The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Diane Velez, violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor of the witnesses, the testimony given, and the documentary evidence received, the following Findings of Fact are made. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 789520, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Other Languages, (ESOL), and Exceptional Student Education (ESE), which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an ESE teacher at Stillwell Middle School (Stillwell) in the Duval County School District. She has been teaching for approximately 20 years, with no prior discipline. Respondent teaches in a wing at Stillwell that is referred to as the SLA Unit, which stands for Supported Level Academics. The students in the SLA Unit are cognitively delayed and have all of their classes in this self- contained unit. The SLA Unit is located in a wing at the back of the school, near the bus loop. If someone is looking down the hall from the doors closest to the rest of the school, there are female and male bathrooms for students to the left and right, respectively, closest to those doors. From those bathrooms, there are five classrooms on each side of the hall. Ms. Velez’s classroom is the third classroom on the right-hand side of the hallway. There are additional restrooms in the wing, all congregated in the area between the third and fourth classrooms on the left hand side of the hallway. At least one of those bathrooms is entered from within a classroom. Stillwell had a policy that if a student was given permission to leave the classroom, the student should not be gone for more than eight to ten minutes without the teacher calling for assistance to locate the student. Teachers could call for assistance from Ronald Messick, the lead ESE teacher; send a paraprofessional to look for the student; or call the front office or a resource officer. The eight-to-ten minute window was not a written policy, but was discussed during pre-planning meetings at the beginning of the year, as well as at faculty meetings. While attendance logs from pre-planning and faculty meetings were not introduced to establish that Respondent was present during faculty meetings or pre-planning meetings, no evidence was presented to indicate that she was absent. In addition, the 2017-2018 Faculty Handbook (Handbook) for Stillwell had more than one section that addressed supervision of students. For example, under the caption “Supervision of Students,” beginning on page 12 of the Handbook, it states:1 It is the responsibility of the school to provide supervision for students in attendance. It is the teacher’s responsibility to make sure that students in his/her charge are supervised at all times. Teachers should be aware of the legal and progressive discipline aspects of failure to provide adequate supervision. Students should always have adult supervision. Under the caption “Hall Passes,” on page 16 of the Handbook, it states: Hall passes are to be used for emergencies only. In an effort to reduce the number of students out of class during instructional time, each classroom will have either a lime/orange vest or a Colored clipboard. Students needing to leave the classroom are required to wear the vest or carry the clipboard. Please make sure students continue to sign-out when leaving/returning to your classroom so if the vest/clipboard disappears, you will know who was in possession of it last. Only one student per class may be on a hall pass at any given time. If it is necessary that a student leave your classroom to go to an Administrative Office and your vest/clipboard is already being used, security will need to escort student(s) to and from the classroom. While it is our desire that no student be in the halls during instructional time, there are absolutely NO hall passes for any reason during the first/last 30 minutes of each class and NO hall passes during 2nd block each day unless called by an Administrator. Students who are found out of class during the first/last 30 minutes of the block will have the vest or clipboard taken and given to the Assistant Principal for you to retrieve. Students who are out of class, unaccompanied by security, and do not have a vest/clipboard will be 1 All italics, underlining, and bold used in the quoted material is as it appears in the Handbook. considered skipping and appropriate consequences will be assigned. The teacher will also be held accountable if not following school procedure. Finally, under the heading “Hall and Campus Monitoring,” it states in all capitals and bold letters, “STUDENTS SHOULD NEVER WALK BY THEMSELVES.” On or about January 11, 2018, J.L. was an 11-year-old female student in the sixth grade. J.L. was assigned to Respondent’s classroom, and has an Individual Education Plan (IEP). J.L. was a student in a class containing students who functioned cognitively at the lowest level for students at Stillwell. While those who testified could not state definitively what the IQ level was for the class, it was generally around 67-70. Ms. Velez described the class as one for which there was “a need to have eyes on them.” J.L. was new to the school during the 2017-2018 school year. On August 22, 2017, Ronald Messick sent an email to J.L.’s teachers, including Respondent, stating that J.L. could not be left alone and that she would “leave with a complete stranger.” He advised that when J.L. uses the restroom, she likes to play in it, and directed that the teacher who has J.L. the last period of the day needed to make sure she used the restroom. J.L.’s mother had called Mr. Messick the first week of school with concerns that J.L. had been unsupervised in the bus pick-up area. Her mother explained her concerns to Mr. Messick regarding J.L.’s need for constant supervision. The email referenced making sure that J.L. went to the bathroom before boarding the bus simply because she would have a long ride home from school. An IEP meeting was conducted for J.L. on October 12, 2017. Mr. Messick was present as the LEA (lead educational agency) representative, along with Ms. Velez, who wrote the IEP, and three others. J.L.’s IEP states that “[s]he has Williams Syndrome which is a developmental disorder that affects many parts of her body.” The IEP also states that J.L. “is a very trusting child and will walk away with a stranger. She does not distinguish friend from stranger and this causes danger to her safety,” and that J.L. “needs increased supervision to ensure her safety.” The statement that J.L. needs increased supervision to insure her safety is included in two separate sections of her IEP. Respondent was J.L.’s case manager. As her case manager, Respondent reviews, completes entries, and inputs other appropriate data in J.L.’s IEP. She was aware of the information contained in J.L.’s IEP. On January 11, 2018, J.L. was present in Ms. Velez’s classroom during the last period of the day. At approximately 2:05, she asked for, and received, permission to go to the bathroom. Ms. Velez allowed J.L. to go by herself. No adult or other student accompanied her. Allowing J.L. to go the restroom alone was not permitted by her IEP. Further, it appears to violate the policies outlined in the Handbook, which prohibits allowing hall passes for the first 30 minutes of each class. The final class of the day began at 2:05.2 It also runs afoul of the email sent by Mr. Messick at the beginning of the school year, which specifically directed that J.L. not be left alone. After J.L. was permitted to leave the classroom, T.B., a male student in Respondent’s class, also asked to go the bathroom, and was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez did not check to see where J.L. was before letting T.B. leave the classroom. T.B. was also unaccompanied. J.L. was absent from the classroom for approximately 24 minutes. There are no credible circumstances presented at hearing by which a student should be absent from the classroom for that length of time, regardless of 2 The Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with violating this policy, and no discipline is recommended for apparently doing so. It is included simply to show that there were multiple guidelines in place to prohibit allowing J.L. outside of the classroom alone. their mental capacity, the policy contained in the Handbook, or any policy discussed at faculty meetings. T.B. returned to the classroom before J.L. After he entered Ms. Velez’s classroom, T.B. apparently told Ms. Velez that J.L. was in the boys’ bathroom. Ms. Velez testified that she was about to look for her when J.L. returned to the classroom. Ms. Velez testified that she noticed J.L. had “a lot of energy,” and was breathing hard and her hands were shaking. Ms. Velez asked J.L. if she had been in the boys’ bathroom, and testified at hearing that J.L. responded that she did not want to get in trouble. J.L. became upset and asked to speak with the school nurse. Ms. Velez allowed her to go to the nurse’s office, this time accompanied by an eighth grade girl. While Ms. Velez described the child who accompanied J.L. as “very responsible,” it is noted that she was also a child in this classroom of children who represented the lowest functioning students at Stillwell. Lana Austin was the school nurse at Stillwell, and her office was down the hall from Ms. Velez’s room in the SLA wing. She testified T.B. was in her office when J.L. arrived. It was not explained at hearing whether T.B. had also asked Ms. Velez to go to the nurse’s office or just how he came to be there. When she arrived at the nurse’s office, J.L. was crying and somewhat distraught, and T.B. was also getting upset. Ms. Austin tried to get J.L. to tell her what was wrong, and J.L. kept saying they were trying to get her in trouble. J.L. wanted to call her mother, and Ms. Austin let her do so, because she believed it would calm her down. A paraprofessional came into Ms. Austin’s office while J.L. was on the phone with her mother. So while the paraprofessional was in the office with the students, Ms. Austin contacted Ms. Raulerson, the principal at Stillwell, and notified her there might be a problem so that someone could look at the hallway video and find out if anything happened. Ms. Austin knew that J.L. was a student who needed to be escorted. She was always brought to the nurse’s office by an adult. On this occasion, there was no adult. Jennifer Raulerson was the principal at Stillwell during the 2017-2018 school year. She is now the executive director for middle schools in Duval County. Ms. Raulerson testified that J.L.’s father came to the school immediately after J.L.’s telephone call home, and started asking questions. Because of the nature of his questions, consistent with school protocols, Ms. Raulerson contacted Stillwell’s school resource officer (SRO), Officer Tuten, as well as Mr. Messick and Ms. Hodges, who was the dean of students, to discuss with J.L.’s father what needed to be done to investigate what actually happened.3 The following morning, Ms. Raulerson, Ms. Hodges, and Mr. Messick spoke to J.L., T.B., and M.N., another student in the hallway, about what happened the day before. Based on their answers, Ms. Raulerson gave Ms. Hodges a basic timeframe, and asked her to check the cameras to see if she saw anything that would indicate that something happened involving J.L. and T.B. Ms. Hodges testified that a person can type in a date and time on the computer and look at a specific timeframe on the video, which is what she did. Once she viewed the video and realized how long a student had been out of the classroom, she went to Ms. Raulerson and they looked at the video again. Mr. Messick also watched the video with them. Administrators at the school could access the surveillance video on their computers. The surveillance video software has dates and times from which you can retrieve a time period to watch. However, when you download 3 Although they were under subpoena, neither J.L. nor J.L.’s father appeared to testify at hearing. Any statements attributed to them cannot support a finding of fact for the truth of the matter asserted. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Statements by J.L. that are included in this Recommended Order are not intended to establish the truth of her statements, but rather, to explain why teachers and administrators took the actions they did in response to the situation. a section of the surveillance video, the downloaded portion does not include the timestamp. When Ms. Raulerson viewed the surveillance video on the computer screen, she could see the time stamp. While the video in evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E does not contain the time stamp, Ms. Raulerson credibly testified that it is the same video she and the others viewed to determine whether J.L. and T.B. were out of the classroom and how long they were out of the classroom. Petitioner’s Exhibit 17E is a type of evidence commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their responsibilities as a school administrator. There is no evidence that the tape itself has been altered, edited, or tampered with in any way. The lack of a time stamp is not all that important. What is important is not so much the time of day when J.L. and T.B. were absent from Respondent’s classroom, but the length of time that they were absent.4 Ms. Velez admits that she allowed both students to leave her classroom on January 11. She simply disputes how long J.L. was gone. The surveillance video is 39 minutes and 53 seconds long. The times given in the summary of the video activity below are based on the times recorded on the video, as opposed to the time of day. A comparison of those timeframes with the timeline made by Ms. Austin and Mr. Messick shows that the timelines are essentially the same. The video shows the following: 4 Respondent claims she is prejudiced by the admission of the video, because she was not able to view it with the time-stamps to verify that it was, in fact, the video for January 11, 2018. It is noted that Respondent initiated no discovery in this case. Petitioner filed an exhibit list that included a reference to a video as early as July 24, 2020, some three weeks before hearing. Moreover, the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions specifically requires not only a list of all exhibits to be offered at hearing, but also any objections to those exhibits and the grounds for each objection. Respondent did not note any objection in the Second Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Statement to the admission of any of the videos admitted as Petitioner’s Exhibit 17. At eight minutes, 17 seconds, J.L. leaves Ms. Velez’s classroom and heads down toward the girls’ bathroom at the end of the hall.5 She is wearing an over-sized jacket, but is not wearing a vest or carrying a clipboard. At nine minutes, 15 seconds, she comes out of the girls’ bathroom and speaks to an adult in the hallway, and then heads back to the bathroom. At the 13-minute, 4-second mark, T.B. walks down the hall from Ms. Velez’s classroom and, curiously, walks over toward the girls’ bathroom before going over to the boys’ bathroom. At 14 minutes, 39 seconds, T.B. comes out of the boys’ bathroom and walks over toward the girls’ bathroom a second time. After approximately ten seconds, he exits the area near the girls’ bathroom and heads back to the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 15 minutes into the video, and almost seven minutes after leaving Ms. Velez’s classroom, J.L. comes out of the girls’ bathroom, peers down the hallway in both directions, and goes over to the boys’ bathroom. At this point, she is still wearing her jacket. At approximately 18 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, a second male student, later identified as M.N., walks down the hall. M.N. is not in Ms. Velez’s class during this class period. He also goes toward the girls’ bathroom first, and then stands in the hallway outside the boys’ bathroom. After approximately 30 seconds, he walks down the hall and back, before going toward the boys’ bathroom and out of sight at 19 minutes and 40 seconds. At 20 minutes, 16 seconds into the video, other students start lining up in the hallway. Approximately four classes line up in the hallway, with no one coming out of the boys’ bathroom. At approximately 29 minutes, 5 Respondent established at hearing that one cannot actually see students enter and exit the bathrooms from the surveillance video. The sight line for the video stops just short of the doors to the two bathrooms. However, the only other alternative to going in the bathrooms would be for students to exit the SLA unit through the doors near the bathrooms. If that were the case, J.L. would be subject to harm as well, given that the doors lead to the rest of the school and the bus loading zone. 26 seconds, girls in line outside the bathroom are seen looking toward the boys’ bathroom and appear to be laughing. J.L. comes out of the boys’ bathroom at the 29-minute, 53-second mark, followed by T.B. J.L. is not wearing her jacket, and her belt is undone. T.B. throws J.L.’s jacket on the floor and walks down the hallway with his hands up in the air. Both J.L. and T.B. walk down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s room, and then turn around and return to their respective bathrooms. At the 31-minute, 53-second mark, J.L. comes out of the bathroom with her shirt tucked in and her belt fastened. She is still not wearing her jacket, a small portion of which can be seen on the floor of the hallway. She does not pick it up, but stays in the hallway until T.B. comes out of the bathroom, then both go down the hall toward Ms. Velez’s class, with T.B. running and J.L. walking. J.L. re-enters Ms. Velez’s classroom at 32 minutes, 21 seconds into the video. Finally, at 32 minutes, 30 seconds, M.N. comes out of the boys’ room, picks up J.L.’s jacket and heads down the hall. Based on the surveillance video, J.L.was out of the classroom for slightly over 24 minutes. T.B. was absent from the classroom for over 18 minutes. Ms. Velez is never seen in the hallway. There is no admissible evidence to demonstrate what actually occurred during the time that J.L. appeared to be in the boys’ restroom. Regardless of what actually happened, no female student should be in the boys’ bathroom, and a female student already identified as needing increased supervision should not be allowed to be unsupervised outside of her classroom at all, much less for such a lengthy period of time. The potential for harm was more than foreseeable, it was inevitable. Ms. Velez did not go in the hallway or send Ms. Kirkland, the paraprofessional present in her classroom that day, to check on J.L. or T.B. She did not call the SRO, the front office, or Mr. Messick to ask for assistance in locating either child. She also did not contact Ms. Raulerson, Mr. Messick, or J.L.’s parents after T.B. told her that J.L. had been in the boys’ restroom. She testified that, while J.L. certainly should not be in the boys’ restroom, there was nothing that led her to believe or suspect that there could be neglect or abuse. Ms. Velez acknowledged that she allowed J.L. to go to the bathroom unsupervised, and stated that she was training J.L. to go to the bathroom by herself. If that was the case, doing so was directly contrary to Mr. Messick’s email of August 22, 2017, and to the requirements of J.L.’s IEP. Ms. Velez had approximately 18 students in her classroom. Her focus, according to her, was on providing instruction to the students in her class. She denied losing track of time, but stated that once the students were engaged, she took her time with the lesson, which “led me to not noticing what time it was as normally as I should,” and she “possibly got distracted.” She did not take any responsibility for her actions. Instead, she blamed the situation on the fact that, at the time of the incident, she did not have a full- time paraprofessional assigned to her classroom. While the paraprofessional position for her class was not filled at the time of this incident, Ms. Kirkland traveled with the class and was present in Ms. Velez’s class when J.L. was allowed to leave the classroom. Ms. Velez also appeared to minimize the importance of providing increased supervision for J.L., and claimed that she was training her to go to the bathroom by herself. Yet, she described the class as a whole as one that needed “eyes on them” at all times. Further, J.L.’s parents clearly felt the increased supervision was crucial, and called early in the school year to make sure that staff knew J.L. was not to be left alone. Ms. Velez gave no explanation as to why she would “train” J.L. to leave the room unsupervised (and one wonders what training could be taking place, if the child is allowed to go alone outside the classroom), when she knew that to do so was clearly contrary to J.L.’s parents’ wishes. On January 22, 2018, the Duval County School District (the District) began an investigation into the incident concerning J.L. that occurred on January 11, 2018. During the District investigation, Ms. Raulerson notified the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and law enforcement of the incident. Both entities conducted investigations. The results of those investigations are not part of this record. On March 16, 2018, the District reprimanded Respondent and suspended her for 30 days for failing to provide adequate supervision of her students. The School Board’s approval of the suspension and the basis for it was reported in the press.
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 that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1. It is further recommended that Respondent pay a fine of $750, and that her certificate be suspended for a period of one year, followed by two years of probation, with terms and conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, 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 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Stephanie Marisa Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue In Case No. 88-3425, Mr. Bradley Thomas challenges the termination of his employment at the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind. The issue is Case No. 88-5675 is whether Mr. Thomas committed the acts alleged by the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty may be appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Bradley Thomas holds Florida Teaching Certificate #486268, valid through June 30, 1993. Mr. Thomas is certified to teach secondary levels, vocational education and printing, and was initially employed by the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind (FSDB) in 1980. Mr. Thomas taught phototypesetting in the FSDB Vocational Department. Mr. Thomas was described by his immediate supervisor as highly-motivated and conscientious. He has received satisfactory and above-satisfactory performance evaluations. Mr. Thomas is 57 years old and has been deaf since the age of 12. He communicates through signing and speech. According to section 242.331(4), Florida Statutes, the Board of Trustees of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is authorized to appoint and remove teachers "as in its judgement may be best". By Rule 6D- 4.002(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, the Board of Trustees has delegated responsibilities related to employment and termination of academic personnel to the President of FSDB. By letter from FSDB President Robert Dawson, dated February 15, 1986, such authority has been delegated to Samuel R. Visconti, Director of Personnel for the FSDB. The Board of Trustees has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind Teachers United, an affiliate of the Florida Teaching Profession-NEA and the National Education Association. Article 13, section E, of the 1986-89 agreement between the Board of Trustees and the FSDB Teachers United, FTP-NEA, in relevant part, provides that Mr. Thomas may not be discharged from employment by the Board of Trustees except for "just cause", which is defined to mean job- related incompetence or misconduct. The professional competence of Mr. Thomas as a teacher is not at issue in this proceeding. During the second semester of the 1986-87 school year, Holly Middlebrooks was enrolled with five other students in Mr. Thomas' class. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Middlebrooks was 19 years old and a senior at FSDB. On more than one occasion, Mr. Thomas "rubbed" Ms. Middlebrooks' back and shoulders during class, in a massaging manner, which made her uncomfortable and confused. The contact occurred while Ms. Middlebrooks was seated at and using a computer terminal and while she entered and left the classroom. Although she attempted to convey her discomfort with Mr. Thomas' touching by repositioning herself in her chair as she worked at the computer, she did not instruct Mr. Thomas to stop. Ms. Middlebrooks saw Mr. Thomas touch other students in a similar manner. Although other students indicated to Ms. Middlebrooks that Mr. Thomas discussed sexual topics in class, she did not hear and could not recall specific incidents of sexually-oriented language on Mr. Thomas' part. Nadine Lents was enrolled with four or five other students in Mr. Thomas' class during the second semester of the 1986-87 term and for the full 1987-88 school year. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Lents was 18 years old. On occasion, Mr. Thomas would massage Ms. Lents' neck and shoulders while she worked at the computer terminal. At times she feared that he would touch her breasts but he did not. She did not instruct him to stop. On at least one occasion, Mr. Thomas rubbed her leg while she sat at the terminal and she instructed him to stop, to which he replied that there was no cause for her concern. Mr. Thomas "often" hugged Ms. Lents, sometimes pressing himself against her breasts or in a manner which she found to be "too hard", and she would push Mr. Thomas away. Ms. Lents sometimes would lightly hug Mr. Thomas as a means of greeting, but was careful to maintain distance. Mr. Thomas discussed sexual matters with Ms. Lents. He asked her if she "liked oral sex", talked about the size of her breasts, and discussed other sexual matters in vulgar terms. The sexual discussions sometimes made Ms. Lents uncomfortable and embarrassed. During both the 1986-87 and 1987-88 school terms, Karen Warfel was enrolled with "about six" other students in Mr. Thomas' class. At the time of her testimony at the administrative hearing, Ms. Warfel was 20 years old and had graduated from the FSDB. More than once, Mr. Thomas rubbed her back under blouses which she described as "loose". Once, Ms. Warfel instructed Mr. Thomas to stop, and he complied with her request, but Mr. Thomas subsequently resumed touching Ms. Warfel in a similar manner and she did not stop him. Mr. Thomas also occasionally rubbed Ms. Warfel on her leg, "above the knee", in an attempt "to calm me down when I get frustrated on the computer". The physical contact with Mr. Thomas made her feel uncomfortable. Ms. Warfel would, on occasion, request a piece of candy from a supply which Mr. Thomas kept in his desk drawer. Mr. Thomas would ask Ms. Warfel to kiss his cheek prior to giving her candy, and Ms. Warfel would comply with his request. Sometimes Mr. Thomas would tickle Ms. Warfel near her rib cage or below her belt and to the sides of her abdomen, in an area Ms. Warfel described as near her ovary. Mr. Thomas discussed sexual matters in the classroom in Ms. Warfel's presence, including discussing his sexual relationship with his wife. Ms. Warfel was embarrassed by Mr. Thomas' conduct. Marisol Eschevarria-Sola was enrolled in Mr. Thomas' class during the first semester of the 1986-87 school year and the first semester of the 1987-88 school year. There were approximately five students in the class. At the time of her deposition, Ms. Eschevarria-Sola was 20 years old. Mr. Thomas, at least once, touched or stroked Ms. Eschevarria-Sola's leg, around her knee and thigh, and also touched her back. The physical contact, which occurred while she was seated at the computer console, made her uncomfortable. She expressed her discomfort when such touches occurred. Mr. Thomas explained that he was attempting to warm his hands. She saw Mr. Thomas touch other students in her class in like manner. At least once, Mr. Thomas requested that Ms. Eschevarria-Sola kiss him in exchange for a pencil she wanted to borrow. Although she was uncomfortable with the situation, she complied with his request. On another occasion, Mr. Thomas requested that he be permitted to kiss her and she complied. Ms. Eschevarria-Sola recalled Mr. Thomas discussing sexual matters in class, including his relationship with his wife, but could not specifically recall the details of the discussion. Mr. Thomas also joked about the bodies of the students in his class. Ms. Eschevarria-Sola was embarrassed by the jokes or language. Students at the FSDB are required to attend a course entitled "Talking About Touching", which provides instruction related to self-protection from potential physical abuse. Students are taught to classify physical contact as "good", "bad" or "confusing". "Good" touches would include such positive contact as a pat on the back. "Bad" touches would include touches which are physically uncomfortable and negatively perceived by the recipient, such as slapping or inappropriate sexually-oriented contact. "Confusing" touches are those which may be positively intended but which are perceived by the recipient to be inappropriate or which make the recipient uncomfortable. Students are taught that "confusing" and "bad" touches should be reported to responsible authorities at the school. The record is unclear as to whether the students alleging that Mr. Thomas' touches were "confusing" had taken the course prior to being in Mr. Thomas' classroom. Some students at the FSDB may have reached majority. Students may remain enrolled at the FSDB beyond the age of students enrolled in other high schools. A teacher is held to the same standards of classroom behavior regardless of the students ages. Mr. Thomas had been present during an FSDB staff meeting during which reference to appropriate and inappropriate classroom conduct was made by supervisory personnel, and consequences of improper conduct were discussed. Officials at the FSDB became aware of allegations related to the classroom conduct of Mr. Thomas, when, on May 24, 1988, the allegations were reported to Mr. Robert Dawson, President of the FSDB, by a female student, Marisol Eschevarria-Sola. Ms. Eschevarria-Sola had, on the previous evening, participated in a dormitory gathering with other female students during which Mr. Thomas' conduct was discussed. (Some students are enrolled at the FSDB on a residential basis and live in dorms at the school.) At the direction of the FSDB President Robert Dawson, the allegations were immediately investigated by Ms. Debra Boles, Assistant Principal for Academic Instruction. Ms. Boles initially interviewed five hearing-impaired female students, including Ms. Eschevarria-Sola and Ms. Warfel, who provided information substantially similar to their testimony at the administrative hearing. The initial interviews were solely between the individual students and Ms. Boles, who is skilled at signed communication. The student interviews indicated that some students were "confused" by Mr. Thomas' conduct. Ms. Boles immediately reported her findings to Mr. Dawson, who directed that Mr. Thomas be placed on administrative leave with pay pending further inquiry into the allegations. On May 24, 1988, Ms. Boles verbally informed Mr. Thomas and his immediate supervisor that Mr. Thomas was being placed on administrative leave with pay pending further investigation. Ms. Boles explained that there were allegations of inappropriate physical contact made by unidentified female students of Mr. Thomas. Ms. Boles informed Mr. Thomas that such inappropriate contact included touching female students "on the back, on the shirt or on the thighs. " By letter dated May 24, 1988, Mr. Dawson confirmed that Mr. Thomas was placed on administrative leave with pay, effective May 25 through June 8, 1988, while under investigation for "inappropriate Staff/Student Relationships" constituting violation of referenced sections of the Florida Administrative Code related to the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. At Mr. Dawson's direction, Ms. Boles, on or about May 27, 1988, interviewed 29 students, all of whom are hearing-impaired, who had been students of Mr. Thomas at some time during their enrollment at the FSDB. The interviews were conducted individually. The interviews between Ms. Boles and the individuals were conducted through a registered interpreter. Of the 29 interviewed, 22 of the students expressed no concern related to Mr. Thomas' classroom conduct. Among the students interviewed were Ms. Middlebrooks and Ms. Lents, who provided information substantially similar to their testimony at the administrative hearing. Ms. Boles provided the information gained through the student interviews to Mr. Dawson. The matter was referred to the FSDB Personnel Director for further action. Pursuant to the aforementioned letter of delegation, Samuel R. Visconti, Director of Personnel for the FSDB, is responsible for employee disciplinary actions, including employment termination procedures. At the time Mr. Visconti was informed of the allegations, Mr. Thomas had been placed on administrative leave and the school was investigating the matter. Mr. Visconti was aware of the recommendations made by Dr. Randall, Mr. Dawson and Ms. Boles. Ms. Boles recommended that Mr. Thomas' employment at the FSDB be terminated for violation of professional standards. Dr. Randall recommended that Mr. Thomas' employment at the FSDB be terminated due to inappropriate conduct in the classroom. Dr. Randall has substantial experience with the deaf and observed that the physical contact which occurred in Mr. Thomas' classroom was not of the type which one hearing- impaired person would use to gain the attention of another. Mr. Dawson recommended that Mr. Thomas' employment at the FSDB be terminated. Mr. Dawson, who has extensive experience with the deaf, believed that the physical contact, sexual discussions, and attempted equalization of the teacher-student relationship had rendered Mr. Thomas ineffective as a teacher. According to Mr. Visconti, the termination procedure at FSDB requires notification to the employee of the intended action which is predicated on the allegations of either incompetence or misconduct. Prior to termination, the employee may or may not be placed on administrative leave during the school's inquiry into the allegations. Following the school's investigation, the employee is contacted and offered the opportunity for a predetermination hearing at which the employee may provide information relevant to the proposed disciplinary action. Within five days following the hearing, the employee is notified in writing, and perhaps verbally, of the school's decision. Mr. Visconti contacted Mr. Thomas either late in the afternoon of June 6 or early in the morning of June 7, 1988, to arrange a predetermination hearing. The communication between Mr. Visconti and Mr. Thomas was through telephone and TDD, a device that permits the transmission of apparently written communication through telephone lines. Mr. Visconti is not hearing-impaired. The record does not indicate whether Mr. Visconti understands signed communication. By agreement between Mr. Visconti and Mr. Thomas, the conference was scheduled for the afternoon of June 7, 1988. During the TDD communication, Mr. Visconti explained to Mr. Thomas that the school had completed the investigation of the allegations of improper classroom conduct, and restated the allegations. Mr. Visconti explained that Mr. Thomas was being offered the opportunity to meet with Mr. Visconti and present "his side of the story...." Mr. Thomas was informed that he could provide information orally or in writing, and was further informed that he could "bring anyone with him that he felt would help him in supporting anything that he wanted to present...." Mr. Thomas and Mr. Visconti agreed that Dr. Randall would serve at the meeting as interpreter. Mr. Visconti received from Ms. Boles, a package of materials, dated June 7, 1988. The package included Ms. Boles' notes taken during or subsequent to her interviews with the students. Present at the June 7 meeting were Mr. Visconti, Mr. Thomas, Dr. Randall, and Mr. Thomas' wife. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Visconti informed Mr. Thomas that the sexually-related allegations would be specifically addressed and inquired as to whether Mrs. Thomas would be embarrassed. Mr. Thomas indicated that the meeting could proceed. At that time, Mr. Visconti restated the incidents of inappropriate conduct upon which the school intended to base the disciplinary action and explained the authority under which the FSDB was acting. Mr. Thomas attempted to address the allegations at that time, but offered no witnesses. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Visconti informed Mr. Thomas that a decision would be issued within several days. On the morning of June 8, 1988, Mr. Thomas contacted Mr. Visconti and requested an additional meeting to offer further explanation. The meeting, held that afternoon, was attended by Mr. Thomas, Mr. Visconti, and Dr. Randall. Mr. Thomas offered a typewritten statement, suggesting a rationale for the accusations made against him, which apparently reiterated information he had provided at the prior conference. Upon the conclusion of the June 8, 1988 meeting, Mr. Visconti terminated Mr. Thomas' employment, effective immediately. Mr. Thomas was officially dismissed by letter of June 10, 1988 from Mr. Visconti. The June 10 letter states that he was dismissed from employment for "doing the following to female students: rubbing backs, tickling backs under student's blouses, rubbing student's thighs, asking sexually related questions of students, discussing sexually related topics regarding your personal life, and asking for kisses in exchange for items such as pencils or pieces of candy." The letter informed Mr. Thomas of his right to appeal the determination through the administrative process and his union grievance procedure. Mr. Visconti determined that, based upon the information and recommendations presented to him by Dr. Randall, Mr. Dawson, Ms. Boles and Mr. Thomas, that just cause existed for the termination of Mr. Thomas' employment at the FSDB. Mr. Visconti determined that Mr. Thomas had violated the Code of Ethics as set forth in administrative rules and that the improper classroom conduct had rendered Mr. Thomas ineffective as a teacher and had placed students at risk. At the administrative hearing, Mr. Thomas sought to explain the physical contact as serving to gain the attention of, or to calm, hearing- impaired students. Mr. Thomas claims that he touched Ms. Middlebrooks' back as a means of addressing the frustration she supposedly felt at the difficult computer work required in the class and stated that he did not know she found it objectionable. Mr. Thomas testified that Ms. Lents instigated the hugging incidents, and that he told her to stop, but she continued. Mr. Thomas claimed that he once touched Ms. Warfel's back under her blouse on a day when Ms. Warfel wore a prohibited bare midriff blouse to class and that his hand accidently touched her bare skin while he was reminding her that such blouses were prohibited. Mr. Thomas denied that he requested a kiss from Ms. Warfel, but suggested that Ms. Warfel kissed him because he was her "favorite teacher". Mr. Thomas denied tickling Ms. Warfel. Mr. Thomas explained that he possibly touched Ms. Eschevarria-Sola's leg as a means of gaining her attention while she sat at the computer console, but claimed he never touched the inside of her thigh. Mr. Thomas denied that Ms. Eschevarria-Sola kissed him or that he kissed her. As to sexually-oriented conversations, Mr. Thomas denied having made such remarks. Mr. Thomas' testimony was less credible than that of the students who testified at the hearing. At the administrative hearing, Mr. Thomas offered no rationale to suggest the reason behind the student's allegations. The typewritten statement provided to Mr. Visconti on June 8 by Mr. Thomas suggests that the allegations were the work of Senior class students, supposedly disappointed with his decision not to invite them to his home for a social event, as he had apparently done on an occasional and irregular basis in previous years. However, those students testifying generally had favorable opinions of Mr. Thomas, other than as to his specific conduct to which they objected. There is no evidence to support the inference that the allegations were untruthful and that they were intended as retribution for the omitted social activity. Evidence was introduced indicating that hearing-impaired persons are more likely to touch each other than are non-hearing-impaired persons. Such touches are to gain another's attention or to express emotion. The evidence does not support the suggestion that Mr. Thomas' classroom conduct was designed to gain the attention of the students or express emotion. Ms. Boles testified that some of Mr. Thomas' classroom behavior indicated the potential for sexual abuse by Mr. Thomas, however, the testimony to this point was not persuasive. Ms. Boles' opinion was, at least in part, based upon her discussions with an independent psychologist who serves as a consultant to the school on matters related to sexual abuse prevention. According to Ms. Boles, the consultant stated that a "psychosexual evaluation" of Mr. Thomas was necessary to determine the potential for sexual abuse. The school did not follow the consultant's recommendation. Although Mr. Thomas' behavior was inappropriate, the evidence does not suggest that Mr. Thomas sexually abused students and the testimony related to Mr. Thomas' potential for sexual abuse is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees for the Florida school for the Deaf and the Blind enter a Final Order finding that just cause exists for terminating the employment of Bradley Thomas. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking teaching certificate, #486268, held by Bradley Thomas. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NOS. 88-3425 and 88-5675 Proposed findings of fact were filed by the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, Respondent, Case No. 88-3425 and Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, Case No. 88-5675. The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. The proposed findings of fact are adopted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, Respondent, Case No. 88-3425 4. Reference to contact with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services rejected, immaterial. 6. Reference to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative services rejected, immaterial. Reference to conversations with "Dr. DiAmatto" rejected as non-corroborated hearsay. 15. Rejected, irrelevant. Last sentence rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. The testimony cited does not clearly indicate that the statement was made in the classroom. 20. Reference to witness' testimony related to sexual content of discussion is rejected, not supported by the evidence. The testimony indicates that the witness was told by others that the discussion related to sex. 26. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. The testimony cited does not clearly indicate that the statement was made in the classroom. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. The testimony cited does support the proposed finding. Reference to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services rejected, immaterial. Betty Castor, as commissioner of Education, Petitioner, Case No. 88-5675 7. Reference to contact with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services rejected, immaterial. 9. Reference to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services rejected as immaterial. Reference to conversations with "Dr. DiAmatto" rejected as non-corroborated hearsay. 15. Reference to witness' testimony related to sexual content of discussion is rejected, not supported by the evidence. The testimony indicates that the witness was told by others that the discussion related to sex. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. The testimony cited does not clearly indicate that the statement was made in the classroom. Rejected, unnecessary. 29. Characterization of testimony as evasive and inconsistent is rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Sheppard, Esq. 215 Washington Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Barbara J. Staros, Esq. State Board of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Betty J. Steffens, Esq. 106 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Robert Dawson, President Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind 207 San Marco Avenue St. Augustine, FL 32084
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding Florida Educator’s Certificate 958493, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Autism Spectrum Disorders, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Bay County School District as an ESE teacher at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL Center). This is a second career for Respondent. She left a business and technology career to pursue a career in education, specifically working with students with special needs. Respondent obtained her Master’s degree and a special designation to work with special needs students. Respondent was motivated to pursue teaching special education students because she had an aunt with Down’s syndrome who had limited educational opportunities. Respondent taught at Oscar Patterson Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year, and then transferred to MKL Center beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. After Respondent received her state educational certification in autism spectrum disorders, she requested to be assigned to teach an ESE class beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. That year, she was voted as “Teacher of the Year” by her peers. The class to which Respondent was assigned was a challenging class. It was not unusual for students in this classroom to bite, kick, hit, pinch, and trip staff. During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of students was reduced from eight to four, and the number of paraprofessionals was increased from two to three. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were four students in her classroom: C.B., J.B., K.M., and D.C. One paraprofessional, Patricia Lewis, was assigned specifically to D.C. The other two paraprofessionals, Jennifer Shea Saulmon and Nancy Davis, worked with all of the children, and when able to, Patricia Lewis did as well. Ms. Davis, Ms. Saulmon, and Ms. Lewis have seven, fourteen and twenty-seven years of experience, respectively. C.B. had a severe mental disability with a limited ability to comprehend verbal communications and a limited ability to communicate. C.B.’s communication involved single words, sounds, and gestures. He could discern the speaker’s mood, but might not fully understand the content of what was said. For example, C.B. might not understand that someone was saying hello, but would understand that the speaker was friendly towards him. C.B. also had problematic behaviors including biting, pinching, scratching, and hitting. C.B. had an awkward gait and wore ankle orthotics (AFO’s), a type of plastic brace, over his shoe and lower leg to provide stability from the foot to the leg, and to assist in improving his ability to walk. C.B. was ten years old. J.B. was approximately 11 years old in January 2012, and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He also had a limited ability to communicate using single words, sounds and utterances, and gestures. J.B. also used an iPad to communicate. Over time, someone working with J.B. would develop a greater ability to understand and communicate with him. J.B.’s difficult behaviors included spitting, hitting, kicking, and pinching. K.M. was 11 in January 2012. K.M. was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, and had previously suffered a stroke which limited her use of one arm. She also had significant intellectual limitations. However, K.M.’s ability to communicate was greater than the other members of the class, and she could understand verbal communications. In addition, K.M. was more independent than her classmates, and was a risk for elopement from both the classroom and the campus. As stated by one of the paraprofessionals, K.M. “was a runner.” By all accounts, K.M.’s behaviors were consistently disruptive, and managing her in a classroom took a significant effort. D.C. was also 11 in January 2012. D.C. was diagnosed as autistic and engaged in repeated self-injurious behaviors. When upset, D.C. would repeatedly strike himself in the head and face, and he often wore a football helmet as a protective measure. D.C. was very strong, and attempts to prevent him from hurting himself could often result in staff members being hurt. There was testimony at hearing that his behavior plan addressed how many he times he was allowed to hit himself or how long he was allowed to hit himself without intervention. However, the behavior plan for D.C. was not in evidence. A portion of the classroom was designed specifically for D.C., with padded walls and a padded floor, in light of D.C.’s tendency to hit his head against hard surfaces as well. He had some beads that he played with that sometimes calmed him. At some point during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to show signs that the stresses of her very challenging classroom were having an effect on her. After the Christmas break, her stress seemed to have intensified. Respondent was having trouble sleeping, suffered from high blood pressure and pain from injuries sustained in the classroom, and was experiencing some depression. Respondent began to “self- medicate” with alcohol at night. There was no credible evidence that Respondent ever drank during the day or was under the influence of alcohol during work hours. At the end of the school day on January 30, 2012, Ms. Lewis approached assistant principal Elizabeth Swedlund to voice some concerns about Respondent’s behavior in the classroom. Ms. Lewis related some events that had occurred in the classroom that day, as well as some general concerns regarding treatment of the students in the classroom. She voiced the following concerns: that Respondent took away D.C.’s beads and would allow him to hit himself for a period of time longer than allowed by his treatment plan; that she made statements to K.M. such as “I could kill you” or “go play in the street”; and that she hit C.B. with a closed hand and kicked him while working in “circle time.” On January 31, 2012, Ms. Swedlund notified her principal, Britt Smith, of the conversation with Ms. Lewis. She decided to speak with the other paraprofessionals in the classroom and after doing so, to report the information to the abuse registry. Principal Smith notified Sharon Michalik, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, of the issue with respect to Respondent. As a result, Mike Jones, Chief of Safety, initiated an investigation. Mike Jones visited the campus the following day. All three paraprofessionals were interviewed and asked to provide written statements. He took Respondent for a drug and urine test, which came back negative. On Friday, February 3, 2012, Respondent was notified to meet with Ms. Michalik and other administrators to review the allegations. After this meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay, and the School District planned to proceed with a recommendation for termination. However, instead the parties entered an agreement executed on March 30, 2012, through which Respondent would take a medical leave of absence and would only be allowed to return to a position with the School District if she was found fit for duty. If she returned, she would be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. On March 30, 2012, the Department of Children and Families issued a letter to Respondent stating that it found no indicators of physical injury and no indicators of bizarre punishment. On April 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by psychologist David J. Smith who opined that at that time, she was not fit for duty. She was re-evaluated on July 26, 2012, and cleared to return to work. At that time, she was assigned to a different school. One of the issues raised by Ms. Lewis was that Respondent permitted D.C. to hit himself more frequently than allowed by his behavior plan. The Administrative Complaint specifically charges that she allowed D.C. to hit himself repeatedly for up to ten minutes, while his behavior plan indicated that he should be allowed to hit himself up to three times. The behavior plan was not entered into evidence. The evidence was unclear as to what the plan actually required, and it was equally unclear exactly what Respondent was doing. For example, there was testimony that she would attempt to redirect him once he started hitting himself, but did not physically intervene for ten minutes. There was other testimony that there was never a time when he was allowed to simply hit himself with no one doing anything. Without being able to examine the behavior plan, and without being able to specify the exact incident or incidents at issue, it is not possible to determine whether Respondent was varying from the requirements of the behavior plan, or if any variation was significant. Ms. Davis reported to Ms. Swedlund that on or about Friday, January 27, 2012, J.B. was in time-out because of bad behaviors. While he was in time-out, he was sitting behind a rolling partition, and Respondent was holding the partition in place so that J.B. would have to remain in place. J.B. spat at Respondent, which is something he did often. Ms. Davis reported that while holding the partition Respondent spat back at him, an action that shocked Ms. Davis. Respondent denies ever spitting on J.B. She testified via deposition that J.B. was spitting while in time-out, and she was holding the barrier while talking to him. She responded to his behavior by saying “you do not spit.” Respondent testified that it was possible that some spittle may have fallen on J.B., but that she never intentionally spit on him. The only person who testified regarding the spitting was Ms. Davis. While she was a very credible witness, there was no testimony regarding how close she was to Ms. Henson or to J.B., or that J.B. reacted in any way. Neither of the other paraprofessionals in the room testified that they saw or heard about the incident, and it is implausible to think that such behavior would go without comment. It is conceivable that in saying, “you do not spit,” that spittle would result. Given the high burden of proof for this proceeding, the allegation has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. As previously stated, K.M. presented a classroom management problem. She had a tendency to run around the classroom, take her clothes off, or run out of the classroom and sometimes out of the building. She also would tear up items in the classroom and could be very disruptive. Ms. Lewis felt that Respondent had a hard time getting past her dislike of the child. She had heard her say things like, “I could just kill you right now,” and “go ahead and go into the street.” While Ms. Lewis believed K.M. could understand such statements, she did not react to them, except perhaps to run faster. Ms. Lewis did not believe that Ms. Henson was serious when she made the statements, but more likely made them when frustrated by K.M.’s behavior. Respondent did not recall ever making such statements. Neither Ms. Lewis nor the Administrative Complaint identified exactly when Respondent was to have made these statements, although Ms. Lewis specified that they were statements made at different times. While Ms. Lewis testified that she believed Respondent did not like K.M., it is just as likely that she did not dislike the child, but was extremely frustrated by her behavior. All of the paraprofessionals testified that Respondent truly loved the children she worked with, but that she was frustrated and overwhelmed in the very challenging classroom in which she taught. While the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent made the statements, even Ms. Lewis testified that she did not believe Respondent was serious when she made them. Regardless, the statements were not appropriate statements to make to a child, especially a child with limited intellectual abilities that might not be able to discern whether Respondent was serious. They are, by their nature, disparaging statements. Finally, the incident which caused Ms. Lewis to approach Ms. Swedlund about Respondent involved Respondent’s reactions to C.B. C.B. liked to work on the computer. He would play computer games, such as Dora the Explorer, and was rewarded with computer time for good behavior and finishing all of his assigned work. On Friday, January 27, 2012, C.B. had a rough day, and had been hitting, pinching, and kicking staff. Respondent had spoken with his mother about his behaviors to see if there had been any changes at home that might have contributed to his aggressive behavior. Respondent had told C.B.’s mother that they would have to try some different methods to get C.B. to comply, and that his playing on the computer all day would have to stop. The paraprofessionals testified that on Monday, January 30, 2012, Respondent seemed agitated all day. One said she seemed to carry the frustrations of Friday into Monday. That morning Jennifer Shea Saulmon went to the cafeteria to pick up C.B., who had walked from the parent pickup area without incident, and seemed to be in a good mood. When they reached the classroom, C.B. went straight to the computers. Respondent immediately told him that he could not have computer time. Ms. Saulmon was upset by this, because C.B. had not misbehaved that morning. She questioned Ms. Henson’s decision, and Respondent responded that he could not play on the computer all the time. He then completed his morning work without any disruption, and then walked over to the computers. Ms. Saulmon told him he could not play on the computer at that time. At about 9:15 a.m., the class began “circle time.” During this time, the students sit on the outside of a u-shaped table while Respondent sits on the inside of the “u.” C.B. did not like circle time. On this particular day, he was sitting at the end of the u-shaped table, to Respondent’s left. He began, as he often did, to hit and bite. According to Ms. Saulmon, this behavior usually subsides after about five minutes. This day, however, it did not. C.B. continued to pinch and hit Respondent. In response, Respondent put her arm up with a closed hand (so that the child could not pull and bend back a finger) in a blocking motion, as the teachers and paraprofessionals had been taught to do in order to protect themselves. She said out loud, “I’m blocking, I’m blocking.” However, rather than simply holding her arm up to block against any blows, she would swing her arm toward him to stop the blow, and in doing so, made contact with his arm. Although to Ms. Davis it looked like Respondent was hitting him, she never thought Respondent was trying to hurt C.B. Each time Respondent blocked C.B., he pinched her again, and she blocked him again, which made him angrier. He then started kicking her, and Ms. Davis and Ms. Saulmon believed she kicked him back. However, neither paraprofessional could say that Respondent actually made contact with C.B. They were pretty certain that C.B. was kicking Respondent, and they could see movement toward him by Respondent, and C.B. responded angrily by squealing as he usually did when frustrated or angry. It is just as likely that Respondent was using her leg or foot to try to block C.B.’s kicks, as she stated in her deposition, and that C.B. was angry because she was blocking him. Nonetheless, Respondent’s clear agitation in the classroom that day led to Ms. Lewis’ conversation with Ms. Swedlund about Respondent’s behavior. While all of the paraprofessionals stated concerns about Ms. Henson’s ability to handle that particular class, all were very supportive of her continuing to teach in the special education area. All three seemed to think that the environment of that particular class, which by any measure would be extremely challenging, is one that overwhelmed Respondent, and that she had been in that setting too long. When Respondent returned to work at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, she was transferred to Beach Elementary School. The principal at the new school is Glenda Nouskhajian. Ms. Nouskhajian considers Respondent to be one of her lead teachers in the ESE department, and has no performance- related concerns about her. The only issue Respondent has had since coming to Beach Elementary was a minor paper-work issue related to transferring schools within the district. Respondent is not working in a stand-alone classroom like she was before. She is what Ms. Nouskhajian referred to as a “push-in,” meaning that she goes into other teachers’ classrooms and works with students in small groups in an inclusion setting. She works with the lowest quartile of students, and helps with all of these students’ interventions. Ms. Nouskhajian testified that the students with whom Respondent works are making “great strides,” and Respondent is an educator she would “absolutely” seek to retain. Ms. Nouskhajian knew that there was an issue at Respondent’s prior school, but did not investigate the details. She stated that Respondent had been placed at Beach Elementary by Sharon Michalik, and “I knew that if she was a danger to students, Sharon Michalik would not have placed her at my school . . . . That she went through the counseling and everything she had to do so when she came to my school it was a total fresh start.” Since coming to Beach Elementary, Respondent’s evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was overall effective, with all categories rated as effective or highly effective. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made inappropriate remarks to student K.M. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent spat on J.B., or that she hit or kicked C.B. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that she varied significantly from D.C.’s behavioral plan or acted in a way that allowed him to hurt himself. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was frustrated and overwhelmed in the autistic classroom and, despite having asked for the assignment, had been teaching in that environment for too long to be effective, given the violent tendencies of the children in that setting. There is clear and convincing evidence that she took a leave of absence in lieu of termination and could only return to the classroom after an evaluation found her fit for duty. A change of setting was needed and has served to re-invigorate Respondent.
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 that Respondent has violated rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2014, 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, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder PA 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), by using unauthorized methods of disciplining a student before allowing the student to visit the school nurse. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating certified teachers in the state. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate Number 416888. Respondent's Florida teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 2003. Respondent is employed as a Special Education Teacher at Moore Haven Junior High School (the "school") in the Glades County School District (the "District"). Respondent has a long-standing practice in his classroom of disciplining male students by making them do push-ups and hold books while their arms are extended in front of them. Both practices violate rules and policies of the school and the District. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge that discipline by push-ups and holding books violated the policies of the school and the District. The student handbook distributed to each teacher, including Respondent, prescribed the authorized methods of discipline. None of the authorized methods included pushups or holding books. Respondent submitted some evidence that administrators in the school deviated from officially stated policies and rules by condoning unauthorized methods of discipline such as pushups or holding books. However, the evidence submitted by Respondent was less than a preponderance of the evidence and was adequately refuted by evidence submitted by Petitioner. All of the students in Respondent's class are exceptional education students. Each student has an identified disability. Any method of discipline other than that authorized by applicable policies and rules must be clearly stated and authorized in each student's individual education plan ("IEP"). C.W. was an exceptional education student in Respondent's class on February 9, 2000. The IEP for C.W. did not authorize any alternative methods of discipline. During class on February 9, 2000, Respondent approached C.W. because C.W. had his head on his desk during class. Respondent instructed C.W. to do his assignment. C.W. complained that he felt sick and requested to see the school nurse. Respondent and C.W. exchanged brief repartees. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that during the exchange Respondent prevented C.W. from going to the nurse's office. Some witnesses testified that Respondent refused C.W.'s request to go to the nurse's office. Other witnesses in the classroom during the exchange testified that Respondent initially instructed C.W. to go to the nurse's office but that C.W. refused either to go to the nurse's office or to do his assignment. The testimony of all of those witnesses was credible. Because C.W. refused to do his assignment in class, Respondent instructed C.W. to stand at the back of the class with his arms extended in front of him. C.W. complied with Respondent's instruction. Respondent successfully completed the alternative method of discipline that required C.W. to stand at the back of the class. However, Respondent failed to effectuate other unauthorized methods of discipline that Respondent attempted. When Respondent placed books in C.W.'s arms, C.W. did not hold the books in his arms. Rather, C.W. dropped his arms, and the books fell to the floor. When Respondent instructed C.W. to do push-ups, C.W. refused Respondent's instruction. C.W. left Respondent's classroom under his own volition and went to the office of the school nurse. The evidence does not reveal the amount of time that transpired between Respondent's initial instruction for C.W. to stand at the back of the class and the time when C.W. left for the nurse's office. Therefore, there is no evidentiary basis to quantify the delay in medical attention. When C.W. arrived at the nurse's office, the school nurse determined that C.W. was feverish, suffered chills, and that his complexion was "splotchy." The nurse telephoned C.W.'s parents. The parents took C.W. home and subsequently to the hospital. The examining physician at the hospital diagnosed C.W. as suffering from mastoiditis. The physician admitted C.W. to the hospital for two days and successfully treated the medical condition. The medical condition represented an exigent threat of harm to C.W.'s physical safety within the meaning of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). As previously found, however, the evidence is less than clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect the student from a medical condition that was harmful to the student's physical safety. Conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent delayed C.W.'s attempt to see the school nurse or the length of any delay allegedly caused by Respondent. C.W. left Respondent's class under his own volition and went directly to the nurse's office. The conflicting evidence was less than clear and convincing that any delay between Respondent's initial contact with the student and the student's departure to the school nurse was significant enough that Respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to the student's physical safety. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) by failing to make a reasonable effort to protect C.W. from conditions harmful to learning. The methods of discipline attempted by Respondent were harmful to C.W.'s ability to learn, violated C.W.'s IEP, and violated school policy. For the same reasons, Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e) by intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement. Administrative staff at the school conducted a full investigation of the matter. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the District issued a written letter of reprimand to Respondent. The letter of reprimand issued by the District is disciplinary action by Respondent's employer. The judicial doctrine of double jeopardy does not preclude disciplinary action by Petitioner against Respondent's license. No evidence shows that Respondent has any prior disciplinary history by either Petitioner or the District. Petitioner seeks to have Respondent's teaching certificate suspended for 12 months. However, Petitioner's proposed penalty is based on the premise that Respondent committed all of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and suspending Respondent's teaching certificate in Florida for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Ron Weaver & Associates 528 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1518 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Educational Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl Zahner, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Moses N. Mwaura 214 Tenth Street Post Office Box 856 Moore Haven, Florida 33471
Findings Of Fact Respondent in this proceeding is Lloyd Wright. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, he was a social studies teacher employed by the St. Lucie County School District on a professional contract status and assigned to Westwood High School. He holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 395537. On February 17, 1987, Respondent was suspended from his duties as a teacher for the school district. After an administrative hearing on issues relative to his employment, final order dismissing Respondent from his employment was issued by the school district on September 8, 1987. James Andrews is the principal of Westwood High School. Andrews has known Respondent as a friend, and as a member of the teaching staff at the school, for many years. On February 4, 1987, Andrews was at home with his ill son. His secretary telephoned him regarding allegations being voiced against Respondent by a female student. That student's allegations, and statements of other students alleged to be witnesses, were reduced to writing at Andrews' instruction and reviewed by him upon his return to the office on February 5, 1987. That evening he met with the complaining student, Tenecia Poitier, and her father. He assured them that the matter would be taken up with his superiors. On the morning of February 11, 1987, Andrews brought the allegations to the attention of the school district's Director of Secondary Education during a visit by the director to the Westwood Campus. That afternoon, the director telephoned Andrews and requested that additional statements be obtained from the students. Pursuant to those instructions, Andrews met with the students who had given the previous statements and instructed them to provide the additional statements to him. He forwarded these statements to the district school board office. Andrews has been the principal at Westwood High School for seven and a half years. He holds a master's degree in guidance and counseling and has completed course work in the areas of administration and supervision in excess of 30 academic credit hours. He has served in the educational system for approximately 35 years. Service in the positions of classroom teacher, guidance counselor, assistant principal and principal are included in the scope of his experience. Andrews regularly instructed the staff at the school to refrain from using slang in the classroom, becoming familiar with students or putting their hands on students unless necessary to prevent injury to a student or others. This admonishment by the principal was applicable to all students without regard to race or sex. He does not think it appropriate for a teacher to use the word "fuck" or the phrase "I am going to fuck your brains out" in the classroom. Andrews also finds the use of the phrases "Girl, I want that thing" and "Girl, I'm going to take you to the bushes" inappropriate for a male teacher to use in conversation with a female student. He would not want a male teacher who touched female students intentionally on the buttocks or thighs, or used such words or phrases in the classroom, on his teaching staff. Tenecia Poitier graduated from Westwood High School in 1988. In the 1986-87 school year, she was a student in Respondent's World History class. On one occasion, Respondent pushed Poitier against the wall of the classroom with other students present and told her "One of these days, I'm going to fuck your brains out." Once, when she was going to the school cafeteria, Respondent told her "Girl, I want that thing." Respondent touched Poitier on the leg and buttocks on other occasions and made suggestive statements to her. In response, Poitier rejected Respondent's advances by cursing him and, on one occasion, striking him. Another incident occurred when Respondent seated himself in front of Poitier's desk and propped his feet on her desk in a crossed fashion. The result of Respondent adopting this seating posture meant that Poitier had to look between Respondent's legs when she looked up from her desk work. Poitier got out of her desk, struck Respondent with her notebook, cursed him and told him to get his legs off her desk. Poitier did not observe Respondent engage in this seating conduct with other students. JoAnna McGee was a ninth grade student when she had Respondent as her teacher for World History. Respondent saw McGee walking down the street one day. He sounded his automobile horn at her. Later, when he saw her in the classroom, he told her that if he saw her walking on the street again he would take her "in the bushes." Respondent hugged McGee and other female students on occasion. Tony Lee was a student in Respondent's World History class, along with Poitier. Lee was aware of Respondent's joking and bantering with students. Female students would congregate around Respondent's desk when these sessions occurred. On one of these occasions, female students laughingly said they needed some candy to suck, and Lee heard Respondent reply "I've got something to suck on right here." Lee also heard Respondent make the statement "fuck your brains out" during an exchange with students. Lee overheard Respondent using the phrase "pull your clothes down" in a conversation with Poitier. Lisa Frazier was also a classmate of Poitier during the World History class taught by Respondent. She observed Poitier curse Respondent and strike him with her notebook. Frazier also testified that Poitier had a reputation for disruptive behavior and that Respondent used slang language with students. Respondent admitted using slang expressions, including the phrases "take you to the bushes" and "take you to the woods," in classroom settings with female students. Respondent admitted to a practice of hugging male and female students. Respondent also testified that he never told Poitier that he wanted to "F--- her brains out." When confronted with his sworn testimony from a previous proceeding that he did not recall making the statement, Respondent explained that his previous answer was made upon advice of his counsel at that time. Respondent's denial in this proceeding that he never made such a statement to Poitier, along with his testimony that hugging of students was an unintentional result of previous coaching experience, is not credited in view of his demeanor while testifying. Further, his testimony that his use of the phrases "take you to the bushes" or "take you to the woods" resulted from a film observed in the class and were meaningless slang terms devoid of sexual innuendo, is not credible. Also, the testimony of students Lee and McGee corroborates Poitier's version of Respondent's behavior and further discredits Respondent's testimony, including his explanation that Poitier's complaint against him resulted from Respondent writing up Poitier for academic and disciplinary reasons. Other students were also written up as often as Poitier.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed Findings 1.-2. Addressed. Unnecessary to result reached. 4.-12. Addressed. 13. Unnecessary to result. 14.-15. Adopted in substance. 16. Unnecessary to result reached. 17.-21. Addressed. 22.-24. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to result. Unnecessary to result reached. 27.-28. Addressed. 29.-30. Adopted in substance. 31. Unnecessary to result reached. 32.-33. Addressed. 34.-35. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Addressed. 3.-6. Unnecessary to result reached. 7.-8. Cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary to result. 9.-13. Unnecessary to result reached. 14. Addressed. 15.-17. Unnecessary to result reached. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected, contrary to weight of the evidence. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in substance. 24.-25. Unnecessary to result reached. 26.-27. Addressed in substance. 28. Unnecessary to result. 29.-30. Addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Steffens, Esquire Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire 208 West Pensacola St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire. General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint. If so, what punitive action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Licensure Respondent holds Florida teacher's certificate number 472770, covering the area of Elementary Education. His certificate is valid until June 30, 1999. Employment At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was employed pursuant to professional services contract by the School Board of Broward County (School Board) as a Foreign Student Advisor (initially on a part-time basis and ultimately full-time) at the Atlantic Vocational Technical Center (AVTC). Fees for Translation Services AVTC is an educational unit of the School Board providing educational opportunities for residents of Broward County. AVTC has a large population of foreign-speaking students, including those of Haitian and South American origin. The Haitian students, for the most part, speak Creole and the documentation they have reflecting their educational experiences in Haiti is in French. As a general rule, the South American students speak Spanish, and the documentation they have reflecting their educational experiences in their native countries is in Spanish. Respondent is fluent in French and Spanish (as well as in English) and is also able to converse in Creole. In order to properly place the foreign speaking students in AVTC's vocational programs, the students' language skills must be assessed. In addition, their educational background in their native countries, as reflected by the documentation from the institutions they attended, must also be assessed to make sure that the students are qualified for placement in the programs in which they are placed. As the Foreign Student Advisor, Respondent was the "point person" for any foreign speaking student entering AVTC. It was Respondent's obligation to counsel and intake the student, to provide needed language assessments, to review the documentation the student possessed reflecting his or her educational background, and to then provide AVTC with a written evaluation or statement of the student's educational credentials certifying, where appropriate, that the student "had attained a level of academic education . . . at least equal to that of high school completion in the United States' system of education." Respondent's written job description, which the Director of AVTC, Robert Crawford, reviewed with Respondent on several occasions, made reference, in general terms, to these duties. It read as follows: JOSUE NARVAEZ FOREIGN STUDENT ADVISOR -Provide for foreign student recruitment, advisement and placement within the guidelines of federal and state laws as well as school board policies -Serve as foreign student liaison for faculty, administration, county-level staff, feeder school personnel and community-at-large -Serve as liaison between students and Immigration and Naturalization Services -Offer assistance with curriculum to instructors of foreign student population -Provide tours of campus for ESOL students -Assist with orientation programs, scheduling and registration procedures -Process FAFTF applications -Process Fee Waiver and Deferred Payment forms -Insure that basic skill information is provided to all students within respective programs -Assist in coordination of VESOL and Pre-Core programs -Coordinate Refugee and SLIAG programs -Coordinate multi-cultural activities -Provide translation assistance as needed -Work together with ESOL/VESOL Department Head, instructors and aides to offer services to students -Attend faculty, staff and other related meetings to keep abreast of updated regulations, policies and procedures, techniques and information needed to provide adequate services to student population for specific disciplines -Participate in workshops, public relations events, career exploration days, job expos, tours, etc. -Perform all other duties as assigned by Student Service Director/Center Director Respondent routinely advised students who sought from him an evaluation and certification of their foreign academic credentials, which Respondent in his capacity of Foreign Student Advisor was obligated to provide to them, that he would not provide the service absent a written translation (into English) of their foreign certificates, diplomas or other documentation. Respondent further advised these students that, for a fee, he could provide the translation service, or that they could use the services of an outside translator. In those instances where he (for a fee) provided the service, Respondent routinely did the translations at his home, but he had the written translations notarized by one of the registrars at the school during the school day, and he delivered the documents to the students at the school during the school day. For such services, Respondent generally charged from $20.00 to $50.00, depending on the number of documents that were translated. Respondent's refusal to evaluate and validate the prior level of academic achievement of foreign students, absent a written translation into English, was, as he should have known, contrary to his job duties as Foreign Student Advisor. Furthermore, his advice to foreign students that such a written translation was required for an evaluation was false and deceptive. The use of such deception was instrumental in his obtaining fees from students (for his own personal gain and advantage) that were otherwise not required by the school or for an evaluation of the students' educational status. Claims for Medical Expenses Reimbursement Incident to his employment with the School Board, Respondent participated in the School Board's medical expenses reimbursement account program (Program). The Program gives employees the opportunity to save tax dollars by designating a portion of their anticipated yearly wages (which will not be taxed as income by virtue of such designation) for placement in an account from which the employees may seek reimbursement for medical expenses not covered by insurance. The School Board essentially funds an employee's medical expenses reimbursement account as of January 1st of the tax year, and has to recover the funded monies over the course of the year by monthly salary redirection, provided the employee continues to be employed by the School Board. For the 1993 tax year, Respondent elected to participate in the Program at a rate of $100.00 each month for a total of $1,200.00 annually. In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, Respondent's entire $1,200.00 annual commitment, although sheltered at $100.00 each month, was available on January 1st of the tax year to pay non-reimbursed medical expenses. On or about January 7, 1993, Respondent submitted to First Benefits, Inc., which administers the Program for the School Board, a claim for $1,165.00 for eye care services Respondent claimed were rendered by Dr. Jerry Siegel, an optometrist for whom Respondent's wife worked at the time. Attached to the claim were two statements, one reflecting a date of service of January 4, 1993, for Respondent with a total charge of $595.00, and a second reflecting a date of service of January 6, 1993, for Respondent's daughter with a total charge of $570.00. The statements were on forms to which Respondent's wife had access as an employee of Dr. Siegel. At $1,165.00, the claim Respondent submitted in January of 1993, was only $35.00 short of his annual participation that year and, if accepted for payment, would have required the School Board to effectively pay Respondent the amount of the claim, with the expectation that such sums would be recovered over the course of the year from Respondent's monthly salary reduction. On January 25, 1993, First Benefits, Inc., denied Respondent's claim for reimbursement predicated on advice from Dr. Siegel that, contrary to the assertions made in the claim and the statements for services appended thereto, "the services in question were not rendered on the dates enclosed." The assertions made in Respondent's claim for reimbursement were fabrications and the statements for services appended thereto were forgeries. Dr. Siegel rendered no services to Respondent on January 4, 1993, nor did he render any services to Respondent's daughter on January 6, 1993. Accordingly, as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint, "Respondent submitted false claims for medical reimbursement to the administrator of the School Board's medical reimbursement account." He submitted these claims with the intent to deceive knowing that these claims were false. Termination of Employment Following investigations of Respondent's fee-charging and fraudulent claim-filing activities, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated action to terminate his employment. The matter was publicized in local newspapers. Following a Section 120.57(1) hearing, the School Board took final action to dismiss Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint and punishing him for committing these violations by revoking his license and denying him the right to teach for a period of six years, after which he may apply for a new certificate in accordance with the provisions of Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1998.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's educators certificate.
Findings Of Fact In the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent, Elizabeth Weisman, held a Florida Teaching Certificate No. 475382. The certificate covered the areas of elementary education and mathematics and was valid through June 30, 2005. When the events herein occurred, Respondent was employed as a dropout prevention teacher at Second Chance School in Tallahassee, Florida. The school is part of the Leon County School District. There is no evidence that Respondent has been disciplined by Petitioner on any prior occasion since she began teaching in Leon County in October 1980. Second Chance School is a school for children with disciplinary problems and who have a history of being extremely disruptive and cannot be handled in a regular school setting. Ms. Weisman was in a difficult position when she started teaching at Second Chance School. She was assigned to teach outside her field and was replacing a teacher who was not as strict a disciplinarian or as demanding of performance as Ms. Weisman. In general, her students did not react well to the increase in discipline and expectations of performance and likely caused increased referrals to the principal's office. Both Ms. Weisman and the students had to adjust to each other On April 6, 2001, J.M. entered Respondent's classroom. Respondent asked him to leave her classroom. He was not supposed to be in the classroom because he had been referred to the principal's office the day before for discipline. J.M. attempted to comply with Respondent's request, but a number of students entering the room blocked him from leaving. Respondent made a shooing motion with her hands to J.M. and raised her foot to indicate for J.M. to leave the room. The gestures were done in a playful manner and were intended as such. While Ms. Weisman's foot was raised, she accidentally brushed or pushed J.M.'s buttocks with her foot. J.M. could feel the push. However, it did not cause him to lose his balance or cause any harm to him whatsoever. The evidence did not demonstrate that J.M. was unduly embarrassed or otherwise affected academically by the incident. Indeed, the incident gave J.M. a good story to tell to others at school. The evidence did not demonstrate that the push was inappropriate or violated any state rules or statutes governing teachers. There was no evidence that Ms. Weisman was less effective as a teacher due to this incident. W.F. testified that on two occasions he witnessed Respondent state to the class that they were "acting like jackasses." J.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. Specifically, W.F. testified that on the first occasion, Respondent stated to the class that they were "acting like jackasses" after class members refused to return to their seats during an altercation between two students occurring outside the classroom. The classroom students were generally cheering the fight on. With respect to the second instance, W.F. testified that Respondent made the statement after W.F. and several of his classmates tricked Respondent into placing her hand on a pencil sharpener covered with glue. W.F. conceded the description was an accurate description of the behavior of the students at the time. At no time did Respondent call an individual student an improper name. Although W.F. testified he was embarrassed by Ms. Weisman, W.F.'s testimony is not persuasive on this point. Nor is it realistic to conclude any significant embarrassment given the bold nature of W.F.'s behavior which preceded these comments. W.F. also testified on direct examination that he witnessed Respondent call the class "a bunch of rat bastards." Again W.F.'s testimony was vague and inconsistent. During cross-examination, however, W.F. testified that the remark was made to a specific female student during a verbal altercation between the student and Respondent. However, Respondent denies ever using or knowing the term "rat bastard." Given Respondent's demeanor, the inconsistency, and the unreliability of the other evidence, Respondent's testimony is the more credible. There was no credible evidence that any student was ever affected in any way by these incidences. No evidence of any change in grades or reduced test scores was introduced at the hearing. An increase in disciplinary referrals was noted by the principal, but that increase was not shown to be tied to these incidences. The increase, if any, was more likely to be due to the fact that she was a new teacher, teaching out of field, who was more strict with her students and demanded more from them. Moreover, statistics supporting this perceived increase in disciplinary referrals was not offered at the hearing. Indeed, later testing showed Ms. Weisman's students improved their test scores. However, the testing was for a different year and class. It was not clear that the same students were being tested. The improvement does show that Ms. Weisman is an effective teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23d day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 23d day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John O. Williams, Esquire Williams & Holz, P.A. 211 East Virginia Street The Cambridge Centre Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
