Findings Of Fact Respondent Joseph Long has been employed as a continuing contract teacher by Petitioner School Board of Dade County for the past 20 years. He has been on the staff of Miami Carol City Senior High School for approximately 17 years. During the 1985-86 academic school year, the principal of Miami Carol City Senior High School, Carnell White, received reports of routine periodic property audits which indicated certain items missing from the school's inventory. The items reported missing included computers and their accessories, cameras, and yearbooks. This loss of school property was further confirmed in July of 1985 when a Special Investigation Unit conducted a preliminary investigation. On Friday, November 15, 1985, principal White confronted Daniel McPhaul, the employee charged with the security of the missing property for an explanation. McPhaul confessed to White that he had stolen from Miami Carol City Senior High School television sets, computers, monitors, cameras, and yearbooks in order to help support both his drug dependency and his child. On Monday, November 18, 1985, McPhaul was again summoned to White's office where he was again interrogated by White and by Officer Miriam McNeil one of Petitioner's investigators. During that second interrogation, McPhaul made allegations that approximately 10 other instructional and non- instructional personnel at Miami Carol City Senior High School were also involved in the theft of school property and in the use of narcotics on the school campus. Based upon those allegations, the investigation continued and enlarged. Those persons implicated by McPhaul were also interrogated. On November 22, 1985, Respondent Joseph Long was interrogated by White and Officer McNeil regarding the allegations made against him that he had knowingly purchased one of the computers stolen by McPhaul and that he had been using and possessing cocaine on the school premises over an extended period of time. Prior to the interrogation of Respondent on November 22, White had been contacted a number of times by parents of students and other persons advising him that Respondent had a drug problem and also that Respondent had been contacting people asking them for money. Shortly before the November 22 interrogation, Respondent was evaluated in his performance as a teacher and his performance was rated as being acceptable. During calendar year 1985, Respondent regularly carried a container of cocaine in his pocket while he was on the premises of Miami Carol City Senior High School and while he was in the performance of his duties as a teacher at that school. During calendar year 1985, Respondent used cocaine while on the school premises and while performing his duties as a teacher. On one occasion during the 1985-86 school year Respondent gave cocaine to school employee Kathy Hightower which she used in Respondent's presence while she was working in the school library. Numerous newspaper articles and television and radio news accounts resulted pursuant to discovery of the use of narcotics on campus at Miami Carol City Senior High School and the theft of school property from that location. The Respondent and the other school employees around whom the investigation centered were identified in those various accounts. As a result of the publicity engendered by the investigation, White received telephone calls from parents who were concerned about Respondent's use of cocaine while employed as a teacher, and a number of students complained to White. McPhaul's statements that Respondent purchased from him one of the computers that he stole from the school constitute the only evidence against Respondent as to that allegation. Accordingly, that allegation is factually resolved in favor of Respondent partly due to the minimal evidence presented and partly due to McPhaul's questionable credibility caused by his appearance at the final hearing in compliance with Petitioner's subpoena followed by his disappearance before Petitioner could call him to the stand to testify in this cause.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of immorality and misconduct in office, dismissing him from employment with the School Board of Dade County and denying any claims for back pay and benefits. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 2780 Galloway Road Suite 100 Twin Oaks Building Miami Florida 33165 George F. Knox, Esquire Office at Bay Point Suite 970 4770 Biscayne Boulevard Miami Florida 33137 Leonard Britton, Superintendent School Board of Dade County 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Phyllis O. Douglas Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether there is "just cause" to terminate Respondent, Edward Starcher, from employment as a teacher in the Collier County School District.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida in the areas of physical education, recreational dance, and driver's education. On August 18, 1986, the School Board hired Respondent as a teacher. Since being hired in 1986, Respondent taught continually in the Collier County public school system, except for a one-year leave of absence. Respondent began his career at Highland Elementary School and taught there for approximately two to three years. He then taught for nine years at Village Oaks Elementary School. Respondent, subsequently, taught at Gulf Coast High School, where he also served as a basketball coach. In the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent was employed at NHS as a physical education teacher, driver's education teacher, and head basketball coach for the boys' varsity basketball team. At all times relevant herein, Respondent was a driver's education teacher and head coach of the boys' basketball team at NHS. Throughout his teaching career with the School Board, Respondent received positive evaluations and was recognized for having a passion for coaching. Prior to the disciplinary action at issue in this proceeding, there is no evidence that Respondent has been previously disciplined by the School Board. At all times relevant herein, A.K., a female, was a high school student in her senior year at NHS. In January 2003, A.K. was enrolled as a peer tutor under the direction of Respondent, along with two other students--A.D., a female, and A.F., a male. A.K., A.D., and A.F. were enrolled as peer tutors during the fourth block, which commenced at 12:45 p.m. As peer tutors, they assisted Respondent with doing the laundry, folding towels and T-shirts, and delivering them to the storage closet. At the beginning of fourth block, the peer tutors would typically meet Respondent in his coaching office or outside of it, and he would give them their assignment for the day. On Monday, February 10, 2003 (February 10), A.K. reported to Respondent's office during fourth block for her peer tutor responsibilities. A.D., another peer tutor, was absent that day, but A.F. and K.C. were present. K.C., an NHS student, was not assigned as Respondent's peer tutor, but he sometimes assisted Respondent and his peer tutors during the fourth block. On February 10, as Respondent and the peer tutors were exiting Respondent's office to walk to the laundry room, Respondent "put [A.K.] in a little bit of a headlock," in a playful manner. After arriving at the laundry room, Respondent and the peer tutor folded laundry. At some point, Respondent handed A.K. a pile of towels and told her to take it to the storage closet. Respondent also took a pile of towels or jerseys and both A.K. and Respondent proceeded from the laundry area across the gym to the boys' locker room. On this trip to the storage closet, only A.K. went with Respondent across the gym to the storage closet area. A.F. remained in the laundry room because Respondent told only A.K. to come with him. The storage closet was located in the boys' football locker room on the opposite side of the auxiliary gym from the laundry room. On February 10, there was a physical education class with at least 20 students and an instructor on the gym floor playing volleyball. The physical education class was divided into two groups at the opposite ends of the gym so that when the peer tutors and Respondent took the laundry across the gym floor to the storage closet, they would pass between the two groups. Respondent and A.K. entered the boys' locker room area and proceeded to the storage closet to drop off the towels and/or jerseys. A.K. entered the storage closet area first followed by Respondent. After A.K. put the towels down, she noticed Respondent shutting the door quickly, turning the lights off and on, and then opening the door. A.K. asked Respondent what he was doing, and he replied that he was just joking around. During the first trip to the storage closet, as A.K. was walking through the locker room, she saw J.C., a NHS student, near his locker. Some time after Respondent and A.K. walked through the locker room, J.C. walked around to the bench near the storage closet doorway to put on a knee brace. Thereafter, J.C. saw Respondent in the doorway of the storage closet, and Respondent introduced him to A.K. J.C.'s locker was adjacent to the storage closet wall, and he had to walk to the end of the wall and around the corner to get to the doorway of the storage closet. Due to the location of his locker, there was a period of time when J.C. was not near the doorway of the storage closet and could not see that doorway. At some point while A.K. and Respondent were in the storage closet, Corporal Ronald Byington (Coach Byington), the NHS youth relations deputy and an assistant football coach at the school, walked through the locker room from the adjacent coaches' room. Coach Byington stopped and talked to Respondent about a minute and a half. During his very brief conversation with Respondent, Coach Byington did not observe anything out of the ordinary. After briefly talking with J.C., Respondent and A.K. returned to the laundry room. After a short period of time, Respondent handed A.K. a bag of jerseys to take with her to the storage closet and proceeded alone with her back across the gym to the boys' locker room. J.C. was not in the locker room when Respondent and A.K. returned to the storage closet. When A.K. and Respondent returned to the storage closet with laundry a second time, Respondent again followed her into the storage closet, closed the door, and turned off the lights. Respondent then kissed A.K. on her neck and lips, grabbed her leg, and pushed it up against his side. A.K. pushed Respondent away from her, after which he turned on the lights, grabbed himself and remarked, "This is what you do to me." As A.K. approached the door to walk out, he placed A.K.'s hand on his groin. A.K. described the manner in which Respondent kissed her on the neck as "more of a sucking" than a kiss. After the incident described in paragraph 16, A.K. returned to the laundry room followed by Respondent. Upon returning, A.F. and K.C. noticed that A.K.'s neck was red and told her so. When A.F. and K.C. commented about the red mark on her neck, Respondent stated that it was because he had put her in a headlock. After the brief discussion about the red mark on A.K.'s neck, A.K. returned to the boys' locker room a third time, this time with A.F. and Respondent. A.K. had to wait outside the locker room since there were football players in there changing for weight training. Because A.K. could not enter the locker room, she handed the laundry she was carrying to A.F. and/or Respondent. Upon returning to the laundry room from the third trip to the storage closet, Respondent "kind of stopped [A.K.]" as they were walking across the gym floor. He then had A.K. hold her hand up while he did the same and intertwined his little finger with hers while he asked her to "pinkie swear" (promise) she would not tell anybody, and she agreed to do so. However, Respondent then told A.K. that he could not promise that it would not happen again. This brief exchange took place out of A.F.'s earshot. Moreover, given the considerable activity in the gym, it is reasonable that A.F. did not hear this conversation. A.K. returned a fourth time to the locker room to get her book bag and left school. She was in a state of shock, drove home, changed, and left for work. That evening A.K. did not tell her parents about the incident with Respondent because she was embarrassed and uncertain as to how they would react. The next morning, Tuesday, February 11, 2003 (February 11), A.K. was sitting in her car in the NHS parking lot waiting for the first-block bell to ring when her friend, E.W., a senior at NHS, approached her. E.W. noticed that there was something wrong and asked A.K. what was the matter. A.K. started to cry and told E.W. that Respondent had kissed her. As they walked to class, A.K. told E.W. more of what happened. A.K. told E.W. that on the first visit to the storage closet Respondent shut the lights off. A.K. asked him what he was doing and he turned them on. A.K. also told E.W. that on the second visit, Respondent shut the lights off and imposed himself on her, including kissing her on the neck and lips and grabbing her leg. Sometime during the course of the day, A.K. told E.W. about Respondent's having her touch his penis area. On the morning of February 11, soon after A.K. told E.W. about the incident, E.W. asked A.K. whether she had told anyone. A.K. replied that she had not. E.W. then told A.K. that she needed to report the incident to Mary Ellen Bergsma, the school guidance counselor. Although A.K. agreed to do so, she was hesitant and embarrassed to discuss the incident with Ms. Bergsma or anyone. At the beginning of the first block, E.W. accompanied A.K. to Ms. Bergsma's office. Ms. Bergsma invited both girls into her office and shut the door. Initially, when she went into Ms. Bergsma's office, A.K. was visibly upset, choked up, and unable to speak. After being encouraged by E.W., A.K. told Ms. Bergsma about the incident with Respondent. A.K. told Ms. Bergsma that Respondent had "hit on her," meaning that he had kissed her. In response to her question, A.K. told Ms. Bergsma that the event occurred in the storage closet area and then explained what happened in more detail. During this time, A.K. continued crying and had a hard time talking. After A.K. told Ms. Bergsma about the incident, Ms. Bergsma informed A.K. that she would have to talk with Gary Brown, the principal of NHS, about the incident. Later that morning, Ms. Bergsma accompanied A.K. to Mr. Brown's office. Although A.K. appeared uncomfortable and nervous and was crying, she told Mr. Brown basically what she had told Ms. Bergsma. At the end of the day, E.W. went to Ms. Bergsma to report some of the additional details that A.K. was too embarrassed to tell Ms. Bergsma, including Respondent's putting her hand on his genital and saying, "This is what you do to me." Over the next few weeks, Ms. Bergsma had follow-up conversations with A.K. to see how she was doing. She found that A.K. was having difficulty concentrating at school, not sleeping well, and, overall, was "having a tough time." On February 11, after A.K. reported the incident to Ms. Bergsma, she decided to remove A.K. from Respondent's peer tutor class. At 9:02 a.m. that morning, Ms. Bergsma e-mailed Respondent advising the following: "FYI – A.K. is out of your class 4th block." The e-mail was opened by Respondent at 9:05 a.m. and deleted by him at 9:05 a.m. Five minutes later, at 9:10 a.m., Respondent prepared a separate E-mail stating, "Thanks for the info. Have a great day." Respondent never contacted Ms. Bergsma to find out why A.K. was no longer in his fourth-block class. Respondent testified that the e-mail was no big deal to him and that it might have meant A.K. was out just that day since the e-mail from Ms. Bergsma did not have the word "permanently" contained in it. Between approximately 12:00 to 12:30 p.m., on February 11, Mr. Brown told Respondent in person that he wanted to meet with him in Mr. Brown's office at about 2:00 p.m. When Respondent met with Mr. Brown in his office that afternoon, Mr. Brown asked Respondent if he knew why he had been called to his office. Respondent seemed to think about the question and replied that it must be a parent complaining about his basketball program. He thought up several possibilities until Mr. Brown told him it had nothing to do with basketball. Mr. Brown then told Respondent that the meeting pertained to a complaint from a female student who had peer counseling with him and related to inappropriate physical contact that Respondent had with the student. After progressing through each of his classes and being informed by Mr. Brown that it regarded a complaint from the fourth block the preceding day, Respondent stated that the complainant had to be A.K. because she was the only female present that period on February 10. After Mr. Brown informed Respondent of the allegations, Respondent's head dropped down. He had tears in his eyes and stated that he could not believe this was happening to him. Mr. Brown then asked Respondent if he could think of any reason why A.K. would make such an accusation against him. Respondent told Mr. Brown about an incident at the NHS basketball game on January 31, 2003, which involved A.K. Respondent stated that he had spoken with A.K. on February 3, 2003, about her conduct at the game. Respondent then retrieved a letter from his brief case and presented it to Mr. Brown. The letter was dated February 3, 2003, and was addressed to Coach Byington. Respondent had authored the letter and typed it on a computer. The letter stated that during half-time of the January 31, 2003, basketball game, while Respondent was outside for "a breath of fresh air," he saw A.K. and two other NHS students, K.S. and S.W., and a former NHS student, J.W., outside. In the letter, Respondent indicated that the students appeared to be intoxicated and under the influence of drugs or alcohol; that two of the students approached him; and that A.K. then began making derogatory comments about two NHS assistant football coaches, one of whom was Coach Byington. Also, the letter indicated that on February 3, 2003, Respondent spoke to A.K., during fourth block about her being intoxicated. According to the letter, Respondent told A.K. that she and those with her on January 31, 2003, were "lucky that [Respondent] was in the middle of a game and [they] had not been caught." In addition to information about A.K.'s being intoxicated at the game, Respondent included statements in the letter which were unrelated to the January 31, 2003, incident. Apparently, referring to his February 3, 2003, conversation with A.K., Respondent wrote in the letter: It was during this conversation that I figured out [A.K.] was extremely bitter about coaches at NHS. After further research, it was determined that [A.K.] need not be trusted. [A.K.] on several occasions accused Byington and the football staff of starting rumors about her . . . and she claimed people had given her a hard time about being a senior dating a freshman. I had never heard of such rumors and felt that she was overplaying this to an extreme. After refusing to discuss any more of these matters with her, she became very irate and said that I [Respondent] was just like the others. In quotes "jerks". [sic] Just wanted you to have this information on file. Respondent told Mr. Brown that he had never given the letter to Coach Byington because he did not want to get A.K. in trouble. Coach Byington never received Respondent's letter dated February 3, 2003, nor did Respondent speak to Coach Byington about its contents. If a letter with allegations like the ones made in the letter dated February 3, 2003, were brought to his attention, Coach Byington would look into the matter or take some action. The letter dated February 3, 2003, accurately states and it is undisputed that (1) Respondent saw NHS students, A.K., K.S., and S.W., and a former NHS student, J.W., on January 31, 2003, during half-time at the basketball game that evening; (2) the students, including A.K., were intoxicated; and (3) on February 3, 2003, Respondent talked to A.K. about being intoxicated at the basketball game. The letter dated February 3, 2003, falsely and inaccurately states when Respondent saw A.K. on January 31, 2003, she talked to him about her dislike for two of NHS football coaches and said derogatory things about them. Rather, after exiting the gym at half-time, A.K. and K.S. spoke to Respondent only briefly, about a minute. During that conversation, A.K. asked Respondent about his daughter, Callie, and how the basketball game was going; she also wished him luck in the second half. A.K. and K.S., along with S.W. and J.W., continued to walk to A.K.'s friend's car to have a few shots of alcohol during half-time. On the evening of January 31, 2003, A.K. never said anything to Respondent about Coach Byington or any other coach at NHS. In light of the purpose for which Respondent claimed he wrote the letter dated February 3, 2003, there is no reasonable explanation for Respondent's inclusion in the letter of the statement that "[a]fter further research, it was determined that [A.K.] need not be trusted and that A.K. said that Respondent was jerk [sic], just like the other coaches. Since becoming a peer tutor for Respondent and prior to January 31, 2003, A.K. had talked to Respondent on several occasions and told him that she did not like Coach Byington. The reason A.K. did not like Coach Byington was that she believed that he gave preferential treatment to football players and had made A.K. the butt of jokes because she was dating a freshman football player. A.K. made no secret that she "did not care" for Coach Byington and candidly admitted her feelings about Coach Byington at hearing. There were no other coaches at NHS who A.K. disliked or told Respondent that she disliked. The letter dated February 3, 2003, also inaccurately and falsely stated that when Respondent talked to A.K. at school on February 3, 2003, about being intoxicated at the January 31, 2003, basketball game, she became irate. Respondent's testimony at hearing regarding this conversation is not credible. Contrary to Respondent's account, the conversation took place in the gym and not in Respondent's office. Moreover, during the conversation, Respondent seemed to be joking with A.K. about her being intoxicated at the January 31, 2003, basketball game. At no time during that conversation did Respondent talk to A.K. about the kind of people she should hang out with. Respondent also never indicated to A.K., during that conversation or at any other time, that he would report her to school officials or tell her parents that she was intoxicated. Respondent provided confusing and contradictory testimony in connection with the letter dated February 3, 2003. First, despite the date on the letter, it is not clear when Respondent wrote the letter. Respondent testified that he prepared the letter on Monday, February 3, 2003, but also testified that he could have finished it later that week. This testimony is consistent with a letter Respondent wrote in March 2003, in response to the report of the School Board's investigator. Respondent also testified that even if he did not finish the letter on February 3, 2003, he would not have changed the date because he did not consider the letter an official document. During the investigation of A.K.'s complaint against Respondent, the School Board's computer system technicians checked the school's computers and found no record of the letter in the system. If, as Respondent testified, he made changes to the letter over a period of time, the letter would have been saved on the system and the computer technicians would have been able to retrieve it. Respondent's testimony and representations regarding the preparation of the letter dated February 3, 2003, are confusing and not reasonable. In his March 2003 letter to the School Board in response to the investigator's report, Respondent stated that after initially writing the February 3, 2003, letter, he waited to review it before delivering it to Coach Byington. Despite all the time Respondent indicated he took to write, review, and edit the letter, Respondent never gave the letter to Coach Byington, even though Coach Byington's office was only a 20- to 30-second walk from Respondent's office. According to Respondent, the reason was that he had a busy basketball schedule. Respondent testified that the reason he prepared the letter dated February 3, 2003, was to give Coach Byington a "heads up." Yet, Respondent provided no explanation as to why Coach Byington needed a "heads up." Respondent's testimony regarding the reason he wrote the letter dated February 3, 2003, is not credible. Respondent did not prepare the letter dated February 3, 2003, to give to Coach Byington and did not deliver it to him or discuss it with him. The letter was instead prepared to give to Mr. Brown to undermine the credibility of A.K. At all times relevant to this proceeding, E.M., a male, was a student at NHS. E.M. and Respondent had a close relationship and have known each other for about five years, having first met when E.M. was in the sixth grade and was coached by Respondent. While a coach at NHS, Respondent sometimes gave E.M. lunch money and also hired E.M. to work in summer basketball camps. During the investigation of Respondent, E.M. voluntarily came forward to provide information supportive of Respondent. E.M. told Mr. Brown and testified at hearing that when he was in the boys' locker room on February 3, 2003, he overheard Respondent tell A.K. that she should hang out with better people; that he then saw Respondent leave his office; that he saw A.K. leave the office soon after Respondent left the office; and that he noticed that as she was leaving, A.K. was on a cell phone saying to someone that she hated the coaches at NHS and was going to get back at them. A.K. did not make a cell phone call from school on February 3, 2003. In fact, she does not bring her cell phone to school. Moreover, A.K.'s cell phone records show that no call was made at the time E.M. claimed the call was made. Finally, as noted in paragraph 45, the February 3, 2003, conversation between Respondent and A.K. took place in the gym, not in Respondent's office. The testimony of E.M. was not credible and was refuted by competent and substantial evidence. There is no reasonable explanation for A.K. to file false charges against Respondent. As even Respondent admitted, A.K.'s animus was directed to Coach Byington, not toward Respondent. Prior to the February 10 incident in the storage closet, A.K. liked Respondent and considered him a good friend. She had been a student in Respondent's aerobics class during her sophomore year at NHS. During the first semester of her senior year, A.K. had been an office assistant at NHS and in that capacity, she was required to hand out passes to designated or assigned teachers. Respondent was one of the teachers A.K. had to deliver passes to on an almost daily basis. When A.K. delivered the passes to Respondent, they often had conversations. The second semester of her senior year, A.K. specifically requested to be a peer tutor for Respondent because she thought he was a "cool teacher." As a consequence of the February 10, 2003, incident, A.K., in a consultation with her parents, began seeing Dr. Marta Gallego, a clinical psychologist in Naples, to help her address her fears and concerns. The counseling sessions began on or about February 19, 2003, with the initial intake session involving A.K. and her family, and continued until early May 2003. The therapy sessions with Dr. Gallego focused on A.K.'s reactions to the incident, helping her deal with her reactions, and processing the incident. During the counseling sessions, A.K. exhibited symptoms related to the trauma, was anxious at times, and was depressed. Also, after the February 10 incident, A.K. withdrew from friends and family, had difficulty concentrating at school, and felt pain over the impact that the incident had on her family. Finally, A.K. expressed to Dr. Gallego that she could not understand how a teacher that she trusted could violate her trust.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent from his position as a teacher with the Collier County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 4th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman 2300 McGregor Boulevard Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 Jon D. Fishbane, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive, Third Floor Naples, Florida 34103 Dr. H. Benjamin Marlin Superintendent of Collier County School Board 5775 Osceola Trail Naples, Florida 34109-0919 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Respondent was an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida, more particularly a Title One teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School during the 1981-1982 school year. On May 6, 1982, John Cohn was a student in Respondent's fourth period class. Arnold Coats was a substitute teacher working with Respondent in Respondent's classroom on that day. After Respondent had given the students an assignment, Cohn requested and received permission to leave the classroom to go to the bathroom. While absent from the classroom, Cohn decided he wished to speak with Ronald Golemhieski, another teacher at Miami Carol City Senior High School. Cohn returned to Respondent's classroom to request permission. Coats came to the door and gave Cohn permission to go talk to Golembieski, but Cohn decided he should get permission from Respondent since Respondent was the teacher of the class. Cohn waited in the doorway of Respondent's classroom. When he finally got Respondent's attention, he beckoned with his finger, requesting Respondent to come to the doorway. Respondent went to the doorway, and Cohn requested Respondent's permission to go talk to Golembieski. Respondent grabbed Cohn, pulling him forcefully into the classroom. Commotion broke out in the classroom, and someone yelled for assistance. Golembieski heard the commotion, as did Victoria Bell, the hall monitor. When they arrived at Respondent's classroom, Respondent and Cohn were struggling with each other. They were face to face, and Respondent had his arm around Cohn's neck with his hand on Cohn's throat in a choking manner. Golembieski grabbed Cohn away from Respondent and, after separating them, took Cohn to his classroom to calm him down. Bell and Coats pushed the rest of the students back into their seats and restored order in Respondent's classroom. When the altercation ended, Cohn's shirt was torn and he had scratches on his chest. Just prior to Respondent's outburst, Cohn did nothing to provoke Respondent in any way and was not disrespectful to Respondent. When Cohn got Respondent's attention, Respondent both looked at Cohn and walked to the doorway in a normal manner, thereby giving no warning that he intended to touch Cohn in any way. Respondent interpreted Cohn's beckoning with his finger as an invitation to fight, although Respondent admits that Cohn said nothing to him indicating that he wished to fight.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Charges, approving Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, and denying any claim for back pay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza, Suite 800 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Ellen L. Leesfield, Esquire 2929 SW Third Avenue, Fifth Floor Miami, Florida 33129 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1410 NE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Richard A. Cohan, was employed by the Dade County School Board as a classroom teacher continuously from the time of his initial hiring in August 1970 until November 19, 1986, when he was suspended by Petitioner. During Respondent's employment with the Dade County School Board, he has taught at Shenendoah Junior High School, Booker T. Washington Junior High School, Kinloch Park Junior High School, Kensington Park Elementary School and Miami Edison Senior High School. Respondent was employed as a continuing contract teacher at Miami Edison Senior High School at all times relevant to the alleged misconduct herein. 1984-85 School Year Respondent's performance as a classroom teacher was satisfactory until the 1984-85 school year when he was absent 41 days from school. Frederick Sturgeon, Principal of Miami Edison Senior High School, made a notation concerning the absences on the Respondent's 1984/85 annual evaluation. 1985-86 School Year The Respondent's absenteeism continued into the 1985-86 school year. On November 5, 1985, Sturgeon held a conference for the record with Respondent because he had been absent 27.5 days since the beginning of the school year. Sturgeon was also concerned because Respondent failed to follow established school procedures when reporting his absences. During the 1985-86 school year, teachers who anticipated an absence were required to call a specific telephone number at the school and leave a taped message. The school secretary could check the messages during the night and arrange for any needed substitutes. The Respondent, however, usually called the school on the morning of the day he was absent. Thus, the school would have very little time in which to secure a substitute teacher who was specifically suited to teach the subject matter of the Respondent's classes. At the November 5, 1985 conference, Respondent was given specific instructions by Sturgeon to: Report any future absences to Assistant Principal Weiner personally and to discontinue calling the tape recording machine to report absences; Ensure that weekly lesson plans were available so that a substitute teacher would be able to continue with the lesson for that day; and Have on file with the school three days of "emergency lesson plans" dealing with general academic skills. On February 28, 1986, Sturgeon held another conference with the Respondent. The Respondent had been absent 5 times since the November 5, 1985 conference. On three of the days, Respondent did not call to report his intended absence. Sturgeon reiterated the same directives given Respondent during the November 5, 1985 conference. As of April 24, 1986, Respondent had been absent 58.5 days since the beginning of the school year. Because Respondent's absence pattern made it difficult to schedule a face to face conference, Sturgeon wrote a letter to Respondent expressing his concern over the high number of absences and the fact that from March 18, 1986 through April 24, 1986, there were 26 days during which the Respondent had not furnished lesson plans for his classes. Sturgeon again reiterated the directives of the November 5, 1985 conference. On May 12, 1986, a conference for the record was held with Respondent at the school board's Office of Professional Standards. Present at the conference were Assistant Principal Weiner, the Respondent, Dr. Gil (a coordinator in the office), and a union representative. The conference was held to discuss Respondent's performance assessment and future employment with the school board. The Respondent indicated his absences during the year were due to his grandmother's illness, the fact that he was not functioning well and the fact that he was taking medication for an upper respiratory illness. At the May 12, 1986 conference, the Respondent was directed to call Ms. Weinter directly to report any absences and to return his grade book to the school by May 13, 1986. Dr. Gil also determined that Respondent should be evaluated by a physician and an appointment was scheduled for the Respondent with Dr. Roger Rousseau, a psychiatrist. The Respondent first saw Dr. Rousseau on May 15, 1986. On May 20, 1986, the Respondent had still not furnished the grade book to the school. Ms. Weiner directed Respondent, by way of a memorandum, to produce the grade book as previously requested. On May 30, 1986, Sturgeon completed an annual evaluation in reference to Respondent's teaching performance. Respondent was rated "unacceptable" in the category of professional responsibility. On June 4, 1986, Sturgeon discussed with Respondent his most recent absences (May 29th to June 3rd) and the fact that he had not called Ms. Weiner to report them, had not provided lesson plans for two of the days and had still not provided the grade book to the school. The Respondent stated that he would comply with the directives in the future and provide his grade book to the school. Respondent was absent from June 6, 1986 until June 19, 1986. By letter dated June 11, 1986, Sturgeon requested that Respondent provide final examinations for his students and again directed that Respondent furnish the school with his grade book. On June 19, 1986, Sturgeon held a conference with the Respondent. The Respondent had not provided final examinations for his classes (one of the other teachers had to prepare the final exams), had not produced the grade book and had not provided lesson plans for use during his absences. The Respondent indicated to Sturgeon that on occasions, he attempted to contact Ms. Weiner but was unable to get through to her and at other times he forgot to contact her. The Respondent also informed Sturgeon that he was having a personal problem that he could not share with the school, and that the personal problem was having such an effect on him that he didn't feel that he could comply with the directives. On July 17, 1987, a conference was held at the school board's Office of Professional Standards, between Sturgeon, the Respondent, Dr. Gil and a union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to review Respondent's performance over the previous school year. In Sturgeon's opinion, the Respondent's students had not been graded properly during nearly the entire year, final exams had to be administered which did not adequately assess the students' progress and the students had not reached the course objectives. At this time, the Respondent was a little more specific about the problem that he had mentioned to Sturgeon earlier and stated that he was having a mental problem and that he had experienced a series of traumatic experiences which had affected his ability to attend school. At the conclusion of the July 17, 1987 conference Sturgeon decided to recommend a short term of suspension, a medical examination and a period of controlled monitoring during the next school year. The recommendation was approved by the school board and Respondent was suspended for ten work days beginning the 1986-87 school year and was placed on probation for a 45 day monitoring period. The Respondent did not contest the suspension. 1986-87 School Year The Respondent returned to work from his suspension on September 16, 1987. Classes for the new school year had already commenced. Prior to returning to work, Respondent had gone to school and was given a teacher handbook in biology by Ms. Weiner. Respondent prepared lesson plans and tests based on the teacher handbook he had been given. When Respondent returned to school, he was given a new teacher handbook for biology. Respondent had to re-do all of his lesson plans and tests. In addition, he discovered that none of his classes had been issued textbooks. Respondent also received a folder filled with five classes worth of work for the proceeding 15 days which was assigned by the substitute teacher. On September 29, 1986, Ms. Weiner conducted an observation of Respondent's class. Respondent was rated "acceptable" in five categories but "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. This rating was based on the fact that there was no work done by the students contained in the student folders, his grade book contained only one entry grade per student for only one week and students were allowed to grade other students' essay-type examinations. Weiner gave Respondent a prescription for improving his deficiencies which included the directive that he conduct at least two formal assessments of student progress per week and maintain student folders to keep evaluative items. During October 1986, the Respondent was absent 15 days. Most of the absences were due to a severe intestinal flu which Respondent contracted. The Respondent failed to report his absences directly to Ms. Weiner as previously directed. On some occasions, the Respondent attempted to call Ms. Weiner, but could not get through to her on the telephone. When Respondent was unable to contact Ms. Weiner he would sometimes call the answer phone and leave a recorded message. On October 27, 1986, a conference for the record was held at the Office of Professional Standards between Sturgeon, the Respondent, Dr. Gil and a union representative. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Ms. Weiner's observation of Respondent, his continued failure to contact Ms. Weiner directly regarding absences and his failure to file emergency plans. On November 3, 1986, Sturgeon conducted an observation of the Respondent's classroom. Sturgeon rated the Respondent "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. This unacceptable rating was based on the fact that Respondent did not have any student folders and had not assigned any homework. School policy required that teachers assigns homework at least twice a week. Respondent was also rated unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility. On November 14, 1986, Ms. Weiner conducted an observation of Respondent's class and rated him "unacceptable" in the area of assessment techniques. The Respondent had no student folders, did not conduct at least two formative assessments of the students per week and there were no summative assessments of the student's progress. The Respondent admitted that he did not have formal folders and that his evaluation techniques were deficient. The Respondent stated that he was unable to employ the student assessment procedures recommended given by Ms. Weiner during the first few months of the 1986-87 school year because he was in the process of "catching up" after his return from suspension and was unable to do all of those things in such a short period of time. In addition, Respondent was hindered in his attempt to catch up because he was unable to have a lot of needed items copied because at times the machines were broken and at other times teachers with current items requiring reproduction were given priority. On November 19, 1986, Petitioner suspended Respondent from his position at Miami Edison Senior High School. Beginning in the 1984-85 school year and continuing through to the 1986-87 school year, Respondent suffered from a dysthymiac disorder referred to as neurotic depression. Respondent's condition was first diagnosed by Dr. Roger Rousseau, a psychiatrist, on May 15, 1986. At the insistence of Dr. Gil, Respondent went to Dr. Rousseau's office for an examination. Dr. Rousseau was chosen from a list provided to Respondent by Dr. Gil. Dr. Gil personally made the appointment for Respondent to see Dr. Rousseau. Respondent at first did not realize or believe that he was suffering from a mental illness and initially resisted the treatment provided by Dr. Rousseau. However, Dr. Rousseau was able to establish a psychotherapeutic relationship with the Respondent after a short period of time. After the doctor-patient relationship was established, Respondent decided to continue seeing Dr. Rousseau and kept weekly appointments from June, 1986 until November, 1986. Respondent was treated with individual psychotherapy and antidepressant medication. In November of 1986, Respondent stopped seeing D. Rousseau because Respondent moved to Atlanta, Georgia, shortly after being suspended. Neurotic depression is a serious mental illness of a cyclical nature which may be physically disabling while the afflicted person is in a pathological state of depression. The symptoms of a neurotic depression include extreme sadness, apathy, lack of motivation, inability to concentrate, psychomotor retardation, insomnia and loss of appetite. Respondent's periods of pathological depression were characterized by feelings of helplessness, hopelessness and an apathy toward outside activities, including his employment. During Respondent's depressive states he would isolate himself at home, withdraw from all social contact, neglect his nutrition and hygiene and suffer insomnia. At times, Respondent would be unaware of the passage of time and would have crying spells. In his depressive condition, sometimes Respondent knew what he was required to do, such as calling in to report an absence, but because of his despair and dejected mood, was unable to motivate himself to do anything. Respondent's apathy and inability to attend to his necessary duties was a direct result of his neurotic depression. Due to the depressive symptomatology, a neurotically depressed person might fail to perform required duties for a number of reasons. As a result of an inability to concentrate, the depressed person may be unable to receive and assimilate instructions. The depressed person having a desire to complete a required duty may lack the physical capacity to perform because mentally he or she feels unable to do so. Further, because of an unconscious, passive- aggressive need for punishment, a depressed person may neglect to perform a required duty. The Respondent was examined by Dr. Albert Jaslow, a psychiatrist, on September 15, 1986 at the request of Dr. Gil of the Office of Professional Standards. Dr. Jaslow confirmed that Respondent was suffering from a mental illness and found that Respondent had made progress with his treatments from Dr. Rousseau. Dr. Jaslow noted that Respondent had reached a state of "relative adjustment" and had begun to realize that it would be necessary for him to be involved in a psychotherapeutic relationship in order to control the negative behavioral aspects of his periods of depression. Dr. Rousseau believes that Respondent responded well to treatment after an initial period of resistance and lack of insight (which is a part of the depressive symptomatology). Dr. Rousseau feels that the Respondent was getting better during the course of therapy but will need to continue taking his medication and receiving psychotherapy in order to fully complete the recovery process and control any recurring symptoms of depression.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be dismissed from employment; however, said dismissal shall be held in abeyance for 2 years from the date of the Final Order contingent on the following: Respondent's present suspension shall remain in effect until the commencement of the 1987-88 school year when Respondent shall return to work; Respondent shall continued treatment with Dr. Rosseau or another qualified psychiatrist of his choice; Respondent shall maintain acceptable performance evaluation reports during the school year, overall acceptable annual evaluations and be recommended for employment by his school principal at the end of the 1987-88 and 1988-89 school years. The Office of Professional Standards, Dade County Board, shall monitor the Respondent's progress and fulfillment of the terms of the Final Order. If the Office of Professional Standards provides information by letter or motion to the school board that the Respondent has failed to meet any of the terms of this Order, the school board shall, if satisfied that the information is correct, immediately effectuate Respondent's dismissal by majority vote. If Respondent meets the requirements of the Final Order, the dismissal shall be remitted without further action. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of July, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4805 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Addressed in Procedural Background section. Addressed in Procedural Background section. (No finding of fact 3) Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 24. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8-21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 31. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank R. Harder, Esquire 8360 West Flagler Street Suite 205 Miami, Florida 33144 William duFresne, Esquire 2950 Southwest 27th Avenue Suite 310 Coconut Grove, Florida 331133 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33136 Dr. Patrick Gray Division of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1550 North Miami Avenue - Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33136 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1550 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33136
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the letter from the Petitioner dated January 16, 2003, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed February 27, 2003, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes (2002).3 At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz taught emotionally handicapped and seriously emotionally disturbed students in North Miami Beach High's Bertha Abbess exceptional student education program. He has been employed by the School Board since 1993, and is currently employed under a professional services contract. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Lefkowitz and at least one other person were making a music video for a course they were taking at Florida International University. Alvarro Gutierrez was working with Mr. Lefkowitz on the video, and Mr. Gutierrez had chosen the girl who would sing and would choreograph the dances for the video. Mr. Gutierrez did not, however, have any dancers, and Mr. Lefkowitz told Mr. Gutierrez that he knew some girls "from school" who were dancers and that he would ask them if they wanted to dance in the video. J.D. was, at the times material to his proceeding, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, although she was not a student of Mr. Lefkowitz. Rather, J.D. met Mr. Lefkowitz in a school hallway, while she was selling candy for her French class, and they apparently had several conversations during school hours. In one of these conversations, Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned that he was filming a music video for a college class. J.D. asked if she could be in the video, and Mr. Lefkowitz agreed and asked J.D. if she had any friends who could also dance in the video. J.D. introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to her friend N.F. N.F. was, at the time, an 11th-grade student at North Miami Beach High, but she did not know Mr. Lefkowitz until J.D. introduced them. Mr. Lefkowitz did not know at the time he met her that N.F. was a student at North Miami Beach High. J.D. also introduced Mr. Lefkowitz to Glamour Legros, whom she knew because she and Ms. Legros attended the same church. Prior to introducing Mr. Lefkowitz to Ms. Legros, J.D. had told him on a number of occasions how much Ms. Legros wanted to meet him.4 Ms. Legros and N.F. shared an apartment. Ms. Legros was not a student at the times material to this proceeding, and she was older than N.F. and J.D. J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros agreed to dance in the music video and went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment several times to discuss, rehearse, and shoot the video. Mr. Lefkowitz picked up J.D., N.F., and Ms. Legros and drove them to his apartment on the occasions when they were working on the video. Mr. Lefkowitz also took J.D. and her friends home on these occasions. M.D., J.D.'s brother and a student at North Miami Beach High at the time, went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment once, and H.D., another student at North Miami Beach High, was at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment on at least one occasion, when she danced for the music video. These two students also rode with Mr. Lefkowitz in his car on at least one occasion. In addition to her visits to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment and her rides in his car, J.D. spoke with Mr. Lefkowitz numerous times on the telephone. When working on the video, J.D. went to Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment with her friends. She was alone with Mr. Lefkowitz once, after her friends left Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment; Mr. Lefkowitz took her home after about an hour. Mr. Gutierrez did not observe Mr. Lefkowitz engage in any improper behavior with J.D. or her friends at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment during the time they were discussing, rehearsing, and shooting the music video. On April 21, 2003, Ms. Legros called the police and she and N.F. reported that Mr. Lefkowitz had come to their apartment, beat on the door, and threatened them verbally. According to the police incident report, the police were dispatched at 10:09 p.m. and arrived at Ms. Legros's and N.F.'s apartment at 10:12 p.m. Mr. Lefkowitz had outpatient surgery on April 18, 2002. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother was with him at his apartment from April 18 through the morning of April 22, 2002, the day he returned to work. According to Ms. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz was in bed, asleep, on the night of April 21, 2002. On April 22, 2002, Raymond Fontana, the principal of North Miami Beach High, received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself to Mr. Fontana's secretary as J.D.'s aunt and who told Mr. Fontana that an exceptional student education teacher named "Neil" was having a relationship with J.D., a student at North Miami Beach High; the caller also reported that the teacher had been involved in an "incident" that had been reported to the police. Ms. Legros was the person who called Mr. Fontana.5 Mr. Fontana called Allyn Bernstein, an assistant principal at North Miami Beach High, into his office and asked her to look into the allegations made by the caller. Dr. Bernstein called Mr. Lefkowitz into her office and, before she could say anything, Mr. Lefkowitz told her that he knew why she had summoned him, that an ex-girlfriend had threatened to make trouble for him because he wouldn't give her money. When Dr. Bernstein questioned Mr. Lefkowitz about his relationship with the student J.D., Mr. Lefkowitz denied knowing her. Dr. Bernstein also called J.D. into her office. In response to Dr. Bernstein's questions, J.D. denied knowing Mr. Lefkowitz. She stated that she did not have a social relationship with any teacher outside of school and that she had never met any staff member outside school. After Dr. Bernstein reported to Mr. Fontana that she believed that there might be "something there,"6 Mr. Fontana reported the matter to the school district personnel, who referred the matter to the Miami-Dade School Police Department, and an investigation was initiated. Once the investigation was initiated, Mr. Lefkowitz was placed on alternate assignment at his home effective May 3, 2002. The investigator, Detective Victor Hernandez, interviewed N.F., Ms. Legros, J.D., H.D., M.D., and Mr. Lefkowitz. During the course of his investigation, Detective Hernandez was told that Mr. Lefkowitz and N.F. had dated and that they had had sexual intercourse. When Detective Hernandez interviewed Mr. Lefkowitz, Mr. Lefkowitz denied that he knew either J.D. or N.F. In a report dated September 2, 2002, Detective Hernandez described his investigation and set forth the substance of the statements given by the witnesses. Detective Hernandez concluded that the charges that Mr. Lefkowitz had violated Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.109 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21 were substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on October 2, 2002, with Paul Greenfield, District Director, presiding. Mr. Lefkowitz attended the Conference-for-the-Record, together with the School Board's Director of Region II and Mr. Fontana. Mr. Lefkowitz requested that his attorney be allowed to attend, but this request was denied.7 Mr. Greenfield reviewed Mr. Lefkowitz's history with the Miami-Dade County public school system and presented the results of the investigation. Mr. Lefkowitz denied having met J.D. and N.F. and denied that they were ever in his apartment. After the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Fontana recommended to the Superintendent of Region II that Mr. Lefkowitz's employment be terminated. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein, to Detective Hernandez, and to the participants in the Conference-for-the- Record about his relationships with J.D. and N.F. because he knew it was improper for the students to be in his apartment and for him to associate with students outside of school. Mr. Lefkowitz expressed remorse at his behavior and acknowledged that his conduct was not appropriate. J.D. testified that she and Mr. Lefkowitz never dated or had sexual intercourse. Ms. Legros testified that she did not know whether Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. had had sexual intercourse. She claimed, however, to have observed Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. at Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and acting like "boyfriend and girlfriend to me."8 Ms. Legros has no personal knowledge that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual relations with N.F., but testified that N.F. told Ms. Legros that she had had a relationship with Mr. Lefkowitz. An 11th-grade student testified at the hearing that he considered Mr. Lefkowitz to be a good teacher, a role model, and a teacher that he would remember after high school. Mr. Fontana testified that he thought Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired because of the "manner in which he dealt with students, having students come to his apartment, dealing with students that are out of the realm of his teaching responsibilities." Mr. Fontana observed that "once you breach that student/teacher relationship and you lose that professionalism I don't think you can ever go back and have the same degree of effectiveness as a teacher."9 In making his decision to recommend that Mr. Lefkowitz be terminated from his employment as a teacher, Mr. Fontana considered Mr. Lefkowitz's employment history with the Miami- Dade County public school system. Mr. Lefkowitz was twice referred for evaluation as to his medical fitness to perform his duties as a teacher and was twice found fit to perform these duties. Mr. Lefkowitz was the subject of three allegations of battery on a student, one in February 1995, one in February 1999, and one in March 1999; the February 1995 charge was substantiated,10 and Mr. Lefkowitz was given a verbal warning; the remaining two charges were unsubstantiated. Finally, in August 1995, Mr. Lefkowitz had an unacceptable annual evaluation, was given a TADS Category VII prescription in the area of Professional Responsibility, and successfully completed the prescription within the specified time. Summary The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is insufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz dated either J.D. or N.F. or that Mr. Lefkowitz had sexual intercourse with N.F. The School Board presented no direct evidence establishing that J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a romantic relationship or that N.F. and Mr. Lefkowitz had a sexual relationship. The School Board relied exclusively on Ms. Legros's testimony to establish that these relationships existed,11 and most of her testimony was based on hearsay, not personal knowledge. Ms. Legros had no personal knowledge that N.F. had sexual relations with Mr. Lefkowitz, and the only behavior that Ms. Legros testified that she personally observed was Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. in Mr. Lefkowitz's apartment hugging and kissing and, in Ms. Legros's estimation, acting like boyfriend and girlfriend. Ms. Legros is found not to be a particularly credible witness, and her uncorroborated testimony is not sufficiently persuasive to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz and J.D. more likely than not were dating or that the hugging and kissing, if she indeed observed such behavior, was sexual in nature. Both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz denied having a romantic relationship, but it is difficult to credit fully their testimony, given that both J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about knowing one another and that Mr. Lefkowitz lied to School Board personnel about being acquainted with N.F. However, on reflection and after a careful review of the evidence, the testimony of J.D. and Mr. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros. The greater weight of the credible evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. on April 21, 2002, and threatened her or that he went to the apartment shared by Ms. Legros and N.F. on the night of April 21, 2002, and made threats to harm them. Mr. Lefkowitz's mother testified unequivocally that she was with Mr. Lefkowitz from April 19 through the morning of April 22, 2002, and that he was recovering from surgery and sleeping on the night of April 21, 2002. The School Board presented no evidence that Mr. Lefkowitz telephoned N.F. and threatened her, and Ms. Legros was the only witness to testify that Mr. Lefkowitz came to her apartment and made threats. The testimony of Mrs. Lefkowitz is credited over that of Ms. Legros.12 The evidence presented in this case is sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz failed to exercise the best professional judgment, failed to maintain the highest ethical standards, and used his position as a teacher to his personal advantage by recruiting young women students to perform as dancers in the music video he was filming as part of a college assignment. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct: He had had a personal relationship outside of school with both J.D. and N.F.; J.D. and N.F. danced in a music video he made for a college project; J.D. and N.F. were in his apartment several times; and he drove J.D. and N.F. in his car to and from his apartment. The contents and tone of the written statement Mr. Lefkowitz adopted as his testimony supports an inference that he was on very familiar terms with both J.D. and N.F., and with Ms. Legros as well.13 Mr. Lefkowitz's poor judgment in developing significant social relationships outside of school with two female students at North Miami Beach High and his inappropriate behavior in having these students as guests in his car and in his apartment reflect poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. Mr. Lefkowitz also failed to exercise the best professional judgment and to maintain the highest ethical standards with respect to his dealings with the School Board during the investigation of his conduct. Mr. Lefkowitz lied to Dr. Bernstein and Detective Hernandez and at the October 2, 2002, Conference-for-the-Record when he said he did not know J.D. or N.F., and he admitted at the final hearing that he lied because he knew that he should never have involved these students in making the music video, should never have given these students rides in his car, and should never have invited the students to his apartment. Mr. Lefkowitz's lack of truthfulness reflects poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz engaged in one instance of inappropriate behavior involving students M.D. and H.D. Mr. Lefkowitz admitted that, on one occasion, he picked up these two students in his car and drove them to his apartment, where H.D. danced in the music video and M.D. observed Mr. Lefkowitz and cohorts filming the music video. Mr. Lefkowitz did not have repeated out-of-school contacts with these two students, as he did with J.D. and N.F., but his behavior with M.D. and H.D. reflected poorly on him as a teacher employed by the School Board. The evidence presented by the School Board, which consisted only of Mr. Fontana's conclusory and general statements, is not sufficient to establish that Mr. Lefkowitz's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County public school system. The evidence presented by the School Board is, however, sufficient to permit an inference that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as a teacher was impaired. Mr. Lefkowitz encouraged students to develop personal relationships with him and to spend significant amounts of time with him in his apartment. Even though J.D., the young woman with whom he was primarily involved, was not a student in his class, his willingness to become involved with this student and her friends brings his personal and professional judgment into question and necessarily affects the school administration's assessment of his fitness for supervising high school students. It may also be inferred that Mr. Lefkowitz's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board was also impaired because he lied to the principal and assistant principal of his school and to the regional superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system about even knowing J.D. By not being truthful with the school system administrators, Mr. Lefkowitz diminished his credibility as a professional educator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order; Finding that Neil D. Lefkowitz is guilty of having committed misconduct in office and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4-1.09 and 6Gx13-4A-1.21; Suspending Mr. Lefkowitz without pay for a period of 24 months, retroactive to the date on which the School Board suspended him from his employment without pay; and Imposing such conditions on Mr. Lefkowitz upon his return to employment as the School Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 31th day of July, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment as a school teacher for just cause pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the duly appointed Superintendent for HCSB. He is responsible for the administration and management of the Hernando County School District. HCSB is the governing body of the Hernando County School District. It is charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools in Hernando County, Florida. At all times material here, Respondent was, and continues to be, an employee of the HCSB as a member of the instructional staff pursuant to a "professional service contract." The origin of these proceedings occurred on December 5, 1996, when Respondent was arrested for allegedly engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with minor students. Apart from the allegations raised in this case, Respondent has been a satisfactory employee. No employee, agent, or representative of the HCSB was aware of any allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct between Respondent and any student until law enforcement officials notified school officials about an investigation a few days before Respondent's arrest. Respondent began working for HCSB in 1989 at Powell Middle School as a science teacher. He eventually became the technology resource coordinator at Powell Middle School. Respondent served as director of an after school program (ASP) at Powell Middle School beginning in January 1995. HCSB and the local YMCA sponsored and funded the ASP until sometime in the spring of 1996. Respondent was in large part responsible for the successful creation, organization, and operation of the ASP. The ASP began immediately after each school day and continued until 5:00 p.m. The program was staffed by Powell Middle School staff and other adults who taught different classes. Some of the after school activities, like swimming lessons, took place on the premises of the YMCA. The ASP participants rode a school bus from the school to activities in remote locations. Respondent directed the ASP initially from his classroom in the science building of Powell Middle School and subsequently from a room used as a computer lab, which was adjacent to his former classroom. A number of school administrators and teachers were constantly walking in and out of the areas where Respondent worked each day because supplies for the ASP were stored there. After school, teachers frequently visited Respondent's work station unannounced. Janitors and work details were on the school premises until 11:00 p.m. Bathrooms and a refrigerator for staff were located near Respondent's work station. Respondent's classroom in the science building had large windows along the outside wall. There were windows between the computer room and Respondent's classroom. There were windows between the computer room and another classroom in the same building. The only area which had any possibility of privacy was a walk-in storage closet in the computer room. The doors to the science classrooms, the computer room and closet were never locked. During the summers, Respondent spent his time working at Camp Sangamon, a camp in Vermont for boys of all ages. He began working at the camp in 1980 as a regular counselor. Later he served as head of the activity trip program. Respondent worked as the camp's assistant director for about eight years. In the summer of 1995, Respondent lived in a cabin with older boys who were counselors-in-training (CITs). However, he spent almost all of his time in the administrative office taking care of paperwork, planning activities, and supervising programs. He never went to the cabin in the middle of the day unless he was specifically looking for a CIT. Respondent's cabin was on a main trail through the camp, in close proximity to other cabins and a basketball court. People were constantly walking by the cabin, especially in the middle of the day during a free activity period. The cabin did not have a lock on its door. It had large windows with no screens, which were usually propped open with a stick. The panels that formed the walls of the cabin were separated by approximately one inch. The spaces between the panels left the interior of the cabin visible during the day. As assistant director, Respondent could arrange for Florida boys to attend the camp at a reduced rate. Over the years, he made these arrangements for several boys. C.B. Respondent met C.B., a seventh grade student at Powell Middle School, in 1995. At that time, C.B. was not one of Respondent's regular students. He was a participant in the ASP. Initially, C.B.'s stepmother called Respondent to check on C.B.'s attendance in the ASP. The stepmother and Respondent discussed C.B.'s problems, including his attempts to run away from home. During subsequent conversations, Respondent offered C.B. a scholarship to attend Camp Sangamon for three weeks in the summer of 1995. C.B.'s family was pleased that he would have an opportunity to go to camp. They accepted Respondent's offer and made final arrangements for C.B. to attend camp for three weeks at a reduced rate. When C.B. arrived at camp in 1995, he announced that he was going to stay at camp all summer. Despite his initial positive attitude, C.B. had trouble adjusting to camp life. He had problems interacting with other campers. However, with help from his counselors, and encouragement from Respondent, C.B. stayed at camp for eight weeks. During the summer of 1995, Respondent assisted C.B. with the completion of a science project. C.B. had to complete the project in order to be promoted to the eighth grade. Respondent's cabin was always open with CITs coming and going. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the cabin at any time. C.B.'s testimony that, at Respondent's request, he masturbated Respondent's penis in the cabin during a free activity period just before lunch is not credited. After returning from summer camp, C.B. went boating with Respondent and several other people. The group enjoyed snorkeling and water skiing. However, C.B. and Respondent were never alone on a boat. C.B. was in the eighth grade at Powell Middle School in the fall of 1995. Even though he was not in one of Respondent's classes, C.B. often received passes from his teachers to visit Respondent's classroom during the regular school day. C.B. participated in the ASP. Respondent regularly drove C.B. home following the close of the ASP. Respondent worked one-on-one with C.B. to improve his grades. Two to three times a week, Respondent visited C.B.'s home to tutor C.B. C.B.'s grades improved markedly. Respondent encouraged C.B. to set high school graduation as a goal. C.B. testified that, during the after school hours of the 1995-96 school year, he twice complied with Respondent's request to masturbate Respondent's penis on school grounds, either in the science classroom or the adjoining computer/storage room. This testimony is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. On October 20, 1995, Respondent took C.B. to Disney World as a reward for his academic success during the first grading period. They traveled in Respondent's pick-up truck and shared the expenses of the trip. Respondent and C.B. arrived at the Disney World parking lot before the amusement park opened. They parked in front of the ticket booth around 9:00 or 9:30 a.m. Other cars were also arriving. Parking attendants and people waiting to enter the entertainment area were in close proximity to Respondent's vehicle at all times. Respondent and C.B. paid their entrance fee and entered the theme park as soon as it opened for business. With so many people around, there was no expectation of privacy in Respondent's truck. C.B.'s testimony that he masturbated Respondent's penis in the Disney World parking lot is not credited. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent arranged for C.B. to attend a counseling session with a guidance counselor at Powell Middle School. Respondent made the appointment because he suspected that C.B. was the victim of abuse at home. On February 5, 1996, C.B. and his father had an argument. The father lost his temper and punched C.B. in the face and ear. C.B. did not go to school the next day. The school resource officer noticed bruises on C.B.'s face the following week at school. He reported his observations to an investigator from the Department of Children and Families. C.B.'s father admitted to the investigator that he hit C.B. in the face. The authorities took no legal action against C.B.'s father. C.B. attended camp at a reduced rate again in the summer of 1996. He went to Vermont early so that he could earn money working at camp before it opened. During the summer, Respondent bought C.B. a portable C.D. player, C.D.'s, and some articles of clothing with the understanding that C.B. would repay Respondent later. Mrs. Peady O'Connor, one of Respondent's friends, also went to camp in the summer of 1996 to work in the kitchen. C.B. stayed at camp all summer, returning home with Respondent and Mrs. O'Connor on August 16, 1996. Immediately upon his return to Florida, Respondent began having trouble with his truck. He took it to the shop on Saturday, August 17, 1996. He spent the rest of the day with a friend, Jackie Agard. Respondent did not go boating that weekend. School started on August 19, 1996 for the 1996-97 school year. Respondent returned to work at Powell Middle School as the technology resource coordinator. C.B. attended ninth grade at Springstead High School. On Tuesday, August 20, 1996, Respondent leased a new sport utility vehicle. It did not have a pre-installed trailer hitch. The next Saturday, August 24, 1996, Respondent spent the day with friends from out-of-town. He did not go boating that weekend. On August 29, 1996, Respondent purchased a trailer hitch. He intended to install the hitch personally. That same day, Respondent and Chuck Wall, a scuba diving instructor, met with C.B. and his parents. The purpose of the visit was to sign C.B. up for scuba diving lessons. Respondent agreed to pay for the lessons, as he had for those of other young people. On Saturday, August 31, 1996, Respondent took some of his friends to dinner and a movie in his new vehicle. He did not go boating that weekend. Respondent's boat was parked at the home of his parents all summer while Respondent was in Vermont. It was still there when Respondent installed the trailer hitch on his new vehicle on Labor Day, September 2, 1996. On September 3, 1996, Respondent took C.B. to his first scuba diving lesson. After the lesson, Respondent, C.B., and Mr. Wall took Respondent's boat to a marina at Crystal River. After launching Respondent's boat, Chuck Wall had difficulty getting the boat to run because it had not been used for such a long time. Respondent left his boat at the marina for the rest of the fall boating season. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that C.B. and Respondent never went boating alone. There was no inappropriate sexual conduct between C.B. and Respondent on Respondent's boat. On Saturday, September 7, 1996, Respondent took a group of students to Disney World. The trip was a reward for the students' involvement with a video yearbook project sponsored by Respondent. C.B. did not participate in the activity. The next Saturday, C.B.'s scuba diving lesson was cancelled. C.B. did not go boating with Respondent that weekend because he was on restrictions at home. On or about September 18, 1996, C.B.'s parents became aware that C.B. was responsible for long distance phone calls to a girl that C.B. met at camp. After a confrontation with his parents, C.B. ran away from home. On September 21, 1996, Respondent went to C.B.'s home. Respondent suggested that C.B.'s parents let C.B. live with the O'Connor family for a short period of time. He also suggested that C.B. receive counseling and agreed to arrange for the therapy. Mr. and Mrs. O'Connor, and their son and daughter, were close friends of Respondent. The son, Sean O'Connor, was away at college. The daughter, Jennifer, still lived at home. C.B.'s parents agreed to let C.B. live with the O'Connors on a trial basis, provided that C.B. remain on restrictions within the O'Connor home for a period of time. The O'Connors did not live within the Springstead High School district. Therefore, Respondent and the O'Connors worked together to provide C.B. with transportation to and from school. Respondent purchased C.B. a beeper to facilitate communication between C.B. and Mrs. O'Connor. After moving in with the O'Connors, C.B. was allowed to attend a football game. He did not meet Mrs. O'Connor after the game as he had been instructed. The police found C.B. and turned him over to C.B.'s stepmother. As soon as he got to the gate of his parent's property, C.B. got out of his stepmother's car and ran away again. The police eventually found C.B. at the home of his step-brother's girlfriend on October 2, 1996. C.B.'s parents told the police to release C.B. to Respondent's custody. Respondent took C.B. back to live with the O'Connors. October 7, 1996 was an early release day at school. Respondent, C.B., and another student left from school to look for a lost anchor. Later that evening, Respondent dropped off C.B. at the O'Connor residence, then proceeded to take the other student home. October 8, 1996, was a hurricane day for the school district. Mrs. O'Connor was at home all day. Respondent and C.B. were never alone in the O'Connor home. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever performed anal intercourse upon C.B. at the O'Connors' home or at Powell Middle School in the storage closet of the computer room. During the time that C.B. lived with the O'Connors, Respondent arranged for C.B. to attend two counseling sessions with a school psychologist. On Thursday, October 24, 1996, C.B.'s father decided that he wanted C.B. to move back home. When the father arrived at the O'Connor's home, C.B. attempted to have a heart-to-heart talk with his father. When the father insisted that C.B. return home, C.B. ran out into the yard of the O'Connor home. The father caught up with C.B. and, during the ensuing struggle, repeatedly punched C.B. in the face. The O'Connors called the police. C.B.'s father was arrested and taken to jail. The next day, C.B.'s stepmother filed a police report alleging that Respondent had sexually abused C.B. After his father was arrested, C.B. spent one night with his stepbrother. His stepmother told him not to attend school the next day. She wanted C.B. to go with her to talk to the authorities and to get C.B.'s father out of jail. Despite these instructions, C.B. rode to school with the O'Connors' daughter. When C.B.'s stepmother discovered that he was at school, she went to pick him up. When she arrived at school, C.B. refused to go home with her. Because he would not go home with his stepmother, C.B. was taken to a youth shelter. He ran away from the shelter that night. C.B. continued to attend school while on run away status. On October 29, 1996 and November 6, 1996, a deputy sheriff interviewed C.B. about the allegations raised by his stepmother. On both occasions, C.B. denied that Respondent had ever engaged in or attempted to engage in inappropriate conduct with him. On November 8, 1996, a sheriff's detective, Detective Baxley, and a worker from the Department of Children and Families each questioned C.B. C.B. again denied ever having any sexual contact with Respondent. In November 1996, C.B. returned to live with his parents. On November 13, 1996, the day that C.B.'s father's made his first court appearance, C.B. told the state attorney, in the presence of both parents, that he did not want to press charges against his father. The charges were subsequently dropped. On November 18, 1996, Detective Baxley and Detective Cameron interrogated C.B. Towards the end of the interview, C.B. accused Respondent of having inappropriate sexual contact with him on two occasions. C.B. alleged that he had masturbated Respondent's penis in Respondent's cabin at camp in the summer of 1996.3 C.B. also alleged that he had masturbated Respondent's penis on Respondent's boat in Crystal River sometime in the early fall of 1996, within weeks of the beginning of school. The detectives had C.B. call Respondent. They taped the conversation without Respondent's knowledge. C.B. told Respondent that the police had given him a polygraph when in fact they had used a computer voice stress analyzer. Respondent told C.B. he had nothing to worry about as long as he told the truth. The police interrogated C.B. again on November 27, 1996. During this interview, C.B. accused Respondent of inappropriate sexual conduct, involving masturbation of Respondent's penis, in Respondent's science classroom or the computer room at Powell Middle School during after school hours of the 1995-96 school year. Respondent was arrested on or about December 5, 1996. In January of 1997, C.B. alleged for the first time that he masturbated Respondent's penis in the parking lot at Disney World on October 20, 1995. On March 27, 1997, C.B. accused Respondent of having anal sex with him at the O'Connor residence during a "hurricane day" in October of 1996. On April 16, 1997, C.B. accused Respondent of having anal sex with him in the walk-in closet of the computer/storage room at Powell Middle School on two occasions in September or October of 1996. A.P. Respondent met A.P., a sixth grade student at Powell Middle School in 1995 as a participant in the ASP. A.P. was a very out-going person, who demanded attention. At times, Respondent, as director of ASP, had to discipline A.P. During his sixth grade year, A.P. would routinely visit Respondent's classroom during the school day even though Respondent was not one of his teachers. A.P. often visited Respondent during ASP. Respondent frequently gave A.P. a ride home after ASP. Respondent offered A.P. a scholarship to attend Camp Sangamon in the summer of 1995. With the consent of his parents, A.P. attended camp at a reduced rate for three weeks that summer. In the fall of 1995, A.P. was in the seventh grade. He was in a science class taught by Respondent. He continued to attend the ASP. Respondent worked on computers during the times that A.P. and other students visited in the computer room. There is no persuasive evidence that pornographic pictures of nude males on the Internet ever appeared on the computer monitors while Respondent was operating a computer in A.P.'s presence. In January of 1996, A.P. continued to visit Respondent in Respondent's classroom or in the computer room after school. Respondent did not at any time ask A.P. to touch Respondent in a sexually inappropriate manner. Respondent never masturbated A.P.'s penis on school property. Respondent developed a plan for A.P. to work and earn money so that he could attend camp during the summer of 1996. A.P. did not follow through with the plan. Consequently, he did not attend camp for the second time. In the fall of 1996, A.P. entered the eighth grade at Powell Middle School. A.P. continued to visit Respondent in the computer room after school up until the police arrested Respondent. Just before Respondent's arrest, Detective Baxley, interviewed several of Respondent's students. One of those students was A.P. Of his own accord, Detective Baxley went to A.P.'s home to interview him. During the interview, A.P. told the detective that Respondent had shown him pornographic pictures from the Internet in the school's computer room. A.P. also claimed that, on one occasion, A.P. declined Respondent's request for A.P. to touch Respondent's penis. On another occasion, Respondent allegedly masturbated A.P.'s penis. According to A.P., the latter two incidents took place in the computer room.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it RECOMMENDED: That the Hernando County School Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent not quilty of improper sexual conduct with C.B. and A.P., and reinstating Respondent to his teaching position, with back pay, less interim earnings, benefits, and no break in seniority of years of continuous service. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1998.
The Issue Whether respondent discriminated against petitioner on account of his age in terminating his employment, in violation of the Florida Human Relations Act, Section 760.10 et seq., Florida Statutes (1989)?
Findings Of Fact On July 3, 1989, when he was fired, Neal C. Currow, who was born on January 20, 1927, was by far the oldest employee (T.180) at the Panama City Marine Institute, (PCMI) a non-profit corporation that contracts with the Bay County School Board to provide alternative education programs; and with co- respondent Associated Marine Institutes, Inc. (AMI) to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents or furnish other services for young people. AMI "consists of" (T.225) or "operates" (T.226) 28 schools or institutes like PCMI, of which 13 are in Florida. AMI contracts with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to provide services, then subcontracts with its constituent schools. AMI has "central bookkeeping . . . all the payroll is done in Tampa." T.228. But AMI does not maintain complete personnel files on each employee centrally. A "40 year Water Safety Instructor Trainer with the American Red Cross," (T.181) Mr. Currow also holds a "100 ton Master's license for . . . Auxiliary Sail," id., issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. After 18 years as an independent building contractor, he became a junior college teacher and "started all of the building programs for the Gulf Coast [Junior] College." Id. Mr. Currow wears a hearing aid, but he still does aerobics five days a week. Before he went to work for PCMI as a paid employee on September 29, 1980, Mr. Currow had worked as a volunteer for approximately a year, donating money and the use of his motor home, as well as time. A "stable employee, he had all the knowledge . . . [and was] relied on for information . . . [about] how to do things." T.139. Other employees looked up to him and the children respected him more than most of the other teachers. Id. At PCMI, he suffered the gibes of Jack Ross, George M. "Mike" Larson, who was director of operations at the time, Mr. Larson's successor, with apparent good humor. In staff meetings, Messrs. Ross and Larson referred to him as "the old man" and "the old fossil." T.140-1. When Mr. Larson did "his hearing aid thing" (T.140), i.e., telling Mr. Currow to "turn it up Neal, or turn it down, Neal, or something referring to it . . . Jack would laugh." T.140. Danny Grizzard referred to Mr. Currow as "the old man" five or ten times a week, sometimes behind his back, and frequently asked questions like "Does Neal have his hearing aid turned up?" T.121. Danny Grizzard is "in his 40's" (5.12) and Jack Ross is "[m]aybe a couple of years younger." Id. As seamanship and vocational instructor at PCMI, Mr. Currow taught sailing and woodworking. T.30. He also had duties as a "Deep Sea Captain" (T.615) and "did all the training of the staff in aquatics." Id. He regularly took student teams to sailing regattas. Petitioner chaperoned "more student trips that anybody [else] in the institute. In fact, [he] taught about student trips at . . . staff conferences every year." T.172. On such trips and otherwise, PCMI students required supervision, an institute policy that was "stressed continually." T.221. The policy is that "[c]hildren should remain within the eyesight of the staff that they're assigned with," (T.17) but the policy was not always followed. T.105, 158. On overnight trips, official policy specified that the ratio of students to staff should not exceed 5 to 1. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, but compliance with this policy, too, was a sometimes thing. The Early Years As executive director of PCMI from March of 1983 to August of 1988, Larry Schmidt spoke to Mr. Currow about supervising children at least twice. Early on in this five-and-a-half-year period, on two occasions, students under petitioner's supervision reoprtedly misbehaved, both times at Etheridge Marina in Panama City. Once students smoked in the bathroom there and another time there "was a theft . . . [of] sodas or something," (T.221) or so Mr. Schmidt heard. Mike Larson, PCMI's Director of Operations for approximately a year ending in the middle of March 1989, testified that petitioner "would become insubordinate with me." T.214. He also testified: "[H]is students might be out on the dock and he would be in his classroom, okay, out of his supervision. There's other times, one case in memory, the students was in his classroom and he was next door at a business getting parts." T.213. (Of course, testimony that something "might be" cannot establish what in fact occurred.) Mr. Larson spoke to Mr. Currow about supervising the students on "several occasions." T.213. Jack K. Ross succeeded Mr. Schmidt as PCMI's Executive Director, approximately half way through Mr. Larson's tenure as operations director. Mr. Ross remembered an occasion in August of 1988 when Mr. Currow was in his classroom while "the kids were outside in the back yard without a staff member" (T.39) and another time when "there were kids out there on the dock . . . [and petitioner was in the seamanship] room getting fishing gear." T.39. On the latter occasion, Mr. Ross testified, he "walked into the seamanship room and I said, 'look Neal, you need to be with your kids', and he said, 'well, I can't be in two places at one time.' And I said, 'well then, you need to bring your kids with you in the class and do it as a group.' And at the staff meetings I reiterated the supervision on a couple of occasions." T.39. On at least one other occasion, Mr. Ross spoke to Mr. Currow individually about supervising children. Written Expectations Like Mr. Larson, Mr. Ross felt Mr. Currow was insubordinate at times. After Mr. Ross spoke to O.B. Standard, AMI's vice-president of operations, about petitioner, Mr. Standard visited PCMI, where he spoke further with Mr. Ross "worked with . . . [Mr. Larson] on his people skills" (T.51); and "had a nice conversation [with Mr. Currow] . . . for two or three hours . . . about supervision [and] everything else you could imagine." T.190. At Mr. Standard's suggestion, Mr. Ross then wrote Mr. Currow this memorandum, dated November 28, 1988: Neal, as a veteran staff member at PCMI, you are a vital part of a very elite team. Your commitment to PCMI and the kids over the past 10 years is of the finest standards. Your hard work and dedication has made you a legend within PCMI. As you are aware, there have been a few changes at PCMI over the previous months. As a professional, I am soliciting your help in supporting me with some of these often difficult changes. There comes a time in everyone's life when we have to stop and decide whether we can adapt and change, or whether we need to step down to reach a new personal challenge. Should you decide to remain with PCMI and continue using your expertise towards helping the troubled youth of Bay County, there are a few expectations I ask that you must consider. Below I have outlined what I expect from every member of the PCMI staff to continue to make PCMI a winning team. Supervision--a maximum of 7:1 ratio of students to staff member. You are to remain with the students you are assigned. Everything during the course of the day that you are involved with, should be done with every member of your class. Never separate the class and put yourself in a position where you cannot intervene with a situation. Negative comments--to display teamwork and integrity among the kids, we cannot expose ourselves as being negative around the students. Talking negative around the students about other staff members is not acceptable behavior. As a member of the PCMI team we are being observed the community 24 hours a day. When comments are made concerning the institute, they should always be made with PCMI's best interest at heart. Supporting the D.O.--The Director of Operations is the conductor of the orchestra. If he is not supported by the rest of the team, then the kids suffer. As the Executive Director I will not allow the kids to suffer. It is your responsibility to support the Operations Director if you are to remain a part of the team. Insubordination--insubordination is not accepting authority. As a captain you know that every member of your crew cannot give orders to control the boat. You expect every crew member to lend a hand and accept orders to ensure the success of the cruise. The same is true at PCMI. Insubordination is not acceptable at PCMI. These are the only changes I have made that I think you should re-evaluate. What I am talking about are values. Values are what we are trying to teach the kids. If we do not display them, then we are being hypocritical with the students. Neal, we need you at PCMI, and I sincerely hope you decide to personally accept these challenges and join the team again. Should you decide to continue with PCMI, and I hope you do, I and the rest of the PCMI team are willing to help you work on these problem areas. If this is asking too much, then I understand and I wish you the best of luck in the future. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Aside from this memorandum, no writing in respondent's personnel file made mention of any problems supervising students. T.50. Not long after the memorandum was written, PCMI sent Mr. Currow to Dallas with five or six students to pick up a sailboat. (T.193). Single Incident Next Year In years past staff and students alike had attended regattas on St. Andrew Bay as spectators when the PCMI team Mr. Currow coached participated. T.20. Again in 1989, the PCMI team won the regatta. But, when at least one instructor asked to take her students to watch, Danny Grizzard, who had taken over from Mr. Larson as operations director on March 6, 1989, had denied permission. Mr. Currow and seven PCMI students were together day and night during the regatta, which began on the last Monday in June and finished the following Thursday, June 29, 1989. At the banquet and awards ceremony with which the regatta concluded, Mr. Currow told Mr. Grizzard that "he and the kids were going out for ice cream with one of the other teams and that he was going to spend the night [with the students on a sailboat anchored] at the park." T.62. One of the young sailors in petitioner's charge that night, Shane Hernandez, lived on the same street as Fran, petitioner's "lady friend." At least as early as the banquet, there was talk of watching television at Shane's house. After the banquet and after ice cream, petitioner acquiesced, taking the students to Shane's house, where they found "the lights on . . . and the cars . . . there." T.171. While the others waited outside in the van, Shane went inside ostensibly to learn, as respondent had asked him to find out, if it would be "okay for [them] to watch TV." T.171. Shane reappeared saying it was "okay," and petitioner let the other students out of the van, saying he would be right back. Only later did Mr. Currow learn that neither Shane's parents nor any other adult had been at home when he left the children there. T.207. After dropping the students off at the Hernandezes', he drove "two doors down" "probably around 75 yards" (T.13) to his friend's house, parked and went inside. Before the awards banquet, Mr. Currow had gotten word that his mother was "in the hospital in Pensacola again, and . . . [had] a blood clot in her leg." T.170. Using Fran's telephone, he spoke to a hospital nurse in Pensacola. Fifteen or twenty minutes after dropping the children off, he started for the Hernandez home on foot. The students met him before he reached the house, asking for something to drink. Evidently Mr. Hernandez's girlfriend, who arrived at the Hernandez house shortly after the children did, (T.136) had nothing to offer. After Fran served the boys soft drinks, Mr. Currow drove them back to the sailboat where they all spent the night. Friday morning they returned to PCMI. Petitioner Discharged The next day Danny Grizzard telephoned Shane Hernandez. In response to his questions, Shane told him that the students had been unsupervised for 15 or 20 minutes. Immediately after talking to Shane, he telephoned Mr. Ross, and relayed the news. The next Monday, a day off for petitioner, Mr. Grizzard summoned him to PCMI's offices, where he and Jack Ross told him he no longer had a job. "Neal, you['ve] finally done it," (T.169) Mr. Ross said. Perplexed, Mr. Currow did not realize what he was talking about at first. Then he or Mr. Grizzard told him of the report that the children had been left unsupervised for 15 or 20 minutes, but nothing was said about his having sole supervision overnight of seven (rather than five or less) students, a ratio his supervisors had countenanced. Learning that Mr. Currow had resigned or been discharged, students prepared a petition which stated, in part: "We feel it is unfair that the most valued and loved instructor at PCMI be punished because he trusted us." Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. The petition was signed by 27 students, perhaps all of the students at PCMI. (Eric Hernandez, Shane's father, testified for petitioner at hearing.) Younger Men Hired The preceding Thursday (the day of the awards banquet), PCMI had hired Eddie Prevost, at the time 27 or 28 years old, to instruct in scuba diving and to do woodworking. "He did some vocational work, that was his background." T.34. Mr. Prevost, who, when hired, filled a newly created position, took over petitioner's duties as vocational instructor, after petitioner was discharged. The vacant slot created by petitioner's termination was filled by 25- year-old John Penland, who took over petitioner's duties as seamanship instructor. To the extent the place Mr. Currow had held in the organization was filled, younger men took his place. PCMI "had additional funding in July and . . . split the position into two positions . . .." T.74. PCMI "replaced [petitioner] with a vocational instructor and a seamanship instructor." Id. Some time after the discharge, PCMI proposed to petitioner that he continue training staff in aquatics on a contract basis, but petitioner turned down this offer to work two weeks a year for $75.00 a day. T.177. At no time after July 3, 1989, did AMI or PCMI offer petitioner any other employment. T.176. Nobody was hired to train staff in aquatics, as far as the evidence disclosed. Incident Was Pretext AMI and PCMI attach understandable importance to supervision of children for whom they are responsible. Yet, as far as the record shows, PCMI has never terminated any other employee for failure to supervise students. T.244. This is so even though it "was not unusual" (T.105) at PCMI for students to be out of sight of the instructors responsible for their supervision. T.158, 176. Sometimes as many as 14 students would be assigned clean-up out of doors (as punishment) and left without supervision, except for checks every 40 minutes or so. T. 106, 142. Certain staff members frequently permitted children to walk between the PCMI campus and the civic center unsupervised. These facts were known to some, probably all, supervisory personnel. Between November of 1988 and February 1, 1991, some of the 27 other schools that, together with PCMI, comprise AMI discharged a total of 43 employees citing problems supervising children. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. The severity and frequency of such problems are not a matter of record, however, and nobody who had worked nearly as long as petitioner had was terminated for this reason. Id. Respondents showed that, of the 44 people discharged for student supervision problems during this period by all 28 schools, petitioner was the oldest: eight others were over 40 years old and four of them were also over 50. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. The fact that Mr. Currow left the sailing team unsupervised for 15 or 20 minutes at the Hernandez house was not the real reason for his discharge, although, as petitioner himself conceded, Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, this lapse was a breach of institute policy for which discipline was appropriate. Messrs. Ross and Grizzard did not themselves view the incident as an adequate reason to discharge petitioner. Petitioner's dismissal was out of keeping with past practice at PCMI. His firing came as a genuine and understandable surprise to him and others, and was viewed by virtually everyone other than the decision-makers as an injustice. E.g., Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. The reaction to his discharge reflected how drastic the departure from ordinary practice was, and how implausible the reason assigned for the termination was.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter an order requiring respondents to reinstate petitioner (or make an appropriate award of front pay) and award back pay, attorney's fees and costs; and, in the event the parties cannot agree on the details of relief, that the Commission remand for further hearing as necessary. RECOMMENDED this 14th of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7301 With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Currow was a paid employee for less than nine years. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 5 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except for the date. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 8, somebody else was sent to help at one point. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16, no such termination occurred after November of 1988, except for Mr. Currow's. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19, the evidence did not show that the hearing impairment was age related. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3 and 33, numerous instances of students' going unsupervised were proven, including a 45-minute lapse by Mr. Grizzard. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, nobody present at the time testified to these events. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 16, the letter did not warn "that any further occurrence . . . would result in disciplinary action or termination." With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 17, it was not shown this was attributable to supervision as opposed to insubordination problems. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 19 through 23 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 29, petitioner was not offered work in a residential program. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 31, Prevost was hired before July 3, 1989. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 32, Penland assumed some of petitioner's duties. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald M. McElrath, Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Rhonda S. Clyatt, Esquire P.O. Box 2492 Panama City, FL 32402 E. John Dinkel, III, Esquire Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly P.O. Box 1531 Tampa, FL 32601 Dana Baird, Esquire Harden King, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed September 28, 2010, and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been on a professional service contract that is subject to a collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (hereinafter "the UTD Contract"), applicable Florida Statutes, applicable rules adopted by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and Petitioner's adopted policies and procedures. Article XXI, Section 1.B(1)(a) of the UTD Contract provides that "Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." The School Board has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, which provides in pertinent that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, requires employees of Petitioner to abide by state regulations. The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006. Subsections (3)(a) and (e) thereof provide as follows: Obligation to the student requires that the individual: Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's physical health and/or safety. * * * (e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a full-time P.E. teacher at South Miami Heights since the 2006-07 school year. South Miami Heights is a public school located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary actions by Petitioner other than the incident that is the subject of this matter. Respondent's practice throughout her tenure at South Miami Heights was to require students arriving at P.E. to line up, stop talking, and generally exhibit good behavior prior to starting class. On those occasions when students were not well- behaved, Respondent required the students to walk in an orderly fashion until they calmed down and showed they were ready for class. On hot days, she would required them to walk around the inside corridors of the school, while on cooler days the students would walk outside. In prior years, with a different principal, Respondent would have the students walk in front of the principal's office, who would then go out and call the students to attention to get them to calm down. During the 2009-10 school year Respondent taught P.E. at South Miami Heights to second, third, fourth, and fifth-grade students between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Her last P.E. class started at 2:00 p.m. and ended at 3:00 p.m. Students in her last class typically brought their book bags with them. On April 15, 2010, at approximately 2:00 p.m., third- grade students from Ms. Fuentes-Garcia's class walked from her class to Respondent's class. There were approximately 25 students in the class. Each student had a book bag. When Respondent took responsibility for the class, many students were talking or otherwise misbehaving. Respondent directed all students in the class to make laps around an outdoor basketball court by walking the white lines that define the outer boundaries of the basketball court. The temperature on April 15, 2010, was 81 degrees. The students were exposed to the sun while they were walking. Respondent required the students to carry or wear their backpacks while walking around the outdoor basketball court.1 According to Respondent, the students were required to walk around the basketball court until they calmed down. She had no idea how long the students would have to walk until they calmed down when she first directed them to start walking. All students in the class were required to walk without stopping for 32 minutes. A student who tried to put her book bag on the ground was told by Respondent to pick it up and keep walking. At the end of the 32-minute period, Respondent escorted the class back to the vicinity of Ms. Fuentes-Garcia's classroom and had the students walk in an orderly fashion to the playground, where they played games until approximately 2:54 p.m. There was a water fountain on playground, but it was not functioning on April 15, 2010. Water was available in a building adjacent to the playground. The students were not permitted to drink water between 2:00 p.m. and 2:54 p.m. At approximately 2:54 p.m. the students left the playground and entered the adjacent building to drink water. A video of the students walking the white lines of the basketball court was captured by the school's security cameras. In one portion of the video, a child can be seen dragging a backpack on the ground. It cannot be determined from the video whether the backpack had wheels. In another portion of the video, Respondent can be seen monitoring the students while standing in the shade of a tree. On April 16, 2010, Ms. Hernandez, the school principal, received complaints from four or five parents of students in the class. M.V., the mother of one of the students in the class, confronted Respondent about the incident on April 16, 2010. This parent testified, credibly, that Respondent told her that she had the class walk the white lines of the basketball court to calm them down and as punishment for being hyper. Following the complaints, the matter was referred to Petitioner's Civil Investigation Unit (CIU) where it was assigned to CIU investigator Terri Chester. Ms. Chester prepared a report after she concluded her investigation. Ms. Duboulay reviewed the report with Respondent in a Conference for the Record on June 8, 2010, and provided Respondent an opportunity to respond to Ms. Chester's report.2 Thereafter a Disciplinary Review Team convened and reviewed the case and concluded that probable cause existed that Respondent had committed the violations subsequently alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges dated September 23, 2010. The Disciplinary Review Team recommended that Respondent be suspended without pay for 30 days based on the totality of the circumstances of the case and the exposure of the students to harm. The manner in which Respondent disciplined her class on April 15, 2010, did not reflect credit on herself or on Petitioner. The manner in which Respondent disciplined her class on April 15, 2010, was inconsistent with her duty to "make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's physical health and/or safety."3 There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent "intentionally expose[d] a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement." Petitioner followed all relevant procedures in prosecuting this disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay for a period of 30 workdays. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2011, 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 14th day of March, 2011.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Clarence Monette, has been a teacher at Port St. Joe High School for approximately fifteen years. He has served as a librarian and classroom teacher. The Respondent's duties were essentially that of a media specialist in charge of the use and maintenance of various audio-visual materials and equipment including filmstrips, projectors, record players, recorders, and so forth. His duty hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday through Friday. Mr. Monette at the times pertinent hereto (April and May, 1981) was President of the Association for Community Action. This is an unincorporated organization of volunteers who render social and economic aid to various minority citizens of Port St. Joe. On May 22, 1981, a letter (Exhibit One) was promulgated by this association, signed and published by the Respondent as its President and some thirty to forty copies of the letter were sent to various electors residing in the northern portion of Port St. Joe. The letter urged the addressees to participate in the city election to be held on May 22, 1981, and contained an enclosed form request for an absentee ballot. The letter contained instructions for submitting a request for an absentee ballot and urged the addressees cooperation. As a postscript to the letter, Mr. Monette indicated that his association was supporting one Alton Fennell as its chosen candidate. The Respondent, when confronted by the Superintendent of Schools for Gulf County as well as his immediate employer, Principal Edwin G. Williams, admitted that he had duplicated the subject letter on the school mimeograph machine, but denied that he used school paper or school time for the duplication effort. It is undisputed that the letter was mimeographed on school premises on a mimeograph machine owned by the school. Witnesses Wilder and Williams established through their testimony that when the Respondent was confronted with a copy of the subject letter in a meeting in the office of the Principal, the Respondent admitted that he had used school equipment and materials and had prepared and duplicated the letter while on duty. The Respondent denied at the hearing however that he had ever admitted to Wilder and Williams that he used school paper or school time to perform this task. In any event, there is no question that he used school equipment and school materials in at least the form of the duplicator fluid in the machine and that he did not seek nor obtain permission to use school equipment or facilities to publish this letter. Additionally, as the letter indicates, addressees of the letter were invited to call the Respondent at the phone number of the Port St. Joe High School during his working hours inasmuch as the letter gives that phone number and his extension at the school to be called before 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon, with his home number given for calls after 4:00 p.m., regarding any questions the addressees might have concerning the submission of applications for absentee ballots, which the letter solicited. The Respondent raised as his defense the fact that the school had historically allowed private firms, individuals and civic organizations to use school equipment and meeting facilities on one or more occasions. It allowed the use of a loud-speaking or public address system for the use of political candidates at a political rally prior to an election in the past. Principal Williams, testifying for the Petitioner, as well as Superintendent Wilder, agreed that it had been the practice on occasion for the school system, and this school in particular, to allow firms and civic organizations to use school equipment provided that its use was authorized by the Principal as the custodian of the School Board property. He was not informed in this instance of the need for use of the school equipment by the Respondent however, and Principal Williams indicated he would not have agreed to such a use for the Respondent's purposes, nor to the offer of school time in the form of the invitations for phone calls during duty hours regarding the subject matter of the letter. At the conclusion of this conference, at which the Respondent admitted using the machine, supplies and offering to use duty time for the letter's private purpose, Principal Williams recommended to the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Mr. Wilder, that the Respondent be suspended without pay as of 3:15 p.m., May 27, 1981, for the remainder of the school year (seven days). Superintendent Wilder acted on that recommendation and suspended the Respondent under those conditions and in turn recommended to the School Board that it suspend the Respondent under those conditions at its June 2, 1981, meeting. At its meeting of June 2, 1981, the Gulf County School Board acted on the recommendation of the superintendent and ratified the suspension without pay, effective May 27, 1981. The Respondent was thus suspended without pay from his position with the Gulf County School Board for the period May 28 through 29, and June 1 through 2, 1981, which was the remainder of the school year. The Respondent was then notified by both the Superintendent as well as the School Board of his right to an administrative hearing regarding this dispute, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and the arguments of counsel for the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that Clarence Monette should be suspended from his duties for a period of seven days. Inasmuch as the Respondent has already been temporarily suspended for that period of time which commenced at 3:15 p.m., May 27, 1981, for the remainder of that school year, and since justification for an additional penalty was not demonstrated, no additional penalty is warranted. The withholding of his pay was improper and accordingly the School Board should restore the Respondent's pay to him for that period of time. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil G. Costin, Jr., Esquire 413 Williams Avenue Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Theodore R. Bowers, Esquire 1336 Lincoln Drive Post Office Box 811 Panama City, Florida 32401 Mr. B. Walter Wilder Superintendent The Gulf County School Board Post Office Box 969 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's employment as a teacher with Petitioner should be terminated for alleged willful neglect of duties and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Miami-Dade County School Board (Petitioner) was a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Judith Zucker (Respondent) began her employment with Petitioner, as a teacher, in 1968 and continued her employment with Petitioner until 1972. She began her employment with Petitioner again in 1989. Respondent holds a teacher certification in elementary education. She is also certified to teach the learning disabled and mentally handicapped. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher, assigned to Little River Elementary School (Little River), Citrus Grove Elementary School (Citrus Grove), and Miami Jackson Senior High School (Miami Jackson). Little River Elementary School In August 1989, Respondent resumed teaching with Petitioner. She was employed at Little River pursuant to a continuing contract of employment. On January 8, 1991, Respondent suffered injuries to her neck and spine when she attempted to break-up a fight between two students. Despite her injury, she immediately returned to work, not losing any time from work. In November 1994, Respondent was injured again. While walking down the hall of the school, a student, for whom she was not responsible, was hanging on a door. The student pushed himself off the door and fell on top of Respondent onto a cement floor. As a result, Respondent's original injury was aggravated. During the 1994-95 and 1995-96 school years, Respondent was a Title I tutor. She tutored three to eight students at a time in reading. During the 1996-97 school year, the reading program changed. For this school year, Little River, along with some other schools, was placed on Florida's critically low school list. Petitioner initiated a program called Operation Safety Net in which schools on the critically low list began using the Successful for All/Roots and Wings program (Success for All Reading Program). The Success for All Reading Program was for students who were critically deficient in reading. Little River and Petitioner's other critically low schools began using the Success for All Reading Program for the 1996-97 school year. In the Success for All Reading Program a tutor had a group of 18 to 20 students for 90 minutes in the morning. For the rest of the day, the tutor worked one-on-one with first grade students. Respondent was not assigned to the Success for All Reading Program at the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. Respondent requested her principal to assign her to the Success for All Reading Program due to her medical condition resulting from the injuries to her neck and spine for which she was still undergoing physical therapy. The principal agreed to assign Respondent to the Success for All Reading Program because the principal wanted to make sure that Respondent was provided with the opportunity and the time to attend therapy. Respondent was assigned to the Success for All Reading Program with a modification. Respondent was allowed to assist other tutors with testing and was working in groups of two to four students, significantly smaller than the regular groups of 18 to 20 students. Using the smaller groups for Respondent caused the other morning groups to become even larger. At the time that the principal made the assignment with the modification, the principal expected the duration of the assignment to be short, but the assignment spanned the entire school year. Having groups expanding beyond the 18 to 20 students for the entire school year created a hardship in that it was counter-productive for the critically deficient readers. In the fall of 1996, Respondent was again injured. This time, Respondent was injured by a student to whom she was tutoring one-on-one. Respondent did not lose any work as a result of the injury she sustained. Respondent had now been injured by students at Little River on three separate occasions: January 8, 1991, November 1994, and the fall of 1996. Despite the injuries that she sustained, she immediately returned to work after each occurrence without any loss of time. At the end of a school year, teachers indicate what they would prefer to do during the following school year. In May or June 1997, the principal of Little River advised Respondent that she would be assigned to teach a regular class, a third grade class, for the 1997-98 school year. Respondent sought a transfer from Little River in August 1997. No transfer occurred. When Respondent returned to Little River in August 1997 for the 1997-98 school year, Respondent informed the principal that she was still in physical therapy; that she was unable to write on the chalkboard because to do so caused her to shake; and that she was, therefore, unable to return to a regular classroom. Respondent requested a return to tutoring. The principal informed Respondent that the tutors had already been assigned and that she (Respondent) was expected to return to a regular classroom. However, for the first two weeks of school, the principal allowed Respondent to tutor. The principal contacted Petitioner's Office of Risk Management1 to determine Respondent's status as to whether she was able to return to a regular classroom. Risk Management advised the principal that Respondent was cleared to return to her regular duties, to return to a regular classroom. On September 19, 1997, the principal explained to Respondent that, according to Risk Management, she was cleared to return to her regular duties and that she would be returning to a regular third grade classroom. The third grade classroom would contain no more than 29 to 33 students. Respondent informed the principal that she (Respondent) was not able to return to a regular classroom and that her doctor would have to contact Risk Management. On September 23, 1997, the principal again contacted Risk Management which again informed the principal that Respondent was cleared to return to her regular duties. The principal advised Respondent of the information that she had obtained from Risk Management. Respondent again informed the principal that she was unable to return to a regular classroom. Risk Management had also advised the principal that, if Respondent continued to insist that she was unable to return to a regular classroom, the principal should direct Respondent to leave the school's campus. The principal did as Risk Management advised and directed Respondent to leave the school's campus. Respondent complied with the principal's directive and left the campus of Little River. The Executive Director of Risk Management (Executive Director) had advised the principal to direct Respondent to leave the school's campus if Respondent insisted that she could not return to a regular classroom. He advised the principal to direct Respondent to leave the school's campus because of Respondent's medical condition. The Executive Director had reviewed Respondent's file and had become aware of a letter dated September 3, 1997, from Dr. Raul Grosz, Respondent's authorized2 neurologist. The letter stated in pertinent part: She [Respondent] has at this time chronic persistent [sic] and discomfort. I am recommending that she be placed in a non- threatening environment in which she does not have to move furniture or lift furniture whatsoever. I also feel that she is unable to carry a full class-load at this time. As a result of the letter, the Executive Director authorized the payment of workers' compensation benefits from the date that Respondent was directed to leave Little River's campus by the principal. Even though Dr. Grosz opined that Respondent was "unable to carry a full class-load," he did not state the number of students as to what represented a full class-load. However, Dr. Grosz considered a full class-load to consist of a large group of students who were not well-behaved and who were potentially dangerous. Dr. Grosz did not inform Respondent as to what he considered to be a full class-load. There was no neurological basis for restricting Respondent to a non-threatening environment or a reduced class size. Respondent requested Dr. Grosz to add the restrictions. Respondent also expressed her desire to be in a non-threatening environment. Respondent's requests seemed reasonable to Dr. Grosz and he attempts to accommodate his patients' subjective feelings, so Dr. Grosz included the restrictions in his letter. It was Dr. Gorsz's intent that Respondent and Petitioner attempt to reach a mutually acceptable solution and that Petitioner would provide what it determined was appropriate. As of September 19, 1997, Respondent had exhausted all of her available sick and personal leave. Petitioner and the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) have entered into a collective bargaining agreement (UTD Contract). The UTD Contract provides generous, extensive leave provisions. Respondent never applied for any type of leave, including leave pursuant to the UTD Contract. The Executive Director was authorized to direct a teacher to a work assignment. In determining a work assignment for Respondent, the Executive Director sought assistance from and relied upon Petitioner's Instructional Staffing Department to locate a position for Respondent which would meet her medical restrictions. Citrus Grove Elementary School The Director of Instructional Staffing informed the Executive Director that a varying exceptionalities (VE) position in special education was available at Citrus Grove. A VE teacher teaches a group of students who have different exceptionalities. The VE teacher may simultaneously teach the students with different exceptionalities in the same class or the teacher may teach the students with one exceptionality during the school day at one time and may teach other students with a different exceptionality during the same school day at another time. VE teaching is used for mildly handicapped students. By letter dated October 7, 1997, the Executive Director informed Respondent that a VE position was available at Citrus Grove and that the VE position was within her certification and met her medical restrictions. He also indicated that the position was an appropriate accommodation for Respondent. Moreover, the Executive Director directed Respondent to report to Citrus Grove immediately and to call the principal at Citrus Grove for further reporting instructions. Respondent failed to call the principal. She also failed to report to Citrus Grove. Respondent decided, without making any personal investigation, that the VE position at Citrus Grove was not appropriate and was unreasonable. Respondent did not believe that she was physically capable of performing as a VE teacher at Citrus Grove. Respondent is in pain daily. She wears a Tens Unit to short-circuit some of the pain. Respondent expresses being afraid of being in groups wherein she may be bumped which would worsen her condition. However, Respondent's authorized neurologist, Dr. Grosz has no concern regarding physical contact by bumping causing further neurological damage or problems. He has more concern regarding further neurological damage or problems caused by Respondent being involved in a high-speed motor vehicle accident. Respondent did not observe the placement or inquire about the profiles of the students who she was going to teach. The composition of the VE class, as to students, at Citrus Grove was decided before Respondent was assigned the VE class, and, therefore, the composition was not decided with consideration given to Respondent's physical limitations. Respondent assumed that she would be required to use physical restraint techniques with the students. The UTD Contract provides for the use of the Safe Physical Management (SPM) program, which is the use of physical restraints for severely disabled students. Teachers, who are in self-contained programs for severely emotionally disturbed students and autistic students, receive training in techniques to contain highly disruptive students under unusual circumstances. The techniques are used to prevent injuries to persons, including the student, and damage to property. Before SPM is used, Petitioner's Multi-Disciplinary Team must recommend its use and the use of SPM must be documented on the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). One student in Respondent's assigned class had an IEP which approved SPM. However, based upon the student's progress, it was unlikely that SPM would have been needed. Moreover, SPM is not used in VE classes at Citrus Grove; mildly handicapped students, not volatile students, are placed in the VE classes. Dr. Grosz opined that Respondent could teach a class of 25 to 30 well-behaved students. The VE classes at Citrus Grove were not full-load classes. The VE classes consisted of 7 to 10 mildly disabled students at any one time; whereas, the regular classes consisted of between 28 and 39 students. Elementary VE classes contained no more than 12 to 15 students. The number of students in VE classes at Citrus Grove were smaller than VE classes throughout Petitioner's district. Respondent also erroneously relied upon Dr. Grosz's opinion that she was unable to teach a full class-load. What Respondent considered a full class-load and what Dr. Grosz considered a full class-load were not the same. Pursuant to what Dr. Grosz considered a full class-load, Respondent would have been able to accept the VE position at Citrus Grove. Respondent would have been the third VE teacher at Citrus Grove. The VE students were all in one room separated by a partition. Respondent's class would have been on one side of the partition and one VE teacher would have been in the class with Respondent. The other VE teacher and the other VE students would have been on the other side of he partition. Citrus Grove was a safe, non-threatening environment. The needs of the VE students at Citrus Grove were more an educational concern than emotional, and the VE students were well-behaved. As to Respondent being injured at Citrus Grove in the VE position, such an occurrence was unlikely. Respondent would not have been required to lift or move any furniture or any heavy items at Citrus Grove. Respondent was qualified to teach the VE class at Citrus Grove. The Citrus Grove assignment met Respondent's medical restrictions. The assignment of Respondent to Citrus Grove was reasonable. Respondent's refusal of the Citrus Grove assignment was unreasonable and unjustified. Approximately one week after Respondent was assigned to Citrus Grove, Respondent, on October 13, 1997, presented to Dr. Grosz for an examination. Respondent did not inform Dr. Grosz of the assignment at Citrus Grove. Informing Dr. Grosz of the assignment would have provided Dr. Gorsz with an opportunity to explain to Respondent what he meant by his opinion. Respondent did not also inform Dr. Sanford Jacobson, her authorized psychiatrist, of the Citrus Grove assignment when she presented to him for a psychiatric evaluation on October 14, 1997. Dr. Jacobson prepared a report of the evaluation dated October 16, 1997.3 In the "Summary and Conclusions" section of his report, Dr. Jacobson states, among other things, the following: There have been three incidents which have resulted in injuries as described by Mrs. Zucker [Respondent]. While some of them may have been somewhat surprising, difficult to manage, and distressing, I would not think that they are the kind of injuries that one would see as causing a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. . . . The most prominent symptoms are depressive symptoms. Clinical diagnosis at present is that of: Axis I: Mood disorder associated with cervical disc disease and stenosis with depressive-like episode. * * * It would appear that her depression is related to the injuries. . . . At this time I do not believe she can resume full classroom duties. In essence, Dr. Jacobson's diagnosis was that Respondent was suffering from depression related to her pain and discomfort from her physical injury. Even though Dr. Jacobson opined that Respondent could not resume "full classroom duties," he did not state the number of students as to what he considered a full classroom. However, Dr. Jacobson considered a full classroom to consist of approximately 25 to 30 students or more. As a result of Respondent not reporting to Citrus Grove, day-to-day substitutes filled her position. The needs of the VE students were not met with such an arrangement. Miami Jackson Senior High School On or about October 15, 1997, one of Respondent's physicians had placed Respondent on a no-work status. Subsequently, on November 10, 1997, Dr. Grosz returned Respondent to work but with restrictions. Dr. Grosz states in his report dated November 10, 1997, among other things, the following: She [Respondent] remains able to perform at light duty status with no lifting of furniture allowed and I will defer to psychiatry in terms of her emotional complaints. The Executive Director consulted again with Petitioner's Instructional Staffing to locate a position for Respondent. Instructional Staffing informed him of a VE position at Miami Jackson. On December 3, 1997, the Executive Director informed Respondent that a VE position at Miami Jackson was within her certification and met her medical needs. He directed Respondent to report to Miami Jackson. The Executive Director also directed Respondent to call the principal at Miami Jackson for further reporting instructions. Respondent failed to report to Miami Jackson. She also failed to call the principal at Miami Jackson. Respondent decided, without making any personal investigation, that the VE position at Miami Jackson was not appropriate and was unreasonable. Respondent did not believe that she was physically capable of performing as a VE teacher at Miami Jackson. Respondent did not observe the placement or inquire about the profiles of the students whom she was going to teach. The composition of the VE class, as to students, at Miami Jackson was decided before Respondent was assigned the VE class, and, therefore, the composition was not decided with consideration given to Respondent's physical limitations. Respondent assumed that she would be required to use physical restraint techniques with students. The VE classes at Miami Jackson were not full-load classes. The regular classes at Miami Jackson averaged approximately 35 students; whereas, the VE classes consisted of 14 to 21 students per class period in Respondent's proposed classes. The students in the VE classes were mildly disabled, with the majority of the students being learning disabled and a few being emotionally handicapped and a few educationally mentally handicapped. Many of the students were being mainstreamed into the regular school setting. A majority of the students were on track for a standard diploma. Three students in Respondent's proposed class at Miami Jackson had IEPs which approved SPM. The students would have been in Respondent's proposed class in 1998. The students' prior IEPs had approved SPM and the SPM was carried over to Miami Jackson. However, based upon the students' progress, it was unlikely that SPM would have been needed. Moreover, SPM is not used in VE classes at Miami Jackson; SPM is only used in severly emotionally disabled classes at Miami Jackson. Miami Jackson was a safe, non-threatening environment. Respondent would not have been required to lift or move any furniture or any heavy items at Miami Jackson. Respondent was qualified to teach the VE class at Miami Jackson. However, the Miami Jackson assignment failed to meet Respondent's medical restrictions. The Miami Jackson assignment met Dr. Grosz's medical restrictions; but, it failed to meet Dr. Jacobson's medical restrictions. Dr. Jacobson did not state in his report the size of the class that he recommended that Respondent teach. Nor did he recommend to Respondent the size of class that she should teach. At hearing, Dr. Jacobson opined that he would recommend that Respondent teach a class with 7 to 10 students; however, he would not recommend that Respondent teach a class with 14 to 21 students. Respondent's proposed VE classes at Miami Jackson consisted of 14 to 21 students. The assignment of Respondent to Miami Jackson was unreasonable. Respondent's refusal of the assignment to Miami Jackson was reasonable and justified. It matters not that Respondent was unaware of the size of class recommended by Dr. Jacobson; it is sufficient that the assignment failed to meet his medical restrictions. Even though Respondent did not know the size of class to which Dr. Jacobson was referring, she relied upon his report, as well as Dr. Grosz's opinion, in refusing the assignment to Miami Jackson. As a result of Respondent not reporting to Miami Jackson, day-to-day substitutes filled her position until a permanent teacher could be assigned. Dr. Grosz examined Respondent again on December 12, 1997. Respondent did not advise him of her assignment to Miami Jackson. Because Respondent had failed to report to Citrus Grove and to Miami Jackson as directed, the Executive Director turned Respondent's case over to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS). By letter dated January 26, 1998, OPS advised Respondent, among other things, that she had been absent without authorized leave and that such absence constituted willful neglect of duty and subjected her employment to termination. OPS also requested that Respondent provide a written request within 10 working days if she wanted a review of her situation. Respondent failed to reply to OPS' letter. However, Respondent's counsel for workers' compensation responded. The response from Respondent's counsel indicated that Petitioner was aware why Respondent was not working, but his response failed to specifically address the assignments to Citrus Grove and to Miami Jackson. Petitioner took action on March 18, 1998, to suspend Respondent and dismiss her from employment. According to Petitioner's computerized attendance records, at that time Respondent had been absent without authorized leave since September 19, 1997. From September 19, 1997, to October 7, 1997, Respondent was not absent without authorization. On September 19, 1997, Respondent informed the principal of Little River that she was unable to teach the regular third grade class. Subsequently, on September 23, 1997, the principal directed Respondent to leave Little River, upon the advice of the Executive Director, and the Executive Director authorized Respondent to receive workers' compensation benefits retroactive to the date that she was directed to leave. Moreover, Respondent was not directed to report to Citrus Grove until October 7, 1997.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order sustaining the suspension of Judith Tucker without pay, but not dismissing her from employment, and reinstating Judith Tucker under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1999, 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 (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 4th day of June, 1999.
