The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Miami-Dade County School Board (Petitioner) was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Petitioner's district, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Raynard W. Pasteur (Respondent) was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor at Frank C. Martin Elementary School (Martin Elementary). Respondent began his employment with Petitioner on August 31, 1990, at Palmetto Middle School (Palmetto) as a school security monitor and remained at Palmetto until September 29, 1991. On January 27, 1994, Respondent began working as a school security monitor at Martin Elementary. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). As a member of the UTD, Respondent was subject to the collective bargaining agreement (UTD Contract) between Petitioner and the UTD, as well as any Memorandum of Understanding between Petitioner and UTD. On February 2, 1998, a conference-for-the-record (CFR) was held with Respondent. In attendance at the CFR were Respondent; two of his union representatives; Isaac Rodriguez, Director of Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS); Dr. Jose Carbia, Petitioner's Director of Region V; and Pamela Siplin, Principal at Martin Elementary. The purpose of the CFR was to address Respondent's medical fitness to perform his assigned duties, to review Respondent's records, and to address Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner. Prior to the CFR, Jose Garcia, a clinical coordinator with Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), performed an assessment of Respondent. After performing the assessment, Mr. Garcia determined that he had a duty-to-warn situation. The circumstances of a duty-to-warn situation demonstrate that serious bodily harm or injury may result or that there is a threat of serious bodily harm or injury. Having made such a determination, Mr. Garcia contacted his supervisor and discussed the duty-to-warn situation involving Respondent. Afterwards, Mr. Garcia contacted OPS. Mr. Garcia, his supervisor, and OPS subsequently contacted Dr. Carbia. Mr. Garcia informed Dr. Carbia that his (Mr. Garcia's) assessment of Respondent presented a duty-to-warn situation and that potentially bodily harm or injury could be inflicted against certain employees of Region V. Mr. Garcia did not discuss any details with OPS or with Dr. Carbia. An employee's participation in the EAP program is confidential and voluntary. Breach of the confidentiality by a clinical coordinator is permitted when a duty-to-warn situation presents itself in order to warn the affected persons of the threat of serious bodily harm or injury without discussing details of the situation. Under the circumstances, Mr. Garcia was permitted to breach the confidentiality afforded Respondent. A written statement dated February 2, 1998, explaining Petitioner's justification for requiring Respondent to submit to a medical examination, was presented to Respondent. The written statement stated, among other things, the following: This employer [Petitioner] has need to determine your fitness to carry out your assigned duties. Because of your exhibited behavior at the worksite as well as your self reported medical condition, this employer has reason to seek an immediate medical examination which will be considered relative to your future and continued employment with Miami-Dade County Public Schools. According to Ms. Siplin, the principal at Martin Elementary, Respondent's attendance was good and, in most instances, he was cooperative. She never reported any erratic or unusual behavior exhibited by Respondent. As observed by Ms. Siplin, Respondent's behavior at the worksite was acceptable and satisfactory. However, the behavior complained of referred to the Respondent's behavior at the work site as assessed by Mr. Garcia. A finding of fact is made that the written statement dated February 2, 1998, is a sufficient written statement justifying Petitioner's requirement for Respondent to submit to a medical examination regarding his fitness to carry out his assigned duties. At the CFR, a determination was made, among other things, that a medical fitness evaluation, i.e., a fitness-for- duty evaluation, was required. During the CFR, a representation was made to Respondent that Mr. Garcia had spoken to Respondent's psychiatrist because of Mr. Garcia's concern for Respondent and the staff at Martin Elementary; however, Mr. Garcia did not reveal any details of Respondent's assessment to OPS or the Director of Region V. The representation has no effect on the determination that a fitness-for-duty evaluation was required. A finding of fact is made that, regardless of the representation, a sufficient basis existed for such a determination and that it was reasonable and appropriate to require a fitness-for-duty evaluation of Respondent. A fitness-for-duty evaluation is an assessment by a psychologist or psychiatrist to determine whether an employee is psychologically competent to perform his or her job and whether that employee could potentially be a danger to himself or herself, co-workers, or students. The fitness-for-duty evaluation is designed to identify what it would take to get the employee back to work. The employee chooses the medical practitioner to perform the fitness-for-duty evaluation. According to the UTD Contract, when there has been a written statement of the need for an examination, the employee is to choose the medical practitioner from Petitioner's list of State-licensed physicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists. Respondent and his union representatives were provided a list of Petitioner approved psychiatrists and psychologists from which Dr. Larry Harmon, Ph.D., was chosen by Respondent. An appointment was made by OPS for Respondent with Dr. Harmon and was scheduled for February 6, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. At the CFR, Respondent was also placed in an alternative assignment at home during the process of the fitness-for-duty evaluation. Certain directives were given to Respondent during the CFR. The directives were as follows: Keep your scheduled appointment with Larry Harmon, Ph.D. Call Ms. Pamela Siplin at 238-3688, each work day between 7:30-7:40 a.m. and 3:50- 4:00 p.m. Be available at home during work hours for phone calls from your work site. Notify the work site of any appointments that would necessitate your absence from your alternative assignment (home) during work hours. Respondent was advised that failure to comply with the directives would necessitate a review by OPS for the imposition of disciplinary measures, including suspension, demotion or dismissal. At the CFR, Respondent was also provided a copy of Petitioner's Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Employee Conduct and Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, Non-Instructional Personnel. Dr. Larry Harmon, Ph.D., conducted the fitness-for- duty evaluation which was administered for approximately nine hours over a three-day period, beginning on February 6, 1998. The evaluation consisted of Dr. Harmon reviewing background information provided by Mr. Rodriguez of OPS and background memoranda concerning Respondent's prior criminal activity; reviewing Respondent's job description; conducting a clinical interview with Respondent; performing psychological testing of Respondent; consulting with Mr. Garcia of EAP; and conferring with Respondent's parents. Dr. Harmon was unable to consult with Respondent's treating psychiatrist and psychologist. Routinely, Dr. Harmon requests that his patients sign a release and consent for the fitness-for-duty evaluation. The release and consent provides for the exchange and release of information and discussion with OPS, as well as EAP. Respondent signed Dr. Harmon's release and consent and, as a result, Dr. Harmon was able to consult with Mr. Garcia of EAP. Dr. Harmon also attempted to obtain a release from Respondent regarding the exchange of information with Respondent's treating psychologist, Dr. Eve McNanamy, Ph.D., and treating psychiatrist, Dr. Edgar Patino, M.D. In Dr. Harmon's opinion, the outside information from Respondent's treating psychologist and psychiatrist was essential to corroborate Respondent's self-report. However, Respondent refused to sign the release. Respondent did not "like" some of Dr. Harmon's methods or the way Dr. Harmon kept his office. Moreover, Respondent's psychiatrist, Dr. Patino, advised Respondent that he (Respondent) was not required to sign the release and that his (Respondent's) failure to sign could not be held against him. Having reviewed background information provided by Mr. Rodriguez of OPS and background memoranda concerning Respondent's prior criminal activity; having reviewed Respondent's job description; having conducted a clinical interview with Respondent; having performed psychological testing; having consulted with Mr. Garcia of EAP; and having conferred with Respondent's parents, Dr. Harmon formed an opinion as to Respondent's psychological condition. In his report dated March 1, 1998, (Report), Dr. Harmon made the following observations in his "Summary and Recommendations": With respect to diagnosis -- based on clinical interview, mental status examination, psychological test results, collaborative consultation, and review of related written records -- he [Respondent] presents, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (DSM IV), with a probable as follows: Axis I: Clinical Disorders and Conditions Delusional Disorder (297.1), Persecutory Type [emphasis in original] Axis II: Personality Disorders Deferred. [emphasis in original] Axis III: Physical Disorders and Conditions Deferred. [emphasis in original] Given the information with which this psychologist was able to utilize, there is no clear evidence of any severe cognitive or affective disorder which would absolutely prevent him form currently performing any kind of work at all. However, because he was highly guarded and reluctant to share his current life circumstances, history, and current treatment recommendations, it is difficult to rule out the probability of a potential direct threat, especially to coworkers. With respect to his current position as a School Security Monitor II, the job requirements include, but are not limited to, both physical and interpersonal tasks . . . He appears to be capable of performing the physical requirements of the job . . . In addition, he is probably able to perform the non-interpersonal responsibilities of his job description . . . However, individuals with Delusional Disorder may have significant difficulties effectively and objectively performing complex interpersonal job tasks . . . His current symptoms -- clearly consistent with Delusional Disorder -- are likely to cause his thinking to be suspicious and potentially impair his judgement. In fact the DSM IV states that "People with persecutory delusions are often resentful and angry, and may resort to violence against those they believe are hurting them." Based on the above information, there appears to be a potentially significant risk of substantial harm to coworkers based on the following factors: The results of this individualized Fitness for Duty assessment . . . The results of objective psychological assessment, based on current psychological knowledge and assessment tools and techniques, suggest a potential for unpredictable and highly aggressive behavior. A review of prior history [criminal history]. . . A review of current information that suggests he is a current risk based in part on this evaluation as well as upon Jose Garcia's (of the M-D.C.P.S. E.A.P.) report that Mr. Pasteur recently called him and stated, among other comments, that "I am going to stop them." And "I'm just telling you that in case I have to do something." Finally, Mr. Pasteur reports that his psychiatrist's efforts to treat him with medication are obstructed by his unwillingness to follow his psychiatrist's recommendations and so it appears that efforts to reduce or eliminate his delusional thinking are not fruitful which, therefore, maintain the current level potential of significant risk of substantial harm to others. Therefore, because he is considered a potential direct threat and, thus, a significant risk of substantial harm to others, there is insufficient supporting information based on this assessment to clear him to return to work. Therefore, he is considered as the present time not fit for duty. [emphasis in original] His Delusional Disorder appears to seriously impair major life functions such as his social judgement, an essential requirement for his job which requires significant skills to interact effectively in interpersonal interactions. In his Report, Dr. Harmon continued with the following recommendations in his "Summary and Recommendations": In order for Mr. Pasteur [Petitioner] to be eventually cleared to return to work, it is recommended that M-D.C.P.S. support Mr. Pasteur's efforts to reduce and, hopefully, eliminate the probability that he will be a potentially direct threat to others. The following accommodations are recommended in order to assist him to get appropriate and effective treatment so that he may return to work: Provide Mr. Pasteur with at least one month of medical leave, consistent with medical leave benefits and policies for all other employees in his category, so that he may receive appropriate mental health treatment. It is recommended that he follow all of his psychiatrist's recommendations which are designed to reduce the symptoms of his Delusional Disorder to a sufficient extent that he is fit for duty. Participate in psychotherapeutic treatment with Eve McNanamy, Ph.D., his treating psychologist, and follow all recommendations designed to reduce the symptoms of his Delusional Disorder and improve his social judgement and interpersonal functioning to the extent that he is no longer a potentially direct threat and is able to function adequately in the School Security Monitor II position. In order to provide assurance that he is no longer a potentially direct threat and that he is fit for duty, that Mr. Pasteur provide me with a limited Release of Information for all of his mental health professionals which restricts the release of information to those symptoms, behavioral patterns, and treatment compliance issues directly relevant to his Fitness for Duty determination. . . . Because of his likely resistance [to take prescribed antipsychotic medication], and in order to support that his continuation and increased frequency of psychotherapeutic and psychiatric treatment render him fit for duty, it is recommended that Mr. Pasteur sign a Release of Information which enables the Employee Assistance Program to communicate directly with his psychologist and psychiatrist to assist him in getting additional treatment sessions approved, etc. It is recommended that he be re- evaluated for fitness for duty after at least one month to determine the extent to which he is adhering to treatment recommendations, responding to treatment as evidenced by reduced symptoms, displaying symptomoloty which could impair his job performance, and free of symptoms which render him a potentially direct threat to others. Dr. Harmon's fitness-for-duty evaluation was forwarded to Petitioner. On March 3, 1998, a CFR was conducted to address Respondent's medical fitness for continued employment, to review the record, and to address Respondent's future employment status. In attendance at the CFR was Respondent and his UTD representative; Mr. Rodriguez; a representative for Dr. Carbia; and Ms. Siplin. Respondent's father was allowed to attend but only as an observer. Prior to the CFR, Respondent was provided a copy of Dr. Harmon's Report and read it. After reading the Report, Respondent requested, and Mr. Rodriguez complied with the request, that no one at the CFR be allowed to review the Report. Respondent was advised that the focus of the CFR was Dr. Harmon's recommendations contained in the Report. During the CFR held on March 3, 1998, Respondent's father interrupted the CFR several times. Finally, Respondent's father was asked to leave the CFR and, unfortunately, the last interruption by Respondent's father caused the CFR to end. A Summary of the CFR dated April 30, 1998, was sent to Respondent. The Summary included, among other things, directives from Mr. Rodriguez which were that Respondent was required to comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations and to comply within five (5) days of receipt of the Summary. The Summary also advised Respondent, among other things, that Mr. Rodriguez would verify his (Respondent's) compliance with the directives; that, as of March 16, 1998, Respondent's status on Petitioner's payroll record was on leave-without-pay authorized; that Respondent had applied for a medical leave of absence retroactive from March 17, 1998, through May 17, 1998, which complies with one of Dr. Harmon's recommendations; and that Respondent's failure to comply with the directives could lead to suspension or dismissal. By memorandum dated May 20, 1998, Respondent was notified by the executive director of OPS that clearance from OPS was required in order for his return to work. Respondent was further advised that a clearance conference was a requirement for his return to work; that he must schedule a clearance conference before May 27, 1998; and that failure to schedule and/or attend the clearance conference would result in disciplinary action. Respondent failed to comply with the directives given him in the Summary of the CFR dated April 30, 1998. As a result, a CFR was held on June 4, 1998, essentially to address his noncompliance with the directives. The attendees of the CFR on June 4, 1998, were Respondent and his UTD representative; Mr. Rodriguez; Ms. Siplin; and a representative for Dr. Carbia. One of the directives was for Respondent to comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations; Respondent had complied with only one of the recommendations which was to obtain extended medical leave. At the CFR, among other things, Respondent was directed to make an appointment with Dr. Harmon by a date certain and to obtain a medical leave extension to cover his present absence and future absence to be recommended by Dr. Harmon. By memorandum dated August 4, 1998, from Mr. Rodriguez, Respondent was provided with a written Summary of the CFR held on June 4, 1998. The Summary also contained events that had occurred since the CFR. Mr. Rodriguez indicated in the Summary, among other things, that Respondent had provided notification that he (Respondent) was currently being treated by Dr. Patino; that Dr. Harmon's office had notified OPS that Respondent had scheduled an appointment and had later cancelled the appointment, but had not rescheduled the appointment; that Respondent failed to obtain approved leave and was on non- approved leave status; and that Respondent continued to be in noncompliance with the directives. Mr. Rodriguez again gave Respondent directives in the memorandum of August 4, 1998. The directives were as follows: You [Respondent] are advised of the availability of services from the District's [Petitioner's] support referral service. You must comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations as stated in his report. You must schedule an appointment with Dr. Harmon by contacting his office no later than 24 hours from receipt of this letter. You must immediately obtain a Board [Petitioner] approved medical leave of absence to cover the period from 5/19/98 through the necessary recommended time by Dr. Harmon. Mr. Rodriguez further advised Respondent in the memorandum that failure to comply with the directives would compel Petitioner to take further disciplinary action including dismissal. Respondent continued to fail to comply with the directives. As a result, a CFR was held on September 21, 1998. In attendance at the CFR was Respondent and his UTD representative; Mr. Rodriguez; Ms. Siplin; and the personnel director for Petitioner's Region V, Clarence Jones. At the CFR on September 21, 1998, among other things, Respondent indicated that he had not complied with Dr. Harmon's recommendations and had not applied for and obtained an approved medical leave of absence. However, Respondent indicated that he had obtained an appointment with Dr. Harmon which was scheduled for September 25, 1998. Consequently, Respondent requested that he be allowed to keep his appointment with Dr. Harmon, obtain an approved medical leave of absence, and again attempt to resolve the matter after the appointment and a review of his medical evaluation report. Mr. Rodriguez did not agree to Respondent's request, but advised Respondent that his (Respondent's) matter would be forwarded for legal review and possible disciplinary action including suspension or dismissal. Even after the CFR of September 21, 1998, OPS attempted to give Respondent another opportunity to comply with the directives. By letter dated November 9, 1998, the senior executive director of OPS, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, notified Respondent that he was again being provided an opportunity to comply with the directives. The directives in the letter were as follows: You [Respondent] must comply with all of Dr. Harmon's initial recommendations as stated in his March 1, 1998, medical fitness for duty [sic] report. You must schedule an appointment with Dr. Harmon by contacting his office no later than 24 hours from receipt of this letter. You must immediately obtain a Board [Petitioner] approved medical leaves [sic] of absence to cover absences starting May 19, 1998 through the present. (Leave application attached.) Dr. Annunziata further directed Respondent to comply with the above directives within three (3) working days of receipt of the letter. She advised and notified Respondent that his continued failure to comply would be considered gross insubordination and would lead to disciplinary action including dismissal. Respondent failed to comply with the directives given him by Dr. Annunziata. Because Respondent failed to schedule another appointment with Dr. Harmon to provide Dr. Harmon an opportunity to re-evaluate Respondent, Dr. Harmon's initial evaluation remained valid. Respondent remained unfit to return to work. Respondent had a right not to execute a consent and release of information for Dr. Harmon to contact and exchange information with his (Respondent's) treating psychiatrist and psychologist. Such an exchange of information would have immensely assisted Dr. Harmon, and in his Report, Dr. Harmon referred to such exchange of information as essential. Respondent had no understanding that his refusal to sign a consent and release would have such serious ramifications, i.e., dismissal proceedings. Even though lack of information from Respondent's treating psychiatrist and psychologist warrant finding Respondent unfit to return to work, Respondent cannot be disciplined for exercising his right to not execute a consent and release of information. Moreover, this Administrative Law Judge is persuaded that Respondent continued to believe that, as long as he was not refusing to be seen by Dr. Harmon and as long as he was being continually treated by his psychiatrist and psychologist, he (Respondent) could and would be permitted to reschedule his appointment with Dr. Harmon. Respondent did not appreciate the serious ramifications, i.e., dismissal proceedings, of not keeping his appointments with Dr. Harmon. Even at the hearing before this Administrative Law Judge, Respondent continued with his disbelief that failure to reschedule and keep the appointment with Dr. Harmon was such a serious course of action on his part. Respondent presented no medical evidence at hearing to contradict Petitioner's medical evidence and to demonstrate that he is medically fit to return to work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order sustaining the suspension of Raynard W. Pasteur without pay, but not dismissing him from employment, and reinstating Raynard W. Pasteur under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative 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 this 23rd day of July, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds teaching certificate number 230805 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent is certified in administration, supervision, and physical education. Respondent has been employed by the Orange County School District for approximately 20 years (the "District"). Respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at Hungerford Elementary School for approximately 13 years ("Hungerford") until 1991 when he was transferred to Orlando Vocational Technical Center. Respondent is currently the Dean of Students at Orlando Vocational Technical Center. While he taught at Hungerford, Respondent was respected by his peers and by his students. Students generally enjoyed Respondent's physical education classes. Respondent holds a black belt in karate and is a weight lifter. He routinely allowed several students at a time to jump on him during physical education class and wrestle with him. Respondent was a strict teacher at Hungerford. He believed strongly in discipline. Students in his classes were generally well-behaved. Physical Force Against Students At Hungerford, Respondent frequently used physical contact to gain the attention of misbehaving male students. He typically tapped boys on top of their heads, in the sternum with an open hand or fist, or in the rear end with a track baton. Respondent never intended to embarrass or disparage any of his male students. The vast majority of students recognized that Respondent was merely attempting to gain their attention or playing around. Respondent's discipline in karate gave him more than adequate control to prevent harm to any misbehaving student when Respondent used physical contact to gain their attention. Respondent never lost that control in his classes. No student was physically injured as a result of physical contact from Respondent. Respondent's physical contact was not calculated to cause misbehaving students any pain or discomfort. Respondent was criticized by some who thought he was too severe a disciplinarian. In 1987, some students lodged complaints against Respondent for alleged physical abuse. Two legal proceedings were brought by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services over allegations of physical abuse. Respondent successfully defended both proceedings. Sometime in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Andre Hunter in the chest with an open hand. At the time, Andre was a third grade student at Hungerford. Respondent did not hurt Andre. Andre ". . . didn't feel nothing. It didn't hurt. It just felt like he tapped me." Transcript at 24. On separate occasions in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Billy Washington on the head with his fist and hit him on the behind with a track baton. Billy was in Respondent's physical education class during the second, third, and fourth grades. When Respondent tapped Billy on the head, "It was funny. It didn't hurt." Transcript at 34. When Respondent hit Billy on the behind with a track baton, "It stung a little bit, but it didn't bother me." Id. Emotionally, Billy ". . . felt all right." He ". . . didn't think about it. It didn't bother me." Transcript at 35. On separate occasions in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Bobby King in the chest with Respondent's fist. At the time, Bobby was in the first or second grade. It hurt Bobby and made him mad. Bobby did not understand why Respondent struck him. On September 22, 1989, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District. The District reprimanded Respondent for using unnecessary physical force against a student on March 20, 1989. The letter directed Respondent to refrain from the use of threatening behavior and physical force against students. Attendance And Inadequate Supervision During the 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 school years, Respondent sometimes failed to properly supervise students in his class. Respondent was late to class a few times. A few times, he left the school campus prior to the end of the school day without permission. Respondent failed to let other school employees know that he would not be at school. However, his attendance record neither adversely affected his teaching effectiveness nor impaired his relationship with his colleagues or students. On February 14, 1990, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District. The District reprimanded Respondent for leaving the school campus without permission from the principal, not adequately supervising his students on one occasion, and for acting in a threatening or intimidating manner toward the principal when confronted about Respondent's supervision of his students. Transfer To Vo-Tech On August 21, 1990, Respondent was removed from his classroom duties at Hungerford and placed on relief of duty status with full pay and benefits. The District took the action as a result of allegations of inappropriate discipline, leaving students unsupervised, and insubordination. Respondent was subsequently transferred to Orlando Vocational and Technical School. Respondent continues to enjoy wide respect as a teacher from parents, other teachers, and community leaders. As Dean of Students, Respondent currently holds a responsible position of employment with the District. Respondent functions effectively in that position. Deferred Prosecution Agreement On October 8, 1991, Respondent and Petitioner entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. On or before October 8, 1992, Respondent agreed to successfully complete college courses in Assertive Discipline, Classroom Management, and Methods of Teaching Elementary Physical Education. Respondent further agreed to provide written verification that Respondent completed the required courses. Respondent failed to complete the required courses in a timely manner. Although Respondent ultimately completed the required courses, he had not supplied Petitioner with written verification as of the date of the formal hearing. If Respondent had timely complied with the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, this proceeding would not have been instituted. Respondent believed in good faith that his transfer out of the classroom to his position as Dean of Students made the courses on classroom techniques unnecessary. Respondent was notified in 1993 that he was in violation of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Respondent promptly enrolled in the required classes and completed them. Respondent has now complied with all of the conditions of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the charge that he failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their learning and not guilty of the remaining charges in the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Commission issue a letter of reprimand to Respondent and, pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(c), impose an administrative fine not to exceed $750. RECOMMENDED this 22d day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 22d day of November, 1994.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be assessed sales and use tax as set forth in the Notice of Reconsideration dated April 13, 2007.
Findings Of Fact On April 13, 2007, the Department issued a Notice of Reconsideration to Total Health and summarized the relevant facts of the case, which it stated was based on information from the audit file, correspondence from Total Health and other available information. In its Petition for Formal Protest under Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, Total Health stated that the facts are not in dispute and agreed to the facts as summarized by the Department in the Notice of Reconsideration. Those facts are set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 below. Total Health is a private health and fitness club in Tampa, Florida. Total Health charges its members $30 per month for unlimited use of the club. Members of the club are only allowed to meet approved personal trainers at the club. Personal trainers are not allowed on the club’s premises without the club’s express approval. Approved personal trainers contract with Total Health and are provided the following rights. The trainers have the right to use the club’s facility to perform training services. Total Health designates the trainers as approved personal trainers. Total Health controls all aspects of the trainers’ access to members. Trainers have access to the club’s membership list; however, the trainers must be introduced to prospective clients by Total Health. Total Health is required to promote the trainers’ services to the members. The trainers are given an exclusive license (or franchise) to use the club’s tradename, logos and business systems (membership list). Total Health entered into oral contracts with individual personal trainers, who acted as independent contractors. In these contracts, Total Health splits the fees that are billed to club members for the services of the personal trainers. Total Health also entered into a written contract with a corporation, Body Design, which provides the personal trainers. Body Design pays a fixed fee per month to Total Health. The contract with Body Design was referenced in the Notice of Reconsideration, but the contract was not entered into evidence. The personal trainers have access to the workout areas with the exception of the aerobics area and child care areas. Personal trainers may train members at Total Health, but may also train members at the members’ homes. In the case of the individual independent contractors, the trainers are on the “honor system” about splitting fees that they receive from the members trained in the members’ homes. The Department assessed a tax of $20,952.46 for the period of October 10, 2001, through September 30, 2004, plus interest. As of April 13, 2007, the tax and interest amounted to $28,460.90.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing a tax against $30 per month per trainer for the period of the audit and assessing interest based on the recalculated amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 30th day of November, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Philip James Chase, II, was employed under a continuing contract as a classroom teacher at Dunedin High School (DHS) in Dunedin, Florida. The school is under the jurisdiction of petitioner, School Board of Pinellas County (Board). During school year 1990- 91, respondent was a physical education and driver's education teacher and also served as wrestling coach. He has been an employee of the Board since 1975 and a teacher since 1971. The facts underlying this controversy are relatively simple. On December 18, 1990, respondent was seated at his desk in the DHS physical education office talking to two students. At the same time, several other students were in line to weigh themselves on a weight scale which was located a few feet from respondent's desk. After one student had jumped on the scale, respondent, without looking up, said to the students still in line, "on the scale gently, please". The next student in line, Derek Carson, ignored respondent's instructions and jumped on the scale causing a loud banging noise. Respondent rose out of his chair and at the same time gently swung his foot and hit Carson's buttocks. He also told Carson, "I told you gently, please." Carson immediately launched into a tirade of verbal obscenities at the top of his voice against respondent. Realizing that Carson was obviously upset, respondent initially ignored the remarks, but after the verbal abuse continued, he told Carson that he (Carson) ought to try to talk to him in that manner "on the street". Carson then departed. At no time did Chase become upset or lose his composure during the incident, and he drew praise for his cool demeanor from his department chairman who was an eyewitness to the incident. There is no competent evidence that Carson "reasonably interpreted" respondent's remarks as "fighting words" as charged in the suspension letter. 1/ Since the incident occurred in the presence of a number of students and two members of the faculty, it may be reasonably inferred from the evidence that Carson was embarrassed by the incident. The student then reported the incident to the principal, John McLay, who investigated the matter and initially concluded that respondent should be given a written reprimand. However, after McLay learned that Carson's grandparents (guardians) had filed a complaint with the Board, he turned the matter over to the Board for further action rather than handling it at the local school level. Because the Board's superintendent has proposed to increase the severity of the penalty from a reprimand to a three day suspension, Chase has requested this hearing. 2/ According to McLay, the faculty is given specific training at the beginning of each school year on how to resolve conflicts of this nature and is warned that a student may react negatively to physical discipline. He added that a teacher should never place his hands on a student for any reason unless the teacher is in fear of bodily harm or is trying to break up a disturbance among students. McLay also placed importance on how the student perceived the actions of the teacher. In other words, if the student perceived a light tap from the teacher as being deliberate or malicious when in fact the teacher was only kidding, McLay felt the action by the teacher would probably be unjustified. He agreed, however, that other factors, besides the student's perception of the incident, were also relevant to a final determination. McLay also emphasized the importance of teachers maintaining a good rapport with a student's parents since the education of the child required their cooperation. Further, the Board's director of personnel services, Steven Crosby, established that the incident undermined the parents' confidence in respondent. He characterized the action of respondent as "poor judgment" and one which diminished his effectiveness as a teacher. This testimony on the issue of teacher effectiveness is accepted as being more credible than that offered by a student and fellow teacher who testified on respondent's behalf. Crosby added that simply because Chase was a coach who worked in a more informal atmosphere than did other teachers did not excuse his conduct. Crosby noted that school policy generally calls for a three day suspension without pay for a teacher "who has struck a student". Although Chase had previously been given a reprimand for using poor judgment in 1988, Crosby felt that such a penalty was especially appropriate here without regard to the previous reprimand because Chase "had lashed out at a student, physically, out of frustration or during a time of upset." However, as noted in a prior finding, Chase did not tap the student on his buttocks out of anger or because of frustration. Two witnesses to the incident described the kick to Carson's buttocks as having insufficient force to cause any injury to the student. This was not credibly contradicted. Further, one witness characterized the kick as actually being a "tap" while the other stated he was under the impression respondent was kidding when he swung his foot towards the student. Respondent added that the kick was intended to be "negative reinforcement" after his verbal instructions were ignored. He now agrees that it was a mistake to touch the student in that manner and recognizes that he violated school policy. Other than the reprimand in 1988, respondent has an unblemished tenure with the school system. The Board has adopted a Code of Student Conduct (Code) which prescribes the type of disciplinary action permitted to be taken by school personnel against students. Section (7)(a) of the Code provides as follows: (7) DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND PROCEDURES: (a) TYPES OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION PERMITTED The following types of disciplinary action may be considered. 4. Corporal Punishment: For purposes of this code, corporal punishment shall refer to physical punishment (as) opposed to other forms of punishment. The use of corporal punishment is not permitted as a type of disciplinary action. (emphasis added) Thus, corporal punishment of any form is prohibited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of misconduct in office and that he be given a written reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner's request for licensure by endorsement as a physical therapist pursuant to Sections 486.031 or 486.081, Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B17- (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated. All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact It is uncontroverted that Petitioner is 48 years old and of good moral character within the meaning of Section 486.031(1) and (2). Petitioner has been a resident of Florida for 34 years. He is licensed in Florida as a chiropractor and is a graduate of a four-year degree program at Palmer College of Chiropractic ("Palmer College"). Petitioner is board certified as a chiropractor orthopedist and as a chiropractic neurologist. Both board certifications required additional training after graduation from Palmer College. In June 1995, Petitioner attended the University of Health Sciences Antigua School of Allied Health Professionals and received a Bachelor of Science in Physical Therapy from that institution in August 1996. Petitioner traveled to the University of Antigua eight times in two years for education sessions. Each session lasted approximately two weeks. In addition to the hours Petitioner spent at the University of Antigua, Petitioner spent approximately 1,200 hours during an eight-month period at a physical therapy facility associated with the hospital in Antigua. In addition, Petitioner spent approximately 650 hours interning at the Spinal Rehabilitation Institute in Titusville, Florida. The University of Antigua required Petitioner to complete the 1,200 hours at the physical therapy facility and the 650 hours as an intern as part of its educational program. After obtaining a degree in physical therapy from the University of Antigua, Petitioner applied to the State of Colorado to take an examination prepared under the auspices of Profession Examination Services ("PES"). Colorado evaluated Petitioner's education and allowed Petitioner to take the PES exam. Petitioner passed the PES exam and has been licensed as a physical therapist in Colorado since April 11, 1997. On February 9, 1999, Petitioner applied to the State of Florida for a license as a physical therapist. Petitioner received and relied upon application materials provided by Respondent. In particular, Petitioner utilized Respondent's "List of Currently Qualified Credentialing Agencies" to select the International Education Research Foundation (the "Foundation") to evaluate Petitioner's foreign education. The Foundation is the appropriate agency identified by the Board, within the meaning of Section 486.031(3)(b), to determine whether Petitioner has educational credentials equivalent to those required for the educational preparation of physical therapists in the United States. The Foundation gave Petitioner credit for 60 semester hours of physical therapy education including six clinical hours. The Foundation determined that Petitioner has the U.S. equivalent of a Bachelor of Science in Physical Therapy (non-traditional program awarded by nonaccredited colleges and universities). The Foundation prepared its evaluation: . . . in accordance with guidelines developed by several state licensing boards and was completed in close collaboration with a physical therapy consultant. Records from the institution attended showing coursework completed, hours of study and grades earned, were used as the basis for this report. Joint Exhibit 1 at 399. The Board denied Petitioner's application for the following reasons: The applicant does not meet the requirements of Sections 486.031(3)(b) or 486.081(1) . . . and Rules 64B17-3.001(3) and (4) or 64B17- 3.003 . . . in that the applicant does not possess credentials that are deemed equivalent to a bachelor's degree in physical therapy in the United States. At best the applicant's training is a six week lecture series that would constitute a continuing education course. It is not the length and content of a CAPTE approved bachelors or masters in science program in physical therapy that would be the bulk of the final year of training. Denial Order at 1. The actual basis for Respondent's denial has little to do with factual disputes concerning Petitioner's educational hours. As Respondent admits in its PRO: While there may be some factual disputes about Petitioner's educational hours, both in modules and clinical time, these are not really material facts for the [ALJ] to resolve. The real issue is the legal interpretation of . . . Sections 486.031 and 486.081. . . . Respondent's PRO at 5. The findings in paragraphs 12-15 of Respondent's PRO are not material to the real issue concerning the interpretation of Sections 486.031 and 486.081. Respondent does not approve the physical therapy program at the University of Antigua for the educational preparation of physical therapists within the meaning of Section 486.031(3)(a). The record does not show whether the United States Department of Education approves the program. Petitioner has received a diploma from a program in a foreign country within the meaning of Section 486.031(3)(b). The Foundation, as the appropriate agency identified by the Board, has determined that Petitioner possesses educational credentials required for the educational preparation of physical therapists in this country. Petitioner passed the Colorado PES exam in 1997. Petitioner passed a national examination approved by the Board to determine Petitioner's fitness to practice as a physical therapist within the meaning of Section 486.031(3)(a) and (b). Petitioner is entitled to licensure in Florida without examination, pursuant to Section 486.031(3)(c), as provided in Section 486.081. Petitioner passed the PES exam in 1997. The written examination taken by Petitioner for licensure in Colorado was an examination prepared under the auspices of the Professional Examination Services within the meaning of Rule 64B17-3.003. Respondent has long construed applicable Florida Statutes to require an applicant for licensure without examination to pass the requisite national examination and to meet those educational requirements approved by the Commission on Accreditation for Physical Therapy ("CAPTE") in accordance with the requirements of Section 486.031(3)(a). Respondent's legal interpretation of applicable statutes and rules is a legal interpretation rather than a matter within the ambit of agency expertise.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for a license in Florida as a physical therapist pursuant to Sections 486.031(3)(b), 486.031(3)(c), and 486.081. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2000, 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 13th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Physical Therapy Practice Department of Health Division of Medical Quality Assurance Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capitol Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Ann Cocheu, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Administrative Law Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire 1342 Timberlane Road, Suite 101A Tallahassee, Florida 32312-1775
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Ms. Nalda, a foreign trained applicant for licensure as a physical therapist by examination, has proven that she is eligible to sit for the licensure examination required by Section 486.031(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1935). In its preliminary action, the Board had indicated that Ms. Nalda has not presented evidence of educational credentials which are "deemed equivalent to a bachelor's degree in physical therapy in the United States" as required by Rule 21M-7.020, Florida Administrative Code (1966).
Findings Of Fact Ms. Nalda received her educational preparation in physical therapy in Bogota, Colombia. When she submitted her application for licensure by examination as a physical therapist, she also submitted an evaluation of her educational preparation in physical therapy performed by the International Education Research Foundation, Inc., dated December 5, 1983. It states in pertinent part: The Diploma is recognized as equivalent to a valid bachelor's degree in the United States. When Petitioner was first certified for examination by the Physical Therapy Council, the Council had misunderstood the meaning of the letters of evaluation it received from the International Education Research Foundation, Inc., such as the one quoted above. The letter did not state that the educational preparation under review was equivalent to a valid bachelor's degree in physical therapy in the United States, but the Council treated it that way. Due to this misunderstanding, the Council permitted Ms. Nalda to sit for the physical therapy examination three times, each of which she failed. The fourth time she applied for examination, she was denied the opportunity to be examined because the Council realized her educational credentials were not deemed equivalent to a valid bachelor's degree in physical therapy in the United States. Ms. Nalda requested a second evaluation from International Education Research Foundation, Inc., as well as an evaluation from another agency, International Consultants of Delaware, Inc. The Physical Therapy Council reviewed both of them. Neither evaluation deemed Petitioner's credentials to be equivalent to a valid bachelor's degree in physical therapy in the United States, and both identified specific deficiencies in her educational preparation. The September 24, 1986 evaluation of International Consultants of Delaware, Inc., states that Ms. Nalda lacks ten semester credits in humanities and two semester credits in natural sciences. A transcript from Miami Dade Community College dated May 6, 1967 (admitted into evidence without objection), shows that Ms. Nalda has completed three semester hours in English writing, twelve semester hours in elementary and intermediate Spanish, and three hours in general education biology. Ms. Nalda experienced significant delays in receiving communications from the office of the Physical Therapy Council, which caused her to make numerous telephone calls to the office to determine the status of her applications. Ultimately, she engaged an attorney to assist her in the licensure process. During the period from the date of her first application for licensure through the date of the hearing, Ms. Nalda submitted at least four applications for licensure. Those documents hear different last names and at least four different addresses. At no time did Ms. Nalda notify the Board that she had changed her address. The applications were treated as separate applications from different people. Although there were valid reasons for the different names appearing on Ms. Nalda's applications, due to her divorce and remarriage, the various forms of her name, the number of applications and the many addresses contributed to confusion on the part of the Board of Medical Examiners, Physical Therapy Council, and accounts for the difficulty she encountered in determining the status of her applications.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the licensure application of Myriam Nalda to sit for the licensure examination be GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 86-2966 The following constitute my rulings on the proposed findings of the parties as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner The Petitioner's proposal is in narrative form, not in the form of Proposed Findings of Fact. I have generally accepted the proposals that evaluations of Ms. Nalda's educational credentials have been performed by the agencies identified in Rule 21M-7.020(3)(a) and (b), and that she has completed course work prescribed by an evaluation agency to render her degree equivalent to a bachelor's degree in physical therapy. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Myriam Lucia Nalda Van B. Poole, Secretary 9115 Southwest 150th Ave Department of Professional Miami, Florida 33196 Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Patricia V. Russo, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Department of Professional Regulation Ms. Dorothy Faircloth 130 North Monroe Street Executive Director Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Department of Professional Regulation Marcelle Flannigan, Director Board of Medicine Physical Therapy Council 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent, Barry James Rose, was employed in the public schools of Okaloosa County, and worked on a continuing contract as a physical education teacher at Addie R. Lewis Junior High School. The Respondent began teaching at Addie R. Lewis Junior High School during the 1972-1973 school year, and has continued in that capacity up until the date of the hearing in this cause. During the Respondent's entire tenure at this school, Wayne McSheehy, has served as Principal. During this time, the Respondent's principal responsibility was to teach physical education, although he also taught science classes during the 1976-1977 school year and during the 1977-1978 school year. Prior to the 1976-1977 school year, Respondent also coached several sports at the school. During the time that Respondent taught at Addie R. Lewis Junior High School, his wife, Barbara Rose, also taught girls' physical education at that school. During the 1976-1977 school year, Mr. and Mrs. Rose "team taught" during third and fourth periods, and were usually in communication during Respondent's sixth period class. Mrs. Rose's office was located in the girls' physical education locker room, where all physical education equipment for both boys' and girls' classes was kept, along with some of the Respondent's personal belongings. At the beginning of the 1976-1977 school year, Respondent requested and was assigned a teacher aide named Pam Skinner who served as the Respondent's aide throughout the school year. In addition, Miss Skinner knew Mr. and Mrs. Rose outside the school environment in that she lived near the Roses and occasionally baby-say for them. During the 1976-1977 school year Respondent instructed Cynthia Straley and Sherri Wiley in their second period physical education class. Respondent was not these students' assigned instructor for the second period class, and was present in that second period class only during a three-week segment in the spring of 1977. In addition, Respondent instructed Tracy Lynn Scott and Renee Green in their fifth period physical education class during the 1976-1977 school year. The allegations against Respondent are contained in five paragraphs in the Petition for the revocation of teacher's certificate filed by the PPC. For purposes of clarity, the issues raised in these five paragraphs will be dealt with separately. In paragraph one of the Petition, the PPC alleges that during the 1976- 1977 school year the Respondent ". . . was guilty of improper conduct toward a female student by pinching her buttocks, hugging her and placing his hands inappropriately upon her body." There is no testimony in the record that Respondent at any time hugged a female student in any of his classes, and, therefore, it is found that there is no evidence to support that portion of the charge contained in paragraph one. In addition, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that Respondent ever pinched any of his students on the buttocks as contended in paragraph one of the Petition. Respondent categorically denies this charge, and the only student testifying that Respondent ever pinched her indicated that this conduct occurred in class throughout the 1976-1977 school year when, in fact, Respondent taught this student's class only during one three-week period in the Spring of 1977. In addition, there was no other testimony to corroborate the student's assertion that Respondent ever pinched her. The last portion of the charge contained in paragraph one of the Petition relates to Respondent having placed his hands "inappropriately upon the body" of the same student whose buttocks he allegedly pinched. The record is clear that this alleged conduct occurred on only one occasion, and that the alleged touching occurred in the context of the performance of an advanced gymnastic exercise. These exercises were optional with the students involved, and were totally voluntary. The student involved did not report the incident to other teachers, in spite of the fact that at least two female teachers were involved in the same class, nor did she report the incident to administrators at the school until the beginning of the following school year. The student's parent, when told of the incident, did not consider it sufficiently serious to bring to the attention of school personnel. The student involved elected to continue the class under the Respondent's guidance, notwithstanding the alleged occurrence. Finally, the record reflects that the conduct alleged in this portion of the charge was acceptable from a teaching standpoint in the context in which it occurred. Consequently, there is insufficient testimony in the record to establish that any alleged touching by Respondent of the student in question was "inappropriate." Paragraph two of the Petition alleged that during the 1976-1977 school year Respondent ". . . made disparaging remarks of a sexual nature to one or more students in his classes." The remark in question is alleged to have been made to Renee Green, a student in Respondent's fifth period physical education class. There is a direct conflict in the testimony with regard to the content of the alleged remark. In her deposition, Miss Green contends that while she was rolling a plastic pipe on the floor during one of Respondent's classes, Respondent said to her: "What are you doing, Renee, trying to get your cheap thrills? I wonder what you do on weekends." Miss Green testified that although the remark upset her, she was not sure why it had that effect on her. Other testimony in the record confirms that the first sentence of the alleged remark was made, but that the second was not. Additionally, Respondent testified that the entire content of his remark was: "Renee, what are you doing, getting cheap thrill." There is no objective evidence in the record on which to base a conclusion that the alleged remark, whether made as asserted by Miss Green or Respondent, was either disparaging or of a sexual nature. Accordingly, the charge contained in paragraph two of the Petition is not supported by competent substantial evidence. In paragraph three of the Petition, the PPC alleges that during the 1976-1977 school year, Respondent ". . . patted and slapped girls on the buttocks in the presence of other students." Respondent admits having patted only one student, Pam Skinner, on the buttocks after the successful completion of a gymnastics exercise. Miss Skinner testified that she took the gesture to be one of commendation and approval of her having successfully completed an exercise on which she had been working for some time. Respondent denies having patted any other students on the buttocks and his contention is supported by virtually all other instructional personnel at the school who had an opportunity to observe the Respondent during the course of his instruction of students in his classes. Notwithstanding this fact, other students who alleged that Respondent had patted them on the buttocks admitted that the patting took place in the context of physical education instruction, and indicated to them only that they should proceed with their activities in accordance with instructions given them by Respondent. The record is totally devoid of any indication that any of the participants considered patting on the buttocks in this context to have been inappropriate. In fact, none of the students involved were sufficiently offended by the alleged conduct to bring it to the attention of school personnel until the following year. In addition, all of the students continued in the Respondent's classes with no apparent ill effects. In paragraph four of the Petition, the PPC alleges that during the 1976-1977 school year, Respondent ". . . entered the girls' locker room where females were dressing without first announcing his intentions to enter the dressing area." There is insufficient evidence in the record on which to base a conclusion that Respondent ever entered the girls' locker room unannounced while female students were in a state of undress. In fact, there is no evidence that Respondent ever entered the girls' locker room unannounced, and only one student testified that Respondent entered the locker room while female students were dressing. The Respondent denies the allegation, and his contentions are substantiated by each of the physical education instructors working with him who were in a position to observe his conduct in this regard. The record is clear that Respondent on occasion had to enter the girls' locker room to obtain equipment to conduct his classes, but that he utilized his teacher aide, Pam Skinner, to insure that no female students were in a state of undress prior to his entrance. It is, therefore, specifically found that Respondent at no time entered the girls' locker room where females were dressing without first announcing his intentions to do so, and that, therefore, there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations of paragraph four of the Petition. In paragraph five of the Petition the PPC alleges that during the 1976-1977 school year, the Respondent ". . . and a female student were alone on one or more occasions in the girls' locker room for an extended period of time with the locker room door closed." Respondent would often enter the girls' locker room, accompanied by his teacher aide, Pam Skinner. Their purpose in entering the locker room was to retrieve girls' physical education equipment which was used by Respondent in instructing his classes. In most instances when Respondent and Miss Skinner entered the girls' locker room, the Respondent's wife, who maintained an office inside the girls' locker was present. The Respondent had specifically asked for assignment of a teacher aide to his classes during the 1976-1977 school year to enable him to remove the equipment from the girls' locker room with a minimum of inconvenience and embarrassment to either himself or his female students. There is no evidence in the record to indicate that Respondent's conduct while in the girls' locker room with his teacher aide, Miss Skinner, was at all improper, and, in fact, the only finding possible from this record is that their visits to the locker room were solely for the purpose of obtaining equipment for the proper instruction of his classes. Accordingly, it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence of record to sustain the charge contained in paragraph five of the Petition. None of the alleged incidents contained in the Petition were considered by the students, their parents, or school administrative personnel to be of sufficient severity to be brought to Respondent's attention during the 1976-1977 school year, despite the fact that several of these alleged incidents were brought to the attention of both parents of the students involved and to school administration personnel It was not until the beginning of the 1977-1978 school year that the school administration decided to investigate these allegations further. Even then, the school principal indicated that he did not consider the allegations of sufficient severity for further disciplinary action until Respondent insisted on obtaining the identities of those persons making the allegations. Even after the allegations were investigated, none of the parents involved requested that their students not be instructed by Respondent during the 1977-1978 school year, and the school principal indicated to the parents that they need not be concerned about their children continuing to be taught by Respondent. In fact, Respondent has, since the allegations occurred, instructed these same female students in subsequent classes, with no apparent ill effect. In addition, during the 1977-1978 school year Respondent was selected as runner up for Teacher of the Year in the same school at which the alleged incidents occurred. Therefore, it clearly appears for the record that, given the fact that neither the parents involved nor school administrative personnel felt it necessary to remove any of the involved female students from Respondent's classes, together with Respondent's performance as a teacher in the school during the 1977-1978 school year, Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school system has not been affected by the alleged occurrences.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Complaint against Respondent, Barry James Rose. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Mailing Address: Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Suite 224 110 North Magnolia Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard H. Frank, Esquire John J. Chamblee, Jr., Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
