The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is sleeping in class and failing to supervise his students, so as to violate the prohibitions against misconduct in office and incompetence, as provided by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher for 12 years, all at Cypress Bay High School. During his teaching career, he has taught physical and earth science, except, on occasion, when he has been assigned to teach biology. He has earned exclusively satisfactory marks on each of his annual evaluations, including his most current evaluation. On the evening of April 8, Respondent and his wife were up all night with their special-needs daughter. The next morning, Respondent reported to work punctually and taught his first period course. Respondent was exhausted from lack of sleep the previous night. While seated in his chair between classes, he lifted his eyes toward the heavens, emitted a quiet sigh, and prayed silently for the strength to get through the day at work. His head tilted back and his eyes closed, Respondent was lost in prayer as the students filtered into the classroom.1/ Although in a deeply relaxed state, Respondent could hear the students taking their seats and preparing for class to start. Stirring slightly at the bell signifying the start of class, Respondent emerged from his prayerful reverie after no more than two minutes into second period; he was in this state for no more than four minutes immediately prior to the bell. On these facts, it is impossible to infer from the evidence that Respondent was sleeping at the start of class. He was disengaged, though, so, as he began instruction, he appropriately apologized for his inattention for what was no more than the first couple of minutes of class and explained that he and his wife had had a rough night with a sick child. At all material times, the white board at the front of the classroom was full of written material, and the students had bellwork to perform at the start of every class. There were no behavioral problems during the time that Respondent had failed to give the class his undivided attention, and his inattentiveness did not affect learning that day.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of January, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Alvin H. Dana, held Florida Teaching Certificate 100407 qualifying him in the areas of social studies, guidance, junior college, school psychology, and administration and supervision at the elementary, secondary, and junior college level. During the period pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a guidance counselor at TSHS in the Pinellas County School District. He resigned from that position in April, 1987 after having been employed there for the 1986- 1987 school year. During the 1986-1987 school year, Jeffrey Moore, age 16 or 17, was an 11th grade student at TSHS. In early April, 1987, Nancy Zambito, Director of School Operations for Areas 1 and 2 of the Pinellas County Schools, and previously Director of personnel Services for the District, received a phone call from a school board member who related that he had received a call from a minister who had related to him that a student at TSHS, Jeff Moore, had a sexual encounter with the guidance counselor at that school, Alvin Dana. Ms. Zambito met with the student, who now resides in Tennessee and who did not testify at the hearing, and his mother on April 6, 1987. During the conversation, Moore stated he had gone in to talk with the Respondent because his parents were in the process of getting a divorce and because he was having some problems with his own sexual identity, a condition not further explained. During this conversation, Respondent allegedly mentioned a bar in Dunedin which Moore knew to be a gay bar. At this point, Moore had to leave Respondent's office to go back to class, and Respondent allegedly asked him to meet him after school, which Moore did. When they met, according to Moore, Dana took him to his, Dana's, apartment, which Moore described, gave him a drink, and then initiated sexual contact with him by kissing him. Moore relates they went into the bedroom and had a sexual relationship. Afterward he claims, they cleaned up, had dinner at a restaurant, and then went to a bar where they had a beer. At about 8:30 P.M., Respondent returned Moore to his own car to go home. That was the only sexual encounter they had, but Respondent allegedly talked to Moore about going with him to Jacksonville. After meeting with Moore and his mother, that same day Ms. Zambito met with Respondent in the principal's office along with the Area 1 Supervisor, the Principal, and a union representative. During the meeting, which, according to Ms. Zambito, took between 45 minutes and an hour, she asked all the questions and in no way, she claims, attempted to place any influence or pressure on Respondent. She explained the complaint from Moore to Dana without telling him who the student was. It was obvious to her, however, that Respondent knew who the student was and, in fact, named him, but denied any improprieties with Moore who, according to Dana, had accused his own pastor of being gay. Ms. Zambito states that Respondent later admitted to her that he had taken Moore to the bar and to his apartment and had provided alcohol to him, in addition to admitting to a sexual relationship with the student. As to that aspect, she claims, Dana contended Moore was the aggressor. Mr. Coe, the Principal, and Mr. Kreiver, the Area Superintendent, who were both present at the meeting with Dana, tend to support Ms. Zambito's testimony. Both claim Dana admitted to having an "affair" or "sexual relationship" with Moore when she confronted him. As a result of this conversation, Ms. Zambito advised Respondent she would report the information to the Superintendent at which point, Respondent indicated he would resign. In fact, Respondent did resign the next day before Ms. Zambito could contact the superintendent. However, she prepared a memorandum of the conference, and mailed the original to the Respondent at his address of record. Ms. Zambito is not sure he received it, but it was not returned. Respondent denies having received it. On September 11, 1987, Mr. Dana pled nolo contendere in the County Court of Pinellas County to one charge of child abuse by furnishing Moore with alcoholic beverages. He was ordered to pay a fine of $250.00 and, inter alia, directed to not engage in teaching or in any other profession where minors will be without disclosure of the conviction to proper authorities. Respondent was a teacher in Sarasota County for ten years and served as a college registrar for seventeen years before his one year in the Pinellas County schools. In all his twenty-eight years in education, he has never been accused of improprieties with students and denies being either bisexual or homosexual. Dana admits to pleading nolo contendere to providing alcohol to a minor and understands that he was found guilty. However, as to the incident in question, he relates a somewhat different story than that reported by Ms. Zambito. He contends that one school day Moore came to him as guidance counselor and related he was having a sexual identity problem, describing himself as a "flaming faggot." Moore said he was considering running away and told Respondent stories of sexual relations he had had with someone in Port Richey at a MacDonald's restaurant. He also mentioned a place in Dunedin where he would go for sex with men. As a result of his conversation with the boy, Respondent feels he convinced him not to run away. After school that day, however, Moore was waiting for him in the parking lot and stated that he needed to talk with him more. Respondent agreed and they went to a restaurant and to a bar where they had two beers for which Respondent paid. On cross examination, Mr. Dana admitted that he took Moore to two bars, The Pro Shop and The Flamingo, both of which were gay bars, and at both of which he bought Moore a beer. According to Dana, the bars were chosen by Moore and Dana did not know they were gay oriented. While admitting to going to the bars and the restaurant with Moore, he denies going to his apartment or to Moore's house. On rebuttal, Ms. Zambito claims he admitted having been in Moore's house in response to her questions. Mr. Kriever recalls this as well. Respondent asserts there was no more to the relationship than his taking the boy for two drinks and while he admits he made a mistake in going with Moore and admits to paying for his beer, he unequivocally states he refused any attempts at sex initiated by Moore and claims none took place. Dana's story of the meeting with Ms. Zambito is somewhat different than hers. He recalls it as lasting ten minutes at the most as opposed to the forty-five minutes to an hour as she stated. He relates she suggested to him that he resign in lieu of being not reappointed the following year. He admitted to her that he went to the bar with Moore and admitted to a "relationship" with him but denies the relationship was sexual in nature, that he told her it was, or that he, at any time, ever had a sexual relation with any student. Dana admits that going to the bar with Moore was stupid but claims he went there out of curiosity. Moore is a very persuasive young man who claimed he wanted to be a journalist. When Moore called himself a flaming faggot, curiosity prompted Dana to go to the bar with him. This is a weak rationalization which does Respondent's position no good. Dana contends he had one or two previous visits with Moore, one of which involved Moore's mother. He believes Moore exaggerates and fantasizes. He describes Moore as a bright, articulate, convincing and conniving individual, and relates he was taken in by Moore's statement of need. Respondent claims Ms. Zambito never asked him if he had had sexual relations with Moore. She asked if he knew the student or could identify any student who would have made such allegations against him. Her questions were general in nature and he does not believe he would have admitted to any acts of sexual misconduct with Moore since he claims he committed none. According to Mr. Kriever, when confronted with the allegations against him, Respondent initially appeared shocked and denied the relationship. Later, he said it was forced upon him and finally, he admitted to a sexual relationship with Moore. The principal, Mr. Coe, related, however, that Dana did not deny the allegations but admitted to a "relationship" with Moore without Ms. Zambito even identifying him by name. These responses come to easily and are far too indefinite to be controlling. If the allegations against Dana are accurate, he would be ineffective in any position in the school district. Educators hold positions of trust and Respondent's actions, if established, constitute a forfeiture of this trust. In the opinion of the principal, Mr. Coe, as a guidance counselor, Dana holds a position of trust which this misconduct clearly violates. The same would be true regarding Respondent's status as a teacher. The trust that administrators and parents must place in anyone in education has been violated by Respondent's misconduct and Respondent could not serve within the system. All the evidence, except Respondent's testimony is in the form of hearsay testimony. Moore did not testify. Other than Respondent, no one who testified was privy to the conversations and relationships between the two or saw them together away from the school grounds. In the instant case, the only evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual activity with Moore comes from the hearsay comments made to Ms. Zambito by Moore who was not present at the hearing. Ms. Zambito's testimony as to Respondent's alleged admissions to a sexual relationship is, to a great degree, con- firmed by that of Coe and Kriever. On the other hand, Respondent unequivocally denies having had a sexual relationship with Moore. This is direct evidence from a party in interest. Considering the evidence as a whole, therefore, it is found that Respondent did provide alcoholic beverages to Moore, a minor, and he showed extremely poor judgement in engaging in an unchaperoned social relationship with a student outside of the school environment and outside of school hours, but the evidence is insufficient to find that he engaged in homosexual activity with him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Florida Teaching Certificate be revoked for a period of three years. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of November, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 10th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2475 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1- 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the allegation that Respondent admitted to having sex with the student, which was not proven. 6. Accepted as a recitation of what the student told Ms. Zambito but not as dispositive of the issue. Further, the meeting took place not on April 27, 1987 but on the same day as Ms. Zambito's meeting with Respondent. 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 9. & 10. Rejected as it pertains to disregarding Respondent's denials. Balance rejected as a recitation of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 11. & 12. Rejected 13. Accepted and incorporated herein For the Respondent Respondent claims his recitation of the facts is interwoven with his argument. Since they cannot be identified with specificity, they are not addressed individually. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Building C, Number 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 8th Avenue Southwest Largo, Florida 34640 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's professional services contract with the Hernando County School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the agency responsible for the administration of the school system in Hernando County. The School Board has employed Mr. Ellison almost continuously since 1979. In addition to teaching, he has coached students in various sports. Until September 16, 2005, he taught pursuant to a professional services contract at Central High School. On September 15, 2005, Mr. Ellison's 1996 Dodge truck was located at the school's auto shop. Mr. Ellison had driven it there. Students studying automobile repair were to attempt to repair his truck's air conditioner, which was not functioning. Mr. Ellison had provided the truck to the auto shop personally after having made arrangements with the automobile repair teachers the previous day. He was aware that the repair job was to be accomplished by students. Peter Koukos, the vocational instructor, informed Mr. Ellison, that in order to repair the air conditioner the glove box would have to be removed. Mr. Ellison assented to this procedure. While attempting to remove the glove box, students discovered a loaded Power Plus .38 special revolver in it. The students who found it duly reported its presence to Mr. Koukos, who took custody of it. It was eventually delivered to the school resource officer, Deputy Sheriff Debra Ann Miles, who placed it into evidence in accordance with Hernando County Sheriff's Office procedures. It is found as a fact that the revolver was owned by Mr. Ellison and it was he who had placed the weapon in the glove box of the truck and it was he who had driven it onto the Central High School grounds on September 15, 2005. Mr. Ellison had experienced a previous incident with this weapon on January 21, 2002. This incident was precipitated when a citizen reported to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office that a man was standing by a parked pick-up truck in the Fort Dade Cemetery with a handgun in the left front pocket of his jacket. A deputy was dispatched to the cemetery. The deputy stopped a truck as it exited the cemetery. The truck the deputy stopped was being driven by Mr. Ellison and it was the same 1996 Dodge that was involved in the September 15, 2005, incident. On the prior occasion Mr. Ellison related to the deputy that he was having domestic difficulties and the deputy, with Mr. Ellison's permission, seized the weapon which was in his possession. The weapon seized by the deputy was the very same .38 special revolver found at Central High School on September 15, 2005. The weapon was released to Mr. Ellison on February 12, 2002, because his actions with it on January 21, 2002, were completely lawful. He thereafter placed the weapon in the glove box of the 1996 Dodge. He forgot that it was there and if he had thought about it, he would not have left it in the glove box of the truck when he delivered it to the students in the auto repair shop on September 15, 2005. There was no intent to bring the weapon on campus. Mr. Ellison is aware of the harm that can ensue from carelessly leaving weapons in an environment where curious students might retrieve it and harm themselves or others. He has never denied that the gun was his or that anyone other than himself was responsible for the weapon being brought to the campus. Mr. Ellison knew that School Board Policy 3.40(6) provides that no one except law enforcement and security officers may possess any weapon on school property. This was explained to all of the teachers in a pre-school orientation session conducted August 1-5, 2005, which Mr. Ellison attended. Procedures to be followed in the event a gun or other dangerous weapon was found on campus were reviewed during this orientation session. These procedures are contained in the Central High School Blue Book, 2005-06 and Mr. Ellison knew this at the time he drove his truck onto school property. Mr. Ellison was and is familiar with the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct that addresses the behavior of teachers. He is aware that he has a duty to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions that may be harmful. Ed Poore, now retired, was an employee of the School Board for 31 years. He served in the district office as administrator of personnel and human resources, and specifically, was involved with the administration of discipline and the enforcement of School Board policy. Mr. Poore stated that intent was not a factor in determining whether a violation of School Board Policy 3.40(6) had occurred. He further noted that the Policy does not provide for a sanction for its violation. He testified that in determining a sanction for a violation of this section, he had observed in the past that the School Board had considered the sanction imposed on others in similar situations, the individual person's time and service as a teacher, and any other pertinent mitigating circumstances. Mr. Ellison's character was described by several witnesses as follows: Brent Kalstead, the Athletic Director at Hernando High School, who has been a teacher for 18 years, stated that he had coached with Mr. Ellison and that he had entrusted his son to him so that he could teach him baseball. He said that Mr. Ellison was dedicated to the youth of Hernando County. Marietta Gulino, is Mr. Ellison's girlfriend and a school bus driver. She stated that Mr. Ellison often takes care of children after working hours. Richard Tombrink has been a circuit judge in Hernando County for 17 years. He has known Mr. Ellison for 15 years as a baseball coach and at social events. He said that Mr. Ellison is committed to educating children and has great character. Lynn Tombrink is the wife of Judge Tombrink and is a teacher at Parrott Middle School and has known Mr. Ellison for 20 years. Ten years ago she taught in the room next to him. She would want him to teach her children. Regina Salazo is a housewife. She stated that Mr. Ellison was her son's pitching coach and that he loves children and they love him. Timothy Collins, a disabled man, said that his grandson and Mr. Ellison's grandson play baseball together and that he knows Mr. Ellison to be professional, a no nonsense type of person, and a gentleman. It is his opinion that the School Board needs people like him. Gary Buel stated that Mr. Ellison was his assistant baseball coach and that Mr. Ellison was dedicated and motivated. He described him as selfless. The parties stipulated that if called, the following witnesses would testify that they know Mr. Ellison to be a good, decent, honorable man; that they know him to be a good educator and coach; that they are aware of the circumstances surrounding the gun being in his truck on School Board property; that they do not believe that termination is the appropriate action in this case; and that he would remain an effective teacher: Carole Noble of Ridge Manor; Rob and Vickie Fleisher of Floral City; Vinnie Vitalone of Brooksville; Tim Whatley of Brooksville; Rick Homer of Brooksville; Rob and Candy Taylor of Spring Hill; Robbie Fleisher; Mark Frazier of Brooksville; Miya Barber of Brooksville; Nate Dahmer of Brooksville; Hank Deslaurier of Spring Hill; John and Mary Jo McFarlane of Brooksville; Pete Crawford of Brooksville; Patrick Ryan of Tampa; Ed Bunnell of Spring Hill; and Alan and Cecilia Solomon of Brooksville. It is found as a fact, based on the record of hearing, that Mr. Ellison is an excellent teacher who works well with children and whose character is above reproach. He is not the type of person who would consciously bring a weapon onto school grounds or commit any other purposeful act which might endanger students. Mr. Ellison has not been the subject of prior disciplinary actions.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Final Order imposing a 30-calendar-day suspension without pay be imposed as a penalty in this cause, and that Respondent, Michael Ellison, be reinstated to a teaching status and be awarded back pay and benefits to which he would have otherwise been entitled since November 15, 2005, less the 30-calendar-day suspension without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 23rd day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Wendy Tellone, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Hernando County School Board 919 North Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34601-2397
The Issue Did Respondent, Cynthia Bradford, commit the violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Orange County School Board, is the governmental entity responsible for the operation, supervision, and control of public schools in Orange County, Florida, including the employment of personnel associated with the educational process. Respondent is a white, female employed by Petitioner as an exceptional student education (ESE) annual contract teacher. She taught students with learning and/or emotional disabilities at Meadowbrook Middle School. The students that testified, D.C., N.B., and P.S., are all exceptional education students with mental handicaps, learning disabilities, and/or emotional disabilities. These students are African-American, which is the predominate race of the Meadowbrook Middle School population. ESE students with mental handicaps, learning disabilities, and/or emotional disabilities require a greater period of time and more intensive instruction to acquire knowledge and skills taught in the school curriculum. Students with these problems have difficulty processing emotion, which impacts on their ability to function socially and academically in an educational setting. These students are taught in a “self-contained” classroom environment with a lower teacher-to-student ratio and more individualized instruction time each school day. They remain within Respondent’s classroom the greater part of each school day, leaving only for special classes. These students have a diminished cognitive capacity for abstract thought processing and have difficulty grasping, intellectually and comfortably, the concepts described in the book noted hereinbelow. Some of these students would be at high risk for working with concepts articulated in the book. Meadowbrook Middle School has a Reading Achievement and Progress course, referred to as the “RAP” program. RAP instruction is provided school-wide in every class each day during the sixth period. While the primary focus of RAP is to promote reading proficiency, it is also used to instruct students on character development. This is done with the teacher reading aloud to the class and engaging the student in pertinent discussion about character with reference to the topics discussed in the particular book. All teachers at Meadowbrook Middle School, including Respondent, received training on the implementation of the RAP program before the start of the school year and throughout the school year. Respondent participated in the RAP pre-planning and staff development meetings each of the three years that she taught at Meadowbrook Middle School. In connection with RAP training, Respondent received a “R.A.P. Curriculum and Instruction Guide” to provide classroom assistance and resource information for teachers implementing the RAP program. In addition to containing a list of 140 recommended books, the curriculum guide provided teachers with the following guidance on the selection of reading materials: Choose a quality book – this may seem like an obvious thing to do but it is one that many teachers failed to do. A poor book cannot be made better, no matter how well the reader reads it, so choose a book that: Has significant literary value; Is developmentally appropriate for the target age level students; and/or Affords instructional opportunities (e.g., you can use it to teach a specific concept or skill) . . . While there is a list of recommended books, there is no "approved" reading list. A teacher has the latitude to select any book he or she deems appropriate. The Meadowbrook Middle School library has class sets of books for teachers to check out for RAP. Class sets are just that: forty novels--one for each student--so that each student can read his or her own copy of the book along with the teacher and the rest of the class. Meadowbrook Middle School has a literary coach who is available to assist teachers in the selection of books or other aspects of implementation of the RAP program. Respondent selected a book titled Dumb As Me to read to her ESE students during RAP. This book was not on the recommended book list or available in the school library. She believed the book would capture the interest of her students and present a negative example to stimulate character development discussions. She chose the book because it reflects African- American inter-city culture, similar to the Bluford series which is available in the school library. She did not consult with the literary coach or any other Meadowbrook Middle School educational professional in the selection of the book. Dumb As Me, is fiction about a married, African- American male who lives a self-described “pimp” and “player” lifestyle. The book describes in graphic detail sexual behavior including cunnilingus, masturbation, fellatio, sadism, and sexual intercourse. The book is filled with profanity, including "shit," "fuck," "motherfucker," and such words as "ass," "pussy," "cock," and "dick" as descriptions of the human sexual organs. If Respondent's students had uncensored access to the book, it would be harmful to them. Most of the time the book was locked in a cabinet in the classroom. Through unfortunate circumstance, Respondent's students, or some of them, gained access to the book and read it. When Respondent read the book in class, she sometimes edited the book substituting "F-word" for "fuck," for example. On other occasions, she read the plain text of the novel, including depictions of graphic sexual activity and profanity. As a practical matter, the students are aware of most of the profanity contained in the book. When the same profanity is used by students in class, Respondent attempts to discuss the particular word, "bitch" for example, and explain why it is an inappropriate term. An adult teacher's aid assigned to Respondent's classroom was present when Respondent read part of the novel to her students. She left the classroom after Respondent read a sexually explicit portion of the book about the protagonist engaging in cunnilingus with his mistress. This adult teacher's aid reported Respondent's having read the particular book to the school principal. As a result of this report, the principal obtained and read portions of the book. Another administrative employee undertook an investigation that involved interviewing several of Respondent's students. The investigation confirmed that Respondent had read sexually explicit and profanity-laced portions of the novel to her students. Respondent appears to be a sensitive and concerned teacher; however, the error in judgment demonstrated by her selection of Dumb As Me to be read to learning disabled, emotionally and mentally handicapped children raises question of her competence to teach children. Reading the book, as she did, with its graphic depiction of sexual activity and profanity, exposed Respondent's students to conditions harmful to their social, emotional, and academic development. During the investigation and subsequent activities, Respondent misstated the extent that she had read sexually explicit and profanity-laced portions of the book to her students. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was diminished by her selection of the particular book and reading sexually explicit and profanity-laced sections of the book to her students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent's "misconduct in office" constitutes “just cause” under Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2005), to dismiss her from her employment as a teacher with Petitioner, Orange County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 17th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian F. Moes, Esquire Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271 Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Honorable John Winn, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ronald Blocker, Superintendent Orange County School Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
The Issue Whether the Respondent's termination of employment as a guidance counselor should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact O'Connor is a long-term employee of the School Board. She supported herself while obtaining her master's degree in counselor education and was continuously employed by the School Board as a counselor since 1986. Over the course of her employment she has served successfully as a guidance counselor at three schools under five principals. During her tenure at Salaxy Elementary, she was honored as The Palm Beach Post's "Teacher of the Week." Up until 1997, O'Connor enjoyed a professional period she calls "the golden years." Her description of an idyllic, "almost like a private practice in an elementary school," is supported by the consistently glowing performance reviews she received throughout that period from all persons designated by the School Board to perform her annual evaluations. The golden years began to come to an end for O'Connor with the arrival of a new principal, Debra Johnson (Johnson). By the spring of the 1996-97 school year, relations between O'Connor and Johnson were strained. Johnson found it necessary to reprimand O'Connor for occasional tardiness, and on May 27, 1997, O'Connor received the first negative evaluation of her career. Johnson prepared the evaluation, which reflected unsatisfactory performance in two areas: "develops and maintains an accurate record keeping system"; and "adheres to and enforces school policies." The negative evaluations in these areas reflected Johnson's concern over O'Connor's failure to provide guidance and mediation logs as requested and her failure to submit certain pre- and post-test results which needed to be sent to the Department of Drug-Free Schools pursuant to grant requirements imposed upon the School Board. The 1997-98 School Year On March 2, 1998, O'Connor was appropriately reprimanded for making unethical statements to a student. The reprimand grew out of an incident in which O'Connor, angered by the fact that parents had called Johnson to complain about O'Connor's alleged failure to provide services to a student, confronted the student and made highly inappropriate comments, including that the student was trying to get [O'Connor] fired. On March 11, 1998, Johnson conducted her second formal evaluation of O'Connor. This time, three areas of concern were noted: "management of counseling sessions"; "demonstrates self control"; and "adheres to and enforces school policies." On April 20, 1998, O'Connor was scheduled to conduct a student mediators' training session between nine and ten a.m. While conducting rounds that day, Johnson found O'Connor playing solitaire on the computer in her room. Asked whether she had conducted the mediators' group, O'Connor lied to her principal. O'Connor's conduct on April 20 appropriately resulted in a three-day suspension without pay beginning August 12, 1998. The 1998-1999 School Year Throughout the period of time during which O'Connor's performance reviews began to deteriorate and disciplinary actions increased, O'Connor was experiencing medical problems which ultimately led her to request and receive a medical leave of absence for the fall, 1998 semester. O'Connor maintains that her medical difficulties, which included brain surgery in 1995, have no bearing on her job performance. O'Connor contends her work was unaffected by her medical issues, and there was no evidence to the contrary. During O'Connor's medical leave, Lisa Bentolila (Bentolila) was hired as an interim guidance counselor. Bentolila discovered serious record-keeping violations committed by O'Connor. Correcting the problems consumed the time of Bentolila and at least two supervisors. In January 1999, O'Connor returned to Orchard View. She continued her traditional counseling schedule, which included classroom guidance, and individual and small group counseling sessions. The evidence suggests that Johnson was not enthusiastic about O'Connor's return, but the evidence is not sufficient to establish O'Connor's theory that by this time, if not earlier, Johnson had conceived a "conspiracy" to fire O'Connor, and had enlisted other School Board personnel to assist her in achieving that goal. On Johnson's request, a formal observation on March 8, 1999, was conducted by Dr. Jeanne Burdsall (Burdsall), who watched O'Connor conduct a small group counseling session and teach a classroom guidance lesson. Burdsall prepared a report which noted five areas of concern: "management of counseling sessions"; "development of rapport"; "problem/concern clarification"; "interpersonal skills"; and "action development and planning skills." The report also set forth an improvement strategy as to each area of concern. Burdsall observed a disturbing pattern of obliviousness by O'Connor to student behaviors and comments which cried out to be decisively dealt with, but were instead ignored by O'Connor, or met with inappropriate responses. Misconduct was a serious problem during Burdsall's observation periods. The misbehavior was exacerbated, and perhaps provoked, by O'Connor's inability to effectively manage the sessions by starting on time with clear and succinct goals, rules and expectations; by dealing with negative behavior at its inception; and by communicating and reinforcing appropriate messages keyed to the theme of the lesson, and drawing the students out on pertinent issues and then taking advantage of the information they provided to make the lesson meaningful to them. O'Connor failed to address several instances of students' fighting with one another, as well as student comments which required attention, such as one little girl who yelled out, "I'm crazy enough to jump off a roof." O'Connor would abruptly move from one discussion to another, making it impossible for the children to receive effective guidance counseling. On April 14, 1999, Johnson conducted another observation. On that day, her concerns included: "poor concept development"; "excessive teacher talk"; "failure to provide children an opportunity to respond"; and "failure to use age appropriate vocabulary". The combined observations of Burdsall and Johnson were reduced to a formal evaluation scoresheet on April 15, 1999. Six areas of concern were noted: "management of counseling sessions"; "development of rapport"; "problems/concern clarification"; "action development and planning skills"; and "develops and maintains an accurate record keeping system." This unsatisfactory evaluation resulted in O'Connor being placed on school-site performance probation beginning on April 15, 1999 and ending June 2, 1999. Under the terms of O'Connor's contractual agreement with the School Board and her union contract rights, on-site performance probation affords 30 calendar days to improve performance to a satisfactory level, as well as improvement strategies geared to her specific deficiencies. On May 6, 1999, Dr Ann Lynch (Lynch), a professor at Florida Atlantic University in the Counselor Education Department, who has provided workshops and some observations of counselors for the Palm Beach County School District, conducted, at the School Board's expense, an extended one-on-one workshop with O'Connor on counseling skills covering three areas of concern: "development of rapport"; "interpersonal skills"; and "problem clarification." O'Connor was cooperative and receptive to numerous suggestions provided by Lynch during the workshop. However, at the next observation, conducted by Johnson on May 20, 1999, the principal saw no evidence that O'Connor had profited from the workshop; the deficiencies observed in April still remained. A similar conclusion was also reached by Sandra Cunningham (Cunningham) of the Department of Student Services, who also observed O'Connor on May 20, 1999. Cunningham's specific areas of concern were: "management of counseling sessions"; "development of rapport"; "problems/concern clarification"; and "interpersonal skills." In particular, Cunningham noted that while O'Connor was able to establish initial rapport with the students, she could not maintain it throughout the session. She had a hard time pacing the lesson; was unable to engage the students; ignored some of the students; did not respond with consistency to children's misconduct; and would be sarcastic to the children, in violation of the most basic precepts of counseling. Cunningham provided O'Connor with improvement strategies, including reviewing a group counseling book, specifically looking at hints for leading groups, and proposing that O'Connor videotape herself and review it with a colleague. On June 2, 1999, Johnson again observed O'Connor in a regular classroom session. During this session, O'Connor's failure to appropriately manage student misbehavior resulted in an ineffective counseling session for all the children. Throughout the various observations and conferences which made up the 30-day school-site assistance plan, O'Connor professed understanding of the criticisms leveled against her and stated that she had already corrected the problems, as observers would see for themselves at subsequent observations. Yet, the same deficiencies consistently appeared. O'Connor had an additional opportunity to improve during the summer months. She was provided with a schedule of summer remediation activities and reference materials reasonably calculated to help her improve her performance. O'Connor claimed she was unable to avail herself of any of these materials and activities due to transportation issues. Yet, the uncontroverted evidence is that O'Connor failed to contact Johnson to ask for assistance in obtaining these resources despite Johnson's numerous offers to help. The 1999-2000 School Year On September 3, 1999, a meeting was held with O'Connor regarding the status of the school site-assistance plan. The discussion included information concerning future observations and what kind of assistance would be required and provided. On September 10, 1999, Cunningham observed O'Connor teaching a third and a fourth grade classroom guidance lesson. In addition she observed O'Connor counseling an individual student. In a memorandum to Johnson summarizing the observations, Cunningham's comments were consistently positive. She was able to conclude that O'Connor's performance was at all times effective. Johnson was encouraged about O'Connor's future. On September 16, 1999, Johnson again observed O'Connor. At that time, the progress Cunningham had observed was not evident to the principal. The following day, she prepared a report to the Superintendent in which she indicated six areas of concern: "management of counseling sessions"; "development of rapport"; "problem/concern clarification"; "interpersonal skills"; "action development and planning skills”; and "develops and maintains an accurate record keeping system.” Based on this report, O'Connor was placed on a so- called 90-day plan. In fulfillment of the requirements of Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, and under the terms of O'Connor's contractual agreement with the School Board and her union contract rights, a 90-day plan affords time to improve performance to a satisfactory level, as well as improvement strategies geared to the employee's specific deficiencies. Employees subject to a 90-day plan have a right to request to be reassigned to another school. O'Connor timely exercised this right, but the request was denied by the School Board. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the difficulties O'Connor was having with her regular duties, Johnson elected to make a significant change in O'Connor's job duties with the adoption by the school of a so-called "intensive guidance model." The model, which was adopted without input from O'Connor, has a stated goal of assisting students to "learn appropriate social skills and conflict resolution skills in order to reduce their discipline concerns." Children assigned to the program had repeated issues regarding solving conflict, anger management, not being able to make friends or self-defeat. The program concept was to place these children together in a class to learn new skills in making friends, anger management, etc. There were approximately four to five children in such a class. Johnson assigned O'Connor to run this program four days a week during the fall of 1999. On the fifth day, she was to provide small-group or individual counseling. O'Connor viewed the program with great suspicion. She believed it was a glorified "in-school suspension" for the children, and, more fundamentally, an effort to place her in a situation in which she would fail. On October 14, 1999, Lynch observed O'Connor during a classroom guidance program of third and fourth grade classrooms. In the third grade classroom, the children were not consistently on task. It became obvious that O'Connor had prepared for the wrong session, mistakenly thinking she had been to that class the week before. In addition, O'Connor failed to establish rapport with the children at the expected level. Similar deficiencies were observed in the fourth grade class. O'Connor failed to advise students of the rules on confidentiality, together with their limitations, applicable to the class. This is a fundamental ethical duty of counselors, and Lynch had reviewed this requirement with O'Connor during her one-on-one workshop. Asked why she did not review these limitations with the children, O'Connor stated "she forgot to do it." Also on that day, Lynch observed O'Connor ask a teacher to see a child she had been counseling. The child came out to the hallway and stated several times that he wanted to go back in his classroom. After a couple of questions, O'Connor allowed the child to return to his classroom. No effective counseling took place during O'Connor's interaction with this child; moreover, it is generally inappropriate to conduct counseling sessions in a school hallway. On November 9, 1999, O'Connor received a written notice of verbal warning regarding her inappropriate and unprofessional language while on duty with students. Specifically, O'Connor contacted the school office over the public address system and stated in the presence of her students that she needed help or she was going to hit one of them; in addition, she used profanity in the presence of her students during that session. On November 19, 1999, Johnson observed Respondent in the classroom. During this observation, O'Connor failed to deliver a clear lesson, failed to give the students adequate opportunity to participate, and did not address resistance by the students. On December 13, 1999, Dr. Lynch again held a one-on- one group counseling session with O'Connor. Topics were geared to the now-familiar litany of complaints by observers and included: "working with the children"; "how to structure a group"; "what kinds of rules to establish"; "how to discuss confidentiality"; "what were the different skills needed"; "linking the children together"; "other techniques like role- playing"; and "age-appropriate activities and how to close a group." In addition, Lynch provided books and other materials on group counseling and showed O'Connor a video of what counselors actually do. As in the past, O'Connor was enthusiastic and receptive to the information. Cunningham returned to observe O'Connor on December 15 and 16, 1999. O'Connor's work on those days was in stark contrast to her largely good performance during Cunningham's observation on September 7, 1999. Cunningham's December observations included findings that O'Connor failed to clearly state the goals of the group; she used sarcasm and belittling remarks such as "That is why you are in this group;" she had trouble enforcing rules and monitoring behavior or in some instances, ignored behavior, resulting in many of the students being bored or acting out. On January 5 and 6, 2000, Burdsall observed O'Connor conducting a group counseling session and presenting a classroom guidance lesson. During these sessions, Burdsall did not observe effective guidance counseling. A particularly egregious lapse of professional judgment occurred when two first-grade boys came in to O'Connor's classroom. She turned to one of the boys and said "Your mother called, and she's getting a divorce." O'Connor said to the other boy,". . . your mother said that your family left Texas, and they left your father there 'cause he couldn't get along . . ." The boys looked at her, stunned. There is ample evidence that this was inappropriate and did not constitute competent guidance counseling. On January 19, 2000, Johnson again observed O'Connor and again saw failure to manage the classroom properly and to address misconduct. All observations were conducted by trained professionals in accordance with lawful standards, and were timely reviewed with O'Connor. O'Connor never disagreed with the substance of the evaluations and feedback she received. Rather, she would say such things as she was "correcting that behavior" or "Oh, yeah, wait 'til you see next time, I've already corrected that so when you come in, you're going to see this." However, there was never any consistent and significant improvement. By the time of the January 21, 2000, assistance review meeting, Johnson had appropriately concluded that O'Connor still exhibited significant deficiencies and would be recommended for termination. Notwithstanding Johnson's recommendation, on April 14, 2000, the parties entered into an agreement pursuant to which O'Connor released all legal claims against the School Board, and in exchange was provided an additional 90 days to remediate the noted deficiencies. During this second 90-day plan, O'Connor once again timely asserted her right to request a transfer to another school. Once again, the School Board refused the request, without explanation. For the second 90-day plan, O'Connor was given the opportunity to select some of the individuals who would observe her and provide assistance. The observation and assistance team for the second 90- day plan consisted of a diverse group of qualified professionals. Lynch remained and provided continuity. Johnson continued to participate until she was replaced as principal by Linda Nelson (Nelson); Susan Atherley, Ron Armstrong, and Dr. Gregory Brigman (Brigman) were added to the team and the new principal also had the opportunity to conduct her own observations. At the School Board's expense, Brigman provided a one day, one-on-one "supportive training" workshop again geared to the six deficiencies for which termination had initially been recommended. The 2000-2001 School Year On August 22, 2000, Brigman conducted the first observation of the new school year and again found that O'Connor failed to adopt the strategies provided to her during training, and was essentially operating at the same level she had since 1997. O'Connor's difficulties in managing her workload also continued into the new school year. On September 13, 2000, Nelson reprimanded O'Connor for failing to have her small groups in place. She was directed to prepare a list of the students needing small group services and to have all groups functioning immediately. In view of the growing consensus that O'Connor was unable to provide effective counseling, it is a mystery why the principal would insist that ineffective or inappropriate services be foisted upon the students most in need of competent professional help. However, this line of inquiry was not pursued by O'Connor in support of her theory that the School Board wanted to get rid of her either because of Johnson's personal animus, or because her medical needs, the substantial expense of which was at least partially borne by the School Board, caused her to be regarded as a liability. On September 28, 2000, O'Connor was again criticized for her record-keeping with a notice that she had failed to update certain legally mandated records known as "504 files." On September 28, 2000, Nelson conducted a formal annual personnel evaluation of O'Connor. Listing the now familiar six areas of concern: "management of counseling sessions"; "development of rapport"; "problem/concern clarification"; "interpersonal skills"; "action development and planning skills"; and "develops and maintains an accurate record keeping system," Nelson recommended that O'Connor's employment be terminated. Acting in accordance with Nelson's recommendation, the School Board voted on October 25, 2000, to suspend O'Connor without pay and to terminate her employment effective November 9, 2000.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order terminating Leslie O'Connor's employment for unsatisfactory performance as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated November 7, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Glen J. Torcivia, Esquire 1800 Australian Avenue, South Suite 205 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Dr. H. Benjamin Marlin, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard Room C316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the school Board of Pinellas County (Petitioner) should dismiss its employee, Clarence Davis (Respondent), from continuing contract for misconduct in office and gross insubordination based upon matters alleged in the Superintendent's letters of March 13 and April 24, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a teaching certificate from the State of Florida, and has been employed by continuing contract with the Petitioner since April 21, 1971. In 1986, he was assigned to Azalea Middle School, where he has since been employed. The parties stipulated that during a prior assignment at Riviera Middle School, the principal of that school had warned Respondent to refrain from aggressively touching students. During April, 1986, Dr. Scott N. Rose, Superintendent of the Pinellas County school system, removed Respondent from a counseling assignment at Pinellas Park Middle school, and transferred him to Azalea Park Middle school as a physical education teacher. The Superintendent issued a warning at the time of this transfer that he would recommend a suspension without pay or termination if Respondent's future actions at Azalea Middle school constituted insubordination. During the 1987-1988 school year, Respondent was assigned to a guidance counselor position at Azalea Middle School, but he again had to be removed by the Superintendent. He was warned again that future problems would result in a suspension without pay or a termination. John Leanes became principal of Azalea Middle School in January, 1988, and in October, 1988, he warned Respondent to avoid touching students. In December, 1988, senior administrative officials and representatives of the Petitioner met with the Respondent, and warned him not to touch students. They told him that if he could not meet the standards and expectations of the Petitioner for teachers in the Pinellas County school system, he would be recommended for termination of his continuing contract. The Code of Student Conduct in effect in the Pinellas County school system at all times material hereto provides, in part, that: No form of physical punishment, other that paddling with a paddle is authorized. Corporal punishment may be used only after careful consideration of the facts by the principal, or designee. In no case shall such punishment be degrading or unduly severe in nature. Around the time of the winter holiday during the 1988-1989 school year, Respondent became involved in an incident with a twelve year old female student named M.S. The student was not feeling well, and did not dress out for physical education class. She was lying down in the bleachers. Respondent yelled at M.S. to come down from the bleachers when he observed her talking to other students at the top of the bleachers. When she complied and approached him, he appeared to the student to be very angry, and threatening. He yelled at her so closely that saliva from his mouth struck her in the face. After yelling at her, he pushed M.S. with both hands, throwing her back onto the bleachers. This incident caused the student, M.S., to be frightened and intimidated by the Respondent. Other students observed the incident, and confirmed the testimony of M.S. at hearing. Respondent's actions in this incident reasonably caused M.S. to feel embarrassment, fear, and the threat of physical punishment. On or about March 7, 1989, Respondent yelled at a male student, J.S., and pushed him in the chest with his finger while yelling at him. It appeared to the student that Respondent was trying to provoke him into a physical confrontation. Respondent testified that he was trying to protect another student, K.W., whom he felt was being bullied by J.S. However, K.W. testified that J.S. was not bullying him on this day, and that he and J.S. are friends. Other students witnessed the incident, which reasonably caused the student, J.S., embarrassment, and fear. It is alleged that on March 8, 1989, Respondent also grabbed a student, R.L., by the shoulders, shook him, and yelled at him. R.L. is classified as an emotionally handicapped student, who has been suspended. Students who testified characterized R.L. as someone who talks alot, says bad things about, and fights with, other students, and is generally a trouble maker. Based upon his demeanor at hearing, as well as the testimony of other students about his character, it is found that the testimony of R.L. is not credible. It is reasonable to infer that R.L. heard about the incident the day before with J.S. and the Respondent, and fabricated his allegations to gain attention. Based upon the testimony of Dr. Scott N. Rose and John Leanes, who were accepted as experts in education, as well as the testimony of Stephen Crosby, director of personnel services for Petitioner, incidents such as those between the Respondent and M.S. and J.S. diminish a teacher's effectiveness by creating an improper role model, teaching students that violence is a way to resolve disputes, frightening students, and causing them to be afraid of school and teachers. This creates a negative educational atmosphere, and could potentially increase the school system's liability. In November and December, 1988, the Respondent was suspended without pay on two occasions based upon allegations similar to the ones at issue in this case. The period of these suspensions was three and five days, respectively. The Respondent requested an administrative hearing concerning these suspensions, and following that hearing, Hearing Officer Don W. Davis issued a Recommended Order on April 21, 1989, in DOAH Cases Numbered 88-5720 and 89-0344, recommending that the proposed suspensions be dismissed. A Final Order in this prior case has not yet been entered by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from continuing contract with the Pinellas County school system. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 14th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1546 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected as irrelevant. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 11. 9-12. Adopted in Finding 5. Rejected as not a finding of fact but a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding 6. 15-19. Adopted in Finding 7. 20-24. Adopted in Finding 8. 25-28. Rejected and adopted in part in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. The Respondent did not file specific Proposed Findings of Fact, but incorporated argument in a proposed recommended order. Therefore, it is not possible to address specific findings of fact on behalf of the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 152 Eighth Avenue, Southwest Largo, Florida 34640 Scott N. Rose, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with Petitioner based on violations of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056(2), , and (5), for incompetence, misconduct in office, and/or willful neglect of duties, respectively.
Findings Of Fact The Board is responsible for hiring, monitoring, and firing employees at its schools, including Manatee and Pinewoods. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was an employee of the Board. Respondent was hired by the Board on August 22, 2005, as a second grade teacher at Harns Marsh Elementary. She taught second grade at that school for three years. At the end of her third year, Respondent was awarded a professional services contract. Prior to the beginning of her fourth year at Harns March, Respondent was told she was being moved to a fifth grade class for the upcoming school year. Inasmuch as she preferred teaching second grade, Respondent voluntarily transferred to Manatee for the 2008-2009 school year, as there was a second grade position open there. Manatee is a Title I school, serving a distinct population of students with various emotional or behavior issues. After teaching second grade at Manatee for one year, she was moved to a third grade class for the 2009-2010 school year, then back to second grade for the 2010-2011 school year. The principal at Manatee, Louzao, began to have concerns about Respondent commencing in the 2009-2010 school year. The annual evaluation Louzao initially prepared for Respondent after the 2009-2010 school year had contained less than satisfactory scores. In the face of a possible grievance of those scores by Respondent and the teacher’s union, Louzao upgraded the scores to satisfactory. Louzao was a fairly new principal, being at that time in only her third year as an administrator. She did not feel comfortable defending her negative evaluation against a formal grievance. Louzao also believed a satisfactory evaluation would encourage Respondent to improve. As a result of some of her concerns, Louzao ultimately moved Respondent to third grade for the 2010-2011 school year. Louzao felt like Respondent might interact better with students slightly older than the second grade students she had been teaching. However, some of the third grade students’ parents complained to Louzao about Respondent, resulting in some students being transferred out of Respondent’s class to another third grade class. It was not Louzao’s normal policy to transfer students; she would prefer that the teacher and students work through their issues. In this case, however, Louzao felt like removal of the students would be most beneficial as Respondent continued to work with the school guidance counselor dealing with her classroom demeanor. The teacher-student relationship was never fully corrected to Louzao’s satisfaction. For example, the first student was transferred out of Respondent’s class in August, then another in October, and yet another in November 2010. Louzao met or talked with Respondent daily and had her assistant principal counsel Respondent in an effort to improve Respondent’s teaching skills. At the end of the 2010-2011 school year, Louzao gave Respondent another evaluation with generally satisfactory scores, but listed several “areas of concern,” i.e., areas that needed additional work. Louzao would have given Respondent less than satisfactory marks, but she had failed to adequately document Respondent’s shortcomings during the school year, a requirement for unsatisfactory evaluations. Louzao then attempted to deal with Respondent’s inability to properly interact with her students by moving Respondent to a fifth grade class for the 2011-2012 school year.1/ Louzao believed that Respondent’s sarcasm and coarse demeanor would be more well-received by older students. Almost immediately, however, parents began to make complaints about Respondent. Louzao was contacted by parents who reported that Respondent had called students “retarded” or “stupid.” School staff questioned a number of students and received verification from those students that the remarks had been made. Based upon that verification – although it was not absolute proof that the comments were made – Louzao contacted the Board’s professional standards office to begin further investigation into the allegations. It was also reported that Respondent was refusing to allow children to use the bathroom when needed. Again, while Respondent admitted to having a fairly strict bathroom policy, there is no proof that children were actually denied bathroom privileges. The school, nonetheless, found sufficient student verification of the allegation to make it a point of discussion with Respondent. Then, in September 2011, an incident occurred which led to an investigation of Respondent by the Department of Children and Families. The incident involved discipline in a school stairwell. The security videos from a stairwell near Respondent’s classroom showed students walking and running up and down the interior, non-air conditioned stairwell numerous times for approximately 20 minutes without water or rest. There is no dispute about what the videotapes show; Respondent admits that she had the students doing “training” to prevent them from ascending and descending the stairs improperly. Several parents complained to the school about the staircase discipline incident. Respondent described the matter as follows: She had been having a lot of trouble with this particular class; they were very disrespectful. The students would misbehave when they were moving from the classroom to other areas of the school. Particularly, the students would run up and down the stairs. To change that behavior, Respondent decided to teach the students how to walk up and down the stairs. To that end, she had the students walk up and down the stairs over and over until they did it properly. The videotape accurately reflected that it took some students more attempts to stop running and that some students never did stop running. The activity was not, according to Respondent, punishment; rather, it was a teaching moment. She had seen a student injured at a prior school because of running down the stairs, and Respondent did not want that to happen again. Respondent said she just lost track of how much time the students were on the staircase. To administration, however, it looked like Respondent was disciplining the students in an extremely harsh fashion. The Board does not condone such actions by its employees. After the staircase discipline matter, Respondent was suspended with pay. A pre-determination hearing was held, but Respondent said the staircase incident was not mentioned. Rather, she was questioned about various allegations that had been made by students and their parents. The allegations included: Calling a student a “retard;” saying someone was stupid; not allowing students adequate bathroom breaks; making fun of a student’s name; and yelling at students. Upon completion of the pre-determination meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay and sent home. She was later assigned to an office job so that she could be of some benefit to the Board during her suspension. The investigation concluded with the issuance of a Letter of Reprimand to Respondent, who was also required to attend a class on classroom management and a Code of Ethics training session. She was not allowed to return to the classroom at that time. In January 2012, at the beginning of the second semester of the 2011-2012 school year, a second grade teaching position came open at Pinewoods. The Board’s Professional Standards office called Dr. Carlin and told her the Board wished to have Respondent fill the position. Dr. Carlin agreed to the assignment. Dr. Carlin did not speak to Louzao about Respondent and did not know of Respondent’s prior issues at Manatee. Respondent’s testimony that Dr. Carlin stated she was aware of “everything that happened at Manatee” is not credible. Respondent first went to Pinewoods on or about January 19, 2012. She was introduced to the school and to her classroom by Dr. Carlin. Dr. Carlin attempted to prepare Respondent and to provide all the support and assistance she could to insure Respondent’s success. One of the items of support provided by Dr. Carlin, was a website containing the school handbook which sets out all of Pinewood’s policies for teachers and other staff members. Respondent remembers meeting Dr. Carlin on a Thursday and being told she would start co-teaching the class with the out-going teacher the following Monday, January 23, 2012. It was Respondent’s understanding that she would then begin teaching on her own the following Friday, January 27, 2012. (Respondent said her understanding was based on an email she received from the Professional Standards office informing her about the new assignment. However, the email was not produced as an exhibit in this case.) In fact, Respondent was introduced to the class on Friday January 20, 2012, the out-going teacher’s last day. She took over the class the following Monday, January 23, 2012, on her own. Dr. Carlin remembers spending a fair amount of time with Respondent on Respondent’s first day before introducing her to the class. Respondent’s first day with the students in her new class was atypical; it was a field day of sorts at the school, so the students were out of the class more than they were in. At the beginning of the class period, however, Respondent noticed that the children were socializing and talking for the first few minutes after arrival. Respondent asked the out-going teacher if she always allowed the children to do that, and was told she did. That was a different approach than the one normally taken by Respondent. She had hard-fast rules about what students should do upon entering the classroom, e.g., turn in their homework, bring their homework notebook to the teacher’s desk, sharpen their pencils, use the bathroom, and then do advanced reading or use the computer until regular instruction began. Respondent’s approach was much more strict and instruction-oriented than the prior teacher’s. Within two or three days of Respondent assuming her new teaching position, some of the students’ parents began calling the school with complaints. The initial complaint was that Respondent was assigning weekend homework in violation of the school’s policies. When Respondent became aware of the policy, she ceased that practice. Dr. Carlin believes Respondent should have known the policy after reading her school handbook, but the book was over 50 pages long and contained a lot of information. Thus, Respondent’s temporary violation of that policy is excusable. More troubling, however, were the complaints concerning Respondent’s alleged verbal abuse of students and her rude demeanor. Parents who visited Respondent’s classroom found her to be aloof, stand-offish, and she seemed not to be engaged with the students. It was reported again that Respondent was refusing to allow students to use the bathroom as needed. There is no competent evidence to support the allegation, but it is troubling that the same complaint that had been made by parents at Manatee was being made by parents at Pinewoods. The Board’s director of professional standards received “weekly, if not daily,” calls from parents and administration complaining about Respondent almost from the day she started her employment at Pinewoods. Dr. Carlin visited Respondent’s classroom on several occasions to see for herself whether there were any “teaching” issues that needed attention. Dr. Carlin met with Respondent on February 1, 2012, just one week after Respondent started teaching at Pinewoods. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the parents’ complaints and to provide suggestions for doing better in the classroom. Respondent was not told at that time that she was being formally reprimanded. A letter dated February 6, 2012, memorialized the February 1, 2012, meeting and constituted a written reprimand for Respondent’s behaviors in the classroom. Despite the prior meeting, Respondent was surprised by the written reprimand. The letter set out six categories of problems that had been identified by Dr. Carlin from letters and conversations with a number of parents: Lack of respect shown to students and parents, e.g., rolling her eyes and speaking in disrespectful tones; Classroom not warm and supportive. Refusing to help children and making them cry; Refusing to allow children restroom privileges when needed; Moving through the curriculum too fast; Giving excessive homework; and Causing children to cry and become distressed about coming to school. Respondent denied each of the allegations and expressed surprise about the parents’ complaints. She also said that part of the blame for any problems lay with the students; they were not respectful to her and had no rules of conduct.2/ Dr. Carlin knew, however, that the prior teacher had rules for her classroom and the children were well-behaved. Respondent signed the letter, acknowledging receipt. The letter then set forth some guidelines or action plans that were to be implemented immediately by Respondent. In response to the first item, prohibiting Respondent from yelling at students or speaking in a disrespectful tone, Respondent seemed to go to the other extreme. She became very quiet and almost apathetic in her relationship with the students. Respondent did meet expectations in the other items, at least to some degree, though Dr. Carlin was not totally satisfied with all Respondent’s actions. Finally, the letter provided four distinct suggestions for improving her conduct and teaching habits, including: Use of the Peace Education materials in her classroom, including I-Care Rules. Respondent was to meet with Mrs. Cutting and Ms. Roberts for assistance with implementing the materials. Use of the Board’s academic plans for subject areas. Respondent was to meet with Mrs. Cutting and Mrs. Hardee to receive coaching and modeling with regards to the materials. Initiation of a classroom plan outlining her expectations for students. Following all directives in “this letter.” In response to the four suggestions, Respondent: Met with Mrs. Cutting and Ms. Roberts about the Peace Education materials. However, Respondent did not demonstrate implementation of the materials in her classroom. Respondent met with Mrs. Cutting and Mrs. Hardee about use of the Board’s academic plans. However, she did not utilize the plans on a regular basis. Respondent did initiate a classroom plan outlining her expectations for students. Dr. Carlin described the plan as inferior and had to re-write it (with assistance from her staff). Respondent considered her plan to be adequate in all regards, even prior to editing by Dr. Carlin. The fourth guideline was somewhat nebulous, so it is difficult to ascertain whether Respondent complied with the directive. After the letter was issued, Dr. Carlin waited for a week to give Respondent an opportunity to incorporate the guidelines and suggestions. She then conducted three formal observations of Respondent’s classroom to determine whether the guidelines and suggestions were being followed. She prepared written synopses of her observations. The assistant principal, Ms. DeMarchena, also did an observation that was codified in written notes. The gist of the observations by administrative staff was that Respondent was unresponsive to students, uncaring in her demeanor, lethargic in her efforts to teach, and somewhat rude. Dr. Carlin described Respondent as “the worst teacher I have ever seen in my career.” Dr. Carlin noticed a totally lethargic demeanor by Respondent after the February 1, 2012, meeting and February 6, 2012, written reprimand. Respondent seemed to just stop caring about her job. Dr. Carlin said of her visits to Respondent’s classroom, “I really couldn’t quite believe my eyes.” There were 18 students in Respondent’s classroom at Pinewoods. Eight of their parents made formal complaints to Dr. Carlin about Respondent’s classroom demeanor or teaching skills. Three of those parents testified at final hearing and expressed overall dissatisfaction with Respondent’s teaching abilities. The parents observed that their children did well at school prior to Respondent’s arrival, then did well after Respondent’s departure. While Respondent was teaching, however, their children were unhappy, unmotivated, and emotionally distressed. Two of the parents had teaching experience and measured Respondent both professionally and from their perspective as parents. These parents also discussed Respondent’s behavior and teaching abilities with many of the other parents from the class. The parents’ complaints included the following: Respondent ignored two parents when they came into the classroom, a response the parents had not experienced from any other teacher. Respondent did not engage her students in the celebration of a holiday (Valentine’s Day), even upon intervention by a parent who brought treats for the students. Respondent’s classroom was messy and disorganized. Students who had previously enjoyed school were now reluctant to attend Respondent’s class. Students feared Respondent and were afraid to complain about her strictly enforced policies, e.g., bathroom and pencil sharpening limitations. One parent reported that her child prayed each night that Respondent would be nice to the class. Pinewood’s curriculum specialist, Ms. Hardee, was asked by Dr. Carlin to observe Respondent in the classroom and to provide assistance as needed. Ms. Hardee intervened to assist Respondent to gain access to the web-based accelerated reading materials when Respondent initially experienced problems. She also helped Respondent understand the homework policy and other school policies. When observing Respondent’s classroom, Ms. Hardee found that not all students were actively engaged. Ms. Hardee also substituted for Respondent on one occasion and could not find a lesson plan for that day. Respondent said the lesson plan was right in the middle of her desk and does not know why Ms. Hardee could not find it. Many of the parents, as well as administrators, reported that Respondent’s classroom was extremely messy and disorganized. It is, therefore, understandable that Ms. Hardee would not find the lesson plan. Hardee, who was called by Respondent as a witness, provided extremely credible testimony. During her review of Respondent’s class, Hardee found a “lack of procedures” in the classroom and the students were not engaged during instruction time. Hardee described Respondent’s style as “flat, without expression or enthusiasm.” One parent of a student at Manatee, the prior school at which Respondent had taught, testified on Respondent’s behalf. She praised Respondent’s teaching and said Respondent did a good job with her child. Of the several parents’ testimony, the Manatee parent’s was the least persuasive. On February 22, 2012, Dr. Carlin met with Respondent and addressed the many concerns raised by parents and the observations made by herself and her staff. Respondent and Dr. Carlin discussed all the problem areas and Dr. Carlin told Respondent unequivocally that failure to correct the problems would result in sanctions, up to and including termination of employment. It was Dr. Carlin’s intention to place Respondent on a very short leash, intending to act quickly if things did not drastically improve. However, that very evening Dr. Carlin received three additional letters from upset parents complaining about “very disturbing” incidents in Respondent’s classroom. Dr. Carlin contacted the Professional Standards office and the Board’s attorney the next day. In consultation with those people, Dr. Carlin decided that, notwithstanding, her representations to Respondent the day before, she must remove Respondent from the classroom before irreparable harm was done to the students. She then notified Respondent – on February 23, 2012 – that she was being suspended with pay pending further review. The entire situation concerning Respondent’s classroom demeanor and actions was then reviewed by the Professional Standards office. That office determined that just cause existed to terminate Respondent’s employment. Dr. Carlin concurred with the decision. By letter dated April 20, 2012, Respondent was notified that a recommendation for termination of employment would be made to the Board at its next meeting. The letter also notified Respondent that she was suspended without pay effective April 23, 2012. Respondent rejects all of the complaints against her as being without basis or truth. She says the “staircase discipline” issue was just a misunderstanding; she simply lost track of how much time she made the children walk up and down the stairs. She did not, however, grieve the reprimand issued for that incident. Respondent says the children simply misunderstood her bathroom policy; it was correct and appropriate. The parents’ comments about her were, she said, derived from their children’s mistaken perception of her demeanor and attitude. And, even though Respondent acquiesced and took a behavior management class and a class on teacher’s code of ethics, she did not believe she needed them or that they taught her anything. Respondent’s testimony lacked credibility and was not persuasive. The most credible and persuasive evidence presented in this case indicates that Respondent does not recognize how she comes across to students and their parents. Respondent’s demeanor and teaching style, while it may be comfortable to her, is not consistent with good teaching practices. She is dour, lethargic, unfriendly, scary to her students, and defensive. Because she does not understand her own shortcomings, Respondent has become incompetent and has willfully neglected her duties as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Lee County School Board, upholding the termination of Respondent, Elaine Partenheimer's, employment for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 19th day of October, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 231.3605(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2001), by engaging in alleged harassment, inappropriate interactions with colleagues, or misconduct. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact On March 13, 2000, the School Board employed Respondent as a Plant Operator at Seminole High School. The School Board transferred Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School on May 22, 2000. On August 2, 2000, Respondent earned a satisfactory evaluation from his supervisor. The evaluation stated that he is a "hard worker," a "good team worker," and "he works well with others." On February 15, 2001, Respondent earned a Better Than Satisfactory evaluation from his supervisor. The evaluation stated that Respondent is a "good team worker" and is "always willing to help others." On September 17, 2001, the School Board promoted Respondent to Night Foreman at Cypress Woods Elementary School (Cypress Woods). The two individuals who had previously served as Night Foremen were Barbara Moore (Moore) and Kevin Miller (Miller). At Cypress Woods, Sharon Sisco (Sisco) was the Principal, Marilyn Cromwell (Cromwell) was the Assistant Principal, and Candace Faull (Faull) was the Head Plant Operator. As Head Plant Operator, Faull supervised Respondent as well as Moore and Miller. Each Night Foreman had "poor communication problems" with Faull. Between the fall of 2000 and the spring of 2002, Respondent, Moore, and Miller each supervised individual Plant Operators at Cypress Woods, including Alice Mertz (Mertz). Mertz had problems with taking instructions from each Night Foreman and with taking complaints "over their head[s]" directly to Faull. Faull attempted to "set up" both Miller and Moore for disciplinary action by the School Board. During the fall of 2000, the School Board received numerous complaints from Miller and Moore about the abuse they suffered at Cypress Woods. On October 10, 2000, Sisco issued specific directives to Faull, instructing her "not to make or engage in negative conversation [with] . . . the crew (or other staff) regarding the Night Foreman." On March 14, 2001, Sisco reprimanded Faull and again counseled her "not to make or engage in negative conversation made by the night crew (or other staff) about the night foreman." On March 20, 2001, Cromwell instituted a Success Plan. The Plan instructed the Plant Operations crew to "refrain from gossip and negative comments about each other." The Plan required the Plant Operations crew to maintain a Communications Log. During the spring of 2001, Cromwell monitored the behavior of the Plant Operations staff through regular meetings. The Plant Operations crew continued its historical behavior after the School Board promoted Respondent to Night Foreman at Cypress Woods in the fall of 2001. On February 1, 2002, Respondent earned a Better Than Satisfactory evaluation from Sisco. The evaluation stated that Respondent is a "great team worker" who "gets along with staff." On February 28, 2002, Respondent touched Mertz on her buttocks in the break room at Cypress Woods in the presence of at least two other people in the room. The physical contact occurred when Mertz walked past Respondent on her way out of the break room. Respondent admits that his hand made contact with the buttocks of Mertz. However, Respondent claims that the contact was incidental, not intentional, not inappropriate, and did not satisfy the definition of sexual harassment. Mertz did not confront Respondent but left the room. However, Mertz later filed a sexual harassment complaint with her employer. Campus police investigated the matter on March 1, 2002. The investigation included statements from Mertz, Respondent, and Mr. Todd Hayes (Hayes), one of the individuals who was present in the break room at the time of the incident. All three testified at the administrative hearing and provided written statements during the investigation. Mertz and Respondent also provided deposition testimony during pre- hearing discovery. Respondent also provided an additional statement on March 5, 2002, during an interview with Michael Bissette (Bissette), Administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS). On March 18, 2002, Bissette determined that Respondent had committed harassment, inappropriate interaction, and misconduct in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v), respectively. School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v) authorizes disciplinary action for each offense that ranges from a caution to dismissal. Bissette recommended to the Superintendent of the School Board that the School Board dismiss Respondent from his employment. By letter dated March 18, 2002, the Superintendent notified Respondent that Respondent was suspended with pay from March 13, 2002, until the next meeting of the School Board on April 16, 2002. If the School Board were to adopt the recommendation of dismissal, the effective date of dismissal would be April 17, 2002. Respondent requested an administrative hearing, and the School Board suspended Respondent without pay on April 17, 2002, pending the outcome of the administrative hearing. Some inconsistencies exist in the accounts provided by Mertz. For example, Mertz claims in her testimony that the incident occurred "around 2:30 p.m." The investigation report by the campus police shows that Mertz claimed the incident occurred around 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. Other inconsistencies exist between the accounts by Mertz and Hayes. For example, Mertz testified that five people were in the break room at the time of the incident and that she did not confront Respondent or say anything to Respondent. Hayes recalls that only four people were in the room and that Mertz did turn and say something to Respondent such as, "Oh stop it." Inconsistencies regarding the time of the incident, the number of people in the break room, and whether Mertz said anything to Respondent at the time are not dispositive of the material issues in this case. The material issues are whether the physical contact by Respondent was intentional, sexual, and offensive, whether it was inappropriate, and whether it constituted misconduct within the meaning of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v), respectively. Respondent claims that he touched Mertz accidentally while he was putting his keys into a pocket at the particular time that Mertz walked in front of Respondent. Mertz walked between Respondent and Hayes in a manner that prevented Hayes from observing the actual contact by Respondent. However, Hayes did observe Respondent's movements up to the time of the actual contact. When Respondent was approximately a foot away from Mertz, Respondent moved his left hand from his side in an upward direction with his palm up and fingers extended to a point within an inch or so of the right buttock of Mertz. Respondent's arm was always extended and did not move in a sideways direction that would have occurred if Respondent had been putting keys into his pocket or reaching for keys in his pocket or on his belt. Respondent had a smirk on his face and laughed. The testimony of Hayes at the administrative hearing concerning Respondent's hand and arm movements was consistent with the accounts by Hayes in two written statements provided during the investigation. Mertz felt Respondent grab her right buttock. She felt Respondent's hand tighten on her buttocks. Mertz did not feel Respondent inadvertently touch her. The physical contact Mertz felt on her buttocks was consistent with the observations by Hayes. The testimony of Mertz at the administrative hearing concerning the physical contact is consistent with accounts by Mertz in three written statements provided during the investigation and in her pre-hearing deposition. Respondent's testimony concerning his hand movements in the break room does not possess the consistency present in the accounts by Mertz and Hayes. When asked on direct examination what happened, Respondent testified: I was walking towards the cabinet to get the flags after we'd had a meeting, to leave; she walked by me -- I -- walked behind her. I had my keys clipped to my right side of my belt and they were flopping against my leg. I wasn't going to need my keys so I started to reach over with my left hand to open my pocket because I had my keys in my right hand to put them in, because my pants were tight and there was a top pocket to put them in and as my hand came up and around that's when I hit her, I brushed against her. Transcript (TR) at 284. On cross-examination, counsel for Petitioner asked questions that provided Respondent with an opportunity to reconcile his testimony with ostensibly divergent accounts during the investigation. Q. The day after the incident you wrote a statement for the police officer, didn't you? A. Yes, I did. Q. And in the statement you said Ms. Mertz asked you to grab her can, didn't you? * * * A. Yes, this is what I wrote but I misquoted it. She said that she was going to grab her can. Q. But you wrote in the statement that Alice said, grab my can? Is that what you wrote? A. That's what I wrote but that "my" is her, not me. * * * Q. Let me ask you . . . Did you write in your statement, "and with my left hand I whacked at her to say, hey"? A. Yes. But I was using that as a description on the type of motion it was. It was like a, you know, a hey, type of motion that I came across. TR at 285-286. In Respondent's initial written statement to campus police, Respondent wrote that he whacked at Mertz with his "open" left hand as if to say hey but did not know where contact was made. In a second written statement to campus police, Respondent wrote that he whacked at Mertz with the "back" of his left hand. In an interview with Sisco, Respondent claimed that he and Mertz were just joking. During direct examination, Respondent did not testify that he whacked at Mertz as if to say "hey." Rather, Respondent testified that his left hand inadvertently came in contact with Mertz as a result of Respondent reaching for his keys. The account provided by Respondent during direct examination at the hearing is consistent only with Respondent's testimony in his pre-hearing deposition. The statements given during the investigation are closer in time to the actual event. The actions of Hayes and Mertz immediately following the incident are consistent with their testimony that Respondent intentionally grabbed the buttocks of Mertz in a sexual manner. Hayes asked another individual in the break room if she had observed the incident. He later reported the incident to Faull before speaking to Mertz. Mertz was initially shocked and left the break room; she later reported the incident to her employer. The physical contact by Respondent created an offensive environment for Mertz. Mertz was initially completely in shock. She then became angry and eventually became so angry she "wanted to strangle" Respondent. Mertz cried and was very upset when she completed a written statement for Sisco. She did not tell her husband immediately because she did not want to upset him. Respondent's physical contact with Mertz constituted sexual harassment within the meaning of School Board Policies 8.24 and 8.241. The physical contact was "unwanted sexual attention," "unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature," and "physical contact" that had the purpose of creating an "offensive environment" within the meaning of School Board Policies 8.24(2)(a), (2)(b)4, and 8.241(2)(a)1, respectively. Respondent's physical contact with Mertz violated the prohibitions in School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m), (p), and (v). The physical contact was harassment that created an offensive environment in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(m). It was an inappropriate interaction that violated Policy 8.25(1)(p). It was misconduct that violated Policy 8.25(1)(v). Respondent has no prior disciplinary history. The physical contact engaged in by Respondent is his first offense and is a single isolated violation of applicable School Board policy. Respondent has never asked Mertz on a date, never seen her outside work, never made any sexual comments either to her or about her, and has never touched her when they were working alone together on the night shift.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three charged offenses, suspending Respondent without pay from April 17 through September 17, 2002, and reinstating Respondent to his former position on September 18, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, 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 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline Spoto Bircher, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Ted E. Karatinos, Esquire Seeley & Karatinos, P.A. 3924 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Dr. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-3536 Honorable Charlie Crist, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
