The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent reported for duty while under the influence of alcohol in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2016), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1.1/, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanction is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state officer responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. Ms. Jones held Florida Educator's Certificate No. 866702, covering the area of Music, which was valid through June 30, 2018. At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Jones was employed as a music teacher at Village Green in the St. Lucie County School District. On May 8, 2017, Ms. Cynthia Garcia reported to work at Village Green around 7:30 a.m. The desk where visitors and staff members sign in is adjacent to the front office where Ms. Garcia works. Sometime between 7:30 a.m. and 7:50 a.m., Ms. Jones signed in at the desk and crossed the front office. Ms. Jones said hello to Ms. Garcia and apologized for the way that she looked. Ms. Jones had on no makeup and her hair or wig was unkempt. Ms. Garcia asked Ms. Jones if she was okay because she was acting a little giddy and didn’t seem to be herself. Ms. McQueen was in the hallway at Village Green going to her classroom when Ms. Jones called out to her. Ms. McQueen went over to her to see what she wanted. Ms. Jones was laughing and told Ms. McQueen that the students would not recognize her because she wasn’t wearing any makeup. Ms. McQueen smelled alcohol and noticed that Ms. Jones’ was inappropriately dressed and that her hair was untidy. Ms. McQueen testified that Ms. Jones was slurring her words, but she was able to understand what Ms. Jones was saying. Ms. McQueen testified that Ms. Jones did not have any coordination problems or trouble walking. Ms. McQueen told Ms. Jones to go to her office to straighten herself up. Ms. McQueen testified, “And my reason for doing that, because I wanted to get her away from the students, so that I could go to the office to get help, to tell administration.” Ms. McQueen testified that while she was talking with Ms. Jones, a few students began waiting outside of the music room where they were to rehearse for a musical production. Ms. McQueen saw Ms. Brown in the cafeteria. Ms. McQueen told Ms. Brown that she thought Ms. Jones was drunk, or had been drinking. Ms. Brown asked Ms. McQueen to take over her responsibility to stay with the children who were having breakfast so that Ms. Brown could go see Ms. Jones in the music room. Ms. Brown testified that when she spoke to Ms. Jones: [Y]ou could smell the alcohol, and her eyes was swollen and the whites was red. And the students kept trying to come through the back part of the –- it’s like the stage, because they was practicing. They practice in the morning for a play. And I wanted to try to keep the students from seeing her, so I like get in front of her. * * * Because I didn’t want them to see how she looked. Because her hair was kind of wild and her top was up, you can kind of see her stomach. I didn’t want the students to see Ms. Jones like that. Ms. Brown told Ms. Jones she needed to get herself together, and Ms. Jones responded that she would leave the school. Ms. Brown asked Ms. Jones if she wanted her to get someone to help, was told no, and she then told Ms. Jones that she would tell the school administration that they would need to get a substitute teacher for the day. This credible, eyewitness testimony of Ms. Jones’ colleagues that she smelled of alcohol, had swollen and bloodshot eyes, exhibited slurred speech, and was acting in an unusual, “giddy” manner is sufficient evidence to reasonably infer that Ms. Jones was under the influence of alcohol when she reported to the school for duty on the morning of May 8, 2017. Ms. McQueen and Ms. Brown left campus, with Principal Barrett-Baxter’s permission, to make sure that Ms. Jones had arrived at her home. When they arrived, they saw her rental car parked there. Later the same morning, Ms. Jones returned to Village Green. She went to the office area to talk to Principal Barrett- Baxter. It was not clearly shown that Ms. Jones intended to return to duty or be in contact with students when she returned. Principal Barrett-Baxter said that she could smell alcohol from across the desk, and confirmed the others’ earlier observations that Ms. Jones’ appearance was unacceptable. Ms. Garcia also credibly testified that the smell of alcohol was so strong that it lingered in the room after she left. Based on her observations and reports, Principal Barrett-Baxter directed Ms. Jones to have a reasonable suspicion drug test conducted. Officer Ken Rodriguez, who transported Ms. Jones for the testing, also testified that he smelled alcohol, that Ms. Jones was a “little foggy,” and that she appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. Two breathalyzer tests were conducted at Absolute Testing, indicating that Ms. Jones had blood alcohol level readings of .186 and .191. The events after Ms. Jones returned to Village Green were of little value in considering the charge in the Administrative Complaint because of the interplay of two circumstances: 1) Ms. Jones spent time at home alone after her initial presentation at Village Green and before the time the alcohol test was conducted; and 2) it was not clearly shown that Ms. Jones was reporting for duty to teach students when she returned to the school. There was no evidence of any prior discipline involving the Florida Educator Certificate of Ms. Jones.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent Renya Jones in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1.; renewing her teaching certificate and placing her on probation for a period of three years; requiring her to obtain treatment through the Recovery Network Program at a frequency and for a duration deemed appropriate by the Commission; and requiring her to pay administrative fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Thomas R. Felts applied to the City of Hollywood, Florida for appointment as a firefighter. He took and passed the Civil Service examination, the physical examination and physical agility test used by the City of Hollywood to qualify firefighter applicants. Following successful completion of the tests above noted two things only stood between Felts and employment as a firefighter. First, he had to complete the firefighter training school and second, receive certification from the State Fire Marshal's office. Prior to entering the four weeks training program Felts was advised by Respondent that, because of the condition of his hands, he could not meet the State's physical requirements for certification even if he successfully completed the training program. Felts was born May 28, 1949. In 1969 he was involved in an industrial accident which severely damaged both hands. Upon his discharge from further treatment in 1972 Felts' hands are described in the attachment to Dr. Angelides' deposition as follows: Examination of the right hand re vealed a reconstituted thumb, extending to the level of the IP joint. The patient's index finger was totally absent having undergone a ray amputation. The long finger was amputated at the level of the PIP joint. The ring finer was amputated through the level of the DIP joint. There was a well-healed skin graft over the ulnar border of the finger, and the ulnar half of the finger was anesthetic. The fifth finger was normal. There were multiple well-healed lacerations of the right hand. Examination of the left hand revealed an amputation of the left thumb, through the level of the MP joint. The index ray was absent and the patient's long finger was amputated through the level of the PIP joint. The ring and fifth finger were normal. There were multiple well-healed scars and skin grafts of the left hand. There was a flexion deformity of forty degrees at the MP joint of the left long finger. In lay language Petitioner has one-half thumb (reconstituted) on the right hand, no thumb on the left, no index finger on either hand, one half middle finger on each hand, and the tip of the ring finger missing on the right hand. Subsequent to his accident Petitioner has worked as a life guard and as a building contractor. In the latter capacity he has wielded a hammer, climbed scaffolding, operated power tools and handled hoses for spraying and pouring concrete. After his release from further medical treatment Petitioner started a physical therapy program including weight lifting. This program had been ongoing for some seven years at the time Petitioner applied for the firefighter's position. As a result of this program and Petitioner's dedication he has developed a powerful body on a 182-pound frame capable of bench pressing 385 pounds and doing one-handed pull-ups (chins) with either hand. When tested by the City of Hollywood Petitioner passed the Minimum Physical Fitness Requirements in National Fire Protection Association's Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, NFPA No. 1001, plus a ten-foot rope climb and swimming tests not contained in NFPA No. 1001. Prior to 1979 Respondent used the Minimum Physical Fitness Requirements of NFPA No. 1001 as a condition for certification. These requirements were abandoned as a result of a suit brought by EEOC alleging that these physical requirements, which test strength, endurance and agility, were unfair to female applicants who did not have sufficient upper body strength to perform those tasks. Although the physical fitness requirements were abandoned, Respondent retained the physical standards contained in NFPA No. 1001 and adopted those standards in Rule 4A-37.05(3), Florida Administrative Code. These rules provide for rejection of a candidate for firefighter when the medical examination reveals any of the following conditions: 2-2.6.1.2 Hand and Fingers. The causes for rejection for appointment shall be: Absence (or loss) of more than 1/3 of the distal phalanx of either thumb. Absence (or loss) of distal and middle phalanx of an index, middle or ring finger of either hand irrespec tive of the absence (or loss) of little finger. Absence of more than the distal phalanx of any two of the following fingers, index, middle finger or ring finger, of either hand. Respondent is disqualified on each of these three grounds.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent, Maria Illescas-Dupree, held Florida educator's certificate number 631483, covering the areas of health education and physical education, which was valid for a period extending from 1994 through June 30, 1999, at which time it expired and was not renewed. From 1988 to 1992, Respondent was employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida (School Board) as a physical education instructor and assigned to Citrus Grove Elementary School. Among those who knew of her, Respondent was regarded as an extremely competent and professional educator, who was dedicated to her students, who maintained an exceptional rapport with faculty and staff, and who evidenced good moral character. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) In 1992, Respondent took maternal leave from her employment with the School Board for the birth of her first child, Maggie (now 7 years of age). That leave was subsequently extended by the arrival of Respondent's second child, Caitlin (now 6 years of age) and thereafter by the arrival of Respondent's third child, Lauren (now 4 years of age). Given the size of her family, as well as the expiration of her maternal leave, 1/ Respondent resigned her employment with the School Board (presumably in 1995) with the expectation that she would continue in the role of homemaker and that her husband would continue to support the family. However, Respondent's expectations were short-lived, and by early September 1995, with his abusive behavior escalating (with threats of physical violence), Respondent was compelled to have her husband removed from their home. With her husband absent from the home, Respondent was left without a source of income, with de minimus funds to support the family, 2/ and without any permanent means of transportation. However, Respondent's neighbor, Ileana DePhillips, immediately offered her assistance. Over the ensuing days Mrs. DePhillips provided groceries for Respondent and her children, drove Respondent to the office of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (H.R.S.) to apply for food stamps and to W.I.C. "to get. . . milk and cereal, and basic things for the children since they were under five-years-old." Mrs. DePhillips also accompanied Respondent to court so she could obtain a restraining order against her husband. While apparently successful in obtaining a restraining order, and notwithstanding his abusive character, Respondent nevertheless allowed her husband to return to the family home before the end of September 1995. 3/ At the time, Respondent was hopeful for a reconciliation; however, by January 1996 she was convinced otherwise, left the family home, and filed for divorce. Today, Respondent is divorced, resides in Lakeland, Florida, with her three daughters, and hopes to resume her teaching career. The claim of misconduct Petitioner's claim of misconduct is premised on the banking activities of Respondent and Mrs. DePhillips in October 1995 (shortly after Respondent's husband returned to the marital home). It is Petitioner's contention that "Respondent deposited stolen checks into her own checking account worth $5,525.00 . . . [and that she] and her accomplice [Ileana DePhillips] had agreed to split the money." Respondent denies any wrongdoing and avers she was not aware the checks were stolen when they were deposited or when she wrote checks against the account, and that she immediately ceased writing checks when she learned from the bank that the checks (Mrs. DePhillips had asked her to deposit) were returned unpaid and her own checks were being dishonored. According to Respondent, she only allowed Mrs. DePhillips to deposit the subject checks into her account as an accommodation, and is of the opinion that Mrs. DePhillips deceived her. The transactions at issue The first questionable transaction occurred on or about October 11, 1995, when Mrs. DePhillips asked Respondent to deposit her paycheck (from Angel Norberto Diaz, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) in Respondent's bank account so she might clear and access the funds. Apparently, Respondent, who felt a sense of obligation for Mrs. DePhillips' recent acts of kindness, harbored no reason to distrust her and had previously accommodated such requests from Mrs. DePhillips (who did not have a bank account). Again, Respondent agreed and deposited the check to her account on October 11, 1995. Unknown to Respondent, as well as Mrs. DePhillips' employer, Mrs. DePhillips had made the check for $500.00, as opposed to the $175.00 that was due her. At or about the same time she was in the process of defrauding her employer, Mrs. DePhillips stole a book of checks from her sister-in-law, Raquel Saavedra. 4/ Subsequently, Mrs. DePhillips would write five checks to the order of "cash," and prevail on Respondent to deposit the checks to her account (as she had previously done with Mr. Diaz' checks). When Respondent accommodated Mrs. DePhillips by depositing the checks, and subsequently wrote checks against the deposits, she did so unwittingly, without knowledge of Mrs. DePhillips' unlawful conduct. 5/ The checks Mrs. DePhillips stole and forged on Mrs. Saavedra's account, and prevailed on Respondent to allow her to deposit to her (Respondent's) bank account, totaled $5,025.00, were dated between October 12, 1995, and October 22, 1995, and were deposited between October 13, 195, and October 23, 1995. The transactions were as follows: Check number 300, dated October 12, 1995, was drawn in the amount of $425.00 and deposited on October 13, 1995. Check number 248, dated October 20, 1995, was drawn in the amount of $500.00, and deposited on October 20, 1995 (as part of a larger deposit of $1,050.00). Check number 226, drawn in the amount of $2,025.00, and check number 232, drawn in the amount of $875.00, were both dated October 20, 1995, and were deposited on October 23, 1995 (as part of a larger deposit of $2,975.00). Check number 234, dated October 22, 1995, was drawn in the amount of $1,200.00, and deposited on October 23, 1995. Against these deposits, as well as the deposit of the Diaz check, Respondent wrote (with Mrs. DePhillips' permission or at her request) numerous checks during the month of October 1995 before she received notice from her bank that the checks were being returned unpaid and her own checks dishonored. The checks she wrote totaled $5,312.73, with $2,021.25 being written for Respondent's or her family's benefit, $1,257.77 being written for Mrs. DePillips' or her family's benefit, and the balance representing mixed purchases that benefited both families (i.e., a joint shopping trip to the grocery store). 6/ Facially, given the size of her family (two adults and three children), as well as the nature of the purchases or character of the store visited, the purchases appear to represent routine living expenses, as opposed to extravagances. Given the proof, it must be resolved that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate clearly and convincingly, that, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, "Respondent deposited stolen checks into her own checking account worth $5,525.00 . . . [and that she] and her accomplice [Ileana DePhillips] had agreed to split the money" or otherwise engaged in any unlawful or improper conduct with regard to her banking activities. 7/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 11th day of February, 2000.
The Issue Whether the last sentence of Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that "[a]n applicant who has failed to pass the [physical therapist licensure] examination after five attempts, regardless of the jurisdiction through which the examination was taken, is precluded from licensure [by endorsement]," is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority," within the meaning of Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations entered into by the parties:3 The "applications for licensure in Florida as physical therapists" that Petitioners filed were applications for licensure by endorsement.4 Their applications were denied because they each had failed the National Physical Therapy Examination (also known as the "NPTE") more than five times before finally passing the examination. Prior to November 11, 2002, the Board's "Licensure by Endorsement" rule, Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, provided as follows: An applicant demonstrating that he or she meets the requirements of Rule 64B17-3.001, F.A.C., may be licensed to practice physical therapy by endorsement by presenting evidence satisfactory to the Board that the applicant has passed an examination before a similar, lawful, authorized examining board in physical therapy in another state, the District of Columbia, a territory or a foreign country if their [sic] standards for licensure are as high as those maintained in Florida. The standard for determining whether the standards of another state, the District of Columbia, a territory, or a foreign country are as high as the standards in Florida shall be whether the written examination taken for licensure in such other jurisdiction by applicants meeting Florida's minimum educational qualifications was through the national physical therapy examination provider. Effective November 11, 2002, the Board amended Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, to read as follows: An applicant demonstrating that he or she meets the requirements of Rule 64B17-3.001, F.A.C., may be licensed to practice physical therapy by endorsement by presenting evidence satisfactory to the Board that the applicant has active licensure in another jurisdiction and has passed an examination before a similar, lawful, authorized examining board in physical therapy in such other jurisdiction if their [sic] standards for licensure are as high as those maintained in Florida. The standard for determining whether the standards of another jurisdiction are as high as the standards in Florida shall be whether the written examination taken for licensure in such other jurisdiction by applicants meeting Florida's minimum educational qualifications was through the national physical therapy examination provider certified by the Department [of Health].[5] An applicant who has failed to pass the examination after five attempts, regardless of the jurisdiction through which the examination was taken, is precluded from licensure. No subsequent amendments have been made to Rule 64B17-3.003. The version of the rule that became effective November 11, 2002, is still in effect. Section 486.081, Florida Statutes, is cited as the "law implemented" in the current of version Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, as it was in the pre-November 11, 2002, version of the rule. Florida, along with the other 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, use the NPTE (the only national examination of its kind available in this country) to test the competency of candidates for licensure by examination to practice as physical therapists. Florida has used the NPTE since June of 1994, when the examination was certified.6 There is no "Florida-developed examination." The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy is the "provider" of the NPTE. The NPTE is a "criterion-based," minimum competency examination consisting of multiple-choice questions that is given only in English.7 It is designed to test whether candidates possess core skills basic to the practice of physical therapy, not their knowledge of the English language (although candidates "need a certain proficiency in English to fully understand the questions"). The examination is highly reliable in its measurement of entry-level knowledge in the discipline. "From a psychometric and statistical [perspective], [a] candidate would need to take the examination one time for [there to be] a very accurate estimate of [the candidate's competency]." It is reasonable, however, to permit a limited number of "retakes," in light of the possibility that "luck" or some other factor unrelated to the candidate's competency may have negatively impacted the candidate's test results. Allowing an "[u]nlimited number of retakes [of the NPTE]," though, diminishes the examination's reliability as a consequence of the "practice effect" and "repeat exposure" phenomena. It is contrary to "nationally and generally accepted testing standards" and increases the risk that a candidate lacking the required skills will be able to pass the examination. "[T]he number of times that Florida has set [for a candidate to take the NPTE] . . . is very ample and lenient."
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges? If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County, Florida, with just or proper cause to take disciplinary action against him? If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence received at the formal hearing, the factual stipulations of the parties, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was an annual contract employee of the School Board occupying a paraprofessional position. He currently is under suspension as a result of the incident described in the Notice of Specific Charges. Respondent's employment with the School Board began on October 2, 1987, when he was hired as a part-time custodian and assigned to Hialeah Middle School (HMS). He remained a part-time custodian at HMS until 1989, when he became a teacher aide at the school. He was a teacher aide at HMS from 1989 to 1992. In 1992, he filled a teacher assistant position at the school. He stayed in that position until he was administratively reassigned in April of 1994, following the incident which led to the initiation of the instant disciplinary proceeding. As a teacher assistant at HMS during the 1993-94 school year, Respondent was a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD, effective July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1994 (UTD Contract). 2/ Article IV of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employer rights." Section 1 of Article IV provided, in part, that the School Board had the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss or terminate employees "for just cause." Article XIX of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employee rights and due process." Section 2 of Article XIX provided, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)." Article VII of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of a "safe learning environment." Section 1, paragraph A, of Article VII provided as follows: A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. Such an environment requires that disruptive b havior be dealt with safely, fairly, consis- tently and in a manner which incorporates progressive disciplinary measures specified in the Code of Student Conduct. Section 1, paragraph B, of Article VII provided, as follows: Rules governing discipline are set forth in the Code of Student Conduct, School Board Rules, and Procedures for Promoting and Main- taining a Safe Learning Environment and, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. Guideline No. 4 of the School Board's Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment (School Board's Procedures), which were incorporated by reference in Section 1, paragraph B, of Article VII of the UTD Contract, addresses the subject of "child abuse" and provides, in part, as follows: CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE Section 415.504, Florida Statutes, requires mandatory reporting of all cases of child abuse. This statute applies to suspected or confirmed reports against any person, regard- less of occupation, who is alleged to be involved or any person who is alleged to have committed any act of child abuse. School personnel are not exempted from mandatory reporting of child abuse even when a fellow employee is suspected or confirmed as the abuser. WHEN IN DOUBT, REPORT ... CHILD ABUSE Child abuse is defined to include harm or threatened harm to a child's health or wel- fare and/or willful or negligent acts which result in: neglect; malnutrition; sexual abuse; physical injury; mental injury; or failure to provide sustenance, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Any person, including, but not limited to, physician, nurse, teacher, social worker, or employee of a public or private facility serving children, who has reason to believe that a child has been a subject of child abuse, shall report this information as indicated in the procedures outlined in this guideline. Knowing and willful failure to report sus- pected or confirmed abuse, and knowing and willful prevention of another from making such a report, is a crime punishable by up to two months in jail and up to a $500 fine, Sections 775.082 and 775.083, Florida Statutes, and may be subject to disciplinary action of Dade County Public Schools. It is suggested that once a report is made, the principal or appropriate school administrator be notified. PROCEDURES . . . SCHOOL RELATED CHILD ABUSE REPORTING . . . Anyone aware of suspected or confirmed child abuse committed by School Board employees acting in their official capacity, shall immediately make a report to the principal or designee who shall immediately make a report to the Dade County Public Schools Police and the Region Office. Reasonable Force and Child Abuse. In some instances, a need may exist to differentiate between reasonable force and child abuse. Florida Statute 232.27 provides that: Subject to law and to the rules of the district school board, each teacher or other member of the staff of any school shall have such authority for the control and discipline of students as may be assigned by the princi- pal or designee and shall keep good order in the classroom and in other places in which the teacher or other staff member is assigned to be in charge of students... Florida Statute 232.275 provides that: ...Except in the case of excessive force or cruel and unusual punishment, a teacher or other staff member, a principal or designee, or a bus driver shall not be civilly or criminally liable for any action carried out in conformity with the state board and district school board rules regarding the control, discipline, suspension, and expulsion of students... An administrator must report to Dade County Public Schools Police and the Region Office all cases involving Board Employees where: excessive physical force or physical contact that was used was greater than necessary use of unauthorized physical action results in injury to a student corporal punishment is administered to a student Guideline No. 5 of the School Board's Procedures addresses the subject of "illnesses and injuries to students" and provides, in part, as follows: CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE All employees responsible for supervision of students and student activities are to take precautions to protect the life, health, and safety of every student in an effort to reduce or eliminate accidents, injuries, and illnesses. . . . Guideline No. 9 of the School Board's Procedures addresses the subject of "corporal punishment" and provides as follows: CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE Corporal punishment is prohibited in the Dade County Public Schools. This prohibition extends to parents or guardians on school grounds. Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), Florida Statutes, defines corporal punishment as: ... the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rules. However, the term "corporal punishment" does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to protect himself or other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331 (Special Programs and Procedures and . . . . the Contract Between the Dade County Public Schools and United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to March 10, 1994, Respondent was aware of the School Board's rules prohibiting the use of corporal punishment and requiring employees to report cases of suspected or actual child abuse. Section 1, paragraph D, of Article VII of the UTD Contract provided, in part, as follows: The parties recognize the potential for difficult circumstances and problems related to the use of corporal punishment. Accordingly, the parties agree that such punishment shall be prohibited as a disciplinary option, and further agree to act affirmatively in continuing to identify and implement more effective alter- natives for dealing with student behavior. "Physical restraint" was the subject of Section 3 of Article VII of the UTD Contract, which provided as follows: There are instances where exceptional students exhibit behaviors that are disruptive to the learning environment and pose a threat to the safety of persons or property. Exceptional students enrolled in pro- grams for the emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed, and autistic, because of the nature of their disability, may on occasion experience impaired impulse control of such severity that use of physical restraint is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/or others, or from causing damage to property. Students enrolled in other exceptional student education programs may also display behaviors that require the use of restraint. The purpose of physical restraint is to prevent injury to persons or destruction of property. It is not to be used to "teach the child a lesson" or as punishment. Subject to available funding, teachers or paraprofess- ionals shall, upon request, be afforded an opportunity to learn physical restraint techniques. Strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior shall be utilized on an ongoing basis. However, when a explosive event occurs without warning and is of such degree that there is imminent risk to persons or property, the use of physical restraint techniques is authorized for such circumstances. Physical restraint refers to the use of physical intervention techniques designed to restrict the movement of a student in an effort to de-escalate aggressive behavior. In order to promote a safe learning environment, the district has authorized for implementation specific physical restraint procedures to be used in programs for the emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed, and autistic. These specific procedures may also be used with other exceptional students when it is indicated on the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). These procedures include, but are not limited to, holding and escape techniques which, when implemented, prevent injury to students and staff or prevent serious damage to property. Specific physical restraint procedures may also be approved for use with other specific student populations upon mutual agreement of the parties and would be reviewed on an annual basis. The Board shall provide for the training of instructional and support staff in physical restraint techniques as well as strategies for prevention of aggressive behavior. Training manuals developed for this purpose are, by reference, incorporated and made a part of this agreement. Physical restraint techniques provided in training programs approved by the Board are authorized and, when utilized in accor- dance with the training provided and these guidelines, shall not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. If a teacher is not trained in the use of approved physical restraint procedures and is faced with an emergency, the teacher is authorized to employ the moderate use of physical force or physical contact as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07 and 1.08. The appropriate use of these procedures shall not constitute a violation of the corporal punishment policy (Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07). The use of physical restraint techniques shall be discussed as part of the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) review development process. The Local Education Agency (LEA) representative, at the initial IEP meeting and/or annual review, shall provide notifica- tion to parents of physical restraint proced- ures. When parents or surrogates are not present at the meeting, written notification to them regarding the use of physical restraint will be provided. For an exceptional student enrolled in a program other than for the emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed or autistic, a recommendation for the use of board-approved physical restraint procedures must be made by the multi-disciplinary team (M-Team) and be documented on the student's IEP form before the use of such procedures may be authorized. The use of physical restraint must be documented as a part of the Student Case Management (SCM) System. Instructional or support staff who utilize physical restraint techniques shall complete the SCM Student Services Form to record student case information regarding each incident. Direct- ions shall be provided to instructional and support staff to assist them in completing the appropriate form. In accordance with Section 3 of Article VII of the UTD Contract, the School Board offered (and continues to offer) a Safe Physical Management Crisis Intervention Training Program (SPM Training Program) for its instructional and non-instructional staff assigned to work with emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed, and autistic students in order to train these employees in the use of School Board-authorized and approved physical restraint techniques and strategies. Participants in the School Board's SPM Training Program are given training manuals to review and study. According to one of these training manuals, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, the philosophy of SPM is as follows: Utilizing Safe Physical Management tech- niques in the classroom requires that non- physical intervention be used whenever possible to manage behavior. It is also expected that an on-going behavior management system is in place in the classroom to rein- force appropriate behaviors and control inappropriate ones. Physical management techniques may be used when the student is endangering himself, others, or property. They are not used to "punish" the child for misbehavior. Additionally, the philosophy of SPM includes the following major concepts. Emphasis on Safety- Techniques utilized in SPM consider the safety of the client and staff first. In a school setting, techniques that ensure physical safety of students and staff are important. Realize that Students can be Aggressive- SPM accepts the fact that some students need to be physically managed. The techniques used are based on the premise that students will at times eventually force physical inter- vention. That is, the student will do some- thing that you cannot ignore or manage using non-physical interventions. Least-Restrictive- SPM techniques move from least restrictive (providing minimal physical control) to more restrictive (providing maximum control). At all times, the least-restrictive technique that can control the student is used. Limitations- SPM techniques have limit- ations. They cannot handle every explosive situation. There are times when the best situation is not to intervene physically. There are times when SPM Techniques are neither appropriate or feasible. Assistance- SPM techniques advocate the use of assistance. Most techniques work best with two or more people and often, the best decision initially is to get help from other staff members. 3/ Professionalism- The focus of SPM techniques is to assist in the maintenance of a safe learning environment. SPM provides the district approved terminology for the documentation of physical intervention by the professional staff. This training manual also contains, among other things, the following information and instructions concerning the management of an "explosive event:" To effectively manage explosive (out-of- control) situations it is important to conceptualize them as: Angry/Aggressive- No matter how the incident begins, it is an expression of anger on the part of the student. Time-Limited/Temporary- Explosive incid- ents are angry, with the most dominant charact- eristics being a loss of physical control by the student. They are time-limited and even though they seem endless, the student will eventually calm down. Behaviorally Sequential- The behaviors exhibited by the student follow a pattern with behaviors typical each period (see Appendix B). Physical management techniques are not designed to end the explosive episode abruptly. Rather they are designed to safely manage the situation from beginning to end. As a result, the student may cont- inue to engage in aggressive acts, but managed appropriately, the risk of injury to persons or equipment is minimized. During the incident, only the amount of force necessary to prevent injury is utilized, and as the child exhibits more control a less restrictive hold may be used. Planning for explosive incidents is an important part of their prevention. Assessing the student, the environment and available staff is critical before physical intervention occurs. During the event, professional staff must be aware of both the verbal and non-verbal messages they give to students. It is important to indicate concern, expectation for change, and your interest in solving the problem. It is not the time to list sanctions, discuss potential punishments, or respond to personally abusive comments. After the incident ends, the staff involved should allow the student to withdraw and provide calm, brief verbal statements. Now is the time to communicate understanding, and to help the student identify ways this sequence of events can be prevented in the future. Another of the training manuals given to participants in the School Board's SPM Training Program, Petitioner's Exhibit 4, states the following regarding the importance of the child's safety in dealing with "explosive behavior:" Youth service workers and teachers are charged with a caretaking responsibility. As such they assume the natural role of adults to protect or safeguard the young. The Safe Physical Management Crisis Intervention Training Program has as its fundamental pur- pose the safe resolution of explosive behavior. This safety premise holds the adult responsible for insuring the safety of the youth. While the charge of guaranteeing youth safety during a crisis may appear in some way to jeopardize the safety of the intervening adult, in reality it keeps the adult from stepping into harm's way. Entering an explosive situation with a cognitive and physical focus of client safety allows for the management of the behavior and avoids the traps that attempting to eliminate the behavior present. When the purpose of the intervening staff is controlled by self preservation, their reaction to the acting out youth can easily become antagonistic. Such reactions promote escalation and a greater potential for harm. By keeping the youth safe, we provide a higher degree of safety for ourselves. . . . Intervention methods must be safe for both youth and adults; client/student safety however, is primary. At a minimum we shall do no harm. Physical intervention must be safe and, ideally, present minimal risk of accidental injury. . . . The intervention design of the safe physical management program is based upon the principle of social policy known as the "least restric- tive alternative." In many areas this principle has been reduced to the regulatory phrase, "passive restraint." In action, passive restraint refers to an intervention that utilizes the least amount of force necessary to safely control the situation. Student/youth safety is paramount. The SPM intervention philosophy requires that inter- vention personnel hold the safety of the student before their own. This premise, while sometimes raising the eyebrows of staff in training, ironically keeps the intervening staff safer than would an approach which holds staff well-being as primary. This training manual also contains, among other things, the following list of the "physical principles" of SPM: Proximity- safety is enhanced if physical space is understood as both a prompt and/or a deterrence to be used in the management of misbehavior. Location/positioning- safety is enhanced if intervention staff understand that the "face to face" position during intervention is considered the "attack/danger" zone. Evasion/deflection- safety is enhanced by evading or deflecting force rather than by opposing it. Balance- Safety is enhanced if intervention staff understand the principle of homeostasis- the nature of organisms to remain in a state of balance. Neutralization- Safety is enhanced if inter- vention staff understand the principle of managing an explosive event, rather than eliminating explosive behavior. In addition, this training manual describes and illustrates various physical positions and techniques used in SPM, including the "pivot and parry," an "evasion/deflection" technique which is described in the manual as follows: This combination of upper and lower body movement allows the staff to effectively evade and deflect any force that is directed at him/her. The pivot (usually 1/4 turn of one foot) is accomplished by leaving the weight on the foot which is on the side on which the blow or punch is delivered and moving the other foot toward the rear. The ending posture or stance should be the leading/trailing foot position previously described. This movement allows the blow or punch to go by the indivi- dual. This is the bull fighter move that allows the charging bull to pass on the side. Here, we are evading force rather than opposing it. The parry is a deflection of the force- i.e., the blow or punch. While both arms are used the primary parry is employed using the arm that is on the same side as the blow or punch. This arm is raised in an "L" configuration with the forearm vertical and upper arm on a horizontal pla[ne]. As the blow or punch is delivered the forearm is moved across to deflect the incoming force. This is not a blocking motion but, rather, a motion which simply redirects the force away from its target. The second arm is also used by making a similar "L" configuration with the hand being placed a approximately chin level. Again, the purpose is deflection. When the pivot and parry is employed correctly it places the staff in a position to move in and control the attacker, or to escape the danger by fleeing the situation. School Board staff receiving SPM training are also taught that, if during an "explosive event" they find themselves lying on the floor on their back being kicked by a student, they may raise a leg or arm to create a barrier to protect other, more sensitive, parts of their body. It is imperative that staff, in applying SPM principles, techniques, and strategies, exercise sound professional judgment. In determining how to deal with an "explosive event," which often begins abruptly, staff must consider the particular circumstances with which they are confronted. If they have had prior dealings with the student involved in the incident, they should draw upon these prior dealings and attempt to anticipate the student's actions. Respondent successfully completed a SPM training course offered by the School Board prior to March 10, 1994. 4/ Through its exceptional student education department, HMS offers special programs of instruction for various types of exceptional students, including those who are autistic. 5/ It is not uncommon for autistic students to engage in "acting out behavior" (such as screaming, yelling, punching, kicking and throwing objects). To enable its employees who work with autistic students to better understand these students and to deal with them more effectively, the School Board provides these employees with various written materials, including the Autism Orientation Manual, Petitioner's Exhibit 7, which contains the following statement regarding SPM: These procedures should conform to methods approved by the Dade County Public Schools which are described and demonstrated in struc- tured training sessions required for teachers and paraprofessionals working with autistic students. When using physical restraint, it is important to document what is being done. Written permission from parents or guardians is required. Physical restraint should not be used unless positive reinforcement methods have been utilized and the student is presenting potential harm to self and/or others. Evelyn Diaz Loper is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, an assistant principal at HMS responsible for the overall operation of the school's exceptional student education department, including the supervision of those School Board employees assigned to the department. On March 10, 1994, Respondent and Morgan Tharpe were among the employees under Loper's supervision. Tharpe was a teacher (with continuing contract status) who taught a class of autistic students at HMS. There were less than ten students in his class. M.A. was one of these students. M.A. was one month shy of his fourteenth birthday. He was quite strong for his age and had a history of engaging in "acting out behavior" in school. Respondent worked on a "one-to-one" basis with F.T., another student in Tharpe's class. During the second period on March 10, 1994, M.A., F.T. and the other students in Tharpe's class were in shop teacher Gerald Merkerson's classroom. They were supposed to be working on their woodworking projects. In addition to Tharpe's students and Merkerson, Respondent and two other School Board employees occupying paraprofessional positions (Eli Velazquez and Clara Smith), along with L.E., an HMS student in the school's regular education program, were in Merkerson's classroom. M.A. wanted to watch television in the classroom and not work on his project. Merkerson, however, refused to allow M.A. to watch television. M.A. thereupon began to engage in "acting out behavior." Among other things, he threw a metal file and wood in Merkerson's direction. (Merkerson was not hit by any of these thrown objects.) Merkerson and Velazquez took action to restrain M.A. Merkerson grabbed M.A.'s left arm, while Velazquez grabbed M.A.'s right arm. 6/ The two then attempted to lead M.A. away from the area of the classroom where M.A. was positioned. M.A. resisted their efforts. Unlike Respondent, Velazquez had not yet been trained in SPM. Moreover, he was not supposed to be in Merkerson's classroom. Accordingly, Velazquez let go of M.A.'s arm and Respondent attempted to take over for him. M.A., however, bit Respondent on the arm. The bite broke Respondent's skin. Velazquez came to Respondent's assistance and helped Respondent remove himself from the fray. After tending to his wound, Respondent rejoined Velazquez and assisted him in attempting to restrain M.A. Merkerson was no longer holding on to M.A. He had let go after a cut on his hand had reopened and started to bleed. M.A. was on his knees on the floor being restrained by Respondent and Velazquez when Tharpe walked into classroom. Tharpe instructed Respondent and Velazquez to let go of M.A. Respondent and Velazquez followed Tharpe's instructions, notwithstanding that M.A. had not yet calmed down and was still engaging in "acting out behavior." Tharpe walked toward M.A. When Tharpe was approximately two feet away from M.A., M.A. kicked Tharpe in the area of his groin. Tharpe screamed out in pain. M.A.'s actions prompted Velazquez to again attempt to restrain M.A. He grabbed both of M.A.'s arms, but was not able to hold on securely because both he and M.A. were dripping with sweat. M.A. struggled with Velazquez and tried to scratch and bite him. As Velazquez and M.A. were on their knees, face-to-face face, struggling with one another, Tharpe approached M.A. from behind and struck M.A. in the area of the upper back with a relatively thin, rectangular-shaped piece of wood approximately one foot to two meters long and two to three inches wide. 7/ Velazquez released M.A. after Tharpe delivered this blow. M.A. then started crawling towards Tharpe and tried to scratch and bite him. In an effort to ward off M.A.'s attack, Tharpe, who at 235 pounds was substantially larger than M.A., hit M.A. on the back at least two more times with the piece of wood he was holding in his hand. These additional blows were not delivered with full force. The three or more blows that Tharpe delivered produced bruises on M.A.'s back. The marks remained visible for approximately seven to ten days. In delivering these blows, Tharpe used more force than was reasonably necessary to effectively and safely deal with M.A.'s "acting out behavior" and he acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the SPM training he had received. Respondent had witnessed Tharpe's actions and recognized that Tharpe had acted improperly. Nonetheless, contrary to the requirements of Guideline No. 4 of the School Board's Procedures (of which Respondent was aware), Respondent did not report the incident to Loper (who was at school that day) or any other School Board administrator within a reasonable period of time following the incident. Neither did any of the other HMS staff members who had been in the classroom at the time of the incident advise Loper, on March 10, 1994, of what had happened. Although Tharpe's actions were inappropriate, they were effective. After Tharpe delivered his final blow, M.A. stopped crawling toward him. M.A. continued to scream, however, and, after a while, he started to crawl toward Respondent. In an effort to prevent M.A. from coming any closer, Respondent swung his foot in M.A.'s direction and made contact with M.A. 8/ Respondent kicked M.A. approximately five or six times, but M.A. continued coming at him. When Respondent started to become visibly upset with M.A., Velazquez intervened by positioning himself between Respondent and M.A. and pushing Respondent out of the way. Respondent did not kick M.A. as hard as he could have. 9/ Nonetheless, in kicking M.A., he used more force than was reasonably necessary to effectively and safely deal with M.A.'s "acting out behavior" and he acted in a physically aggressive manner that was inconsistent with the SPM training he had received. 10/ M.A. eventually calmed down and returned to Tharpe's classroom. Tharpe telephoned M.A.'s mother, L.A.H., that day (March 10, 1994), but he did not mention to her during their conversation anything about what had happened in Merkerson's classroom during second period. He simply told L.A.H. that she needed to supply him with more medication for M.A. Following the conclusion of the school day, M.A. went home by school bus. L.A.H. met him at the bus stop and greeted him with a hug. She was unaware, at the time, that anything unusual or out of the ordinary had occurred in school that day. M.A. pulled away from his mother when she hugged him and said, "Mom, boo-boo." 11/ L.A.H. then pulled up M.A.'s shirt and saw four bruises about "three fingers wide" on M.A.'s back that had not been there that morning when she had helped M.A. get dressed for school. M.A. also had a scratch on his forehead that L.A.H. had never seen before and a bump on his head. The following morning (March 11, 1994), L.A.H., accompanied by M.A. and M.A.'s father (L.A.H.'s former husband), met with Loper and William Jones, the principal of HMS. L.A.H. showed Loper and Jones the bruises on M.A.'s back and the scratch on his forehead and expressed her belief that M.A. had sustained these injuries at school the previous day. Loper thereupon contacted Merkerson and asked him if anything had occurred in his classroom the day before that may have resulted in injury to M.A. In view of Merkerson's response to her inquiry, Loper asked him to fill out a Student Case Management Referral Form (SCM Form). A SCM Form must be filled out whenever a student has been physically restrained. Loper had not previously received a completed SCM Form indicating that physical force had been used against M.A. in Merkerson's classroom the day before. On the SCM Form that he filled out at Loper's request, Merkerson stated the following: [M.A.] became irate and upset because he was not allowed to watch Barney on television. He became combatant and began to throw stools and wooden objects at the teachers and paraprofessionals. Upon being subdued to reduce the danger that he posed to myself and others he bit Juan Alejo on his right forearm, kicked Mr. Tharpe in the groin area and hit his right arm with his balsa wood project. The student poses a serious safety hazard in the technology education shop class. [M.A.] was also self destructive and scratched himself on the left temple. Although Merkerson did not mention in his written report that, in subduing M.A., Tharpe had hit M.A. with a piece of wood and Respondent had kicked M.A., the School Board ultimately found out about Tharpe's and Respondent's unseemly and inappropriate behavior during the incident. On November 2, 1994, a conference for the record was held concerning Respondent's involvement in the incident. At the conference, Respondent admitted that he had kicked M.A. during the incident. By letter dated November 3, 1994, the principal of HMS recommended to Frank de Varona, the Regional Superintendent (for Region I Operations) "the termination of [Respondent] from all employment in Dade County Public Schools." By letter dated January 13, 1995, the School Board's Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that he was recommending that the School Board suspend Respondent and initiate a dismissal proceeding against him. The School Board took such recommended action at its January 25, 1995, meeting. Respondent thereafter requested a formal hearing on the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of April, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 25th day of April, 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent without pay for ten days for gross insubordination or misconduct in office or both, as set forth in the letter of suspension to Respondent from Superintendent Paul Hagerty, dated May 16, 2000. By letter dated May 16, 2000, Petitioner suspended Respondent from his employment. Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing.
Findings Of Fact Prior to his suspension Respondent was employed as a teacher by Petitioner. During the 1999-2000 school year Respondent was a Physical Education teacher at Sterling Park Elementary School. Respondent taught for 13 years in Ohio before moving to Florida. He has been employed by Petitioner for the last 12 years. On or about October 17, 1997, Respondent received a written directive from Principal Deborah Wright. An addendum to that letter followed on April 27, 1998. Those letters addressed concerns about Respondent’s physical interactions with students relating to discipline. On or about September 16, 1999, Respondent received a letter from Superintendent Paul J. Hagerty. The stated purpose of the letter was to "clearly communicate the School Board’s policy and expectations regarding physical contact by teachers and other school personnel with students. . ." The policy described by the Superintendent is that school personnel will not have physical contact with students except for five enumerated reasons. One basis for allowing physical contact is: "To praise a child, such as a high five, a pat on the back, or the like, but never a pat on the buttocks." Principal Wright agreed with the Superintendent’s interpretation of the School Board’s policy. Respondent was never directed not to touch a student for purposes of offering praise. H.S. was a student in Kristen Brotsch’s class and had Respondent for physical education ("P.E."). On January 12, 2000, H.S. was the line leader for purposes of leading the class to the field for P.E. At the beginning of the class, Brotsch saw Respondent make a gesture toward H.S.'s face. The purpose of the gesture was to signal the class to go out to the field. Brotsch was between seven and ten feet from Respondent and H.S. when she witnessed the gesture. She did not see Respondent touch H.S. According to Brotsch, Respondent was not upset with the class or H.S. at the time he made the gesture. The gesture did not cause her any concern. She went back to her classroom after the class went to P.E. Following the P.E. class, H.S. told Brotsch Respondent had punched her in the face prior to class. The following day Brotsch reported the accusation to Principal Wright. On the night of January 12, 2000, H.S. told her parents Respondent had punched her in the side of the face that day in school. She physically re-enacted the incident by moving her hand approximately a foot from her mother’s arm. H.S. punched her mother hard enough that it "stung." The parents contacted Principal Wright about the incident the next day. On or about January 13, 2000, Principal Wright interviewed H.S. H.S. told her Respondent had hit her in the jaw with his fist, that it hurt, and that her friend T.P. had witnessed the incident. T.P. then told Principal Wright she had witnessed the incident and repeated H.S.’s story. According to H.S., Respondent was not upset or mad at the beginning of class on January 12, 2000. He did not say anything to H.S. H.S. was the line leader on that day and had done a good job of organizing the students to go out to P.E. When Respondent touched H.S. she did not cry. She did not believe he was trying to hurt her, and no one around said anything about the incident. H.S. told T.P. about the alleged incident on the playground during the P.E. class. Respondent has no recollection of touching H.S. anytime before class began on January 12, 2000. The P.E. class had gone exceptionally well on January 12, 2000, and Respondent was very pleased with the class. At the end of the class period, the students lined up to go back to the building. Respondent praised the entire class for their performance. Respondent turned to H.S. as the first person in line and grazed over her chin with the back of his partially closed hand while saying "great job, and let’s go." Respondent has been using the gesture involving grazing a person’s chin as a congratulatory gesture throughout his 25-year teaching career. H.S. did not appear to Respondent to be upset with the gesture. Rather, H.S. smiled as they went back to the building. Whether the touching alleged by H.S. occurred before or after class, it was not a disciplinary action. All of the testimony indicates Respondent was not upset with the students either before or after class on January 12, 2000, and was not seeking to correct any behavior.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the School Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Dr. Paul J. Hagerty, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to terminate the employment of the Respondent, who is a continuing contract teacher, on several grounds alleged in a three-count Notice of Specific Charges. The Respondent is charged in Count I with incompetency; in Count II with gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty; and in Count III with misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Section 4(b) of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher-on-special-assignment and a Language Arts (English) teacher within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, assigned to Miami Beach Senior High School, Lake Stevens Middle School, and other work sites within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent was employed by Petitioner pursuant to a continuing contract of employment and subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board. During the 1992/93 school year Respondent exhibited erratic behavior, mood changes, engaged in altercations with staff, was excessively absent, and chronically arrived late to the Chapter I Office, her assigned work site at that time. On November 6, 1992, a meeting was held with Respondent to notify Respondent that, due to her excessive absenteeism, repeated tardiness, mood swings, and altercations with other staff members, Respondent was being referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (hereinafter "EAP"). At the November 6, 1992 meeting, Respondent became verbally aggressive and combative in her demeanor and stated that, since there was nothing wrong with her, she did not need to go to the EAP. On November 10, 1992, Respondent's then immediate supervisor requested a medical fitness evaluation due to, among other things, Respondent's excessive absenteeism, inability to accept directives, confrontations with staff members, lack of respect for authority, and because of Respondent's refusal to comply with the supervisory referral to EAP. On November 17, 1992, Respondent was directed to report for a Conference-for-the-Record (hereinafter "CFR") at Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (hereinafter "OPS"). On December 14, 1992, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's medical fitness to perform assigned duties, as well as her excessive tardiness, excessive absenteeism, and non-compliance with administrative directives. At the December 14, 1992, CFR, it was decided that, because Respondent's duties at the Chapter I office were unclear, Respondent would be given a chance to return to her duties as a teacher-on-special-assignment at the Chapter I Office. At the conclusion of the December 14, 1992, CFR, Respondent agreed to strive to maintain a professional work environment. On January 19, 1993, Respondent's EAP case was closed after Respondent failed to appear at the scheduled EAP conference and after Respondent refused to participate in the program. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach an English for Speakers of Other Languages ("ESOL") class at Miami Beach Senior High School. During the first week of school in August of 1993, Respondent became involved in a verbal altercation in front of students after she was told that her classroom had been changed. During the altercation described in paragraph 14 above, Respondent, in front of the students in the classroom, became so upset over being notified of the room change that she screamed and yelled at her Department chairperson and pushed 15 to 20 books off a table. On September 1, 1994, several students in Respondent's ESOL class accused Respondent of directing disparaging statements to them, belittling them, and threatening to have her nephews harm them, if they reported her actions to the school principal. On September 2, 1994, as a result of Respondent's persistent erratic behavior and inappropriate conduct, including, but not limited to, calling students "bastards," and demeaning, accosting, and harassing other teachers in the hallways, the principal at Miami Beach Senior High School requested that Respondent undergo a medical fitness evaluation. On September 14, 1994, Respondent was involved in a verbal confrontation with another teacher at her school in the presence of students. Because of Respondent's agitated and irrational behavior, the other teacher was afraid that Respondent might hit her. Due to Respondent's expressed desire to transfer to a middle school, and because of her continuing behavioral problems, Respondent was transferred to Lake Stevens Middle School with the assistance of the principal at Miami Beach Senior High. Prior to Respondent's transfer to Lake Stevens Middle School, the principal at Lake Stevens Middle school was not informed of Respondent's history of behavioral problems until Respondent was involved in several incidents with other staff members at her new school. On December 4, 1995, a conference was held with Respondent and the school clerk at Lake Stevens Middle School in an attempt to resolve a dispute between the two employees. The conference was held after Respondent had been involved in an altercation with the school clerk. At the December 4, 1995, conference, Respondent was directed to avoid contact or communications with the school clerk unless initiated through a school administrator. On May 4, 1995, during a parent-teacher conference, the conference had to be terminated after Respondent became enraged and started yelling and screaming at the parent, the student, and an assistant principal. Respondent continued screaming even after the parent and student had left and persisted in shouting and yelling at the assistant principal while Respondent followed her around the main office. On February 8, 1996, another conference was held with the Respondent at Lake Stevens Middle School by the assistant principal to address a complaint filed by Respondent against a school secretary. As the conference was about to be concluded, Respondent started shouting and making disparaging remarks against the school secretary, and was generally "out-of-control." On May 2, 1996, Respondent was cited with insubordination after she entered the main office area and started yelling at the assistant principal and refused to cease her tirade after twice being directed by the assistant principal to stop shouting and explain her problem. On May 15, 1996, a formal observation of the Respondent's classroom performance was not conducted because Respondent was unable to provide her lesson plans and grade book to the administrator who was to observe her. Rather than place Respondent on prescription, the principal decided to give Respondent another opportunity to get her documentation in order for another observation. Prior to the May 15, 1996 voided observation, the assistant principal at Lake Stevens Middle School had noted that Respondent did not have her roll book, lesson plans, or student folders during the first thirty days after she had been transferred to Lake Stevens Middle School. During the beginning of the summer school session, on July 8, 1996, Respondent again became involved in a verbal altercation with the school clerk at Lake Stevens Middle School. This second altercation with the school clerk commenced when the school clerk, who was now the principal's secretary, told the Respondent that the Respondent could not walk into the principal's office without first contacting the principal's secretary. When an assistant principal intervened to resolve this altercation, Respondent became irate and refused to leave the assistant principal's office and instead told him to "push" her out. At the end of the school day on July 8, 1996, Respondent again became involved in an altercation with the principal's secretary after the Respondent purposefully pushed the secretary with her briefcase in the main office and thus provoked a verbal altercation, which required the intervention of school administrators. After the school buses had left, on July 8, 1996, the interim principal at Lake Stevens Middle School met with the Respondent to discuss the physical confrontation that had occurred earlier that day and verbally reprimanded the Respondent, advising her that the school administration would not tolerate another incident of this nature. As a result of the July 8, 1996, incident, a personnel investigation was conducted by the Division of School Police, which determined that the charge that Respondent had committed a battery was substantiated. On August 28, 1996, a temporary restraining order was issued against Respondent after Respondent allegedly threatened to kill her former boyfriend, who is also employed on an hourly basis by Petitioner. On October 7, 1996, a CFR was held with Respondent to address numerous incidents involving inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, the personnel investigation on the charge that Respondent had committed a battery, and Respondent's classroom performance and attendance. At that CFR, Respondent was directed to avoid any further altercations (verbal or physical) with other staff members. Respondent was also advised that her failure to comply with previous directives regarding altercations with staff members was considered insubordination and was in violation of School Board rules on employee conduct and violence in the workplace. Respondent was also advised that any further incidents would be considered gross insubordination. At the CFR held on October 7, 1996, Respondent was assigned to her home as an alternate assignment due to her repeated involvement in altercations at the school sites and her unprofessional conduct. Due to Respondent's continued involvement in altercations with other employees--even after being repeatedly directed to avoid same--and because of Respondent's history of erratic behavior at her work site, Respondent was further required to undergo a medical fitness evaluation. On October 8 through 11, 1996, a psychological evaluation was conducted by Dr. Michael Hendrickson, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist. Dr. Hendrickson recommended that Respondent become involved in psychotherapy through the EAP, and that Respondent be required to undergo a neurological evaluation to rule out a neurological basis for Respondent's reported behavioral problems. He also recommended that Respondent be required to undergo psychotherapy once a week for a full year. On October 15, 1996, Respondent was allowed to return to Lake Stevens Middle School. On October 22, 1996, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, and in assessment techniques in accordance with the Teacher Assessment and Development System. Respondent was prescribed activities to assist her in overcoming her deficiencies. On the day of the formal observation described immediately above, the administrator who conducted the classroom observation noted, among other things, that Respondent's lesson plans were incomplete; that Respondent's grade book did not contain grades for at least two of her classes; that there was no evidence of tests or quizzes given to the students; that students' work was piled on the teacher's desk, table, and cabinets; and that students' folders were incomplete. By November 5, 1996, Respondent had yet to complete the prescriptive activities that had been assigned to her as a result of the formal classroom observation conducted on October 22, 1996. At the and of the school day on December 12, 1996, Respondent approached the school principal, in the presence of students who were just getting into their school busses, and accused the principal of taking part in a plot to fire her and stated that she wanted to be assigned to the region office rather than work at Lake Stevens Middle School. The principal advised Respondent that this was not the appropriate place to hold such a discussion and that she should meet with him later in his office. On December 12, 1996, upon entering the principal's office, Respondent began to cry, used profanity, started shouting and screaming at the school principal, refused to leave the office, and, ultimately, had to be escorted out of principal's office into the main office, where Respondent continued to scream and shout in the presence of parents, students, and staff. While in the main office area on December 12, 1996, Respondent had to be restrained by other staff members after she started directing her verbal attack--in a threatening manner--at a school counselor. Respondent was finally escorted out of the school. On December 17, 1996, a follow-up CFR was held with Respondent to review the results of the psychological evaluation of Respondent and her continued inappropriate and unprofessional conduct as evidenced by her involvement in the December 12, 1996, incident in the main office of Lake Stevens Middle School, and her continuing acts of insubordination. At the December 17, 1996, follow-up CFR, Respondent was directed to attend psychotherapy once a week, for one (1) year, to undergo a neurological evaluation, and to immediately report to the EAP. Because of the school district's concern that Respondent had a propensity for violence, as evidenced by her numerous altercations with other employees, Respondent was also directed to remain on alternate assignment at her home. On January 31, 1997, Respondent was notified that her failure to comply with the administrative directives issued at the follow-up CFR held on December 17, 1996, constituted gross insubordination. Respondent was again directed to comply with the directives listed immediately above, within five (5) work days or face further disciplinary action. On March 6, 1997, Respondent underwent a follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson, the psychologist that had conducted the initial psychological evaluation. The follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson was necessitated by Respondent's continued involvement in altercations with other employees at her work site after she had completed her psychological evaluation on October 11, 1996. After the follow- up consultation, Dr. Hendrickson recommended that Respondent be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to assess the cause of her various conflicts and aggressive outbursts. On March 27, 1997, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson. At this CFR, Respondent was directed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation as a condition of Respondent's continued employment with Petitioner and to report the results of that evaluation within five (5) work days. On or about April 29, 1997, Respondent was directed to report on May 1, 1997, to OPS for a CFR, to discuss, among other things, Respondent's failure to comply with administrative directives regarding her medical fitness to perform assigned duties, specifically Respondent's failure to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and Respondent's failure to adhere to previously issued administrative directives relative to her unprofessional conduct, and her unacceptable and disruptive behavior. On or about May 1, 1997, Respondent failed to attend the CFR scheduled for that day. The May 1, 1997, CFR was rescheduled to May 2, 1997, after Respondent indicated that she would not attend unless escorted by a police officer because she feared for her personal safety. On May 2, 1997, Respondent was notified that her failure to attend the CFR scheduled for that day would constitute gross insubordination. Due to Respondent's failure to attend the May 2, 1997, CFR, on May 9, 1997, Respondent was directed to attend a CFR scheduled for May 13, 1997, at OPS. Respondent was also advised that her failure to attend the May 13, 1997, CFR would be considered gross insubordination and that Respondent would be subject to dismissal from further employment with Petitioner. Respondent failed to attend the CFR scheduled for May 13, 1997. At its regularly scheduled meeting of May 21, 1997, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent on the grounds of incompetency, misconduct in office, gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida ordering that: Respondent be found to be guilty of incompetency, gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office, as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges; Respondent's suspension without pay from employment on May 21, 1997, be sustained and that she receive no back pay for the period of her suspension; and that Respondent be dismissed from all employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1998.
