The Issue The issue is whether Respondent’s employment with Petitioner as a high school principal should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in 2011, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as the principal of Spanish River High School (“SRHS”). As the principal of SRHS, Respondent was required to “perform such duties as may be assigned by the district school superintendent pursuant to the rules of the school board, [including] rules relating to administrative responsibility, instructional leadership in implementing the Sunshine State Standards and the overall educational program of the school to which the principal is assigned.” § 1012.28(5), Fla. Stat.; Palm Beach Sch. Bd. Policy 1.014. The educational program which principals are charged with implementing is defined by Florida law. Section 1003.42(1), Florida Statutes, requires school boards to provide “all courses required for middle school promotion, high school graduation, and appropriate instruction designed to meet State Board of Education adopted standards [in the subject areas of reading and other language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign languages, health and physical education, and the arts].” Additionally, the State of Florida requires “members of the instructional staff of the public schools” to teach certain specified subjects “using books and materials that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historical accuracy.” § 1003.42, Fla. Stat. These specifically required teachings, which are defined and described in varying degrees of detail, include: the “history of the state”; “conservation of natural resources”; “the elementary principles of agriculture”; “flag education, including proper flag display and flag salute”; the “study” of Hispanic and women’s contributions to society; kindness to animals; the “history and content of the Declaration of Independence, including national sovereignty … and how [these concepts] form the philosophical foundation of our government”; the “history, meaning, significance and effect of the provisions” of the United States Constitution; the “arguments in support of adopting our republican form of government, as they are embodied in the most important of the Federalist Papers”; and “the nature and importance of free enterprise to the United States economy.” Section 1003.42(2)(f) requires the teaching of the history of the United States, including the period of discovery, the Civil War, and the civil rights movement to the present, and includes the following direction: American history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence. Section 1003.42(2)(h), which requires Florida educators to teach the “history of African-Americans,” specifically requires instruction on: The history of African Americans, including the history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and contributions of African Americans to society. Instructional materials shall include the contributions of African Americans to American society. The teaching of the history of the Holocaust is mandated by section 1003.42(2)(g), which provides: (2) Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historical accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction, the following: * * * (g) The history of the Holocaust (1933-1945), the systematic, planned annihilation of European Jews and other groups by Nazi Germany, a watershed event in the history of humanity, to be taught in a manner that leads to an investigation of human behavior, an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping, and an examination of what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purposes of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions. The curriculum for teaching the Holocaust at SRHS included an assembly which all tenth-grade students were required to attend. Schools have discretion in constructing a curriculum. The school’s principal is responsible for determining the contents of the curriculum. A school is not required to have a Holocaust assembly as part of its curriculum, but if an assembly is part of the curriculum, the assembly must be mandatory. A Holocaust assembly was “part of [SRHS’s] mandatory curriculum for tenth- graders.” On April 13, 2018, the mother of a rising SRHS tenth-grader wrote to Dr. Latson “to discuss the Florida Mandate to include Holocaust Education each year in the student’s curriculum” and specifically to ask “in what ways/classes is Holocaust education provided to all of the students.” Dr. Latson answered the parent in an email which included these statements: [A]s far as [H]olocaust studies and the curriculum it can be dealt with in a variety of ways. The curriculum is to be introduced but not forced upon individuals as we all have the same rights but not all the same beliefs. Each year we do a Holocaust assembly and we target the 10th graders so every year that group will get a day[‘]s work with the [H]olocaust. We advertise it to the tenth grade parents as [there] are some who do not want their children to participate and we have to allow them the ability to decline. The parent replied to Dr. Latson in another email: Please clarify your statement: “The curriculum is to be introduced but not forced upon individuals as we all have the same rights but not all the same beliefs.” The Holocaust is a factual, historical event. It is not a right or a belief. Dr. Latson responded with the following statements: The clarification is that not everyone believes the Holocaust happened and you have your thoughts but we are a public school and not all of our parents have the same beliefs so they will react differently, my thoughts or beliefs have nothing to do with this because I am a public servant. I have the role to be politically neutral but support all groups in the school. I work to expose students to certain things but not all parents want their students exposed so they will not be and I can’t force the issue … . I can’t say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event because I am not in a position to do so as a school district employee. I do allow information about the Holocaust to be presented and allow students and parents to make decisions about it accordingly. I do the same with information about slavery, I don’t take a position but allow for the information to be presented and parents to be parents and educate their students accordingly. I am not looking for a situation to divide but just to let all know I don’t have a position on the topic, as an educator. My personal beliefs are separate and will always have no place in my profession. This is a very touchy subject, one I have had conversation with Rabbi Levin about. I am simply letting you know all we can do as a public school within our ability. Dr. Glenda Sheffield, who currently is Petitioner’s chief academic officer, was, at all times relevant to this matter, the instructional superintendent for Petitioner’s south region, which included SRHS. In that earlier position, Sheffield was the immediate supervisor of the principals of more than 20 middle and high schools located in the south region, including Dr. Latson. Sheffield reported to Dr. Ian Saltzman who was the regional superintendent for the south region. Saltzman reported to Mr. Keith Oswald. Oswald, at all times relevant to this matter, was Petitioner’s deputy superintendent of schools. Oswald’s duties included supervision of the regional and instructional superintendents who supervise the schools. Oswald was made aware of the email exchange between Dr. Latson and the SRHS parent by Dianna Fedderman, Petitioner’s assistant superintendent for curriculum, who had been told of it by Maureen Carter, Petitioner’s Holocaust program planner, to whom the parent had forwarded the emails. Carter and Fedderman expressed concern about the content of the emails, which Oswald shared. He forwarded the email chain to Saltzman and Sheffield to take action. Oswald directed Saltzman and Sheffield to keep him informed about the counseling they were giving to Dr. Latson, to address the Holocaust studies at the school to strengthen them, and to meet with the parent and address her concern. The Palm Beach County School District (“District”) did not publicize Dr. Latson’s emails, deciding the matter would be handled at the regional level. Dr. Latson was not disciplined for his statements to the parent. He was, however, counseled. Dr. Latson’s counsel described the coaching as advising Dr. Latson of the need for “more circumspect e-mail, e-mail composition to parents.” Dr. Latson testified that the “only criticism” he received was that he “could have worded a better email.” Sheffield did not feel the need to address the teaching of the Holocaust at SRHS because she knew from her own experience that the subject was, in fact, infused in the school’s curriculum. She, therefore, focused her work with Dr. Latson on what she considered to be his poor choice of words. Sheffield did work with the parent for “quite some time.” Between April of 2018 and July of 2019, there were numerous meetings and interactions among and between Sheffield, Saltzman, Carter, Fedderman, and the parent. Dr. Latson had no doubt that the District was supportive of him during this time and, again, the “only criticism” he received was that he “could have worded a better email.” Dr. Latson’s perception was that his emails to the parent were “not clear [and as I read them] some of the things weren’t clear and some of it, in retrospect I could have just left out.” Dr. Latson felt that his words to the parent “obviously gave her the belief that [he] did not believe in the Holocaust, [and he] was just saying [he] wasn’t going to affirm or deny it.” “[S]he kept bringing it back up, so that gave [him] the opinion that she didn’t understand what that meant, even after it was clarified.” When Sheffield was coaching Dr. Latson, she was not aware that he was allowing students to opt out of the Holocaust assembly because the students’ parents did not want the students to be exposed to the contents of the assembly. There is some confusion on this point because Dr. Latson says he never said directly that a student might “opt out” of an assembly with his blessing, but that parents were always free to keep their children home from school for any reason (including not wanting them exposed to the serious nature of the assembly), subject only to District attendance requirements. There is no District or SRHS provision authorizing a parent to opt out of instruction on the Holocaust. If a principal were to allow that practice, she believed he would not be enforcing the mandatory curriculum for the Holocaust. Oswald, who was to be kept informed of the efforts of Saltzman and the others, was told that Dr. Latson had acknowledged that his words were inappropriate. Like Sheffield, Oswald was not aware that Dr. Latson was allowing parents who wished to avoid the Holocaust assembly to “opt out” of it. On May 9, 2019, the same parent sent an email to Saltzman and copied Superintendent Fennoy, Oswald, and Sheffield about a meeting held on May 6, 2019, attended by the complaining parent and School District personnel. The email included the following statement referring specifically to Dr. Latson’s statements in his April 2018 emails: There is one major issue that was not resolved at the meeting, and we do not think there is any resolution other than to remove Mr. Latson as principal from [SRHS]. Mr. Latson made his thoughts very clear at the meeting. When he tried to explain that he thinks his statements in his offensive and erroneous emails last year were misunderstood, he ended up reiterating his offensive and erroneous views. Saltzman informed Oswald that the way the parent characterized the meeting of May 6, 2019, was not accurate. The District, therefore, gave no consideration to the parent’s call for Dr. Latson’s removal from his position at SRHS and took no action in response to the parent’s email. On July 5, 2019, the Palm Beach Post (“Post”) published an article headlined, “Spanish River High’s principal refused to call the Holocaust a fact: A mother pushed for a year to address what she described as a school leader’s failure to separate truth from myth.” Petitioner was aware before its publication that the article was being written. Oswald made a statement to the reporter writing the story. Oswald’s comments were reported in the article: Oswald, who oversees all the county’s principals, said he agreed with the mother that Latson’s email messages were inappropriate but were not reflective of who he was as an educator. Latson, he said, is a popular school leader whose school does more Holocaust education than most campuses and has led the school successfully for years. He should not be judged, he said, solely by a pair of email messages. “It was a hastily, poorly written email that he apologized for,” Oswald said. “That’s some of the challenge that we face when we email back and forth instead of picking up the phone.” Dr. Latson was also aware that the article was being written. The District’s communications director, Claudia Shea, worked with him to prepare a statement to be given to the writer. That statement was reported in the article: In a statement to The Post, Latson apologized for the way he expressed himself in his emails, saying it was not indicative of his actual beliefs or regard for historical fact. “I regret that the verbiage that I used when responding to an email message from a parent, one year ago, did not accurately reflect my professional and personal commitment to educating all students about the atrocities of the Holocaust,” Latson wrote. “It is critical that, as a society, we hold dear the memory of the victims and hold fast to our commitment to counter anti-Semitism,” he continued. He pointed out that [SRHS’s] educational offerings on the Holocaust exceed the state’s requirements. The Holocaust is taught, he said, in ninth- and 10th-grade English classes, as an elective course and in an annual assembly featuring a keynote speaker. The reaction to the publication of the article on July 5, 2019, was “complete outrage, chaos.” Oswald testified to the article’s impact: Q. Can you tell us how it was expressed? A. It was expressed … phone calls, e-mails, meeting with State representatives, locally to the White House. It was completely consuming of all my time on the following days. Q. The following day being the 6th? A. There and forward. The public reaction to the publication of the article and its impact on the District is not disputed. Dr. Latson himself acknowledged it in an email he sent to Oswald and others in the District at 3:36 p.m. on Saturday, July 6, 2019: The release of this article is having the effect the parent who wants to discredit me desired. It is causing a rift in the community, students and parents are attempting to defend me to those in the community who do not know me. I am not the public relations expert but I am wondering if something should come out from me to clear this up. Me not saying anything is fueling questions in the community. I am getting this daily from parents. My parent groups are trying to stop the negativity but they are asking if a statement can come out from me addressing this issue. They state that I have always been vocal and got ahead of things so it is the parents[‘] expectation to hear from me and not doing so is causing questions. Your thoughts? In response to Dr. Latson’s email, Oswald telephoned, telling him “not to make any statements and to not say anything and that we are working internally with the communications department about this.” Oswald specifically directed Dr. Latson not to make any further contact at that time. Oswald told Dr. Latson that they would talk on Monday, July 8, 2019. Dr. Latson testified that Oswald emailed his response to Dr. Latson’s July 6, 2019, email. No such email from Oswald was produced, but Dr. Latson’s telephone records indicate that he received a telephone call from Oswald on July 6, 2019, at 4:56 p.m., which lasted eight minutes. Dr. Latson acknowledged that this telephone call could have been Oswald’s response to his email. In any event, he did confirm being told that “we weren’t going to respond” to the article. The District continued to support Dr. Latson after the article was published. Before he left for vacation, he received a phone call from Sheffield, who told Dr. Latson that she was supporting him. Sheffield, having taken her current position as chief academic officer, was not Dr. Latson’s supervisor on July 6, 2019. She learned of the article’s publication while traveling back from her vacation. She nevertheless called Dr. Latson to ask how he was faring and to tell him to “hold [his] head high” and “[w]e’re going to get through this working together.” In the telephone conversation, Dr. Latson expressed the hope that “this doesn’t ruin [his] reputation.” He also spoke with Dr. Arthur Johnson, the representative of the principal’s association and his friend and former superintendent. Johnson told Dr. Latson to “hold on and let’s see what’s happening.” On Monday, July 8, 2019, Oswald called Dr. Latson at 7:36 a.m., and they spoke for five minutes. Oswald told Dr. Latson that the “Post article was starting to cause somewhat of a problem for [Oswald] and the District and [Oswald] wanted me to take a voluntary reassignment.” Dr. Latson told Oswald that he “needed to discuss [the reassignment] with [his] family” because he believed that his voluntary acceptance of a reassignment meant that the District could place him where they wanted and that might affect his compensation, and he “had an issue with that.” There is some variance between Dr. Latson’s testimony that he informed Oswald he would “try to get back” to him by noon, and Oswald’s testimony that Dr. Latson “stated he would get back to him that morning.” Dr. Latson admits “that Oswald requested a call back by noon.” Dr. Latson testified that, because he was on vacation, he was not obligated to call Oswald back before noon and, also, testified that, if he had been told to contact Oswald, that would be a directive he had to obey. It is, however, undisputed that Dr. Latson at least told Oswald he would “try” to get back to him by noon and undisputed that, even though he spoke with “individuals” about the reassignment, he made no effort to communicate with Oswald before noon of July 8, 2019. After speaking with Dr. Latson at 7:36 a.m., Oswald attempted to communicate with him no fewer than six times before noon on July 8, 2019, because of the urgency of the worsening situation. Oswald called Dr. Latson at 8:21 a.m., 9:35 a.m., 10:32 a.m., and 10:42 a.m., and texted him at 8:22 a.m. and 10:32 a.m. When Dr. Latson did not answer the telephone calls, Oswald left voicemails, increasing with urgency, saying the situation was escalating and asking him to return his call. In response to an automated text sent from Dr. Latson’s phone-- indicting he was driving and could not receive notifications, but informing the caller to “reply urgent” to send a notification with the original message-- Oswald texted him the word “urgent” twice at or around 10:32 a.m. Oswald received no response from Dr. Latson. Between 7:36 a.m. and noon on July 8, 2019, Dr. Latson placed nine and received four telephone calls to and from friends, family members, colleagues, and Johnson. Apparently, his cellular phone was functioning during this time. At approximately 12:33 p.m., not having heard back from Dr. Latson, Oswald sent Dr. Latson a text and an email informing him that Oswald was reassigning him to the District Office. Dr. Gonzalo La Cava, Petitioner’s chief of human resources, also left Dr. Latson a voicemail about the reassignment. Oswald’s text to Dr. Latson was as follows: “I have left you numerous messages to contact me. I am reassigning you to the district office. Please call me ASAP.” Dr. Latson’s argument, as opposed to his testimony, explaining his failure to respond to Oswald on July 8, 2019, is inconsistent. Dr. Latson initially justified his lack of a response to Oswald by arguing that the text he received from Oswald about being removed as principal of SRHS “did not seem to invite a response.” In fact, that text closed with the words, “Please call me ASAP.” In his Answer, Dr. Latson alleged that after he received the message about the re-assignment, he “attempted to email Oswald, but the message did not go through.” At hearing, Dr. Latson testified that he tried to text Oswald around 12:30 p.m., but the text did not go through. He also testified that he attempted to email Oswald at 9:30 p.m. from Jamaica. Dr. Latson explains his lack of response to Oswald by saying he was already on the phone whenever Oswald was trying to call and the calls could not have gone through. His telephone records, however, showed that other calls he was making during this time were interrupted and he was able to connect with the incoming caller. It is undisputed that Dr. Latson received Oswald’s communication telling him that he was being reassigned to the District Office. He admits he told Oswald he would “try” to get back to him specifically to tell Oswald whether he would accept the voluntary assignment. Dr. Latson’s failure to respond to Oswald’s several attempts to speak with him is consistent with a decision not to accept the voluntary reassignment. Contradicting testimony was given at hearing regarding whether Dr. Latson’s request to travel to Jamaica in July had even been approved or known about by Petitioner. A District spreadsheet showing a week-long leave beginning July 8, 2019, was offered into evidence and removed any doubt as to whether Dr. Latson was on recognized or approved leave. The public reaction that followed publication of the July 5, 2019, article was somewhat lessened by news of Dr. Latson’s reassignment, and, “after he was reassigned, there was some calming in the District.” The reassignment was widely publicized. The New York Times published an article datelined July 8, 2019, under the headline, “Principal Who Tried to Stay Politically Neutral About Holocaust Is Removed.” Although he did not respond to Oswald, Dr. Latson did email the faculty and staff at SRHS. The email was obtained by the author of the July 5, 2019, article. His email opened with the paragraph: I have been reassigned to the district office due to a statement that was not accurately relayed to the newspaper by one of our parents. It is unfortunate that someone can make a false statement and do so anonymously and it holds credibility but that is the world we live in. Dr. Latson describes his email as “a necessary and righteous denial of a false allegation.” He describes the “false statement”--the statement that was “not accurately relayed to the newspaper by a parent”--to be that “I was hesitant and I wouldn’t--I avoided confrontation with Holocaust deniers [and] that was not true [and] it also stated that, you know, I denied that the Holocaust occurred [and] that’s not true.” “She can fear my reluctance, but I had no reluctance, so that would be an incorrect statement.” However, in explaining his reasoning, Dr. Latson admits that the statements of the parent contained in the article were reported as the parent’s opinion and that, although she did not doubt that he knew the Holocaust was real, she “feared” that his reluctance to say so stemmed from a desire to “avoid confronting parents who deny the Holocaust reality.” He also made clear that the “statement” that was “relayed” by the parent to which he referred in his email to staff were, in fact, the statements that he had written in April of 2018. Dr. Latson believes that as an educator mandated by law to teach the history of the Holocaust, he is required--by the very statute which imposes that duty, to be tolerant of those who would deny that the Holocaust is historical fact, to the point of allowing some to avoid attending Holocaust remembrance assemblies required of all students. In his email to the complaining parent, Dr. Latson wrote that he could not, as a school district employee, say “the Holocaust is a factual, historical event.” At hearing, he testified that, although he could as a District employee state whether he believes the Holocaust to be a fact, he had the “option to be politically neutral.” In his email to the parent, Dr. Latson wrote that he advertised the tenth-grade Holocaust assembly “as there are some who do not want their children to participate and we have to allow them the ability to decline.” At hearing, Dr. Latson testified that he advertised the assembly so parents would know, in case a teacher marked a child who was attending the assembly absent. He testified that some parents do not want their children to attend the Holocaust assembly because of the graphic nature of the teaching materials used, and he is not “going to force a child to sit in a room where their parents don’t want them to be.” The District’s absence policy can be used to allow students to stay home from school during the Holocaust remembrance assembly, if the parents so desire. He believes that the statute mandating the teaching of the Holocaust as history requires that he be tolerant of those who do not want their children to be shown the graphic images of the atrocities, but that they could still learn from the required teachings through other means. Dr. Latson sent an email to faculty and staff at SRHS on the afternoon of July 8, 2019. Oswald, Fennoy, and the District did not learn of Dr. Latson’s statement concerning the complaining parent in this email until late that evening. Dr. Latson testified it was a common practice for principals leaving a school to inform the staff of their departure so they can prepare themselves for a change in administration, which generally means that an entering principal might do things a bit differently. He believed it was important to deliver the message of his leaving as early as possible. He admitted he wrote the email to staff quickly and did not take the time to fully consider the repercussions of his words regarding the complaining parent. He was frustrated that he had lost the support of the District at the time he wrote the email, after having received their support prior to that time. He admitted he did not do a good job of expressing his frustration, but he never believed the email would be seen by anyone but the faculty and staff at SRHS. While news of Dr. Latson’s reassignment had dampened the public reaction which the District was dealing with after publication of the July 5, 2019, article, Dr. Latson’s statement in the email re-energized the public. Instead of reconciliation over his poorly worded April 2018 emails, Dr. Latson’s placement of blame on the parent undermined the apology and made matters worse. There was “complete outrage [by District personnel] that he would do that to a parent.” An article which appeared in the Post on July 9, 2019, was headlined, “More calls for Spanish River High principal’s firing after he blames parent.” The article included the sub-heading, “Principal William Latson’s farewell message prompted an anti-hate group and two Boca-area legislators to join calls for his termination.” On July 10, 2019, the Post published an article headlined, “In defiant farewell, ousted principal blames parent.” Dr. Latson does not dispute that the public reaction to his email was negative, which he learned of while he was still in Jamaica. The personal impact of Dr. Latson’s statement in the July 8, 2019, email was demonstrated by those who testified on behalf of him. Dr. Latson conceded that he did not know the reasons for his reassignment at the time he wrote the email to SRHS faculty and staff. He wrote to his staff that he was reassigned because of a statement inaccurately relayed to the newspaper. He believes the statement to be that he did not want to confront Holocaust deniers. In fact, in the predetermination hearing, Dr. Latson’s representative began the defense with the statement that the District “cannot remove a principal or adversely transfer him for not being zealous enough in a parent’s personal crusade against anti-Semitism.” That is not how Dr. Latson’s supporters saw it. The record makes clear that the controversy was about Dr. Latson’s earlier words, specifically, that, as a public educator who was mandated to teach the history of the Holocaust, he thought it would be improper for him to state that the Holocaust was a fact since he would not be acting in a neutral manner as an educator. Shari Fox, the Magnet Academy coordinator at SRHS, testified that she specifically asked Dr. Latson, “What is controversial about the Holocaust?” His response was that he did not think it was controversial in the beginning, but it has more recently come to his attention that Holocaust deniers exist, which makes its existence controversial. Mr. Aaron Ryan Wells, a SRHS teacher and debate coach, described a news article that “was essentially fabricated in the sense that it didn’t give all the facts, basically creates the disaster that removes a man of three decades from his post.” Because of Dr. Latson’s treatment, Wells “treads lightly even when teaching geography.” He has had inquiries regarding whether the Holocaust is even an appropriate subject for high school students. This incident detracts from the power of the course that introduces the skill that is supposed to be introduced with these types of students, namely tolerance and respect for others who may be different from you. He took from Dr. Latson’s reassignment the lesson that a single parent can question how you teach a subject, which could potentially result in your reassignment or termination as an educator should you fail to bend to the parent’s wishes. The lesson and perception that Wells and others took from Dr. Latson’s removal was that you should not teach controversial subjects. In fact, and as a matter of law, the State of Florida does not consider the occurrence of the Holocaust to be controversial. It does not and cannot prevent any student or parent from holding the absurd “belief” that the Holocaust did not happen. It can and does mandate that the student will be taught that history is not opinion or belief and that the Holocaust did occur. Through his actions, Dr. Latson caused a great number of people to doubt the commitment of the District to honor that mandate. His unilateral attribution of the reasons for his termination caused further disruption in the SRHS community. Many SRHS faculty and staff were left with the idea that Dr. Latson was reassigned because of the April 2018 emails, and were left with a sense of “injustice” and “unfairness.” The Community, the faculty, and the staff were angry, and some of that anger was directed at the complaining parent and her student. Dr. Latson’s allocation of blame to the parent and pointing out a “false statement” also sowed discontent among the faculty and staff, directed towards the District. Because Dr. Latson’s email stating the reasons for his reassignment were the April 2018 emails and, what he considered to be, a false statement from a parent, the faculty and staff felt that the District did not support the staff. Prior to learning of Dr. Latson’s July 8, 2019, email, the District had not taken any action to terminate him. Dr. Latson believes he was terminated because of outside pressure, to satisfy the not insignificant group of public officials and members of the public who called for his resignation. But those calls were made some time before he was terminated. Despite those calls, the District took Dr. Latson at his word, that he had been misunderstood, that his emails could be worded better, and that he understood the parents’ perception of his views. After the newspaper article of July 5, 2019, was published, when Oswald faced the reaction of the public and public officials, the District stood by Dr. Latson. The article itself contained Oswald’s defense of Dr. Latson, that he had written a poorly worded email. Even after Dr. Latson made no effort to contact Oswald before noon on July 8, 2019, the District did not move to terminate him. He was reassigned. Not until Dr. Latson made clear that he had not been misinterpreted in his “neutrality” statements to the complaining parent and it was clear to the District personnel involved that he was not walking back these statements, did Fennoy conclude that Dr. Latson’s employment was incompatible with the District’s commitment to teach the Holocaust. At some level, Dr. Latson believed that parents who do not want their children to be taught the Holocaust should be allowed to keep their children out of school on that day. He believed that he had a professional obligation to be neutral on matters of historical fact, even as espoused by members of, for example, the Flat Earth Society. Further, he believed that a statute that mandated the teaching of the Holocaust in a way that promoted tolerance required the teacher to be tolerant of those who said the history to be taught was, in fact, not history. Johnson, a long-serving principal, former Palm Beach County school superintendent, and now a consultant to principals, testified that no progressive discipline was imposed on Dr. Latson. Respondent admitted into evidence a document entitled “The Discipline Process, A Guide for Principals and Department Heads.” He testified the manual is still in existence and used by the District. Describing the process, Johnson discussed how, typically, “we start from the bottom and move to the top,” beginning with a verbal reprimand, followed by a written reprimand, then a short-term suspension, followed by a longer-term suspension, and, ultimately, a termination. He noted that there are occasional instances where discipline can go from “zero to one hundred, all the way to termination,” but these must involve “very serious offenses” that “put the District at risk.” He testified that the initial problem here was “an overly zealous parent’s intolerance of Dr. Latson’s tolerance.” He believes that an educator’s role is to be neutral and provide both sides of an issue. “You stick with the facts.” “You present both sides of the story. And you as a teacher or administrator may have to become very neutral, meaning you can’t advocate.” “We are definitely not in a position to proselytize or to indoctrinate young people,” he testified. He did admit that Dr. Latson could have used better language to communicate his thoughts on neutrality and to communicate with faculty and staff via email. Dr. Ben Marlin, another former Palm Beach County school superintendent, concurred with Johnson’s analysis and the appropriateness of exercising progressive discipline in this case. He likened the process to a ladder, with the penalty growing more severe the higher you climb. He testified that he would not have terminated Dr. Latson under the circumstances of this case. He would have resolved the matter through a meeting with a possible verbal reprimand. If the behavior occurred again, he would consider a written reprimand. Subsequent violations would result in more severe penalties. The testimony of the two former superintendents was not challenged or rebutted by Petitioner. No witnesses were called to state that progressive discipline was not applicable to this matter. Fox testified “we have to stay neutral in all of these topics [including the Holocaust] and just explain the facts to the students and guide the information and the discussion.” Fox specifically testified she does not believe Dr. Latson is Anti-Semitic. According to SRHS history teacher, Ms. Rachel Ostrow, the teacher’s role is “to present the facts, to guide the discussion amongst the students. But I lay out the facts from every point of view and then we discuss the content.” Ostrow specifically testified she does not believe Dr. Latson is Anti- Semitic. On July 17, 2019, Dr. Latson received notice that an administrative investigation had been opened by the Department of Employee and Labor Relations related to Ethical Misconduct. An investigative report was authored by Ms. Vicki Evans-Paré on August 23, 2019. On September 26, 2019, Dr. Latson received a copy of the investigative file, including the written investigative report. On October 7, 2019, a predetermination meeting was held to allow Dr. Latson to respond to the allegations, produce any documents that he believed would be supportive of his position, or rebut information in the investigation materials he was provided. He submitted a written response to the potential charges and his representatives, Dr. Thomas E. Elfers and Johnson provided oral presentations. Dr. Latson’s response at the predetermination meeting again compared the Holocaust to a belief, claiming that “constitutional liberty interests are involved: an interest in not being forced to reveal information about personal beliefs and an interest in being forced to make statements about one’s views.” The response preached neutrality in the presentation of “various hot buttons or touchy subjects.” Dr. Latson believed his body of work as an educator should have been taken into account and should not have resulted in a termination of his employment. He had never been disciplined previously by the District or the Educational Practice Commission in 26 years as an educator. He had received a “highly effective evaluation” for each of his eight years as the principal of SRHS, and the highest possible evaluation for 25 of his 26 years as an educator. Under his leadership, Dr. Latson oversaw the raising of SRHS from a “B” to an “A” rating in 2012, which was maintained throughout his tenure as principal. He achieved many successes as principal, such as significantly raising the school’s national academic ranking, being recognized by the District as the highest performing Palm Beach County school in advanced academic studies, and creating a school environment described by teacher Wells as “phenomenal,” and engendering an atmosphere of trust among the teachers, as stated by Fox and Ostrow at hearing. When asked by his counsel at hearing, Dr. Latson unequivocally stated that he is not Anti-Semitic. This statement was unrebutted by Petitioner. On October 11, 2019, however, based upon the information presented to him from the investigation and the predetermination meeting, Fennoy informed Dr. Latson that there was just cause, which can be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, to warrant his termination from his position as a principal, and that Fennoy would recommend Dr. Latson’s suspension without pay and termination of employment at the October 30, 2019, School Board meeting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order rescinding the suspension and termination of Dr. Latson; awarding him his lost wages for the period beginning with his suspension without pay; and transferring him to a position within the District, as determined by the superintendent, commensurate with his qualifications. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Elfers, Esquire Law Office of Thomas Elfers 14036 Southwest 148th Lane Miami, Florida 33186 (eServed) Thomas Martin Gonzalez, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2700 Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Craig J. Freger, Esquire 16247 Northwest 15th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33028-1223 (eServed) 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) Donald E. Fennoy II, Ed.D., Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
The Issue Should discipline be imposed on Respondent's Florida Educator's Certificate No. 878226, based upon the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Case No. 034-0140-Q, before the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 878226, covering the areas of chemistry, which is valid through June 30, 2004.2/ At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Gulf Coast High School Charter, in the Escambia County School District. STIPULATED FACTS Gulf Coast High School (GCHS) conducted a field trip to Pensacola Beach on May 10, 2002. No certified lifeguards were employed by GCHS for the May 10, 2002 beach field trip. GCHS conducted a similar field trip to Pensacola Beach in April 2001. For the April 2001 (trip), GCHS claims it employed two certified lifeguards. Fifty-eight students attended the May 10, 2002 beach field trip. The following eight GCHS employees accompanied the students to the beach: Russell D. Bourne, Transportation Supervisor --"Mr. Bo" Deanna Jones, Science Teacher Felicia Churchwell, English Teacher Anthony Bassett, Social Studies Teacher Alphonso Lewis, Behavioral Tech Minnie Robertson, Secretary/Attendance Clerk Ray Steven White, Student Services Specialist Melvin Burnett, Behavioral Tech Mr. Burnett left the field trip around lunch time, before the drowning took place. For each student attending the beach field trip, parents signed a field trip authorization form and attached a $5.00 payment for expenses. The beach field trip form specifically stated the student would be going to the beach and that a "certified lifeguard would be on duty." Although the field trip was planned by Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, the person in charge at the beach was Felicia Churchwell, a second-year English teacher. Ms. Deanna Jones took no part in planning the field trip. Both Assistant Principal Kevin Jones and Trip Supervisor Churchwell attended last year's beach trip (the 2001 trip) and knew lifeguards were on duty at that time. Neither Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, nor any other employee of GCHS polled students to ascertain whether students could or could not swim. Neither Assistant Principal Kevin Jones, nor any other employee of GCHS polled employees to ascertain whether the employees attending the field trip could or could not swim. Prior to leaving the school on May 10, 2002, the fifty-eight students were shown the safety video: A Safe Visit to the Beach. The video described the meaning of the beach flag system and provided information on how to manage dangerous surf conditions such as rip tides. Aside from a viewing of the video, Assistant Principal Kevin Jones' only other precautionary instruction to the students was that they were not to go into the water deeper than their navels. The students boarded two GCHS buses and were taken to the gulf side of the beach near the entrance to Fort Pickens. They arrived at the beach at approximately 10:30 a.m. Ms. Deanna Jones immediately advised Ms. Churchwell and other staff that no lifeguards were on duty and yellow flags were flying. Ms. Churchwell stated that she was not concerned that a lifeguard was not present. Students remained in the water for nearly an hour and a half before being called out of the water for a lunch break. All students left the water for lunch. The students were permitted to return to the water following the lunch break at approximately 12:45 p.m. Two staff members, Ms. Deanna Jones and Mr. Alphonso Lewis, stayed at the pavilion. Mr. Lewis was cleaning up from lunch and Ms. Jones was watching the students who were still eating. The remaining staff members returned to the beach to monitor the students who were either sitting or standing near the water's edge observing the students. Some students began to go out into deeper water, venturing beyond the sandbar approximately ten to fifteen yards from shore. At that time Social Science teacher Anthony Bassett began to yell to the students to get out of the water. Students Isaiah Baker, Colan White, Johnny Smith, Ryan Dumas and the decedent, Earl Beasley, were together in the water. No staff person observed the decedent in any danger. No staff person observed the decedent drown. Staff at the beach determined the decedent was missing only after students leaving the water indicated the decedent was missing. Initially GCHS staff believed the decedent could have been in the rest room. When the decedent could not be located, Anthony Bassett called 911. No GCHS personnel, except Alphonso Lewis, entered the water to search for the decedent. Mr. Lewis traveled to the sand bar, but was discouraged from going further by another GCHS employee due to the dangerous surf. Mr. White searched the water visually through the zoom feature on his camera. Rescue personnel arrived with jet skis about ten minutes after the 911 call was made. The decedent's body was found submerged ten to fifteen minutes later approximately fifty yards off shore. Rescue personnel performed CPR at the scene and Life Flight took the decedent to Gulf Breeze Hospital. Earl Beasley was pronounced dead thirty minutes later. ADDITIONAL FACTS On February 26, 2002, Respondent commenced her employment at GCHS. During employment at GCHS Respondent had not been told about school policies in relation to serving as a chaperone on a field trip for the student body. The persons responsible for planning the May 10, 2002 outing for the school were Kevin Jones, the assistant principal, and Felicia Churchwell, an English teacher. Mr. Jones and Ms. Churchwell did not delegate to Respondent any planning or organizational responsibilities associated with the field trip. In that connection, Respondent was not called upon to determine whether the students could swim. Respondent was not called upon to arrange for a lifeguard to be in attendance at the outing. Assistant Principal Jones did not attend the field trip. Ms. Churchwell was placed in charge of the field trip and served as supervisor at the beach. Respondent had no supervisory authority or control over other persons who served as chaperones on the field trip. Respondent was required by Assistant Principal Jones to attend the field trip as a chaperone. Assistant Principal Jones had informed Respondent of the duty to act as chaperone a couple of days before the field trip. It was the intent of Assistant Principal Jones that all students who would participate in the field trip watch the video on safety. After the students watched the video Mr. Jones told the students that they should not go deeper in the water than their belly buttons. Earl Beasley did not view the safety video. But he was allowed to go on the field trip. There is no indication in the record that Respondent participated in the decision to allow Mr. Beasley to participate in the outing without a knowledge of the instruction presented in the safety video. When the party arrived at the beach, there was a lifeguard stand but no lifeguard. The lifeguard stand had a sign displayed indicating that the lifeguard was not on duty. A yellow flag was displayed reminding swimmers to proceed with caution. When Respondent told other chaperones, to include Ms. Churchwell about the absence of the lifeguard, those other persons responded that they knew that the lifeguard was not on duty. Before lunch Respondent spent time down by the water watching students in her role as chaperone. Some students were in the water, others were not. Some students were observed violating the assistant principal's instruction not to go deeper than their belly buttons. Respondent called out to those students who exceeded the depth allowed. The students came closer to the shore where they could understand what was being said. Respondent then told them that Mr. Jones had said that they could not go above their belly buttons. Beyond the time at which she had offered this reminder to stay within the bounds for depth, Ms. Churchwell allowed the students to return to the deeper water. Later in the morning Respondent reminded the students another time to not go so deep in the water. By that point the water was becoming more choppy. A short time later the students were called for lunch. The students went to a location behind the sand dunes away from the beach, where a picnic area was located to have their lunch. The students were required to remain out of the water for a period of time beyond the point in time when they ate their lunch. From the picnic area, one could not see the immediate shoreline because of the dune height. Respondent remained in the picnic area after lunch to watch some students who had remained in that area. Respondent became aware that Earl Beasley was missing when people began to approach the picnic area by coming across the boardwalk that topped the dune. These persons were trying to find the missing student in the restroom areas adjacent to the picnic area. Respondent was told words to the effect that Earl Beasley was in the water and in distress. Having been told about Mr. Beasley's circumstances, Respondent returned to the beach. She observed that the water was even rougher than it had been before. Respondent was prepared to assist in the attempt to rescue Mr. Beasley. She decided against this course given the water conditions. The efforts of others to save Mr. Beasley were not successful.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Counts 1 through 3 of the Administrative Complaint, upon a finding that Respondent has not violated Section 1012.795(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes (2002), nor has she violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a).3/ DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2005.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged and if so what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case the Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School District and was assigned as principal at John F. Kennedy Middle School (JFK). On or about March 9, 1998, a guidance counselor at JFK spoke with the Respondent regarding a complaint from a female student that she had been inappropriately touched by a male teacher at the school. Given the casual nature of the complaint, the Respondent believed the matter to be a "rumor" and made a note to himself to "check on" the allegation. The Respondent did not follow up on the allegation and did not "check on" the rumor. The Respondent also did not verify whether or not the guidance counselor investigated the allegation. Subsequently the Respondent became aware of other allegations involving the same teacher. The complaints alleged inappropriate acts with students. At least one of the incidents was witnessed by a student who supported the complainant's allegation. All of the incidents involving the teacher occurred before a criminal complaint was filed by a parent. It is undisputed that the Respondent knew of one or more of the alleged complaints. At no time prior to the teacher's arrest did the Respondent notify school authorities or the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) of the allegations previously made against the teacher. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Palm Beach County School District had a policy in effect that required the Respondent to notify HRS and school district authorities regarding the types of complaints involved in this case. Such policy is set forth in its entirety within the Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Respondent did not view the incidents complained of as sufficiently serious to merit notification of authorities, as he maintained he did not have a reasonable cause to suspect that a child had been abused. Notwithstanding this position, the Respondent did nothing to confirm or disprove the allegations. At least one female student complainant continued to be enrolled in the alleged perpetrator's class before the arrest of the suspect. The failure of the Respondent to report the incidents seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the Palm Beach School District. As a result, the Respondent was relieved of his position as principal at JFK and reassigned to another position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Sammy Berry, Jr., Esquire 516 South Dixie Highway, Suite 1 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Florida Education Center, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Glenda Parris (Respondent), while employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer, violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes,1/ by using her position to rent property and/or gain preferential treatment at a court proceeding and, if so, the appropriate penalty. Whether Respondent, while employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer, violated section 112.313(7), by having a contractual relationship that conflicted with her official responsibilities and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At the times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer. Respondent is subject to the requirements of part III, chapter 112, which consists of sections 112.311 - 112.326, and is known as the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Respondent's assigned duties included inspecting, observing, reporting, and enforcing the City of West Palm Beach's code regulating zoning, housing, and the environment Respondent's was assigned a work zone in West Palm Beach that included 231 Lytton Court (the subject property). At the times relevant to this proceeding, Dr. Rhonda Nasser was the owner and/or principal of El Nasco II, a limited liability company. El Nasco II owned the house at 231 Lytton Court. In the summer of 2010, Respondent issued multiple notices of violation to Dr. Nasser relating to the subject property. In July 2010, Respondent and Dr. Nasser met at the subject property to discuss the notices of violation. At that meeting, Respondent asked Dr. Nasser if she could rent the subject property. Respondent was on duty and in her uniform when she negotiated the lease of the subject property. Dr. Nasser entered into an agreement with Respondent for Respondent to rent the subject property for $1,200.00 per month beginning in August 2010. As soon as she moved in to the subject property, Respondent began to complain to Dr. Nasser as to items that needed to be repaired or replaced. Respondent wrote a demand letter on August 31, 2010, that referenced code requirements. On November 3, 2010, wrote a second demand letter that also referenced code requirements. Dr. Nasser testified, credibly, that she believed that Respondent was threatening to use code violations to support her demand as to items that needed to be impaired or replaced. Dr. Nasser's belief was reasonable. Respondent began to withhold rent because Dr. Nasser would not make the improvements Respondent had demanded. At the end of January or the beginning of February 2011, Dr. Nasser initiated eviction proceedings against Respondent due to Respondent's failure to pay rent. John Frasca has been employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer for more than 11 years. Respondent asked Mr. Frasca on two separate occasions prior to May 26, 2011, to inspect the subject property. At the first inspection, Respondent deliberately withheld the fact that she lived at the subject property. At the time of the second inspection, Respondent pressured Mr. Frasca to complete the inspection and informed him that she needed the inspection report for her attorney. A rental license for a residence is the official authorization from the City of West Palm Beach that an owner may rent its residence and that the residence will be inspected. A rental license guarantees to a renter that the residence has been inspected and maintained, and is meeting all current codes. A rental license is required by the city code. Mr. Frasca discovered that the owner of the subject property had no rental license. Respondent should have known that the owner did not have a rental license, and she should have refused to rent the property until the owner obtained a rental license. The eviction proceedings initiated by Dr. Nasser progressed to a court hearing before a judge. At the eviction hearing, Respondent wore her work uniform, which consisted of dark colored pants, a code enforcement badge on her belt, and a shirt with "City of West Palm Beach, Code Enforcement" written on it. Dr. Nasser believed that Respondent wore the uniform in court to give the appearance that Respondent was an expert in code enforcement. Alleged code violations came up as an issue during the eviction hearing. Respondent argued that she withheld the payment of rent because Dr. Nasser would not correct perceived code violations. Following the eviction hearing, Dr. Nasser contacted John Alford, who was, at that time, the Director of Public Works for West Palm Beach. Mr. Alford supervised the West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Department, including the code enforcement officers. There existed an unwritten policy that code enforcement officers were not to wear their uniforms on unofficial business. Mr. Alford had admonished the code enforcement officers, including Respondent, to "take care while wearing the badge." The City of West Palm Beach investigated Respondent's actions and prepared a document titled "Timeline - 231 Lytton Ct., WPB." That document, which is in evidence as Exhibit 9, reflects Respondent's actions regarding the subject property. West Palm Beach uses a computer tracking system called Community Plus System that tracks all activities relating to a building code complaint and/or violation. A code officer puts in all information related to an inspection plus action taken for the property by its owner or a magistrate. The public can go to a website to view the status of a property in the City. The City prepared a report based on the Community Plus System for the subject property. Mr. Alford determined that Respondent had manipulated entries for the subject property in the Community Plus System by changing information relating to inspections. On June 7, 2011, Mr. Alford notified Respondent in writing that he was going to terminate her employment. On July 6, 2011, Respondents' employment was terminated for violations of the City's Employee Handbook and Code of Ethics. Mr. Alford determined that Respondent's actions of proposing and negotiating a lease agreement while on duty and in uniform violated subparagraph 6 of the City's Ethics Policy 4.4, which is as follows: "City representatives shall not engage in financial transactions using non-public information or allow the improper use of such information to further any private interest or gain." Mr. Alford also determined that Respondent violated the City's Code of Ethics provision 4.4 by wearing her City-issued uniform and badge to court for a personal matter giving the appearance that she was acting on behalf of the City.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report that finds that Respondent, Glenda Parris, violated section 112.313(6) and imposes against her a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report that finds that Respondent, Glenda Parris, violated section 112.313(7) and imposes against her a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00, for a total civil penalty of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of March, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Jeffrey L. Leon was employed on annual contract by the Broward County School Board at Deerfield Beach High School during the school year 1977-78 in the capacity of administrative assistant (or dean) . Although the dean's functions were not fully explained deans act as counsellors to students and every student is assigned to a dean. At Deerfield Beach High School there are 4 deans and 2400-2600 students giving each dean some 600 students. Since problem students have more occasion to have contact with the dean than do students without problems, it is also evident that deans spend most of their time with the students having problems in, e.g., attendance, discipline, parental and drugs. In July 1977 Respondent took one of the students who was assigned to him during the school year, Deborah Kuhn, to Bimini on two occasions where they remained overnight or longer. This was the month of Debbie's 17th birthday. On the first trip another couple was also on the boat and at Bimini all stayed at the home of a friend of Respondent's. On the second Bimini trip three other men accompanied Debbie and Respondent. On one of these trips Respondent accompanied Debbie to a bar where they consumed about 3 drinks. It is legal for a minor to drink in Bimini. The time was spent in Bimini diving and fishing and that appeared to be the prime purpose of the trip. This incident came to the attention of the principal of Deerfield Beach High School when he received a letter from the parents of Debbie in January 1978. The allegations were subsequently investigated and, when interrogated by the investigator, Debbie emphatically stated on each of the 3 occasions that no sexual relations with Respondent occurred on these trips. She did acknowledge smoking pot on one occasion on the boat and taking a quaalude. This was not in the presence of Respondent, although he was on the boat and became aware of the use of pot while it was going on. The evidence wad unrebutted that Debbie Kuhn had been a problem to her parents since she was about 12 when she became involved with drugs and alcohol. She admitted to the use of marijuana, quaaludes and cocaine. At one time while attending Deerfield Beach High School she was also involved with selling marijuana which was apparently supplied by her boyfriend. During the period Debbie acknowledged dealing in pot she was living with a girlfriend in an apartment on the beach. The situation at home had reached the point Debbie's parents exercised no effective control and were ready to give up on her. Accordingly when she suggested she move to the apartment her parents consented. The school was advised by the Kuhns not to call them if Debbie was late, came to school stoned, et cetera. At this time Debbie was described by Respondent as "hard core" and difficult to convince to alter the pattern of her life. According to Respondent he made the offer to Debbie to go to Bimini for the purpose of showing her another side of life unassociated with drugs in the hope that she could be induced to change her life style. Respondent acknowledged that Debbie smoked pot on one occasion on the first trip to Bimini. However, the smoking had started while he was diving for lobsters and he became aware of it when he came aboard. As one actively opposed to the use of any drugs Respondent stayed outside the cabin in the rain until the smoking had ceased. Respondent emphatically denied any sexual involvement with Debbie at Bimini while in her testimony Debbie stated she had sexual intercourse with Respondent on each of the two trips to Bimini. This testimony was objected to by Respondent on grounds that no such conduct was alleged and evidence of unalleged misconduct was not admissible. The objection was overruled by the Hearing Officer. Witnesses testifying on behalf of Respondent included police, teachers, other deans, and parents. Three parents whose children Respondent had helped averred that without the efforts of Respondent these children would not have remained in school. One witness's children had dropped out of Deerfield Beach High School after Respondent was transferred. One of the parents was a former dean and current principal of a middle grade school. He and his wife both consider Respondent to have had a highly beneficial effect on their boys while under his supervision, without which at least one of these boys would not have graduated. This parent would be delighted to have Respondent as a dean at his school. The third parent also credited Respondent's interest in her son and the diversion of his energies into athletics with saving him from dropping out of school aid leading him into a currently successful life. Other deans at Deerfield Beach High School described Respondent as effective, competent, and a hard worker who was vitally interested in the welfare of the students. These deans have worked with Respondent for several years and not only expressed high regard for Respondent but also had heard no rumors regarding the Bimini trip which adversely reflected on Respondent at the school. Respondent has cooperated with the police by turning in names of students suspected of dealing in drugs. Some dealers had girlfriends in Deerfield Beach High School who they were using to distribute pot. Respondent supported all school programs by his presence and encouragement to students to attend. He established excellent relations with both the latin community and the black community. In each of these communities he was accepted and respected. He had the reputation of being fair to all and unalterably opposed to drugs. The Petition mentioned two prior incidents in which Respondent's judgment in his involvement with children had been questioned. The first involved a female student assigned to another dean who had a serious psychological problem induced by molestation by her stepfather. She was also involved with drugs. Whether the molestation precipitated the drug use was not clear but it did aggravate the problem and, on one occasion, caused the child to take 17 or 18 valium one day enroute to school. When called and told their daughter was sick, her parents would not come for her. Subsequently the student ended up in a psychiatric hospital where her only visitors were Respondent and the other dean (a woman). Upon her release from the hospital she stayed with Respondent and his wife for two to three weeks, then for a while with the other dean before returning to her home. This student credits these two deans with her salvation. Respondent's action in allowing this student to stay at his home was the previous conduct questioned by the principal but the principal was happy with the results. The other incident referred to in the Petition involved an allegation that Respondent had called a female student assigned to him and offered to take her to dinner without advising the child's parents. When the parents so advised the school Respondent insisted on a meeting with the parents at which all questions were resolved. It was undisputed that Respondent, in order to improve a student's dress or cleanliness would offer a prize or bet if they could improve within a specified time. In the incident referred to Respondent had advised the girl he would bet her a dinner that she couldn't let her fingernails grow and be kept clean for 30 days. She won the wager and something she said to her parents led them to write to the principal. When one of these wagers was lost by Respondent the winner was treated to a hamburger at McDonald's. From all the evidence presented it is clear that when resolving the conflicting testimony given by Debbie and the Respondent the latter is much more worthy of belief. Debbie's reputation for truth and veracity was poor. While Respondent could be considered to have a self-preservation motive in not telling the truth with respect to his involvement with Debbie, the latter also had a motive for prevarication with respect to Respondent. The first statement by Debbie regarding sexual involvement with Respondent was made to her parents while Debbie was trying to move back to her parents' home. It was also after she had been suspended from school for 3 days by Respondent and after learning that Respondent had turned her name into the police as a drug suspect. Unfortunately no detailed testimony surrounding the alleged intercourse, such as time, place and other detailed circumstances, was elicited from which the more probable testimony could have been ascertained. Respondent is an activist in looking out for his students (as well as perhaps all of this age group) . This included non-school time looking for runaways, attending school sports events and social events as an encouragement to students to also attend, coaching a wrestling team after his regular school hours and generally being available for consultation at all hours. From all the testimony and evidence presented no credible testimony was submitted to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent had sexual relations with one of his students or that taking this student on an overnight trip to Bimini seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the School Board. In fact little evidence was introduced to show that this incident even slightly reduced Respondent's effectiveness. The Deerfield Beach High School principal's source of information that some of the students were aware of disciplinary action against Respondent was that two of these students had presented to him a petition protesting Respondent's transfer from Deerfield Beach High School as a result of the charges considered at this hearing.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact In 1987, Steven E. Belford, hereinafter Mr. Belford, began his employment with the Palm Beach County School Board, hereinafter School Board, as a School Police Officer. From 1991 through April 1995, Mr. Belford considered the conduct of the School Board’s employees, including supervisory and management personnel, towards him to be racially hostile. During this same time period, from 1992 through April 1995, the School Board considered the conduct of Mr. Belford towards co-workers, supervisors, superiors, and students to be inappropriate. On April 10, 1995, a meeting, which could affect Mr. Belford’s employment, was held regarding his job performance. At this meeting, Mr. Belford was represented by counsel from the Police Benevolent Association, hereinafter PBA. Also among those present at the meeting was James Kelly, Chief of the School Police for the School Board. Chief Kelly was concerned with Mr. Belford’s conduct in the performance of his duties. During this meeting, Mr. Belford described the problems that he was experiencing in the work place. After listening to Mr. Belford, Chief Kelly’s concerns extended to the safety of students, staff, and visitors at the school to which Mr. Belford was assigned. As a result of this meeting, Chief Kelly determined that Mr. Belford should and would be required to undergo a fitness for duty examination. Mr. Belford’s PBA counsel advised him to undergo the fitness for duty examination. Even though Mr. Belford’s position was that there was no basis for the examination and that it was, therefore, inappropriate, he agreed to the examination. Mr. Belford was willing to comply with whatever was required of him, even though he may not agree, to keep his job. It is undisputed that the referral of Mr. Belford for a psychological evaluation was reasonable. On April 25 and 26, 1995, Dr. Harley V. Stock performed what he referred to as the “mandatory fitness for duty examination.” In Dr. Stock’s evaluation, dated May 3, 1995,2 he stated, among other things, the following: [Mr. Belford] shows no impairment in relationship to reality. . . . there was no indication of any underlying mood disorder. . . . There is no indication of any underlying thought disorder. . . . In summary this examiner has had the opportunity to review a significant amount of collateral information regarding Mr. Belford’s employment with the Palm Beach School Police Department. It appears that he has had fluctuating reviews, particularly in areas as it relates [sic] to interpersonal interactions. When confronted with documentation, Mr. Belford always has an “excuse”. He essentially feels that most of the problems that he is currently facing are a result of racial discrimination. He takes absolutely no responsibility for his own behavior. He is overly suspicious about other people’s motives towards him. He denies any type of provocative physical action towards the students or others. He believes that he is “misunderstood”. Psychological testing reveals him to be a skeptical, suspicious, over-controlled individual who may have the propensity to lose his “temper” at times when provoked. He, however, will have no insight into this. Instead, he would rather shift the blame, and responsibility to others for any problems that he finds himself in. I find some of Mr. Belford’s explanations for his behavior, as contained in the allegations, incredible. Based on psychological testing, Dr. Stock made the following recommendations in his evaluation: Because of his current psychologic [sic] functioning, his behavior at this time cannot be predicted in terms of his interactions with students and faculty members. He obviously harbors a great deal of hostility towards others, but does not either acknowledge, or recognize it. This can lead to episodes where he may become physically assaultive at the most, or at the very least, verbally aggressive in a way that is inappropriate in a school environment. I would therefore recommend that he is temporarily Unfit For Duty and that he needs mandatory psychologic [sic] counseling. Mandatory psychologic [sic] counseling means that the School Board should be appraised [sic] of his keeping scheduled counseling appointments, and that within a reasonable time, he be re-evaluated to ascertain whether he is making any progress in psychotherapy and gaining any insight into how to both understand his behavior and to modulate his impulses. During the time of treatment, I would recommend that he not engage in any functions that would place him in the role of having any type of “police authority”. This would include coming into contact with students and administrators. However, his psychologic [sic] condition does not render him totally incapable of employment. A “light duty” position would be appropriate in which he can carry on selected roles as described by the School Board while receiving treatment. After treatment is completed, within a reasonable time, Mr. Belford should then be re-evaluated to see if indeed treatment has had any effect on him. At that juncture, a further determination can be made about his work placement. In a meeting held on May 17, 1995, the results of Dr. Stock’s evaluation were discussed with Mr. Belford who was accompanied by his PBA counsel. Mr. Belford was advised that Dr. Stock considered him to be temporarily unfit for duty. In May 1995, in accordance with Dr. Stock’s recommendations, Mr. Belford was removed from duty. He was assigned light duty in the risk management department while he underwent counseling. Mr. Belford’s psychological counseling sessions were conducted by MCC Behavioral Care. His counseling sessions began on May 18, 1995. The School Board coordinated Mr. Belford’s appointments with MCC Behavioral Care and Dr. Stock. Melinda Wong was the coordinator for the School Board. During his last counseling session with MCC Behavioral Care held on August 4, 1995, Mr. Belford and his counselor agreed that he need not return to MCC Behavioral Care for any more counseling sessions. However, the counselor did not indicate to Mr. Belford whether he should or was required to return to Dr. Stock for a final evaluation. In August 1995, a representative from Ms. Wong’s office informed Mr. Belford that his final evaluation with Dr. Stock would be conducted on August 29, 1995. Mr. Belford attended the session with Dr. Stock on August 29, 1995. Mr. Belford departed the session with the understanding that the session was for his final evaluation and that Dr. Stock would submit his final report to the School Board within the next week. However, no final determination was made by Dr. Stock regarding Mr. Belford’s fitness for duty. Dr. Stock had concerns regarding the appropriateness of the counseling provided to Mr. Belford by MCC Behavioral Care. During the month of September 1995 and subsequent months, Mr. Belford periodically inquired of Ms. Wong about the status of Dr. Stock's final determination. Each time, she informed him that no determination had been made by Dr. Stock. Mr. Belford was clearly frustrated. On October 5, 1995, Mr. Belford filed a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, hereinafter EEOC, against the School Board. Finally, Dr. Stock's office contacted Ms. Wong and informed her that Dr. Stock needed to have one more session with Mr. Belford in order to make a final evaluation. Ms. Wong arranged for the session to be conducted on January 3, 1996, after Mr. Belford's Christmas vacation. On Friday, December 15, 1995, at approximately 2:40 p.m., Ms. Wong went to Mr. Belford’s workplace which was in the immediate vicinity of her workplace. She advised Mr. Belford that he needed to attend a final session with Dr. Stock on January 3, 1996, in order for Dr. Stock to prepare the final evaluation. Believing that he had attended his final session with Dr. Stock on August 29, 1995, and that Ms. Wong was not aware of the final session, Mr. Belford informed Ms. Wong that he had already completed his final session and requested that she check her records. Mr. Belford was visibly tense and upset. Ms. Wong was surprised by Mr. Belford's reaction. She interpreted Mr. Belford's conduct as refusing to attend his last session with Dr. Stock for a final evaluation. Ms. Wong departed Mr. Belford’s workplace and immediately contacted Chief Kelly. Seeking advice, Chief Kelly telephoned Louis Haddad, the School Board’s Coordinator of Employee Relations. Mr. Haddad advised Chief Kelly to immediately contact Mr. Belford and to arrange a meeting with Mr. Belford that afternoon in Mr. Haddad's office, which was in the same building. Attending the meeting would be Mr. Belford, Chief Kelly, Ms. Wong, and Mr. Haddad. Chief Kelly telephoned Mr. Belford and informed Mr. Belford that he wanted to meet with him in Mr. Haddad's office. Mr. Belford informed Chief Kelly that he was getting-off work in approximately 10 minutes at 3:00 p.m.. At that time, Chief Kelly made it clear that he was giving Mr. Belford a direct order to attend the meeting. Mr. Belford advised Chief Kelly that he wanted his counsel present at the meeting. Chief Kelly did not respond to Mr. Belford's request, but asked him if he was refusing to attend the meeting, thereby disobeying a direct order. Immediately, Mr. Belford became nervous and afraid and felt queasy in the stomach. He inquired as to the location of the meeting. Chief Kelly informed him where the meeting was being held, and they both terminated the telephone conversation. Mr. Belford was on duty when Chief Kelly gave him the direct order to attend the meeting. Mr. Belford did not refuse to attend the meeting. He intended to attend the meeting. When the telephone conversation ended, Chief Kelly had a reasonable expectation that Mr. Belford would obey the direct order and attend the meeting being held that afternoon. Shortly after the telephone conversation with Chief Kelly, Mr. Belford began recalling the events leading up to the telephone conversation, and his nervousness and queasy feeling intensified. Mr. Belford became ill and was unable to attend the meeting. He departed from his workplace without notifying anyone of his sudden illness3 and without attending the meeting. While waiting for Mr. Belford, Chief Kelly, not being aware that Mr. Belford had departed his workplace, telephoned Mr. Belford's PBA counsel and informed him of the meeting and briefly of the underlying circumstances. The PBA counsel considered the meeting appropriate and advised Chief Kelly that he would be available by telephone when Mr. Belford arrived. Immediately after leaving his office, Mr. Belford contacted his new counsel. At approximately 3:25 p.m., a representative from the office of Mr. Belford's new counsel telephoned Chief Kelly. The representative of Mr. Belford's new counsel indicated to Chief Kelly that Mr. Belford would not be attending the meeting due to his sudden illness. Chief Kelly informed the representative that Mr. Belford had disobeyed a direct order and that, among other things, Mr. Belford was relieved of duty and would be recommended for termination due to insubordination. Prior to this telephone call, Chief Kelly had no knowledge that anyone other than the PBA counsel was representing Mr. Belford. Unbeknownst to the PBA counsel and Chief Kelly, Mr. Belford had decided prior to December 15, 1995, that he no longer wanted the PBA counsel's representation and that he wanted new counsel. On Monday, December 18, 1995, the next business day, Chief Kelly received written notification from Mr. Belford's new counsel regarding the reason for Mr. Belford's failure to attend the meeting. It is undisputed that there is no right to consult an attorney before obeying a direct order of a superior officer. Furthermore, it is undisputed that obeying a direct order from a superior officer is a critical and important aspect of the responsibilities of a police officer. On December 20, 1995, Chief Kelly recommended that Mr. Belford be terminated from employment with the School Board for insubordination. Mr. Belford never had a session with Dr. Stock subsequent to August 29, 1995. It was reasonable for Mr. Belford to presume that, since he was being recommended for termination, he was not expected to attend any future session with Dr. Stock. Dr. Stock never made a final determination as to whether Mr. Belford was fit to return to duty. On January 9, 1996, a pre-termination meeting was held with Mr. Belford at which he was represented by counsel. At the meeting, Mr. Belford was notified that he was being terminated for gross insubordination. By letter dated January 26, 1996, the School Board notified Mr. Belford that he was being suspended without pay and that he was being recommended for termination due to gross insubordination. On February 23, 1996, the School Board responded to Mr. Belford's charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC. The School Police for the School Board has a written policy regarding separation from employment. The policy defines gross insubordination in section "IV. C. Suspension/Termination" as "a willful disregard or constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority." Furthermore, section "IV. D." provides that "Employees included in a bargaining unit are subject to suspension/dismissal provisions of the collective bargaining agreement." The School Board and the Palm Beach County PBA have a collective bargaining agreement, hereinafter CBA. Article 7 of the CBA, entitled "Police Officers Bill of Rights," provides in pertinent part as follows: 7.1 All law enforcement officers employed by the School Board shall have the following rights and privileges: Whenever a law enforcement officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by members of his agency for any reason which could lead to disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal, such interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions: * * * I. At the request of any law enforcement officer under investigation, he/she shall have the right to be represented by counsel or any other representative of his/her choice who shall be present at all times during such interrogation when the interrogation relates to the officer's continued fitness for law enforcement service. * * * 5. No law enforcement officer shall be discharged, disciplined, demoted, or denied promotion, transfer, or reassignment, or otherwise be discriminated against in regard to his/her employment, or be threatened with any such treatment, by reason of his/her exercise of the rights granted by this part. Article 29 of the CBA, entitled "Progressive Discipline," provides in pertinent part as follows: This Section covers actions involving oral or written warnings, written reprimands, suspensions, demotions, dismissals, or reductions in grade or pay with prejudice. Disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by sufficient evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. * * * 8. The discipline, dismissal, demotion, and suspension of any employee shall be for just cause. Where just cause warrants such action(s), any employee may be demoted, suspended, or dismissed upon recommendation of the Chief of Police to the Superintendent of Schools. Except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the District or other flagrant violation, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal warning (written notation). Written warning. Written reprimand filed in Personnel. Suspension with or without pay. Dismissal. It is inferred and a finding is made that Mr. Belford is a member of the Palm Beach County PBA and is, therefore, subject to the collective bargaining agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order revoking the suspension and dismissal and reinstating Steven E. Belford under terms and conditions as are appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 13th day of October, 1997.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend and terminate the employment of Respondent, a teacher, for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began his employment with the District in November 2014. Respondent was employed as a math teacher for grades 9 through 12 at PBLHS until December 12, 2018, which was his last day in a classroom. Respondent is an experienced teacher who was trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent completed the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. Respondent signed the District’s Code of Ethics each of the three times he received it and was aware it governed his behavior as an employee of the District. Circumstances Giving Rise to Respondent’s Discipline Respondent met former student, S.E., in Haiti in 2015 when she was approximately 15 years old. S.E. and Respondent worked on a political campaign together. While in Haiti, Respondent became friendly with S.E. and her family. Respondent was aware that S.E. was planning to come to the United States to attend high school. In 2018, while S.E. was an 11th grade student at PBLHS, Respondent was a teacher at the same school. Respondent exchanged phone numbers with S.E. so they could communicate outside of school hours. Respondent and S.E. frequently communicated outside of school hours between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. by telephone and text messages in Haitian-Creole because S.E. did not speak English. According to Respondent, these conversations were primarily personal, as they had “all kind of conversation from family matter[s], from life, from a sexual content, from – you know, everything. Everything like two normal people. Any conversation that two normal people would take. It was about everything.” On or about December 3, 2018, a student reported to school staff at PBLHS that Respondent sent S.E. an inappropriate text stating, “send me a picture in your underwear.” Respondent allegedly also asked S.E. to go to a hotel with him. Detective Eulises Munoz was called to PBLHS to conduct an investigation regarding Respondent. As a part of Detective Munoz’s investigation, he conducted an audio recorded interview with S.E., with the assistance of an interpreter. As part of the investigation, Detective Munoz had the text messages between S.E. and Respondent extracted from S.E.’s phone and transcribed from Haitian-Creole to English. S.E.’s cell phone call log report revealed 48 calls and 94 messages between S.E. and Respondent between October 26, 2018, and December 4, 2018. Respondent admitted to asking S.E. on November 27, 2018, at 8:04 p.m., for “your picture while you are wearing only your underwear.” S.E. refused but instead sent a picture of herself clothed. Respondent told S.E. that she was “mistreating” him because she would not send a naked picture of herself to him. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted that he was aware that it was against Board policy to have asked S.E. for a photograph of her in her underwear while she was a student at PBLHS and he was a teacher at the same school. The investigation also revealed that on December 4, 2018, Respondent told S.E. that she was having headaches because she was not having sex and then sent her an article regarding stress headaches being relieved by sex. Respondent denied asking S.E. to meet him at a hotel. Disciplinary Action After Detective Munoz completed his investigation into the text conversations between Respondent and S.E., he drafted a criminal Probable Cause Affidavit, which was ultimately forwarded to Human Resource Manager Brenda Johnson for further investigation. Ms. Johnson provided Respondent with a letter acknowledging opening an investigative file based on inappropriate interactions with a student. As of December 18, 2018, Respondent was removed from the classroom and directed to have no further contact with students. He was instead assigned to a District warehouse. Respondent was provided with a Pre-Determination Meeting (“PDM”) Notice dated March 9, 2020, signed by Vicki Evans-Pare, Director of Employee & Labor Relations, explaining to him that the investigation was concerning the allegations levied against him and that a meeting was needed to discuss the findings. Prior to the PDM, Respondent was provided with the PDM Notice, as well as a copy of the investigative file. Respondent’s PDM was held on March 13, 2020, at which time he was given the opportunity to provide a response to the allegations against him. After the PDM was completed, Ms. Johnson typed up the notes and summary from the PDM, which were provided to Respondent who was given three business days to review the documents and make any edits or revisions he felt were warranted and add any additional information relative to the investigation. Respondent did not make any changes to the PDM Summary or Notes. After Respondent’s PDM, Ms. Evans-Pare decided to have the investigative file reviewed by the Employee Investigative Committee (EIC), which found the following allegations were substantiated: Soliciting an Inappropriate Relationship with a Student; Ethical Misconduct; Failure to Exercise Best Professional Judgment; and Failure to Follow Policy, Rule, or Directive. The EIC recommendation was that Respondent’s employment be terminated despite Respondent not having any prior discipline history. The EIC proposed skipping the Progressive Discipline steps (verbal reprimand with written notation, written reprimand, and suspension) because Respondent’s inappropriate interactions with the student, his admission that he had the text conversations with the student, and his request to the student for a picture of her in her underwear posed a direct threat to the District and the student. On May 21, 2020, Respondent was notified that Dr. Donald Fennoy, II, the District Superintendent, would recommend Respondent’s termination to the Board at its June 17, 2020, meeting. Termination was the same disciplinary action that was taken against other employees who engaged in the same or similar conduct. Respondent acknowledged that “[a]lmost everybody” at PBLHS found out about the text conversations between Respondent and S.E. Respondent knew that his co-workers knew about the text conversations because people were calling him and asking him about it. Respondent’s co-workers lost confidence in him as a teacher after they learned about the text conversations between him and S.E. Respondent was also aware that S.E.’s guardians lost confidence in him as a teacher as a result of the sexual text conversations he had with S.E. Respondent acknowledged during the final hearing that his conduct was inappropriate and in violation of the Board’s policies. Respondent only contests the level of discipline (termination) as too harsh. He argued that the Board skipped intervening steps of the progressive discipline policy and claimed that his level of discipline was a result of his complaining that he was not physically capable of the work to which he was assigned in the warehouse.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the suspension and termination of Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869 Jhonny Felix 5938 Ithaca Circle West Lake Worth, Florida 33463 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
