Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent was assigned as a math teacher to Miami Senior High School, one of the schools in the school District of Dade County, Florida. On March 20, 1989, Respondent and J.R., a 14 year old male who was one of Respondent's math students, entered into a discussion in Respondent's classroom regarding two musical keyboards that Respondent was trying to sell. J.R. Was interested in purchasing a musical keyboard and had been told by Respondent that he had at his home two musical keyboards that he wanted to sell. J.R. wanted to inspect the two keyboards to determine whether he might be interested in purchasing one of them, but he wanted to wait until the weekend to look at the keyboards so that his father could accompany him when he went to Respondent's house. Respondent had other commitments and advised the student on March 21, 1989, that he would have to look at the keyboards that afternoon. On March 21, 1989, Respondent drove J.R. to Respondent's home for the stated purpose of allowing J.R. to examine the two keyboards. No one else was present at Respondent's home. Respondent showed J.R. the keyboards and quoted J.R. a price for each. When J.R. inquired as to terms of payment, Respondent asked J.R. if he wanted to watch a video with him and stated that he wanted to watch a video so that he could think. Respondent then led J.R. into a darkened bedroom that had, in addition to video equipment, only a chair and a bed. Respondent lay down on the bed and J.R. sat in the chair. Respondent then asked J.R. if he talked a lot or whether he could keep a secret. After J.R. said he did not talk a lot, Respondent showed J.R. a pornographic movie that depicted nudity and sexual intercourse. While watching the movie, Respondent told J.R. that he had seen with a "hard on" during his math class. Respondent then asked J.R. if he had ever measured the size of his penis. When J.R. replied in the negative, Respondent told him that he should. Respondent then asked J.R. whether he "jerked off" often. J.R. replied in the negative and left the room because he was uncomfortable being with Respondent under those circumstances. During the course of the foregoing conversation, Respondent was lying on a bed in this darkened bedroom watching the pornographic movie with this 14 year old student. Respondent then drove J.R. to J.R.'s home after he asked to leave. J.R. immediately reported the incident to his parents when he returned to his home. J.R.'s parents notified the police that evening and reported the incident to the appropriate school officials the next day. This incident caused notoriety which has impaired Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent testified that nothing inappropriate occurred when J.R. inspected the keyboards at his home on March 21, 1989. Respondent testified that he and J.R. drove to his house after school so that J.R. could inspect the keyboards, that while at the house he and J.R. drank a soft drink, looked at the keyboards, and discussed watching a video of a popular movie. Respondent contended that he drove J.R. to J.R.'s home and that nothing else occurred. Respondent denied that he showed J.R. a pornographic video or that he engaged in sexually explicit conversations with J.R. Respondent contended that J.R. fabricated part of his testimony and offered two motives for J.R. to lie. First, Respondent contended that J.R. may have seen this situation as a means to get one of the keyboards from Respondent without having to pay for it. Respondent did not explain how J.R. expected to accomplish this. Second, Respondent contended that J.R. may have fabricated the story to avoid getting into trouble with his parents because they did not know J.R.'s whereabouts during the time he was at Respondent's house on March 21, 1989. These proffered motives as to why J.R. would lie lack credibility and are rejected. J.R. is a good student who had no motive to fabricate his testimony as to the events that occurred at Respondent's house. Respondent's version of the events of March 21, 1989, insofar as that version conflicts with J.R.'s testimony, lacks credibility and is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order which finds Jimmie D. Harris guilty of immorality and of misconduct in office, which affirms the suspension of Jimmie D. Harris without pay, and which terminates the continuing contract of Jimmie D. Harris. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Jimmie D. Harris 13336 S.W. 112 Place Miami, Florida 33176 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Suite 100 - Twin Oaks Building 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE 89-3691 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 3-5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4-6 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made and to the conclusions reached. There is no paragraph numbered in Petitioner's post-hearing submittal. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 1 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 2 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 1 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 4 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being unclear and as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 7-9 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are rejected as being conclusion of law.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Michael Williams, should be disciplined for violations of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended, alleged in a Notice of Termination of Employment and Immediate Suspension Without Pay issued March 18, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michael Williams, is licensed to teach in Florida. He holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 456063, which allows Mr. Williams to teach physical education. Mr. Williams' license was valid through June 30, 1999. Mr. Williams has been employed as a teacher or substitute teacher by Petitioner, the Duval County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "District"), since 1978. Mr. Williams was employed by the District at all times relevant to this matter. Mr. Williams is tenured. During the 1997-1998 school year, Mr. Williams was employed as a physical education teacher at First Coast High School (hereinafter referred to as "First Coast"). During the summer of 1998, following the 1997-1998 school year, Mr. Williams served as a teacher at First Coast during the summer session. The summer session started June 15, 1998, and ended July 23, 1998. Laterra Clark was a student at First Coast during the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Clark was a junior. Ms. Clark was 18 years of age on June 25, 1998. On or about June 29, 1998, Ms. Clark went to First Coast to obtain a transcript which she needed in order to transfer to another high school. Ms. Clark had moved in with her God sister, Jitenga Thomas, who lived in the school district for the high school to which Ms. Clark planned to transfer. Before going to the office to obtain a copy of her transcript, Ms. Clark met Fred Culver, a coach and physical education teacher at First Coast. Ms. Clark and Mr. Culver were either in the gymnasium or they went to the gymnasium after meeting. While in the gymnasium, Coach Culver and Ms. Clark met Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams was leaning against a table in the gymnasium just outside the entrance to the boys' locker room. Ms. Clark leaned against the table close to Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams and Ms. Clark knew each other because she had been in his physical education class. Mr. Williams and Ms. Clark talked for a while. Mr. Williams touched Ms. Clark on her buttocks. Ms. Clark jumped up when he did so, but returned to leaning against the table next to him. Eventually, Mr. Williams told Ms. Clark that they should go to his office where they could talk. Ms. Clark agreed and followed Mr. Williams in to the boys' locker room. Ms. Clark had not been in the boys' locker room before. She had been in the girls' locker room, which has almost the same layout as the boys' locker room. One difference in the layout of the girls' and boys' locker room is that the coaches' office in girls' locker room may be accessed by going into a room next door to the coaches' office and through a bathroom in the back of that room. The room has lockers in it and is used by the coaches as a changing room. The coaches' office in the boys' locker room has the same type of changing room with a bathroom in the back as the girls' locker room but the bathroom is not connected with the coaches' office. The door to the changing room in the boys' locker room is reached before the door to the coaches' office. Mr. Williams led Ms. Clark to the coaches' changing room, unlocked the door, and opened it. The light was not on. Mr. Williams led Ms. Clark to the door to the bathroom at the back of the changing room, opened the door to the bathroom, turned on the light, and stood aside to allow Ms. Clark to walk in. Ms. Clark thought that the room led to the coaches' office, as it does in the girls' locker room, but realized as soon as she walked into the room that there was door to the office. She turned around and asked Mr. Williams what they were doing in the bathroom. Mr. Williams responded, "you know what we're doing," and moved closer to Ms. Clark. Mr. Williams had closed and locked the bathroom door. He picked Ms. Clark up and put her down on the sink. Ms. Clark began asking Mr. Williams what he was doing and kept sliding off the sink. Mr. Williams pressed his body against Ms. Clark and rubbed her right breast. Mr. Williams, who was wearing shorts, became aroused and his penis was erect. Mr. Williams did not expose his penis to Ms. Clark. Ms. Clark attempted to leave the bathroom, but Mr. Williams turned her around and began to unbutton her floor-length denim dress. Mr. Williams managed to get enough buttons open to put his hand inside, touch her panties, upper thigh, and her vagina. Mr. Williams told Ms. Clark that she was "hairy." Ms. Clark continued to resist and ask Mr. Williams "What are you doing?" She told Mr. Williams "stop." Mr. Williams told Ms. Clark, "Well, then, you say you're grown. Act like you're grown." She eventually got the door to the bathroom open and went out into the changing room. Mr. Williams did not try to prevent her from leaving. Ms. Clark buttoned up her dress and then followed Mr. Williams out of the changing room and to the coaches' office next door. The episode lasted approximately ten minutes. Mr. Williams' conduct in the bathroom with Ms. Clark was unwanted and uninvited by Ms. Clark. Mr. Williams and Ms. Clark sat in the coaches' office for a short time until Michael Chandler, the Dean of Boys, came to get Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams and Ms. Clark followed Mr. Chandler out of the boys' locker room. Mr. Williams and Ms. Clark went their separate ways. Ms. Clark did not immediately report the incident to any authority at First Coast. Immediately upon leaving the gymnasium Ms. Clark ran into a close friend whom she told about the incident. She told another close friend immediately after leaving First Coast. Finally, she told her God sister about the incident that evening. Although there were some discrepancies in what Ms. Clark told her close friends and her God sister, or in what they recalled, their recollection of what Ms. Clark told them was consistent in most material aspects. A few days after the June 29, 1998, incident, Ms. Clark returned to First Coast to get a copy of her transcript. In addition to confronting Mr. Williams, Ms. Clark reported the incident to two teachers, Coach Fred Culver and Ben Fleming. Neither teacher took any action to report the incident to administrators at First Coast. When Ms. Clark returned to school the following school year, she was teased by students about the incident and left school. Mr. Williams' conduct in taking Ms. Clark into the boys' locker room was inappropriate for a teacher. Mr. Williams' conduct with Ms. Clark was inappropriate. Mr. Williams admitted taking Ms. Clark into the boys' locker room. His explanation about why he took Ms. Clark into the boys' locker room was not credible. On or about March 18, 1999, a Notice of Termination of Employment and Immediate Suspension Without Pay was issued on behalf of the Superintendent of the Duval County Public Schools alleging that Michael Williams had violated Sections 4(a) and (b) of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The District alleged the following specifications for the alleged violations of the Act: On or about June 29, 1998, you made sexually suggestive remarks to a female student, L. C. and attempted to undress her. You fondled her breasts and genital area and exposed your penis to her. By letter dated March 24, 1999, Mr. Williams requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the allegations of the March 18, 1999, Notice. The Notice and request for hearing were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by letter dated April 13, 1999.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the District discharging Michael Williams from his position of employment with the Duval County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Fryer, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182 Ernst D. Mueller, Assistant General Counsel Office of General Counsel City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth Vickers, Esquire 214 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Milton Aaron Wetherington, holds Florida teacher's certificate number 035136 issued by the State Department of Education covering the areas of physical education, history and administration/supervision. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1991. This proceeding involves an administrative complaint filed against Wetherington by petitioner, Ralph D. Turlington, as Commissioner of Education. The complaint stems from various complaints lodged with the Volusia County School Board by several students and parents who alleged that Wetherington engaged or attempted to engage in improper relationships of a romantic nature with female high school students assigned to his classes. The filing of the administrative complaint precipitated the instant action. Wetherington, who is 57 years old, has been a teacher for some twenty seven years, the last seventeen in the Volusia County school system. From 1975 until 1984 Wetherington was a teacher at Spruce Creek School in Port Orange, Florida. Because of the pending disciplinary proceeding, he was reassigned to a non-instructional position as an assistant manager of purchasing and property for school year 1984-85. However, after the charges came to light in early 1984, Wetherington was allowed to continue as a teacher for the remainder of the school year, and was a chaperone on the senior class trip to Walt Disney World. In his twenty seven years of teaching, he has had no prior disciplinary action taken against him. In school year 1983-84 Wetherington taught a political systems course to first semester seniors. Two of his students were Lisa and Tammy, both seventeen years of age at the time, and the best of friends. Seven of the specific charges in the complaint involve respondent's relationship with Lisa, and to a lesser extent, Tammy. Lisa lived at home with her mother and step father for a part of her senior year. Because of problems with her stepfather, who beat her, she moved out at the end of January, 1984, to live with a girlfriend. She was involved with drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, and was experiencing financial problems. Lisa needed a social studies course to graduate, and transferred into Wetherington's class about two weeks after the semester started. She had not met or known Wetherington prior to that time. Wetherington immediately took a special interest in Lisa, and selected her to assist him during office hours with grading papers and the like. Lisa spotted an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and began cultivating the relationship in an assiduous manner. Her testimony reveals she had two goals in mind: to obtain money from Wetherington and to get a good grade without studying. She also saw the opportunity to get her friend Tammy a good grade since she had access to Wetherington's grade book. The relationship was non-sexual, and all parties agree that Wetherington made no sexual advances or demands upon Lisa. One evening during the fall of 1983, Wetherington asked Lisa if she and Tammy wanted to get a pizza after a football game. Lisa agreed and Wetherington gave her $20 to purchase the food. The three met briefly in separate cars at a local Pizza Hut, but after the girls saw other students there, they all drove in Wetherington's car to the Breakers Restaurant and Lounge, an establishment in New Smyrna Beach. They arrived around 12:45 a.m. or so, and after being seated in a booth next to the stage on which a band was playing, they placed an order for pizza. Because of the lateness of the hour, the waitress informed there the kitchen had closed. They then departed the premises and returned to Daytona Beach where all went their separate ways. The two girls claimed Wetherington purchased them an alcoholic drink at the Breakers, but a member of the band, who happened to be a teaching colleague of Wetherington disputed this and observed the three had no drinks during their five to seven minute stay at the restaurant. His testimony is deemed to be more credible and it is found respondent did not "purchase alcoholic beverages for both students" as alleged in the administrative complaint. At some point in the first semester, Wetherington gave Lisa a key to his house in Holly Hill where he lives alone. According to respondent, he did so since he wanted Lisa to have a place to go in the event she suffered a beating from her stepfather. Lisa visited his house approximately five times in the company of a girlfriend when Wetherington was home, and an undisclosed number of times when he was not at home. One of Wetherington's sons lives at Bunnell, and visited his father regularly. The son kept a stash of marijuana at the house which the son used when he visited. Wetherington acknowledged that this was true, but maintained he did not know where it was hidden at the time. Indeed, he claimed he never used drugs himself, and objected to their use by other persons. Wetherington gave Lisa instructions to use the key only when she had problems with her stepfather, but Lisa ignored these instructions. While at Wetherington's home, she used both alcohol and marijuana on at least one occasion in his presence. The alcohol (wine) was taken from Wetherington's refrigerator while the marijuana was either brought onto the premises by Lisa, or came from the son's hidden stash. 1/ There is no credible evidence that Wetherington himself used "marijuana and alcohol at his residence with female students" as charged in the complaint. During the school year, Wetherington gave Lisa a friendship ring valued at $12, some $500 in cash, between $400 and $500 worth of clothes, and lent her an Amoco gasoline credit card for gasoline purchases to get her to and from the part-time job she held. Lisa charged some $120 worth of gasoline on the card as well as $247 in auto repairs. With her mother's consent, and after clearing it with the school principal, he also paid Lisa's mother $500 for the equity in Lisa's car, transferred the title to his own name, and financed it with a Miami bank. Lisa got to use the car with the understanding that she would pay him $125 a month, which was Wetherington's obligation on the bank note. Wetherington considered all this to be a "loan," and kept a book detailing the total amount advanced to Lisa. As a part of the social studies course, Wetherington required each student to prepare a term paper. Wetherington gave fourteen students, including Lisa and Tammy, copies of term papers written in the prior year with instructions to use them as a "format" or "guideline" in preparing their own. Lisa and Tammy simply changed the title page, and turned the papers back in as if they were their own. They each received a grade of 25, which was the highest grade in the class. Lisa claimed she simply did what Wetherington told her to do, and Tammy corroborated this claim. Although Wetherington was negligent in failing to detect that the papers turned in by Lisa and Tammy were identical to those previously given them to be used as a "formats" the evidence does not support a finding that Wetherington gave them the papers for the purpose of evading any academic requirements. The final charge concerning Lisa and Tammy is that Wetherington "[o]n at least one occasion kissed and hugged a female student." This charge apparently stems from Wetherington kissing Lisa on the cheek one day and giving her a paternal hug. Wetherington does not deny this, but contends it was not romantic in nature but done in a fatherly way. Wendy was a seventeen year old senior at Spruce Creek High School in school year 1983-94. She is the source of some four separate charges against respondent in the administrative complaint. Wetherington approached her at the beginning of the year and asked if she wanted to be his teacher's aide. She said yes, and he accordingly rearranged her schedule so that she worked in his office or classroom during first period as an aide, and was a student in his social studies class the following period. During the first nine weeks, Wetherington gave Wendy two rings, one for her birthday and the other to simply keep till the end of the school year. He also gave her $230 in cash over this period of time. He kept a log detailing each amount of money given to her, and considered the payments to be a loan. While working in Wetherington's classroom one day, Wendy walked by Wetherington who pulled her onto his lap and began rubbing her upper thigh. He also approached her one day in his office and put his arms around her waist and pulled her towards him. After she told him, "I don't want this," he released her. She then pulled away and claimed she immediately reported the incident to the principal. The principal could not recall such a conversation. The next day Wetherington apologized to her in his office, but he then turned off the lights in the room and began hugging her. She pushed him away and ran out of the room. Although Wendy again claimed that she immediately reported the incident to the school principal, the principal could not recall such a meeting. In any event, Wendy went to her parents, disclosed the various incidents and gave them the two rings given to her by Wetherington. The parents were understandably irate, and went to the principal demanding that Wendy be transferred out of Wetherington's class. A meeting was held by the principal, with Wetherington and the two parents in attendance. At the meeting Wetherington simply acknowledged that he admired Wendy very much, that she was a good student, and that the cash given to her ($230) was a loan for car payments and voice lessons because he trusted her. However, Wendy does not own a car, and her another paid for all voice lessons. Moreover, her father is a physician who has provided well for his family. The mother then wrote Wetherington a check for $230 to repay the "loan." Wendy was also transferred out of respondent's class. Wendy acknowledged that she "took advantage" of Wetherington, and characterized their relationship as simply a friendship. In a note written to him in a school yearbook at the end of the year, she apologized for "putting (him) through hell" and wished she "could erase it all." Wetherington denied any romantic involvement with Wendy, and acknowledged only that he had kissed her twice on the cheek, once at a football game and another time outside his house. He attributes Wendy's story to emotional problems she was experiencing that fall caused by her relationship with a married man. Wetherington portrayed himself as a teacher genuinely interested in his students. He estimated he has given financial aid in the form of loans and gifts to students over the years in excess of $10,000. Because he has raised seven children of his own, he vigorously denied having any illicit or sinister purpose in his dealings with Lisa and Wendy. Instead, he contended he was merely helping them overcome personal and financial problems so that they would be better persons after graduation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found GUILTY of violating Rules 6B- 1.06(3)(a) and (e), and Subsection 231.28(1)(c), as set out more specifically in the Conclusions of Law portion of this order. All other charges should be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent be placed on probation for three years and that he be retained by the school board during his probationary period only as a non- instructional employee. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed September 28, 2010, and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been on a professional service contract that is subject to a collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (hereinafter "the UTD Contract"), applicable Florida Statutes, applicable rules adopted by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and Petitioner's adopted policies and procedures. Article XXI, Section 1.B(1)(a) of the UTD Contract provides that "Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." The School Board has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, which provides in pertinent that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, requires employees of Petitioner to abide by state regulations. The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006. Subsections (3)(a) and (e) thereof provide as follows: Obligation to the student requires that the individual: Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's physical health and/or safety. * * * (e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a full-time P.E. teacher at South Miami Heights since the 2006-07 school year. South Miami Heights is a public school located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary actions by Petitioner other than the incident that is the subject of this matter. Respondent's practice throughout her tenure at South Miami Heights was to require students arriving at P.E. to line up, stop talking, and generally exhibit good behavior prior to starting class. On those occasions when students were not well- behaved, Respondent required the students to walk in an orderly fashion until they calmed down and showed they were ready for class. On hot days, she would required them to walk around the inside corridors of the school, while on cooler days the students would walk outside. In prior years, with a different principal, Respondent would have the students walk in front of the principal's office, who would then go out and call the students to attention to get them to calm down. During the 2009-10 school year Respondent taught P.E. at South Miami Heights to second, third, fourth, and fifth-grade students between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Her last P.E. class started at 2:00 p.m. and ended at 3:00 p.m. Students in her last class typically brought their book bags with them. On April 15, 2010, at approximately 2:00 p.m., third- grade students from Ms. Fuentes-Garcia's class walked from her class to Respondent's class. There were approximately 25 students in the class. Each student had a book bag. When Respondent took responsibility for the class, many students were talking or otherwise misbehaving. Respondent directed all students in the class to make laps around an outdoor basketball court by walking the white lines that define the outer boundaries of the basketball court. The temperature on April 15, 2010, was 81 degrees. The students were exposed to the sun while they were walking. Respondent required the students to carry or wear their backpacks while walking around the outdoor basketball court.1 According to Respondent, the students were required to walk around the basketball court until they calmed down. She had no idea how long the students would have to walk until they calmed down when she first directed them to start walking. All students in the class were required to walk without stopping for 32 minutes. A student who tried to put her book bag on the ground was told by Respondent to pick it up and keep walking. At the end of the 32-minute period, Respondent escorted the class back to the vicinity of Ms. Fuentes-Garcia's classroom and had the students walk in an orderly fashion to the playground, where they played games until approximately 2:54 p.m. There was a water fountain on playground, but it was not functioning on April 15, 2010. Water was available in a building adjacent to the playground. The students were not permitted to drink water between 2:00 p.m. and 2:54 p.m. At approximately 2:54 p.m. the students left the playground and entered the adjacent building to drink water. A video of the students walking the white lines of the basketball court was captured by the school's security cameras. In one portion of the video, a child can be seen dragging a backpack on the ground. It cannot be determined from the video whether the backpack had wheels. In another portion of the video, Respondent can be seen monitoring the students while standing in the shade of a tree. On April 16, 2010, Ms. Hernandez, the school principal, received complaints from four or five parents of students in the class. M.V., the mother of one of the students in the class, confronted Respondent about the incident on April 16, 2010. This parent testified, credibly, that Respondent told her that she had the class walk the white lines of the basketball court to calm them down and as punishment for being hyper. Following the complaints, the matter was referred to Petitioner's Civil Investigation Unit (CIU) where it was assigned to CIU investigator Terri Chester. Ms. Chester prepared a report after she concluded her investigation. Ms. Duboulay reviewed the report with Respondent in a Conference for the Record on June 8, 2010, and provided Respondent an opportunity to respond to Ms. Chester's report.2 Thereafter a Disciplinary Review Team convened and reviewed the case and concluded that probable cause existed that Respondent had committed the violations subsequently alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges dated September 23, 2010. The Disciplinary Review Team recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay for 30 days based on the totality of the circumstances of the case and the exposure of the students to harm. The manner in which Respondent disciplined her class on April 15, 2010, did not reflect credit on herself or on Petitioner. The manner in which Respondent disciplined her class on April 15, 2010, was inconsistent with her duty to "make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's physical health and/or safety."3 There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent "intentionally expose[d] a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement." Petitioner followed all relevant procedures in prosecuting this disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay for a period of 30 workdays. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 March, 2011.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent has committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent, Seneka Rachel Arrington, holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1012300, which is valid through June 2009. Respondent was employed as a Language Arts Teacher at Matanzas High School in the Flagler County School District during the 2006/2007 year. On or about October 9, 2006, Respondent was terminated from her teaching position with the school district. On or about April 3, 2007, Respondent removed merchandise from a retail establishment without paying for it and with the intention of converting it to her own use. Respondent was arrested and charged with one count of retail theft. On or about May 29, 2007, Respondent entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the state attorney's office with regard to the charge of retail theft. Findings of Fact Based Upon Evidence Presented at Hearing Dr. Hugh Christopher Pryor is the principal at Matanzas High School (Matanzas). Dr. Pryor hired Respondent in May 2006 for a position as an English teacher, to begin work in August 2006. During her employment at Matanzas, Respondent also worked as an assistant cheerleading coach. K.M. was a freshman at Matanzas during the 2006-2007 school year. She was on the cheerleading squad and knew Respondent as one of her coaches. She was not a student in any of Respondent's classes. M.H., K.M.'s boyfriend at all times material to the allegations in this case, was a 14-year-old freshman on the Matanzas football team and a student in one of Respondent's classes. C.J. was another freshman member of the football team and a friend of M.H.'s. He was not a student in any of Respondent's classes. Respondent was well-liked by students at the high school. Although K.M. testified that she was authoritative and strict with the girls on the cheerleading squad, she got along with all of the girls and "kind of was like us." K.M. regarded her more as a friend than as a teacher. On occasion, K.M. used Respondent's cell phone. On October 6 or 7, 2006, Donald Apperson Jr., the school's resource officer, was approached by a friend at a social outing who suggested he check into whether "the black cheerleading coach" at Matanzas was having a sexual relationship with some of the football players. Respondent was the only teacher who could fit this description. On Monday, October 9, 2006, Mr. Apperson reported this information to Ken Seybold, who was an assistant principal and the athletic director at Matanzas. The principal was notified and an investigation was initiated. Respondent was notified of the allegations, which she denied, and was sent home pending completion of the investigation. The investigation consisted of speaking with several members of the football team and was completed in a single day. At the end of the day, the principal determined that Respondent's employment would be terminated because she was still under a 97- day probationary period wherein she could be terminated without cause. Respondent was notified of the decision to terminate her employment the next day, October 10, 2006. Because she was terminated within the statutory probationary period for the initial contract for employment, no cause was listed. While Dr. Pryor testified that he was generally dissatisfied with her performance, his testimony regarding why was sketchy at best, and there was nothing in her personnel file to indicate that she was counseled in any way with respect to her performance. Teachers in the Flagler County School District are generally admonished not to transport students in a teacher's personal vehicle. Transporting students is only condoned where the student's parent has been notified and permission granted, and where an administrator has been notified of the need to transport the student. This procedure is apparently covered during orientation for new employees. However, no written policy regarding the transport of students was produced or cited, and Dr. Pryor indicated that Respondent was late to the orientation session prior to the beginning of the school year. It cannot be determined from the record in this case whether Respondent was aware of this policy. Respondent transported students in her personal vehicle on two occasions. On the first occasion, Respondent took K.M. and one other cheerleader to the Volusia Mall in order to look for dresses for a dance at school. K.M. testified that her mother had given permission for K.M. to go with Respondent on this outing. Respondent and the two girls were accompanied on this outing by Respondent's mother and sister. The second outing also involved shopping for clothes for the school dance. On this trip, Respondent took K.M. as well as M.H. and C.J. in her car after football and cheerleading practice. The four went first to the St. Augustine outlet mall and then to the Volusia Mall to shop for clothes. K.M. testified that her mother had given her permission to go with Respondent, but probably would not have given permission if she had known the boys would also be going. Neither M.H. nor C.J. had permission from a parent to ride in Respondent's car. The boys testified that they both drove Respondent's car while on this trip, although the testimony is inconsistent as to who drove when, and is not credible. Neither boy had a learner's permit to drive. No evidence was presented regarding the dates of these two shopping trips, other than they both occurred prior to September 29, 2006, which was the date identified for the dance. This same date is identified as the date for a football game in Cairo, Georgia, discussed below. After the conclusion of the second shopping trip, Respondent dropped K.M. off at her home. At this point, the boys testified, and stated as part of the district's investigation, that Respondent offered to take them back to her apartment to spend the night. According to M.H. and C.J., they went with Respondent back to her apartment where they ate fast food and watched television. They claimed that Respondent told them they could sleep in her bed while she slept on the couch. At some time during the night, Respondent allegedly crawled in the bed between the two boys, ground her hips against M.H.'s crotch, and took his hand and placed it outside her shorts against her vaginal area. M.H. claimed this made him uncomfortable and he moved to the floor, while Respondent continued to sleep in the bed with C.J. In the morning, the boys claim that Respondent woke them up and drove them to school. M.H. testified that he was in Respondent's English class and that she treated him differently than the other students. He, along with other boys at school, fantasized about the "fine, black English teacher." He thought it was cool to spend extra time with her and led others to believe he was having sex with her until one of his friends questioned the propriety of doing so. He testified that he "freaked out" while on a bus going to an out-of-state football game September 29, 2006, because Respondent kept calling him on his cell phone and he did not want to talk to her. Juxtaposed against the testimony of C.J. and M.H. is the testimony of Monica Arrington and Karastan Saunders. Monica Arrington, Respondent's younger sister, testified that during the period of time Respondent was employed at Matanzas, she shared Respondent's apartment and sometimes helped her out with the cheerleaders. Monica was a freshman at Bethune Cookman College and did not like living on campus, so instead lived with her sister. Ms. Arrington did not have her own transportation and relied on her sister to drop her off at school each day. Ms. Arrington confirmed that she went with Respondent, her mother and two female students to Volusia Mall to shop for clothes on one occasion, but did not identify any other time where students were at Respondent's apartment. Karastan Saunders also testified that during the fall of 2006, he lived at Respondent's apartment in exchange for paying a portion of the utilities. Mr. Saunders testified that he spent every night at the apartment because he did not have the funds to go elsewhere, and that he did not recall anyone coming over to the apartment other than family and mutual friends. After considering all of the evidence presented, the more credible evidence is that while Respondent took students shopping on at least one occasion, the testimony of M.H. and C.J. that they spent the night at Respondent's apartment is not credible. M.H. admitted that he has lied to his dad "because everybody lies to their dad sometimes." He claimed he lied to Respondent to avoid going to Orlando with her and about having a learner's permit to drive, and that he lied to his father about where he was the night he claims to have been at Respondent's apartment. M.H. also insinuated to his friends that he had a sexual relationship with Respondent, and that all of the boys thought she was the prettiest teacher at the school. However, he did not want Respondent to be arrested and would not cooperate with authorities. Even during the course of the hearing, his testimony was inconsistent regarding whom he told about his relationship with Respondent and what he told them. Significantly, C.J.'s testimony did not corroborate the alleged inappropriate touching M.H. claimed. C.J. did not witness any inappropriate touching or M.H. and Respondent having sex. While M.H. claimed that Respondent kept calling him while on the bus to Georgia for a football game, no phone records were produced and no one else's testimony was presented to support the claim. K.M. admitted that M.H. has lied to her on occasion and that he has had some issues with drugs and alcohol.1/ C.J.'s testimony is also not very credible. Like M.H., C.J. lied to his father about his whereabouts on the night in question. While he testified that he sometimes drove his dad's car to school without permission, his father testified that he only has one car and uses it every day to get to work. While M.H. claimed C.J. told him that Respondent and C.J. had sex the night they were allegedly at the apartment, C.J. denied it. He also stated that he was suspended for five days for bringing a laser to school during the timeframe related to this case, a suspension that his father knew nothing about. Likewise, C.J.'s claim that he went with Respondent on some unspecified weekend to Orlando while she got her cheerleading certification is not credible. By contrast, both Monica Arrington and Karastan Saunders were candid, consistent, calm and forthright while testifying. While both C.J. and M.H. were not where they were supposed to be on the night in question, they were not at Respondent's apartment. After Respondent was terminated from her employment, the allegations that she engaged in an appropriate relationship with a student were reported by local media. The publicity was extensive. Because the allegations involved alleged sexual conduct with a minor that would have occurred in Volusia County as opposed to Flagler County, the matter was referred to authorities in Volusia County. However, no criminal charges were ever brought against Respondent because neither M.H. nor his father wished to cooperate with authorities.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 1, and dismissing Counts 2-7 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Commission reprimand Respondent, impose a $500 fine and place her on one year of probation in the event that she works as a teacher in a public school setting. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2009, 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 24th day of March, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact During all times relevant hereto, Petitioner served as head of the Florida Department of Education, the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints of violations of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ against teachers holding Florida educator certificates. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 730576, covering the areas of emotionally handicapped and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2016. During all times relevant hereto, Respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at Winter Springs High School (WSHS) in the Seminole County School District (SCSD). Dr. Michael Blasewitz is currently the executive director of secondary education for Seminole County Public Schools and was principal at WSHS from 2004 through the 2011- 2012 school year. In 2006, Dr. Blasewitz hired Respondent as a teacher at WSHS. On or about January 25, 2010, Dr. Blasewitz issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent for making inappropriate, sexually suggestive comments to female students. The reprimand contains the following directives: You are to conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times; You are to avoid making remarks that can be interpreted as sexual in nature while in the presence of students; You are to redirect students who exhibit behavior that is unruly, inappropriate, or sexually suggestive; and You are to maintain an appropriate student/teacher relationship at all times when interacting with students. On or about March 5, 2012, Dr. Blasewitz issued a second letter of reprimand to Respondent for making an inappropriate, sexually suggestive comment to a student, and displaying a rubber penis on his desk, which Respondent had confiscated from a student. The reprimand contained the following directives: You are to conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times; You are to avoid making remarks that can be interpreted as sexual in nature while in the presence of students; You are to redirect students who exhibit behavior that is unruly, inappropriate, or sexually suggestive; and You are to maintain an appropriate student/teacher relationship at all times when interacting with students. Respondent was informed in both letters of reprimand that further misconduct could result in more discipline, including termination of his employment. Dr. Donna Reynolds has been the principal at WSHS since 2012. On or about October 11, 2012, a 16-year-old female student, A.T., reported that while in Respondent’s classroom, she was seated on Respondent's desk chair. A.T. alleged that Respondent asked her to remove herself from his chair and when she refused to do so, Respondent sat in the chair (with the student still seated) by physically wedging himself between the back of the chair and A.T.'s back. Respondent, by placing himself in such a position, allegedly caused the front of his torso to press against A.T.'s back. A.T. allegedly did not like being touched by Respondent and, as an expression of her displeasure, poked Respondent in his eye with a marker. An investigation was launched as to Respondent’s alleged misconduct involving A.T., and it was pursuant to this investigation that other alleged misconduct by Respondent was discovered.2/ On or about October 26, 2012, the SCSD reassigned Respondent to the maintenance department pending the outcome of the investigation stemming from the allegations made by A.T. On or about March 15, 2013, the SCSD notified Respondent that at the next regularly scheduled board meeting, the SCSD would be recommending that Respondent's employment be suspended without pay and subsequently terminated. On or about April 12, 2013, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the SCSD, wherein Respondent resigned from employment, effective immediately, and agreed not to seek reemployment with the SCSD in any capacity, “at this time or at any future time.” Respondent, in both the settlement agreement and his letter of resignation, did not admit to or otherwise acknowledge any wrongdoing as it relates to any matter pertaining to his employment with SCSD. Background Former WSHS student K.C., at the time of the disputed fact hearing, was 20 years old. K.C. entered the ninth grade at WSHS during the 2009-10 school year and graduated from WSHS at the end of the 2012-13 school year. During the 2011-12 school year, when K.C. was a junior at WSHS, one of her assigned classes was to work as Respondent’s aide. According to K.C, this resulted in her spending between one to two hours each school day in Respondent’s classroom. M.A. is currently a senior at WSHS. During the 2012-13 school year, M.A. was enrolled as a student in one of the algebra classes taught by Respondent. M.A.’s first language is Spanish and she only started speaking English a few years ago. M.H. graduated from WSHS in 2015. M.H. was never enrolled as a student in any of the classes taught by Respondent but met Respondent during the 2011-12 school year when a student that M.H. befriended on the bus informed M.H. that she was involved sexually with Respondent. M.H., even though she did not know Respondent at the time, approached Respondent and inquired about the nature of his relationship with the student in question. Upon questioning by M.H., Respondent denied that he was involved in a sexual relationship with the student in question. As a consequence of this encounter, Respondent and M.H. developed a friendship. Girls Sitting on Respondent’s Lap Throughout the course of the 2011-12 school year, K.C., while performing her duties in Respondent’s classroom as a teacher’s aide, often observed female students conversing with Respondent while sitting on Respondent’s lap. K.C.’s specific recollection is that throughout the school year there were numerous times when she observed many different girls sitting on Respondent’s lap. According to K.C, the girls would often sit on Respondent’s lap in positions where they would straddle Respondent while facing him, sit such that their butts would be on Respondent’s lap with their backs facing Respondent, or sit across Respondent’s knees. M.A. also witnessed Respondent engage in conduct similar to that described by K.C. During the 2012-13 school year, M.A. was enrolled as a student in one of the algebra classes taught by Respondent. The algebra class met during the first and second periods of the school day. M.A. credibly testified as follows: Q: Okay. Did you ever see any girls sit on Mr. Mulock’s lap? A: Yes. During class. Because I had him for a long time, first and second period. So girls from different grades, older, they would come in the classroom and just talk to him, and they would sit on his lap. Q: I mean how? Sideways? Backwards? A: Facing out. Q: Facing out? A: Uh-huh. Q: Backed up to him with their butt in his lap? A: Yeah. Q: What were they doing while they’re sitting [o]n Mr. Mulock’s lap? A: Talking, laughing, joking around. Tr., pp. 191, 192 M.H. credibly testified to an incident where, against her will, she ended up sitting on Respondent’s lap. According to M.H., one day while in Respondent’s classroom, she was walking past Respondent while he was sitting on a chair, when Respondent, for no reason, grabbed her forearm and tugged her towards him thereby causing her to fall in a seated position on Respondent’s lap. Inappropriate Text Messages K.C. credibly testified that on one occasion she received a sexually suggestive text message from Respondent. K.C. explained that once while working as Respondent’s student aide, she was in Respondent’s classroom when the school’s front office called looking for Respondent. At the time of the call, Respondent was absent from the classroom. K.C., in an attempt to provide cover for Respondent, informed the front office that Respondent was in the hallway talking to another teacher, even though in reality she did not of Respondent’s whereabouts. After speaking with the front office, K.C. texted Respondent and asked “if he was coming to class.” Respondent replied to K.C. saying, “I’m not coming. I have not seen you yet.” K.C. was bothered by Respondent’s sexually suggestive reply. M.H. testified that she also received a sexually inappropriate text message from Respondent. M.H. credibly testified that a few months after befriending Respondent, he randomly sent her a text message generally asking, “hey, what’s up?” M.H. responded by saying, “hey, not much. Just hanging around.” Respondent then texted that “he was sexually frustrated and in need of release.” M.H. was uncertain of Respondent’s motives, and because she felt uncomfortable with Respondent’s text, she elected not to respond to his sexually charged statement. Sexually Suggestive/Inappropriate Comments and Gestures K.C. testified that one of her fellow students died while K.C. was a student at WSHS. Following a memorial service for the departed student, K.C., Respondent, and a number of other female students went to a business establishment near the school for refreshments. While at the establishment, Respondent asked the girls if they were still virgins. According to K.C. “everyone [was] just like shocked and like hurried up and changed the topic.” In a separate incident, Respondent also asked K.C. if she and her then boyfriend were engaged in sexual activity. K.C. advised that Respondent’s inquiry about whether she and her former boyfriend were having sex “was kind of awkward [and] I just felt like he shouldn’t be asking that[,] it was like personal.” Eventually K.C. ceased all contact with Respondent because being in his presence made her feel very uncomfortable. Respondent also made inappropriate comments to M.A. On one occasion, Respondent told M.A., “you are very beautiful. Just wait a little bit longer till you’re 18, because I’m going to be at your door knocking.” M.A. said that she felt embarrassed by Respondent’s statement. M.A. also testified that while in class with Respondent, she observed Respondent jokingly arguing with a female student (C.C.) about a marker. M.A. credibly testified that during this incident, she saw Respondent grab C.C. around her waist and touch C.C. on her butt with his hand. Former WSHS student M.H. credibly testified that Respondent discussed his sex life with her, including sexual fantasies that he had about a female co-worker and his sex life with his wife. Respondent told M.H. that “he was a little frustrated with his wife because she want[ed] to conceive more children at the time, and he liked being more spontaneous about it, and she was scheduling sex on a calendar.” M.H. also credibly testified that Respondent made inappropriate comments about her breasts, stating that Respondent once said that she “looked perky today.” There was also an instance where Respondent pinched M.H. on the butt. M.H. also credibly testified that while Respondent was planning for a scalloping trip with her and several other students, she heard Respondent exclaim that “he couldn’t wait to see [K] (another student at WSHS) in her bikini.” On another occasion M.H. was present when Respondent, while standing next to another female student, squeezed the female student’s lips and said, “doesn’t she have perfect lips for a blow job.” On yet another occasion, M.H. heard Respondent proclaim that a student named C.W. “had big tits” and that another student, S.G., “had a great body.” Finally, M.H. heard Respondent offer the following proposition to student S.G.: Q: And tell us what exactly did you hear Mr. Mulock say. A: He had made a proposition to her that if she could get him off orally, blow job, then he would treat her to a weekend of whatever she wanted to do. Anything. And if she failed to get him off orally, then it was vice-versa, that she got – or he got to do whatever he wanted with her for an entire weekend. Tr., p. 183. M.A. also witnessed Respondent making sexually suggestive gestures and inappropriate comments. M.A. credibly testified as follows: Q: Okay. Did you ever observe Mr. – hear Mr. Mulock make any inappropriate comments and make inappropriate gestures? A: Yes. Q: Tell us about that. A: He would – when he was teaching, he would always talk and then always try and make it out of sex. He would make gestures with his tongue. He would poke his cheek (indicating) with his tongue and just make gestures like that (indicating). And trying to be funny or being nasty. Q: This is kind of embarrassing for you? A: A little bit, yeah. He would do like stuff like that (indicating), like open his mouth and – Q: And move his hand back and forth? A: Yeah. Q: And poke his tongue inside his cheek? A: Yeah (indicating). And he would then swallow stuff and like that. Q: Okay. When he would do those things, in your mind what is he doing? A: I didn’t understand why he would do th[at] stuff in front of the whole class. And the funny thing is that it was only – he was always around girls. So the girls would find that a little bit funny at that time, some girls. And then some guys would just shake their heads. It was very clear what he was trying to do, you know. Q: When you say it was very clear –- A: Yeah. Q: -- what’s clear in your mind? What is he doing? A: Because he’s being nasty, perverted. It’s not right. Tr., pp. 189 through 191. Respondent Assisted M.H. with Skipping Class M.H., by her own admission, was not a star student during her freshman year and she credibly testified that Respondent materially contributed to her less than stellar performance as a student. M.H. testified as follows: Q: Alright. Now at that point did you all, you and Mr. Mulock, then develop a friendship? A: Yes. Q: Did you spend a lot of time with him in class during the class day? A: Yes. Q: Tell us about when you would go to his classes – go to his room. How many times a week would you say you went to his room? A: Probably on a daily basis. Q: Daily basis. How long did you stay there? A. Sometimes the whole day, sometimes just one or two classes, depending on which class I was trying to skip that day. Q: Okay. Now if you’re spending time in his class, and he’s not one of your teachers, weren’t you supposed to be somewhere else? A: Of course. Q: Okay. And did he know that you were supposed to be somewhere else in class? A: Yes. Q: Okay. Did he ever make excuses for you with teachers, to get you back in the class? A: To get me back in – into his classroom, or Q: Into another class. A: Yes. Q: Okay. How would he do that? A: Either by email, or a phone call, or writing a pass. Q: To the teacher whose class you were supposed to be in? A: Yes. Q: Okay. So you just went there often and just kind of hung out? A: Yes. Q: And he was okay with that? A: Yes Tr., pp. 156 through 158. Afterschool Activities Petitioner alleges that Respondent, without the approval of students’ parents and the administration of WSHS, took students fishing on his boat and had students doing yardwork at his personal residence. Neither the boat trip nor the yardwork activity occurred during the school day. Respondent admits that administrative personnel for WSHS were unaware of these afterschool activities. However, as to the fishing trip and yardwork performed at Respondent’s home, the undisputed evidence establishes that the father of one of the students escorted his daughter on the fishing trip and the mother of one of the students that performed yardwork at Respondent’s home transported her daughter to Respondent’s home on the day in question. The evidence offered by Petitioner as to these allegations is insufficient to establish that Respondent engaged in clandestine activities that breeched established standards related to parental consent. Students Hanging Out in Respondent’s Classroom Paragraph 6(e) of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent, after being warned by his immediate supervisor, continued to allow students to hang out and socialize in his classroom during his lunch breaks and planning periods. Dennis McComb arrived at WSHS in October 2011. Mr. McComb was Respondent’s immediate supervisor. Within a month of his arrival, Mr. McComb observed that students, contrary to policy, were in Respondent’s classroom during Respondent’s planning period. Mr. McComb informed Respondent that he needed to cease allowing students in his classroom during the planning period. As previously indicated, K.C. worked as Respondent’s student aide during the 2011-12 academic term. K.C. testified that she witnessed multiple girls hanging out in Respondent’s classroom “when we were switching classes . . . [o]r sometimes they would already be in there when I went to his class for the class I was supposed to be there for.” M.A. testified that “girls from different grades, older, they would come in the classroom and just talk to him, and they would sit on his lap.” M.H. testified that Respondent “would have classes going on, and then other students throughout the day would come in and visit him, or other students would skip in his class as well.” The testimony of these students is not specific as to when they made their observations in relation to Mr. McComb’s directive to Respondent regarding students being in Respondent’s classroom at improper times. Respondent’s Effectiveness as Educator Undermined Dr. Blasewitz, Dr. Reynolds, and Mr. McComb testified that based on Respondent’s conduct while employed at WSHS, they would not want Respondent employed as a teacher and believe the alleged misconduct engaged in by Respondent, if true, would undermine his effectiveness as an educator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in counts one through six of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Respondent's Florida Educator Certificate 730576 for a period of five years, to be followed by a one-year period of probation. The terms and conditions of Respondent's suspension and probation shall be established by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should revoke or otherwise discipline the Respondent’s educator certificate for allegedly making disparaging or embarrassing comments to and about students in his classroom, including calling them idiots or dumb.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent has a bachelor’s degree in astrophysics and a master’s degree in physics from the University of Central Florida. He has worked for Disney World’s education programs and at the Orlando Science Center. When he decided to go into teaching, he got a temporary certificate in February 2013. He started teaching at East River High School in Orange County in April 2013, as an end-of-the-year replacement. When he completed his master’s degree, the certificate was made permanent, and he holds Florida Educator Certificate 1191412 in the area of physics, valid through June 30, 2019. He was hired as a full- time science teacher at East River in the fall of 2013. In September 2013, a student complained that the Respondent insulted the school band and some of its members. The Respondent wrote a letter in response to the charge in which he denied any knowledge of what he might have said to insult any student or disparage any extracurricular activity of any student and absolutely denied any intent to insult or disparage the band or any band member. He also made an impassioned statement of his deep concern for his students and of the many ways in which he had been supporting the extracurricular activities of his students. The only other evidence on the subject was in the form of hearsay statements written by students who did not testify. Some of the students wrote that they never heard the alleged insults and disparagements. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding that there were any insults or disparagements. The September 2013 band complaint was found by the school administration to be unconfirmed. Nonetheless, the Respondent was given a letter of guidance, also called a directive to: exercise good judgment when engaging in discussions with students; use positive, encouraging comments to motivate and inspire students; take appropriate measures in discussions with students, so as not to expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and protect all students from conditions harmful to learning and mental and/or physical harm. A letter of guidance or directive is not disciplinary in nature. In January 2014, a female student complained that the Respondent made her feel uncomfortable by standing close to her and by staring at her chest. The only evidence on the subject was in the form of hearsay statements written by students who did not testify. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding of fact in this case. Nonetheless, the January 2014 complaint was found by the school administration to be confirmed, and the Respondent was given another letter of guidance or directive to: consider in advance how to respond to various situations involving students and always maintain respectful distance so as not to invade personal space of individual students; and exercise care and professional judgment when engaging with students so that others would not perceive or misinterpret his behavior as inappropriate. No other incidents came to the attention of the school’s administration until May 27, 2014. Meanwhile, the Respondent’s performance as a teacher for 2013/2014 was evaluated by the school’s administration to be highly effective. On May 27, 2014, a student named Tanner Hearn complained to the school’s administration that the Respondent had been unfair, mistreated him, made negative comments about him, and called him names. The Tanner Hearn complaint was triggered by events beginning at the end of April or early May of 2014. Tanner wanted to raise a grade he got on one of his assignments. His mother, who is a teacher, suggested that Tanner ask the Respondent if he could redo the assignment. The Respondent refused because the assignment was 2-3 weeks late. After the refusal, Tanner told his mother that the Respondent had allowed other students to redo assignments to raise their grades. Tanner’s mother advised Tanner to ask again. The Respondent again refused. After the second refusal, now believing the Respondent was treating her son unfairly, Tanner’s mother advised him to e-mail the Respondent, which he did three times. Each communication with the Respondent was more demanding than the last. Finally, Tanner’s mother e-mailed the Respondent to support her son and strongly suggested that the Respondent let Tanner redo the assignment rather than make them set up a parent- teacher meeting with guidance and the school’s administration. The Respondent defended himself and refused to budge. The Respondent testified that his policy on redoing assignments evolved during the school year. Earlier in the year, he allowed student assignments to be reopened after the due date. Later, he settled on a policy that requests to redo an assignment had to be made before the due date. He testified that Tanner knew the policy and acknowledged it during a discussion they had earlier in the school year when Tanner was considering dropping physics. In late May 2014, when Tanner and his friends were at his house discussing the Respondent’s perceived unfairness towards him, the discussion turned to negative comments and name- calling by the Respondent directed towards Tanner previously during the school year. Tanner’s mother overheard the discussion. She thought the negative comments and name-calling were inappropriate and evidence of the Respondent’s unfairness towards her son. Mrs. Hearn called East River’s assistant principal, whom she knew personally, to complain and demand that something be done. This triggered an investigation by the school. As part of the investigation, the school’s administration interviewed numerous students to see if they ever heard the Respondent call any student derogatory names or embarrass or disparage them. Some students answered in the affirmative and reported what they remembered hearing. Others answered in the negative. Rachel Johnson, one of the students who reported hearing the Respondent call Tanner names, also stated that the Respondent embarrassed her by insulting her religion in the course of a discussion about a film he showed in class. The school’s administration investigated this new charge as well. Several students gave statements saying no improper commentary occurred. No other student statements corroborated the new charge. In her statement to the school’s administration, Rachel Johnson also complained that the Respondent gave exams early, contrary to school policy. No other student statements or testimony supported this charge. The school concluded its investigations in late August 2014. The school’s administration found that the Tanner Hearn and Rachel Johnson charges were confirmed by the investigation. The Respondent was given another letter of guidance or directive, this time accompanied by a reprimand, for failure to follow the approved exam schedule, improper use of video, and negative comments made to students. The Respondent testified that he disputed the reprimand and it was withdrawn, but there was no other evidence that it was withdrawn. In December 2014, Rachel Johnson gave another statement, which included a charge that the Respondent called her a dumb blonde and a stereotypical female. No witness statements corroborated this charge. Rachel Johnson testified in support of the charge. There was no other testimony or evidence in support of the charge. Only a few of the students who gave written statements testified at the hearing. Several testified that on occasion the Respondent would call certain students names like idiot, jackass, and stupid. They testified that the Respondent seemed to do this mostly to the three football players in the class, especially Tanner Hearn. There also was testimony that the Respondent would sometimes ask for a volunteer to answer a question but say something like, “anyone but Tanner since he won’t know the answer.” The context of these kinds of comments by the Respondent was not clear from the evidence. Probably, some were made out of anger or frustration after Tanner disrupted the class or acted out. Some were made jokingly as part of banter back and forth. The impact of these kinds of comments by the Respondent on Tanner and the other students also was not clear from the evidence. No student complained about them at the time they were made. Often, Tanner would appear to shrug them off and say something like, “ha, ha, very funny.” Tanner testified that, however he may have responded at the time, he was affected by the comments, and they made him less likely to participate in class. Some of the students testified that the comments were not made in a joking manner and that they were embarrassed for Tanner and sometimes said to him something like, “I can’t believe he said that to you.” Rachel Johnson testified in support of her anti- religion and dumb blonde charges. There was no other testimony in support of those charges. The Respondent denied them. After the investigations began in May 2014, Tanner’s demeanor and attitude towards school changed markedly. Before the investigations, he was a good if not a model student. He had a positive and enthusiastic attitude about school earlier in the year, especially during football season. During the investigations, he seemed to some to be quieter and less enthusiastic. In his mother’s words, the controversy of the investigations put a damper on the last few weeks of the school year. The precise reason for Tanner’s change of attitude towards school during the investigations is not clear. He and his mother agreed that he was not confrontational, and he did not want his mother to complain to the school. In addition, Tanner soon found himself the subject of another investigation. When the Respondent started hearing rumors that Tanner was telling other students he was going to get the Respondent fired, the Respondent told the school’s administration and asked for an investigation. Tanner testified that he asked the school’s administration what he should do at that point that he was advised to stop talking about the investigations. These developments may have been factors in Tanner’s change of demeanor at the end of the school year. The Respondent testified that he was not guilty of any of the charges. East River’s assistant principal testified that the Respondent admitted to her during the investigation that he called Tanner Hearn an “idjiout” (a variation of the word idiot). The Respondent testified that he did not remember making that admission. The evidence was clear and convincing that the Respondent called Tanner and other students names like idiot, jackass, or stupid on occasion during the course of the 2013/2014 school year. Sometimes this was done out of anger or frustration after Tanner disrupted the class or acted out. Sometimes the words were spoken loud enough to be overheard. Sometimes, it was done in a joking manner, as part of banter back and forth. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the Respondent reasonably knew or should have known that the student involved would be embarrassed or humiliated. None of the other charges against the Respondent were proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Respondent continued teaching at East River during the 2014/2015 school year. The school’s administration evaluated the Respondent’s performance as a teacher for the 2014/2015 school year to be effective. The Respondent did not return to teaching after the 2014/2015 school year because the investigations and their outcomes took a toll on him and he felt burnt out on teaching.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of December, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Melissa C. Mihok, P.A. Suite 445 201 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 1012.795(1)(c), (f) and (i), Florida Statutes (2007)1/, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate, numbered 1003139, covering the area of athletics coaching. The certificate was valid through June 30, 2008. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the certification and regulation of teachers, pursuant to Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as an in-school suspension teacher and a track coach at Hernando High School in the Hernando County School District. The allegations in this proceeding involve events that occurred during the 2007-2008 school year, and deal with three separate incidents: Respondent's conduct in connection to the prom; his actions toward M.G.; and his actions toward A.H. The Prom The prom for Hernando High School was held on or about April 5, 2008, at the Glen Lakes Country Club in Hernando County. Joy Nagy was a coordinator for the prom, and Vicelia Azzarelli was the administrator on duty. Teachers who desired to chaperone the prom signed up in advance. They were given specific responsibilities, including a schedule for monitoring students' behavior. Volunteers' duties did not include dancing with the students. Those teachers who were not volunteering but wanted to stop by and see the students dressed up in their prom attire were also expected to get prior authorization. According to Joy Nagy, Respondent neither signed up to volunteer nor sought permission to attend the prom. Respondent came to the prom with Mr. Mobley, a long-time substitute teacher. Both men were present for a short time, approximately twenty minutes. During their appearance at the prom, they were seen on the dance floor dancing with the students. Assistant Principal Azzarelli observed Respondent while he was at the prom, and he appeared to her to be under the influence of alcohol. He had the smell of alcohol on his person and on his breath, his eyes were dilated and his gait was unsteady. She and another administrator requested that Respondent and Mr. Mobley leave the dance, and they did so. After the prom, a group of students chose to continue celebrating, and rented rooms at a hotel in Clearwater Beach. Respondent and Mr. Mobley went to the hotel where the students were staying, and socialized with the students. The students were drinking alcohol at the hotel, and the presence of alcoholic beverages was evident. The next week, some students came forward asserting that Respondent and Mr. Mobley were partying with students in Clearwater Beach following the prom. During a subsequent investigation into the partying, Respondent admitted to Ms. Azzarelli that he went to Clearwater Beach after the prom, and had a couple of drinks at a club there. He also admitted that he went to the hotel room of some of the students. As a result of the investigation into the events surrounding the prom, school officials also received information regarding possible conduct by Respondent with respect to two female students at Hernando High School. M.G. M.G. is currently a student at Valencia Community College. At the time of the events in this case, she was a senior at Hernando High School, and was, along with a few other students, a manager for the track team. At some point during the 2007-2008 school year, M.G. was sent to the in-room suspension room for a dress code violation, because she was wearing a skirt that was too short. She was the last student to leave the room. As she was leaving the classroom, Respondent came up behind her and reached around, putting his hand underneath her skirt, over her underpants. M.G. immediately left the room. She did not report the incident to anyone initially, because there were no witnesses to the conduct and she did not think anyone would believe her. She thought that by staying out of in-school suspension and working with the other track managers, she would not be in a position where the situation could be repeated. However, there was a subsequent occasion where M.G. was taking inventory of the uniforms for the track team. She was again alone with Respondent, and he again came up behind her and touched her in the crotch area, over her clothes. On this occasion, M.G. was wearing capris pants. She left the room and, as before, did not tell anyone because she did not want to be in a position where she reported the behavior and no one believed her. She only came forward after hearing about another incident involving Respondent's alleged conduct with a female student.3/ A.H. A.H. was also a student at Hernando High School at the time of the events in question. She graduated in 2009, and is now a student at Pasco-Hernando Community College. There was an occasion during the 2007-2008 school year when A.H. was alone with Respondent in the portable where he taught. Respondent kissed her, and she tried to walk out. He grabbed her arm, pulled her back to him and kissed her again. Respondent also sent A.H. inappropriate text messages. For example, he would text her that he did not want to have sex with her because he knew she was a virgin, but that "I'll go down on you and show you a good time." Like M.G., A.H. did not want to tell anyone about the incident with Respondent because she did not want anyone to know about it. When questioned initially by school officials, she denied it for the same reason. Both girls were interviewed by Detective Morrell of the Hernando County Sheriff's Office during her investigation stemming from the conduct related to prom. The information given during the investigation by Detective Morrell and the information provided during the hearing was consistent. Unfortunately for both girls, after the conduct was investigated, there was significant publicity regarding the incidents. Information was published in both the print and electronic media. Consistent with her fears, M.G. was subjected to ridicule and the publicity related to the investigation made it difficult for her to finish her senior year. Neither girl wanted to press charges as a result of Respondent's conduct, because they did not want to have to deal with the publicity associated with criminal charges. Neither girl wanted to testify in this proceeding. However, both girls were candid and credible, despite their obvious reluctance to appear. On or about May 5, 2008, Respondent resigned in lieu of termination from his position with the school district.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and permanently revoking his teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 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 10th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's teaching contract for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a science teacher since 1974. After six and one-half years of service in the military, which included service in Vietnam, Respondent attended college and graduated from St. Louis University with bachelor's and master's degrees in chemistry. After a short career in private industry, Respondent entered the teaching profession in Pennsylvania. In 1983, Respondent moved to Miami to continue teaching. For the first year, Respondent obtained a temporary position, filling in for a teacher out on pregnancy leave, teaching honors physics and biology at Palmetto Senior High School. For the next three years, Respondent taught earth science and physical science at Palm Springs Junior High School, both as a permanent substitute and regular teacher. Starting in August 1987, Respondent taught unspecified science courses at North Dade Junior High School for a year. Respondent's first extended assignment at one school was at Southwood Middle School, where he taught from August 1988 through June 1993. At Southwood Middle School, Respondent was a problem employee from the start; he was explosive, defiant, temperamental, and a bundle of nerves. From March 1989 through October 1991, different Southwood principals had to summon Respondent to the office for six conferences-for-the-record (CFR). In October 1990, the principal at Southwood Middle School directed his assistant principal to schedule an observation of Respondent, who repeatedly deflected her request to schedule a mutually convenient time for an observation. On one occasion, Respondent lacked a lesson plan, but the principal, rather than placing Respondent on probation for that deficiency, instead conducted a CFR on October 31, 1990, at which he reminded Respondent of the requirement of lesson plans. Eventually, the regional coordinator of the science department conducted the observation on November 26, 1990. The science coordinator assessed Respondent as deficient in preparation and planning, subject-matter knowledge, and instructional techniques. At a CFR on December 14, 1990, the principal prescribed appropriate remedies for these deficiencies. The CFR notes that Respondent claimed that the science coordinator had not judged him fairly. Next, Respondent taught at North Miami Senior High School from August 1993 to June 1997. Having obtained certification in physics, Respondent taught physics to advanced placement, international baccalaureate, honors, and regular classes, as well as earth-space science. During the 1997-98 school year and start of the 1998-99 school year, Respondent taught at Killian Senior High School. At Killian, he taught three physics and two chemistry classes. In the late summer and early fall of 1998, district office personnel began painting the interior of Killian Senior High School. The smell of paint was oppressive to students and staff. Based on numerous complaints, as well as his own experience, the principal contacted the district office and asked that they monitor the odor. Respondent was among the persons complaining about the paint, but he was far from alone. On October 5, 1998, unrelated to the paint situation, the principal conducted an observation of Respondent. The resulting evaluation notes numerous deficiencies in preparation (including the lack of a lesson plan), the delivery of instruction, and the management of the classroom. At the hearing, Respondent rejected the validity of this observation largely due to the principal's lack of background in science. In the ensuing days, the principal tried without success to arrange a CFR to discuss the observation and evaluation, although the scheduling problems were not shown to have been due to Respondent. Finally, on October 16, 1998--a teacher workday--the principal directed his assistant principal to get with Respondent and schedule the CFR. The assistant principal summoned Respondent to her office and asked Respondent to sign a notice of CFR setting a date for the conference. Respondent became very angry and called the principal, who is black, a "nigger." Respondent said the entire matter was a "bunch of bullshit." He then promised that he would see that the assistant principal "was taken care of" and "she would be sorry." The assistant principal replied that she only wanted him to sign the notice, but Respondent would not be mollified. In her 38 years in Petitioner's school system, the assistant principal has never seen an outburst like this from a teacher. Shaken, the assistant principal immediately telephoned the principal, who was downtown at a school meeting. She relayed to him what had happened and all that Respondent had said. The principal responded by telling her that he would call Petitioner's police and return to the school immediately. Arriving at the school, the principal met with several school police officers in his office. The officers wanted to arrest Respondent without delay, but the principal said that he wanted to speak to him first. The principal then walked up to the teacher's workroom where Respondent, alone, was working. The accounts of what happened next do not overlap very much. The principal, a sizeable man, claims that Respondent hit him. Respondent, a small man with a sizeable temper, claims that the principal hit him. It is impossible to credit either story. The principal's testimony is inconsistent, and he was an evasive witness. As reflected throughout these findings, Respondent's distorted perceptions, disordered thinking, poor insight, and lack of candor deprive him of credibility. Likely, neither man struck the other, although they may have grabbed or jostled a little. Wisely, Petitioner did not pursue the matter in a manner consistent with a teacher battery upon a principal, nor does Petitioner allege in the present case that Respondent struck the principal. Clearly, though, the two men quarreled loudly, and, when the confrontation escalated into an altercation, the school police entered the room and removed Respondent from the building. Petitioner reassigned Respondent to a region office. On October 21, 1998, Petitioner conducted a CFR for the October 5 observation. This CFR listed various prescribed remedies, but recognized that Respondent's nonacademic placement prevented the accomplishment of most of them. On December 10, 1998, Petitioner conducted a CFR for the October 16 incident. Petitioner presented Respondent with a list of physicians from whom he could choose, so that he could obtain a medical evaluation of his fitness to return to work. The letter memorializing the CFR directs Respondent not to visit the campus of Killian High School or contact any student or staff at the school by any means. Undoubtedly, Respondent had reached a breaking point by the time of the October 16 incident. The primary source of his increasing anxiety seems to have been the paint situation. Eventually, the district office had to have its personnel remove the paint due to toxic substances contained in the paint, and it is not unlikely that Respondent played an important role in the process that led to the eventual removal of the unhealthy paint. However, it is impossible to determine exactly when Respondent obtained evidence of the paint's toxicity. At some point, although not immediately, Respondent obtained the material safety data sheets for the paint and learned that the paint was unsuitable for a school. It is difficult to determine exactly when this occurred, and it is therefore difficult to assess Respondent's behavior. It appears likely, though, that, for a time at least, Respondent, fashioning himself a whistleblower beleaguered by the principal, bypassed normal administrative channels, proclaimed to his class that he would protect them from this toxic paint, and encouraged his students to have their parents complain about the paint. The evidence is sketchy as to whether Respondent violated the directive not to contact students or staff. Respondent probably contacted teachers and possibly contacted students in violation of the directive, but, absent detailed evidence of the conversations, it is impossible to find that these conversations constituted material violations of the directive. After some difficulties in selecting a psychiatrist acceptable to Respondent, he chose Dr. Anastasio Castiello from the names provided to him by Petitioner. Dr. Castiello conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Respondent on January 25, 1999. Based on a 50-minute interview and history largely supplied by Petitioner, Dr. Castiello diagnosed Respondent as suffering from a ”moderately severe psychiatric disorder warranting a recommendation for relatively intensive psychiatric treatment. The condition would also warrant the diagnosis of an involutional disorder with intertwined elements of paranoid and the affective disorders." Dr. Castiello conducted another 50-minute evaluation session with Respondent on August 16, 1999, and reached the same conclusions as he had in the previous session. On January 24, 2000, Dr. Castiello conducted a third and final evaluation session and concluded that Respondent was better and could return to teaching. The two-and-one-quarter, single-spaced report of Dr. Castiello covering the last session casts little light on the means by which Respondent journeyed from a moderately severe psychiatric disorder warranting relatively intensive psychiatric treatment to sufficiently better to return to teaching. It is odd that, after Dr. Castiello opined that Respondent would need relatively intensive psychiatric treatment, Dr. Castiello never obtained the records of other psychiatric treatment, to which Respondent alluded, or discussed Respondent's assertion that the course of that treatment never required medication. For the most part, judging from Dr. Castiello's final report, he seems to have been impressed by Respondent's politeness and lack of pressured, frenzied speech, as well as vague assurances that Respondent had learned his lesson. Unless the lesson was not to pick up another moderately severe psychiatric disorder requiring relatively intensive psychiatric treatment, Dr. Castiello's reasoning remains elusive. Although it almost goes without saying that Dr. Castiello's diagnoses of severe illness and substantial recovery are entitled to no weight, he legitimately observed that his focus was on how Respondent responded to the paint problem, not on whether, eventually, Respondent was proved correct in his claims of toxicity. In February 2000, Petitioner assigned Respondent to teach at Palmetto Middle School. Respondent enjoyed his new assignment, at least for awhile. However, on November 3, 2001, the assistant principal, who had been a science teacher, conducted an observation of Respondent in his classroom. On December 5, 2001, the assistant principal met with Respondent and told him that she had found several deficiencies during the observation and offered him a professional growth team, which he declined. When she offered Respondent help, he told the assistant principal, who is black, that he had been beaten by a black administrator, and the matter was still in litigation. From the start, the observation had been an unofficial observation, meaning that the results would not go into Respondent's personnel file. When the assistant principal informed Respondent of this fact and that she would return for an official observation later, he angrily replied that, if he did not pass the next observation, the assistant principal would have a problem. He told her that he had been a Green Beret in the military and had a considerable background in science. Surprised by Respondent's response to a "freebie" observation, as she called it, and stunned by his threatening behavior, the assistant principal reasonably feared for her personal safety. During November 2001, probably between the observation and meeting with the assistant principal described above, Respondent also had a confrontation with students and a teacher. A teacher across the hall from Respondent had been late returning from lunch, so the students for her next class were milling about in the hallway, waiting for her. Respondent confronted the students and, thinking they were exceptional student education (ESE) students, called them a "bunch of L[earning] D[isabled] students" and said that "LD students were always in trouble." When the students yelled back that they were not LD students, Respondent said, "You're all a bunch of LD losers." As this exchange took place, the teacher who was the ESE department head was approaching the students and Respondent. Her first response was to turn to the students and tell them that LD students are not losers. As she did so, Respondent stood behind her, laughing. The ESE department head then followed Respondent into his room and demanded to know why he was saying such things about ESE students and saying them to other students. Respondent denied saying anything and added that the matter was not any of her business. After a couple of inconsequential exchanges between the two teachers, Respondent warned the ESE department head that she should not be "messing" with him and that he has sued people. The ESE department head told him to do what he wanted to do and that she was going to file a grievance. Twelve years ago, a science coordinator observed Respondent and found him deficient in preparation and planning, subject-matter knowledge, and instructional technique. Respondent's response was to say the science coordinator was unfair. Four years ago, a principal without a science background observed Respondent and found him deficient in preparing a lesson plan, classroom management, and instructional technique--two of the same areas identified in the assessment eight years earlier. Respondent's response was to fault the principal's lack of science background and, to his assistant principal, call the man a "nigger" and the observation "bullshit." Not satisfied, Respondent then threatened the assistant principal, who was merely trying to schedule a CFR. Still not satisfied, Respondent engaged in an altercation with the principal. Three years ago, an assistant principal with a background in science observed Respondent and found several deficiencies. Even though he had been out of work for one year as medically unfit and even though the assistant principal had told him that the observation and evaluation would not go into his personnel file, Respondent's response was to tell her that, if he failed the next observation, she would have a problem. In the same month, Respondent gratuitously confronted students whom he thought to be in the ESE program, demeaned such students, laughed as a teacher tried to repair the damage that he had caused, and, when confronted privately by the teacher, told her to mind her own business and threatened her. This is misconduct in office, and this misconduct is so serious as to impair Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the school system.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent and terminating his contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merrett R. Stierheim, Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Number 912 Miami, Florida 33130-1394 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Melinda L. McNichols Legal Counsel Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Mark Herdman Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of alleged misconduct which is set forth in an Administrative Complaint. The misconduct alleged consists primarily of allegations that the Respondent engaged in inappropriate physical touching of a female student.
Findings Of Fact M. A. is a thirteen year old student at West Miami Middle School. At the time of the alleged incident, she was twelve years of age, was approximately five feet, three inches, tall, and weighed about one hundred sixty pounds. She had gained about twenty or thirty pounds more as of the time of the formal hearing in this case. The School Trust Counselor, Diana De Cardenas, had been seeing M. A. and M. A.'s sister for eating disorder problems because both girls were somewhat overweight. The counsellor had seen M. A. on several occasions because of allegations that M. A.'s mother and M. A.'s brother were hitting her at home. Her brother did not want her to eat and when he saw her eating he would beat her. M. A. saw the counsellor because of these facts and was often upset and crying. The Respondent, Millard Lightburn, is forty-two years old and has been a teacher for over fifteen years. The Respondent is Hispanic. He previously taught school in Nicaragua and speaks both English and Spanish. The accusing child, M. A., is also Hispanic. The Respondent taught a computer application course and from time to time he would use students to help file papers and keep records. Shortly before the time of the alleged incident, the Respondent asked two students, M. A. and a male student named L. D., to help him file papers and perform other similar paperwork tasks. The student named L. D. did not come to help the Respondent on the day in question because L. D. was asked by another teacher to help with a problem in the cafeteria. On the day in question, the Respondent was having lunch while working in his classroom. M. A. was in the class alone with him helping him file papers and perform other similar paperwork tasks. This was the second day that M. A. had assisted the Respondent with the paperwork. As the work was finished, the Respondent said to M. A., "Thank you very much; thank you for your help." He put his hand on her shoulder and put his cheek next to hers and gave her a peck on the cheek in a manner that is customary and traditional among Hispanics in Dade County, Florida. The Respondent demonstrated this gesture at the hearing. This same gesture was also demonstrated by two other witnesses, Shirley B. Johnson and Assistant Principal Eldon Padgett. West Miami Middle School is about 93 percent or 94 percent Hispanic. In that school and in the Hispanic community served by the school, it is customary for people to hug and to touch one another on the cheek or to give one another a peck on the cheek. Such conduct is common at all Hispanic schools in Dade County, Florida. The gesture demonstrated by the Respondent and by two other witnesses is a customary Hispanic gesture in Dade County, Florida, and is not considered to be offensive or inappropriate by other members of the Hispanic community. The Respondent, Millard E. Lightburn, did not at any time touch the student, M. A., in an inappropriate or offensive way.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-06174 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, but with the additional findings to the effect that another student had been invited to be present at the same time as the student, M. A. Paragraph 7: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details, or as irrelevant. Paragraph 9: Rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary details and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraph 13: First line rejected for reasons stated immediately above. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 26: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 32: The first three full lines and the first four words of the fourth line are accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 33: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details and as also irrelevant. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
