk. Yontz testified that at one point, Respondent grabbed D.N. by the back of the neck and forcefully held her head to keep her facing downward. Yontz testified that Respondent then grabbed and tugged D.N.'s ponytail and pulled her head backward to force her to look at her work. The inconsistencies between the Cherelus' and Yontz's testimony are significant. Cherelus described a situation in which Respondent jerked D.N.'s ponytail to make her get up from her desk, and that as a result, D.N. fell to the floor. However, Yontz described a situation in which D.N. remained seated and Respondent jerked her head backward by her ponytail to make her focus on the work on her desk.5/ Additionally, Yontz testified that Respondent screamed at D.N., while Cherelus specifically stated that she did not scream. Yontz testified that Respondent grabbed the back of D.N.'s neck, while Cherelus did not testify to that effect. Testimony regarding key details and circumstances surrounding the incident is vital to determining credibility in a case such as this, where the witnesses for both parties have differing accounts of the events at issue. Here, due to the inconsistencies in their testimony regarding significant details and circumstances regarding the alleged incident, the undersigned finds neither Cherelus' nor Yontz's testimony persuasive or credible. By contrast, Respondent provided a clear, detailed account of the incident that significantly differed from that provided by Cherelus and Yontz. On the day in question, Respondent was working with D.N., who has a movement-related disability, to direct her to focus on her work. Because of D.N.'s disability, she was easily distracted and often looked around at activity occurring on either side of her. Thus, when Respondent engaged in one-on-one instruction with D.N., she would stand behind D.N. and use a series of voice and gestural commands, verbal and gestural prompts, and physical prompts as necessary, to get D.N. to focus on her work. Pursuant to D.N.'s individual education plan ("IEP"), she had worn a weighted vest to assist her in focusing on her work, but shortly before the incident, her IEP had been amended to no longer include use of the vest, so Respondent had instead begun using physical compression on D.N.'s shoulders, with her thumbs touching the back of her neck, to assist D.N. in focusing. Respondent credibly testified that the compression was slight, not forceful. On the day in question, Respondent used the compression technique but D.N. continued to look around, so Respondent put her hands on the sides of D.N.'s face to focus her to gaze downward at her work. When Respondent removed the compression from D.N.'s shoulders, she popped backward. Respondent credibly testified that she did not pull D.N.'s hair or jerk her head backward by her ponytail. Respondent's account of the incident is credible and persuasive.6/ Further, the timing of Respondent's email communication with Gundling and Hollingsworth is significant to determining the comparative credibility of Respondent, Cherelus, and Yontz. Respondent's December 1, 2011, email to Gundling and Hollingsworth described in significant detail the events and actions that had taken place in Respondent's classroom following her November 7, 2011, meeting with them. Of particular note is Respondent's detailed description of Cherelus' actions on December 1, 2011, toward student D.N.——specifically, that Cherelus pulled D.N's hair and screamed at her. Respondent's email account of that incident, sent on the same day it was alleged to have occurred and describing it in substantial detail, is far more persuasive than both Cherelus' or Yontz's subsequent statements and hearing testimony regarding the incident. The credible, persuasive evidence leads to the inference that as a result of the paraprofessionals' poor relationship with Respondent, they accused her——after she had reported their poor performance——of the very conduct toward student D.N. that Respondent previously reported that Cherelus had committed. This is a far more reasonable inference than the version of events that Petitioner espouses——which would require the undersigned to infer that Respondent somehow knew that she was going to be accused, at a later date, of pulling D.N.'s hair and screaming at her, so she covered herself by preparing and sending the December 1, 2011, email accusing Cherelus of engaging in that same conduct. For these reasons, the undersigned finds the testimony of Cherelus and Yontz regarding the alleged incident involving D.N. incredible and unpersuasive. Conversely, the undersigned finds Respondent's testimony regarding D.N. credible and persuasive. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint regarding student D.N. Student J.M. In paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in October 2011, Respondent confined student J.M. to the classroom restroom from 8:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. as punishment for urinating in her pants. Petitioner's direct evidence to support this allegation primarily consisted of Yontz's testimony.7/ According to Yontz, J.M. came to school one morning after having wet her pants the previous day, and Respondent immediately placed her in the classroom restroom, with the door closed, to punish her.8/ Yontz testified that Respondent left J.M. in the restroom by herself with the door closed beginning at 8:30 a.m. until 1:45 p.m., only being allowed to leave the restroom for lunch in the cafeteria. Yontz also testified that because J.M. was confined to Respondent's classroom restroom all day, the other students in Respondent's class had to use the restroom in other classrooms. Cherelus did not testify regarding this alleged incident.9/ Respondent's clear, credible explanation of this incident differed sharply from that provided by Yontz. Because J.M. frequently would urinate in her pants, her mother would send multiple sets of clothing to school so that Respondent could change J.M.'s clothes when this happened. J.M. had urinated on herself the previous day and had gone through her last set of clothing that day, so Respondent sent a note home to J.M.'s mother asking her to send a fresh set of clothing to school the following day. However, when J.M. arrived at school the next day, she had urinated in her pants and her mother had not sent extra clothing. Respondent changed J.M. into a borrowed set of D.N.'s clothing. J.M. again urinated in her pants and at that point, there was no extra clothing in the classroom for J.M. to wear. Respondent sent Cherelus to the school clinic to see if there was extra clothing that J.M. could wear and she also contacted J.M.'s mother to bring clothing to school for J.M. During the time it took for Cherelus to go to the clinic and return with clothing for J.M. to change into, Respondent put J.M. in the restroom. Respondent could not recall the exact amount of time that J.M. was confined to the restroom, but estimated that it was a short amount of time. She credibly testified that J.M. did not spend the entire day confined to the restroom, and that J.M. was not placed in the restroom as punishment, but, rather, to await a change of clothing. J.M.'s mother, Shakima Brown, verified Respondent's account of the incident. Brown testified that Respondent called her on the day in question to request that she bring a change of clothes to the school. Brown lived only ten minutes away, and she directed Respondent to place J.M. in the restroom until she could bring the extra clothing to the school. Brown testified, credibly, that J.M. had never communicated to her that Respondent confined her to the restroom as punishment, and that had that happened, J.M. would have let her know. The credible, persuasive evidence supports Respondent's account of this incident. The undersigned finds Yontz's account of this incident incredible and unpersuasive. Petitioner also alleges, in paragraph 6. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that on December 15, 2011, Respondent verbally abused J.M., slapped her face, and popped her with a rubber band that she had tied to J.M.'s glasses in an effort to keep them on her face. Yontz is the only witness whose testimony Petitioner presented who claimed to have actually seen the incident. Yontz testified that on the day in question, J.M. was attempting to write her name but was unable to do so without making mistakes. According to Yontz, this annoyed Respondent, who screamed at J.M. Yontz testified that J.M.'s glasses kept falling off, so Respondent tied a rubber band on the ends of them to keep them from falling off. However, the rubber band was too tight so kept popping J.M.'s ear, causing her to make noises as if she were in pain. According to Yontz, Respondent pushed J.M.'s face and screamed at her "oh, you're so annoying, you freaking idiot." Yontz testified that Respondent did not slap J.M.'s face.10/ Cherelus' also testified regarding this incident. She testified that on that day, she took J.M. to another classroom, and that as she was doing so, J.M. cried. Cherelus testified that when she asked J.M. what was wrong, J.M. said "Ms. T slapped me" and gestured in a manner that Cherelus interpreted as showing that Respondent had slapped J.M.11/ On cross examination, Cherelus acknowledged that she did not see Respondent slap J.M., pull her hair, or otherwise hurt her. Cherelus further acknowledged that J.M. is largely nonverbal and incapable of articulating sentences, and that she only said "Ms. T." while making a pulling motion. In any event, Cherelus did not have personal, independent knowledge of this alleged incident, and her testimony was based on J.M.'s limited statement and gesture. Maureen McLaughlin, the child abuse designee for Silver Ridge Elementary School, also testified regarding this alleged incident. McLaughlin testified that Yontz brought J.M. to her office,12/ and that at Yontz's prompting, J.M., using a teddy bear, indicated that Respondent had pushed her head using an open hand. McLaughlin testified: [a]nd basically, it's hard to enact, but J. took her hand, sort of open like this, and what I remember is that her head turned, like, she turned her head. So it was hard to tell, like, is it a slap, is it a push, but it was an open hand and her head ended up being turned because of it. McLaughlin reported the incident to the abuse hotline.13/ Respondent provided a credible, persuasive explanation of the incident. She testified that J.M. previously had a pair of glasses that did not fit her and had used a teal elastic band to hold them on her face. At some point, J.M. lost both the elastic band and her glasses, so Respondent contacted J.M.'s mother regarding getting another pair of glasses for J.M.; however, J.M.'s mother told her that they could not afford to purchase another pair of glasses. Respondent gave J.M.'s mother a pair of glasses frames that had belonged to her daughter, and J.M.'s mother had the frames fitted with J.M.'s prescription. However, those glasses also did not fit J.M.'s face and fell off when she looked down. On the day in question, Respondent tried, unsuccessfully, to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face using a large rubber band. The rubber band popped, causing J.M. to make a sound. Respondent apologized, tried one more time to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face using the rubber band, then gave up. Respondent testified that while she was attempting to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face, J.M. was moving around, so Respondent had J.M. put her head down on the desk. J.M. was hearing-impaired and had put her head down on the side on which her functioning ear was located, so Respondent used her open hand to turn J.M.'s head to the other side. Respondent credibly testified that she did not slap J.M., scream at her, or pull her hair. J.M.'s mother, Shakima Brown, testified that she had been informed of the incident concerning J.M.'s glasses and that on her own, over a period of days, had asked J.M. several times if anyone had hit her. Brown testified, credibly, that J.M. said "no" every time she was asked.14/ The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not scream at J.M., did not slap her face, and did not intentionally hurt her by popping her ear with a rubber band. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 6. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student A.S. In paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent handled A.S. in a physically rough manner, causing him to sustain a scratch on his neck. Cherelus testified that she did not recall any incident involving a student named "A.," and she could not recall his last name. Yontz testified that one day, she took the children out for recess, and as they were leaving, A. was in the room with Respondent. A. subsequently came outside and was crying, and Yontz observed scratch marks on A.'s neck. Yontz testified that she had asked what had happened, and Respondent told her that A. had scratched his neck on the corner of the counter as he put trash in the trash can. Neither Yontz nor Cherelus saw Respondent scratch A., and Petitioner presented no other evidence showing that Respondent scratched A. The sum of Petitioner's evidence regarding this allegation is that A. was scratched while in the classroom with Respondent. There is absolutely no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Respondent scratched A. Additionally, neither Yontz nor Cherelus, or any other witness, specifically identified "A." as the student "A.S." named in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence linking the testimony about "A." to any allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations set forth in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint involving student A.S. Student C.A. Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 7. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that C.A. went home with scratches on his neck and face over a three-day period, and that when Respondent was questioned, she claimed that C.A. "had an encounter with a tree." Presumably, paragraph 7. is intended to charge Respondent with scratching C.A. and then lying about it. However, this paragraph does not expressly allege that Respondent scratched C.A. or otherwise injured C.A., so fails to allege that Respondent engaged in conduct that, if proven, would violate Petitioner's policies or Department of Education rules. Further, to the extent paragraph 7. could be read to sufficiently allege that Respondent scratched or otherwise injured C.A., there was no testimony presented at the final hearing by anyone having personal knowledge of the alleged incident. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence supporting this allegation.15/ Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation involving student C.A. set forth in paragraph 7. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The 2012-2013 School Year Background Petitioner alleges in the Amended Administrative Complaint that during the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent again engaged in physically and verbally abusive acts toward students assigned to her class. Paraprofessionals Shirley Brown and Monica Jobes were assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom in the 2012-2013 school year. That year, approximately nine ESE students were assigned to Respondent's classroom. The credible, persuasive evidence made abundantly clear that neither Brown nor Jobes enjoyed a smooth working relationship with Respondent. This was, in large measure, due to the fact that Respondent had high expectations regarding their performance in assisting her in the classroom, and she consistently reminded Brown and Jobes of those expectations.16/ In particular, Respondent made clear that her——and, by extension, the paraprofessionals'——job entailed taking reasonable and necessary measures to work with students to help them achieve to their capabilities. Respondent testified, persuasively, that neither Brown nor Jobes were dedicated to this approach and instead viewed their jobs more as caretakers or "babysitters" of the students for the school day. Respondent frequently made clear to Brown and Jobes that as the teacher, she was in charge of the class and the instructional approach and all other activities and aspects of classroom management. It was apparent from the credible, persuasive evidence that Brown and Jobes resented Respondent's repeated, overt assertion of authority over them. The persuasive evidence establishes that Brown was as much as a half-hour late to Respondent's class nearly every day, and that Respondent also regularly had to admonish her about frequent use of her cell phone for personal matters during instructional time. Brown also frequently disregarded Respondent's instructions on a range of student-related matters, and when Respondent confronted her, Brown verbally lashed out.17/ The persuasive evidence also establishes that Jobes often sent and received personal text messages during instructional time, causing her to be distracted and interfering with her work. The persuasive evidence established that Brown's and Jobes' behaviors were disruptive to the classroom environment and, in some instances, posed a danger to the students, and that Respondent let them know that their behavior was unacceptable. Shortly before the holiday vacation in December 2012, a holiday celebration was held in Respondent's classroom. While Respondent tended to the other students in the class and their parents, she specifically asked Brown and Jobes to stay with and tend to student C.R., since he did not have a parent present at the celebration. At some point, both paraprofessionals left C.R. alone. While unattended, C.R. ingested something to which he was allergic, went into anaphylactic shock, and ultimately had to be transported to the hospital. In early January 2013, shortly after school commenced following the holiday vacation, Respondent's students went to the music teacher's classroom. Brown was going to place C.R. on the floor, notwithstanding that Respondent had specifically directed her not to do so because he might again ingest something that could make him ill. At that point, Respondent told Brown not to place C.R. on the floor, to which Brown responded "don't worry, I got this" or something to that effect. Respondent tersely admonished Brown and reminded her that it was her (Respondent's) call because she was the teacher.18/ It was apparent from Brown's testimony that she greatly resented Respondent's assertion of authority over her. To address Brown's ongoing behavior and performance issues, Respondent requested a meeting on January 9, 2015, with Principal Hollingsworth, Assistant Principal Long, and ESE Supervisor Vickie Bloome. At the meeting, Hollingsworth informed Brown that Respondent had complained to her about her (Brown's) repeated cell phone use during classroom instructional time and directed her to refrain from using her cell phone during that time. Notwithstanding this meeting, nothing changed in Respondent's classroom. Respondent continued to experience friction in working with the paraprofessionals, who knew that Respondent had complained to the school administration about their performance. On January 16, 2013, an incident involving C.R., discussed in detail below, occurred. During this incident, C.R. became very aggressive, fought, bit and scratched himself, and grabbed for Respondent's insulin pump, which she wore on her arm. As discussed in greater detail below, Respondent and C.R. fell on the floor. Respondent prepared a written report detailing the incident. Persons who witnessed the incident, including Brown and Jobes, signed the report, and Respondent filed it with the school administration that day. On January 23, 2013, Respondent called a meeting with Jobes and Brown to address their ongoing performance issues, update them on student issues, and cover common core implementation procedures. In the email Respondent sent to Jobes and Brown regarding the meeting, she reminded them: "STILL seeing phones being checked and answered during class time. Even if a phone rings during class, it should NOT be answered until your personal time." At the meeting, Respondent once again reminded Brown and Jobes that they were not to use their cell phones during classroom instructional time. On the afternoon of January 23, 2013, following Respondent's meeting with her and Jobes, Brown reported to Assistant Principal Long an incident in which T.P. allegedly said "Ms. T. hurt me." At some point, Jobes also reported to Long that T.P. told her the same thing.19/ Jobes also sent an email to Hollingsworth that afternoon describing a situation in which T.P told her "Ms. T. hurt me." Thereafter, Long spoke with Respondent to get her version of what had happened. At some point on the evening of January 23, 2013, Respondent sent an email to Long stating that she had not been alone with T.P. that day. It was apparent from Respondent's email that she felt that could not trust Brown. She requested that Brown be removed from her classroom. Brown was removed from Respondent's classroom on the morning of January 24, 2013. At some point thereafter, Brown prepared, signed, and filed a report, dated January 23, 2013, alleging that Respondent had engaged in numerous aggressive and abusive acts toward students over a period of months. It is obvious in reading the report——which references Brown's removal from Respondent's classroom———that it was not prepared until sometime after Brown was removed from Respondent's classroom on January 24, 2015. Jobes also signed the report. She testified that Brown had prepared it and that she had contributed "notes." Brown also prepared and filed another written statement alleging that Respondent had engaged in specific instances of abusive and aggressive behavior toward students in her class. This report also was dated January 23, 2013, but again referenced her removal from Respondent's classroom, so obviously was prepared sometime after January 24, 2013. On the evening of January 24, 2013, Jobes sent an email to Hollingsworth requesting to be removed from Respondent's classroom. The email stated: "I came home today so stressed and exhausted from Ms. T all day at me." Jobes, who was pregnant, was concerned that the stress she was experiencing in working with Respondent in her classroom would adversely affect her health. On January 25, 2013, Jobes was removed from Respondent's classroom. On or about January 29, 2013, Respondent was removed from her classroom and reassigned to another position in the school system pending the outcome of an investigation conducted by the Broward County Sheriff's Office Child Protective Investigations ("CPI") Section. In a statement dated February 3, 2013, Jobes alleged that Respondent had taken aggressive and abusive actions toward certain students in her class over a period of months. She also stated that she felt bullied because Respondent, at times, spoke to her disrespectfully, and that Respondent would "constantly remind everyone in the room that she is the boss and if they wanted to be the boss then they need to go get a 4-year degree." Notably, prior to their January 23, 2013, meeting with Respondent, neither Jobes nor Brown had ever reported that Respondent had engaged in aggressive or abusive behavior toward her students.20/ Allegations in Amended Administrative Complaint In the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive behavior toward specific students in her class. Each of these allegations is addressed below. Student M.M. In paragraph 9. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent grabbed student M.M. by the back of her neck, held her head down in the garbage can to make her retrieve an open bag of chips, and forced her to eat them because she had asked for them. At the hearing, Brown and Jobes both testified that on one occasion during classroom snack time, Respondent had given M.M. a bag of chips at her request. M.M. ate a few chips, then tossed the bag in the trash can. Brown and Jobes testified that Respondent held M.M. by the back of the neck and forced her to remove the chips from the trash can. On direct examination, Jobes testified that Respondent forced M.M. to eat the chips, but on cross-examination, testified that, M.M. did not eat the chips. Brown testified that M.M. ate some of the chips but did not finish. Respondent confirmed that she did make M.M. retrieve the chips from the garbage can, but explained the context and the circumstances for making M.M. do so. She credibly denied that she had forced M.M. to eat the chips. Specifically, M.M. had been purchasing school lunches, but Jobes and Brown informed Respondent that M.M. was not eating her lunch. Respondent contacted M.M.'s mother, and collectively, Respondent and M.M.'s mother arrived at a plan in which M.M. would pick out her lunch and snack items at home. The items would be packed in her lunch box, and she would bring her lunch and snacks to school every day. M.M.'s mother also sent a large bag of snacks for M.M. that was kept in the classroom closet and M.M. would get the snack of her choice at snack time. M.M.'s mother specifically requested that Respondent send home anything that M.M. did not eat so that she (M.M.'s mother) would know what M.M. was and was not eating. On the day at issue, M.M. requested a bag of chips. Respondent gave them to her and M.M. returned to her seat, where she ate one or two chips, then threw the bag of chips away in the trash can. Respondent saw this and told M.M. to retrieve the chips from the trash can. Respondent did this so that she could send them home with M.M., consistent with the plan she had devised with M.M.'s mother. Consistent with Respondent's method of prompting M.M.'s behavior, she asked M.M. three times to remove the chips from the trash can. She then added a gestural prompt, done multiple times, that consisted of pointing to the trash can to inform M.M. exactly what she wanted her to do and where she was to go. When M.M. did not respond, Respondent took M.M. by the hand, led her to the trash can, and again gestured and asked her to remove the chips. Again, M.M. did not respond, so Respondent employed a physical prompt that consisted of placing her hand on M.M.'s shoulder and hand and applying enough pressure to show M.M. that she needed to bend down to retrieve the chips. At that point, with Respondent's help, M.M. retrieved the chips from the trash can. Respondent told M.M. to put them in her lunch box so that she could take them home, consistent with M.M.'s mother's request. Respondent credibly testified that she did not tell M.M. she had to eat the chips or force her to eat them. The evidence does not establish that M.M. cried or was distressed as a result of Respondent's actions, and there was no evidence presented to show that M.M. was injured or sickened as a result of this incident. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not punish M.M. for throwing the chips away, that she did not forcefully grab M.M. by the back of the neck or hold her head down into the trash can, and that she did not force M.M. to eat the chips. The evidence instead shows that Respondent's actions in dealing with M.M. on this occasion were appropriate and were consistent with her discussions with M.M.'s mother. Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 9. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student T.P. In paragraph 10. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in December 2012, Respondent force-fed student T.P., causing him to regurgitate. The undisputed evidence establishes that T.P. often refused to eat. On the day in question, T.P. purchased lunch from the cafeteria but he refused to eat the lunch, so was brought back to the classroom, where Respondent attempted to get T.P. to eat his lunch. Brown testified that Respondent forced a piece of chicken and chicken skin into T.P.'s mouth, that he was crying hysterically, and that he gagged. Brown further testified that Respondent made a video recording of T.P. eating. Jobes, who also was present when the incident occurred, did not testify that Respondent force-fed T.P.——only that Respondent was verbally urging T.P. to eat plantains. She did not testify that T.P. gagged or regurgitated. She also testified that Respondent made a video recording of the incident. Respondent testified that T.P. was a very picky eater who did not eat well, and that he regurgitated on the way to lunch every day. She testified, credibly, that she had discussed this issue with T.P.'s parents, and they had directed her to encourage him to eat.21/ Because the sight of other students eating or the smells of food would cause T.P. to vomit, he typically ate at a small table in the cafeteria positioned so he could see the outdoors. On the day in question, the students ate lunch in the classroom. T.P. was having particular difficulty eating that day because he was situated with the entire class as they ate, making him uncomfortable. In an effort to persuade T.P. to eat, Respondent went over to him, picked up a piece of food and coaxed him to eat. T.P. regurgitated all over his food. At that point, Respondent stopped trying to persuade T.P. to eat and sent a note home to his parents describing what had happened. Respondent's version of events is credible. By contrast, the testimony of Jobes and Brown regarding this incident was inconsistent, incredible, and unpersuasive. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 10. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. In paragraph 14. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that on January 23, 2013, Respondent grabbed T.P. by the back of the neck and pushed him toward the door, causing him to stumble and fall to the ground and to verbalize that "Ms. T. hurt me." Jobes testified that on that day, she was in the cafeteria when Brown and T.P. entered, with T.P crying. Jobes testified that Brown told her at lunch that she (Brown) had heard some kind of altercation while she was in the classroom restroom. Jobes did not see Respondent grab, push, or take any other action toward T.P. Jobes testified that later that day, T.P. told her "Ms. T. hurt me," and held his hands in a "U" shape. Jobes interpreted that as indicating that Respondent had choked T.P. Brown testified that she actually saw Respondent grab T.P. by the back of the neck and push him toward the door, causing him to fall, and that he got up, crying, and went with Brown and the rest of the class to lunch. She testified that later in the afternoon, T.P. told her and Jobes that "Ms. T. hurt me." Specifically, she testified: I didn't understand him clearly, you know. So Ms. Jobes was on the other side. He turned, he said 'Ms. Jobes, Ms. Jobes, Ms. T. hurt me, she grabbed me like this." And I, like, what? He said 'I'm going to tell them, I'm going to tell them, Ms. Brown, that Ms. T. hurt me, you see, Ms. T. hurt me.' The undersigned finds Brown's testimony incredible and unpersuasive. First, Brown's statement that she actually saw Respondent grab and push T.P. is inconsistent with her statement made to Jobes while at lunch that same day, that she had been in the restroom at the time and had heard an altercation. Further, the evidence showed that while T.P. is somewhat verbal, he is not capable of the extended, coherent discourse that Brown claims he verbalized in telling her and Jobes that Respondent had hurt him. The undersigned also assigns no weight to Jobes' testimony regarding whether the alleged incident actually occurred. Jobes did not witness the alleged incident, so has no personal independent knowledge regarding whether it occurred. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 14. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student M.P. In paragraph 11. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in an effort to make M.P. stop crying, Respondent jerked her chair backward to scare her to make her stop crying, and that when M.P. did not stop crying, Respondent laid the chair down on the floor so that M.P.'s feet were in the air, leaving her in that position for approximately 20 minutes. Brown and Jobes both testified that M.P. often cried and rocked back and forth in her chair. They testified that in order to make M.P. stop crying, Respondent would try to scare her by jerking the chair backward. Then, if M.P. did not stop crying, Respondent would lay her chair down on the floor so that M.P.'s feet were in the air, and she would leave M.P. in that position until she cried herself to sleep. Both Brown and Jobes testified that they had seen Respondent do this on numerous occasions. Respondent acknowledged that she had, on more than one occasion, laid M.P. down on the floor in the Rifton chair,22/ but, again, provided credible context for taking this action. Specifically, as a result of her exceptionality, M.P. would constantly verbalize and often would rock in her chair. When she became agitated, she would rock her chair so violently that she tipped the chair backward. Initially, Respondent had moved M.P.'s chair against a bookshelf, but M.P. banged her head on the bookshelf. In an effort to prevent M.P. from hurting herself, Respondent then removed M.P. from her chair and placed her on the floor; however, M.P. banged her head on the floor. At that point, Respondent placed M.P. in the Rifton chair. M.P. continued to rock violently, so Respondent ordered a Rifton chair with footrest; however, that measure did not solve the problem with M.P.'s rocking. Respondent then considered placing M.P.'s chair up against the teacher's desk, which would help stabilize the chair but had nothing against which Respondent could bang her head. On one occasion, as Respondent tipped the chair back at a 45-degree angle to place it against her desk, she noticed that M.P. calmed down and closed her eyes. Thereafter, Respondent would sometimes tip M.P.'s chair against her or her desk if she was not otherwise occupied with activities. However, when she was occupied with other activities, she would sometimes completely recline the Rifton chair, with M.P. strapped in it, on the floor. She did this because it calmed M.P., who otherwise would constantly vocalize, cry, and rock back and forth. To determine whether this was an appropriate technique, Respondent asked colleagues who also taught ESE students about their view of this technique and whether there were better techniques of which they were aware. Respondent testified, credibly, that the consensus among other ESE teachers was that if the technique worked to soothe the child and did not endanger her, it was appropriate to use. Respondent also had consulted regularly with occupational specialist Mariana Aparicio-Rodriquez regarding techniques to prevent M.P. from rocking her chair so that she would not tip her chair over and injure herself, but they had not collectively arrived at a solution to the problem. Respondent testified that she and Aparicio-Rodriquez had not specifically discussed reclining the Rifton chair on the floor with M.P. strapped in it. One day, while Respondent was alone in the classroom, Aparicio-Rodriquez entered the classroom and saw M.P. completely reclined on the floor in the Rifton chair. Initially, Aparicio- Rodriquez was alarmed that M.P. had tipped the chair over. Aparicio-Rodriquez testified that Respondent told her that she had placed M.P. on the ground to give her a sense of what it felt like to fall back. Respondent then picked up the chair and placed M.P. in an upright position. Aparicio-Rodriquez confirmed that during the entire time that she was in Respondent's classroom, M.P. was calm, unhurt, and not in distress, and that she did not cry. Aparicio-Rodriquez testified that she did not believe this was an appropriate or useful technique for teaching M.P. not to rock in her chair, and she had intended to report the incident to her supervisor, but because one of Respondent's paraprofessionals informed her that the matter was going to be reported, Aparicio-Rodriquez did not report it. Aparicio- Rodriquez testified that she did not consider the incident to constitute child abuse, so did not report it to the Department of Children and Families. On cross-examination, Aparicio-Rodriquez stated that it was her opinion, from an occupational therapist's perspective, that using the Rifton chair in such a manner was not appropriate; however, she conceded that placing M.P. on the floor in a reclined position in the Rifton chair was not unsafe, and that M.P. was neither hurt nor in imminent or potential danger. She acknowledged that she and Respondent had a difference of opinion regarding the propriety of the use of the Rifton chair in this manner.23/ Aparicio-Rodriquez did not identify any statute, rule, policy, or other applicable standard that was violated by Respondent's use of the Rifton chair in this manner. The persuasive evidence supports the inference that Respondent's placement of M.P. in the Rifton chair in a reclined position on the floor was not intended as a disciplinary measure to frighten or punish M.P. for crying or rocking in her chair, and was appropriate under the circumstances. Respondent credibly testified that she had tried numerous measures to prevent M.P. from harming herself while rocking back and forth, and that when she inadvertently discovered this technique, she discussed it with other ESE professionals, who had suggested that she continue using it since the child was not distressed or injured and the technique worked to soothe her and prevent her from rocking back and forth and potentially injuring herself. Aparicio-Rodriquez disagreed with Respondent regarding the appropriateness of the technique, but she was neither qualified nor presented as an expert witness in appropriate teaching techniques for ESE students or in any other subject, and she did not identify any applicable professional or other standards that were violated by Respondent's use of the Rifton chair in this manner. The persuasive evidence establishes that Aparicio- Rodriquez and Respondent had a difference of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this technique; however, unlike Aparicio- Rodriquez, Respondent had actual successful experience in using this technique without harming M.P. Thus, Respondent's view regarding the appropriateness of using this technique under the circumstances is afforded greater weight than Aparicio- Rodriquez's view. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent distressed, injured or otherwise harmed M.P., placed M.P. in danger, or violated any applicable statute, rule, policy, teaching technique, or standard by placing M.P. in the Rifton chair in a reclining position. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations set forth in paragraph 11. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner also alleges that on one occasion, Respondent disciplined M.P. for crying by placing a plastic bag of ice directly on M.P.'s bare chest, and when that technique was unsuccessful, Respondent placed the bag of ice on M.P.'s back, causing her to cry more loudly. Petitioner presented the testimony of Jobes to substantiate this allegation. Jobes testified that "a couple of times," she saw Respondent place bags of ice under M.P.'s clothing on her bare skin in an effort to get M.P. to stop crying, but that M.P. would not stop crying. Petitioner did not present the testimony of any other witnesses to corroborate Jobes' testimony. Respondent flatly denied ever having placed ice on M.P. for any reason, and stated that under any circumstances, she did not know how that would have helped make M.P. stop crying. Respondent also denied having kept ice in the refrigerator in her classroom. Respondent's testimony was credible, and Jobes' testimony was not credible, regarding these allegations. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 12. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student C.R. In paragraph 13. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that on one occasion, Respondent removed C.R. from his wheelchair, screamed in his ear, held both hands behind his back, laid him face-down on the floor, and laid on top of him for several minutes as he gasped for air. The undisputed evidence shows that on the morning of January 16, 2013, student C.R. (also referred to as "C.J." in the final hearing testimony) arrived at school in an extremely emotionally-distressed state. Although C.R. is a small child who weighs approximately 30 pounds and is confined to a wheelchair, he becomes physically aggressive when distressed and is capable of inflicting injury on others by biting, scratching, and hitting. Upon arriving at school that day, C.R. physically struggled with school personnel, including Jobes, Brown, and Cherelus. Brown took C.R., still upset, in his wheelchair to Respondent's classroom, where he was placed in his classroom chair. C.R. attempted to grab, bite, and scratch Respondent, Jobes, and Brown, bit his own hands, and rubbed and scratched his own face, arms, and legs. Respondent left him in his chair and he eventually calmed down. At that point, Respondent removed C.R. from his chair and carried him to another classroom, where the rest of the class was engaged in instructional exercises. Thereafter, when Respondent carried C.R. back to her classroom, C.R. again became very upset and bit and scratched her. At that point, Respondent notified the school administration and C.R.'s mother of the incident involving C.R. that morning. Assistant Principal Long visited Respondent's classroom to determine what had happened. As of 11 a.m. that day, C.R. was still seated in his classroom chair aggressively biting his own hands and rubbing and scratching his face, arms, and legs.24/ Respondent prepared and submitted an incident report detailing these events, and Brown, Jobes, and Cherelus, and another school staff member, Julie Weiss, signed and dated the report that same day. Jobes testified she read the January 16, 2013, incident report before signing and dating it that same day. She stated that although she had signed the document without being under duress, she had questioned Respondent regarding its accuracy before signing it. Brown testified that she signed the January 16, 2013, incident report that day, but did not read it before she signed it. It is undisputed that at some point in the day on January 16, 2013, Respondent and C.R. ended up on the floor of Respondent's classroom, with Respondent laying on top of C.R. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the time of day, sequence of events, and circumstances that led to this incident. Jobes and Brown both testified that the events that led to Respondent and C.R. being on the floor with Respondent laying on top of C.R. occurred in the morning after C.R. came to school in an emotionally distressed state, and that Respondent had placed C.R. on the floor and laid on top of him to punish him for his aggressive behavior. However, their testimony is contradicted by the version of events detailed in the January 16, 2013, incident report——which they both had signed and dated that same day, thus tacitly acknowledging its accuracy. As discussed in greater detail below, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the incident during which Respondent and C.R. ended up on the floor actually occurred later that same day, and that afterward, C.R. was taken from the classroom to the school clinic and did not return to the classroom for the rest of the day. Had Brown and Jobes been correct regarding the time of day when the incident occurred, C.R. would have been removed from the classroom during the morning. However, according to the January 16, 2013, incident report, C.R. was still in the classroom as of approximately 11 a.m. that day. Indeed, according to the incident report, Assistant Principal Long visited the classroom to investigate the events that were detailed in the report. Had C.R. been removed from the classroom in the morning after the incident, Long would have discovered that when she visited the classroom.25/ Further, Respondent would have known that so would not have stated in the written incident report that C.R. was still in the classroom as of 11 a.m. that day. It is undisputed that Jobes did not actually witness Respondent place C.R. on the floor. Jobes testified that when she looked over from another part of the classroom where she had been tending to other students, she saw C.R. face down on the floor with Respondent on top of him. Notwithstanding that by her own admission, Jobes did not witness the entire incident between Respondent and C.R., she nonetheless testified that Respondent held C.R. down on the floor for three to five minutes.26/ Brown claims to have witnessed the entire incident between Respondent and C.R. She testified that C.R. was acting aggressively, so to punish him, Respondent picked him up, flipped him around, placed him face-down on the floor, and laid on top of him for approximately 20 seconds as he gasped for breath. As noted above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the allegation regarding Respondent laying on top of C.R. arose from an incident that occurred later in the day on January 16, 2013, after lunch and after the incident that had happened earlier that day. The credible evidence establishes that when C.R. returned to Respondent's classroom after having had lunch in the cafeteria under Jobes' and Brown's supervision, his face was red and he was scratching himself and squirming in his chair. Respondent became very concerned, from the previous experience that school year, that C.R. was again having an allergic reaction to something he had eaten. Respondent removed C.R. from his wheelchair in order to place him in his Rifton chair so that she could administer his epi-pen to counter any allergic reaction he might have been having. Respondent is diabetic and wears an insulin pump strapped to her left arm. Respondent testified, credibly, that as she was removing C.R. from the wheelchair, he grabbed at her insulin pump. In an effort to prevent C.R. from pulling her insulin pump off of her arm, Respondent jerked her hand and arm backward, causing her to lose her balance. She fell to the floor with C.R. and landed on top of him. Respondent estimated that she and C.R. were in that position for perhaps five seconds,27/ at which point she scrambled off of C.R. and placed him in his Rifton chair. C.R. was then taken to the clinic to address his allergic symptoms and did not return to the classroom that day. Respondent testified, credibly, that Brown did not witness the entire event because for part of it, she was in the restroom with M.P., consistent with their established routine after the students returned from lunch. The undersigned finds Jobes' and Brown's version of the incident unpersuasive and incredible.28/ Their testimony was imprecise, inconsistent, and directly contradicted by other credible evidence regarding the incident. By contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the incident was specific, precise, and detailed. The undersigned finds her account of the incident credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 13. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Allegations Regarding Unspecified Students Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that Respondent "was observed grabbing students by the arm and forcefully pulling them to the ground." The Amended Administrative Complaint does not identify the students whom Respondent is alleged to have treated in such a manner. Jobes testified that "one or two times" she had seen Respondent grab a student by the arm and pull that student to the ground in an effort to get the student to sit down. She could not recall which students she allegedly saw Respondent treat in that manner and she did not provide any detail regarding these alleged incidents. Her testimony was not corroborated by any other competent evidence in the record and was too vague and lacking in detail to be deemed credible or persuasive. Brown testified that on one occasion, Respondent pushed M.P. to make her walk faster, causing her to fall to the ground. Although Brown identified the specific student, she provided no temporal context or detail regarding the incident. Her testimony was confused and imprecise, so was neither credible nor persuasive. Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent grabbed students by the arm and forcefully pulled them to the ground. Petitioner also generally alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that on occasion, Respondent would grab students by the neck to force them to look at their work. However, neither Brown nor Jobes identified any specific students to whom Respondent's alleged conduct was directed or provided any detail or context in which these alleged incidents occurred, and their testimony was too vague and imprecise to be deemed credible or persuasive. Petitioner did not present any other competent substantial evidence to substantiate this allegation. Respondent testified that at times, it was necessary for her to physically focus students' attention on their work. At those times, she would place her hands on the student's head and turn the student's face down toward the desk so that the student could attend to his or her work. She testified that she did not grab students by the back of the neck or engage in any forceful techniques as she focused their attention on their work. Her testimony was credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent grabbed students by the neck and forced them to look at their work. Petitioner also alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that "[i]n one incident, Respondent crumbled [sic] a student's paper into a ball before throwing it at the student." The student whom Respondent is alleged to have treated in this manner was not identified in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 8. specifically states that the incidents alleged therein occurred "shortly after the commencement of the school year in August 2012." However, the only evidence Petitioner presented in support of this allegation was the testimony of Cara Yontz, a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom in the 2011-2012 school year——a completely different school year than Respondent's actions alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any evidence to substantiate this allegation in paragraph 8. Even assuming that the reference in the Amended Administrative Complaint to the 2012-2013 school year was a drafting error and that Petitioner actually intended to allege that Respondent engaged in such conduct during the 2011-2012 school year, Petitioner still did not prove this allegation by credible, persuasive evidence. Yontz testified that on one occasion, a student named "D." was having difficulty with his work and that twice, when he turned his work in to Respondent, she yelled at him, crumpled up his paper, and threw it back at him, causing him to cry. Petitioner did not present any other competent substantial evidence to support this allegation. Respondent denied having thrown D.'s paper at him and testified, credibly, that she never had thrown anything at any student. The undersigned finds Respondent's testimony on this point credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent crumpled a student's work and threw it at him. Petitioner also alleges in paragraph 8. that Respondent verbally abused unspecified students, making statements such as "they're so stupid," and that she was "happy that God never gave her kids like them." Petitioner did not present credible, persuasive evidence proving this allegation, and Respondent credibly testified that she had not, and would not, ever address a student in such a manner. Failure to Provide Statement On March 4, 2013, the Broward District Schools Police Department issued a Notice to Appear for Statement ("NTA") to Respondent, informing Respondent that an investigation regarding a reported incident had been initiated. The NTA informed Respondent that on March 11, 2013, she was required to appear at a designated location and provide a statement as part of the investigation. The NTA further informed her that a representative of her choice could be present during the statement and that her failure to appear on the scheduled date and to provide a statement would constitute gross insubordination and lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Respondent is a member of the Broward Teacher's Union ("BTU") and was represented by Diane Watts, a field staff representative with BTU, in the investigation. Watts had contact with Kathleen Andersen, a detective with the Broward District Schools Police Department regarding scheduling the appointment and other matters with respect to Respondent's statement. At some point before Respondent was to appear and provide her statement, Andersen called Watts to give her a "heads-up" that the investigation was "going criminal"——meaning that a criminal investigation was being commenced and that criminal charges may be filed against Respondent. Watts testified, credibly, that when a matter "goes criminal," the BTU retains a lawyer to represent the member being investigated. At that point, BTU had not yet retained an attorney to represent Respondent in any investigation that may "go criminal." Under those circumstances, it is customary for the employee not to appear and provide a statement. Watts testified, credibly, that she informed Andersen that under the circumstances, Respondent would not appear as scheduled on March 11, 2013, to provide the statement. Watts understood Andersen to have agreed that, given the circumstances, Respondent was not required to appear and, in fact, she credibly testified that she believed Andersen had called her to give her a "heads-up" specifically so that she and Respondent would not make a wasted trip to appear at the location of the scheduled statement, only to find out there that the investigation had "gone criminal"——at which point, Watts would have advised Respondent not to make a statement pending BTU's retention of a lawyer to represent her. Based on her belief that she had an understanding with Andersen, Watts advised Respondent that she was not required to appear and provide a statement on March 11, 2013. Therefore——specifically at Watts' direction and advice——Respondent did not appear and provide a statement on March 11, 2013. At the final hearing, Andersen disputed that she had agreed with Watts that Respondent did not need to appear and provide a statement as directed in the Notice to Appear. Andersen testified that pursuant to Petitioner's Policy 4.9, Respondent was required to appear and provide a statement, and that she had not done so.29/ IV. Findings of Ultimate Fact Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and to terminate her employment as a teacher on the basis of just cause, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. The statute defines just cause to include immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination; and being convicted of or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty of, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude. Here, Petitioner charges that just cause exists, on each of these bases, to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment. As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to establish each element of each offense with which Respondent is charged. Further, whether Respondent committed the charged offenses is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged violation.30/ For the reasons discussed in detail above, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, any of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and therefore failed to prove any of the administrative charges stated in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner asserts in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order that "Petitioner had a number of witnesses to testify to these various events. Respondent had none." This mischaracterizes the evidence presented in this case. Although Petitioner presented the testimony of four persons having personal knowledge of some of the incidents, for several of the allegations, Petitioner presented the testimony of only one witness who had personal knowledge of the alleged incidents, and, as discussed above, often that testimony was not credible. Even when Petitioner presented the testimony of more than one witness regarding a particular allegation, as discussed above, often that testimony was inconsistent on significant details, calling into serious question the credibility and reliability of the testimony. Also, Respondent herself testified. Her testimony was clear, precise, credible, and persuasive, and she provided consistent, logical accounts of the incidents that gave rise to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint.31/ In addition to her own testimony, Respondent presented the testimony of the mother of student J.M., who credibly supported Respondent's version of the incident giving rise to one of the allegations involving her daughter. Here, the undersigned did not find the testimony of Cherelus, Yontz, Brown, or Jobes credible or persuasive on most of the matters about which they testified. As discussed in detail above, in many instances their testimony was vague, unclear, or inconsistent with other testimony or evidence. Moreover, it was abundantly clear that each of these paraprofessionals found Respondent difficult to work with because she was demanding, did not tolerate lax performance, and consistently reminded them that as teacher, she was in charge of the management of her classroom. It was apparent that each of them resented her frequent assertion of authority over them. Each of them had ample motive to be untruthful or to exaggerate regarding certain events——such as those involving J.M. being placed in the restroom, C.R. and Respondent falling on the floor, and T.P. being fed by Respondent. In other instances——such as reclining M.P. in the Rifton chair or directing M.M. to retrieve her snack from the trash can——it is plausible to infer that the paraprofessionals misunderstood Respondent's actions and judged to be inappropriate, when, in fact, they were appropriate under the circumstances. Another factor militating against the paraprofessionals' credibility is that each of them was a mandatory child abuse reporter under Florida law, each of them knew that, and each understood her legal duty. Nonetheless, most of the incidents alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint were not reported until sometime after the incident is alleged to have occurred. In particular, Brown and Jobes first reported that Respondent had engaged in abusive behavior only after she had taken measures to address their classroom performance issues, including her requesting a meeting with the principal and holding her own meeting aimed at, again, addressing their unacceptable behavior and performance. Petitioner focuses on a statement in Respondent's January 23, 2013, email thanking Brown and Jobes for their efforts as indicating that up to that point, Respondent and the paraprofessionals enjoyed a smooth working relationship and that Respondent did not have any problems with their performance, and, in fact, was pleased with their performance. However, this position is contradicted by the strong evidence showing otherwise. Respondent's emails to the school administration dated December 1, 2012, and January 9, 10, and 23, 2013, particularly speak to the ongoing difficulty she was having with both paraprofessionals, even before they submitted statements alleging that she had abused students. Further, the testimony by Brown, Jobes, and Respondent shows that the relationship between Respondent and the paraprofessionals was not a smooth one. In sum, the evidence establishes that the paraprofessionals were not reliable witnesses, and their testimony was neither credible nor persuasive. Conversely, Respondent's testimony was credible and persuasive. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years that violated Department of Education rules and school board policies, and, thus, constituted just cause to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with gross insubordination for failure to appear and provide a statement to the Broward District Schools Police Department on March 11, 2013. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not appear and provide a statement to the Broward Schools Police Department specificially because she had been directed and advised by her BTU representative not to do so. Further, even if Watts did not, in fact, have an understanding with Andersen that Respondent would not provide a statement, it is undisputed that Watts told Respondent that such an understanding existed so that she did not need to appear and provide a statement. Thus, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not intentionally refuse to appear and provide a statement, but, instead, simply and reasonably followed the advice and direction of her BTU representative, who had specifically told her not to appear and provide a statement. Under these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that Respondent intentionally refused to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature. Accordingly, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not commit gross insubordination. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct, alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, that violates Department of Education rules and school board policies. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove that just cause exists to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent; reinstating Respondent's employment as a teacher; and awarding Respondent back pay for the period of her suspension, less the amount of back pay that would be owed for the period commencing on November 6, 2013, and ending on January 23, 2014.42/ DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2015.
The Issue Did Petitioner, Gregory K. Adkins, as Superintendent for the Board of the School District of Lee County, Florida (Superintendent), prove just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres?
Findings Of Fact The Superintendent, on behalf of the School Board of Lee County (Board), is responsible for hiring, overseeing, and terminating, all employees in the school district. At all times material to this case, the Board employed Mr. Torres as a security specialist at East Lee County High School (East Lee). Mr. Torres also sometimes served as an assistant coach and/or substitute athletic trainer. Mr. Torres has worked for the Board since August 5, 2011. For the 2011 through 2015 school years Mr. Torres’ received a final Performance Evaluation with a score of “Effective” in all areas assessed. The "Manager Comments" on Mr. Torres' Final Performance Evaluations consisted of the following: "Mr. Torres is an integral part of the MLE [Mirror Lakes Elementary] team. He has been a great addition to our staff [2014-2015 Evaluation]”; "Mr. Torres is a very valuable asset and is well respected and supported as an integral part of the MLE team [2013-2014 Evaluation]"; "Orlando performs various duties at East: security and coaching. He has done a good job with both. Orlando was accepting of taking on the night security position until a candidate was hired [2012-2013 Evaluation]"; and "Orlando is a team player and is always willing to go above and beyond to help staff and students [2011-2012 Evaluation]." Mr. Torres is a member of SPALC and was a member during all periods relevant to this matter. On February 4, 2016, the Board’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (PS&E) received reports that on several occasions Mr. Torres made inappropriate comments and sexual remarks in the presence of or to female high school students. The comments included suggestions that Mr. Torres was interested in sex with the students. The comments caused the students extreme discomfort and embarrassment and created an inhospitable learning environment. The Board investigated. The information it collected caused the Board to terminate Mr. Torres’ employment. PS&E Coordinator, Andy Brown, conducted an investigation that included interviews of several students and of Mr. Torres. When Mr. Torres met Mr. Brown for his interview, Mr. Torres did not know the reason for the interview. Mr. Brown advised Mr. Torres that he was the subject of an investigation and asked him if he knew what it was about. Mr. Torres said: “When I meet with a female, I always have another female present.” This was not true. Mr. Torres’ spontaneous and dishonest statement in response to simply being asked if he knew what the investigation was about is persuasive evidence that he had improper conversations with female students and is a contributing factor to concluding that his testimony denying the charges is not credible. In November and December of 2015, and January 2016, Mr. Torres made several sexually charged, inappropriate comments to students. Five of the incidents involved N.M., who was an eleventh grade student at the time. N.M.’s mother worked at the school. Consequently, N.M. stayed at school after classes until her mother left work. N.M.’s mother arranged for N.M. to assist Mr. Torres in his training tasks after school. This is how she met Mr. Torres. The arrangement lasted about a week. Around November 2015, Mr. Torres gave N.M. a “high-five.” He prolonged the contact by grabbing her hand and intertwining his fingers with hers. In a separate incident, while giving N.M. a “bandaid” for a scratch, Mr. Torres asked her if she would ever get involved with a married man. She said no and walked away. On another occasion, N.M. encountered Mr. Torres while she was walking to lunch. N.M. was wearing what she described as a “burgundy semi-see-through” shirt. Mr. Torres told her to cover up her “goodies” or her “girls,” referring to her breasts, so nobody else could see them. N.M.’s testimony used the word “girls” while her statement in February 2016 said “goodies.” This minor discrepancy is understandable given the passage of time and the stresses of an interview and testimony. On yet another occasion, Mr. Torres remarked in Spanish, when N.M. bent down, “I like ass.” Mr. Torres spoke to N.M. after she had been called to the school office to provide a statement about a conflict that Mr. Torres had with another student. When he learned the purpose of the request for a statement from N.M., Mr. Torres said, “I thought I was gonna get in trouble for flirting with you; thank god we didn’t take it to second base.” In early February, N.M. was walking with her then- friend S.S., when Mr. Torres exited a room and saw them. He said “you look delic . . ., beautiful,” to N.M., shifting from “delicious” to “beautiful” when he noticed S.S. Mr. Torres also made a comment about wishing N.M. was 18. Another Security Specialist, Russell Barrs, who N.M. considered a friend, overheard bits of a conversation between N.M. and S.S. about the encounter. He asked N.M. about it. She replied with generalities A day or two later N.M. met with Mr. Barrs and provided complete information about Mr. Torres’ comments to her. Mr. Barrs reported this to Assistant Principal Edward Matthews. Mr. Matthews launched the investigation. It is noteworthy that S.S., whose friendship with N.M. ended, still testified to the same events as N.M. did. The two had a falling out sometime in 2016. The testimony of S.S. was not a matter of loyal support for a friend. In fact, the tone and body language of both students gave the distinct impression that the end of the friendship was not pleasant. N.M.’s mother had just started working at the school. N.M. did not immediately report Mr. Torres’ advances to her mother or other adults. When she did report them, her initial statements were incomplete and vague. She just told her mother she was not comfortable being in the room with Mr. Torres. She also told her mother that Mr. Torres “says things.” Later, after speaking to Mr. Barrs, N.M. provided her mother a complete description of the comments. After classes, Mr. Torres spent a good deal of time in the training room where first aid supplies and ice are stored for student-athletes. The training room was divided into two smaller rooms separated by a door that was usually shut. One room contained the ice machine, other equipment, and supplies. The other part of the room served as an office for Mr. Torres. Students, including N.M. and C.P., assisted or visited with Mr. Torres in the training room at times. C.P. was a female student who served as one of the managers for the girls’ basketball team. Once while observing her prepare an ice pack by sucking air out of it, Mr. Torres said words to the effect of “like how you suck a boy’s dick.” C.P. was a ninth grader at the time. Mr. Torres also told her that he would like to marry her when she turned 18. Another time, Mr. Torres tried to hug C.P. Mr. Torres also told C.P. that they should not talk in the hall because the security video cameras may record them. Another time, after overhearing a discussion in Spanish by several female students about sexual activity, Mr. Torres told C.P. that if he ever had sex with her he would break her. Two or three times Mr. Torres told C.P. that she was beautiful and he wanted to marry her after she graduated. The comments made C.P. extremely uncomfortable and unsure of what to do. She was scared. She quit her position as manager to avoid contact with Mr. Torres. Like N.M., C.P. was slow to report the comments to an adult. When she first told her step-mother she described Mr. Torres’ comments as coming from a substitute teacher. C.P. was scared and did not want to get involved. When she did, the details understandably came out in bits and pieces. Mr. Torres’ improper familiarity with students N.M. and C.P. and his sexually charged comments were frequent and varied. They were improper and detrimental to the emotional and mental health of the students. The crux of Mr. Torres’ defense is that none of the testimony about his actions is true. His testimony is not as credible as that of the students who testified to his offenses. One reason, mentioned earlier, is Mr. Torres’ spontaneous statement when Mr. Brown met him for the interview that he was never alone with a female. It manifests guilt and anxiousness that would not be present without his being aware of his improper behavior. Another reason is that the testimony of the students is sufficiently consistent to provide credibility. And N.M., C.P., and S.S. all made reports within a few months of Mr. Torres’ comments. A third reason is that N.M.’s testimony was supported by S.S. at hearing even though their earlier friendship had ended. A fourth reason is that there is no evidence of a motive for N.M., S.S., and C.P to fabricate their reports. For the time period when Mr. Torres made the comment to C.P. about “breaking her,” several students offered differing testimony about who was in the room when and whether Mr. Torres was giving a student instruction on a trumpet. This testimony is not sufficient to impeach the credibility of N.M. and C.P. Those were not the students to whom the offending remarks were made. The details of that day would not have been noteworthy to them at the time. Similarly, given the nature of Mr. Torres’ comments, the details of exactly who was present when would have been secondary to N.M. and C.P. Finally, Mr. Torres made one particularly transparent and deliberate effort to manipulate the truth during cross-examination that undermines relying on Mr. Torres’ testimony. Early in the hearing, in Mr. Torres’ presence, the Board attempted to enter evidence that during prior employment as a detention officer with the Sheriff of Lee County, Mr. Torres reacted to teasing by other officers by drawing his service pistol. The objection to the evidence was sustained. Later Mr. Torres testified that the testimony against him was not credible because he would never take such risks at a school where his wife was also employed, his children were students, and N.M.’s mother was employed. This testimony opened the door to the pistol drawing incident as evidence of Mr. Torres taking risky actions at work. The exchange about the incident, starting at page 329 of Volume II of the Transcript, follows: Q: But you engaged in risky behavior in your two law enforcement jobs prior, did you not? A: I don’t consider that risky behavior. Q: Well, you don’t consider pulling your service revolver as risky behavior? [objection and ruling] A: I have never carried a revolver. Q: Your service weapon, sir? ALJ: You said you never carried a revolver. Have you ever carried a pistol? A: Yes sir. ALJ: Next question. Q: Would you consider pulling your service pistol in an inappropriate manner risky behavior, sir? A: Yes, sir. Mr. Torres testified with full knowledge from the earlier attempt to introduce evidence of the incident to what the question referred. His answer was hair-splitting at best and demonstrated a willingness to shade, if not evade, the truth that significantly undermines his credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order finding just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres, and dismissing him from his position with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges (as finally amended)? If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County with just or proper cause to take disciplinary action against him? If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent: School Board Employment Respondent has been employed by the School Board since March 23, 1979. He is currently under suspension pending the outcome of these disciplinary proceedings. For the duration of his employment with the School Board until his suspension, Respondent was a custodial worker assigned to the D.A. Dorsey Educational Center (Center). At the time of his suspension, he was a lead custodian at the Center and, in the opinion of the principal of the Center, Stella Johnson, "do[ing] a fine job" performing his custodial duties. As the lead custodian, Respondent occupied a position of trust inasmuch as he had the keys to the Center and ready access to School Board property inside the building. Furthermore, at times, the performance of his custodial duties brought him in direct contact with students. Respondent: Post-Hire "Criminal History" and School Board Reaction to Reports of His Criminal ConductThe 1985 Warning In the summer of 1985, Respondent was the subject of a School Board police investigation. The results of the investigation were set forth in an investigative report prepared by the School Board police. Upon receiving the investigative report, which indicated that Respondent had been arrested after a purse snatching incident and charged with armed robbery, Henry Horstmann, a director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, scheduled a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. At the time of the conference, according to the information Horstmann had received, the armed robbery charge against Respondent had not been resolved. Horstmann warned Respondent at this 1985 conference- for-the-record that criminal activity on Respondent's part, whether occurring on or off the job, could lead to Respondent's dismissal. Approximately a year later, Horstmann was advised that the criminal proceeding against Respondent had ended with Respondent pleading guilty to, and being convicted of, the crime of "attempting to solicit." Because Respondent was "a good employee insofar as his performance at the work site," the principal of the Center02 wanted him to remain in his position. Consequently, he was not terminated. The Thefts at the Pembroke Lakes Mall In the fall of 1994, while working a second job that involved helping in the cleaning of the Pembroke Lakes Mall in Pembroke Pines, Florida, Respondent stole merchandise from stores in the mall (after business hours when the stores were closed). On November 28, 1994, Respondent gave a statement to Pembroke Pines police confessing to these crimes.03 Criminal charges were filed against Respondent. On April 25, 1995, based upon guilty pleas that he had entered, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of: one count of burglary in Broward County 02 Stella Johnson was not the principal of the Center at the time. It was not until August of 1991 that she became principal of the school. 03 In response to a question asked by the interrogating officer, Respondent stated that he committed these crimes because he had "[p]roblems . . . marriage, jobs, Circuit Court Case No. 95000607CF10A; one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 95000609CF10A; one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 94020151CF10A; and one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 95000671CF10A. In each of these cases, he was sentenced to 90 days in the Broward County Jail and one year of probation. The sentences were to run concurrently. In August of 1995, Johnson received a telephone call from Respondent's probation officer, who was seeking verification of Respondent's employment status. It was during this telephone conversation with Respondent's probation officer that Johnson first learned of the thefts that Respondent had committed while working at the Pembroke Lakes Mall. Immediately after the conclusion of the conversation, Johnson telephoned the Office of Professional Standards for guidance and direction.04 In accordance with the advice she was given, Johnson requested the School Board police to conduct an investigation of Respondent's criminal background. Pursuant to Johnson's request, on or about October 25, 1995, School Board police conducted such an investigation and apprised her, in writing, of the preliminary results of the investigation. Johnson passed on the information she had received from the School Board police to the Office of Professional Standards. Thereafter, a conference-for-the-record was scheduled to address Respondent's "future employment status with Dade County Public Schools." The conference-for-the-record was held on February 7, 1996. Dr. James Monroe, the executive director of the Office of Professional Standards, prepared, and bills, drugs, just problems." 04 Johnson advised the Office of Professional Standards during this telephone call that there had been a series of thefts of school property at her school and that, in some instances, it appeared that one or more school employees might be responsible because of the absence of any signs of forced entry. Johnson, however, had insufficient evidence to prove that Respondent was the perpetrator of any of these thefts. subsequently furnished to Respondent, a memorandum (dated February 28, 1996) in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: On February 7, 1996, a conference-for-the-record was held with you [Respondent] in the Office of Professional Standards conducted by this administrator. In attendance were Ms. Stella Johnson, Principal, Dorsey Educational Center, Mr. Nelson Perez, District Director, Ms. Chris Harris, Bargaining Agent Representative, American Federation of State, County, [and] Municipal Employees, and this administrator. The conference was held to address Investigative Report No. A00007 concerning your prior arrest, and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools. Service History As you reported in this conference, you were initially employed by Dade County Public Schools as a Custodian on March 23, 1979 and assigned to D.A. Dorsey Educational Center to the present. Conference Data Reviewed A Review of the record included reference to the following investigative issues: This administrator presented to and reviewed with you a copy of the investigative report in its entirety. In reference to your arrest of November 28, 1994, you reported having been detained by police authorities and that you remain on probation through April 4, 1996.05 You declined to make a comment when asked about your arrest of August 18, 1990 for purchase/possession of cocaine. This administrator noted a similar arrest of May 30, 1986 for possession of marijuana for which you declined to make a comment. In reference to your arrest of June 22, 1985, I noted that you had been arrested (May 30, 1986) while under a three year probation during the period of September 17, 1985 through September 17, 1988. Ms. Harris raised a question as to the need to address prior arrests. Ms. Johnson expressed concern relative to recurring incidents of theft during time periods for which you had been granted permission to enter the facilities during off duty hours. Ms. Johnson reported having previously discussed these incidents with you. Ms. Johnson noted that your second arrest had adversely impacted your overall effectiveness as an employee inasmuch as your assigned duties and responsibilities include making provisions for the maintenance, cleaning and security of School Board equipment and property. 0 5 It appears that, at the time of this 5 Cont. February 7, 1996, conference-for-the-record, the School Board administration knew that Respondent had been adjudicated guilty of, and sentenced for, the crimes (of burglary and grand theft) he had committed at the Pembroke Lakes Mall. This administrator presented to you and reviewed with you memoranda dated March 13, 1984, February 17, 1984, February 9, 1984, December 12, 1983 and November 2, 1983 in their entirety. I specifically reviewed with you the principal's notation of your unacceptable performance relative to your failure to secure gates and doors as required. Ms. Johnson noted that she has discussed similar occurrence with you on a recurring basis. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Associate Superintendent in the Bureau of Professional Standards and Operations, the Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Applied Technology, Adult, Career and Community Education, and the Principal of Dorsey Education[al] Center. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of their recommendations will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include: a letter of reprimand, suspension or dismissal. You were apprised of your rights to clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. On or about July 2, 1996, the School Board police supplemented its previous report of the results of its investigation of Respondent's criminal record. On September 25, 1996, another conference-for-the-record was held concerning Respondent's "future employment status with Dade County Public Schools." Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, who had conducted the September 25, 1996, conference-for-the-record on behalf of the Office of Professional Standards, prepared, and sent to Respondent, a summary of the conference. The summary, which was dated September 30, 1996, read as follows: On September 25, 1996, a conference-for-the-record was held with you [Respondent] in the Office of Professional Standards, In attendance were Ms. Stella Johnson, Principal, Miami Skill Center, Mr. Herman Bain, Board Member, AFSCME, and this administrator. The conference was held to address your noncompliance with School Board policy and rules regarding Conduct Unbecoming a School Board Employee and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools. Service History As you reported in this conference, you were initially employed by Dade County Public Schools as a Custodian in 1979 and assigned to Dorsey Education Center where you have remained. I began by reviewing the reason for this conference which is to discuss a Records Check that revealed a total of four arrests. The last arrest was in 1994 for burglary and grand theft and it resulted in an adjudication of guilty. You said that during that period of time when you had been arrested, you had personal problems. However, currently that is no longer the case and you have your life under control. Ms. Johnson, your principal, said that your work performance is good and you do a fine job. Your attendance is also good. Your union representative requested a copy of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, Employee Conduct, which was provided. I explained that although your arrests were not directly related to your Dade County Public Schools job, there is a level of expectation regarding employee conduct and your arrests place you in violation of that expectation. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of their recommendation will compel formal notification of the recommended action of disciplinary measures to include: a letter of reprimand, suspension, dismissal, or the imposition of community service. You were apprised of your rights to clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. Since there were not further questions or comments, the conference was adjourned. At its October 23, 1996, meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against him "for just cause, including violation of employee conduct rule and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude." The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a lead custodian employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by AFSCME and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME, effective July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1997 (AFSCME Contract). Article II, Section 3, of the AFSCME Contract provides as follows: ARTICLE II- RECOGNITION SECTION 3. The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following: (1) selection and promotion of employees; (2) separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; (3) the designation of the organizational structure of the DCPS and lines of administrative authority of DCPS. It is understood and agreed that management possess the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; Direct the work force; Hire, assign, and transfer employees; Determine the missions of the Board agencies; Determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed or desirable for carrying out the Board's missions; Introduce new or improved methods or facilities; Change existing methods or facilities; Relieve employees because of lack of work; Contract out for goods or services; and, Such other rights, normally consistent with management's duty and responsibility for operation of the Board's services, provided, however, that the exercise of such rights does not preclude the Union from conferring about the practical consequences that decisions may have on terms and conditions of employment. Article IX of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "working conditions." Section 11 of Article IX is entitled "Personal Life." It provides as follows: The private and personal life of an employee, except for such incidents and occurrences which could lead to suspension and dismissal as provided by statute, shall not be within the appropriate concern of the Board.06 0 6 This provision of the AFSCME Contract does not protect employees who engage in criminal conduct inasmuch as the commission of a crime Article XI of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "disciplinary action." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled "Due Process." It provides as follows: Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed: 1. verbal warning; 2. written warning (acknowledged); and, 3. A. Conference-for-the-Record. Conference-for-the-Record shall be held as the first step when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated personnel investigation. The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME bargaining unit members shall be is not a "private and personal" matter. Rather, it is "an offense against the public." Shaw v. Fletcher, 188 So. 135, 136 (Fla. 1939). consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline (i.e., in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record). The employee shall have the right to representation in Conferences-for-the-Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated. The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notification of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit. Section 2 of Article XI is entitled "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade." It provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action. The Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and reductions- in-grade. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Dismissal, suspension, reduction-in-grade, and non- reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 3 of Article XI is entitled "Cause for Suspension." It provides as follows: In those cases where any employee has not complied with Board policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent. Section 4 of Article XI is entitled "Types of Separation." It provides, in part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any four distinct types of separation. Voluntary-- The employee initiates the separation by resigning, retiring, abandoning the position, or other unilateral action by the employee. Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence. Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. Non-reappointment-- The employee is separated by management's decision not to offer another annual contract. However, such non-reappointment shall not be in lieu of discipline or lay-off. Employees whose performance has been deemed marginal by the supervising administrator, who have been counseled during the school year concerning performance, and have failed to perform acceptably shall not be reappointed. Such employees and the Union shall be put on written notice of possible non-reappointment. Counseling and written notice of non- reappointment shall be provided in a timely manner. This action shall not be arbitrary or capricious, but based upon reason for the best interest of the employer. AFSCME bargaining unit members employed by the school district in excess of five years shall not be subject to non-reappointment. Such employees may only be discharged for just cause. Layoff-- . . . The factors most important in determining what type of separation occurred for a given employee are: which party initiated the action; what time of the work year the action occurred; and the employer's expressed intent. Appendix III of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "classification plan and procedures." Section R of Appendix III is entitled "Custodial Services." It provides, in part, as follows: The following guidelines and procedures will be implemented regarding the organization and provision of custodial services. 1. SUPERVISION The site administrator (e.g., principal) shall have overall responsibility and supervisory authority for all custodial activities and resultant facility condition. The principal's responsibility in this area is typically and properly delegated to the site Head custodian (or, in a few very large facilities, to a Plant Foreman). The Head Custodian (or Plant Foreman) shall be responsible for all custodial activities on all shifts. Custodians who lead other custodial workers in a group or team shall be designated as Lead Custodians. Lead Custodians would be limited to one per shift, per site. Where a single custodian is assigned to a shift and is responsible for closing and securing the facility at the end of that shift, that custodian would also be designated as a Lead Custodian. . . . CAREER LADDER The custodial career ladder shall include criteria/guidelines, as outlined below: Job Classification . . . Site Custodian . . . Lead Custodian . . . Head Custodian . . . Plant Foreman . . . Master Custodian . . . TRAINING . . . Site Custodian (1) Works at a school or facility site . . . Lead/Head Custodian or Plant Foreman (1) This is a leadership position at a school or facility site. . . . The School Board's Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, 6Gx13-4C-1.02, and 6Gx13- 4C-1.021 As a School Board employee, Respondent was obligated to act in accordance with School Board rules and regulations,07 including Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I), 6Gx13-4C-1.02, and 6Gx13- 4C1.021,08 which provide as follows: Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I) Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES 07 These rules and regulations are referred to in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract. Pursuant to Article XI, violation of these rules and regulations can lead to disciplinary action. 08 An employee who does not meet his responsibility of complying with School Board rules and regulations is guilty of "non- performance of job responsibilities," as that term is used in Article XI, Section 4.C., of the AFSCME Contract. I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. 6Gx13-4C-1.02 Activities NON-INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms its wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. 6Gx13-4C-1.021 FINGERPRINTING OF ALL EMPLOYEES UPON APPLICATION AND EMPLOYMENT Pursuant to Florida Statute 231.02, it is the intent of the School Board to insure that only individuals of good moral character09 be employed by the school system. The Dade County Public Schools work force is mobile and an employee in the course of a career may be assigned to various work locations where students are present. It is thus necessary to perform the appropriate security checks on all newly hired personnel. All applicants for full-time and part- time jobs shall be fingerprinted at the time of application for employment. When the applicant is hired, the district shall file a complete set of fingerprints on the new hire with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). FDLE will process and submit the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for federal processing. The cost of fingerprinting and the fingerprint processing shall be borne by the employee. All new employees, full and part-time, shall be on probationary status pending fingerprint processing and determination, based on results of the fingerprint check, of compliance with standards of good moral character. Employees not found to be of good 0 9 Individuals who engage in "immorality," as defined in Rule 6B-4.009(2), Florida Administrative Code, (i.e., conduct "inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals [which is] sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community") are not "individuals of good moral character," within the meaning of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.021. moral character will have their probationary employment terminated. For purposes of this rule, good moral character means exemplifying the acts and conduct which could cause a reasonable person to have confidence in an individual's honesty, fairness and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation. The Dade County Public Schools shall review fingerprint reports and determine if an employee's criminal record contains crimes involving moral turpitude. For purposes of this rule, moral turpitude means "a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties, which, according to the accepted standards of the time, a person owes to other people or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statutes, fixes moral turpitude." Rule 6B-4.009(6), FAC. Employees found through fingerprint processing to have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude will be terminated from employment. Crimes which may demonstrate moral turpitude include but are not limited to: Murder (Section 782.04 F.S.) Manslaughter (Section 782.07 F.S.) Vehicular homicide (Section 782.071 F.S.) Killing an unborn child by injury to the mother (Section 782.09 F.S.) Assault upon a minor (Section 784.011 F.S.) Aggravated assault (Section 784.021 F.S.) Aggravated assault relating to battery upon a minor (Section 784.03 F.S.) Aggravated battery (Section 784.045 F.S.) Kidnapping (Section 787.01 F.S.) False imprisonment (Section 787.02 F.S.) Removing children from the state or concealing children contrary to court order (Section 787.04 F.S.) Sexual battery (Section 794.011 F.S.) Carnal intercourse with an unmarried person under 18 years of age (Section 794.05 F.S.) Prostitution (Chapter 796 F.S.) Arson (Section 806.01 F.S.) Robbery (Section 812.13 F.S.) Incest (Section 826.04 F.S.) Aggravated child abuse (Section 827.03 F.S.) Child abuse (Section 827.04 F.S.) Negligent treatment of children (Section 827.05 F.S.) Sexual performance by a child (Section 827.071 F.S.) Exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult (Section 825.102 F.S.) Drug abuse if the offense was a felony or if any other person involved in the offense was a minor (Chapter 893 F.S.) If the administration finds it appropriate upon consideration of the particular circumstances of an applicant's/employee's case (timing, persons involved, specific mitigating facts), a determination may be made finding that such crime as applied to the applicant/employee does not involve moral turpitude. A probationary employee terminated because of lack of good moral character including but not necessarily limited to conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude shall have the right to appeal such decision to Labor Relations and Personnel Management. The request for appeal must be filed within 15 days following notification of termination. Personnel who have been fingerprinted and processed in accordance with this rule and who have had a break in service of more than 90 days shall be required to be re- fingerprinted in order to be re-employed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order finding that, for the reasons set forth above, "disciplinary action" against Respondent is warranted and imposing upon Respondent the "disciplinary action" described in paragraph 61 of this Recommended Order. 016 Failure to do so may result in further "disciplinary action" being taken against him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of March, 1997. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1997.
The Issue Whether Respondent's suspension from employment with the Dade County School Board should be affirmed and whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with the Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jill Cohen (Ms. Cohen), has been a school teacher for fifteen years. At all times material hereto, Ms. Cohen, was employed by Petitioner, Dade County School Board (School Board) as an elementary school teacher under a continuing contract. 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 Dade County, Florida. On April 27, 1989, Ms. Cohen, while employed at Edison Park Elementary School, had to leave her classroom for a personal hygiene emergency. She asked another teacher with whom she shared the classroom to watch her students while she went to the school clinic. The other teacher advised Ms. Cohen that in a few minutes she had to pick the students up at the physical education field. While Ms. Cohen was absent, the other teacher had to leave the classroom to get her own students. With both teachers absent from the classroom, Ms. Cohen's students were left unsupervised. On May 8, 1989, a conference-for-the-record was held with Ms. Cohen concerning the incident on April 27, 1989, and eleven tardies Ms. Cohen had from January 12, 1989 through May 2, 1989. She was advised that she had a professional responsibility to supervise her students at all times, that leaving students unsupervised was a violation of school and state rules and regulations, and that she was required to report to work on time. Ms. Cohen was told that if an emergency requiring her to leave her class unsupervised arose, she was to notify the administrator so that supervision could be arranged. Additionally, she was advised that future incidents of this nature would result in a recommendation for further disciplinary action. On January 19, 1990, Ms. Cohen left her students unsupervised. During this unsupervised period, one child allegedly sexually abused another student. Upon returning to the classroom, Ms. Cohen learned of the incident and spanked the alleged perpetrator. Ms. Cohen did not report the incident. A conference-for-the record was held on February 5, 1990, concerning the January 19, 1990 incident and another alleged incident of lack of supervision. Ms. Cohen was again advised that she must provide adequate supervision of her students at all times and that if she had an emergency necessitating her absence, she was to contact the administrator. She was told that any reoccurrence of her failure to supervise her students would be deemed gross insubordination for which further disciplinary action would be recommended. Ms. Cohen was given a letter of reprimand. In February, 1990, Ms. Cohen was given an alternate work assignment through June, 1990 at Region IV Operations. The incident of January 19, 1990, was investigated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The same incident was also investigated by the State Attorney's Office which brought charges against Ms. Cohen. As a result of these charges brought by the State Attorney, Ms. Cohen entered into a pre-trial advocacy program. A conference-for-the-record was held with Ms. Cohen on May 29, 1990, concerning the January 19, 1990, incident. On September 25, 1990, Ms. Cohen and the School Board entered into a Community Service Agreement, in lieu of suspension, dismissal, or demotion. The agreement included 160 hours of community service, tutoring students, and counseling students. The Florida Commissioner of Education filed an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Cohen as a result of the January 19, 1990, incident. The Administrative Complaint was resolved with a settlement whereby Ms. Cohen did not contest the allegations that Respondent failed to supervise students and spanked a student as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. As a result of the settlement agreement with Commissioner Castor, Ms. Cohen was given a written reprimand, her state teaching certificate was suspended for eight days, she was placed on three years probation, and was required to undergo psychological evaluation and counseling. Ms. Cohen received an overall unacceptable performance evaluation for the school year 1989-90. Ms. Cohen was assigned to the Morningside Elementary School (Morningside) for the 1990-91 school year due to the notoriety stemming from the January 19, 1990 incident. On June 11, 1991, Ms. Cohen accidently hit a student on the head with a stick. The student did not cry or tell Ms. Cohen that his head hurt. At the time of the incident, there were no physical signs on the student that he had been hit. Later a bump appeared on his forehead. When the student went home, he told his mother what happened. She called the police. The next day the student's mother, accompanied by a police officer, went to see the school principal. Ms. Cohen had not reported the accidental hitting of the student. The principal first learned of the accident when the parent and police officer met with the principal. As a result of the accidental hitting of the student, HRS, investigated the allegations and submitted a final report where the investigation was closed without classification. Ms. Cohen received an unacceptable performance evaluation for the school year 1990-91. Ms. Cohen was returned to Region IV Operations for alternate work assignment on August 29, 1991. In lieu of harsher disciplinary action, Ms. Cohen entered into another Community Service Agreement with the School Board on October 8, 1991. Ms. Cohen agreed to perform 200 hours of community service. On October 22, 1991, Ms. Cohen received a written reprimand relating to the June 11, 1991 incident. She was directed to implement appropriate procedures for dealing with inappropriate student behavior. Ms. Cohen was warned that further such incidents would be considered insubordination and would warrant further disciplinary action. After a psychological examination, Ms. Cohen was returned to Morningside for classroom duty in either December, 1991, or January, 1992, with conditions of employment which included, among other conditions, acceptable attendance at the work site and adherence to site directives, prescriptive directives and Code of Ethics stipulations. Ms. Cohen's performance began to improve and she received an acceptable performance evaluation for the 1991-92 school year. At the beginning of the school year 1992-93, the faculty at Morningside were advised that their students must be supervised and students were not to be left unattended. During the first week of school the teachers were given a faculty handbook, which was discussed at the first faculty meeting. The Morningside Elementary School Faculty Handbook provides the following pertinent directives: Discipline: It is the professional responsibility of the teacher to handle routine disciplinary problems. When it becomes necessary for a student to be removed from the classroom, the teacher should seek assistance from the principal, or his/her designee. No Student is to be removed from a classroom and placed in an area that is unsupervised by a qualified person. . . . (at page 1) . . . Supervision of Children: Children should be supervised by adults at all times. Teachers are responsible for walking children to and from physical education. In cases of emergencies, if you must leave students unattended, leave your door open and notify the teacher next door. (at page 3) . . . DISCIPLINE PLAN: Staff members are asked to have a discipline plan on file outlining steps taken to ensure understanding of class and school rules, procedures to be implemented when rules are not followed and positive reinforcement strategies. The county approved Assertive Discipline Plan is the preferred plan for all teachers. (at page 4). . . . PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING STUDENTS WHO ARE SENT TO THE OFFICE. In instances where the routine procedures for handling misbehaving students has not been effective, or if the incident is of a more serious nature, i.e., fighting, defiance of authority, vandalism, teachers will call upon the assistant principal, counselor or principal for assistance. (at page 5) . . . SOME DON'T'S: . . . Put child outside the classroom unsupervised. If a child needs to be excluded from class, send him/her to the office. (at page 7) . . . Accidents and Injury Reports - Student: When a child under your supervision is injured, notify the office and an accident report will be issued. This form must be filled in within 24 hours. (at page 28) At Morningside the teachers pick their students up at the physical education field at the beginning of the school day and escort them to the classroom. During January and February, 1993, Ms. Cohen was late to work three times, resulting in her students being late to class on those days. Ms. Cohen had prepared a discipline plan for the school year which plan provided for a student to have time out in another classroom as part of the progressive discipline. Her discipline plan was posted in her classroom, but had not been filed with the school administrator. Other teachers at Morningside had discipline plans which included time out for students in another classroom. The practice, however, was to not send a child alone. If the teacher or her assistant was unable to accompany the student, the teacher would send two other students to escort the child being disciplined to another classroom. Sometimes the teachers would call the office for assistance. On February 3, 1993, a student in Ms. Cohen's kindergarten class was coloring in a coloring book. Ms. Cohen took the coloring book away from the student. As a disciplinary measure, Ms. Cohen decided to send the student to another classroom for time out. She did not use the call button to alert the principal that she needed assistance. Ms. Cohen took the child to the door of their classroom and told the student to go to Ms. Holden's classroom. Ms. Holden's classroom was down the hall from Ms. Cohen's classroom. The doorway to Ms. Holden's classroom was recessed and could not be seen from Ms. Cohen's doorway. Ms. Cohen saw the student go down the hall but did not see her go into Ms. Holden's classroom. The student did not go into Ms. Holden's classroom, but stood outside and began to cry loudly. A school employee discovered the crying student alone in the hallway and took the student to the office. Morningside is located close to Biscayne Boulevard near an industrial district and a high crime area, known for prostitution and drug dealing. The school is designed with open corridors and no fencing around the school. Vagrants loiter around the school. On May 17, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held to address the February 3, 1993, incident. Ms. Cohen received a performance evaluation for 1992-93 of unacceptable. On July 14, 1993, a pre-dismissal conference-for-the record was held with Ms. Cohen to address the pending dismissal action scheduled for the School Board meeting of July 21, 1993. At the July 21, 1993, meeting the School Board voted to suspend Ms. Cohen and commence dismissal proceedings against her. The Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade have entered into a collective bargaining agreement (Labor Contract) which provides in pertinent part on page 15: ARTICLE VII - SAFE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Section 1. Student Discipline A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. Such an environment requires that disruptive behavior be dealt with safely, fairly, consistently, and in a manner which incorporates progressive disciplinary measures specified in the Code of Student Conduct. . . . E. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive, prior to or upon the student's return to the classroom, a report describing corrective action(s) taken. Guidelines for implementing this provision shall be developed by each Faculty Council/Shared Decision-Making Cadre. At page 88, the Labor Contract provides in pertinent part: Section 3. Workday The employee workday shall be seven hours and five minutes for employees at the elementary level . . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Ms. Cohen guilty of incompetency, insubordination and willful neglect of duty, sustaining her suspension without pay, and dismissing her from employment from the School Board of Dade County without back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 3rd day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4232 The following rulings are made on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: The first three sentences are accepted in substance. The last two sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 5-6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 8-18: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 19: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 20: Rejected as immaterial since Ms. Cohen received an acceptable performance evaluation for the year 1991-92. Paragraph 21: Rejected as unnecessary to the facts found. Paragraph 22: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 23: Rejected as unnecessary to the facts found. Paragraphs 24-26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence with the exception of "hysterically" is accepted in substance. The portion of the last sentence that Ms. Cohen was assigned to the region office is accepted and the remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 28: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected to the extent that Petitioner is inferring that Ms. Cohen did not see the child to the doorway of Ms. Cohen's classroom. Paragraph 29: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 30: The first two sentences are not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 31: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 32: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 33: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 34: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 35: Rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 Southwest Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's employment by the School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert F. Ward was employed by the School Board as a teacher and was assigned to Richmond Heights Middle School, pursuant to a professional service contract. Willie Harris was the principal of Richmond Heights from 1988 to 1995. During those years, Harris gave Respondent verbal directives to follow School Board rules concerning the discipline of students. As punishment, Respondent inappropriately used excessive writing and standing and inappropriately placed students outside the classroom. Each time Respondent was warned that he was violating School Board rules in his methods of disciplining students, he would stop using those methods for a while but would then return to those methods and be warned again. Harris found it necessary to counsel Respondent every year. Principal Harris learned that Respondent responded better to male authority figures than to female authority figures. He, therefore, gave Respondent directives himself or through male administrators. Mona Bethel Jackson became the principal of Richmond Heights in July 1997. On October 2, 1998, Denise Franze, a parent, submitted a written complaint to Principal Jackson concerning Respondent's behavior at the school's Open House because Respondent appeared to be a very angry person. He spent the entire time that he met with her and other parents complaining about the school. She requested that her child be transferred out of Respondent's class. Respondent wrote her a very insulting, unprofessional response letter. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On November 17, 1998, Respondent left his class unsupervised, and two students became involved in a fight. Respondent was directed to properly supervise his class and was directed not to place any students outside his class unsupervised. At a faculty meeting on January 13, 1999, Principal Jackson reviewed School Board policies prohibiting inappropriate language/teacher conduct. At a faculty meeting on February 16, 1999, Jackson reviewed School Board procedures regarding the supervision of students. On March 26, 1999, student D. L. was being disruptive. Respondent told her to go outside the classroom. Because it was raining, D. L. refused to leave. Respondent again ordered her to go outside and called her "dumb." He then left his class unsupervised to deliver a memorandum regarding D. L.'s behavior to the school administrators. An assistant principal directed Respondent not to leave his class unsupervised. On March 30, 1999, Respondent was inside his newly- assigned portable classroom, by himself, writing on the board. An assistant principal asked Respondent where his students were, and Respondent answered that he did not know. Some of Respondent's students were found outside the portable classroom unsupervised, and others were found in the auditorium also unsupervised. Also on March 30, Respondent used the words "hell" and "damn" while aggressively reprimanding D. L., shouting at her, and shaking his fingers in her face. Respondent was reminded that School Board rules prohibit unseemly conduct and the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students. On April 1, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was conducted with Respondent to address his failure to supervise his class, his inappropriate reprimand of a student, his lack of emergency lesson plans, and related matters. As a result of the conference, Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in professional responsibilities and was provided with a prescription to address his deficiencies. The prescription was to be completed by June 16, 1999. If done properly, the prescription should have taken no more than three weeks to complete. At the conference, Respondent was also directed to follow school procedures for the removal of disruptive students from class, to not leave students unsupervised at any time, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, to prepare lesson plans each day, to replenish emergency lesson plans, and to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. He was warned that failure to comply with these directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. Respondent was given a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. On April 22, 1999, Respondent failed to report to the media center at the conclusion of a teacher workshop as directed in writing prior to the workshop and, again, at the beginning of the workshop. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998/99 school year was unsatisfactory due to Respondent's deficiencies in the area of professional responsibility. On June 16, 1999, Respondent's prescriptive activities were deemed unacceptable because they were careless, sarcastic, and unprofessional. Respondent admits that the prescriptive work he turned in to Principal Jackson was inappropriate. Respondent did not take his prescriptive activities seriously and did not attempt to benefit from them. On June 18, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to re-do his prescriptive activities and turn them in by October 1, 1999. Because Respondent ended the school year in an unacceptable status, his salary was frozen and he was precluded from summer school employment. Respondent assigned two students to detentions to be served before school on September 15 and 16, 1999. The students arrived at approximately 7:15 a.m. both days. At 8:00 a.m., Respondent had not yet arrived to supervise them on either day. When the bell rang at 9:00 a.m. to begin the school day, Respondent was still not there. One child's grandmother, who was concerned about the children not being supervised, complained to the school administrators. September 20, 1999, was a teacher planning day. Respondent was not present during his assigned work hours, 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. An "all call" for him was made over the public address system at 9:28 a.m., which went throughout the school. Respondent did not respond. An assistant principal checked his classroom, but Respondent was not there. She was unable to locate his car in the parking lot, and he had not signed the attendance roster. When Respondent arrived at approximately 10:00 a.m., he told Principal Jackson that he was not in the building because he had stopped at Publix. At the final hearing, Respondent testified that he was probably in the wood shop working on a personal project during his work hours when the "all call" announcement was made for him. Respondent failed to complete his prescription by the October 1, 1999, deadline. A conference-for-the-record was held on that date to address parental complaints about Respondent. The complaints involved the unsupervised detentions, Respondent's requiring students to stand for almost two hours as punishment, and Respondent's requiring students to write essays as punishment. Parents also complained that Respondent punished the entire class when only one student misbehaved. Respondent admitted that he administered those punishments. Respondent was directed to refrain from having students write essays for punishment, to refrain from having students stand for punishment, to refrain from assigning detentions when students would not be supervised by Respondent, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and to follow all directives previously given to him. Since Respondent was already on prescription and had failed to complete the prescriptive activities by the October 1 deadline, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to complete his prescription by January 26, 2000. Respondent was warned that failure to comply with the directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. He was again provided with a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule. On October 13, 1999, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss complaints from three parents. The complaints were that Respondent did not give clear directions to the students, that he had humiliated a student, that he required students to write essays as punishment, and that he was assigning math as punishment to his social studies students. The parents complained that Respondent was using academics as punishment. Principal Jackson directed him to stop humiliating students, to stop intimidating students, and to provide in-class assistance. She also directed Respondent to stop assigning math and requiring students to write repetitive "lines" as punishment. She directed Respondent to correct his grading practices and to not retaliate against any students. Respondent was given copies of the letters from the parents. The math that was assigned by Respondent was not an appropriate assignment for a sixth-grade geography class. The interim progress reports Respondent gave to his students corroborate that Respondent was using essays as punishment. After the conference, Respondent informed secretarial staff that he would be absent the next day, which was the day of the school's open house. Teachers have a contractual requirement to attend the school's open house. Respondent was not absent as a result of an illness or an emergency; rather, he simply decided to take a personal holiday on that day. On October 19, 1999, Respondent responded to a parental complaint with a letter that was unprofessional, demeaning, and insulting. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On October 29, 1999, Respondent was directed to report for a conference-for-the-record in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards on November 4, 1999. On November 2, 1999, Respondent attended a round-table discussion with a counselor, the parents of a student, the student, and all of that student's teachers. Respondent was abrasive to the student, loud, and intimidating. The student, who was communicative and comfortable before Respondent arrived at the meeting, was uncomfortable and would not speak while Respondent was present. After Respondent arrived, the student "clammed up," and his eyes "teared up." The next day, the student's father brought a letter to school reciting what had happened at the meeting and requesting that the student be transferred out of Respondent's class. The father and Respondent encountered each other in the school office, and Respondent invited the father to his classroom. While there, Respondent asked the father which grade the father wanted him to change. The father was surprised at Respondent's offer and explained to Respondent that he only wanted his son to get the grades his son deserved. On November 4, 1999, Respondent requested to leave school for a dental emergency. Since his conference-for-the- record was scheduled for that day, an assistant principal directed Respondent to submit documentation from his dentist to her or to the principal's secretary. Respondent failed to follow this directive in a timely fashion. Respondent was subsequently directed to comply with all directives given by his immediate supervisors. At Respondent's request, the conference-for-the-record was re-scheduled for November 9, and Respondent was directed to attend. Respondent did not attend the November 9 conference, which was scheduled to discuss his non-compliance with site directives, his performance assessment, parental complaints, and student complaints. As a result of the conference-for-the- record, which consisted of a review of Respondent's file, Respondent was directed to comply with the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, to provide an educational environment free from harassment and intimidation for all students, to not intimidate staff and faculty members, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to use specific grading practices. He was warned that non-compliance with these directives could lead to further disciplinary measures. Respondent was provided with another copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule, the Code of Ethics, and the School Board's violence in the workplace rule. On December 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to review his performance assessments and future employment status. Respondent was reminded that he was in his second year of unacceptable performance status, which if not remedied, could lead to termination of his employment. He was also directed to comply with the directives previously given to him by the Office of Professional Standards. He was warned that non-compliance with the directives could result in disciplinary measures. Respondent failed to comply with his prescriptive activities by January 26, 2000. On February 7, 2000, at 3:39 p.m., Principal Jackson directed Respondent to submit his prescriptive activities directly to her within 24 hours. This directive was reasonable since the Principal had repeatedly directed Respondent to complete his prescriptive activities since April 1999. Respondent refused to sign that he had received a copy of the memorandum memorializing this directive even after being directed to sign it. On February 8 Respondent did not come to work. Another teacher gave Respondent's prescriptive activities to the principal's secretary after 5:00 p.m. The principal did not accept the activities because neither of her directives had been followed: the prescriptive activities were not given directly to her, and they were turned in late. On February 17, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with prescriptive deadlines and to review his record and his future employment status. Respondent was reminded that if his deficiencies were not remedied, he could lose his job. Respondent was told that his failure to comply with the directives concerning his prescription was considered gross insubordination. Respondent was directed to place his prescriptive activities in the principal's hand by 12:30 p.m. the next day, February 18. He was warned that non-compliance would result in further disciplinary action. Respondent was absent from work on February 18, 2000, and did not attempt to give the documents to his principal until February 24 at 3:30 p.m. His principal refused to accept the package because it was so overdue. On February 28, 2000, Respondent was directed to report to a conference-for-the-record at the Office of Professional Standards at 9:00 a.m. on March 14, 2000. On March 13, 2000, Respondent was accused of battery and administering physically-demanding punishments to students. The investigation revealed that Respondent was still using inappropriate punishment and profanity with his students. The incidents described in paragraphs numbered 40-48 below were discovered. On March 2, 2000, Respondent called A. W. a "dummy," told him to "shut up," and ordered him to pull a heavy cylinder across the physical education field. The cylinder is a piece of equipment that is pulled by a tractor and used to flatten pavement. A. W. tried but could not comply. He was crying when he went to the school office, complaining that his hands hurt. Respondent ordered other students to pull or push the cylinder as punishment. Respondent also ordered students to push volleyball poles, or standards, which have tires filled with cement at the bottom. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to administering this punishment one time. Respondent also ordered students to walk or run on the physical education field. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to ordering students to walk to the far fence. Respondent ordered students to do "push-ups." At the final hearing, Respondent admitted he used "push-ups" as punishment at the election of the student in lieu of other discipline. Respondent ordered his students to move rocks located around his portable classroom. Respondent called the students derogatory names, such as "stupid," "dumb, dumber, and dumbest," and "imbecile." He told them to "shut up." In speaking with a security monitor, Respondent referred to one of his students as "a piece of shit." Respondent required his students to write essays and repetitive "lines" as punishment, which he admitted at the final hearing. He made his students stand for lengthy periods of time as punishment. At the final hearing, Respondent asserted that he only made them stand for 30-45 minutes. Respondent claims he was sending his students to "time-out" on the physical education field. Even if true, sending the students to the physical education field is not an appropriate time-out. It is humiliating and demeaning to the students, the students were not properly supervised, the students were not being educated, and the students were at risk of injury. The procedure for disciplining students at Richmond Heights was to counsel the student after the first violation, make contact with the parents after the second violation, and write a referral to the administrators after the third time. The School Board does not permit the physical punishment of students. On March 14, 2000, Respondent was two hours late for the scheduled conference-for-the-record. By the time he arrived, the other participants had left. He was directed to report for a re-scheduled conference at the Office of Professional Standards on March 27, 2000. On March 27, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with site directives regarding prescription deadlines, student discipline, violation of the Code of Ethics and of professional responsibilities, violation of School Board rules, and his future employment status. Respondent was directed to comply with all previously-issued directives, to refrain from retaliating against students and staff, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to comply with all School Board rules, the Code of Ethics, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. On May 15, 2000, Principal Jackson observed Respondent outside of his classroom, with his back to his class, talking on the telephone. The class was noisy. No one was supervising his students. He was again directed not to leave his classes unsupervised. On May 22, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address the pending action by the School Board to take dismissal action at its meeting of June 21, 2000. On June 21, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay and initiated this dismissal proceeding against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges, affirming Respondent's suspension without pay, and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board effective June 21, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Stewart Lee Karlin, Esquire 400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges dated August 13, 1999, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Miami-Dade County School Board is 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 Article IX, Section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Mr. Paulk was employed by the School Board as a school security monitor. School security monitors are classified as educational support personnel in Section 231.3605(1), Florida Statutes. Mr. Paulk is a member of the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD") and is bound by the provisions of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"), effective July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000. Mr. Paulk was initially employed by the School Board in June 1993 as a part-time school security monitor and was assigned to the Krusé Center. The Krusé Center is a middle school serving only severely emotionally disturbed and emotionally handicapped students. In January 1994, Mr. Paulk was hired as a full-time school security monitor, and he was assigned to work at the Krusé Center. Except for a brief hiatus in early 1998, Mr. Paulk worked at the Krusé Center until November 1998, when he was assigned to the Florida Diagnostic Learning Resource System as an alternate assignment. Mr. Paulk was suspended as an employee of the School Board on May 13, 1999. The responsibilities of a school security monitor include helping the school staff maintain a safe learning environment for the students, reporting serious disturbances to the school administration, and resolving minor altercations. Because of the nature of their exceptionalities, the students attending the Krusé Center can sometimes be difficult to handle, and their behavior is sometimes disruptive and/or out-of-control. Many of the exceptional education students at the Krusé Center have included in their Individual Educational Plans a provision allowing the use of certain techniques to physically restrain the student if his or her behavior is out- of-control. All personnel at the Krusé Center, including security monitors, are required to use non-physical intervention techniques to control a student whose behavior is disruptive and/or out-of-control. If a student's disruptive or out-of- control behavior cannot be controlled by non-physical intervention techniques, physical intervention techniques known as Safe Physical Management ("SPM") techniques may be used to restrain the student until he or she is calm. Only SPM techniques, which are approved by the School Board, may be used to physically restrain students when the use of physical restraint is necessary. There are three primary SPM techniques: the extended arm assist; upper torso control; and supine/prone restraint. It is never appropriate to use SPM techniques in response to a student’s general misbehavior or defiance. Procedures regarding the use of physical force against exceptional education students are set forth in Article VIII, Section 3 of the UTD Contract, which provides in pertinent part: H. Physical restraint refers to the use of physical intervention techniques designed to restrict the movement of a student in an effort to de-escalate aggressive behavior. In order to promote a safe learning environment, the district has authorized the implementation of specific physical restraint procedures to be used in Exceptional Student Education programs when a student's IEP documents the potential need for their use. These procedures include, but are [sic] limited to, holding and escape techniques which, when implemented, prevent injury to students and staff or prevent serious damage to property. According to School Board procedures and the UTD Contract, a school security monitor who has physically restrained a student must complete three student case management forms: the Parent Notification, Physical Restraint Procedures Form; the Student Case Management Student Services Form; and the Student Case Management Referral Form. All staff at the Krusé Center, including Mr. Paulk, received formal training in the use of SPM techniques at the school-district level. In addition, in September 1996, Daniel Jones, the principal of the Krusé Center at the time, distributed a memorandum to the staff at the Krusé Center, including Mr. Paulk, which contained a brief review of the purpose of physical restraint, the circumstances in which it could be used, and the authorization to use only the School Board-approved SPM techniques. In addition, Mr. Jones reviewed the paperwork that must be completed when SPM techniques were used to restrain a student. Will Gordillo, who became the principal of the Krusé Center at the beginning of the 1997-98 school year, prepared a handbook for security monitors working at the Krusé Center, which included the school's internal policies and procedures for safely dealing with the exceptional education students who attended the Krusé Center. The handbook was given to all security monitors at the school, and the contents of the handbook were reviewed with the security monitors. Mr. Paulk received a copy of the handbook, and its contents were reviewed with him. The first preliminary personnel investigation into Mr. Paulk's use of physical force against a student was conducted in 1996, when Mr. Paulk was accused on grabbing a student by the shirt and breaking the student's necklace. The charges against Mr. Paulk were found to be unsubstantiated, and Mr. Jones, then the principal of the Krusé Center, reviewed the investigative report with Mr. Paulk during a meeting held on June 5, 1996. According to the Site Disposition of Investigative Report prepared by Mr. Jones, he and Mr. Paulk reviewed and discussed the School Board's guidelines for the use of safe physical management. April 17, 1997, incident On April 17, 1997, an incident occurred at the Krusé Center involving Mr. Paulk and a student named A.G., who was 13 years old at the time. A.G.'s school bus was late, and he was waiting outside the school building. A security monitor named T. Grier was supervising students in the area where A.G. was waiting for the school bus. Although there was some disagreement in the testimony of Mr. Grier and A.G. relating to the events leading up to the incident1, it is uncontroverted that Mr. Grier told A.G. not to do something, that A.G. ignored his instruction, and that Mr. Paulk approached A.G. and asked him if he had heard Mr. Grier's instructions. When A.G. did not respond, Mr. Paulk then either "tackled" A.G. or hit A.G. in the head and neck with his forearm and elbow. Because A.G. was standing near the school building wall, the blow caused his head to hit the wall with enough force as to raise a lump on the left side of his head. A.G. was not exhibiting any aggressive behavior at the time of the incident. A.G. was very upset, and he went to the principal's office. A.G. wanted to call his mother, but Mr. Jones, the principal, tried to calm him and find out what had happened before allowing A.G. to call his mother. A.G. did not calm down, and he left the school grounds by himself without having called his mother. Later that afternoon, A.G. and his mother returned to the Krusé Center and reported the incident to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones referred the matter to the Division of School Police for a preliminary personnel investigation. The investigator who conducted the preliminary personnel investigation concluded that the charge of battery against A.G. was substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was conducted by Mr. Jones on June 12, 1997, in which the incident involving A.G. was discussed with Mr. Paulk. Stella Menendez, the assistant principal at the Krusé Center, also attended the conference; Mr. Paulk waived the right to have a union representative present. Mr. Jones prepared a Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record dated June 12, 1997. According to the summary, Mr. Paulk was provided a copy of the investigative report, which was discussed during the conference. Mr. Jones reviewed with Mr. Paulk the appropriate use of physical force with students at the Krusé Center, both as set forth in the UTD Contract and as approved by the School Board. Mr. Paulk was directed to refrain from the use of inappropriate physical force, which is considered corporal punishment under the School Board's rules; to use only SPM techniques; and to use SPM techniques only when the use of physical restraint was necessary to prevent a student from harming himself or others or from damaging property. Mr. Paulk indicated that he did not "really" need any additional training in SPM techniques. Finally, Mr. Paulk was advised by Mr. Jones that a second substantiated report involving the inappropriate use of physical force on a student would result in further disciplinary action, including possible termination of his employment. Mr. Jones provided Mr. Paulk with copies of the documents discussed during the conference concerning the use of SPM techniques and of the School Board's rule prohibiting corporal punishment. December 18, 1997, incident On December 18, 1997, an incident occurred at the Krusé Center involving Mr. Paulk and a student named O.A., who was 12 years old at the time. The incident occurred in the school cafeteria, during the lunch hour. Mr. Paulk was supervising the students waiting in the lunch line, and he was standing at the door to the cafeteria with his arm across the door to keep the students congregating outside the cafeteria from entering until the lunch line was clear. O.A. was the first student standing in line waiting to be admitted into the cafeteria, and he pushed past Mr. Paulk without waiting for permission. Mr. Paulk confronted O.A., who made a defiant remark to Mr. Paulk and continued walking into the cafeteria. Mr. Paulk followed O.A. into the cafeteria, and he and O.A. exchanged words; O.A.'s behavior continued to be defiant. Mr. Paulk then grabbed O.A. from behind and pushed him facedown over a refrigerated case containing cartons of milk. O.A. put out his arms to brace himself and prevent his face from hitting the top of the refrigerated case. When O.A. pushed himself upright, Mr. Paulk grabbed O.A.'s shirt collar from the front, pushed O.A. against the wall of the cafeteria, and held O.A. there by placing his arm across O.A.'s chest. When Mr. Paulk pushed him against the wall, O.A. began yelling and cursing Mr. Paulk. Antonio Herrera, a paraprofessional at the Krusé Center who was in another part of the cafeteria when the incident began, heard the commotion and went to see what was happening. Mr. Herrera saw Mr. Paulk holding O.A. against the wall with his arm across O.A.'s chest, and Mr. Herrera intervened and escorted O.A. to a table in the cafeteria. During the incident, O.A.'s gold neck chain was broken. Mr. Paulk did not report this incident to the school administration, and he did not complete the paperwork required when physical intervention is used. The incident was reported by O.A.'s mother, who was very upset when she learned about the incident from her son. O.A.'s mother refused to allow her son to attend school after the incident as long as Mr. Paulk remained in his position as a security monitor. Mr. Gordillo, the principal of the Krusé Center at the time, referred the matter to the Division of School Police for a preliminary personnel investigation, and, on January 13, 1998, Mr. Gordillo held a Conference-for-the-Record to discuss the incident. The conference was attended by Mr. Gordillo, Mr. Paulk, and Benny Pollack, a UTD representative. Mr. Gordillo prepared a Summary of Conference-for-the-Record dated January 16, 1998. According to the summary, Mr. Paulk was advised that he would remain in his assignment as a security monitor at the Krusé Center but that he would be assigned to work at the Florida Diagnostic Learning Resource System pending the outcome of the preliminary personnel investigation. Mr. Gordillo directed Mr. Paulk to refrain from the use of all physical restraint with the students, including SPM techniques, and he reviewed with Mr. Paulk the cautions about the use of inappropriate physical force conveyed to him during the Conference-for-the-Record held on June 12, 1997, with respect to the substantiated charges of battery against A.G. Mr. Gordillo also notified Mr. Paulk that he would be subject to additional disciplinary action, and possibly termination from his employment with the School Board, if the charges against him were substantiated as a result of the preliminary personnel investigation. The investigator who conducted the preliminary personnel investigation concluded that the charge of battery against O.A. was substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on June 19, 1998, to review the results of the investigation. The conference was attended by Mr. Gordillo; Stella Menendez, the assistant principal of the Krusé Center; Mr. Paulk; and Lourdes Blanco-Lopez, the UTD lead steward. Mr. Gordillo prepared a Summary of the Conference-of-the-Record dated July 9, 1998. According to the summary, Mr. Gordillo reviewed the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record held on June 12, 1997. Mr. Gordillo went over the report of the preliminary personnel investigation in which the charges of battery against O.A. were found to be substantiated, and Mr. Gordillo discussed with Mr. Paulk the difference between the appropriate and the inappropriate use of physical force. Mr. Gordillo discussed with Mr. Paulk the provision of the UTD Contract dealing with the use of physical restraint to prevent students from inflicting injury on themselves or others or from causing serious damage to property, the provision of the UTD Contract requiring the documentation of the use of physical restraint, the School Board rule prohibiting corporal punishment, and the contents of a brochure on the use of reasonable force. The July 9, 1998, Summary of the Conference-of-the- Record further reflects that Mr. Gordillo directed Mr. Paulk to refrain from using physical force with students except in those cases which require the use of safe physical management techniques . . . [,] to make sure you record all incidents in which you use any physical force and/or physical restraint techniques in a SCM [Student Case Management] form and turn it in to an administrator immediately after the said incident . . . [,] [and] to attend the next scheduled Safe Physical Management Workshop during the 1998-98 [sic] school year as a refresher. Failure to comply with the aforementioned directives will be considered gross insubordination. Any further acts of non-compliance with school board policies and procedures will also lead to disciplinary actions which may include dismissal. Mr. Paulk was advised that a letter of reprimand would be issued following the conference. A memorandum dated July 10, 1998, and entitled "Reprimand" was directed to Mr. Paulk in which Mr. Gordillo officially reprimanded Mr. Paulk for his actions with respect to the incident involving O.A. Mr. Paulk was further advised in the Reprimand: [Y]ou are directed to refrain from using inappropriate procedures and actions during the course of your employment day. Any recurrence of the above infraction [the December 18, 1997, incident] will be considered gross insubordination and may lead to further disciplinary action. October 23, 1998, incident On October 23, 1998, an incident occurred at the Krusé Center involving Mr. Paulk and a student named M.L., who was 12 years old at the time. The incident occurred in the morning, before school started. Mr. Paulk was in the school cafeteria, supervising students who had arrived at the school early. M.L. and another student were in the cafeteria, "play" wrestling and generally engaging in horseplay. Mr. Paulk told them to stop, and, when they did not do so, he grabbed M.L. by the back waistband of his pants, pulled him off the other student, and threw him between two cafeteria tables. M.L. got up from the floor and left the cafeteria. He returned to the cafeteria after a short time, and attended his classes. Later in the day, M.L. showed a fellow student abrasions on the right side of his body, near his waist, which he attributed to Mr. Paulk's use of physical force in the cafeteria that morning. Mr. Gordillo learned of the incident later on the day of October 23, 1998. He began gathering information regarding the incident, and, on Monday, October 26, 1998, the student and his parent came to Mr. Gordillo's office. M.L. showed Mr. Gordillo the abrasions near his waist on the right side of his body, and Mr. Gordillo took photos of the injuries. Mr. Gordillo then referred the matter to the Division of School Police for a preliminary personnel investigation, and, on October 28, 1998, Mr. Gordillo returned Mr. Paulk to the alternate work assignment at the Florida Diagnostic Learning Resource System. The investigator who conducted the preliminary personnel investigation concluded that the charge of battery against M.L. was substantiated as a result of the investigation. In a memorandum dated February 11, 1999, Mr. Paulk was notified that a Conference-for-the-Record would be held at the Office of Professional Standards on February 23, 1999. The stated purpose of the conference was to address the preliminary personnel investigation report which found that the charge of battery against student M.L. had been substantiated; Mr. Paulk's failure to follow administrative directives; Mr. Paulk's violation of the School Board rule prohibiting corporal punishment; Mr. Paulk's job performance to date; and Mr. Paulk's future employment status with the School Board. The conference was held on February 23, 1999, and was attended by Isaac J. Rodriguez, an executive director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards; Mr. Gordillo; Mr. Paulk; and Dia Falco, a UTD Bargaining Agent Representative. Mr. Rodriguez prepared a Summary of Conference-for-the-Record dated March 18, 1999. According to the summary, the report of the preliminary personnel investigation that substantiated the charges of battery against M.L. was reviewed. Mr. Paulk's employment history with the School Board was reviewed, including the June 5, 1996, memorandum regarding the unsubstantiated charge of battery in 1996; the reports of the preliminary personnel investigations of the substantiated charges of battery against A.G. and O.A.; and the summaries of the Conferences-for- the-Record held on June 12, 1997 and June 19, 1998, to discuss these charges. Mr. Paulk was advised that his continued use of excessive force was of serious concern and that disciplinary action would be taken after the matter was reviewed by the Senior Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards, the District Director of the Office of Exceptional Student Education and Psychological Services, Mr. Gordillo, and the School Board's attorneys. Finally, Mr. Paulk was given three directives: perform all duties as assigned; comply with all administrative directives; and refrain from using physical means to effect discipline. In a memorandum dated March 4, 1999, Mr. Gordillo transmitted to Roger K. Felton, District Director of the Office of Exceptional Student Education and Psychological Services, his recommendation that Mr. Paulk be dismissed from employment with the School Board. In a memorandum dated March 30, 1999, Mr. Felton transmitted to Joyce Annunziata, Senior Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards, his concurrence in Mr. Gordillo's recommendation that Mr. Paulk be dismissed from employment. In a letter to Mr. Paulk dated April 28, 1999, Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent of Schools, notified Mr. Paulk that he was recommending to the School Board that Mr. Paulk be suspended from employment and that proceedings for his dismissal be initiated. The School Board followed the Superintendent's recommendation at its meeting on May 12, 1999, and a letter dated May 13, 1999, was sent to Mr. Paulk notifying him of this action. Summary The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk's use of physical force against A.G., O.A., and M.L. was unseemly and does not reflect credit on either Mr. Paulk or the school system. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk's use of physical force against A.G., O.A., and M.L. was inappropriate. The behavior exhibited by these three students did not warrant the use of physical force because the behavior was not disruptive or out-of-control behavior that posed a danger of harm to themselves or others or threatened the destruction of property. Even had the use of physical force been warranted, Mr. Paulk used excessive physical force and did not use authorized SPM techniques. In addition, the evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk used physical force against these three students as punishment for their failure to follow his instructions rather than as a means of restricting their movements to de-escalate aggressive behavior. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk failed to follow the directives he received in June 1996, in June 1997, and in June 1998 to use physical force with students only when the use of physical force was warranted and to use only SPM techniques when physically restraining students. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk's use of physical force against A.G., O.A., and M.L. was excessive and caused physical injuries to both A.G. and M.L., although the injuries were not serious, and broke O.A.'s necklace. This use of physical force by Mr. Paulk against A.G., O.A., and M.L. not only reflects a lack of professional judgment on Mr. Paulk's part but also is inconsistent with Mr. Paulk's responsibility as a school security monitor to provide a safe learning environment for the students at the Krusé Center. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk's conduct with respect to A.G., O.A., and M.L. was inconsistent with the standards of public conscience because Mr. Paulk used physical force against three children, aged 12 and 13, who were either seriously emotionally disturbed or emotionally handicapped, in circumstances in which the use of physical force was not warranted. However, the evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Paulk's conduct was notorious or brought public disgrace or disrespect to the education profession. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that just cause exists to terminate Mr. Paulk's employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order Dismissing Count V of the Notice of Specific Charges; Finding that, in accordance with the terms of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, effective July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000, just cause exists to terminate the employment of Christopher A. Paulk; and Dismissing Christopher A. Paulk from employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 9th day of May, 2000.
