Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated October 1, 1980, Respondent, David K. Witherspoon, and his parents were advised by the Pinellas County Superintendent of Schools, Gus Sakkis, that he was being suspended from the public schools of Pinellas County for the remainder of the 1980/81 and 1981/82 school years based on an allegation that Respondent committed a battery while on school grounds on September 19, 1980, following a high school football game. (Joint Exhibit 1) Respondent is scheduled to graduate from high school at the end of the 1981/82 school year. Following the expulsion, Respondent has been assigned and is attending an evening alternative education school program sponsored by the Pinellas County School System. According to testimony, that a system provides two hours of instruction each week day evening. Respondent appealed the Superintendent's expulsion and the parties stipulated that the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to resolve this controversy. According to the Code of Student Conduct, students are expected to conduct themselves at all times in a manner that "shall [not] infringe on the rights of others. A battery, according to the Code of Student Conduct, is the unlawful, intentional touching . . . or force to another person, done in a rude, insolent and angry manner shall subject a student to disciplinary action which may include suspension or expulsion from school." Paragraph 3(a)2, Code of Student Conduct. The material allegations of this controversy are that following the football game at Gibbs Senior High School (Gibbs) on September 19, 1980, Respondent while in the company of four other black males struck Anthony Scott Taylor, a seventeen year old senior at Gibbs, his mother and his fiancee in the school's parking lot. Anthony Taylor charged that Respondent kicked him across his eye; struck him with his fist, bruising his nose and caused his eye to bleed. Taylor has know Respondent for more than two years and has had no prior run-ins or altercations with Respondent. Taylor alleges that approximately 20 or more black students encircled him during the altercation with Respondent. Taylor, while on his knees in a slouched position when he was allegedly hit an kicked by Respondent, glanced up to identify Respondent. Taylor admitted that he was preoccupied with ensuring that his fiancee and mother could leave the parking area without difficulty. He also commented that blood was streaming from his right eye from the blow he received. Ann Taylor, Anthony Taylor's mother, was also struck by a black male as she was leaving the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Mrs. Taylor testified that her son was knocked down he (Anthony) told one of the black males "that's my mother you knocked down." Mrs. Taylor testified that she was unable to identify any of the students involved in the altercation and noted that her son was dazed when he left the area where the fight occurred. Lori Bush, Respondent's fiancee, also accompanied the Taylors following the football game. Ms. Bush also could not identify any of the students involved in the altercation with them. Ms. Bush and Anthony Taylor's mother picked him up and carried him to their car. Ms. Bush did not recall having seen Respondent prior to the hearing in this cause. Paula Sitzelberger, a detective with the St. Petersburg Police Department investigated the subject incident which occurred at Gibbs on September 19, 1980. Detective Sitzelberger spoke to Respondent at school on September 23, 1980, and after questioning him, reported that Respondent denied striking Anthony Taylor following the game. Detective Sitzelberger noted that Respondent admitted to having shoved another white male whose identity is unknown in another area of the parking lot after the white male allegedly pulled or struck Respondent. Detective Sitzelberger was unable to locate any independent witnesses to the subject incident. Jerry Young, a witness called on behalf of Respondent, recalled the numerous fights which occurred following the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Young followed Respondent throughout the school ground area and denied that Respondent had any involvement in the subject incident. He corroborated Respondent's testimony to the effect that Respondent's hand was injured in another incident in another area of the school's parking area after Respondent was first enmeshed in an altercation with another white male. Respondent related the incident following the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Respondent has been attending evening sessions at Mirror Lake Adult High School since his expulsion from the regular public schools of Pinellas County. According to Respondent, Tony Taylor was struck by a group of other blacks and Respondent denied any involvement on his part in that incident. Respondent surmised that Tony Taylor shouted that he recognized him while he was being struck in an effort to gain some sympathy from the group that was striking him. Respondent, after hearing Tony Taylor shouted that he recognized him while he was being struck in an effort to gain some sympathy from the group that was striking him. Respondent, after hearing Tony Taylor repeatedly shout that he knew him, left the area with companion Young although he got involved in another altercation with another white male which resulted in an injury to his hand. Respondent first became aware of his alleged involvement in the Anthony Taylor incident the following Monday when he was questioned by Dean Jones and Detective Sitzelberger. 2/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be reinstated in the Pinellas County School System; that the suspension be revoked and that the student be permitted to make up the school work missed as provided in Chapter 4(b)1(h) of the Code of Student Conduct adopted by the Pinellas County School System. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1981.
The Issue Did Respondent, CTI Resource Management Services, discriminate against Petitioner on account of her race, in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Ms. Ferguson worked for CTI as an enterprise application support (EAS) customer service representative (CSR) at the company’s corporate headquarters in Jacksonville, Florida. She was hired on June 18, 2012. CTI is a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business. The company operates as a government contractor and provides support for information technology, logistics, staff augmentation, and administrative support primarily for government customers. CTI has been in business since March 2003. At all times relevant to this case, CTI has maintained a Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation Policy, prohibiting all forms of unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The policy states in part as follows: Conduct that interferes with CTI, or an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment is prohibited. CTI will not tolerate any attempts of retaliation against an employee who raises a sincere and valid concern that this policy has been violated. CTI takes all allegations of discrimination, harassment and retaliation very seriously and is firmly committed to ensuring a workplace free of discriminatory activities. Anyone engaging in discrimination, harassment, or retaliation is subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination. (Respondent’s Ex. 2) Ms. Ferguson was familiar with this policy and received annual training on it. In fact, in 2015, she made a perfect score of 100 on her discrimination policy training. Ms. Ferguson reported to her team leader, Sarah McKibben. Ms. McKibben, in turn, reported to the administrative director and program manager, Wendy Marsh. Ms. Marsh reported to CTI’s executive vice president and chief operating officer, Chris Getz. Mr. Getz reported directly to CTI’s chief executive officer, Chris Imbach. CTI also employed a director of Human Resources, Robin Norton. Ms. Norton has been employed in this position for approximately six years and has over 20 years of experience in the field of human resources. Iris Maldonado Borges was employed as a coworker on Ms. Ferguson’s Team, and, in fact, occupied the cubicle immediately adjacent to Ms. Ferguson. Ms. Borges is Hispanic. On Thursday, September 9, 2015, Ms. Marsh advised Ms. Norton that Ms. Borges was resigning from her employment. This surprised Ms. Norton, since Ms. Borges recently had sought a promotion within the company, and, in the process, had advised Ms. Norton how much she loved working for CTI. Accordingly, Ms. Norton asked Ms. Borges to come to her office to talk about her resignation. When Ms. Borges reported to Ms. Norton’s office, Ms. Borges initially did not want to talk about the reasons for her resignation, simply saying that she was resigning “for personal reasons.” When pressed further, Ms. Borges said that she did not want to “get anyone in trouble” and started crying. She also stated that she was afraid of retaliation. When she was assured that CTI had a policy against retaliation, she finally talked about four separate incidents that she had experienced in the workplace. The first incident related by Ms. Borges involved mean and hurtful comments and gossip about Team Leader McKibben and another employee, Veronica Smoot, allegedly being in a lesbian relationship. According to Ms. Borges, Ms. Ferguson and another coworker, Phylisia Knowles, were the ones making the “loudest comments.” This was upsetting to Ms. Borges since both Ms. McKibben and Ms. Smoot were friends. The second incident also involved Ms. Knowles. Ms. Borges said that Ms. Knowles was “very mean” to her, would not speak to her, and during a team meeting, she had “shot her a bird.” The third incident occurred during the employee “crazy hat day.” According to Ms. Borges, she, Ms. Knowles (African- American), and Ms. Ferguson were posing for a picture, when another employee, who was Caucasian, attempted to join the picture. Ms. Ferguson then allegedly told the employee, “no, this is a minority picture,” and the employee was not included in the picture. The fourth incident involved alleged gossiping by Ms. Ferguson with another coworker about Ms. Borges allegedly being in a relationship with a male coworker. Ms. Borges overheard the conversation, which upset her because she was married, and she felt like the conversation was very disrespectful to her marriage. After relating the above incidents, Ms. Borges stated that “these things had been building up and that she couldn’t take it anymore” and she wanted to resign. Ms. Norton then asked Ms. Borges to take some time off with pay until the matter could be investigated, which she agreed to do. Ms. Norton conferred with Ms. Marsh and Mr. Getz, and it was determined that Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Knowles would both be interviewed the following Monday, September 14, 2015 (the first day that both were scheduled to be at work). It was also determined that Ms. Borges’ workstation would be moved to a new location that was not immediately adjacent to that of Ms. Ferguson. Both Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Knowles were interviewed the following Monday, September 14, 2015, by Ms. Norton, Mr. Getz, and Ms. Marsh. Ms. Norton initially conducted both interviews, asking a sequence of questions concerning the incidents raised by Ms. Borges. With respect to Ms. Ferguson, she recalled rumors circulating about Ms. McKibben and Ms. Smoot being in a lesbian relationship, but denied participating in them. She could not recall the “this is a minority picture” comment during “crazy hat day,” but stated that it sounded like something she could have said in a joking manner. She denied participating in a conversation about Ms. Borges allegedly being in a relationship with a coworker. Mr. Getz concluded the interviews with both Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Knowles by stating that whether or not they had participated in the incidents and rumors involving coworkers, such conduct did not resonate with CTI’s values and was not to be tolerated. He reiterated that if such conduct happened again, the offending employee would be immediately terminated and he would personally escort him or her out the door. At the conclusion of the interviews, Mr. Getz, Ms. Norton, and Ms. Marsh conferred and it was decided that, aside from the stern warning from Mr. Getz, no further action was to be taken against either Ms. Ferguson or Ms. Knowles. Two days later, on Wednesday, September 16, 2015, Ms. Marsh, Ms. McKibben, and Ms. Borges, who was crying, all came into Ms. Norton’s office. Ms. Borges described an incident that had occurred that morning in the ladies’ room involving Ms. Ferguson. She stated that as she was exiting her stall, Ms. Ferguson was standing there blocking her exit and “fronting” her. When asked what she meant by “fronting” her, Ms. Borges stated that Ms. Ferguson had her chest bowed out, and had a “very mean and intimidating look on [her] face” like she was “going to fight.” While describing the incident, Ms. Borges was very, very upset and crying. She stated that she “had had it . . . that she couldn’t take it anymore and she wanted to resign.” Ms. Norton again asked her to please go home until they had an opportunity to address the situation. Ms. Norton, Ms. Marsh, and Ms. McKibben then contacted Mr. Getz and related to him what Ms. Borges had reported. In discussing the situation, it was determined that they had no reason not to believe Ms. Borges. She had been an excellent employee and was very non-confrontational in her demeanor. There also were no other witnesses to the incident besides Ms. Borges and Ms. Ferguson. Mr. Getz and Ms. Norton also conferred with CTI’s chief executive officer, Chris Imbach. It was decided that the type of intimidating behavior reported by Ms. Borges was not consistent with the company’s values, particularly since it had occurred a mere two days after Mr. Getz had made it “crystal clear” that such conduct would not be tolerated. Accordingly, the decision was made to terminate Ms. Ferguson’s employment. Mr. Getz, Ms. Norton, Ms. Marsh, and Gary Rogers, director of Security, met with Ms. Ferguson that same afternoon. Mr. Getz conducted the meeting, which was “relatively short and to the point.” He advised Ms. Ferguson that she was being terminated for her intimidating behavior in the women’s bathroom, which was found to have created a hostile working environment. Ms. Ferguson was argumentative and tried to interrupt Mr. Getz throughout the meeting. Ms. Ferguson stated that she could not believe that she was being fired for merely “glaring” at a coworker. This statement confirmed to Mr. Getz and Ms. Norton that Ms. Ferguson knew what she had done in the ladies’ room, as Mr. Getz had simply told her that she was being terminated for her “intimidating behavior” in the ladies’ room--no details of the incident were disclosed to her. Ms. Ferguson was provided a written letter of termination at the meeting, confirming the reason for her termination. Mr. Getz made the final decision on termination. There was no persuasive evidence presented at hearing that race played any part in Mr. Getz’s decision. Mr. Getz was a pastor in a local church for 15 years prior to being an executive with CTI. Mr. Getz also has a very racially diverse family. He and his wife adopted four children, one of which is Asian, one is half Caucasian, half Hispanic, and two are African-American. The evidence established that CTI has a racially diverse workforce at its corporate headquarters. In 2015, 21 of its 70 employees, or 30 percent, were African American; five, or seven percent, were Hispanic; and three, or four percent, were Asian. Petitioner presented evidence that an African-American coworker, Jeff Lazenby, had made a complaint of a hostile work environment against his Caucasian supervisor, Adam Highfill, but that Mr. Highfill was not terminated by CTI. The complaint against Mr. Highfill occurred in June 2011, over four years prior to the incident leading to Ms. Ferguson’s termination. Mr. Lazenby’s complaint was investigated by Ms. Norton; Mr. Getz; Mike Vonbalson, senior program manager and Mr. Highfill’s supervisor; and Bob Bearden, also a program manager. It was determined that Mr. Highfill had not created a hostile working environment; rather the two individuals became engaged in a disagreement on the work floor and both were found to have acted inappropriately. Mr. Lazenby and Mr. Highfill were both counseled for their behavior. Further, Mr. Highfill was found to have engaged in poor management practices. He was placed on a 30-day development plan to attempt to improve his management skills. When his management skills did not improve to an acceptable level, Mr. Highfill was demoted to a nonsupervisory position on August 3, 2011, where he remains employed. Ms. Knowles, who is African-American, was not terminated by CTI, because there were no further complaints or incidents involving alleged behavior by her following the company’s interview with her on September 14, 2015. The credible evidence of record established that Ms. Ferguson was terminated for creating a hostile work environment after being specifically advised on September 14, 2015, that any such behavior in the future would result in her termination by the company. There is no credible evidence of record that Ms. Ferguson’s termination was racially motivated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent's Professional Service Contract should be terminated for just cause based on actions constituting misconduct in office within the meaning of Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2004),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Charlotte County Public School System. Art. IX, §4, Fla. Const. and §1001.30, Fla. Stat. Mr. LaGrange began his employment with the Board in 1991. In January 2005, Mr. LaGrange began teaching a new Health Careers and Occupations class at Port Charlotte High School. The class was a vocational educational course for low- functioning students and consisted of about 20 ninth-grade students. A.V., N.M., T.B., S.B., N.H., and B.H. were students in this class. Sometime in either March or April 2005, Mr. LaGrange made an inappropriate remark about A.V.'s appearance. The incident happened near the end of the class, while A.V. was drawing on the board with her back to the students. Mr. LaGrange stated: "Look at A.V.'s cute little ass" or words to that effect. This remark greatly embarrassed A.V. As A.V. was leaving Mr. LaGrange's classroom on the day of the incident, she yelled to Mr. LaGrange that it was a disgusting and perverted comment for him to make in front of the entire class. Other students, including N.M., N.H., T.B., and B.H., heard Mr. LaGrange make the sexually inappropriate remark about A.V. Although each student's recollection of the incident may vary concerning the exact words that Mr. LaGrange used, the students all agreed that Mr. LaGrange made an inappropriate remark about A.V.'s backside in front of the class. Mr. LaGrange also made some inappropriate remarks to N.M. He told her that "If I have a wet dream about you, I won't tell you" or words to that effect. Mr. LaGrange's comments made N.M. feel uncomfortable and caused her to view Mr. LaGrange as "weird." T.B. also heard Mr. LaGrange make comments in class concerning wet dreams. A.M., a female student, would sometimes come into Mr. LaGrange's classroom, kneel beside the desk of S.B., a male student, and watch S.B. draw. S.B. heard Mr. LaGrange comment to A.M. to the effect that she liked to be on her knees for guys a lot. S.B. also heard Mr. LaGrange tell N.M. that "for somebody who is a schoolgirl, you know a lot about sex." S.B. felt that the remarks were perverted. On April 28, 2005, Mr. LaGrange referred A.V. and N.M. to a school dean, Matthew Wheldon, for excessive gum chewing. Gum chewing is a minor infraction and is normally allowed in classrooms other than Mr. LaGrange's class. Mr. Wheldon asked the girls how things were going in Mr. LaGrange's class, and they confided in him about the inappropriate remarks that Mr. LaGrange had been making in the classroom. Mr. Wheldon referred the matter to the assistant principal, and an investigation ensued, resulting in Mr. LaGrange being suspended. After reviewing the investigation report and being made aware of two other times that Mr. LaGrange had been disciplined, the Superintendent of Schools for the School Board of Charlotte County recommended to the Board that Mr. LaGrange be dismissed from his teaching position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the actions of Leonard LaGrange constitute just cause to dismiss him from his employment with the Charlotte County School Board, and terminating his Professional Services Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2006, 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 18th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent committed certain acts alleged by the School Board and, if so whether those acts constitute misconduct in office, immorality, conduct unbecoming a School Board employee and/or employee misconduct, and thereby constitute just cause for the suspension and termination of Respondent's employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the formal hearing in this case, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Monica Chisholm, was employed by Petitioner from 1984 until September 28, 1988, pursuant to several annual contracts. During the 1987-88 school year, while employed as a teacher at Miami Jackson High School, the Respondent was given and accepted the responsibility of a senior class sponsor, which responsibility included coordinating and preparing activities for graduating seniors. Those activities included an activity known as "Grad Nite." In her capacity as a sponsor, the Respondent was charged with the duties of collecting money from students, issuing accurate receipts for the money collected, and depositing the money with the school treasurer. At Miami Jackson Senior High School explicit procedures for the handling and accounting of money were in effect. These procedures required that: (a) money be collected only during specific times and only at specific locations, (b) money be deposited with the school treasurer on a daily basis, and (c) in no event was a sponsor to retain money in excess of $50.00 overnight. These procedures were set forth in the sponsor's handbook, which was distributed to all sponsors. The procedures were also discussed during workshops held twice each year. The Respondent was admittedly aware of these mandatory procedures. Two receipt books were issued to the Respondent for the purpose of accounting for money received from students for "Grad Nite." One receipt book was Series 500; the other was Series 600. In May of 1988, Sophia Jackson, a student who had paid the Respondent $100 towards her participation in "Grad Nite," requested a refund. The Respondent prepared a fraudulent receipt and a check requisition form for Sophia Jackson. The fraudulent receipt was prepared by photocopying, from the 600 series receipt book, the receipt that had been issued to another student, removing the other student's name, and writing the name of Sophia Jackson in place of the other student's name. The Respondent, with intent to deceive, presented the fraudulent receipt copy, along with a written request for a refund, to Ms. Charlotte Wright, the school treasurer. Ms. Wright compared the fraudulent receipt to her copy of the original receipt, noticed the difference in names, and reported the matter to the school principal, Mr. Freddie Woodson. Mr. Woodson confronted the Respondent about the altered receipt. During the course of that confrontation, it became obvious that there were irregularities in the Respondent's handling of student funds. Mr. Woodson then demanded that the Respondent turn in the two receipt books that had been issued to her. At that time the Respondent had with her only the 600 series receipt book, and she had to return to her home to retrieve the 500 series receipt book. Upon review of the two receipt books, Mr. Woodson determined that the Respondent had collected a total of $2,716 that had not been turned in to the school treasurer. The Respondent's initial explanation to Mr. Woodson was that over two thousand dollars had been stolen from her briefcase while she was absent from school due to an injury. Prior to the confrontation with Mr. Woodson, the Respondent had not made any report of a theft from her briefcase, even though she claimed to have discovered it several weeks before the confrontations. Mr. Woodson demanded that the Respondent immediately turn over any remaining money in her possession. The Respondent failed to do so. Instead, she delivered a written statement in which she admitted to having used some of the money collected from students for her own personal use. In fact, the Respondent had misappropriated to her own use all of the $2,716 she had collected and failed to turn in to the school treasurer. Thereafter, a criminal complaint was filed in the State Attorney's Office and the Respondent was charged with grand theft, a felony offense. The suspicious circumstances surrounding the Respondent's failure to account for a substantial sum of money became known to various people in the school, including Ms. Young, Ms. Timson, Mrs. Wright, Officer Covington, and members of the school clerical staff who typed or otherwise handled papers with relevant information. In addition, law enforcement personnel and other school administrators became aware of the facts regarding the Respondent's mishandling of the students' money. The Respondent's misappropriation of funds collected from students and her attempt to obtain a refund through fraudulent means constitute the exploitation of professional relationships with students for personal gain or advantage and also constitute a use of an institutional privilege for personal gain or advantage. Such conduct also impairs the Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school system.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the School Board of Dade County issue a final order in this case terminating the employment of the Respondent as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of May 1989. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-5040 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance, with exception of last sentence. Last sentence is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 6 through 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 12: First two sentences rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary details and in part as unduly repetitious. Last sentence accepted in substance. Paragraphs 13 and 14: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 15: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 16: The substance of the last three lines of this paragraph is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as constituting legal argument or proposed ultimate conclusions of law. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Unnumbered paragraph following paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as not supported by competent substantial details. (The Respondent's testimony regarding the theft of funds is simply unconvincing..) Paragraphs 3 through 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Portion dealing with failure to properly collect and turn in funds is accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 7: Rejected in part as constituting agreement rather than proposed findings and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 370 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 William DuFresne, Esquire 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen B. Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent used racial epithets in two separate incidents at school and, if so, whether Respondent should be dismissed or otherwise disciplined for such conduct.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Superintendent of Schools for the Broward County School Board (the "School Board"). Petitioner is statutorily required to recommend the placement of School Board personnel and to enforce employee compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations. Respondent is employed by the School Board, pursuant to the provisions of a professional services contract. Respondent is an art teacher at Markham Elementary School in Broward County, Florida ("Markham"). Respondent was so employed for the school year 1991-92, but was suspended without pay on or about June 2, 1992. Markham is predominantly African American. It is one of several pilot schools in Broward County, Florida required by the county to provide an African American Infusion Program and a Multi-cultural Department. The program includes a curriculum designed to make children aware of who they are, their background, and current events. Racial tensions exist at Markham between "clicks" in faculty, staff, and students and between faculty and students. The principal at Markham admonished Ms. Randy Laruso and Ms. Mary Washington, as leaders of the faculty clicks, for engaging in such activities. The principal prohibited racially divisive behavior and established a committee, including Ms. Laruso and Ms. Washington, to improve cohesiveness among the faculty. Racial tensions at Markham are so bad that some faculty members are not comfortable with the situation and others, including Ms. Laruso, have transferred. Respondent is an experienced, competent art teacher. Respondent has been a teacher for 23 years. Seventeen of those years have been in Broward County. Respondent spent the last six years teaching in Broward County. Respondent's evaluations for the past six years in Broward County have been satisfactory with no notations that she needed any improvement. Respondent is considered by her principal to be very knowledgeable and competent as a teacher. Respondent was conducting an art class for fifth grade students on December 5, 1991. The class included students from Ms. Mary Washington's fifth grade class as well as three handicapped students from Ms. Rosalyn Samuelsen's class who had recently been mainstreamed. One of the students from Ms. Washington's fifth grade class was Deshanda Henley. Plasticine, a clay that does not harden, was on the floor. Respondent asked Miss Henley to clean up the clay. She refused and asked Respondent "why white people don't like black people." Respondent did not answer but went to the back of the classroom, got a broom and dust pan, handed them to Miss Henley and again asked her to clean up the clay. Miss Henley refused explaining that "you don't make those crackers clean up the clay." When Miss Henley refused Respondent's request again, Respondent said, "The reason white people don't like black people is because they ain't nothing but a bunch of nasty niggers." Miss Henley became angry and called Respondent a "white cracker." The three students from Ms. Washington's class heard the racial epithet used by Respondent. The three students from Ms. Samuelsen's class were at an adjacent table and did not hear the slur. The teacher who was substituting for Ms. Washington on December 5, 1991, gathered Ms. Washington's students when Respondent's class was over. When they were back in Ms. Washington's classroom, Miss Henley reported the racial epithet to the substitute teacher in front of the entire class. There was a discussion among the entire class about the accusation. The substitute teacher sent Miss Henley to the administrative office to report the incident to the principal. Later that day, Miss Henley came to Respondent's class and apologized for calling her a "white cracker." The principal did not hear of the incident until the following Spring. Respondent continued teaching at Markham without incident for the next several months. In January or February, Miss Henley related the incident to Ms. Washington for the first time. Ms. Washington wrote a letter to the principal asking her to come to her class and talk to the students about the allegation that Respondent used a racial epithet in class. The principal went to Ms. Washington's class, listened to the accusations and student concerns, and told them she would look into it. In early March of 1991-92, Mr. Roderick Lester, an interim teacher at Markham that year, was holding a resource class in which he had sixteen or seventeen of Ms. Washington's students. During that class, Miss Henley raised her hand and related the incident to Mr. Lester. Mr. Lester took the students back to their class and informed Ms. Washington of Miss Henley's allegations. Ms. Washington held another discussion with her class regarding the incident. One of the students who heard the racial slur on December 5, 1991, told her parents about the incident for the first time in early March, 1992. When her parents learned that the incident had been reported to the administration on December 5, 1991, and that no action had been taken since then, they were angered. On March 3, 1992, the parents went to Markham to confront Respondent. The student's mother told Respondent that if Respondent used a racial slur again, "I'm going to jack you up." Respondent reported the incident to the front office. The principal was in a meeting off campus. Ms. Laruso was an acting administrator that day. Ms. Laruso called the police and reported the threat. When the principal returned to the campus, she was informed of the day's events. The principal called the parents who had threatened Respondent and asked them to return to the school. Respondent was not invited to meet with the principal or the parents. Nor was she contacted or otherwise advised that the meeting was taking place. The principal never contacted Respondent to ask her version of what happened in the classroom on December 5, 1991. The incident was reported in the local press and created much public attention. The principal contacted the School Board's special investigative unit ("SIU") on March 11, 1992, and requested an investigation into Miss Henley's allegations concerning the incident on December 5, 1991. Sandra Hart, an SIU investigator, conducted the investigation. Respondent was notified that an investigation had been requested concerning the incident on December 5, 1991. The investigation was expanded to include alleged use of racial slurs in front of administrative staff on March 23 and 24, 1992. Respondent was not formally notified until several months later of the additional allegations. By letter dated May 21, 1992, Respondent was suspended from her employment with pay and later suspended without pay. The additional allegations were raised in connection with a demonstration project promised by a representative from the Polaroid Company ("Polaroid") scheduled for March 24, 1992. Respondent was responsible for setting up a class to be put on by the Polaroid representative. Respondent arranged for 50 participants to take the class. For $15, each participant received three continuing education credits and a free Polaroid camera. On the afternoon before the camera class was to begin, Respondent was informed by a telephone call from one of her supervisors that the Polaroid representative would not attend the class unless his round trip air fare was paid. Respondent's supervisor stated that such an arrangement was not financially feasible and instructed Respondent to cancel the class and refund the moneys to the participants. After the telephone conversation, Ms. Lois Davis, the office manager and a registered participant in the cancelled class, asked what happened. Respondent advised Ms. Davis that the camera representative was not going to come. Respondent explained that "he's getting really niggly because he won't pay his plane fare." On March 24, 1992, Respondent was asked by another staff member why the demonstration class had been cancelled. Respondent stated that the Polaroid representative had refused to come unless his air fare was paid. The term "niggle" means to pay too much attention to detail. A "niggler" is one who niggles. Niggle is a word that is commonly used in Britain. Respondent's mother is British. Her husband is Australian. Respondent has visited her family in Britain and Australia on several occasions during the last few years. Respondent frequently uses the terms "niggle", "niggly", or "niggler" at school to describe her teenage daughters to other staff members. Respondent's use of the terms "niggle", "niggler", or "niggly" at Markham impaired her effectiveness in the school system. Such terms have a high probability for creating misunderstanding and ill will in the racially tense environment at Markham and, in fact, had such a result. Racial tensions are high at Markham. Clicks exist between faculty, staff, and students. Racially divisive behavior has been admonished and prohibited by the school's principal. Respondent's explanation is that she chose to use the terms "niggler", niggle", or "niggly" to communicate in such an environment because they are common words in British and Australian society. Respondent's disregard for the potential effect caused by her choice of words in her school environment and the actual misunderstanding caused by that disregard impaired her effectiveness. Respondent's use of the terms "niggler", "niggle", or "niggly" was imprudent in light of Respondent's previous history. Respondent received a written reprimand on August 21, 1990, for an allegation that she used a racial slur in an earlier incident. While other witnesses testified in connection with the investigation leading up to the written reprimand that they heard the racial slur, the student against whom the alleged slur was directed testified that he never heard Respondent use a racial slur against him. The written reprimand notified Respondent that, "Your failure or refusal to abide by this directive could result in disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for your dismissal." Respondent signed the written reprimand without any admission of the alleged wrong doing. Respondent is an experienced teacher with the benefit of a formal education. Respondent has been a teacher for 23 years. Seventeen of those years have been in Broward County. Respondent has ample exposure to the racial diversity of Broward County and previous experience with accusations that she used racial slurs. Respondent should have been more mindful of the audience she was communicating with, more prudent in her choice of words, and more sensitive to the potential for misunderstanding under the circumstances. Respondent's use of the term "nigger" in the classroom on December 5, 1991, is an act of immorality within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2). Respondent's conduct was sufficient and notorious to bring Respondent and the educational profession into public disgrace and disrespect and to impair Respondent's service in the community. Respondent's use of the term "nigger" in the classroom on December 5, 1991, is an act constituting misconduct in office within the meaning of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 4.009(3). Respondent's conduct impairs her effectiveness in the school system. Respondent's use of the term "nigger" in the classroom on December 5, 1991, constitutes gross insubordination or wilful neglect of duties within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(4). Respondent's conduct is an intentional refusal to perform or attend to her duties by failing or refusing to follow the directive in the written reprimand.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent should be found not guilty of the charge of using a racial epithet on March 23 and 24, 1992, and guilty of using a racial epithet on December 5, 1991. Respondent should be suspended without pay from the date she was first suspended without pay through the date of the Final Order to be entered in this proceeding. Respondent should also be required to attend and satisfactorily complete the African American Infusion Program administered through the Multi-cultural Department at Markham or a comparable program of education and rehabilitation designated by Petitioner. Nothing in this Recommended Order shall be construed in a manner that precludes Petitioner from "non-renewing" Respondent's professional service contract in accordance with the applicable collective bargaining agreement. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of February 1993. DANIEL S. 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 19th day of February 1993. APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3552 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-4. Did not cite to the record Accepted in Findings 7. Accepted in Finding 8. Accepted in Finding 12. 8.-9. Did not cite to the record 10. Rejected in Finding 19. 9. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings 7. and 18.-20. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Finding 2. Accepted in Finding 5. 3.-4. Accepted in Finding 7. 5.-6. Accepted in Finding 9. 7.-8. Accepted in Finding 10. Accepted in Finding 11. Irrelevant and immaterial, in part. Accepted in part in Finding 12. Accepted in Finding 13. Accepted in Finding 10. See Finding 14. Accepted in Findings 16.-17. 16.-17. Rejected in Finding 18. Accepted in Finding 19. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 20.-21. Accepted in Findings 20.-22. 22. Rejected as a truism. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Moldof 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Virgil Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 S.W. 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
The Issue Respondent's alleged immorality and misconduct in office on March 29, April 5, 6, 8 & 13, 1976, under Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes, as set forth in letter to Respondent from James E. Maurer, dated June 18, 1976.
Findings Of Fact During the academic year 1975-1976, Respondent was a classroom instructor in science at the Coconut Creek High School, Broward County, Florida. In the fall of 1975, Marcia Vulpis, a 14 year-old student at the school, was assigned to his class. He noticed during the ensuing months that she stared at him frequently which made him somewhat uncomfortable. About December, he spoke to Pamela Quianthy, Attendance Clerk at the school, about Marcia's behavior. Quianthy, who had observed Marcia on several occasions because of her presence in the office as a student aide, agreed that she was a rather strange girl and that she, Quianthy, also felt uncomfortable in her presence. In March, 1976, Marcia came into another class that Respondent was teaching and somewhat hysterically told him that she needed to see him right away. Respondent sensed the urgency in her request and was pleased that she had sought him out since she had seemed somewhat hostile during prior months. They thereafter had a long discussion at his office during which she informed him that a young man who lived next door to her had raped her and that she was bleeding inside. At this time, she also expressed past and present suicidal ideations and thoughts of murdering certain persons. She said that she had not told her mother or the police about the rape and did not wish to do so. He urged her to see a physician about her condition and determined that she was willing to have her 21 year-old aunt take her for such purpose. Respondent asked Quianthy to talk to her concerning the matter and she did so. During this conversation, Marcia told her that she had been raped and had not told anyone about it. Quianthy recommended that she inform her parents and also advised her to see a doctor. The next day the aunt came to the school to take Marcia to a doctor and Respondent sent them to the school dean for necessary permission to leave the grounds. (Testimony of Respondent, Quianthy) During the third week of March, 1976, Marcia, who sat at a desk directly in front of Respondent in his classroom, began writing notes to him during class in which she expressed love for him. On one occasion, after class, she told him that she wanted to go to bed with him. He reprimanded her for her statement. She pursued her request by subsequent notes and he penned some responses thereon advising her to come to his office to talk about it or to call him at home. He was concerned for her welfare and wished to help her. He did not refer her to the school counselor because she refused to talk to anyone else about her problems and he felt capable of providing necessary counseling because of his past experience as a Baptist minister and handling work experience programs in the school system. He made arrangements with Quianthy for her to phone him at his office during Marcia's visits in order that he would have an excuse to leave if necessary because he feared what the student might do on these occasions and wanted some means of leaving gracefully. The meetings in his office were held usually before afternoon classes commenced, and were at the request of Marcia. At one of these meetings, she told him that he was "driving her crazy" and attempted to kiss him. He pushed her away and cautioned her against such demonstrations. On another occasion, she remained after class and kissed him on the cheek, telling him that she loved him. He also admonished her at that time for her conduct. The above-mentioned incidents were the only times when there was physical contact between Respondent and the student. (Testimony of Respondent, Quianthy Petitioner's Exhibits 3-8) Respondent showed Marcia's notes to his wife and they discussed them a number of times. He also showed the notes to Quianthy and Regina Howard, a friend. Mrs. Howard had previously sought out Respohdent to assist her daughter with adolescence problems because she knew of his background as a minister and youth counselor. He discussed Marcia's situation with her and was serious about his concern for the girl. He requested that Howard get in touch with Marcia. She tried to do so several times, but was unable to contact her. (Testimony of Respondent, Ruth Barnett, Howard) During the school Easter vacation in April of 1976, Marcia called Respondent's home and his wife answered the telephone. Marcia asked to speak to "Ronnie" and during a subsequent conversation with Mrs. Barnett, learned that Respondent had shown her notes to his wife. Marcia was quite upset at learning this fact and said, "I'll show him." She also acknowledged to Mrs. Barnett that she had kissed the Respondent in his office and that she would assume the blame for that incident. Respondent attempted to speak with her at this time but she was too upset. The next day her aunt called him and said that Marcia had told her of certain sexual advances that had been made by Respondent. He informed her that this was not true and asked her to have Marcia call him. She did so and they agreed to meet at Fort Lauderdale Beach because she was staying with her father there. They subsequently met at a prearranged place where Respondent picked her up in his car and, after driving around a few minutes looking for a parking space, parked in a vacant motel parking lot. Respondent explained to her that he had retained her notes against her wishes and shown them to others because he did not feel confident to counsel her concerning female problems. There was no physical contact during this meeting. (Testimony of Respondent, Mrs. Barnett) After Easter vacation was concluded, Marcia informed Respondent that her mother had found her diary and that he would have to be careful or she (Marcia) would "put a noose over his head." Her mother, after discovering the "diary" (consisting of several sheets of notebook paper) that contained matters concerning Respondent, took Marcia to their church, Jehovah's Witnesses, where she told the elders of the church about her association with Respondent. Her father, who was divorced from Marcia's mother, was present and heard Marcia relate her alleged experiences with Respondent. He thereafter reported the matter to the authorities at Coconut Creek High School, taking with him one or two pages of Marcia's diary which contained entries for the last week of March. These included references to several of her visits to Respondent's office during which he had purportedly kissed her and fondled her breasts. (Testimony of Respondent, John Vulpis, Petitioner's Exhibit 11) A school investigation ensued during which Marcia initially declined to cooperate, but eventually made a written statement in which she,stated generally that she trusted and respected Respondent, that he was a good man and she did not wish anything to happen to him. Respondent was questioned by school security personnel and he related the two incidents when Marcia had kissed him on one occasion and had attempted to do so on the other. He also told them about the incident at the beach which had not been known to the investigators at the time, and he turned over Marcia's notes to them. Later, Marcia made another written statement in which she said that she and the Respondent had kissed each other three different times in his office and that on at least two occasions, he had put his hands on her breasts inside her blouse and kissed her breasts. Her statement also related that they had kissed one another during the beach incident and that he had kissed her breasts and had put his hands down her pants and that she had touched his "privates." In this statement she also said that he had made certain suggestive statements to her during classes earlier in the school year and that, although she had informed him of a sex experience with a "guy I loved," she had not told him she was raped. (Testimony of Respondent, Stearns, Patterson, Petitioner's Exhibits 9 & 10) Marcia Vulpis testified at the hearing and her version of the relationship with Respondent and their meetings differs in material respects from that of Respondent which is set forth in the foregoing Findings of Fact. She testified that Respondent made several suggestive remarks to her during the school year. She admitted seeking him out to discuss the incident with the boy next door and that he had advised her to see a doctor. She stated that, although she had disliked Respondent at first, she later changed her views and began writing notes to him. She admitted asking him to go to bed with her, but testified that while discussing this request in his office on March 29, 1976, Respondent pulled her in the corner and kissed her. She also testified that during other visits to his office on April 5, 6 & 8, they kissed one another, and Respondent kissed her breasts and touched her on the vagina, and that she touched him on the penis through his trousers. She stated that similar acts occurred during their meeting on the beach in mid-April. After her mother discovered the diary and her father had reported the relationship with Respondent to school authorities, she asked the Respondent what they were going to do and he replied that they were in a lot of trouble. Although conceding that she was upset after discovering that Respondent had showed her notes to his wife and others, she said that she did not tell anyone she would seek revenge for his disclosure. She also conceded that she had taken LSD and "pills" from nine to eleven years of age and had had a few "trips". She testified that she attempted to kill herself when she was ten years old with a needle when she was "freaked out." She further stated that she had thought about suicide a lot of times and that the last time she harbored these thoughts was in early March and that they were prompted by her failure to get along with her mother. Although she had loved Respondent, she decided after the investigation that she loved him no more. (Testimony of Marcia Vulpis) School policy at Coconut Creek High School which is announced to all teachers at the beginning of each school year, is that an upset or disturbed child should be referred by an instructor to the school guidance staff, that included a full-time psychologist. This policy was also contained in a handbook issued to instructional personnel. (Testimony of Weatherred, Roesch, Larson) Respondent is 45 years old and posseses a bachelor of arts degree in theology and linguistics and a masters degree in elementary education. He additionally has completed approximately 90 hours of post-graduate study. He served as a Baptist minister for five years in Lowell, Massachusetts and three years in another pastorate in Newton, New Hampshire. His prior experience includes service as an elementary school principal at Turner Falls, Massachusetts. He entered the teaching profession because of family obligations that required greater remuneration than received in the ministry. He has four children. He entered the Broward County school system in 1970 working with low- achievers at the Pines Middle School in a work experience program for two years. He served one year at Plantation doing the same type of work and in 1974 was transferred to the Coconut Creek High School where he set up a work experience program. He has done extensive work in counseling young people with their problems both as a minister and teacher. Respondent admitted that he had had marital conflicts with his wife in the past and that he had lived alone in Florida for a period of time, but that their marriage relationship was good at the present time. (Testimony of Respondent, Respondent's Exhibits 2, 3) Although denied by Respondent on cross-examination, evidence was received that he had patted two female office employees of the Coconut Creek High School on their posteriors in a "friendly" manner while walking by them in the office, and that he had also ran his finger down the back of their dresses. (Testimony of Ivell, Herter) Respondent was suspended without pay by Petitioner on June 18, 1976 pending final action on the charges involving Marcia Vulpis. (Exhibit l)
Recommendation That the School Board of Broward County, Florida reinstate Ronald R. Barnett as an instructor and restore all back pay and other benefits that have been withheld during the period of his suspension. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1976.
The Issue Whether Delphin J. Acosta, petitioner's preident, is a minority person within the meaning of Section - 288.703(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The petitioner is a Florida corporation and small business within the definition of Subsection 288.703(1), Florida Statutes. Delphin Acosta is the president of the petitioner. He owns at least 51 percent of the company and controls the management and daily operation of the company. If Delphin Acosta is a "minority person," the petitioner meets all the criteria for certification as a minority business enterprise. Mr. Acosta's maternal grandparents were born in Italy and his mother was born in the United States. Mr. Acosta's paternal grandmother was born in the United States and his father was born in the United States. Mr. Acosta's claim to be an Hispanic American, as defined by Section 288.703(3)(b), Florida Statutes, is based on his paternal grandfather, Delpfin Acosta. Mr. Acosta does not know where his paternal grandfather's parents (his great-grandparents) were born. Mr. Acosta's grandfather was born in the Canary Islands in 1889. The Canary Islands are a group of islands in the Atlantic Ocean off the northwestern coast of Africa, comprising two provinces of Spain. The Canary Islands are not part of Mexico, South America, Central America, or the Caribbean. When Mr. Acosta's grandfather was a little oy, his parents either took him or sent him to Cuba. Apparently, Mr. Acosta's great-grandparents traveled back and forth between Cuba and the Canary Islands, and Mr. Acosta's grandfather had siblings that were born in Cuba. Mr. Acosta's grandfather grew up in Cuba and attended school there; however, when Mr. Acosta's grandfather was about 14 years old he left Cuba and went to Key West. In 1910 he moved to Tampa, where Mr. Acosta's father was born. Mr. Acosta's grandfather died in Tampa in 1957. At the time of his death, one of Mr. Acosta's grandfather's sisters still lived in Cuba. Mr. Acosta was born in Tampa in a hospital in Ybor City. Mr. Acosta grew up as part of the pre-Castro Cuban culture in Tampa. When he was six years old, he and his parents went to Cuba to visit relatives who still lived there. Mr. Acosta went to schools in Tampa where the majority of students were of Cuban- American origin. He graduated from Jefferson High School, an inner city school identified with the Latin population in Tampa. Although his grandfather happened to be born in the Canary Islands, rather than Cuba, Mr. Acosta noted that "[t]here isn't a separation between a Spanish Hispanic and a Cuban Hispanic for the people that discriminate. The Department of General Services (DGS) does not dispute that Mr. Acosta is a person of Spanish culture. However, the statutory definition of an Hispanic American is "a person of Spanish or Portuguese culture with origins in Mexico, South America, Central America, or the Caribbean, regardless of race." Section 288.703(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The Department of General Services has never interpreted this provision or defined the meaning of "origins" by rule. However, the policy of the DGS has been that a person claiming to be an Hispanic American must establish that he has "origins" in one of the designated geographic areas and that a person can have "origins" in the geographic area only if he can establish that an ancestor was born there. Notwithstanding this policy definition of "origin," the DGS has not required persons claiming to be black Americans to establish that an ancestor was born in Africa, even though the statutory definition of black American is "a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa." As to black Americans, the DGS has accepted documentation which simply identifies the applicant as black.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Delphin J. Acosta is not an Hispanic American as defined by Section 288.703(3)(b), Florida Statutes, and denying petitioner's request for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's: First and third sentences accepted; however, the second sentence states that Mr. Acosta's grandfather immigrated to Cuha in 1903, which would have mean that the grandfather was 14 when he went to Cuba. The evidence at the hearing was that he went from Cuba to Key West when he was about 14. Accepted generally. Accepted generally and to the degree relevant. Rejected as stated as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as stated as not support by the evidence presented. Rejected. G-H. Accepted generally as to DGS policy. Respondent's: Accepted generally. 2-4. Accepted. Accepted generally. Accepted. Accepted generally. Omitted. Rejected as stated, although accepted that Mr Acosta failed to present sufficient evidence of having origins in the Caribbean. COPIES FURNISHED: Delphin J. Acosta, President The Urban Studio Post Office Box 1588 Tampa, Florida 33607 Sandra E. Allen, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of General Services 452 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Room 133, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Susan Kirkland, Esquire General Counsel Department of General Services 457 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
