The Issue Did Respondent, Jennifer Abadie, R.R.T., violate sections 468.365(1)(q), 468.365(1)(x), 456.072(1)(v), or 456.063(1), Florida Statutes (2018),1/ by committing sexual misconduct?
Findings Of Fact Section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 468, Florida Statutes, charge the Board with regulating the practice of respiratory care in Florida. Ms. Abadie is a licensed registered respiratory therapist in Florida. Ms. Abadie worked for Comprehensive Healthcare of Clearwater (Comprehensive) from October 24, 2017, through February 4, 2018, at its Pinellas County, Florida, location. Comprehensive is a residential rehabilitation and nursing facility. Ms. Abadies’s 89-year-old father was a patient at Comprehensive from before she started working there until his death. He suffered from dementia. Ms. Abadie visited her father frequently, before and after her shifts and when she was not working. G.B. was a severely ill patient at Comprehensive trying to recover from multiple strokes. G.B. was only 56 years old. However, he had extensive medical conditions. They included hypertension, congestive heart failure, fibromyalgia, diabetes, blindness and end-stage renal (kidney) disease. G.B. received dialysis three times a week for his kidney disorder. He took dozens of medications daily. G.B. also had a tracheostomy. A tracheostomy is a tube that goes into the trachea to help people with impaired breathing breathe. The heavy treatment load weighed on G.B. psychologically and caused him anxiety and depression. Ms. Abadie provided respiratory therapy services to G.B. G.B. recognized Ms. Abadie from an earlier time when she worked at Florida Hospital where he had been a patient. He reminded her of that time and established a friendship with her. Over time, the friendship grew closer. As a result of their friendship and Ms. Abadie's compassion for G.B., Ms. Abadie and G.B. spoke regularly. When Ms. Abadie visited her father, she usually checked on G.B. He and Ms. Abadie talked about the range of subjects that acquaintances talk about including families, children, marital status, holiday plans, and day-to-day lives. They spoke regularly by telephone as well as in person. Although they spoke regularly, Ms. Abadie and G.B. did not always speak at length. Sometimes she just waved and poked her head in to say hello. At G.B.'s request, Ms. Abadie brought him items from outside the facility, such as toiletries and a blanket. G.B. grew very fond of Ms. Abadie and wanted her as his girlfriend and eventually his wife. Ms. Abadie did not encourage or reciprocate these feelings or intentions. Lisa Isabelle was G.B.'s only other visitor. G.B. was a friend of her husband. She had known G.B. for most of their lives. Ms. Isabelle rented G.B. a residence on her property. Ms. Isabelle described her relationship with G.B. as "love-hate." Ms. Isabelle held a durable power of attorney for G.B. His family lived out of town and decided it would be good for somebody local to hold the power of attorney. On Sunday, February 4, 2018, Ms. Abadie came to Comprehensive to visit her father. She wanted to watch the Eagles play in the Super Bowl with him. Their family is from Philadelphia. Ms. Abadie stopped at G.B.'s room first. Charity Forest, L.P.N., was on-duty that day. G.B. was one of her patients. Towards the end of the first of her two shifts, Ms. Forest noticed that the curtain by G.B.’s bed was pulled halfway around his bed, which was unusual. The door was open. Ms. Forest entered G.B.’s room and looked around the curtain. She saw G.B. and Ms. Abadie sitting on the bed, on top of the covers. The head of the bed was raised about 45 degrees to provide a backrest. G.B. was wearing long pajama pants but not wearing a shirt. Ms. Abadie was wearing jean shorts, a T-shirt, and Keds®. Ms. Abadie was resting her feet on her iPad® so she would not dirty the covers. G.B. and Ms. Abadie were not touching each other. They were talking, watching television, and looking at pictures on Ms. Abadie's telephone. The room was a two-bed room. There was a patient in the other bed. Ms. Forest thought that the two sitting on the bed was inappropriate and left in search of her supervisor. Ms. Forest could not locate her supervisor. But she met another L.P.N., Ruth Schneck. Ms. Forest told Ms. Schneck what she had observed. Ms. Schneck went to G.B.'s room. The door was open. Ms. Schneck briefly entered the room. G.B. and Ms. Abadie were still sitting on the bed. Ms. Schneck left immediately, closing the door behind her. She joined the search for the supervisor. Neither Ms. Schneck nor Ms. Forest could locate the supervisor. While looking for the supervisor, Ms. Forest and Ms. Schneck encountered Sean Flynn, L.P.N. They told him what they had seen. Mr. Flynn was a licensed practical nurse and a case manager at Comprehensive. He had come to the facility briefly that day in order to take care of some paperwork. After talking to Ms. Forest and Ms. Schneck, Mr. Flynn went to G.B.’s room and opened the door. Ms. Abadie and G.B. were sitting on the edge of the bed facing the door. Mr. Flynn asked them if anything was going on. They said no. Mr. Flynn left the room and called Nicole Lawlor, Comprehensive's Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Lawlor told Mr. Flynn to return to G.B.'s room, instruct Ms. Abadie to leave, and tell her that she would be suspended pending an investigation. He returned to G.B.'s room with Ms. Forest and Ms. Schneck. G.B. and Ms. Abadie were still sitting on the bed. Mr. Flynn asked Ms. Abadie to step outside. She did. G.B. soon followed in his wheelchair. Mr. Flynn told Ms. Abadie that she was suspended and had to leave. G.B. overheard this and became very upset and aggressive. He insisted that Ms. Abadie was his girlfriend and that he wanted her to stay. Ms. Abadie asked to visit her father before she left. Mr. Flynn agreed. Ms. Abadie visited her father for a couple of hours. Ms. Abadie also called Ms. Isabelle to tell her that Mr. Flynn asked her to leave and that G.B. was very upset. After Ms. Abadie's departure, G.B. became increasingly upset and loud. His behavior escalated to slamming doors and throwing objects. Comprehensive employees decided G.B. was a danger to himself and others and had him involuntarily committed under Florida's Baker Act at Mease Dunedin Hospital. On her way home, Ms. Abadie received a telephone call offering her full-time employment at Lakeland Regional Hospital. February 4, 2018, at 6:08 p.m., Ms. Abadie submitted her resignation from Comprehensive in an e-mail to Ms. Lawlor. Ms. Abadie's only patient/caregiver relationship with G.B. was through her employment with Comprehensive. As of 6:08 p.m. on February 4, 2018, G.B. was not a patient of Ms. Abadie. She no longer had a professional relationship with him. Ms. Lawlor suspended Ms. Abadie on February 4, 2018. She based her decision on the information that Ms. Forest, Ms. Schneck, and Mr. Flynn told her, not all of which is persuasively established or found as fact in this proceeding. Still, Ms. Lawlor's memorandum suspending Ms. Abadie reveals that the nature of G.B.'s relationship with Ms. Abadie and the events of February 4, 2018, were not sexual. Ms. Lawlor's Employee Memorandum suspending Ms. Abadie does not identify a state or institution rule violated in the part of the form calling for one. She wrote "Flagrant violation of code of conduct." The description in the "Nature of Infraction" section of the form reads, "Employee was found cuddling in bed with a resident during her time off." There is no mention of sex, breasts, genitalia, or sexual language. None of the varying and sometimes inconsistent accounts of the day mention touching or exposure of breasts, buttocks, or genitalia. None of the accounts describes or even alludes to sex acts or statements about sex. The only kiss reported is a kiss on the cheek that G.B. reportedly forced upon Ms. Abadie as she was leaving. The deposition testimony of the Board's "expert," offers many statements showing that what the Board complains of might be called "inappropriate" or a "boundary violation" but does not amount to sexual misconduct. He testified about the strain a patient expressing romantic feelings toward a therapist puts on the professional relationship. He says the professional should tell the patient that the statements are inappropriate. The witness says that if the patient starts expressing the romantic feelings by touching the therapist, the therapist must tell the patient that his behavior is inappropriate and begin recording the events for the therapist's protection so that "no inappropriate allegations are made later." (Jt. Ex. 3, p. 3). Asked his opinion about allegations that Ms. Abadie was laying on G.B.'s bed, the witness says the behavior "crossed a professional boundary" and that he was not aware of the "behavior being appropriate in any situation." (Jt. Ex. 3, p. 16). The witness acknowledged that a hug is not inherently sexual. (Jt. Ex. 3, pp. 24 & 30). In addition, the training and experience of the witness do not qualify him as someone whose opinion should be entitled to significant weight. Among other things, he has never written about, lectured about, or testified to an opinion about sexual misconduct. Had the deposition not been offered without objection, whether the testimony would have been admissible is a fair question. § 90.702, Fla. Stat. After February 4, 2018, Ms. Abadie attempted to continue her friendship with G.B. by telephone calls and visits. However, Comprehensive refused for several weeks, against G.B.'s wishes, to allow Ms. Abadie to visit G.B. and would only permit Ms. Abadie brief, supervised visits with her father. G.B. was very upset by Comprehensive's prohibition of visits from Ms. Abadie. He began refusing food and treatment, including medications and dialysis. G.B.'s condition deteriorated to the point that he was admitted to hospice care. At that point, on February 24, 2018, Comprehensive contacted Ms. Abadie and gave her permission to visit G.B and lifted restrictions on visiting her father. A February 27, 2018, e-mail from Shelly Wise, Director of Nursing, confirmed this and admitted that the Agency for Health Care Administration had advised that G.B.'s right as a resident to visitors trumped Comprehensive's concerns. Ms. Abadie resumed visiting her friend, G.B. On May 21, 2018, G.B. passed away. G.B. was a lonely, mortally ill man. He initiated a friendship with Ms. Abadie that she reciprocated. Ultimately, he developed unfounded feelings about her being his girlfriend and them having a future together. The clear and convincing evidence does not prove that the relationship was more than a friendship or that it was sexual in any way.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Mary A. Iglehart, Esquire Christina Arzillo Shideler, Esquire Florida Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Respondent: Kennan George Dandar, Esquire Dandar & Dandar, P.A. Post Office Box 24597 Tampa, Florida 33623
Recommendation Based on the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Respiratory Care, dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2019, 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 17th day of July, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Carrabba's Italian Grill, Inc., subjected Petitioners, Jasen Baker and Bernard Southwell, to a hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a chain of casual Italian restaurants. Respondent has adopted a policy against discrimination and harassment. In addition to prohibiting harassment, the policy instructs employees whom to contact if they experience harassment. The policy is contained in an employee handbook that is distributed to all employees during the initial orientation process. During orientation, Respondent's manager reviews the employee handbook with the new employee, including the policy on sexual harassment. During the orientation process, Respondent also requires employees to view a video that explains that Respondent will not tolerate harassment. The video familiarizes the employees with the company's expectations regarding the reporting of harassment in the workplace. During the orientation process, the employees are required to sign an acknowledgment on the exterior of their employee folders indicating that they have received and read the policy against harassment. The critical sections of the policy are reprinted on the folders immediately above the signature lines. All of Respondent's restaurants are required to display a poster known as the "Carrabbamico Info" poster in the kitchen area. This poster reprints the harassment policy and provides employees with a list of names to call if they feel that they have been harassed. Respondent has implemented reasonable precautions to prevent harassment from occurring in its restaurants. In the Central Florida market, Respondent's restaurants are overseen by a joint venture partner named Dick Meyer. Meyer is responsible for hiring and firing the managers of the restaurants that he oversees. In March 2000, Lawton DePriest became the managing partner at Respondent's Palm Bay location. DePriest reported to Meyer. DePriest remained in that capacity until September 2003, when he became the managing partner of Respondent's restaurant located in Formosa Gardens. It was DePriest's management style to frequently yell at employees in order to motivate them. It is also possible that he had favorites on the staff of the Palm Bay restaurant. Baker was hired by Respondent's Palm Bay restaurant in January 2002. At the time that Baker began working for Respondent, he attended an orientation session conducted by DePriest. It was DePriest's practice during orientation to discuss harassment issues and instruct employees to come to him directly if they experience any problems with sexual harassment. If for some reason an employee is not comfortable with him, DePriest would encourage the employee to contact any other person listed on the poster. Baker was given a copy of Respondent's handbook, which contains the company's policy against harassment. On that same date, January 19, 2002, Baker signed his employee folder on the blank line under the harassment policy indicating that he had read and received the policy. Whether he reviewed the employee handbook further after that date is irrelevant. Baker "vividly remembers" that during his orientation, he watched the videotape that included instructions on what he should do if he felt harassed. However, during the hearing, Baker denied ever seeing the Carrabbamico Info poster. However, Baker admitted on cross-examination that during his deposition, he had acknowledged seeing the Carrabbamico Info poster posted in the store. During the deposition, Baker specifically remembered that there were business cards with contact information for Meyer and Cheri Ashe attached to the bottom of the poster. Despite Baker's attempt to deny seeing the poster, his earlier answers in deposition were more credible in view of his specific recollection of the attached business cards and the lack of any persuasive explanation for the discrepancy. After completing his orientation, Baker initially worked as a dishwasher. Later, he was shown how to do food preparation work. Before coming to work for Respondent, Baker had previously worked for a restaurant by the name of Golden Corral. During the time that he worked with Golden Corral, he became acquainted with a co-worker named Bernard Southwell. In the summer of 2002, Petitioners discussed the possibility of Southwell coming to work for Respondent. Baker spoke favorably of the restaurant and recommended that Southwell submit an application. At the time, Baker had worked for Respondent for six or seven months. Baker did not express to Southwell that he had observed or experienced any problems with unwelcome harassment. Southwell submitted an application and was hired by Respondent's Palm Bay restaurant in August 2002 as a dishwasher. At the time he began employment with Respondent, Southwell was living with a friend of his named Joe Corbett. At the time, Baker was living in a one-bedroom apartment with his girlfriend. Several weeks later, Baker's girlfriend decided to move out. According to Petitioners, she suggested to Southwell that he move into Baker's apartment to replace her. Around October 2002, Southwell moved out of the Corbett residence and moved in with Baker. A third employee named Chris Germana also moved into the residence around the same time. Because the apartment only had one bedroom, Germana slept on the couch. Petitioners slept in the bedroom. When employees at the restaurant learned of these arrangements, speculation began about whether the two men were homosexual. According to Petitioners, sometime after Southwell started to room with Baker, co-workers at the restaurant started referring to Petitioners by nicknames. The co-workers referred to Baker as "powder," "crack pipe," and "crack head." Baker knew that "powder" was a reference to a character from the movie "Powder" and that the name had nothing to do with his sexuality. The co-workers also referred to Petitioners as "butt buddies." Southwell testified that a male co-worker, Christopher Bouley, told him, "I know you guys are lovers." Bouley, Arnold Samuel and DePriest all used these nicknames on occasion to refer to both Petitioners, according to Baker. After several months, Southwell eventually went to DePriest and complained about the "powder," "crack pipe," and "butt buddies" nicknames. Southwell told DePriest that the nicknames were funny at first, but that they started getting old. DePriest then told Samuel and Bouley to stop using the nicknames. Thereafter, the use of the nicknames stopped. Southwell claimed that Bouley would gyrate his hips behind other employees as they were bending down. However, Petitioners both admitted that Bouley would do these hip motions to both male and female employees. During the hearing, Petitioners claimed that Bouley subjected them to unwelcome touching. Baker claimed that Bouley had touched his buttocks once. However, Baker acknowledged that when his deposition was taken prior to the final hearing, he did not mention that Bouley touched his buttocks. In fact, when asked during his deposition whether he had been sexually harassed, Baker testified that he had not and that he had only been verbally harassed. Furthermore, Baker made no mention of any physical touching in the Affidavit that he submitted to FCHR at the time he filed his charge of discrimination. Southwell never saw Bouley touch or grab Baker's buttocks. And despite their close relationship, Baker never told Southwell that Bouley had grabbed his buttocks. Accordingly, Baker's allegation that he was touched inappropriately by Bouley or any other of Respondent's employees is not credible. Southwell claimed that Bouley had touched his buttocks on two or three occasions and touched his nipples twice. Southwell also claimed that Bouley had touched his penis on one occasion. According to Southwell, he was bending down to pick up sauté pans when Bouley, who was supposedly standing behind him, reached between Southwell's legs from behind and clutched Southwell's genital area through his trousers. This incident supposedly occurred during the restaurant's hours of operation while customers were in the restaurant. The alleged grabbing supposedly took place in front of a stove that sat in full view of customers seated at the restaurant's bar. Bouley flatly denied ever touching Southwell's genitals or private area. In the Affidavit that Southwell submitted to FCHR at the time he filed his charge of discrimination, Southwell made no mention of Bouley touching Southwell's penis. At the time that he submitted this Affidavit, Southwell was represented by counsel. Southwell did not offer any convincing reason for the omission of any description of his genitals being grabbed. Accordingly, Southwell's allegation that Bouley touched Southwell's genitals is not credible. Although Petitioners testified that they spoke to DePriest on several occasions, they admit that they never spoke to any of the other individuals listed on the harassment poster to complain about sexual harassment. DePriest testified that the only complaint he ever received had to do with the nicknames and that he took prompt action to resolve this problem. Annually, Respondent submits an employee experience survey to its employees that is completed anonymously and forwarded to an outside company for analysis. After the survey is completed, employees participate in a small group feedback session to discuss the results of the survey. On March 11, 2003, DePriest held the feedback session for his store, which was attended by Petitioners. During the session, Southwell commented about the situation with the nicknames. He indicated that the situation was resolved when it was brought to DePriest's attention. This was the sole extent to which either employee complained of unwelcome behavior. Respondent was not on notice of any problems with regard to touching or more serious inappropriate behavior. On March 12, 2003, Petitioners' last day of work, Southwell approached DePriest to complain about scheduling for a special event at the convention center. Southwell stated that he and Baker had signed up to participate in this event. Southwell was scheduled for the event, but Baker was not. DePriest explained that he needed Baker to float, because there were not enough people scheduled to work at the restaurant that night. DePriest later talked to Baker, who indicated that he was not disappointed that he was not participating in the event. That conversation, however, was the last time that DePriest saw Baker. DePriest learned that Petitioners had left before the end of their shift, when the plates in the restaurant were getting low and the sauté pans were getting stacked up. DePriest asked about the whereabouts of Petitioners and learned that they were seen riding their bicycles away from the restaurant. DePriest could not contact them because they did not have a telephone. DePriest eventually terminated their employment for voluntarily walking off the job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order that: Dismisses the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Jasen Baker, in DOAH Case No. 05-0623, FCHR No. 23-03891; and Dismisses the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Bernard Southwell, DOAH Case No. 05-0632, FCHR No. 23-03892. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jason M. Gordon, Esquire Gordon & Cornell 103 North Atlantic Avenue Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Kevin D. Johnson, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33602 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in these cases is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida. Respondent, Beltran Pages, M.D., was, at all times material hereto, a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME0036079. Respondent is a board certified psychiatrist who has practiced in the Palm Beach County area since July, 1981. Respondent left private practice in September, 1985, and is currently employed at the South Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center, an HRS facility for the criminally insane. During the period February, 1982 through September, 1982, Respondent treated Lynn Harrington (now Lynn DeGrado) at his Boca Raton office which was located in the Weir Plaza Building. This office space was shared with a Dr. Cohn. The Boca Raton office consisted of a waiting area, a hallway with bathroom, and two physician offices. The walls in this facility were not sound proof and noises could be heard, if not distinguished, between the rooms. Mrs. Harrington had a regular Tuesday appointment at 10:00 a.m. During these weekly visits Mrs. Harrington discussed her marital difficulties with Respondent. One of the problems was an affair Mrs. Harrington was having which she did not want to abandon. Mrs. Harrington did not find her husband sexually attractive and, while she hoped the sessions with Respondent would enable her to rehabilitate her marriage, the Harringtons eventually divorced. During the latter months of the marriage, Pat Harrington became aware of his wife's infidelity. Mr. Harrington felt that Respondent had misrepresented progress being made to save the Harrington marriage. Mr. Harrington amended his petition for dissolution of marriage to claim Mrs. Harrington was an unfit mother. In a sworn statement taken October 27, 1982, Mrs. Harrington claimed she and Respondent had had sexual relations during the course of her treatment. This sworn statement was given in connection with a settlement of the dissolution issues. The statement was not to be used in court since the parties had resolved all their differences regarding the children. Later, Mr. Harrington sued Respondent in a civil suit for damages in connection with the claimed sexual conduct. This suit was later dismissed by the court. During the course of treatment with Mrs. Harrington, Respondent had many frank, open conversations of a sexual nature with her. These conversations included discussions of Mrs. Harrington's affair and her fantasies. During this time the Respondent did not engage in sexual intercourse with Lynn Harrington. Mrs. Harrington's testimony that she and Respondent had engaged in sexual intercourse was not credible. Mrs. Harrington was unable to describe with any detail any incident or time during which such conduct occurred. During the period June, 1983 through November, 1984, Respondent treated Lorry Thomas at his Delray Beach office on Linton Boulevard. The walls in Respondent's Delray Beach office were sound proof. Lorry Thomas came to Respondent with a history of depression. In addition to prescribing medications for her, Respondent saw Mrs. Thomas on a weekly basis. During these sessions Respondent and Mrs. Thomas engaged in frank, open discussions of a sexual nature. These discussions led to further activities which ultimately resulted in Respondent and Mrs. Thomas engaging in sexual intercourse. The Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with Lorry Thomas during the time she was being treated as his patient. Following the sessions with Respondent, Lorry Thomas would often emerge to the outer office in a rumpled, upset condition. This condition was observed by Respondent's receptionist/secretary, Jolene Stratton. When Mrs. Thomas determined she could not continue as both a patient and a lover, she elected to cancel appointments in an effort to continue seeing Respondent. During the course of her treatment with Respondent, Mrs. Thomas was married and living with her husband, Mike. When Mike was transferred to California, Mrs. Thomas moved there also but continued written or telephone communications with Respondent. In December, 1984, Lorry Thomas went to see a clinical psychologist in Santa Clara, California, named Jean Bayard. Mrs. Thomas complained of a despair in her life and an uneasy feeling regarding her marriage. During the course of her discussions with Dr. Bayard, Mrs. Thomas disclosed her past sexual relationship with Respondent. On one occasion Respondent "made a pass" at and kissed Ms. Stratton. This incident occurred when they were viewing pictures in a magazine featuring nude females. Respondent's denial of the sexual relationship with Lorry Thomas was not credible. It is improper for a physician to engage in sexual intercourse with a patient during that patient's treatment. Such conduct is contrary to acceptable standards for psychiatrists.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulations, Board of Medicine enter a Final Order dismissing Administrative Complaint (#30291), Case No. 87-4157. It is further recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint (#70999) , Case No. 87-1882, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5000, suspending Respondent's license for six months, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years with appropriate supervision and restriction, and requiring such continuing education programs as the Board may deem appropriate. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-1182, 87-4157 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4(a) is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 4(b) is rejected as argumentative. To the extent paragraph 5 finds Respondent and Lorry Thomas engaged In sexual Intercourse during the time she was in treatment such paragraph is accepted. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as unsupported by the record ("wide variety of sexual activity") or argumentative. Paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 8, only to the extent that Respondent and Lorry Thomas engaged in sexual intercourse during the time she underwent treatment is the paragraph accepted. As a matter of law, there would be a presumption she was not consenting. Otherwise, paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: William O'Neil, Esquire Jon King, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry D. Dennis, Jr., Esquire 1401 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether just cause exists within the meaning of Section 231.36(1), Florida Statutes (2000), to discipline the Respondent for alleged sexual harassment as a result of inappropriate touching.
Findings Of Fact The Nassau County School Board (Petitioner) employed the Respondent as a fifth-grade teacher. The Petitioner took the action giving rise to this dispute and formal proceeding, that is, it suspended and then terminated the Respondent from his teaching position. The Petitioner referred this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal proceeding and hearing. The Respondent Bernice Lamar Miles is an annual contract teacher, employed as such by the Petitioner at times pertinent hereto. He was employed at Emma Love Hardee Elementary School and had been employed there for approximately four years. A.P., C.B., J.P., and S.A., at all times pertinent hereto were students in the fifth grade, with Ms. Helen Edenfield as their primary teacher, at Emma Love Hardee Elementary School. During the fall semester of 2000 the Respondent taught approximately 540 students including those four, teaching them art and physical education. During the fall semester of 2000 the Respondent was scheduled to be the cafeteria monitor between 11:50 a.m., to 12:20 p.m. His duties, as cafeteria monitor, were to ensure the smooth transition of classes of students to and from the cafeteria. In doing so he attempted to maintain order, but typically permitted a more relaxed atmosphere than was the case in the typical classroom situation. There were at least ten other teachers and/or teacher's aides in the cafeteria eating with their classes or picking up or leaving their classes at the cafeteria on that date, between the times of 12:15 p.m. and 12:30 p.m. Between the times of 12:20 p.m. and 12:25 p.m., there were at least six teachers and/or teacher's aides in the cafeteria. There would also typically be some parents, food servers and/or custodians present during these time periods in the cafeteria. Also, on November 20, 2000, between the times of 12:20 p.m. and 12:25 p.m., there were approximately 200 students present in the cafeteria with classes entering or leaving the cafeteria about every five minutes. On November 20, 2000, there were no physical obstructions in the cafeteria that would interfere with any person's direct line of sight towards the stage where A.P., C.B., and the Respondent were standing at the relevant time. The Respondent's Exhibit A accurately depicts a general diagram of the cafeteria and was used for that demonstrative purpose at hearing. Ms. Edenfield's class was in the cafeteria on November 20, 2000, and she was scheduled to pick them up to return to the classroom at 12:25 p.m. The Respondent, therefore, called Ms. Edenfield's class to stand by the stage after they had finished eating lunch to await Ms. Edenfield coming to pick them up. While standing in front of the stage A.P., a fifth- grade student, called the Respondent over to ask him a question. On that date the Respondent did not know the first or last names of either A.P. or C.B. The Respondent, standing near both near A.P. and C.B., spoke to them about the cold weather that day and their decision to eat lunch outside without wearing warmer clothing. He typically speaks to students in the lunchroom and jokes with them, as it is a more relaxed atmosphere than in the classrooms. The Respondent typically is animated when he converses with people. It is quite common for him to touch an individual, either male or female while conversing with them. He speaks in this manner with both male and female and adults and children alike. This manner in which the Respondent makes physical contact with teachers or students while conversing with them is innocuous and has no inappropriate intent. The Respondent does not remember coming into physical contact with either A.P. or C.B. in the cafeteria on November 20, 2000. He did not touch either of them in an inappropriate manner on that date. He merely touched the students, if at all, in an effort to determine if they were cold from being outside without a jacket or sweater or possibly touched A.P. in an effort to fix her collar or neckline, which was askew. Although A.P. and C.B. were standing beside each other within arms length of each other on this occasion when they described the Respondent touching them, neither of these students witnessed the Respondent's alleged touching of the other. S.A. was also a student of the Respondent's in his art and physical education classes in the Fall semester of 2000. She was in the same class as A.P., C.B. and J.P. S.A. has never been touched inappropriately by the Respondent and has never witnessed the Respondent touch anyone in an inappropriate manner. S.A. was present in the cafeteria on November 20, 2000. At the time of the alleged inappropriate touching of A.P. and C.B., S.A. was standing in line next to A.P. and C.B. S.A. observed the Respondent come into physical contact with A.P. in the vicinity of her neckline and witnessed the Respondent fix A.P.'s collar which was askew. S.A. did not observe the Respondent touch C.B. at all. When Ms. Edenfield arrived to retrieve her class from the cafeteria at approximately 12:25 p.m., that day, the Respondent was standing at the microphone. The cafeteria, with approximately 200 students present, including Ms. Edenfield's class, appeared to her as it typically does. Just as the school day ended on November 20, 2000, A.P. reported to Ms. Edenfield that the Respondent had grasped the front of her shirt. A.P. demonstrated the touching with both hands to Ms. Edenfield, grasping the front neckline of her shirt and pulling outward. C.B. did not report any touching by the Respondent to Ms. Edenfield that day. Ms. Edenfield had A.P. go to the principal's office and report the alleged incident to Ms. Grondin, the principal. Ms. Edenfield later learned that C.B. must have accompanied A.P. to see Ms. Grondin. In any event, at least, she observed A.P. and C.B. later, back in the room, working together on a draft of a statement of what allegedly occurred between the Respondent and A.P. in the cafeteria. C.B., at some point later, apparently reported an alleged touching by the Respondent involving his putting his hand approximately half its length into the front of her shirt and purportedly incidentally touching the strap of her bra. S.A. who was standing at arm's length distance and who saw the Respondent straighten the collar of A.P., saw no touching at all of C.B. on the occasion in question in the cafeteria. J.P. was also a student in Ms. Edenfield's class, and in the Respondent's class, during the Fall semester of 2000. During that time prior to Thanksgiving, or prior to the November 20, 2000, alleged incident, J.P. contends that the Respondent touched her from four to six times on her back with his hand going inside her shirt. J.P. stated that when the Respondent patted her on the back he would occasionally remark that her art work was good and make other comments of that nature. J.P. testified, on cross-examination, that the alleged placing of the Respondent's hand inside her shirt did not occur on each of those occasions and then abruptly changed her testimony, upon re-direct, to state that the Respondent put his hand inside her shirt on every occasion. J.P. did not report the alleged inappropriate touching incidents immediately after they occurred. J.P. talked with A.P. on November 20, 2000, when A.P. contended that the Respondent had touched her. On the evening of November 20, 2000, A.P.'s mother called J.P.'s mother regarding A.P.'s allegations. Following that conversation, J.P.'s mother woke J.P. up to speak with her about the Respondent. The next morning, prompted by and accompanied by her parents, J.P. complained to Ms. Grondin, the school principal, about the Respondent's alleged inappropriate touching of her. The Respondent frequently patted students on the back for the purpose of consolation, encouragement or in a congratulatory manner. The Respondent pats the back of both male and female students many times a day. When the Respondent patted J.P. on the back, he would praise her regarding the quality of her art work and make other congratulatory comments to her. The Respondent has no memory of ever placing his hand on J.P.'s front or back in which any part of his hand protruded beneath her clothing. He never intentionally came into contact with the bare skin on J.P.'s back. It is determined that the Respondent did not touch J.P. in an inappropriate manner during the fall semester of 2000. If he did touch J.P. it was in an innocuous manner in which he touches all his students male and female. The testimony by J.P. that the Respondent put his hand beneath her cloths or inside her shirt is not persuasive and is not credible. None of the three complainants' academic performance appeared to have suffered during the time of and as a result of the alleged conduct of the Respondent. In fact, J.P. was a straight "A" student, while A.P. and C.B. were straight "A" students or "A/B" honor roll students. There is no evidence of any conduct or attitude on the part of the three complainants, before the proceeding, which would indicate that they were upset or nervous concerning any attitude or conduct on the part of the Respondent. The School Board maintains a policy prohibiting sexual harassment. Section 3.54 of the Nassau County School Board Rules contains that policy. The policy defines "Sexual Harassment" as: Consisting of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate oral, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when . . . such conduct substantially interferes with . . . a student's work performance or creates an intimidating hostile or offensive . . . school environment. The Respondent was disciplined by the Board for violating its sexual harassment policy, Section 3.54. Specifically, the "inappropriate touching" alleged in the letter of suspension of November 22, 2000, referred to the prohibited "inappropriate touching" in the Board policy which is designated the prohibition of sexual harassment. Dr. Ruis, the superintendent, opined that the alleged touching by the Respondent was inappropriate based upon his interpretation of the sexual harassment policy of the School Board. His interpretation did not take into account any intent requirement which the Board policy itself does require. His opinion that the touching, if it occurred, was inappropriate and that the Respondent had lost effectiveness based upon the incident becoming public knowledge is wholly dependent upon the complete accuracy of the students' allegations and his interpretation of the School Board policy which will be treated in the Conclusions of Law below. It is determined that the testimony offered by J.P., A.P. and C.B., is not persuasive. It was not preponderantly demonstrated by their testimony that the touchings or all of them even occurred at all, aside from the one occasion when the Respondent straightened A.P.'s collar, which testimony was corroborated by the testimony of J.A. Moreover, even if some of the touchings occurred, it was not shown that they were inappropriate or had any sexual intent or motive because, for one thing, testimony concerning whether the Respondent's hand was beneath any of the complaining witnesses' clothing or not or the degree to which it purportedly was, was contradictory and, under the totality of the circumstances found above is simply not credible and persuasive. Consequently, to the extent that any touching occurred at all, it was not shown to be other than a mere innocent, innocuous pat on the back, or similar touching, with no sexual intent, motive or overtones associated with it. Given the totality of the circumstances established by the above Findings of Fact, as to where and under what conditions all of the touchings occurred, if at all, and particularly those described by J.P. and C.B. as purportedly having occurred on their persons at the dates, times and places described in their testimony, it is determined that, if any touching occurred at all, it was innocuous, innocent and of a non-sexual intent, and nature. Therefore, it was not inappropriate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the School Board of Nassau County dismissing the complaint against the Respondent and reinstating the Respondent to his former position without diminution or loss in pay, benefits or other emoluments of his former position. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. Michael Ruff 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 4th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian T. Hayes, Esquire Brian T. Hayes, P.A. 245 East Washington Street Monticello, Florida 32344 John L. Ruis, Ed.D Superintendent of Schools Nassau County School District 1201 Atlantic Avenue Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 Honorable Charlie Crist Commission of Education The Capitol, Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Should Respondent's Law Enforcement Certificate be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: Respondent was certified by the Commission on June 10, 1977, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 41580. The Administrative Complaint alleges that: (a) On or between January 1, 1973, and December 31, 1974, Respondent did unlawfully handle, fondle, or make an assault in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner upon Deborah Brice, a child under sixteen years of age, by fondling her breasts and kissing her neck; (b) On or between January l, 1976, and December 31, 1979, Respondent did unlawfully handle, fondle, or make an assault in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner upon Dorothy Spickard, a child under sixteen years of age, by putting her on his lap and tickling her near her vaginal area; (c) On or between January 1, 1976, and December 31, 1979, Respondent did unlawfully handle, fondle, or make an assault in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner upon Dawn Whitehead, a child under sixteen years of age, by digitally penetrating her vagina areas and placing her hands on his penis; and (d) On or between June 1, 1969, and December 31, 1971, Respondent did unlawfully handle, fondle, or make an assault in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner upon Susan Kleine, a child under sixteen years of age, by kissing her on the neck, French-kissing her, and forcing her on a bed and getting on top of her, simulating sexual intercourse. Debra Brice, Dorothy A. Spickard, Dawn Allison Steward (f/n/a Dawn Allison Whitehead), and Susan Kleine testified that Respondent touched them inappropriately during the middle 1970's while they were under the age of 18 years. Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, and Susan Kleine were around the age of 14 to 15 years at the time the inappropriate touching was alleged to have occurred. Dawn Steward was around the age of 8 to 9 years at the time the inappropriate touching was alleged to have occurred. Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, and Dawn Steward are nieces of Respondent's ex-wife, Carol, who was married to Respondent during the time that the alleged incidents were supposed to have occurred. Susan Kleine is a sister of Respondent's ex-wife, Carol. Respondent and Carol were married in 1966, and were divorced sometime around 1978-79. It was not until the latter part of 1993, approximately 20 years later, that Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine told anyone of this alleged inappropriate touching. Sometime around the latter part of 1993, Carol discussed this inappropriate touching with Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine. Sometime around the latter part of 1993, this alleged inappropriate touching was discussed in the presence of Debra Brice or Dorothy Spickard or Dawn Steward or Susan Kleine during therapy sessions involving Carol's and Respondent's child. While Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine appeared to be relatively clear on the facts concerning the alleged inappropriate touching, they were not clear on all the facts surrounding the alleged incidents. There was no evidence presented to corroborate the testimony of Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, or Susan Kleine. Respondent denies any inappropriate touching of Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine. Respondent admits tickling and wrestling with Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine in a playful manner but denies touching any of them in an inappropriate manner, specifically in an inappropriate sexual manner. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Respondent touched Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine in an inappropriate manner, sexually or otherwise, notwithstanding the testimony of Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine to the contrary which I find lacks credibility due to the reasons set forth in Findings of Fact 5 through 9.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, Recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 26th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas M. Lindsey 21367 Anderson Road Brooksville, Florida 34601 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Jonathan W. Whyte, held teaching certificate number 517135 issued by the Department of Education. The certificate covers the area of physical education and is valid through June 30, 1996. When the relevant events herein occurred, respondent was certified as a teacher and was employed in various positions (both instructional and non- instructional) at Terry Parker High School (TPHS) in Jacksonville, Florida. The school is a part of the Duval County School District (District). Respondent was married to and lived with Cathy Whyte until they separated in November 1989. They had two children, S. W., born on November 22, 1985, who is the alleged victim in this case, and C. W., an older brother whose age is unknown. In addition, Cathy had two older boys from a prior marriage. The six lived together in Jacksonville, Florida, where respondent was employed as a teacher and coach at TPHS. Shortly after the separation, or in March 1990, dissolution proceedings were initiated by the wife, and a somewhat acrimonious and lengthy custody battle for the two biological children ensued. A dissolution of the marriage was eventually granted, and Cathy was given primary custody of the two children while respondent received visitation rights during parts of the summer and Christmas holidays. In 1990, or after the two were separated but before the marriage was dissolved, Cathy relocated to Connecticut with her boyfriend and another male friend taking all four children with her. In December 1990, charges that respondent may have sexually abused S. W. were allegedly made by the daughter to the mother who reported these allegations to Connecticut authorities. The charges were subsequently reported to Florida authorities, and after learning of them, the District temporarily removed respondent from the classroom in 1991 and reassigned him with pay to the media center for the remainder of the school year. Because the charges still remained unresolved at the beginning of school year 1992-93, respondent was temporarily reassigned with pay to the transportation center for that school year. By the summer of 1993, respondent had not taught in a classroom for two consecutive years, and this constituted a ground for the District to refuse to renew respondent's annual contract for school year 1993-94. Consequently, he was forced to seek employment in an unrelated field pending the outcome of this complaint. In September 1992, petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, issued an administrative complaint against respondent charging him with sexually abusing his daughter in July 1990. The complaint was later amended to add the charge that he also sexually abused his daughter during Christmas holidays of 1992. The filing of the complaint prompted respondent to request a hearing. The Allegations The origin of the charges The administrative complaint, as amended, alleges that from July 15, 1990, to July 31, 1990, the Respondent committed sexual acts upon his five year old daughter. Such acts included but were not limited to kissing with an open mouth, engaging in oral sex, fondling of genitals, and penile penetration of the vagina. The complaint goes on to allege that on or about December of 1992, when the Respondent's daughter was visiting him for Christmas vacation in Florida, while the Respondent's daughter was at her Grandparent's home, the Respondent again committed sexual acts upon his daughter. Such acts included but were not limited to fondling of genitals, penile penetration of the vagina, and other inappropriate touching. The Respondent thereupon told his daughter, "Don't tell anyone I did this." The veracity of these allegations, which respondent strongly denies, is discussed in greater detail below. In December 1990, or after Cathy had moved to Connecticut and while she and respondent were in the midst of a custody battle, charges that respondent had sexually abused his daughter first arose. These charges were lodged by his estranged wife after she allegedly heard these complaints from her then five year old daughter. The matter was referred to the state police, and the daughter was interviewed on videotape by a female state trooper. This videotape was later furnished to the Florida circuit court having jurisdiction over the dissolution and custody matters. In March 1991, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) also received the same report that respondent had abused his daughter in July 1990. After an investigation was conducted, the report was classified by HRS as unfounded. In late 1992 or early 1993, the mother again reported to Connecticut authorities that respondent sexually abused his daughter while she visited him during Christmas holidays of 1992. The charges were referred to the Jacksonville sheriff's office in January 1993 and were later incorporated by petitioner into an amended complaint. The validity of the charges In support of the complaint, petitioner has relied upon the testimony of the alleged victim, two psychologists, an HRS investigator, and a sheriff's detective. The mother did not testify. Although the alleged victim made statements concerning the allegations to each of these witnesses, petitioner has conceded that, with one exception, all of these statements are hearsay and can be used only for the purpose of supplementing and explaining other competent evidence, if any. As to the one claimed exception, which involves the statements made by the child during an interview with Dr. D'Amato, a psychologist, the circumstances surrounding the making of the child's statements indicate a lack of reliability, and they are accordingly deemed to be hearsay. The specific reasons relied upon by the undersigned in making this finding are cited below. The validity of the charges turns in large measure on the veracity of the alleged victim's testimony. Bearing on this issue are several considerations. First, the allegations in the amended complaint arose during the course of a protracted child custody battle. Where there is marital conflict, divorce or custody proceedings, false sexual abuse allegations are not uncommon. Indeed, according to the accepted testimony of one expert, Dr. Krop, a higher percentage of false sexual allegations are made by a parent in this type of case. At the same time, there was evidence here of the presence of the parental alienation syndrome. In other words, one parent (the mother) was attempting through negative statements to alienate the children, including S. W., towards respondent, the estranged parent. When such alienation occurs, it tends to cast doubt on the credibility of the complaints of the alleged victim. Further, the evidence showed that during the child's first interview concerning the alleged abuse in late 1990 or early 1991 with a Connecticut state trooper, she was "contaminated" by inappropriate questioning and improper interview techniques. For example, during that interview, the trooper improperly interrogated, rather than questioned, the child. In addition, and contrary to accepted practice, the mother was allowed to remain in the room during the interview and was asked to verify some of the child's responses. Also, the interrogator repeatedly used leading questions and prompted the child with the desired responses. When contamination such as this occurs, any further allegations of abuse must be viewed "suspiciously" and are placed in doubt since the child is vulnerable to figures of authority and may give an answer, whether truthful or not, simply because she believes that the answer given is expected by the interrogator. Moreover, by being "interviewed" in this manner, the child was "conditioned" to give the same responses in subsequent interviews to authority figures. It is also noted that during the child's videotaped deposition in May 1993, which has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 2, her answers lacked sponteneity, and she was repeatedly led by counsel and answered many questions only after being given the suggested answer. At that time, she acknowledged that "someone" had told her that by confirming that abuse had occurred, it would "help" her father. It is noteworthy that during the deposition, while claiming that some abuse occurred, the alleged victim specifically denied the allegations of oral sex, penile penetration and kissing with an open mouth, all being charges in the amended complaint. She also changed her testimony as to the number of times she was abused, and she used and understood the meaning of the words "vagina" and "penis" because of knowledge imparted to her by her mother. It is extremely unusual for a child of that age to use and understand those anatomical words. Collectively, these considerations cast considerable doubt on the credibility of the alleged victim's testimony and lead the undersigned to find that it should not be accepted. Given this finding, the hearsay testimony (consisting of statements made by the child during various interviews) offered by the HRS investigator, sheriff's detective and two psychologists does not supplement or explain any competent evidence of record and has been disregarded. Finally, the undersigned has also considered other pertinent testimony that supports the above findings, and that accepted testimony has been set forth below. The charge that respondent sexually abused his daughter during Christmas holidays of 1992 does not comport with other competent evidence. Due to the earlier allegations of abuse (that allegedly occurred in July 1990) being leveled against respondent, he agreed to certain restrictions during his visitation periods with the children. Under the terms of that agreement, when the two children visited him in Florida, they were to stay at his parents' home in Neptune Beach, and S. W. was to sleep in her grandparents' bedroom. Also, respondent agreed to never be alone with the children and to have one or both of the grandparents with them at all times. During her visit at Christmas 1992, S. W. was never alone with her father or out of sight of one of the grandparents except on one occasion when the girl accompanied her father out of the home during the day with another adult but not the grandparents. This was confirmed by uncontroverted testimony. During that same period of time, respondent slept on a couch at his parents' home, and his two children shared a bedroom directly across from his parents' bedroom. As to the alleged abuse in July 1990, the only time that the child was in Jacksonville without her brothers or mother being present was for one three day period, a Saturday afternoon to the following Tuesday. During that time, S. W. stayed at her grandparents' home while respondent spent the nights at his apartment. Respondent was working from five until midnight at a second job on Monday through Saturdays, by which time S. W. had already gone to bed, and he was attending classes at the University of Florida each work day until mid-afternoon when he returned to Jacksonville to go to work at his second job. On the only days he saw his daughter, a Saturday afternoon and all day Sunday, his parents were constantly present. Three psychologists testified in this cause. The first, Dr. Krop, a witness for respondent, became involved with evaluating respondent's family in October 1990 after being appointed by a circuit judge to evaluate the family and make a recommendation for the childrens' primary residence and visitation arrangements. The second, Dr. Kaplan, was appointed by the same circuit judge in July 1992 to offer his recommendation as to visitation arrangements for S. W. Both psychologists interviewed the alleged victim and her family, including respondent, and became aware of the sexual abuse allegations during the course of their interviews. Doctor Kaplan, who testified on behalf of petitioner, had extremely limited experience in the area of child sexual abuse, and before this case, had never been proffered as an expert in that area. Although he was accepted as an expert in psychology, he was not accepted as an expert in child sexual abuse, and very little weight, if any, has been accorded his opinions on this subject. The third psychologist, Dr. D'Amato, a Jacksonville psychologist, and also a witness for petitioner, first interviewed the child in April 1991 after the case was referred to him by the Jacksonville state attorney, presumably in response to the allegations referred to that office by Connecticut authorities. At the request of the mother's divorce attorney, and for the purpose of "monitoring" the child on the mother's behalf, Dr. D'Amato continued to see the child on four occasions in July and August 1992 for either fifteen or thirty minute sessions when she was visiting Florida. During those sessions, the psychologist found the child to be free of anxiety, comfortable with her father, and "enjoying herself." The testimony of Dr. Harry Krop, an expert in the field of child sexual abuse and who testified on behalf of respondent, has been accepted as being the most credible and persuasive of the three psychologists who testified. Based on his interviews with the child and family, and review of videotapes, depositions and other pertinent medical records, Dr. Krop concluded that the alleged sexual abuse of S. W. cannot be validated. The undersigned concurs with this finding. In summary, for the reasons cited above, it is found that respondent did not sexually abuse his daughter as alleged in the amended complaint. Therefore, the charges must fail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the amended administrative complaint with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6173 Petitioner: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 5-9. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence or hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 12. The remainder has been rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. 11-13. Rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. 16-20. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 22-24. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. 25-26. Rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. 27-30. Rejected as being contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. 31. Rejected as being unnecessary. 32-33. Rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 35-37. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rejected as being hearsay which does not supplement or explain other competent, accepted evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary or contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence. 40-41. Rejected as being irrelevant. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire Post Office Box 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Wm. Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry L. Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Does the Department of Corrections' Sexual Harassment Policy, as contained in the Pamphlet "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities", in a one-page document entitled "Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment Policy", and Chapter 7 of the Department's Personnel Procedures Manual, constitute umpromulgated rules, pursuant to Section 120.535 F.S.? Are existing Department of Corrections Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4), and 33-4.003(22) and (24), F.A.C. invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority due to vagueness, pursuant to Section 120.56 F.S.?
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Petitioner has been a career-service employee working as a Parole Officer I for DOC. He has earned a master's degree in criminology. At all times material, DOC has had in effect a one-page document entitled "Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment Policy" (P-5), a Pamphlet entitled "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities" (P-3), and a Personnel Procedures Manual. Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual is entitled "Sexual Harassment Complaints" (P-6). DOC has not adopted these documents as rules, and Petitioner here challenges them as unpromulgated rules. On February 22, 1996, Petitioner received written notice that he would be suspended without pay for ten days as a result of his violation of DOC Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4) and 33- 4.003(23)(25), F.A.C., (since renumbered) and the DOC's Policy on Sexual Harassment. The letter did not rely on Chapter 7 of the agency's Personnel Procedures Manual or its Pamphlet entitled "Sexual Harassment, Your Rights and Responsibilities". Petitioner appealed this action to PERC, which subsequently entered a recommended order upholding DOC's disciplinary action. Language from PERC's recommended order, which is pertinent to this instant rule challenge is: Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.001(4)(a) states, in pertinent part, that 'No . . . employee shall knowingly . . . commit any act or engage in any conduct which would violate any state statute, rule, directive or policy statement.' Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.002(4) states, in pertinent part, that 'Each employee . . . shall perform his duties fairly and impartially and otherwise conduct himself both on-duty and off-duty so as to command the respect of fellow employees, persons on parole, probation or otherwise under his supervision, inmates and the general public.' Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4,.003(23) states that a first offense of conduct unbecoming a public employee is punishable by a written reprimand, up to a thirty day suspension or dismissal. Florida Administrative Code Rule 33-4.003(25) states that a first offense of willful violation of rules, regulations, directives or policy statements is punishable by a written reprimand, up to a thirty day suspension or dismissal. The DOC pamphlet entitled 'Florida Department of Corrections Sexual Harassment: Your Rights and Responsibilities,' provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sexual Harassment requires two elements: The alleged conduct must be of a sexual nature, must be unwelcome and unwanted. Sexual harassment may be any of, but not limited to, the following: * * * continued suggestions regarding invi- tations to social events outside the work place, after being told such suggestions are unwelcome; * * * prolonged staring or leering to [sic] a person; * * * 32. State of Florida, Department of Corrections, Personnel Procedures Manual, Chapter 7, Sexual Harassment, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * O. Sexual Harassment - Sexual Harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature from or involving an employee's supervisors, peers, subordinates or any other persons in contact with an employee or applicant during the course of the conduct of the employee's or applicant's business when: Submission to such conduct is either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment; or Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or Such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. 33. The DOC Sexual Harassment Policy provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sexual harassment may result from unwelcome sexual advances or a hostile environment created by conduct offensive to the victim such as suggestive or lewd comments, dirty jokes, offensive pictures or physical touching. Accordingly, all employees are being placed on notice that any employee found guilty of having engaged in sexual harassment will be severely disciplined, up to and including dismissal. * * * The charge of conduct unbecoming a public employee is a general charge that is subsumed if the Agency has a more specific charge that fully describes the alleged misconduct. Ford v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FCSR Para. 148 (1993); Mathis v. Department of Corrections, 6 FCSR Para. 122 (1991). In this case, I conclude that the charge of unbecoming conduct is subsumed within the charge of sexual harassment and should be dismissed. PERC's recommended order also applied the foregoing provisions. At the date of formal hearing in the instant rule challenge, PERC had issued no final order. Before this instant Division of Administrative Hearings final order could be entered, PERC had extended the time for the parties to file exceptions to its hearing officer's recommended order, and ultimately, on August 13, 1996, PERC adopted its hearing officer's recommended order, thereby rendering Petitioner subject to future disciplinary action at the second occurrence level under Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C. The final order of PERC is now under appeal by Petitioner. These facts are officially recognized, sua sponte. Petitioner received copies of the Pamphlet, the Sexual Harassment Policy, and a copy of Chapter 33-4, F.A.C., on July 16, 1993, when he began employment with the agency. He did not receive a copy of Chapter 7 of the Personnel Manual and was unaware of it until his PERC proceeding. DOC imposes disciplinary action against its employees for conduct which constitutes sexual harassment. Petitioner received periodic training in agency seminars on the agency's Sexual Harassment Policy, including annual film presentations. He did not receive similar training regarding "conduct unbecoming a public employee", which is a term utilized in Section 110.227(1), F.S., and for which an employee may be disciplined. Section 110.227(1), F.S., also permits discipline of employees for "willful violation of the provisions of law or agency rules". Rule 33-4.001(4)(a), F.A.C., provides, in pertinent part: Responsibility for Conduct of Employees, Inmates and Others. No Administrator, Superintendent, Officer-In-Charge, Supervisor, or other employee shall knowingly permit any subordinate, inmate or other person to, nor shall he, commit any act or engage in any conduct which would violate any statute, rule, directive or policy statement . . . . Petitioner claims that Rule 33-4.001(4)(a), F.A.C., is vague as applied to him because he is not an administrator, superintendent, officer-in-charge, or a supervisor. According to Petitioner, this rule in only applicable to those who supervise subordinates. Rule 33-4.002(4), F.A.C., provides in pertinent part: (4) Each employee shall keep himself physically fit, mentally alert, personally neat and clean and shall perform his duties fairly and impartially, and otherwise conduct himself both on-duty and off-duty so as to command the respect of fellow employees, persons on parole, probation or otherwise under his supervision, inmates and the general public . . . . Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C., is entitled "Range of Disciplinary Actions" and lists a number of violations. Item (22) is "Conduct Unbecoming a Public Employee"; Item (24) is "Willful Violation of Rules, Regulations, Directives, or Policy Statements". The range of disciplinary penalties is increased at the second occurrence level under the rule. The agency Policy Statement, Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the agency Personnel Manual state that sexual harassment is conduct unbecoming a public employee and contain definitions of sexual harassment, including hostile work place sexual harassment. The first sentence of the Pamphlet states that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and is conduct unbecoming a public employee, as provided in Sections 110.105, 110.227 and 110.233, F.S., and Chapter 33-4, F.A.C. (Rules of the Department). The first page of the Pamphlet states EEOC guidelines defining sexual harassment, as recognized by the agency: Unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of a person's employment, or Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by [sic] decisions affecting an individual, or Such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with a person's work [sic] hostile or offensive working environment. The Pamphlet goes on to advise that sexual harassment requires two elements: conduct of a sexual nature/that is unwelcome and unwanted. It lists examples of harassing behavior, advises of the need to report such behavior, and explains the agency's internal complaint procedure and the procedure's protections against retaliation. It gives references for legal remedies outside the agency. Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual states basically the same information as the Pamphlet, lists the same legal authorities and details the internal complaint procedure. It specifically provides, If there is a determination that there is cause to believe sexual harassment occurred, disciplinary action shall be taken in accordance with Chapter 33-4 Department of Corrections Rules. Chapter 7 was first effective on January 25, 1989 and last amended on March 5, 1993. It derives its authority from Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Sections 110.105, 110.227, and 110.233, F.S., and Chapter 33-4, F.A.C. Both the agency Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the Manual state that sexual harassment is conduct unbecoming an employee. Petitioner's position with regard to whether or not the Pamphlet and Chapter 7 of the Manual constitute unpromulgated rules appears to center on his belief that without them, employees are not on notice as to exactly what behavior constitutes sexual harassment, that they contain a subtext of what types of sexual harassment, i.e. hostile work environment, will be disciplined, or that they alone reveal that sexual harassment constitutes "conduct unbecoming". Petitioner testified that he understood blatant sexual harassment, such as unconsented physical contact, to be conduct unbecoming a public employee, but he did not have a clear understanding about the "gray areas", such as complimenting co- workers, socializing outside work, or what acts constituted hostile work place sexual harassment. However, Petitioner testified that he was on notice that the agency had an Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy and that at all times material, he knew that if he committed sexual harassment, he would be subject to discipline, up to and including termination. Petitioner admitted that if any employee engaged in actual sexual harassment against another employee, the offending employee would not command the respect of fellow employees, as described in Rule 33-4.002(4), F.A.C. He also was on notice through Rule 33-4.003, F.A.C., that he could be disciplined for "conduct unbecoming" or "willful violations of law or policy statements". He is charged at law with knowledge of Section 110.227(1) requiring discipline for "conduct unbecoming" or "willful violation" and Chapter 760 F.S., which implements Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The agency routinely disciplines its employees for sexual harassment and has a long history of application of its Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy. Petitioner did not submit any evidence as to how Chapter 7 of the agency's Personnel Procedures Manual, the Pamphlet, or the one- page Policy Statement had any affect on him, beyond the discipline described, supra. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to show that the agency's Sexual Harassment Policy, the Pamphlet, or Chapter 7 of the Personnel Procedures Manual have any affect on any person not employed by Respondent. There was no evidence that any of the provisions in these documents were self-executing.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's law enforcement certification should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Base upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Lloyd H. Sisk, held law enforcement certificate number 2252 issued by petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission). Respondent has held his license since April 3, 1971. When the events herein occurred, Sisk was employed as a detective with the Charlotte County Sheriff's Department. The charges against respondent are based upon an allegation of sexual abuse lodged against him by his niece, S. C., who is now seventeen years of age. The abuse allegedly occurred between December 1986 and February 1988. To place this controversy in proper perspective, a brief discussion of the living arrangements in the Sisk household is appropriate. In 1983 respondent, his wife, Brenda, and Brenda's mother (grandmother) decided to jointly purchase a home in Port Charlotte, Florida. Also residing with the Sisks were their teen-age son, Jeffrey, and the alleged victim. The grandmother had been given legal custody over the alleged victim, who was the daughter of Janis, Brenda's sister. Janis lived in Pinellas County, but because of various legal and personal problems, she had relinquished custody of her daughter to the grandmother shortly after S. C.'s birth. In late 1986, and over the objections of the grandmother and alleged victim, the Sisks decided to sell the home. This in turn engendered antagonism and animosity between the members of the family component and eventually culminated in the sexual abuse charges being made. The home was finally sold in February 1988, or more than a year later. Before the sale occurred, the Sisks advised the grandmother and alleged victim that, because of constant friction, the grandmother and S. C. would not live with the Sisks and their son when they relocated to a new home. At almost the same time the sale took place, S. C. began making sexual abuse allegations against respondent. In this regard, the testimony is sharply conflicting. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence. The allegations first surfaced on an undisclosed date in February 1988 when S. C. told her sixteen year old boyfriend, James, that respondent had touched her breasts, buttocks and vaginal area while giving her back massages and had put a condom on his penis while in her presence. On February 17, 1988, S. C. telephoned her mother in Pinellas County and said respondent had been coming home in the afternoon and asking to give her backrubs. The alleged victim further complained that, during those backrubs, respondent was "rubbing her butt and in between her legs". That same day, S. C. told her grandmother that respondent had touched her breasts, buttocks and vaginal area while giving her backrubs. Three days later, S. C.'s mother, while in an intoxicated state, telephoned the Largo Police Department and relate the abuse allegations to a detective. That led to an investigation by the Charlotte County Sheriff's Office and the eventual filing of criminal charges by the state attorney and sexual abuse charges by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). 1/ At final hearing, the former boyfriend, grandmother and natural mother related the allegations described in the previous finding of fact. In addition, statements made by S. C. to an HRS counselor were offered into evidence. Finally, the alleged victim gave her version of what transpired. This included a rather graphic account of respondent, while in the presence of S. C., placing a condom on his penis and masturbating, and after attaining an erection a few minutes later, positioning his body next to S. C. and demonstrating various coital positions to his niece. The testimony of the alleged victim is not accepted as being credible for a number of reasons. To begin with, S. C. was extremely upset with respondent because the family home was being sold and she had been told that she could not remain with the Sisks. Her animosity towards respondent is also evidenced by the fact that, just prior to final hearing, she encouraged her mother (Janis) to "slam him (respondent)" with her testimony. It is also noted that the alleged victim's testimony at hearing differed in several material respects with the complaints she made to the Commission, HRS and in prior court testimony. Finally, the testimony of Lloyd, Brenda and Jeffrey Sisk, which is accepted as being credible, demonstrated numerous inconsistencies in S. C.'s testimony. Accordingly, it is found that respondent did not commit a lewd and lascivious act in the presence of his niece by exposing his penis and masturbating, and he did not handle her breasts, buttocks and vaginal area as alleged in the administrative complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Heading Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1990.
The Issue The issue to be presented is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, in violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, having been issued certificate number 281123. Respondent was employed by the City of Madison Police Department from December 2008 through July 2009. At the beginning of 2009, Respondent was 23 years old. Sometime in late December 2008 or early in 2009, Respondent received the telephone number for E.B.H. from Paige Bell, a friend of E.B.H.'s. At the time Ms. Bell gave Respondent E.B.H.'s number, E.B.H. was 16 years old. Respondent knew that E.B.H. was under the age of 18. Although the exact time-frame of the communications is unclear, in approximately January or February of 2009, Respondent and E.B.H. texted and called each for a one to two-week period. They never met in person. During their short period of communication, the two sent each other pictures of themselves so that each knew what the other looked like. E.B.H. testified that the first pictures sent were normal photos where she was clothed. After receiving those, she testified that Respondent asked her for "sexy" photos of herself wearing no underclothing. In response, E.B.H. sent him two pictures of herself, either nude or partially nude. The communication between Respondent and E.B.H. was brief, lasting no more than a few weeks. Once E.B.H. learned that Respondent was a law enforcement officer, she stopped texting him because she did not want either of them to get in trouble. Sometime after the texting stopped, the police chief for City of Madison Police Department received an anonymous complaint alleging that Respondent had possession of nude pictures of a minor female. On July 7, 2009, Sergeant Benton Ebberson was assigned to conduct an internal investigation in response to the complaint. As part of his investigation, Sergeant Ebberson spoke to several individuals who did not testify at hearing. What those individuals told him during the investigation is clearly hearsay. However, from these interviews, Sergeant Ebberson was able to gather enough information to get descriptions of the photos and identify E.B.H. as the subject of the photos. As a consequence, Sergeant Ebberson located and, with the permission of her parents, interviewed E.B.H. She admitted sending the photos to Respondent, but no longer had possession of the phone from which the texts were sent or copies of the pictures. Her father had discovered her actions and the pictures earlier in the year, and had deleted the photos and confiscated her telephone. Respondent also was interviewed as a consequence of the internal investigation. Consistent with the information he gave during his interview, he denies asking for the photos and claims E.B.H. sent them to him on her own volition. Whether he asked for the pictures is not particularly relevant. There is no dispute that E.B.H. sent and Respondent received at least two pictures of E.B.H. in which E.B.H. was wearing little or no clothing. Respondent claims that, while he received the pictures and looked at them, he did not know they were pictures of E.B.H., and therefore a minor, because the pictures did not include her face. However, he knew that the pictures were received from E.B.H.'s telephone number. Respondent did not report receiving the pictures to either his supervisors or to E.B.H.'s parents. Respondent also claims that upon receiving the pictures, he simply deleted them. His testimony to this effect is not credible. E.B.H. testified credibly that while she had sent inappropriate photographs to a former boyfriend on a separate occasion, she had sent these photographs to Respondent only. Regardless of the possible motives involved for complaining, it makes no sense that anyone would be able to complain to the police department and that the photos could be described in sufficient detail for Sergeant Ebberson to be able to locate E.B.H. unless Respondent either talked about receiving the photos or showed the photos to someone else. The photos, however, are not in evidence. E.B.H. knew she was either completely nude or only partially dressed, but could provide very little other information about the photos. No evidence was presented to indicate that the photos included a depiction of sexual conduct.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 14th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kerra A. Smith, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ernest M. Page, IV, Esquire Post Office Box 167 Perry, Florida 32348 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what remedy should be ordered?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female formerly employed by the School District. From February 2006 to April 18, 2007, she was employed as a paraprofessional in the special education unit at Flagler Palm Coast High School. Petitioner is an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Section 760.02(6) and (10), Florida Statutes, in that Petitioner is female and filed a complaint of gender discrimination and retaliation with the Commission. Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. From the inception of her employment and until March 13, 2007, Ms. Price was assigned as a paraprofessional (parapro) in Mr. Robert Rinker's classroom. Ms. Price had not been in the work force for several years before taking the job at Flagler Palm Coast High School and was taking classes at night to obtain her teaching degree. Mr. Rinker teaches in what was described as a self- contained classroom for students who are classified as emotionally handicapped in the exceptional education program. At Flagler Palm Coast High School, at least some of the students in the program would attend classes in the 300 building of the campus, and would have fewer classes and teachers compared to a traditional schedule. However, students would not necessarily be limited to one classroom all day. They could, for example, have classes with other special education teachers in the 300 building. Parapros are evaluated by the assistant principal. While teachers with whom the parapro worked might be asked to provide input for evaluations, the teachers are not considered to be their supervisors. Ms. Price was in the classroom with Mr. Rinker during first and second periods, between classes, and during lunch. During third and fourth period, Mr. Rinker supervised students in the gym while Ms. Price remained in the classroom with students who did not go to the gym. Stan Hall also teaches special education in the 300 building of Flagler Palm Coast High School. During Ms. Price’s employment, he was assisted by a parapro named Kathy Picano. Ms. Picano sometimes visited Ms. Price in Mr. Rinker’s classroom. She is significantly younger than both Ms. Price and Mr. Rinker. Mr. Rinker is a jovial man and a veteran teacher. He coaches soccer and has coached basketball. He is well liked by his peers and by the students he teaches. Mr. Rinker often tells jokes and stories, and sometimes his jokes are “off color” or of a sexual nature. The jokes and stories are told to both male and female colleagues and not in the presence of students. No other staff member had ever told Mr. Rinker that his jokes were offensive and no one had ever complained to supervisory personnel that they were offended by Mr. Rinker’s behavior. Mr. Rinker sometimes used the phrase, “a good lovin’ is the universal cure.” He testified that he had heard this phrase since his childhood from his older relatives, and simply meant that when someone is having a bad day, a hug or other encouragement helps make things better. The remark could be addressed to students and staff alike. He did not mean anything sexual by the phrase, and others hearing the phrase did not interpret it as a sexual remark. Mr. Rinker’s testimony is credited. Ms. Price, however, was offended by Mr. Rinker’s jokes. She testified that nearly every conversation with Mr. Rinker became focused on sex. According to Ms. Price, the first week she worked with Mr. Rinker, they were discussing mailboxes in the classroom, and he stated, “let’s talk about the box you are sitting on.” She understood that he was referring to her vagina. Ms. Price stated that she was shocked by this statement, but did not say so because it was her first week on the job. Mr. Rinker does not remember ever making such a statement. Whether or not this incident actually happened, it occurred over a year prior to Ms. Price's complaint to either the School District or the Commission. Also that first week, Ms. Price mentioned in the classroom that she had a headache, and in response Mr. Rinker rubbed her shoulders or neck. Ms. Price was offended but did not tell Mr. Rinker his touch was unwelcome. Ms. Price claims that while things were not too bad the first semester she worked with Mr. Rinker, eventually it got to the point where she was unable to have a conversation with Mr. Rinker without it focusing on sex. She claimed that he sometimes purposefully rubbed up against her in the classroom.1/ In order to avoid talking to him or being physically close to him, she moved her desk to another part of the room. While she claimed the situation was intolerable, she did not report Mr. Rinker’s behavior to any supervisor and did not tell him she was offended by his conduct. Kathy Picano and Ms. Price sometimes spent time together in Mr. Rinker’s classroom. Mr. Rinker sometimes told jokes in Ms. Picano's presence and sometimes “invaded her personal space.” He acknowledged that he might have patted her on the back in passing as part of a greeting, but Ms. Picano described the touch as no different from what she might have received from her grandmother. Although Ms. Picano did not particularly care for Mr. Rinker’s jokes, she attributed them to being “just his personality.” She was not offended by Mr. Rinker’s behavior and, before being questioned with respect to Ms. Price's complaint in this case, never complained about it to him or anyone else in authority at the school. She acknowledged hearing Mr. Rinker make the “good lovin” comment, but found it endearing, as opposed to harassing. Ms. Price, however, was deeply offended by what she viewed as Mr. Rinker’s behavior toward Ms. Picano. The things with which she took offense did not stop with Mr. Rinker’s jokes or the attention she perceived that he gave to Ms. Picano. She did not think that Mr. Rinker or Mr. Hall did an adequate job of teaching, and was upset that Mr. Hall’s students were allowed, on occasion, to come to Mr. Rinker’s classroom to finish assignments because they were disruptive. She did not appreciate the way Mr. Peacock, the assistant principal, performed his job and believed there was an unwritten code where coaches and athletes did not have to follow the same rules as others on campus. Perhaps most of all, she was offended because students in Mr. Rinker’s classroom talked about sex too much and she did not believe that he did enough to stop it. In her view, this was exacerbated when Mr. Hall’s students were allowed to come over and finish work. Further, she believed that the students were using the computers in the classroom to access inappropriate videos and music that were offensive. Computers were in the classroom for students to complete assignments and to do research for school projects. When they were finished with their work, students sometimes played games on the computers and checked sports sites. Sites such as “myspace,” however, were blocked in accordance with school policy. While Ms. Price claimed the students were using the computers for inappropriate purposes, she admitted that she could not see what was on the computer screens from where she sat in the classroom. The testimony of the students did not corroborate her claim. All stated computers were used for school work and when school work was finished, to play games as stated above. Only one student indicated that he watched music videos. All the others denied doing so. There is no question that the students in Mr. Rinker’s class sometimes talked about sex and used profanity in the classroom.2/ One of the classes was a health class. The students were teenagers, many of whom had significant emotional problems with little or no support at home. Some of their individual education plans addressed the problem of too much use of profanity, with a goal of reducing its use in the classroom setting. Staff who testified all stated that trying to eliminate the use of profanity entirely was probably not a realistic goal, but modifying behavior to reduce it was. Their testimony is credited. Ms. Price was not the only one who complained about students talking about sex in the classroom. Barbara Ryan was another parapro who sometimes worked in Mr. Rinker’s classroom. She agreed that the students sometimes talked about sex and remembered a particular incident where she thought the discussion was particularly explicit and she said something to Mr. Rinker. He told the students involved to “knock it off.” In December 2006, an anonymous call came in to Ms. Myra Middleton at the District office complaining about inappropriate language used by students in the 300 building. Ms. Middleton referred the person to Mr. Peacock in accordance with School District policy. She spoke to Mr. Peacock, who said he would take care of it. After the phone call, Mr. Peacock went to each of the classrooms in the 300 building and spoke to the students about the inappropriateness of using profanity and talking about sex in the classroom. There was no evidence, however, that the anonymous call was placed because of conduct occurring in Mr. Rinker's classroom. The talk by students did not necessarily stop after Mr. Peacock spoke to the students. However, the more credible evidence is that these conversations did not involve the entire class, but rather small groups of students. Several students testified they never heard talk about sex in the classroom. The conversations that did occur took place while other conversations were also taking place. When Mr. Rinker heard the conversations, he told students to stop. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Rinker heard each conversation that Ms. Price heard or that he deliberately chose not to address the students’ behavior. Nor is there any evidence that the students’ discussions regarding sex were in any way directed toward her. Mr. Rinker was not particularly computer literate. As a consequence, Ms. Price entered all of the students' grades in the computer. She had access to Mr. Rinker’s password and would print out his e-mail. In early March, 2007, Mr. Rinker received an e-mail from Mr. Peacock’s secretary directing that he see Mr. Peacock regarding his evaluation. Ms. Price did not believe that Mr. Peacock intended to complete the required observation for Mr. Rinker's evaluation, and this offended her. Ms. Price answered the e-mail as if she were Mr. Rinker, noting that no observation had yet taken place. This conduct violated the written standards applicable to parapros. Mr. Peacock discovered that Ms. Price, and not Mr. Rinker, had responded to his secretary's e-mail. On March 9, 2007, Mr. Peacock called Ms. Price into his office and told her that it was improper for her to send e-mails under Mr. Rinker’s name. During the meeting, Ms. Price explained that she was inputting grades, attendance and all other computer data. Mr. Peacock advised that additional training would be made available for Mr. Rinker, but that she was not to perform his duties. Ms. Price was under the impression that she was receiving a reprimand. She also felt that Mr. Rinker, who was also counseled by Mr. Peacock, did not defend her as vigorously as he should, and that he was the one who should be in trouble. In fact, Mr. Rinker told Mr. Peacock that Ms. Price had his permission to use his password for the computer and that she was very helpful. Ms. Price’s reaction to this incident was well out of proportion to the incident itself. Moreover, she did not appear to recognize that what she did in signing Mr. Rinker’s name to the e-mail was wrong. She was crying, both after the meeting and into the next week. The meeting with Mr. Peacock took place on a Friday. On Monday, Ms. Price was on a previously-scheduled day off. On Tuesday, she was still upset to the point of tears, and went to see Sue Marier, the ESE Department head. Although she was told repeatedly, both by Ms. Marier and by Mr. Peacock, that she was not being formally reprimanded for the incident, she continued to believe she was being treated unfairly. She told Mr. Rinker, Ms. Marier and Mr. Peacock that if she was going down, then so was Mr. Rinker. The following day, March 14, 2007, Ms. Price went to the principal, Nancy Willis, and complained that Mr. Rinker had been sexually harassing her since the beginning of her employment. Ms. Willis advised Ms. Price to put her complaint in writing, which she did. The complaint was forwarded immediately to the district office for investigation. During the investigation, Mr. Rinker was suspended with pay. Mrs. Willis also asked Ms. Price if she wanted to be moved to a different classroom, and Ms. Price indicated she did not want to be around Mr. Rinker. Mrs. Willis went to Sue Marier, the ESE Department Head, and asked where there was a need for a parapro so that Ms. Price could be transferred. At the time of the request, Ms. Marier did not know that Ms. Price had filed the complaint regarding sexual harassment and thought Ms. Price was still upset over the computer e-mail incident. She told Mrs. Willis that the greatest need was in the class for autistic children, and Ms. Price was transferred to that class. A decision had been made to add more staff, including another teacher, for that area, but positions had not yet been advertised. Parapros do not generally have the right to choose their assignments. They are placed in the classroom with the greatest need. At the time of Ms. Price's transfer, the autistic classroom was the classroom with the greatest need. This transfer did not result in a change in pay or status. There were significantly fewer students in the autistic class than in Mr. Rinker's class, and at least one of the students had a one-on-one aide in the classroom. While there was a slight change in schedule, it was not significant, and she remained a parapro at the same rate of pay. Both Sue Marier and Nancy Willis went by at different times to check on Ms. Price in her new placement. The more credible evidence indicates that Ms. Price did not complain about being in this classroom. The School District has two policies that deal with sexual harassment: Policy number 662, entitled Prohibition of Sexual Harassment - Employees, and Policy number 217, entitled Prohibiting Discrimination, Including Sexual and Other Forms of Harassment. It is unclear why the School District has both at the same time. The definitions regarding sexual harassment in both policies are similar, with Policy number 217 being slightly more detailed. The complaint procedure outlined in Policy number 217 is clearly more detailed, and it cannot be said that it was followed to the letter in this case. However, Policy number 217 was amended after the investigation took place in this case. No testimony was presented to show whether the more detailed procedures presently listed in Policy number 217 were in place at the time of the investigation. Further, the documents related to the investigation reference Policy number 662, as opposed to Policy number 217. It is found that the investigation was conducted in accordance with Policy number 662, and that to do so was appropriate. Ms. Price’s complaint of sexual harassment was investigated by April Dixon and Harriet Holiday. Over the course of the next several days, both Mr. Rinker and Ms. Price were interviewed (separately) as well as several other staff members. Those staff members included Sue Marier, Kathy Picano, Donna Dopp, Stan Hall, Pat Barile (Sue Marier's assistant), Mr. Tietema (another teacher), and Barbara Ryan. The investigation conducted was reasonable, given the allegations by Ms. Price. Ms. Price's written complaint stated that Mr. Rinker made inappropriate sexual comments; that he rubbed up against her on numerous occasions; that Mr. Rinker allowed the students to talk in the classroom using sexually explicit language and had made no effort to stop it; and that he had made inappropriate sexual comments to Ms. Picano. Policy number 662 provides in pertinent part: Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate oral, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of employment (or of an individual's education). submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as the basis for an employment or employment decisions affecting that individual; or such conduct substantially interferes with an employee's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following: verbal harassment or abuse; pressure for sexual activity; repeated remarks to a person with sexual or demeaning implications; unwelcome or inappropriate touching; suggesting or demanding sexual involvement accompanied by implied or explicit threats concerning one's employment. * * * Procedures. -- Any employee who alleges sexual harassment by any staff member must report the incident directly to the building principal or the employee's immediate supervisor. Alternatively, the employee may make the report to the Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Accountability. Filing a complaint or otherwise reporting sexual harassment will not affect the individual's status, future employment or work assignments. The right of confidentiality, both of the complaint and of the accused will be respected, consistent with the Board's legal obligations, and with the necessity to investigate allegations of misconduct and take corrective action when this conduct has occurred. In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment, the totality of circumstances, the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred will be investigated. The Superintendent or designee has the responsibility of investigating and resolving complaints of sexual harassment. A substantiated charge against a Board employee shall subject such employee to disciplinary action, including but not limited to warning, suspension or termination, subject to applicable procedural requirements. After investigation of Ms. Price's complaints, April Dixon discussed her findings with Mr. Delbrugge, the School District Superintendent. She also turned over to him all of the transcripts of taped interviews and her conclusions regarding the investigation. She concluded, and he agreed, that the investigation showed Mr. Rinker told inappropriate jokes in the workplace but that in all other respects Ms. Price's complaints were not substantiated. The investigation also revealed that Ms. Price also used profanity and occasionally told sexually- related jokes in the workplace. The Superintendent decided that the appropriate penalty (in addition to the suspension with pay already imposed) was to reprimand Mr. Rinker with a letter in his file; to require him to receive additional training on sexual harassment; to warn him that further complaints would result in termination; and to place him on probation for the remainder of the school year. This discipline was consistent with the School District's collective bargaining agreement concerning discipline of instructional staff. Mr. Rinker was informed of this result March 19, 2007, and completed the sexual harassment training as required. Ms. Price was notified informally of the results of the investigation that same day. She received official notification by letter dated May 3, 2007. Ms. Price was very dissatisfied with the results of the investigation and the action taken by the School District. She felt that Mr. Rinker should be fired. It is clear, after hearing, that nothing less then Mr. Rinker's termination would appease her. Ms. Price was also unhappy with her new placement. She did not like being in the classroom with the autistic students and felt they were dangerous. She felt that she should have been allowed to remain in her original classroom and Mr. Rinker should have been removed. After less than three weeks, she tendered her resignation. This three-week period included one week off for Spring Break and some personal leave days taken due to Ms. Price's husband having a stroke. Her resignation is dated April 18, 2007, but her last day working in the classroom was approximately April 6, 2007. Ms. Price's resignation was voluntary. While there was some belief that she left because of her husband's stroke, Ms. Price disputes that assertion and insists that it was because of the conditions in the new classroom to which she was assigned. Her resignation letter, however, references neither reason. It states: Dear Ms. Willis: It is with sincere regret that I am writing this letter of resignation as an ESE Para Professional for Flagler Palm Coast High School. Please accept this as such. I do apologize for the short notice. I would also like to take this opportunity to express to you my appreciation of your handling of my complaint. You are the only one who has validated me as a person and as a worthy employee. I only had a brief encounter with you but it was enough for me to know that working directly under you would have been a pleasure as well as a great learning experience as I respect your leadership abilities. I recognize that this is a trying situation for all involved and that you have done your very best to rectify the matter under the circumstances. It is important for me to let you know that whatever happens in the future in regards to my claim, this is no way a reflection on you. I truly hope that you can appreciate my position and the importance of making positive changes for the future. Based upon the evidence presented, it is found that Ms. Price resigned for a variety of reasons, including her husband's stroke and her unhappiness with the new placement. However, her dissatisfaction with the handling of the complaint regarding Mr. Rinker and his continued employment was at least a part of her decision. Ms. Price was not subjected to an adverse employment action as a result of her complaint. To the contrary, school officials transferred her to another classroom at her request. The conditions in the new classroom setting were not onerous.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Human Relations Commission dismissing Petitioner’s complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 8th day of August, 2008.
