The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Monroe Shannon, violated sections 1012.795(1)(d), (g), or (j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what are the appropriate sanctions?
Findings Of Fact The commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Mr. Shannon holds Florida Educator Certificate 734423, covering Educational Leadership, School Principal, and Business Education, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times material to this case, Mr. Shannon was employed as an assistant principal at Congress in the Palm Beach County School District. He is a 16-year employee of the School District. Mr. Shannon was transferred to Congress as assistant principal during the early portion of the 2011-2012 school year. Ms. Gina Marie Dempsey was an eighth-grade teacher at Congress during the 2011-2012 school year. She had been introduced to Mr. Shannon early in the school year and saw him frequently in the lunchroom or hall, but other than that, had little reason to be in contact with him, for he was the assistant principal for the seventh grade. Ms. Dempsey credibly testified that Mr. Shannon was a little inappropriate in his comments to her. He asked her where her friends hung out, whether he could be her friend on Facebook, and if she wanted to go out with him for drinks. When he asked her out, she indicated she did not hang out with administration. On September 15, 2011, there was an open house at Congress. Ms. Dempsey was dressed up, wearing stiletto heels. As the open house concluded, Ms. Dempsey was walking down the hall toward her car when she encountered Mr. Shannon. No one else was in the hall. He told her, "I really like those heels. I would like to see you only in those heels." As he made this statement, Mr. Shannon was rubbing his hand in the general area of his genitals. He then asked Ms. Dempsey if she needed an escort to her car. She said no. Mr. Shannon said, "It is getting dark and you need protection." Ms. Dempsey told him that she had an Easton bat in her car and that she could take care of herself. Mr. Shannon said, "All right, all right." Ms. Dempsey felt that the heel comment was "off color." She believed his statements and actions were inappropriate, especially for a married administrator to direct to a teacher. Ms. Dempsey reported the incident to her assistant principal, Ms. Cheryl Van Voorhies, saying she did not want Mr. Shannon in her classroom or her hallway. Ms. Michele Wertman (now Ms. Regan) graduated from Florida Atlantic University in 2009. During the 2011-2012 school year, she was 23 years old and had taught for two years. She was teaching seventh-grade English at Congress. Shortly after the start of the school year, a student in her fourth-period class, which was always difficult to manage, made an inappropriate sexual remark toward her. Ms. Wertman went to Mr. Shannon, as the new assistant principal for the seventh grade, to find out what should be done. Rather than assist her, Mr. Shannon told her, "Well, you know you are a sexy teacher, what do you expect?" or words to that effect. Ms. Wertman immediately reported the incident to Ms. Janis Rosencrans, the Classroom Teachers Association representative, who credibly testified that Ms. Wertman was visibly upset and in tears when she did so. Ms. Rosencrans in turn advised the principal, Ms. Harris, about the incident. This incident made Ms. Wertman upset and uncomfortable, particularly since Mr. Shannon had earlier asked if she was on Facebook, asked if she and her roommate wanted to go out for drinks, and asked if he could take her out. She had declined and had never socialized with Mr. Shannon. She did not feel it was appropriate for an assistant principal to be seeking a personal relationship with a teacher he supervised. Ms. Wertman continued to have problems with the behavior of her students in her fourth-period class. She concluded it was just a bad combination of students, since her other four classes were wonderful. She approached Mr. Shannon to see if some students could be switched because the existing classroom dynamic was not at all conducive to learning. In response, Mr. Shannon told her that perhaps she needed to transfer to a "west school" and that she was probably "too white" to work at Congress, which was a predominately black school. Ms. Wertman was shocked and upset and started crying in Mr. Shannon's office. She had gone to Congress as a student and never felt that she was out of place because of her race or color. Mr. Shannon then told her that "if you don't do A, B, or C, then, it will cost you your job and you won't be here next year." Ms. Wertman did not know what Mr. Shannon meant by this last remark, but became insulted and angry at the way Mr. Shannon was treating her. She immediately left and went to see Ms. Rosencrans. After hearing Ms. Wertman's story, Ms. Rosencrans told Ms. Wertman that she should go to the principal, which she did. Ms. Harris told Ms. Wertman that she would report the incident. On several occasions, Mr. Shannon would use his key to enter Ms. Wertman's locked classroom unannounced. While Mr. Shannon, as the assistant principal for seventh grade, had authority to observe seventh-grade teachers and evaluate them, Ms. Wertman never received any evaluations from any of these visits. She stated: And he would just take his aide key and he'd walk in and he'd stalk around the classroom and holding his belt buckle and he kind of like threw his weight around, like just his body language. Ms. Wertman felt intimidated and uncomfortable with these visits. On one of these occasions, Mr. Shannon told her fourth-period students: You know, you guys should really listen to Ms. Wertman. You have a really, you know, sexy teacher . . . . You have a fine looking teacher here. Ms. Wertman felt that she was being sexually harassed by Mr. Shannon and that Ms. Harris was allowing it to go on. She thought that if this was how the school system operated, she could not teach any longer. She quit her job on the last day before the Christmas break. She did not return to teaching during the rest of that school year and the year following. S.D., formerly an eighth-grade student at Congress, also testified about an incident involving Mr. Shannon. She testified that he told her that he "wished she was old enough," that he told her she "couldn't handle him," and that he "grabbed her [best friend's] behind." That testimony, however, was not clear and convincing. First, her testimony was a bit unclear as to when and where the statements were made. She said the statements were made in a conference room with another assistant principal present. But at another point in her testimony, she said that Mr. Shannon made the comment "walking through the hallway just saying that he wished I was old enough." Second, while she alleged that at least one other student and another assistant principal were present when the statements were made, there were no corroborating statements or testimony from them that they heard the statements or why they might not have heard them if they were made. Third, there were inconsistencies between her written statement given on the date of the incident and her later testimony at hearing. In her written statement, she stated that Mr. Shannon touched her face, but said nothing about him inappropriately touching her friend. At hearing, she stated that he had earlier "grabbed her [best friend's] behind," but said nothing about him touching her face. If Mr. Shannon had "grabbed the behind" of her friend, it seems remarkable that that incident would not have been part of her original written statement. Finally, Mr. Shannon testified that S.D. was being confrontational and that there was nothing sexual about the conversation. He testified that S.D. had balled up her fists and that comments that he "wished she was old enough" and about her "not being able to handle him" were related to her aggressiveness. At one point during cross-examination, S.D. seemed to concede that this might be the case: Q: Isn't it true when he said he wished you were old enough, again, that was in response to you coming at him physically and him wishing you were not a minor at the time? A: Yep. S.D.'s testimony, taken as a whole, was simply not precise or explicit enough to leave a firm conviction as to the truth of her allegations. On February 2, 2012, T.S., an eighth grader at Congress, encountered Mr. Shannon in the hall. Mr. Shannon put his arm around her and whispered in her ear, "You need a man." T.S. testified that Mr. Shannon's putting his arm around her did not make her feel uncomfortable, but that Mr. Shannon's whispering that "you need a man" in her ear did. T.S. testified that as far as she knew, in the crowded hallway with all of the students busy making their way to their classes, she was the only one that witnessed the conversation. At her next class, T.S. asked her reading teacher, Ms. Banks, if she "could keep a secret." When Ms. Banks told her she could, T.S. then replied, "well, I can just say it because they [the other students] know." After T.S. relayed what had happened, Ms. Banks directed T.S. to write a statement about the incident. In February 2012, Mr. Shannon was investigated for alleged acts of sexual harassment. In a letter from Ms. Mara Stafford, the director of Recruitment and Retention for the School District of Palm Beach County, dated February 16, 2012, Mr. Shannon was advised that he was to be the assistant principal at Citrus Grove Elementary School. He did not begin working there, however, because he was subsequently called and told he would not be reporting to the new position. On May 16, 2012, Mr. Shannon received a letter from Ms. Janis Andrews, chief academic officer of the School District of Palm Beach County, advising him that he would not be recommended for reappointment. The letter advised him that he could apply for vacant positions for which he qualified. His employment was thereby terminated a couple of weeks later at the end of his contract period. Mr. Shannon applied for a teaching position with many schools. There was an opening at Carver, and he was interviewed by the principal there, Ms. Lena Wallace. Mr. Shannon was hired for the teaching position and was reassigned to Carver. Mr. Shannon was issued a letter of reprimand by the School District dated August 20, 2012. Mr. Shannon's actions and remarks toward Ms. Dempsey when he encountered her in the hall after the open house constituted sexual harassment. Mr. Shannon's actions directed toward Ms. Wertman, his comments to her, and comments about her to her students, constituted sexual harassment and discriminatory conduct. Mr. Shannon's actions directed toward Ms. Wertman and his comments to and about her, unreasonably interfered with Ms. Wertman's performance of her professional and work responsibilities. Mr. Shannon's conduct toward T.S., an eighth-grade female student, constituted sexual harassment and failed to protect her from conditions harmful to learning or her mental health. However, there was insufficient evidence that he exposed her to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. These inappropriate behaviors of Mr. Shannon seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee in the School District. There was no evidence that Mr. Shannon engaged in any inappropriate behaviors after he was given a teaching position at Carver beginning with the 2012-2013 school year. Ms. Wallace, aware of allegations against Mr. Shannon, advised him that if there were any incidents involving him, that she would "fire him immediately, and it would stick." Ms. Wallace testified that Mr. Shannon was very student-oriented, did everything that was expected of him, and worked professionally. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Shannon had been employed as a teacher at Carver for three school years. There was no evidence that Mr. Shannon's teacher certificate has been subjected to prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Monroe Shannon, in violation of sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (j) and implementing rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(g), and 6B-1.006(5)(d). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission impose upon Mr. Shannon a fine of $500.00 for each offense, for a total fine of $2,000.00, and revoke his educator certificate for a period of two years. It is further RECOMMENDED that educational employment upon recertification be subject to three years of probation as provided by section 1012.796(7)(d) with conditions determined by the Education Practices Commission to be reasonably necessary to ensure that there will be no threat to students and that he will be capable of resuming the responsibilities of an educator. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 31st day of July, 2015.
The Issue Did Respondent engage in a personal relationship with the student A. H. which involved sexual intercourse and kissing? Did the Respondent also send several notes and cards to A. H. about this alleged relationship? Was the student A. H. a minor at the time that Respondent is alleged to have engaged in these activities? If the facts are true, has Respondent violated various provisions of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 437177, covering the area of elementary education. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1998. Respondent was not employed as a teacher at times relevant to the inquiry. Respondent did have affiliation with Keystone Heights High School, Keystone Heights, Florida, in the capacity of volunteer trainer for the boys' basketball team in the school year commencing Fall 1990 through Spring 1991. In the calendar years 1990 and 1991 Respondent's primary occupation was as proprietor of a dance studio unaffiliated with public education. A. H. was a student at Respondent's dance studio. He had attended Respondent's dance school since he was in the 4th or 5th grade. A. H. was a freshman at Keystone Heights High School in the 1989-1990 school year, which commenced in the Fall of 1989 and concluded in the Spring of 1990. A. H. was born on April 25, 1975. In addition to A. H.'s association with Respondent's dance school, A. H. was part of the Keystone Heights boys' basketball team during the time that Respondent served as a volunteer trainer for that team, the school year 1990- 1991. In May 1990, Respondent, then 33 years old, and A. H. attended a dance competition. In that competition, Respondent and A. H. were partners. Respondent, A. H., A. H.'s mother, grandmother and two sisters were staying in a hotel in Orlando, Florida while attending the dance competition. The individuals in the party were staying in adjoining rooms. A. H. and Respondent went to one of the rooms to get dressed for the dance competition and to put on makeup. At this time A. H. and Respondent were alone. A. H. was sitting on the bed watching television having already dressed and prepared himself for the competition. Respondent approached A. H. and sat on his lap and they kissed. A. H. describes this activity as a mutual encounter. After the competition in Orlando, A. H. and the Respondent rode home together in the same car. When A. H. and Respondent got back from Orlando, they parked the Respondent's car behind the dance studio which was in a community known as Midway that is halfway between Melrose, Florida and Keystone Heights, Florida. Having parked the car, Respondent and A. H. engaged in what A. H. referred to as "heavy petting." In particular, A. H. fondled Respondent's breasts, and they kissed. Respondent kissed A. H.'s chest and neck. Before A. H. and Respondent stopped and engaged in this activity behind the studio, Respondent had commented on the trip back from Orlando to this effect, "at least you can't get me pregnant." When A. H. and Respondent engaged in their activities behind the studio after the trip back from Orlando, his shirt was off as was the Respondent's top garments. This encounter lasted approximately one hour and a half. During the summer of 1990, Respondent and A. H. made another trip to Orlando for a dance competition. On two separate nights during that trip, Respondent and A. H. engaged in sexual activity other than intercourse. On the morning of Memorial Day 1990 Respondent came to A. H.'s home in Keystone Heights. This rendezvous was arranged through a telephone conversation between A. H. and Respondent. When Respondent arrived at A. H.'s home he was alone. A. H. and Respondent went to A. H.'s room and engaged in sexual intercourse while in a state of undress. They then showered together and had sexual intercourse a second time. A. H. had never engaged in sexual intercourse before this date. Between Memorial Day 1990 and February 1991, Respondent and A. H. engaged in sexual intercourse approximately 30 times. In addition to having sex in A. H.'s home; they had sex at a duplex apartment in Keystone Heights that was owned by A. H.'s father; they had sex in a car that belonged to Respondent's mother-in-law; they had sex at Respondent's home; they had sex in a guest house on the same property as Respondent's home; and, they had sex at the dance studio. The rendezvous between A. H. and Respondent for purposes of the sexual encounters were clandestine. A. H. was unaware if he and the Respondent were seen or suspected of engaging in their activities. During the course of their relationship, Respondent mentioned marriage to A. H., but A. H. would not discuss marriage with the Respondent. Respondent told A. H. that when he reached the age of 18 that the Respondent and A. H. would run away together and she would work and put A. H. through school. A. H. stated that his reaction to that comment was "I was scared." He remarked about his response to her comments, "just for the time, you know, I'd agree with her, 'Yeah, sure. That's nice.' and try to blow it off and get to the next subject." During their relationship A. H. voluntarily and willingly participated in those pursuits. During the relationship, Respondent wrote notes to A. H. about her feelings for A. H., the details of which were not established at hearing through competent evidence so that facts might be found concerning the contents of those notes. During the relationship between A. H. and the Respondent, Respondent told A. H. that she loved him. Eventually the relationship was concluded by A. H., who states "I broke it off, I just--I couldn't take that much pressure. So I just told her I didn't want to continue the relationship." That decision to conclude the relationship was made in February 1991. At that time A. H. was a sophomore in high school. By virtue of comments made to his friends and acquaintances, it may be inferred that A. H.'s parents found out about his relationship with Respondent. That discovery was made on April 16, 1991. The circumstances involving A. H.'s decision to conclude the relationship in February 1991, the consequences of his parent's discovery in April 1991 and the overall relationship between A. H. and the Respondent were not shown to have left A. H. in a condition that was harmful to his mental or physical health or such that the events constituted harm to his ability to learn as a student, or found to cause A. H. unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement or were they matters which affected his safety.
Recommendation Based upon the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Counts I, III and VI; that dismisses Counts II, IV and V; and that revokes Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of 5 years. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact of the parties. Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 8 are subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 9 is rejected in that it does not completely describe the reaction by A. H. Moreover, a finding concerning his reaction is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 10 through 12 are subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 13 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 14 through 16 are subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 17 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 20 is contrary to the facts found. Paragraph 21 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 22 is subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 23 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 25 through 32 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 33 is subordinate to the facts found. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 9 is subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 12 through 82 constitute recitation of testimony, legal argument and some suggested fact finding which is intended to exonerate Respondent. These paragraphs are rejected as contrary to the facts found. Paragraphs 83 through 86 are subordinate to the facts found. Respondent's proposed fact discussion concerning the alibi for Memorial Day 1990 is rejected in that it has been determined that the sexual encounter between the Respondent and A. H. occurred before her trip to Jacksonville, Florida on that date. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 2121 Killearney Way, Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 244 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Pinellas County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause for terminating the employment of Gerald A. DiPanfilo (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner under a professional services contract. The Respondent has worked as a Pinellas County teacher for approximately 27 years, serving as an art teacher at Seminole High School for approximately one-half of his career with the Petitioner. On July 11, 2007, the Respondent went to "Grand Central," an apparently "gay bar" located in downtown St. Petersburg, Florida. The Respondent testified at the hearing that he had been at the lounge with friends. After drinking excessively, he decided to go home and asked the bartender to call for a cab to transport him to his condominium. As he waited for the cab to arrive, he sat at the bar. J.G., a male who had just turned 17 years old on June 23, 2007, and who was enrolled in the Pinellas County School System, was also in the lounge as the same time as the Respondent. The Respondent testified that he had limited conversation with J.G. while in the tavern. There is no evidence that the Respondent knew that J.G. was enrolled in the Pinellas County School System. The Respondent testified that, when the cab arrived, he got into the cab and that J.G. "forced" himself into the cab with the Respondent. He testified that he exited the cab at a Publix grocery store about one and a half blocks from his residence, that he apparently walked alone to his condominium, and that, when he entered the ground-floor garage to obtain cigarettes from his car, he discovered J.G. waiting. The Respondent's testimony failed to indicate at what point J.G. exited the cab, why the Respondent would have exited the cab at Publix, or how J.G. would have known where the Respondent's condo was located. The Respondent testified that J.G. asked for a drink of water and the Respondent, despite asserting that he "was a little nervous," admitted the stranger into his residence. The Respondent testified that, after entering the residence, J.G. began "pulling his shirt up." The Respondent also testified as follows: I'm not sure whether he was taking his pants off or not. But at the time I made a gesture of some sort, and I said Whoa. And he said, May I borrow your cell phone or may I borrow your phone. And he took my phone, and he went out into the hallway, which I started to get suspicious at that point of why did he need to use--talk out in the hall. So I went out there immediately. The Respondent testified that he re-entered his condo and noticed his car keys were missing. He testified that he called the cell phone and J.G. answered. The Respondent testified that he then called the police and reported his car as stolen. The Respondent testified that there was never any discussion with J.G. about obtaining drugs. The Respondent denied any discussion with J.G. about having sex or paying for sexual activity. The Respondent denied that J.G. made any statement about age. The Respondent's testimony as to the events of the evening lacked sufficient clarity to be reliable and are not credited. J.G. testified that he entered the "Grand Central" to get a glass of water. J.G. testified that he was not gay, but acknowledged being aware that "Grand Central" was apparently widely-known to have gay customers "because it's full of gay people in there." J.G. testified that he interacted with the Respondent with the intention of hustling him for money. J.G. testified that the Respondent offered to buy him a drink, but that the bartender refused to serve alcohol to J.G., who did not have identification. J.G. testified that the Respondent offered him a "ride home" and he accepted. J.G. testified that the two took the cab to the Respondent's condo and did not talk during the cab ride. J.G. testified that, after arriving at the condo, the Respondent asked if J.G. could obtain drugs, and J.G. said he could; that J.G. and the Respondent then walked to a nearby Publix; and that the Respondent obtained money from the ATM. J.G. testified that they returned to and entered the Respondent's condo and that the Respondent "approached him" with his pants down. J.G. testified that he remained fully clothed while at the Respondent's residence, while the Respondent touched J.G.'s body "everywhere" including his genitals for a period of five to seven minutes. J.G. testified that he told the Respondent at some point during the evening that he was 17 years old "because I wasn't feeling what was going on at the time." While at the Respondent's residence, J.G. pretended to call the supposed resource (his cousin) to obtain drugs, after which J.G. left to obtain the drugs with the Respondent's cash, his car, and his cell phone. J.G. testified that he had no intention of returning to the Respondent's residence. As part of an investigation into the alleged auto theft, the Respondent was interviewed by a law enforcement officer and submitted a written statement to the police. In the written statement, the Respondent wrote that he "messed around briefly" with the person who had allegedly stolen the vehicle. After reviewing the information, the matter was subsequently referred to a second law enforcement officer for the purpose of conducting an investigation into the alleged sexual activity with a minor. According to the testimony of the officer investigating the sexual activity, the Respondent stated that he and J.G. had been kissing in the cab and that, after arriving at the condo, the two had undressed and had rubbed each other's penises. The officer noted that the Respondent stated he might have given money to the minor, but was not sure. The Respondent indicated that he believed J.G. to have been of legal age. At the hearing, the Respondent testified that he had no recollection of making the admissions of sexual activity between himself and J.G. to the police investigator and was unsure why he made the statements. The officer also interviewed J.G. and testified that J.G. stated that he had advised the Respondent of his age during the cab ride. The officer also testified that J.G. stated that the Respondent gave money to J.G. in exchange for sex and drugs and that, after returning to the Respondent's residence, the two had physical contact but that J.G. remained dressed during the contact. J.G. has a substantial criminal arrest record, given his age, for various drug offenses as well as battery, burglary, and grand theft. He was charged with auto theft in connection with taking the Respondent's car. J.G. acknowledged at the hearing that he had previously stated that he was willing to allege sexual activity with the Respondent in an attempt to avoid being charged with auto theft. The greater weight of the evidence presented at the hearing established that the Respondent engaged in sexual activity with J.G. on July 11, 2007, or very early on the morning of the following day. This finding is specifically based upon the admissions made by the Respondent to the investigators; admissions that the Respondent continued to make over a period of several days as the investigation proceeded. As a teacher, the Respondent has an obligation to ascertain the age of persons with whom he is involved. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent realistically considered whether or not J.G. was of legal age. Students at Seminole High School became aware of publicity related to the events of July 11, 2007, and some students posted copies of newspaper articles on campus. Administrators were contacted by some parents who had various concerns. The school principal and a district administrator testified that they believed the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired as a result of the events of July 11, 2007. Prior to the date of these events, the Respondent had been convicted of a DUI offense, but the Petitioner had not yet taken any related disciplinary action. The employment of a Pinellas County teacher would not be routinely terminated on the basis of the Respondent's DUI conviction. While the allegations related to the events of July 11 were being investigated, the Petitioner reassigned the Respondent to work in the district warehouse, where he had numerous absences from work. The Respondent testified without contradiction as to his mental state of mind during this period to explain the absences. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent's employment should be terminated solely on the basis of the absences.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the employment of Gerald A. DiPanfilo. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2008.
