The Issue The central issue in case no. 92-3138 is whether or not Respondent should be dismissed from his continuing contract as a teacher employed by the Orange County school district. The central issue in case no. 92-6637 is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate no. 427416, covering the areas of driver's education and physical education. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1997. At all times material to this case, Respondent has been employed as a teacher for the Orange County School District. He has been so employed since approximately 1978. In the fall of 1987, Respondent was assigned to Carver where he taught physical education. He remained at Carver until he was relieved of duty on March 26, 1992. Prior to being assigned to Carver, Respondent was employed at Chickasaw Elementary School where he received satisfactory evaluations and did not have any problems with student discipline. After accepting the job at Carver, Respondent became one of four physical education teachers employed there. Respondent faced discipline problems at Carver he had not experienced during his elementary school tenure. Examples of the problems Respondent faced were: students showing disrespect; students teasing (such as name calling); or students being aggressive and argumentative. On March 7, 1989, Respondent received a written reprimand from the Assistant Principal at Carver, Fred Townsend, for inappropriately disciplining a student. The incident cited in the reprimand was directly related to Respondent's class management and the discipline of students. Mr. Townsend's letter instructed the Respondent to adequately supervise students and to use appropriate disciplinary techniques. Mr. Townsend verbally counselled the Respondent concerning appropriate disciplinary techniques. On April 7, 1989, Respondent was involved in an incident with one of the Carver students which resulted in Mr. Townsend issuing Respondent a written directive to refrain from shoving students, and to follow procedures outlined in the Carver Faculty Handbook and the "assertive discipline strategies" when disciplining students. The procedures for disciplining students as outlined in the Carver Faculty Handbook did not permit a teacher to push, shove, or physically discipline a student. Teachers are permitted to use force to intervene to protect students who may be fighting or to protect themselves if attacked. On October 24, 1989, Respondent was directed, in writing and verbally, by a senior manager of employee relations, John Hawco, not to take physical or disciplinary action against students but to follow school and Board rules pertaining to student discipline and control. The directive followed an incident where Respondent allegedly shoved or pushed a student. On or about March 1, 1990, Board staff gave Respondent a letter outlining sources of assistance available through the school system regarding appropriate means to control and discipline students. On March 2, 1990, Respondent received an oral and written directive together with a written letter of reprimand from Mr. Hawco. This written directive was issued after Respondent allegedly used physical force against two students. Such conduct would have been contrary to Mr. Hawco's earlier directive. The March 2, 1990, directive again advised Respondent not to use force or take physical disciplinary action against students. Mr. Hawco's letter urged Respondent to seek assistance and warned Respondent that if he failed to follow the directive, he could be recommended for dismissal. Respondent was also verbally advised at the time he received the March 2, 1990, directive that should similar incidents occur in the future a recommendation could be made for his dismissal. Despite the prior warnings and counselings, during the 1990-1991 school year, John Hawco was called to Carver to investigate several allegations against the Respondent. Such allegations involved inappropriate student discipline. One of the incidents involved a minor male student who allegedly hit the Respondent. In the Respondent's referral to the office, the Respondent stated that the student "hit me in the nose with his fist, so I hit him back". Although the incident caused Mr. Hawco to have concerns about the Respondent, after investigation, the Board took no formal action against the Respondent for this alleged incident. On or about March 13, 1992, the Respondent received a written directive from the Senior Manager of Employee Relations, Alice Tisdell. This directive advised Respondent not to take physical or disciplinary action against students, to exercise appropriate classroom management skills and to follow proper procedures for disciplining students. Ms. Tisdell issued this directive after she was called to investigate allegations that the Respondent continued to physically intervene with students contrary to prior directives to discontinue this type of discipline. On or about March 10, 1992, Ms. Tisdell advised Respondent, verbally and in writing, that should he continue to fail to comply with the directives, appropriate disciplinary action could be taken. Respondent was advised that such disciplinary action could include his dismissal. During the period from 1989 until he was recommended for dismissal in 1992, Respondent was verbally directed by the Carver principal, assistant principals, and Board management, to use appropriate classroom management techniques and to refrain from pushing, shoving, or using force when dealing with students. Despite the oral and written directives, on March 20, 1992, Respondent shoved a student, Johnny Wyatt, into a locker causing minor physical injury to that student. Such act occurred in connection with the discipline of the student, was contrary to the prior directives issued to Respondent, and resulted because Respondent had failed to maintain control of his assigned area. Wyatt is a minor male student at Carver who, at the time of hearing, was in the seventh grade. During the 1991/1992 school year, he was enrolled in Ms. Carry's sixth grade physical education class. The male students in Ms. Carry's class dressed out in the boy's locker room supervised by the Respondent and another male physical education teacher, Dennis Goldsmith. On March 20, 1992, Mr. Goldsmith was absent and Raymond Martin, a permanent substitute employed at Carver, was assigned to cover the locker room with Respondent. When sixth period began, students assembled at their assigned bench seats in order to dress out. Some students began to misbehave by shouting, running around, and engaging in horseplay. On two occasions, the light switches were turned off and on for several seconds. Wyatt came to the sixth period class and sat down after dressing out. With Mr. Martin's permission, he went to the restroom and returned to his seat. The Respondent accused Wyatt of talking. When the student protested that he had not misbehaved, the Respondent grabbed Wyatt by the arm and began to lead him to the locker room office. Wyatt continued to verbally protest while Respondent held his arm. When they reached a row of lockers, the Respondent pushed Wyatt causing his back to strike the lockers. This incident was witnessed from several different vantage points by other students who were in the locker room that day. When the Respondent pushed the student, Wyatt's back struck a metal clasp on the locker and an injury resulted. Contact with the metal clasp caused a one to two inch scrape located just slightly to the right of the student's spine. Approximately eleven months after the incident, a faint scar is still visible. Immediately following the incident, the Respondent ushered Wyatt to the locker room office and Assistant Principal, Richard Vail, was summoned to deal with the students. Mr. Vail arrived five to ten minutes after the beginning of sixth period. Mr. Vail spoke to the students about their misconduct, and sent them on to their respective class groups. Wyatt approached Mr. Vail, showed him the injury to his back, and told him that the Respondent had pushed him into a locker. Mr. Vail asked the student if he wanted to go to the clinic. When Wyatt declined, Mr. Vail sent him on to join his class. When Wyatt arrived at Ms. Carry's class she observed the injury and sent him to the office. Wyatt was subsequently sent to the clinic by Principal Ernest Bradley. When Wyatt went home after school, his parents learned of the incident. The student's father brought him back to school that same day and spoke to Mr. Bradley and the Respondent. Wyatt's parents were upset about the injury. The Respondent denies the incident entirely. He claims that he did not push or shove Wyatt in any way on March 20, 1992, and that he did not learn of the alleged incident until the end of the school day. The credible proof in this case is to the contrary. The Respondent had difficulties controlling the students in his physical education class. Students in his class frequently acted disrespectfully and failed to follow his instructions. Such students challenged Respondent's authority and were disruptive. Because of class rotation, the other physical education teachers had the same students at different times of the year. The other physical education teachers did not experience the difficulties with the frequency or the severity that the Respondent experienced. As a general rule, the students behaved themselves for Mr. Goldsmith, Ms. Pendergrast, and Ms. Carry. Of the four, only Respondent allowed the students to get out of control. Mr. Townsend formally evaluated Respondent during the 1987-88 school year. Mr. Townsend specifically recommended that the Respondent seek help in the areas of student relations and discipline, and that he enroll in workshops for help with management of student conduct. Mr. Townsend formally evaluated the Respondent during the 1988-1989 school year. Mr. Townsend's evaluation rated the Respondent "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the area of Classroom Management and Discipline. Respondent was again advised to enroll in training programs for management and discipline. Mr. Vail observed and evaluated the Respondent during the 1989-1990 school year. Mr. Vail observed the Respondent having difficulties in maintaining control of his class and supervising activities. Mr. Vail suggested methods of improving the structure of the class. He also suggested a different roll-taking method. Mr. Vail's 1989-90 evaluation rated the Respondent as "Needing Improvement" in the area of classroom management and discipline. The Respondent received a "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the areas of subject matter knowledge, planning and student relations. Mr. Vail also gave the Respondent verbal directives to exercise appropriate classroom management. Mr. Vail evaluated the Respondent for the 1991-1992 school year. He observed the Respondent on March 9, 1992, and found several deficiencies with the Respondent's performance. Mr. Vail rated the Respondent as "Needs Improvement" in the areas of classroom management and discipline, planning and delivering instruction, student relations, and professional responsibilities and ethics. Mr. Vail categorized the Respondent as "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the areas of subject matter knowledge, evaluation of instructional needs, and methods and techniques. Throughout his tenure at Carver, the Respondent has been counseled concerning appropriate discipline techniques and given several opportunities to improve. The Respondent's ability to effectively manage the students did not improve. In short, he was unable to keep good order in his classroom. Respondent has received two reprimands and several directives regarding proper discipline of students. Respondent is required to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession of Florida. Further, teachers are expected to adhere to reasonable directives issued to them by their supervisors. The Respondent received numerous verbal and written directives concerning the appropriate discipline and management of student conduct. These directives were reasonable and were within the scope of the school's authority. Despite the directives, the opportunities to improve, and the offers of assistance, the Respondent did not improve in the areas of classroom management and student discipline. The Respondent was warned of the impropriety of physical contact with students, yet subsequently pushed and injured a student. The incident involving Wyatt was in violation of the prior directives, and constituted insubordination and misconduct. The Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Board has been substantially reduced. Despite several attempts to provide Respondent with assistance, he continued to use inappropriate discipline with students. Understandably, school personnel have lost confidence in Respondent's ability to manage a class, to the point where Respondent cannot return to the classroom. Although the Respondent did not intentionally injure Wyatt, his indifference to the situation placed the student in danger. Respondent failed to protect the student from an avoidable injury. Respondent's use of force was unwarranted as the student did not present a harm to others or to the Respondent. Assuming Wyatt was one of the misbehaving students (which the evidence in this case does not support), force would not have been necessary to discipline a talkative student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: As to case no. 92-3138, that the School Board of Orange County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from his employment with the district. As to case no. 92-6637, that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order placing the Respondent on probation for a period of not less than three years, requiring Respondent to successfully complete some remedial course of instruction related to class management and discipline of students, and to receive a letter of reprimand for the conduct established by this record. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. 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 27th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3138 and 92-6637 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Orange County School Board: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1 through 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18 through 33, 36 through 43, 45, 46, and 48. Paragraph 8 is accepted with the deletion of the last sentence which is not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that Respondent received the directive noted otherwise rejected and not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. With regard to paragraph 11, it is accepted Respondent was adequately apprised of the consequences should his conduct continue; it is not accepted that such warning was in the form of a formal reprimand. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of the last sentence which is rejected as irrelevant, paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 47 is rejected as vague or argument. Paragraphs 49 through 52 are rejected as argument or irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner, Betty Castor: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1, 3 through 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23 through 32, 34 through 38, 41 through 45, and 47. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 11 is not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of the last sentence of the paragraph which is rejected as irrelevant, paragraph 19 is accepted. With the deletion of the word "severely" which is rejected as vague or argumentative or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 40 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or vague. Paragraphs 48 through 51 are rejected as argument or irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 17, 21 and 22. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Respondent voluntarily accepted the position at Carver and was expected to fulfill his teaching responsibilities at that school. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence especially as to allegations that he "rarely reacted physically". The last sentence is accepted as accurate. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant; the discipline options available to Respondent did not include using force. Paragraph 9 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that Respondent was offered courses to improve and that he may have attended same, he just didn't comply with the directives or improve his skills either through indifference or otherwise. With regard to paragraph 11, it is accepted Respondent received a reprimand on the date in question for inappropriate discipline techniques; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 12, it is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. With the deletion of the last sentence which is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is rejected as repetitive, argumentative, or irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 18 to the extent that it suggests Respondent's action was in self-defense is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and otherwise rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as unnecessary comment. Paragraph 20 is rejected contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, argumentative, or irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Wyatt's account of the incident at the hearing has been deemed credible and wholly accurate as to the incident that transpired in the locker room that date. Respondent's account, on the other hand, was not. Paragraph 25 is rejected argumentative and contrary to the weight of credible evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 26 is accepted; the remainder rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 27 is rejected as speculative, irrelevant, or argumentative. With regard to paragraph 28, it is accepted that Respondent did not use inappropriate language; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. With the clarification that Wyatt did scrape his back on the locker and the rejection of the "allegedly" comment which is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 29 is accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argumentative and irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 32 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted to the extent is identifies Wyatt as the student injured by Respondent on March 20, 1992; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe Lev, Esq. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802-2231 Roseanna J. Lee, Esq. Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esq. HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN 390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801 Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esq. Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde, Exec. Dir. 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald Shaw, Superintendent Orange County Shool Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner on a continuing contract as a physical education teacher at North Ward Elementary School in the Pinellas County school system. Respondent holds a professional teaching certificate number 495697, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. On April 6, 1988, Respondent was conducting a physical education class at North Ward Elementary School. The students were playing "T-ball" outdoors, and during the game, one student, Michelle Washington, became upset with Respondent when she told the teams to change sides in order to allow all students to have a turn at bat. The student ran up to Respondent and began screaming in her face. Respondent asked her several times to stop and to calm down, but the screaming continued for between thirty and forty-five seconds. When it became apparent that Washington would not calm down, and after trying to verbally quiet her, Respondent slapped Washington on the cheek. No marks or bruises resulted, and at the end of the class period Respondent and Washington hugged and apologized to each other. Respondent reported the incident immediately to her principal, and also called the student's mother to apologize. During December, 1987 and January, 1988, Respondent grabbed Amudin (Deenie) Tzekas by the jaw, and Jason Owens by the arm in order to discipline and quiet them. These actions caused no physical injury to either student, and were not reported by Respondent or the students at the time. Based upon the testimony of students involved in these incidents, as well as Respondent's own testimony, the testimony of her principal, Marcia Morgan, and a written summary prepared by Steven Crosby of a conference held within a week of the incident involving Michelle Washington, it is found that Respondent slapped Washington on the face on April 6, 1988, after having grabbed Tzekas by the jaw and Owens by the arm earlier in the school year. These actions were taken by Respondent as forms of discipline, and to maintain control in her classes. Based upon the testimony of Marcia Morgan and Steven Crosby, who were accepted as experts in education, Respondent's actions involving these three students impair her effectiveness as a teacher due to the loss of respect among students and parents which has resulted. She failed to exercise good profession judgment, and instead her actions caused embarrassment to her students. This conduct by a teacher impairs the teaching profession as a whole. According to school board policy, teachers should never touch students in a punitive manner. By proper notice to Respondent, Petitioner sought to impose a three day suspension without pay as a result of these incidents, and Respondent has timely sought review of this proposed action. In August, 1987, prior to these incidents, Respondent was counseled by Marcia Morgan, her principal, about getting angry with people. Morgan told Respondent that if she violated school board policy, she could not help her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a three day suspension without pay upon Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of October, 1988. DONALD D. CONN 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 25th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2291 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as a finding of fact since this is a conclusion of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. 6-8. Rejected since these are conclusions of law. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 11-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and s. 14-15. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 16-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 18. Rejected as unnecessary. 19-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Findings of Fact 3, 5. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Rejected in Finding of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Rose, Ph.D. Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Charleen C. Ramus, Esquire Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675
The Issue Should Petitioner suspend Respondent without pay for three (3) days for inappropriately physically restraining a student in mid-December, 1996, while Respondent was employed at Tate High School?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent was an instructional employee of the Escambia County School Board. In this capacity he served as a physical education teacher. He also coached football and track. Respondent has been in the teaching profession for more than 21 years. The majority of that service has been in the states of Alabama and Georgia. Respondent has been employed in the Escambia County School District for approximately two years. On March 14, 1996, Respondent received a reprimand from Jim May, Principal of Tate High School. Tate High School is in Gonzalez, Florida, and is part of the Escambia County School District. The letter of reprimand stated: I am writing this letter of reprimand in regards to an incident that occurred at Tate High School on March 12, 1996. It is my findings [sic] that you put your hands on a student and physically forced him in a chair by grabbing him by the elbow. You should never put hands on a student unless to prevent bodily harm to himself or to others. These actions were inappropriate and must not reoccur. Any further actions of this sort on your part will result in serious disciplinary action to you, including possible suspension or termination. In the fall term 1996 Mr. May met with coaches, to include Respondent, and reminded the coaches not to put their hands on students for any reason in relation to involvement between the coaches and student athletes. This meeting was occasioned by an incident between another coach and a student. The policy which prohibits a teacher from putting his or her hands on a student except to prevent harm to the teacher or to others, is a policy that has application throughout the Escambia County School District. When Respondent was reprimanded on March 14, 1996, Carolyn Spooner, the present Principal at Tate High School, told the Respondent, that he should have allowed the student whom he forced into a chair to walk out of the classroom, as opposed to forcing the student into the desk chair. It was the student's intention to leave the classroom before Respondent forced the student into the chair. If the student had been allowed to leave, Respondent was advised by Ms. Spooner, that the Respondent could have sent a referral to the Dean or sent for a Dean to offer assistance. The referral practice, as contrasted with physical restraint, is the policy for the Escambia County School District. While the Student Handbook describing rights and responsibilities for students in the School District of Escambia County in the 1996-97 School Year contemplates possible corporal punishment, the school district does not impose corporal punishment for high school students. In any event the imposition of corporal punishment is not conducted ad hoc through the instructional staff. It may only be conducted through means established by guidelines for administering such punishment, which establish the nature of the punishment to be administered, under what conditions, and by whom. Notwithstanding the admonitions to Respondent to refrain from placing his hands on students other than in the limited circumstances described, Respondent violated those instructions and acted contrary to the school district policy. This incident occurred on December 10, 1996, at Tate High School while Respondent was teaching a physical education class. On that date a student was less than cooperative in his participation in the physical education class. Basically, the student was unwilling to participate. There was some question about the student's ability to participate. This circumstance followed a history of the student not participating and having provided written excuses from his mother relieving him of the responsibility to participate in the physical education class. Nonetheless, on this date, Respondent felt that the student should walk, while other students played softball. At some point during this episode the student sat on some bleachers at the athletic field and refused to walk as he had been instructed to do by the Respondent. Respondent took the student by the elbow and "helped" the student down from the bleachers. They then commenced to walk around the practice field with Respondent holding the student by the arm. The student pulled away from the Respondent and stated words to the effect that he was not going to do anything on the field that he did not want to do. Respondent sent the student to the "office" to be punished, but the Respondent did not write a referral as required by school district policy. As a result of the Respondent placing his hands on the student's arm, the student received bruises on the underside of his left arm that left dark spots. That injury was reported by the student's mother. The marks that were left on the underside of the student's arm were still visible the following day. The incident was investigated by Ms. Spooner and Roy Ikner, Assistant Principal at Tate High School. On December 13, 1996 Ms. Spooner, as Principal for Tate High School, gave notice to Respondent that disciplinary action was being considered for "grabbing the student by the arm." Ms. Spooner met with the Respondent on December 16, 1996. In that meeting Respondent did not, and does not now, deny putting his hands on the student. Eventually Jim May, who had been elected superintendent of schools, gave notice to Respondent on January 22, 1997, that the superintendent was recommending the imposition of a three-day suspension without pay for the incident with the student that took place on December 10, 1996. The nature of the alleged misconduct was inappropriate physical restraint of the student. The facts reveal that Respondent inappropriately physically restrained the student on December 10, 1996, in violation of earlier instructions from his supervisor to refrain from that conduct. Other than the letter of reprimand and the incident at issue in this case, no other proof has been offered concerning prior discipline of the Respondent. The Respondent in his defense presented assessment system evaluations for the school years 1995-96 and 1996-97, in which he has been found to be a satisfactory teacher overall and has exceeded expected performance in parts of the performance evaluations.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds Respondent guilty of misconduct by the inappropriate physical contact with a student on December 10, 1996, and suspends Respondent without pay for three days. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons and Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 John Benavidez 10141 Vixen Place Pensacola, Florida 32514 Jim May, Superintendent School District of Escambia County 215 West Garden Street Post Office Box 1470 Pensacola, Florida 32597-1470
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent from her employment with the Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an art teacher at Western High School ("Western High"). Respondent's career with the School Board, which spans some 21 years, has not proceeded entirely without incident: on January 31, 1997, Respondent uttered profanity in the presence of her students, which resulted in the issuance of a written reprimand that directed her to "cease and desist from inappropriate remarks"; several months later, Respondent's further use of colorful language led to a second written reprimand; and, in August 2009, Respondent agreed to serve a three-day suspension "for inappropriate language." The School Board now seeks to suspend Respondent for five days based upon an allegation that, on August 16, 2013, she used profanity and "aggressively grabbed" a female student's arm during an episode in Western High's parking lot. The facts relating to the instant charges are recounted below. Instant Allegations On the morning of August 16, 2013——the final weekday before the start of the 2013-2014 school year——Respondent arrived at Western High's campus to place the finishing touches on her classroom. On several occasions throughout the day, one of Western High's assistant principals announced that the school's parking lot would be locked at 5:30 p.m. The final such warning, which was made at 5:15 p.m., prompted Respondent to exit the building approximately five minutes later. As she headed toward her vehicle, Respondent (accompanied by her mother, Carol Fischer, herself a longtime educator) noticed several groups of students decorating parking spaces in the school lot. As explained during the final hearing, the students' presence was not unusual, for incoming seniors at Western High were authorized, pursuant to a school fundraiser, to "purchase" a parking space and adorn it as each saw fit. Mindful that the school gate would soon be locked, Respondent walked toward the groups and, from a distance of approximately 50 yards, loudly directed them to pack up their belongings and leave the campus. Each of the groups complied, save for one, which prompted Respondent to approach the stragglers and repeatedly announce——with diminishing volume as she made her way closer——that they needed to go home. Suffice it to say that these importunings had no discernable effect on the group's activities; as a result, Respondent continued toward the parking spot where the students were working. Now in their immediate vicinity, Respondent informed the group (which included two female students, N.S. and T.C., both of whom were incoming seniors at Western High) that they had two minutes to gather their possessions and leave the campus. During the ensuing interaction, T.C. began to argue with Respondent and, to make matters worse, acted as if she intended to continue painting. Her patience understandably waning, Respondent reached toward T.C. and, in a non-violent fashion, placed her hand on the student's upper arm. This brief physical contact, intended to secure T.C.'s complete attention and gesture her in the direction of the exit, was instantly met with a vocal objection. Respondent immediately reacted by stepping backwards,1/ at which point the group began to gather up the painting materials. T.C. and the other students departed the parking lot a short time later. Contrary to the complaint's allegations, the credible evidence demonstrates that, although Respondent addressed the students with an elevated voice (but only as she approached from a distance), she at no point used profanity or any other inappropriate language.2/ Further, the record is pellucid that Respondent's momentary, gesturing contact with T.C. was completely innocuous and in no way constituted an "aggressive grab."3/ Indeed, T.C. acknowledged during her final hearing testimony that Respondent plainly intended no harm.4/ Finally, and with respect to the charge of insubordination, there has been no showing that Respondent's behavior ran afoul of any direct order. Although the School Board attempted to prove the existence of a "no touching whatsoever" rule, the testimony on that point was internally contradictory and ultimately unpersuasive. In any event, and as discussed shortly, a general policy——i.e., one applicable to all employees——does not constitute a direct order for the purpose of sustaining an insubordination charge. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of misconduct in office. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order: exonerating Respondent of all charges brought against her in this proceeding; and awarding Respondent any lost pay and benefits she experienced as a result of the five-day suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 3rd day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to sanction Respondent, Diana O'Neill (hereinafter "O'Neill"), for violation of Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules governing the conduct of teachers in the State of Florida, and, if so, what sanction(s) should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for overseeing all teachers and staff members of public schools in the State of Florida. It is the duty and responsibility of the Department to ensure that all teachers follow the rules of professionalism and conduct set forth in the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. The Department issues a teaching certificate to each instructor employed by a school and has the right to sanction teachers for wrongdoing. Sanctions may include revocation of the teaching certificate. At all times relevant hereto, O'Neill was employed by the School as a teacher for severely and profoundly mentally handicapped children. During the School Year, O'Neill had five or six students in her classroom. Relevant to the discussions herein, three of those students are identified as O., A., and T. O'Neill has a master's degree in curriculum and instruction, a bachelor's degree in science and education, and a certification in elementary and special education. She has been certified as a teacher in Florida for over 21 years. She was hired by the School in 1990 and taught mentally handicapped children there without interruption until January 29, 2008. In all the years O'Neill taught at the School, she received only superior evaluations and had never been subject to discipline. During the School Year, however, there were a number of complaints made against O'Neill by her classroom teacher's aides that resulted in O'Neill's suspension and removal from the classroom. Those allegations form the basis of the Department's decision to impose sanctions against O'Neill. The Students O. was seven years old during the School Year. At ten weeks of age, O. had been diagnosed with a genetic heart disorder which necessitated open-heart surgery. As a result, O. is developmentally delayed and has severe hearing loss and some negative vision issues. O. understands some of the things going on around her to a limited degree. She says only one word, "Go," and cannot generally communicate with others. She laughs at certain things, feels pain, and is only slightly ambulatory. O. is not toilet-trained and has no sense of danger or awareness of potential harm around her. A. was eight years old during the School Year. He has an atypical type of Downs Syndrome, i.e., while he does not have the physical appearance of a Downs Syndrome child, he does have the low muscle tone. A. was only beginning to learn to walk during the School Year, but he could see and hear well. He is not toilet-trained and needs assistance with all aspects of his daily activities. When he began walking, A. utilized a standard walker, then graduated to a pull-behind walker that helped him stand more upright. When A. would tire of walking, he would simply drop to the ground wherever he was at that moment. Due to some gastro-intestinal problems, A. had a G-Tube port surgically inserted in his stomach. The G-Tube port must be cared for in order to prevent infection. T. is a profoundly mentally handicapped girl, who was 11 years old during the School Year. She has a condition called hemimegalencephaly and experiences seizures. T. has only minimal vision and cannot walk or talk. She can hear sounds and directions and is able to move her hands and arms. When she was very young, T. underwent an operation called a hemispherectomy that resulted in a row of stitches across her entire skull. The area around the stitches is very sensitive, and T. dislikes having her head touched for any reason. During the School Year, T. was placed in a device called a "Stander" that allowed her to stand upright for limited periods of time. She seemed to like the Stander and her parents approved of it, but that device is no longer used at the School. Due to the extensive nature of her condition, all therapies for T. have been discontinued. The Classroom O'Neill's classroom during the School Year was set up so that she could deal with the various issues confronting severely mentally and physically handicapped children. The classroom contained restrooms for toileting the children and various equipment and furnishings to assist in their educational training. The primary focus for O'Neill was to develop as much independent functioning for the students as possible based upon their individual abilities. None of the students in O'Neill's classroom was able to understand even rudimentary academic work, so the focus was on various daily living needs. There were two teacher's aides in the classroom during the School Year: Cooke and Anderson. Cooke was basically trained as an aide, beginning with her first position in 2004. She attended college for three years, but did not graduate. She also worked with O'Neill during the 2006-2007 school year, i.e., the year immediately prior to the period at issue in this proceeding. Anderson had previously worked in O'Neill's classroom in the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years. Anderson worked at a different school in the 2006-2007 school year. When Anderson elected to return to the School in 2007, O'Neill (who was the union representative at the School), provided her with some assistance. The degree or kind of assistance is disputed, but it is clear that O'Neill did not object to Anderson returning as her aide. Both aides in O'Neill's class respected her and believed she knew how to teach mentally handicapped children. Both admitted learning a lot from O'Neill. The aides, however, were somewhat intimidated by O'Neill, ostensibly due to O'Neill's status as a union representative. There does not appear to have been any social interaction between O'Neill and the aides outside of the school setting. It was the duty of the aides to assist O'Neill in the classroom. O'Neill gave them certain tasks and expected the aides to perform them independently and effectively. O'Neill created a kind of calendar setting forth each aide's duties on a weekly or monthly basis. The aides would perform many of the same tasks done by O'Neill, and there appears to have been a generally amiable relationship between the women during the first part of the School Year. In addition to the aides, there were other adult visitors to the classroom. One of the students had personal nurses who would come into the classroom on a regular basis to care for the child. Physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech and language pathologists, and other teachers, as well as the School principal would be in the classroom at any given time. The room itself had two doors, one that opened up to the hallway and one that connected the classroom with a large therapy room. Neither of the doors was kept locked on a regular basis, but sometimes the door to the hallway would be locked if someone forgot to physically unlock it in the morning. There was a window out to the hallway, but that window was covered up with equipment and the blinds closed at all times. O'Neill's Actions In the first half of October 2007, during the School Year, O'Neill decided to attempt the use of a gait belt on A., based on A.'s actions. He would often refuse to cooperate when moving from the classroom to another room, he would sometimes wander off, and he would often just sit down wherever he was. A gait belt is a strap that can be secured around the torso of an individual and used as a means of assisting the person when they are walking. Gait belts are used on physically handicapped individuals, the elderly, and children. A. had become less cooperative as he became more ambulatory, and he would often attempt to elope instead of returning to the classroom. O'Neill believed that a gait belt would be helpful in this regard. One day as the lunch period was ending and the class was preparing to return to the classroom, O'Neill wrapped the gait belt around A., just below his armpits. She did not put the belt lower, because she was being careful to avoid A.'s G-Tube site. As she held the door open for other children, she felt A. starting to slip away and held the belt taut so as to keep him from eloping. At this point, the descriptions of the event differ greatly between O'Neill and the aides. O'Neill says she felt the belt get taut, then looked down and saw that A. had lifted his feet off the ground by bending his knees. She then lowered him to the ground and directed him to stand. At the same time, she lifted up on the belt to assist him with rising up. Once he was off the ground, however, he refused to unbend his knees, and she was essentially holding him up in the air again. She lowered the belt and again ordered A. to stand up. She raised him up a third time, but he still would not cooperate. Frustrated, she removed the belt and got A. to return to the classroom by manually picking him up every time he dropped to the ground. Cooke remembers A. being placed in the gait belt. As O'Neill had said, A. was not being cooperative. However, in response to him falling to the ground, O'Neill began to yank the belt--and A.--up and down like a yo-yo, yelling at A. the entire time. The situation made Cooke very uneasy, and she thought O'Neill's actions were improper. Anderson remembers O'Neill warning A. that if he did not begin to walk back to the classroom, she (O'Neill) would get the gait belt. A. would sit, O'Neill would "boot him in the bottom," and he would only move a little. So, O'Neill eventually got out the gait belt and put it on A. She then started yanking A. up and down by the belt "like a yo-yo." Anderson told O'Neill to stop because she believed O'Neill's actions were improper. O'Neill laughed at Anderson, but she also stopped yanking on A. There was some evidence of abrasions or bruises on A. at about the time of the incident, but the testimony was insufficient to prove that the marks were caused by the gait belt. The testimony of the two aides is more credible based upon their corroboration of each other, their absence of pecuniary interest in the matter, and their demeanor. This is not to say that O'Neill does not remember the event exactly as she described it, only that the description provided by the aides seems more believable in consideration of all the testimony. During the School Year, O'Neill began to strike the students with various objects, e.g., a water bottle wrapped in a koozie, a tennis ball sleeve wrapped in carpet, a small catalogue or magazine, and a cardboard sign covered with a piece of carpet. O'Neill referred to the striking as a "bop" on the head or arm, done lightly and solely for the purpose of getting the child's attention or playing with them. Again, the aides' perception differs. They remember the strikes to be much heavier in nature, done in anger or frustration. There is no way to ascertain with any degree of certainty as to how O'Neill used the objects on the students. T. had one physical condition that is of significance to this matter. Due to her physical development, T.'s bottom lip would often become dry and flaky. It was necessary to keep ointment on her lip and to carefully cut off the dried skin at times. T.'s grandmother would often come to the school and take care of that task. On at least one occasion, but likely more than once, O'Neill pulled the dried skin off T.'s lip, rather than remove it with scissors. O'Neill admits to pulling the skin off during a school year prior to the year at issue. She says it was done because she did not want T. to go out in public with an aesthetically displeasing appearance. Cooke, however, remembers numerous instances during the School Year in which O'Neill would "yank [the skin] right off her mouth." T. would utter a cry of pain, and O'Neill would simply laugh as if it were a funny thing she had done. Cooke said T.'s mouth would bleed when this happened, but T.'s mother did not testify as to whether she saw evidence of bleeding when T. came back from school. O'Neill would also be somewhat caustic in her comments about the students. She often referred to O. as "Oblivia" and said T. was "just sitting there, using up oxygen" (or something to that effect). When an aide raised questions about striking the children with objects, O'Neill said something akin to, "So what, am I going to cause them brain damage?" O'Neill admits that her language was sometimes curt and that she used dark humor in order to deal with a very stressful job. She denies ever saying anything meant to harm or demean the students she taught. O'Neill struck one student, T., on one occasion, although the exact nature of the event is disputed. One day while attempting to instruct T. how to distinguish between food and drink, O'Neill got frustrated. Despite O'Neill's best efforts, T. would not cooperate by selecting the appropriate picture placed in front of her. After numerous attempts, O'Neill finally gave up and brushed her hand against T.'s head. O'Neill described the action as a soft brushing of T.'s hair; the aides remember it differently. They describe O'Neill actually hitting T. with a backhand motion, striking her with sufficient force to make T.'s head move suddenly. The aides saw that event as egregious enough to report immediately and went straight to the principal's office. The aides' reporting of the incident with T. was, in their view, necessary in order to prevent O'Neill from further inappropriate behavior. While they had been reticent to report O'Neill earlier because she was a union representative and held some degree of authority over them, they finally had seen too much. The aides had reported O'Neill's behavior to the school nurse earlier. After that report, O'Neill stopped her questionable behaviors for a while. The behaviors returned however, and apparently got worse. In response to the report, the principal placed O'Neill on administrative leave pending an investigation. She had been aware of prior alleged incidents involving O'Neill, but did not take any action at that time as it appeared the situation had been resolved by the aides' reporting to the nurse. However, the latest incident, an alleged assault on a student, required immediate action. As a result of her investigation, the principal then withdrew O'Neill permanently from the classroom. O'Neill has a long history of working with mentally handicapped students. She started work in this area while still a high school student and became enamored with the subject from the beginning. In addition to her teaching duties, O'Neill has also done extensive volunteer work with the special needs students. It is quite obviously her passion. O'Neill is married and has a stepson. Her mother now resides in the Sarasota area. She does not acknowledge any particular stressors in her life during the School Year, but her behavior indicated otherwise. Besides the aforementioned actions concerning her students, O'Neill's interaction with other professionals was also somewhat strained. At least one professional consultant who interacted with O'Neill during the School Year reported that she was less flexible and agreeable than in the past. O'Neill's aides saw a great difference in her demeanor and behavior in that year versus prior years. O'Neill denies feeling "burned out" during the School Year, but there are numerous indicators to suggest that her behavior had changed. The nature of her actions, vis-à-vis her students, who she seemed to love, suggests a high degree of stress. Her behaviors during the School Year were so different from her historical style that something must have been amiss in her life.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Dr. Eric H. Smith, Commissioner of Education, imposing upon Respondent, Diana O'Neill, the following penalty: Suspension of Respondent's teaching certificate through the end of the 2010-2011 school year, followed by two years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154 Anthony D. Demma, Esquire Meyer, Brooks, Demma and Blohm, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Petitioner has cause as set forth in the notice of specific charges to order that the Respondent's professional services contract not be renewed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools with the school district of Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. North County Elementary School (North County) and Myrtle Grove Elementary School (Myrtle Grove) are public schools in Dade County, Florida. Respondent graduated from North Eastern Illinois University in 1978. She began her employment with the Petitioner at North County at the beginning of the 1987/88 school year. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a classroom teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. Teachers employed by the Petitioner are evaluated pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). This system provides for periodic observations of a teacher's performance that is followed by an evaluation of that performance. The evaluator records what he or she considers to be observed deficiencies in the teacher's performance and provides a plan, referred to as a prescription, for performance improvement. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the TADS method was used to evaluate the Respondent's performance. Respondent taught at North County during the 1987/88 school year. The principal of North County for that school year was Gertrude Pope. Ms. Pope evaluated Respondent's performance based on the TADS method and rated her overall performance as acceptable. Ms. Pope testified that Respondent had difficulty in classroom management during the 1987/88 school year, and that she tried to help Respondent improve her classroom management by giving her materials, having her observe other teachers who were good in classroom management, and by having her view a videotape on assertive discipline. Ms. Pope wanted Respondent to develop and use in her classroom an assertive discipline plan, which consists of strategies to maintain discipline in the classroom and specifies behavioral standards and the consequences for failing to adhere to those standards. Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1988/89 school year was acceptable. In August 1989, Dr. Ruthann Marleaux became the principal at North County, a position she retained at the time of the formal hearing. On October 27, 1989, Respondent's left knee and left instep were injured at school when a child accidentally stepped on her foot. After that injury, Respondent had a significant number of absences from the classroom caused by pain and the buildup of fluid in her left knee. In February, 1990, Respondent underwent surgery to repair the damage to her knee and was placed on worker's compensation leave. Following that injury, Respondent used a cane or crutches to walk. On May 11, 1990, Respondent returned to her teaching duties at North County. This return to work was approved by the Petitioner's worker's compensation department. Following a conference with the Respondent, Dr. Marleaux, and a coordinator of the worker's compensation department, it was agreed that certain modifications would be made to accommodate Respondent's knee problem. Dr. Marleaux arranged for someone to escort the children in Respondent's class back to the classroom after lunch and after physical education. An aide was assigned to assist Respondent during the first week of her return to work. Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1989/90 school year was acceptable. Following several days of absences towards the beginning of the 1990/91 school year, Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent by memorandum dated October 10, 1990, that her absences were adversely impacting the educational environment and the progress of the children assigned to her class. The memorandum contained the following directives pertaining to future absences: Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to me or in my absence, Mr. Peter Harden, assistant principal. This is in accordance with procedures delineated in the site book. Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note stating an unconditional medical release to return to full duties presented to me upon your return to the site. Site procedures for provision of lesson plans and materials for substitute teacher when absent must be adhered to in the event of any absence from the site. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be requested and procedures for Board approved leave implemented. There are 180 days in a school year. During the 1990/91 school year, Respondent was absent a total of 101 days. Despite those absences, Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1990/91 school year was acceptable. Respondent underwent surgery again on her left knee in March, 1992. After another worker's compensation leave, Respondent was assigned a teaching position at Myrtle Grove under the supervision of Cecil Daniels, the school principal. Petitioner was advised that, as of June 4, 1992, the following restrictions were placed on Respondent's activities: No weight bearing for more than 20 minutes at one time on the left knee. No squatting. No kneeling. No climbing. No lifting more than 25 pounds at one time. The duties assigned to Respondent were within the medical restrictions delineated by Respondent's doctor. On June 11, 1992, Respondent refused to assume her assigned duties at Myrtle Grove. Respondent asserted that she was entitled to light duty employment and that she had been assigned too many children. As a result of Respondent's refusal, Mr. Daniels dismissed her for the day and employed a substitute teacher for the day. On June 12, 1992, Mr. Daniels held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent concerning this incident. There was no evidence as to Respondent's TADS assessment for the 1991/92 school year. 1992/93 SCHOOL YEAR Respondent was again assigned to Myrtle Grove for the beginning of the 1992/93 school year. Shortly after school began, Mr. Daniels discovered that Respondent had failed to follow school procedures at the end of the 1991/92 school year pertaining to the records that are kept for students. Mr. Daniels had a conference for the record with Respondent on September 30, 1992, at which he discussed this deficiency with her and also discussed with her two concerns he had about her class management. One concern was the result of a complaint he had received from a parent who reported that Respondent had not attended to an injury to a student. The second concern was that there had been several fights between students in her class. On or about October 8, 1992, Respondent was transferred from Myrtle Grove back to North County. Mr. Daniels had asked the district office to make this transfer. By memorandum dated October 16, 1992, Dr. Marleaux advised Respondent in writing that the directives pertaining to absences from the work site as set forth in her memorandum dated October 10, 1990, were still in effect. Petitioner maintains an employee assistance program (EAP) as a resource for employees who have personal or family problems that may be impacting an employee's job performance. On October 23, 1992, Dr. Marleaux referred Respondent to the EAP because of marked changes in Respondent's mood. Respondent had been seen crying in the classroom and in the teacher's lounge. She was visibly upset and physically shaking. Respondent testified that she was seen by a mental health professional as a result of that referral, but there was no evidence that Respondent benefited by the referral. Respondent testified that she did not think she needed help at the time the referral was made. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux on October 26, 1992. There was no evidence that the timing of this observation, in light of Respondent's behavior that resulted in the EAP referral, was inappropriate. Dr. Marleaux's observation was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:20 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following her observation, Dr. Marleaux prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance as unacceptable in the category of classroom management. Respondent began the instructional activities of the class 20 minutes late and ended the instruction 15 minutes early. There were a number of off-task students to whom Respondent did not respond either verbally or non-verbally. Although Respondent had classroom rules, it was Dr. Marleaux's observation that the behavioral expectations had not been made clear to the students and that Respondent was not implementing her assertive discipline plan. There was a contention that Dr. Marleaux was overly critical in her observations of Respondent. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on October 26, 1992. Dr. Marleaux's observation report included a prescription to remediate Respondent's unsatisfactory performance. This prescription consisted of a number of assignments that Respondent was to complete by a date certain. She was to observe a teacher with a successful assertive discipline plan, develop five strategies used by that teacher to improve classroom management, and review her assertive discipline plan with the assistant principal. She was also to complete activities in the TADS Prescription Manual and to develop lesson plans which required full periods of instruction. The respective deadlines for completing these assignments were between November 6 and November 16, 1992. These prescribed assignments are found to be reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent to improve her job performance. Peter Harden was assistant principal at North County during the 1992/93 school year. Mr. Harden formally observed Respondent in the classroom on November 24, 1992. His observation was between 1:30 p.m. and 2:11 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following his observation, Mr. Harden prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance in classroom management as unacceptable. Mr. Harden observations were similar to those of Dr. Marleaux during her observation the previous month. Mr. Harden observed that off-task students were neither verbally nor non- verbally redirected. Respondent began the instructional activities 20 minutes late and ended the lesson 19 minutes early. Respondent did not make behavioral expectations clear to the students. The students did not appear to be aware of the class rules and regulations. The observation report contained prescribed assignments that Mr. Harden believed would help Respondent improve her deficiencies in classroom management. A deadline of December 14, 1992, was set for Respondent to complete these assignments. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Mr. Harden fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on November 24, 1992. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 14, 1992, a midyear conference-for-the-record was conducted by Dr. Marleaux with the Respondent and her union representative in attendance. Respondent's TADS evaluations following the formal observations by Dr. Marleaux in October, 1992, and by Mr. Harden in November, 1992, were discussed. Respondent had not completed her prescribed assignments at the time of this conference because she had been ill. Dr. Marleaux extended the deadlines for completing the remaining assignments. Respondent was given notice that if she ended the 1992/93 school year in a prescriptive status, there could be possible employment consequences such as a return to annual contract status or termination of employment. During the conference, Respondent asked permission to observe a handicapped teacher. In response to that request, Dr. Marleaux arranged for Respondent to observe a teacher at Kelsey Pharr Elementary School who had to use crutches to walk. Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux on January 13, 1993, between 12:55 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. while Respondent was teaching her third grade class mathematics. Following her observation, Dr. Marleaux prepared an observation report that rated Respondent's performance in the following areas as being unacceptable: preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in preparation and planning based on her observation that Respondent did not follow at least half of her lesson plan as required by TADS. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management based on her observation that out of a one hour lesson plan, Respondent taught for only 20 minutes. Dr. Marleaux observed that there was a lot of wasted class time. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in techniques of instruction based on her observation that Respondent's teaching methods confused the students, she did not use the media resources skillfully, and she did not provide feedback to the students about their performance deficiencies. Respondent did not make any adjustment in her instruction, despite the confusion of the students. The observation report prepared by Dr. Marleaux following the observation in January 1993, contained prescribed assignments that she believed would help Respondent improve the deficiencies noted in her report. She was to write detailed lesson plans and turn them in to the principal weekly. She was to prepare all activities prior to teaching the lesson. She was to utilize the instructional activities recommended by the textbook. She was to follow the instructional methods outlined in the teacher's edition of the textbook. She was to observe a master teacher. These assignments were to be completed by January 29, 1993. Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on January 13, 1993. The assignments prescribed were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Norma Bossard was Petitioner's Executive Director for Foreign Language Arts and Reading and an experienced TADS evaluator. Ms. Bossard and Dr. Marleaux simultaneously observed Respondent in her classroom on February 19, 1993, and thereafter independently evaluated her performance. This review, referred to as an External Review, was during a language arts lesson between 10:45 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Both administrators rated Respondent unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in preparation and planning because she did not follow her lesson plan. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she did not develop ideas and information in a meaningful and orderly manner and because there was a lot of wasted class time. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not provide feedback to the students about their performance deficiencies and strengths. Out of 23 students, only two students completed the assignment. Respondent was oblivious that students were cheating. Respondent was rated as unacceptable in assessment techniques because she did not examine work completed by students and she did not monitor whether students were learning. Respondent was prescribed activities in an effort to aid her in remediating her unsatisfactory performance. She was given a prescribed lesson format for language arts. She was to observe a seasoned teacher. She was given a series of books called "Teaching and Learning the Language Arts". Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux and Ms. Bossard fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance during their external review on February 19, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On March 29, 1993, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent in writing that her performance during the 1992/93 school year had been unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. She was advised that the failure to correct these performance deficiencies prior to April 13, 1994, could result in the termination of her employment at the close of the 1993/94 school year. In the spring of 1993, Respondent entered Charter Hospital, a psychiatric facility, for deep depression and anxiety. She was absent for the remainder of the school year since she was physically and mentally unable to work. On April 2, 1993, Dr. Marleaux again notified Respondent that her absences were adversely affecting the educational environment and academic progress of her students. Respondent was again directed to communicate her absences to the principal or assistant principal, to document her absences by a medical note from her treating physician, to provide a medical release to return to full duties, to provide lesson plans for the substitute teacher when she is absent, and to take leave when future absences appeared imminent. During the 1992/93 school year, Respondent was absent 78-1/2 days. On May 18, 1993, Respondent was notified of her unacceptable annual evaluation by memoranda in lieu of a conference-for-the-record because she was on leave. Respondent's overall evaluation for the 1992/93 school year was unacceptable. She was rated unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Because she had failed to complete the assignments that had been assigned to her in an effort to correct the deficiencies in her unacceptable performance, Respondent's salary level was frozen at the end of the 1992/93 school year so that she did not receive any raise for the 1993/94 school year. 1993/94 School Year Respondent was cleared through the Office of Professional Standards to return to work at North County on August 25, 1993. The medical restrictions delineated by her doctor were implemented. In an effort to reduce the amount of walking she would have to do, Respondent was given a parking space close to the entrance to her classroom and she was given assistance in taking her students to and from lunch, to the library, and to the physical education field. Respondent was also given the same directives pertaining to absences that had been given to her on previous occasions, including in Dr. Marleaux's memorandum of October 10, 1990. Respondent requested permission to observe a teacher in a wheelchair. This request was denied because Respondent's doctor had prohibited Respondent from being in a wheelchair. The doctor preferred that she walk, with crutches if necessary, to reduce muscle atrophy. Beginning September 8, 1993, Respondent was absent again for several weeks. On September 22, 1993, Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent that the deadline for her to complete her prescribed assignments would be extended until October 8, 1993. This extension benefited Respondent since it gave her more time to remediate her deficiencies. In October, 1993, Respondent requested, through her treating physician, that she be transferred to another school, that she be given vocational rehabilitation, or that she be given a leave of absence. These requests were denied. Although Respondent argued that the denial of these requests was unreasonable, the evidence in this proceeding failed to establish that contention. Petitioner made arrangements for Respondent to have a full- time classroom aide for the remainder of the year. After a full-time aide was assigned for Respondent, Dr. Marleaux required the Respondent's aide to leave the room during formal observations. Respondent asserts that this was unfair and evidences Dr. Marleaux's bias against the Respondent. This assertion is rejected since the Petitioner established that the removal of the aide during a formal observation is standard procedure and allows the students to focus on the teacher without being distracted by the presence of the aide. On November 2, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Joyce Daniels, an assistant principal at North County. This observation was during a fourth grade math class and was between 9:00 a.m. and 10:10 a.m. Based on her observations, Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: classroom management and techniques of instruction. Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in classroom management based on her observation that Respondent appeared to be unaware of certain students who were being disruptive and others who were not on task. Respondent did not redirect the off-task students either verbally or non- verbally. She was not following her assertive discipline plan. Ms. Daniels rated Respondent as being unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not use calculators as recommended in the teacher's manual and because she wrote on the board in a manner that the students were unable to see. Ms. Daniels prescribed assignments to help Respondent improve her unacceptable performance. She was to observe two of the teachers at the school and she was to view the assertive discipline plan videos and review the assertive discipline workbook. She was to meet with the media specialist for help with the use of media. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Ms. Daniels fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on November 2, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 3, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Dr. Marleaux. This observation was from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. during her fourth grade math class. Based on her observations, Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent's performance as being unacceptable in the following categories: knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made substantial errors during the course of the lesson that created confusion on the part of the students. Respondent did not respond to the students who did not understand the lesson. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not use media resources skillfully. She did not use the calculators that were recommended and which were available in the school. She did not have her charts on the blackboard prior to the lesson. When she put the charts on the blackboard, she sat directly in front of them and some of the children could not see. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in teacher-student relationships because Respondent did not consistently utilize the consequences in her assertive discipline plan when students failed to adhere to standards of conduct. The students were punished with different consequences for similar misbehavior. Dr. Marleaux heard Respondent make caustic comments to students. Dr. Marleaux observed that these comments drew attention to these students and embarrassed one of them. Dr. Marleaux again prescribed assignments designed to remediate Respondent's unacceptable performance. The date for submission of her lesson plans was changed to Thursday at Respondent's request. She was to meet with the guidance counselor to learn strategies that would avoid sarcasm and embarrassment to students. She was to meet with the media specialist to learn techniques in the use of media. It was recommended that she use an overhead projector. She was to observe another math teacher who had been helping her. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on December 3, 1993. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On December 13, 1993, Dr. Marleaux held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. The purpose of the conference was to review Respondent's performance assessments and assistance and to discuss possible action by the School District if remediation were not attained. Respondent was apprised that unremediated performance deficiencies must be reported to the Department of Education and that she may not be reappointed to her teaching position for the 1994/95 school year. Respondent was formally observed by Joyce Daniels in January, 1994. In her observation report, Ms. Daniels rated Respondent's performance as being acceptable in all categories. Respondent re-injured her left knee when she fell in February, 1994. Respondent asked permission to use a wheelchair following this fall. Because the information that the school had received from her doctor reflected that Respondent should not use a wheelchair, Dr. Marleaux told Respondent not to use a wheelchair at North County. Respondent subsequently began using a wheelchair, and Dr. Marleaux did not object. During 1994, Respondent was given scheduled time to elevate her leg and put ice on her knee. On March 28, 1994, Respondent was again observed in an external review by Dr. Marleaux and Dr. E. Trausche, an administrator and TADS evaluator employed by Petitioner. This observation was between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. during a mathematics lesson. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Dr. Trausche rated Respondent as being unacceptable in the following categories: knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in preparation and planning because she did not follow her lesson plan. The activities in the teacher's edition were not accomplished. She did not use the suggested materials to accomplish the activities. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she used erroneous terms in her mathematics lessons and did not seem to fully understand the fractions lesson she was teaching. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in classroom management because she did not address off-task student behavior. She did not redirect the students either verbally or non-verbally. Dr. Marleaux rated Respondent as unacceptable in techniques of instruction because her demonstrations were all abstract. She did not utilize methodology outlined in the teacher's edition or teaching aides that were recommended. Her instructional methods did not meet the needs or abilities of the students. She blocked the students' view of work that was on the chalkboard. Many students were confused as to the lesson and some did not even try to do the work. She distracted students by talking to them while they were working. Respondent did not examine the students' work at any time during the lesson. Respondent was again prescribed activities to help her in overcoming her unacceptable performance. She was to observe another teacher. She was to work with the competency-based curriculum math facilitator. The grade level chairperson would work with her. She was to observe another teacher for the use of manipulatives. Based on the evidence presented, including the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Dr. Marleaux fairly and accurately evaluated Respondent's performance on March 28, 1994. No findings are made as to the reasonableness of the observations made by Dr. Trausche since Dr. Trausche did not testify at the formal hearing. It is further found that the prescribed assignments were reasonable and formulated to assist Respondent improve her job performance. On April 1, 1994, the Superintendent notified Respondent by letter that she had not corrected her deficiencies and he was recommending to the School Board that she not be issued a new professional contract. On April 13, 1994, the School Board accepted the Superintendent's recommendation and acted to withhold a contract from Respondent for the 1994/95 school year. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1993/94 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was not recommended for continued employment by Dr. Marleaux. Respondent testified that on the last day she worked in May, 1994, she began to disassociate and was incoherent. Respondent described disassociating as follows: It's where you're physically located close to someone but it's, your perception is that you are some where else. I could hear her voice but it was, sounded as if I was blocks away or something. Like I could barely hear what was being said of people. It was really frightening. (Transcript, page 218, line 22 through page 219, line 2.) Dr. Marleaux notified Respondent of her unacceptable annual evaluation by memorandum dated June 3, 1994, in lieu of a conference-for-the record, due to Respondent's absences. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was absent for 70 days. On many occasions, Respondent was informally observed both at Myrtle Grove and at North County by the same principals and assistant principals who had observed her formally. Respondent's students were often severely off-task and disruptive of other classes. Respondent's class was noisy and out of control. Security monitors frequently came to Respondent's class to get the students under control. Respondent seemed oblivious to the class management problems. Respondent was seen crying three different times. There did not seem to be much teaching and learning taking place. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies in performance which had been identified during the 1992/93 school year, despite many attempts to assist her with activities to remediate her deficiencies. Respondent asserts that Dr. Marleaux's refusal to allow her to use a wheelchair constituted a failure to reasonably accommodate her handicapped condition following the fall. Respondent also asserts that the denial of her request for a transfer, for rehabilitation therapy, or for a leave of absence constituted a failure to reasonably accommodate her handicapped condition. While the Respondent's testimony supports that contention, there is no medical evidence to support this self-serving testimony. The testimony of Dr. Marleaux and Dr. Annunziata established that the school reasonably accommodated Respondent's condition and did not ask Respondent to perform any duties that exceeded the medical restrictions that had been set by her doctors. Respondent also testified as to certain statements and comments that Dr. Marleaux made to her. 1/ The undersigned finds, based on the demeanor of the witnesses and the totality of the evidence, that Dr. Marleaux's denial that she ever made these statements is more credible than the testimony of the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the decision to terminate Respondent's employment by the nonrenewal of her contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 11th day of August, 1995.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Background The School Board is a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. 1 At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties stipulated that students N.E., C.Z., T.C., and S.M., were unavailable, and that their deposition testimony, included within the School Board’s Exhibit No. 12 and Respondent’s Exhibit Nos. 16 through 18, could be received in evidence in lieu of their live testimony. The School Board hired Respondent in 2010 as a teacher at Campbell Drive K-8 Center ("Campbell Drive"), a public school in Miami-Dade County. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years and at all times relevant to this case, Respondent was employed at Campbell Drive as an intensive reading teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The alleged conduct giving rise to the School Board’s proposed suspension and termination of Respondent occurred during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Allegations Involving K.S. The School Board alleges in paragraph 10 of the Notice of Specific Charges that during the 2016-2017 school year Respondent made grossly inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact with K.S. At the time of the alleged conduct, K.S. was a female 12-year-old student in Respondent’s seventh-grade intensive reading class. Specifically, paragraph 10 of the notice alleges: During the course of the school year, beginning sometime after the Winter Recess, he would touch her private area over her clothing. On one day during lunch, the Respondent requested that this student come to his room during lunch to make up a test. When she arrived in the room, the Respondent initiated physical sexual contact with the student. In addition to touching the girl beneath her clothes, the Respondent exposed himself to her and had her touch his private area. After the brief encounter, the girl exited the room. During the course of the school year the Respondent also asked her to engage in sexual acts and made sexual comments to her. The School Board further alleges in paragraph 10 of the notice that during the 2017-2018 school year, when K.S. was a student in Respondent’s eighth grade intensive reading class, "Respondent requested a sexual favor from [K.S] on a small note that he had handed her." At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with K.S. 2 K.S.’s Written Sworn Statement to Detective Webb On March 2, 2018, K.S. was interviewed by Detective Steven Webb, with the School Board’s police department, regarding alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by Respondent against her. That same day, K.S. gave a written sworn statement to Detective Webb, received into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit No. 11. In this sworn statement, K.S. stated that during the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent "became sexually active with students, he did multiple things." K.S. went on state that Respondent: started off by touching my private area and then he advanced a couple of days later by pulling his pen[n]is (sic) out and grabbing my hand and, placing it there. One day he sent a student to get me from the cafeteria and on the pass it stated that I had to make up a test, but when I entered his class he rubbed my breast, and started to suck them for about 10 to 15 seconds, and then I pushed him away. He was dropping my grade until I did the things he wanted me to do with him which is to have sex, give him head, thing of that nature. Recently, about 2-3 weeks ago he asked me to do things with him and that’s a reason to why I left early recently. 2 K.S. did not complete her seventh-grade school year at Campbell Drive. Before the school year ended, the principal of Campbell Drive asked K.S. to leave the school because of disciplinary problems involving physical altercations with other students and defiant behavior. K.S. subsequently enrolled in Villa Prep Academy, a private school where she completed her seventh-grade year. K.S. did not attend Villa Prep Academy for very long because she was dismissed from that school during the early part of her eighth-grade year. In December 2017, K.S. re-enrolled in Campbell Drive. Upon her return, K.S.’s mother requested that she be put in Respondent’s classroom and K.S. was a student in Respondent’s eighth-grade intensive reading class for the remainder of the 2017-2018 school year. There was nothing mentioned in K.S.’s written sworn statement about Respondent engaging in any inappropriate conduct toward K.S. while she sat at her desk in Respondent’s classroom. K.S.’s Audio Recorded Interview with Detectives Webb and Ochoa In a subsequent audio recording interview of K.S. on March 2, 2018, by Detective Webb and Detective Gil Ochoa, received into evidence as the School Board’s Exhibit No. 5, K.S. initially described the cafeteria pass incident as follows: K.S. stated she left the cafeteria with her food tray in hand and went to Respondent’s classroom. Upon entering Respondent’s classroom, she began telling him things about her family. K.S. stated Respondent then took away her food tray, set the tray down, and pulled her over to another area of the room, at which time he touched her breasts over her shirt, lifted up her shirt and sports bra, exposed her breasts, and sucked on one of her breasts for about 10 to 15 seconds. K.S. stated she got scared and left the classroom, and that is all he did that day. K.S. failed to mention anything about Respondent pulling out his penis on this occasion until asked specifically about it by Detective Ochoa near the conclusion of the interview. School Board’s Ex. 5 at 13:22. K.S. then stated that she saw his penis, but she was scared and looked away. K.S. made no mention of Respondent placing her hand on his penis. During this interview, K.S. went on to describe another occasion in Respondent’s class that occurred after school was dismissed for the day. According to K.S., on this particular occasion, Respondent asked her "to give him head" and "to have sex with him." However, according to K.S., it never happened. K.S. further stated that recently (two to three weeks ago), Respondent asked that she "give him head." There was no mention in this interview of Respondent touching K.S.’s vaginal area or dropping her grades. The entire audio recorded interview lasted approximately 15 minutes. At the conclusion of the interview, K.S. was asked if there was anything else that she remembered that she wanted to add. K.S. declined and she did not state any other alleged inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact by Respondent. K.S.’s Testimony at Hearing At the final hearing, K.S. testified that toward the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent moved her seat next to his because she was easily distracted by the other students and failed the first test. Subsequently, the following exchange occurred between counsel for the School Board and K.S.: Q: Now, during that school year, did Mr. Rizo ever do anything inappropriate to you during class time? A: Yes. Q: All right. Can you explain to the Judge what he would do to you? A: He would, like, walk by, ‘cause since I was sitting so close to him, he would just touch me, like, my private areas or he’ll just, like go down on my arm, like that. Stuff like that. Q: All right. Now, this would occur during class time? A: Yes. Q: When specifically--was there a specific time that it would occur during class time? A: Mainly when we were testing or doing our work. T. Vol. 1, pp. 28-29. Counsel for the School Board went on to question K.S. about the testing process and Respondent’s efforts to curtail students cheating on tests. K.S. testified that students placed raised stapled manila folders on their desks to prevent students from seeing each other’s tests. Counsel for the School Board then asked K.S., in leading fashion: "So it was this time, during the testing, when he would touch you? K.S. responded: "Yes." Id., Vol. 1, pp. 29-30. However, K.S. could not describe the number of times "this occurred" during the 2016-2017 school year. Moreover, this alleged inappropriate touching supposedly occurred while 20 to 25 other students were in the classroom. At hearing, K.S. testified at one point that Respondent’s touching of her vaginal area occurred every time they had tests, but she acknowledged that the raised stapled manila folders were not always present on the students’ desks during testing. At hearing, K.S. further acknowledged that had the inappropriate touching occurred as she testified to, any student at any point could have looked and seen Respondent caressing her in her vaginal area. Counsel for the School Board then inquired of K.S. if there was "ever anything more serious that [Respondent] did to [her]" that school year (2016- 2017). In response, K.S. described the alleged cafeteria pass incident as follows: A: I was in lunch--because I was in seventh grade at the time, seventh grade goes to lunch before anybody, and he sent one of his eighth grader students with a pass to go to get me. Because in order to leave the lunchroom, you have to have a pass. Security didn’t let you leave the lunchroom. Security called me and told me that my teacher was calling me to make up a test. When I got in the room, I had my tray in my hand, and he took my tray, put it down, he exposed himself. And then there was a corner and he, like, put me in the corner and he sucked on my breast. T. Vol. 1, pp. 32-33. However, moments later, K.S. described the incident differently: First he pushed me to the corner, and then after he sucked my breast, then he exposed himself. And then I was just scared. And he--when he exposed himself, he grabbed my arm and he made me touch his area, and then I grabbed my tray, I threw it away, and then I left. Id. at p. 33. According to K.S., she was in Respondent’s classroom on this particular occasion between five or ten minutes. The corner of Respondent’s classroom is located right next to the door entering the room. K.S. testified that the incident occurred with just Respondent and K.S. in the classroom, but with the other student who had retrieved K.S. from the cafeteria still waiting outside the door when K.S. left Respondent’s classroom. At hearing, counsel for the School Board also asked K.S., in leading fashion, whether she ever told the police officers that Respondent would "suck on your breasts or try to have sex with you multiple times?" In response, K.S. testified: "I told them--I told them the suck on my breast part, when he exposed him. And then when they asked about my eighth-grade- year, I told them how he wrote on a sticky note that I want to give him head, like oral sex …." Inconsistently, K.S. testified in her deposition that Respondent wrote on the sticky note: "Can I eat her?" According to K.S. in her deposition, Respondent picked up the sticky note, showed it to K.S., and she grabbed it from him and threw the note away. School Board’s Ex. 11, p. 11. At hearing, K.S. testified that Respondent handed her the sticky note and that she then threw it away. K.S. and Respondent never communicated by telephone, text, e-mail, or social media. There are no witnesses to any of the alleged incidents. K.S. never reported any alleged inappropriate conduct by Respondent to her parents, a teacher, or school administrators. However, at hearing, K.S. testified she told V.S.C. about Respondent’s conduct toward her during the 2016-2017 school year when V.S.C. came to her house on a single occasion sometime during K.S.’s eighth grade school year. Allegations Involving V.S.C. The School Board alleges in paragraph 11 of the Notice of Specific Charges that during the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent also made inappropriate comments to V.S.C. during his role as an afterschool care supervisor, and that he would "bump up against" V.S.C., "rubbing himself on her buttocks area." V.S.C. was not a student in Respondent’s classroom. The alleged inappropriate conduct occurred while V.S.C., a female 14-year-old eighth grade student at Campbell Drive, attended the school’s Students with a Goal ("SWAG") afterschool program. SWAG is an outdoor program where students can engage in a variety of recreational activities. Respondent was one of six school staff members that participated in the program. At any given time, there were approximately 100 students in attendance. Students could play soccer, basketball, football, dodge ball, board games, or do homework. Students could freely rotate through the different activities by simply notifying the adult conducting the desired activity. Respondent primarily engaged in soccer, but would occasionally participate in other activities. At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with V.S.C. V.S.C.’s Audio Recorded Interview with Detective Bernice Charley On March 6, 2018, V.S.C. was interviewed by Detective Bernice Charley, with the School Board’s police department, regarding alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by Respondent against her. An audio recording of the interview was received into evidence as the School Board’s Exhibit 8.3 During the interview, V.S.C. stated that while she and Respondent were at SWAG during the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent told her he wanted to slap her face with his penis; he asked her if she liked it rough (referring to sex); and he told her his penis was his "third leg." According to V.S.C., she and Respondent would engage in a verbal "back and forth," and he would say these comments in front of other students at SWAG. Additionally, V.S.C. stated she and Respondent would "bump" into each other at SWAG. According to V.S.C., Respondent would bump into her side or back from behind. During the interview, V.S.C. stated she had a bad memory. V.S.C. was reluctant to speak and there were many long pauses by her after questioning by Detective Charley. After much prodding and requests by Detective Charley for V.S.C. to "open-up," V.S.C. actually stated: "There’s nothing to talk about because nothing did happen." School Board’s Ex. 8, at 38:48-38:52. After further pauses, prodding, and requests by Detective Charley for V.S.C. to "open up," V.S.C. stated that Respondent also touched her breasts one time while they were at SWAG. According to V.S.C., this incident occurred with her shirt on. The School Board argues in its proposed recommended order that V.S.C. also described another incident while she and Respondent were at his classroom. According to V.S.C., Respondent was standing at his desk and V.S.C. was standing in the doorway, at which time Respondent stated to V.S.C.: "me and you here and now," followed by Respondent tapping on his desk. V.S.C. interpreted this comment as meaning that Respondent wanted 3 The audio recorded interviews of K.S. and V.S.C. (School Board’s Exhibits 6 and 8) are contained on a thumb-drive accompanying the School Board’s written exhibits received into evidence at the hearing. to have sex with her. According to V.S.C., other students were present when Respondent allegedly made the comment. Notably, this alleged incident is not referred to in the Notice of Specific Charges. The notice was, therefore, insufficient to inform Respondent of the School Board’s contention. The entire recorded interview lasted approximately 52 minutes. Much of the interview involved Detective Charley’s repeated efforts to redirect V.S.C. and her attempts to have V.S.C. "open-up." V.S.C.'s Testimony at Hearing At the final hearing, V.S.C. could not even remember whether she was in seventh or eighth grade during the 2017-2018 school year. In any event, V.S.C. testified that during the 2017-2018 school year, she attended Campbell Drive and the afterschool SWAG program. Respondent and V.S.C. did not have much interaction in the SWAG program. V.S.C. testified that she did not really participate in any of the SWAG activities; rather, she would either just "hang-out with [her] friends or sleep," or watch her friends and Respondent play soccer. However, most of V.S.C.’s time was spent sleeping near a tree, far away from where Respondent spent most of his time with the soccer group. When asked if Respondent ever did anything inappropriate to her during the SWAG program, V.S.C. testified that he talked about his "private part" to her, saying that "it was big," and referring to it once as "his third leg." Counsel for the School Board then asked V.S.C. in leading fashion: "Okay. Did he ever mention anything that he would like to do with his private part," to which V.S.C. responded, "I don’t remember. I just know that he talked about it once." T. Vol. 1, p. 82. V.S.C. described unspecified things that Respondent allegedly said to V.S.C. as "playful, like, in an inappropriate way," and "weird." Counsel for the School Board then asked V.S.C. in leading fashion: "Do you remember telling these things that he would say to you to the police at a given point," to which V.S.C. responded, "I barely remember. It’s, like, such a long time ago now." Id. at p. 83. As with her recorded interview with Detective Charley, V.S.C. was reluctant to testify at hearing and there were many long pauses by her after questioning by the School Board’s counsel. After further prodding and requests by the School Board’s counsel to describe "the things he would say to you, other than his talking about his private part," V.S.C. described the aforementioned verbal incident in Respondent’s classroom. On cross-examination, V.S.C. acknowledged this comment was loud enough so that other students could hear it and that she read a sexual connotation into the comment. Id. at p. 97. Counsel for the School Board again asked V.S.C. if Respondent ever made any other comments to her during SWAG, to which V.S.C. responded, "I can’t remember." Id. at p. 85. Subsequently, the following exchanges occurred between counsel for the School Board and V.S.C.: Q: Did he ever threaten to slap you with anything?" A: Yeah, with his penis. Q: What did he say? A: He said he wants to, like, slap me in the face with his penis. Q: And when did he say that? A: I think in SWAG. Yeah, it was in SWAG. * * * Q: Do you remember Mr. Rizo touching you in any other way other than bumping you with his hip or anything like that? A: When we would play fight, he would, like, put his pelvis, like, on my back area. Q: What would he do with his pelvis? A: He would just, like, be there, like, behind me and play fighting me. Q: Did he ever try to touch you sexually in any way? A: I guess, yeah, if he’s doing that, if he’s behind me like that. Id. at pp. 87 and 92. V.S.C. never reported any alleged inappropriate conduct by Respondent to her parents, teachers, or school administrators. At hearing, V.S.C. acknowledged that she and K.S. were friends. At hearing, V.S.C. admitted that she and Respondent were never alone during the SWAG program and that she was always close to the other students. At hearing, nothing was mentioned about Respondent touching V.S.C.’s breasts. Allegations involving N.E. In paragraph 12 of the Notice of Specific Charges, the School Board alleges that "Respondent also made sexual advances and over the clothing sexual contact with a third female student [N.E.] during the 2017-2018 school year." However, N.E. did not testify live at hearing and the School Board did not present any eyewitness testimony in support of the allegations. At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with N.E. Ultimate Findings of Fact At hearing, the undersigned had the opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of Respondent, K.S., and V.S.C. The testimony of Respondent is credited and is more persuasive than the testimony of K.S. and V.S.C., which is not credited or persuasive. Notably, K.S.’s and V.S.C’s versions of the events as set forth in their statements to the police and testimony at hearing were vague, differed in key respects, and much of their testimony and statements to the police were obtained through patently leading questions. Moreover, V.S.C. admitted that her memory is bad and that "there’s nothing to talk about because nothing did happen." It is also inconceivable that K.S. would have returned to Respondent’s classroom for intensive reading during the 2017-2018 school year had the alleged conduct during the 2016-2017 school year actually occurred. Had the alleged incidents occurred as testified about by K.S. and V.S.C., who were friends, it is also expected that there would have been eyewitnesses. In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Respondent did not engage in inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact with K.S., V.S.C., or N.E., as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, and Respondent did not engage in conduct with K.S., V.S.C., or N.E., which constitutes misconduct in office or immorality.4 4 K.S. and N.E. were also friends. As detailed above, N.E. did not testify at the hearing. However, an audio statement and a written statement purportedly authored by N.E., both of which are hearsay, were received into evidence at the final hearing as the School Board’s Exhibit Nos. 6 and 16, respectively. Although hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, this does not necessarily mean that the undersigned must use the hearsay in resolving a factual issue. The statements cannot be used as the sole basis to support a finding of fact, because they do not fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, the statements do not supplement or explain other non-hearsay evidence. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. ("Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions."). At hearing, the parties stipulated to the receipt into evidence of N.E.’s deposition testimony in lieu of her live testimony. Even if the audio statement and written statement could be used by the undersigned, however, the audio statement, written statement, and deposition testimony would not be given any weight based on the live testimony Respondent presented at hearing. Unlike N.E., who did not testify live
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order rescinding the suspension and termination of Respondent, Oscar D. Rizo, and reinstate Respondent with full back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 18th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Education Practices Commission should discipline the Respondent for statutory and rule violations alleged in the Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Peter Zanfagna, holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 1022509 covering the area of physical education, which is valid through June 30, 2017. In August 2013, the Respondent was hired as the physical education teacher for Westbrooke Elementary School in the Orange County School District. The Respondent’s classes combined two regular classrooms and consisted of approximately 42 to 70 children, depending on absences. Without a paraprofessional to assist him for the first two to three weeks of the school year, the Respondent made do with the assistance of a parent of a student and managed his classes well. He was widely considered to be a big improvement over his predecessor in the job. He had good lesson plans, followed his lesson plans and managed to maintain order. He received a good evaluation when his assistant principal, Carl Sousa, assessed him. Once, the school’s administration asked him to avoid using the playground when other classes were using it for recess, as he was doing on what he called “Fun Friday.” The Respondent immediately complied with the request. On Friday, October 11, the Respondent was attempting to supervise a large group of kindergarteners as they moved from the playground to a pavilion where lumber, some with nails sticking out, was stacked in preparation for its use in setting up for the school’s annual fall carnival scheduled for that weekend. Just before the maneuver began, the Respondent explained to the children his safety concerns about them having to walk past the lumber to get where they were going and told them he wanted them to walk in single file behind him. As he began walking along a sidewalk outside some classrooms, several students ran up beside him. Concerned for the students’ safety and upset that they ignored his instructions, the Respondent reprimanded them by yelling or screaming at them in a very loud voice. Two teachers were startled by the loud yelling or screaming. They looked out the window and saw it was the Respondent. One said the yelling or screaming was extreme and in a sharp, harsh tone. The other said the Respondent was pointing a finger six-to-eight inches from the face of one child. She heard him yelling or screaming at the child, “I told you to stay behind me, not in front of me, not next to me, but behind me.” Both thought the Respondent’s behavior was over-the-top, especially for children so young. Neither knew the reason for the Respondent’s behavior. One of the teachers who witnessed the incident said she heard children sobbing and screaming. The other said one child was crying and another was starting to cry. They believed the children were crying because of the Respondent’s loudness. The Respondent conceded that he yelled or screamed at the children to “stop” and “hold up.” He testified that his main concern during this incident, as always, was the safety of the children. He suggested the children’s crying may have been in reaction to his message to them that they could be seriously hurt if they ran into the lumber and nails. The Respondent also pointed out that he was saddled unfairly with the difficult task of supervising and monitoring a very large number of small children without adequate help. Even so, there was no evidence of any other similar incident. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent inappropriately disciplined students by requiring them to sit on concrete for entire class periods. When students were misbehaving so as to endanger other students or were not following the Respondent’s instructions, the Respondent would place the students in “timeout” by having them sit apart from the rest of the class for periods of time. Sometimes this occurred when the class was in the pavilion, which is where his classes gathered for attendance and for dismissal. The pavilion had a concrete floor and no walls but had a roof and was not an inappropriate place for students to be in time-out. Early in the school year, the Respondent sometimes left children in time-out for inappropriately long periods of time. When this was reported to administration, the Respondent was given a directive to limit time-out to ten minutes. The Respondent testified that he complied with that directive throughout the rest of the school year until he resigned, effective April 25, 2014. With one exception, there was no evidence that the Respondent failed to comply with this directive. On April 16, 2014, a school psychologist attempted to observe one of the Respondent’s kindergarten or first-grade students to help a school “staffing” determine if the child was autistic and eligible for special education. Near the beginning of the class, while the class was in the pavilion, the Respondent placed the child in time-out for not listening to instructions. The Respondent proceeded with his class, and the child remained in time-out for approximately 20 or more minutes. On that day, the Respondent had no assistant and was attempting to teach a class of 40 or more students by himself. The psychologist conceded that he might have lost track of time and left her “target” in time-out longer than intended. The Respondent did not recall the incident. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent inappropriately disciplined students by requiring them to do laps for entire class periods. First, the evidence was clear that the Respondent did not force his students to run laps. They always had the option of running or walking. Second, after attendance was taken in the pavilion, all classes began with stretching and warm-ups. Third, running or walking laps was sometimes a class activity, not discipline. Fourth, when laps were being run or walked, the duration of the activity or discipline could be determined by how well the students were performing; if they were not performing well, extra laps could be added to the activity or discipline. The charge that the Respondent made A.O., a twelve-year old fifth-grader, continue running after she complained of pain in her recently injured ankle arose from an incident on January 15, 2014. As to how recently A.O.’s ankle had been injured, her ankle was in a boot for about a month after the injury, and she had been out of the boot for about a week at the time in question. The evidentiary basis for the rest of the charge consisted of the written statements A.O. and the testimony of her and her mother. A.O. wrote an ambiguous statement the day after the incident. It started saying that the Respondent made the class run for the whole class period but then said he would let some people sit down and make others keep running. She stated her ankle started hurting after 20 minutes, so she asked if she could stop running, but he said to keep running. She did not state that she told the Respondent her ankle hurt. A.O. wrote another ambiguous statement for the Petitioner’s investigator in September 2014. In it, she said the Respondent did not make the class run the whole class period every day. She said, “[t]hat day we were walking and we were not running so he made us run the whole time.” Although “that day” was not specified, it reasonably can be inferred that the investigator was asking about January 15, 2014. In this statement, A.O. did not mention her own ankle hurting but stated another student claimed to have fallen and hurt his ankle, may or may not have told the Respondent about it, and seemed fine after the class. She also stated that when a student actually got hurt in class, the Respondent would send them to the clinic to get ice for the injury. At the hearing, counsel for the Petitioner had A.O. adopt her January statement and led her to testify that she told the Respondent that her ankle hurt, and asked him if she could stop running and sit down, and that he told her “no.” She then said she “kept walking.” Counsel then asked if the Respondent said, “no, keep running,” and she said, “yes.” She then said “no” to the suggestions that she was about to cry and was uncomfortable. She said she told her mother that evening that her ankle was hurting. On cross, she clarified that she “might have not been running as much as the other kids. I only said since it was hurting could I sit down. And you said, no, keep walking.” She then said she could not remember exactly what the Respondent said to her but only knew she asked to stop and sit down, and the Respondent said no, she had to keep going. On redirect, she agreed with counsel for the Petitioner that her memory of events would have been better at the time of her January statement than her September statement. A.O.’s mother testified that A.O. told her on the evening of January 15, 2014, that her ankle was hurting while running, that she asked the Respondent to stop, and that he said, no. She did not give any testimony on whether her daughter told the Respondent that her ankle was hurting. The Respondent denied that A.O. told him her ankle was hurting and that he refused to let her stop. He stood by his testimony that students always were given the option to walk and that he asked A.O. if she could walk slowly, she said she could, and she did. For that reason, he was not aware of any cause for concern. He testified persuasively, with strong corroboration from Robert Flynn, who was the Respondent’s teaching assistant for the last part of the Respondent’s tenure at Westbrooke and is the current physical education teacher there, and others, that the health and safety of the children was the Respondent’s number one priority, and that he would not have made any student run or walk if he thought there was a risk of injury. Taken together, the evidence was not clear and convincing that the Respondent made A.O. keep running after being told her ankle was hurting. The charge that the Respondent refused to allow A.L., a ten-year-old fourth-grader, to go to the clinic for an asthma treatment arose from an incident on April 18, 2014. The evidentiary basis for this charge consisted of two written statements by A.L. and the testimony of A.L. and her mother. A.L.’s first written statement was on April 21, 2014. It said she was in the Respondent’s class running at 12:15 p.m. when she had an asthma attack and went up to the Respondent to ask him if she could go to the nurse, “but before I can say anything he said no I can’t go to the nurse because I sometimes ask him if I can go to the nurse for my inhaler. Then I had to walk slow.” A.L. gave a second statement, this time to the Petitioner’s investigator, which was essentially consistent with the first one. Neither statement made it clear that A.L. told the Respondent she was having an asthma attack or that she needed her inhaler. At the hearing, she testified that she was running in class, felt an asthma attack, and asked the Respondent if she could go to the nurse to take her inhaler, and that he said, no, keep running. She then was led by counsel for the Petitioner to testify that she also told the Respondent she “couldn’t run and needed [her] inhaler.” Counsel for the Petitioner also led her to testify that she told her mother after school that she had gone to the Respondent and told “her [sic?]” that “[she] needed to see the nurse.” A.L.’s mother testified that her daughter had tears in her eyes when picked up after school. The mother could tell her daughter was having an asthma attack but no one else in the pickup area noticed. The mother took her daughter to the hospital, where it was determined that after a full medical workup that A.L. had walking pneumonia. A.L. spent a few days in the hospital and returned to school with a new medication for the pneumonia to take in addition to her inhaler. The Respondent denied that A.L. asked him to go to the clinic. He testified persuasively, with strong corroboration from Robert Flynn and others, that the health and safety of the children was the Respondent’s number one priority, and that he would not have refused to allow A.L. or any student go the clinic upon request for a medical reason. It appears from the greater weight of the evidence, including A.L.’s shy demeanor, and the number of children in the Respondent’s class, that A.L.’s medical request was not made known to the Respondent at the time. Taken together, the evidence was not clear and convincing that the Respondent refused to allow A.L. to go to the clinic for an asthma treatment. After A.L.’s parents reported to Westbrooke’s administration why A.L. was out of school, the school’s administration blamed the Respondent for refusing to allow A.L. to go to the clinic for an asthma treatment. This was the culmination of deteriorating relations between the Respondent and the school administration that began when the Respondent got his first paraprofessional assistant, Laura Fogarty. Ms. Fogarty was a private school physical education teacher, coach and athletic director in Chicago, who had moved to Orlando and took the paraprofessional job while she was awaiting her Florida certification. The Respondent felt she was undermining and disrespecting him and angling to replace him and felt that the school’s administration was siding with her when disagreements between them were presented to the school’s administration. The Respondent became increasingly antagonistic to Ms. Fogarty and the school’s administration. When the A.L. incident occurred, the school’s administration decided to ask the Respondent to resign or be fired. The Respondent chose to resign. After resigning, the Respondent was employed by a charter school in Manatee County as a physical education teacher, coach, and athletic director. He testified that he has been there for a year and a half with “zero problems.” On cross, it was brought out that the Respondent actually had been on administrative leave for about the last two weeks, apparently since counsel for the Petitioner questioned the charter school’s principal in preparation for the hearing and made the principal aware of the Petitioner’s investigation and disciplinary case against the Respondent’s state educator certificate. Cross-examination of the Respondent by counsel for the Petitioner also attempted to have the Respondent contradict his testimony regarding his positive teaching experiences at other Florida schools before he was hired by Westbrooke. Those attempts at impeachment were unsuccessful, and the Petitioner presented no evidence to contradict the Respondent’s testimony, which is accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying the Petitioner’s request for a five- year suspension and dismissing the charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 3rd day of May, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Duval County School Board, may terminate Respondent's employment as an instructional employee based upon the conduct alleged in the letter titled “Notice of Termination of Employment Contract and Immediate Suspension Without Pay” (the “Notice”) from Superintendent of Schools Nikolai P. Vitti to Respondent dated August 30, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Michael Green has been employed by the School Board as a teacher since 2004. He is a certified instructional employee covered by the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, chapter 21197, Laws of Florida (1941), as amended (“Tenure Act”) and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between Duval Teachers United and the School Board for 2008- 2011. At the time of the events at issue in this proceeding, Mr. Green was assigned to Butler Middle School as a health and physical education teacher and athletic director. At the time of the incident in question, which was at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, S.J. was a 14-year- old girl who was a student at Butler Middle School. She was starting her second year in the seventh grade. Based on the security video that was admitted into evidence, S.J. was very large for her age, nearly the size of Mr. Green. Principal Maurice Nesmith knew S.J. and characterized her as one of the worst of the 588 students at Butler Middle School. S.J. had a documented history of disciplinary problems for threats and acts of violence and for verbal and physical aggression toward other students, staff, teachers, and even administrators at Butler Middle School. Mr. Nesmith frequently received complaints from teachers, administrators and staff that S.J. was rude, disrespectful, defiant, and resistant to instruction. School security guard Javonne Johnson testified that he was familiar with S.J. and frequently had to deal with her because she would be outside of her assigned classroom without permission. Mr. Johnson stated that it was hard to make S.J. calm down when she was agitated. On January 30, 2013, S.J. caused what Mr. Nesmith’s Discipline Incident report termed “a major disruption” in the Butler Middle School cafeteria. S.J. was angered when a smaller male student snitched on her for throwing food. She commenced hitting the child in the head. She punched him several times before a security guard and assistant principal could intervene. S.J. then proceeded to fight the adults until they managed to corral her into Mr. Nesmith’s office. According to Mr. Nesmith’s report, S.J. stated to him that “she didn’t give a fuck, she don’t care about this shit.” Officer Frederick Robinson of the DCPSPD submitted a written statement confirming that S.J. told the adults, “I don’t give a fuck about nobody, I don’t give a fuck about the police,” and “No one is going to tell me what the fuck to do or say.” As a result of this incident, and many before it, Mr. Nesmith referred S.J. to an alternative school for the remainder of the 2012-2013 school year. Mr. Nesmith testified that when S.J. returned to Butler Middle School for the 2013-2014 school year there was no change in her behavior. Though she was not disciplined for her role in the incident with Mr. Green, S.J.’s return to Butler Middle School was nonetheless short-lived. By early October 2013, S.J. had again been referred to an alternative school because of repeated incidents, including one in which she threatened to kill another student (“I got bullets for your ass”). The School Board placed into evidence video taken by security cameras in the gym and in the hallway outside the gym. There is no sound on the videos. Visual aspects of the findings as to events in the gym and in the hallway on the morning of August 28, 2013, are mostly based on the security video. Findings as to what was said in the gym and in the hallway that morning are based on the credible testimony of witnesses. Brittany Knadle is a first-year physical education teacher assigned to Butler Middle School. On August 28, 2013, she taught a large physical education class of approximately 60 students during first period in the school’s gymnasium. S.J. was enrolled in Ms. Knadle’s first period class. Although it was only the second week of school, Ms. Knadle was already having problems with S.J.’s truculence and had complained to Mr. Nesmith about S.J.’s behavior in her class. On August 28, 2013, S.J. was disrupting Ms. Knadle’s class, wandering through the lines of students who in the security video appear to be lackadaisically performing calisthenics on the gym floor. Mr. Green entered the gymnasium in his capacity as athletic director to ask Ms. Knadle about coaching a sport. Ms. Knadle agreed to coach softball. Mr. Green testified that Ms. Knadle told him that she was having problems with S.J.’s refusal to follow directions. Mr. Green advised her to make S.J. stand against the wall and to give her a grade of zero for the day for nonparticipation in the class activity. Mr. Green stated that he had never met S.J. prior to August 28, 2013, but that he had heard about her physical assault on an administrator and had heard she was rude, disruptive, and disrespectful to authority figures. Mr. Green left the gym but returned a short time later with a form for Ms. Knadle to sign regarding the softball coaching position. Mr. Green observed S.J. continuing her disruptive behavior, wandering around the gym, walking through student lines and not participating in class. Mr. Green believed she was creating a safety hazard for the other students. He instructed S.J. to gather her belongings because he was taking her to the dean’s office. S.J. slowly strolled to the spot on the gym floor where her backpack lay. She stood over the backpack and then rummaged through it for several seconds. She then picked up the backpack and walked toward Mr. Green to exit the gym. Mr. Green testified that while S.J. had been belligerent and cursing during the entire incident, she appeared even more irate, threatening and confident after picking up her bag, saying to him and Ms. Knadle, “You all are going to make me fuck one of you up.” The security video shows S.J. and Mr. Green exiting the gym and into the school hallway. Mr. Green places his hand on S.J.’s shoulder. She walks straight across the hallway to the opposite wall. S.J. turns to face Mr. Green and drops her backpack. Mr. Green moves to within inches of S.J., very nearly nose to nose. At this point, S.J. pushes Mr. Green away with both hands. Mr. Green responds with a right hand strike to S.J.’s face. The blow appears to be a glancing one. S.J.’s head snaps to the right but she quickly recovers and moves toward Mr. Green with her arms flailing. Mr. Green backs up a step or two, braces himself with his right foot, draws back his right hand into a fist, then pushes off the right foot to deliver a full- force punch to S.J.’s face. S.J.’s head snaps violently back to the right and she staggers backward into the wall. Remarkably, S.J. once again shakes off the blow and again charges forward toward Mr. Green. At this point, Mr. Green wraps S.J. in his arms and takes her down to the floor. He holds her down for a few seconds until security arrives to take over. Mr. Johnson was the guard who took over and restrained S.J. He tried to calm her but she continued to yell and scream, cursing and threatening Mr. Green, saying she was going to “kick his ass.” Mr. Johnson noted no marks on S.J.’s face and refused to believe S.J.’s repeated statements that Mr. Green “hit a girl . . . he hit me in my face.” Officer Robinson of the DCPSPD handcuffed S.J. and placed her in the back of his patrol car to await arrest. Mr. Nesmith, who was visiting an upstairs classroom, was called via walkie-talkie and informed that Officer Robinson needed him. Mr. Nesmith came down immediately and spoke to Officer Robinson at his patrol car. Officer Robinson told Mr. Nesmith that he was arresting S.J. for battery on a School Board employee, and explained what happened in the hallway. Mr. Nesmith told Officer Robinson that there was a security camera in that hallway. They had a security guard wait outside with S.J. while they went inside to view the security video with Mr. Green, who had been waiting in Mr. Nesmith’s office. The three men reviewed the video. Mr. Nesmith testified that when he saw the video, he dropped his head and asked Mr. Green, “What were you doing?”1/ Mr. Nesmith immediately contacted the School Board’s professional standards office and his region chief to report the incident. He then took Mr. Green to the principal’s conference room and instructed him to write a statement. The statement that Mr. Green wrote in Mr. Nesmith’s conference room read as follows: I, Michael Green, entered the gymnasium to speak with Coach Knadle. At the time [S.J.] a student in Coach Knadle’s class was causing a disruption. The student was standing walking through the students cursing as they were sitting in roll call on the floor. [S.J.] was asked to get her books so I could escort her to the office to settle down. She began cursing loud causing a seen [sic] as she walked out of the gymnasium. I then stopped her in the hallway to keep her from cursing loud disrupting the learning environment. As she stopped in the hall she continued to curse and yell at me, saying fuck you, you ain’t nobody. I told her to quiet down and she pushed me. Then she started to swing at me. In my defense I tried to stop her arms from hitting me. I tried to keep her at a distance. She stopped for second [sic] then she started to attack me again. I then had to take her to the ground to keep her from attacking me. It is notable that this statement makes no mention of the fact that Mr. Green struck S.J. in the face twice during the altercation. Mr. Green would later contend that he feared S.J. had a weapon when she attacked him, but he made no mention of such a fear in this statement, written within two hours after the incident. Mr. Green was taken into custody by DCPSPD for suspected child abuse. He was interviewed by Detective Don Schoenfeld, who had reviewed the security video. Mr. Green told Detective Schoenfeld that he did not remember hitting S.J. After the interview, Detective Schoenfeld had Mr. Green write a statement.2/ Mr. Green’s statement to Detective Schoenfeld read as follows: I Michael Green entered the gymnasium3/ to speak with another teacher. The teacher was having difficulty getting the student to follow directions. The student began to walk around and throughout the other students causing a safety issue. The student was asked to gather her belongings so that I could escort her out of the gymnasium and to the office where she could calm down. The student began to curse using all kinds of profanity as she exited the gymnasium. Once entering the hallway the student continued to talk loud and curse causing a comotion [sic]. I approached the student to keep her from running and acting wild and crazy. She pushed me with both hands. She continued to curse and threaten me saying “fuck you,” “you ain’t nobody,” “what’s up.” I then tried to keep her at a distance. She began to swing and punch at me. I then tried to subdue her to keep her from causing harm to me and herself. Once I got her to the ground I called for security to assist the situation. As in his earlier statement, Mr. Green here makes no mention of the most notable aspect of the incident: that he struck a seventh grade student twice in the face with his fist. He also makes no mention of any concern that S.J. might have had a weapon. Mr. Green was arrested and spent the night in jail.4/ He was charged with child abuse but the state attorney later dropped the criminal charges. Upon his release from jail, on August 29, 2013, Mr. Green was informed by Mr. Nesmith that he was to report immediately to the School Board’s Consolidated Services Warehouse/Teacher Supply Depot at Bulls Bay until further notice. On or about August 30, 2013, Mr. Green received the Notice, which informed him of the charges against him and of his right to contest those charges. The Notice stated that if Mr. Green chose to exercise his right to a hearing, he would be suspended without pay as of September 4, 2013, and that this suspension would be acted upon by the School Board at its meeting on September 3, 2013. On September 3, 2013, Mr. Green sent an email to Superintendent of Schools Nikolai P. Vitti that read as follows:5/ Dear Dr. Vitti, I am writing you this letter with the deepest concern of my character. First, I would like you to know that by no means am I an evil person or even a child abuser, I am far from what has been perceived of me due to the situation at Eugene Butler. I love and care about my students and I am very sorry for what happened but in all honesty I was defending myself. Please take a few minutes from your busy schedule to read this letter and consider me for reinstatement of my job. I entered the gym that particular day to get a signature from a coach because I proudly serve as the Athletic Director. As I was getting the signature the young lady who works in PE with me was having trouble controlling her class, she asked me to intervene and assist her. She is a first year teacher, small statute young white female who is presently teaching some students that are academically and behavioral challenged. This situation is rough on a first year teacher. I was able to calm her class down and get them in their roll lines but this one particular student continued to curse and disrupt the learning environment. This student was just getting back from Grand Park Alternative School this year. I was aware of her past and her behavioral problems so I asked her why she can’t follow instructions. I told her to report to the Dean’s office, still using abusive language she told me “Fuck You” over and over and continued to say “you ain’t nobody”. She walked to get her bag and gather her belongings. I saw her reach inside a bag she was carrying. I asked her to get out the gym because at that time I felt the other students were in danger and this student was causing a serious uproar. Before leaving the gym she said “y’all mother fuckers always trying me!” She continued to curse and got animated walking to the door. When she left the gym I followed her out at a cautious distance and instead of heading to the Dean office she was headed in the opposite direction to the front office. I told her she was headed the wrong way and this is when I stepped in front of her. I was trying to calm her down and keep her from causing a commotion in the hallway and keep her from walking to the front office. Then she raised her hands and pushed me saying “what’s up” in a threatening manner. Honestly it happened so fast sir until I was in defense mode because I knew what she had done to other staff members and the idea of her possessing a knife really scared me. It was a situation that I have never been in before and I panicked. The student became combative in an instance and I really didn’t know how to handle the situation. She came at me swinging and saying “what’s up, what’s up.” I was backing up trying not to let her get to me because I thought she could have had a weapon. She continued to attack me moving in my direction. When I realized she didn’t have a weapon I took her to the ground calling for security. Once I had her on the ground she continued to kick and try to break away. The entire time she continued to curse and saying “I’m gonna fuck you up”, I’m gonna kill you. Security arrived and she continued to say “let me go so me and this mother fucker can fight.” Again, I have never been in a situation such as this one. I feel truly sorry that this happened. Since the incident I haven’t been able to sleep and I have become depressed over the fear of my career being put in jeopardy. I have over ten plus years of service with Duval County and I have never been involved with anything such as this situation. In closing this letter, I am currently enrolled in graduate school with only three more classes to go and I am majoring in Educational Leadership. I really have hopes and dreams of being a leader one day in this wonderful district but I am praying that you have mercy on me for this situation and consider the circumstance and not to think that I am a child abuser but only I was defending myself from a violent student. I love my job and I really want to continue my career in Duval County. Please consider me for reinstatement, I am sorry for what happened and I am so willing to attend any training or workshops that the district provides to help teachers in these situations. This email again fails to admit in a straightforward manner that Mr. Green punched S.J. in the face. In this email, his third written description of the events in the hallway on August 28, Mr. Green for the first time states that he feared S.J. had a weapon, presumably a knife that she had pulled out of her bag while gathering her belongings in the gym. In the email, Mr. Green also states that he believed he was protecting the other students in the gym class from “danger” and that S.J was causing a “serious uproar” in the gym. The security video shows that the other students were more or less ignoring S.J. as she wandered in and out of the lines and around the gym.6/ In her testimony, Ms. Knadle disagreed that the class was out of control. She stated that the students were loud and were talking over her, and she agreed that Mr. Green was able to calm the students down by speaking to them. Six of seven School Board members were present at the September 3, 2013, meeting at which Mr. Green’s case was considered. The vote to suspend Mr. Green without pay and to terminate his employment with the Duval County School Board was unanimous. In his testimony at the hearing, Mr. Green complained that he had never received training on how to deal with violent students. Sonita Young, the School Board’s chief human resource officer, testified that the School Board offers training in proper restraint techniques to all teachers who specialize in working with students with behavioral disorders and to other teachers on an as needed basis. As a general education teacher, Mr. Green was not an obvious candidate for such training. Ms. Young testified that the training needs of a school are generally determined by the principal. Mr. Nesmith testified regarding “CHAMPS” training in classroom management techniques that all new teachers at Butler Middle School are required to attend. Mr. Nesmith did not require Mr. Green to take this training because there were no apparent deficiencies in Mr. Green’s classroom management. Most tellingly, Mr. Nesmith testified that “teachers know not to punch a student.” A teacher lacking training may face situations in which he must improvise a method of restraining an out-of-control student, but there is no excuse for such improvisation to descend to a fistfight with a middle school student. Mr. Johnson, the security guard, testified that when he is confronted by a physically aggressive student, “I just wrap them up, put my arms around them to keep them from being able to strike me or hurt themselves. If they continue to be aggressive, I put them on the floor and restrain them there.” This common sense approach is exactly how Mr. Green resolved the situation with S.J., but only after twice punching her. It is disingenuous for Mr. Green to contend that he required specialized training to know not to draw back his fist and strike a 14-year-old student in the face. Mr. Green explained the inconsistency of his statements by asserting that he was so stunned by the rapidity of events on the morning of August 28 that he was “out of it.” Mr. Johnson testified that Mr. Green seemed “somewhat bewildered . . . like he couldn’t believe what had just happened.” Mr. Green testified that at the time he wrote his first statement, he honestly believed he had not struck S.J., despite having seen the security video. Mr. Green’s testimony on this point is not credible. His written statements were clearly efforts to minimize his own actions and cast all blame for the incident on S.J. Mr. Green testified that he feared S.J. had pulled a knife out of her bag because of her increased confidence and belligerence after rummaging through her bag prior to leaving the gym with Mr. Green. He further testified that his punches were a desperate attempt to keep S.J. away from him in case she was wielding a weapon. Once he was sure that she was unarmed, he wrapped her up and took her to the ground. Mr. Green’s testimony on this point is undercut by his behavior prior to the first blow being struck. After S.J. backed up against the wall, Mr. Green moved in close, nearly nose to nose with S.J. He testified that this is a technique he learned from watching another teacher deal with angry students. Mr. Green moves in close while speaking calmly to the student, forcing the student to look him in the eye, feel safe, and calm down. Mr. Green’s explanation of this technique was not entirely credible. The psychological rationale of standing extremely close in order to calm a student is not readily apparent. On the security video, Mr. Green’s moving in on S.J. appears more an effort to employ his bulk to intimidate the student than to calm her. Even if Mr. Green’s explanation of his motive were credited, his action had the opposite of its intended effect. There is little question that his invasion of S.J.’s personal space was the proximate cause of her pushing him away, which started the fight. In any event, Mr. Green’s willingness to closely approach S.J., with his arms at his sides, belies his later assertion that he feared the child was holding a knife. His apprehension of a weapon appears to be an explanation concocted after the fact to explain why he chose to punch S.J. rather than restrain her. Mr. Green’s defense pointed out that no witness to the aftermath of the incident noted any marks, bruises, discoloration or severe injury to S.J.’s face. The fact that there were no marks on S.J.’s face was a matter of fortuity and no thanks to Mr. Green. This defense also overlooks the potential psychological harm to the child. S.J. was handcuffed, arrested, and placed in a patrol car because the adults did not believe that Mr. Green had punched her and Mr. Green himself would not own up to his actions. Much testimony was presented as to Mr. Green’s character, his genuine concern for students and their respect for him, and his lack of any prior disciplinary history. All of this testimony has been considered and fully credited. Much evidence was presented as to S.J.’s obstreperousness, her foul manner of speaking, her complete disregard for authority, and her perpetual verbal and physical aggression toward other students, staff and faculty of Butler Middle School. This evidence has likewise been considered and fully credited. However, even if it is stipulated that Mr. Green is an exemplary human being, a fine teacher and coach with an unblemished record, and a dedicated employee of the School Board, and it is further stipulated that S.J. was the worst student ever to darken the corridors of Butler Middle School and was in fact asking for what she got on August 28, 2013, there would be no excuse or rationalization sufficient to lessen the impact of Mr. Green’s actions on that date. When confronted with a large and aggressive student, Mr. Green’s instinct was to do exactly the wrong thing and punch her in the face. He compounded the harm by equivocating as to his actions even after seeing video evidence of what he had done. Mr. Green’s instinctive reaction during this incident could not help but effect the way he is viewed by his peers in the teaching profession and by the students who are entrusted to his care. His judgment and honesty are in question, at best. His effectiveness in the classrooms and the gymnasium of Butler Middle School has been irreparably impaired. In light of his spotless disciplinary record up to the time of the incident, the School Board could have considered transferring Mr. Green to another school to give him a chance to salvage his career. However, given the ferocity of the events depicted in the security video, the decision to terminate Mr. Green’s employment is entirely understandable. The evidence fully supports the School Board's preliminary decision to terminate Mr. Green's employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Duval County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Michael A. Green as an instructional employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 27th day of June, 2014.
