The Issue In Case No. 92-6291 the Petitioner seeks the revocation or suspension of the Respondent's teaching certificate, or other administrative penalty, on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in an Amended Administrative Complaint. The general nature of the charges against the Petitioner are that he engaged in certain criminal conduct, was found guilty of certain criminal conduct, failed to disclose information about his criminal record on his applications for employment and for a teaching certificate, on various occasions improperly touched several female students, and on one occasion used unnecessary force to discipline a male student. In Case No. 93-1227 the Petitioner seeks to suspend and terminate the Respondent's employment as a teacher with the Dade County School Board on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in an Amended Notice of Specific Charges. The general nature of the charges brought by the School Board is essentially the same as the allegations in Case No. 92-6291, although there are some differences in the specific details alleged.
Findings Of Fact Background and introductory matters The Respondent currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 286698, covering the areas of physical education and health education. The Respondent's certificate is valid through June 30, 1998. At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, John N. Pilla, was employed by the School Board of Dade County. He was initially employed as a Teacher Aide in January of 1969 and continued to work for the School Board of Dade County in several capacities through the 1977-78 school year. Following the 1977- 78 school year, the Respondent worked for other employers for several years. In 1984 he again applied for employment with the School Board of Dade County and was hired as a Substitute Teacher for the 1984- 85 school year. He was rehired in that capacity for the 1985-86 school year. After a break in service of several months, the Respondent was reinstated as a Substitute Teacher in October of 1986. In December of 1986 the Respondent was hired as a Teacher and he continued to be employed as a Teacher until the date of his suspension and termination from employment on February 17, 1993. As noted in more detail in some of the findings which follow, the Respondent was on several occasions given instructions or directives to the effect that he should avoid improper touching of students. Those instructions and directives were always qualified or modified in some way, so that the essence of the instructions and directives given to the Respondent was that he should avoid improper touching, or unnecessary touching, or touching not required by his teaching duties. The Respondent was never given an unqualified order that he was not to touch students under any circumstances. 5/ It has been a policy of the Dade County School Board at all times material to this proceeding that teachers are prohibited from engaging in inappropriate physical contact with students. The Respondent was aware of that policy. Events during the 1976-77 school year During the 1976-77 school year, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at North Miami Junior High. His principal at that school was Freddie Pittman. During the course of that school year several complaints were made to the effect that the Respondent had engaged in inappropriate conversations with female students and that he had engaged in inappropriate physical contact with female students. Mr. Pittman sought authorization to have those complaints investigated and shortly thereafter an investigation was conducted by School Board investigators. Several of the complaining students were interviewed and reported various instances of inappropriate conversations and inappropriate touching. 6/ The Respondent was interviewed by the investigators and denied all allegations of misconduct. The parents of all of the complaining students were advised of the investigation. All of the parents declined to press charges. Several weeks after the conclusion of the investigation, a conference was conducted on April 29, 1977, at which time Mr. Pittman and an Area Director met with the Respondent, reviewed with him the student allegations that had prompted the investigation, and then issued four directives to the Respondent. Those directives were reiterated in a memorandum to the Respondent dated May 2, 1977, as follows: You should refrain from any physical contact with your students unless it is required as part of your teaching duties. You should refrain from any conversations with your students that could be construed as improper, having sexual connotations or could cause the student to be embarrassed. You should refrain from inviting students to your home or to accompany you on personal trips without prior permission of the parent(s) or legal guardian(s). You should refrain from a display of affection towards your students such as holding hands, caressing, walking arm-in-arm, etc. The memorandum of May 2, 1977, also reminded the Respondent that: "It was stated emphatically that strong disciplinary action will be taken if the above directives or their intent are breached." The 1984 application for employment On March 21, 1984, the Respondent signed an Application for Instructional - Instructional Support Employment seeking reemployment with the Dade County Public Schools. The application included the following question: "Have you ever been convicted of anything other than a minor traffic violation?" The Respondent checked the "No" box in response to that question. The Respondent's answer of "No" appears to have been truthful. 7/ In connection with that same application for reemployment, on March 21, 1984, the Respondent also signed a form titled Security Check Authorization And Waiver Of Confidential Records. That form included a question as to whether the Respondent has ever been ". . . convicted, fined, imprisoned, or placed on probation in a criminal proceeding?" In response to that question, the Respondent checked the "No" box. Immediately above the Respondent's signature the form included a statement that "the above entries are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. . . ," and ended with the following statement: "I understand that a knowing and willful false statement on this form may result in immediate dismissal." For reasons discussed below, the Respondent's "No" answer on the form titled Security Check Authorization And Waiver Of Confidential Records was untrue. At the time the Respondent gave that untrue answer he knew his answer was untrue. He gave an untrue answer because he feared that disclosure of the truth would jeopardize his employment prospects. The 1988 application for educator's certificate On May 11, 1988, the Respondent signed an Application For Educator's Certificate for the purpose of renewing his teaching certificate. The application included the following question: Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations? If yes, you must give complete details for each charge. Please attach a separate sheet if additional space is needed. The Respondent checked the "No" box in response to that question and did not provide any details about any criminal charges. Immediately above the Respondent's signature the application included the following language: I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of an educator's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means. I further certify that all information pertaining to this application is true, correct and complete. For reasons discussed below, the Respondent's "No" answer on the Application For Educator's Certificate was untrue. At the time the Respondent gave that untrue answer he knew his answer was untrue. He gave an untrue answer because he feared that disclosure of the truth would jeopardize the issuance of his certificate. The Respondent's criminal record In 1982 the Respondent was arrested for misdemeanor trespass as a result of an altercation that took place between himself and his ex-wife's boyfriend in front of the ex-wife's house. On September 29, 1982, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of trespass in the Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida. By order issued that same day, the court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent on six months of non-reporting probation. On May 15, 1984, the Respondent was arrested and charged with the following violations: (a) leaving the scene of an accident with injuries in violation of Section 316.027, Florida Statutes; (b) culpable negligence in violation of Section 784.05(2), Florida Statutes, and (c) driving on a revoked driver license in violation of Section 322.34(2), Florida Statutes. On May 24, 1984, a two-count information was issued against the Respondent. Count One charged him with leaving the scene of an accident with injuries in violation of Sections 316.027(1) and (2), and 316.062, Florida Statutes. Count Two charged him with driving while license is revoked or suspended (misdemeanor) in violation of Section 322.34, Florida Statutes. The Respondent went to trial on the charges in the information and on August 8, 1984, was found not guilty of Count One and guilty of Count Two. On September 6, 1994, the Respondent was sentenced to two years in prison, an enhanced sentence which was based on prior uncounseled convictions. 8/ The Respondent appealed and on November 6, 1985, the appellate court reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. On January 17, 1986, the trial court resentenced the Respondent to 30 days time served. Events during the 1989-90 School Year During the 1989-90 school year, the Respondent was employed by the School Board of Dade County as a physical education teacher at Biscayne Elementary School. His Principal at that school was Carlos Fernandez. Near the beginning of that school year, as a result of complaints from two parents, Principal Fernandez had a conference with the Respondent during which he told the Respondent that he should be careful dealing with the female students. Later during that same school year (toward the end of February) three female students sent notes to the Principal's office in which they mentioned either than the Respondent had touched them or they had witnessed the Respondent touch someone else. Once again Principal Fernandez had a conference with the Respondent and told him again that he should be careful dealing with the female students and stressed that allegations of improper touching were very serious matters that could have very serious consequences. Neither of the Principal's conferences with the Respondent were reduced to a written directive. The purpose of the two conferences seems to have been primarily to warn the Respondent to be more careful when he was around female students. 9/ The essence of Principal Fernandez' comments on these two occasions was that the Respondent should be more careful to avoid any touching that could be misconstrued as improper touching. Principal Fernandez did not direct the Respondent that he should never touch any of the female students. Later that same school year, on April 20, 1990, three female students went to the Principal's office and reported that the Respondent had touched one of them on her private parts and that the other two had witnessed it. The matter was reported to several outside agencies, including the local police. The police commenced a criminal investigation, which generated a great deal of publicity about the incident. On or about April 24, 1990, the Respondent was assigned to an alternate work position which did not involve student contact. He remained in that position while the allegations of April 20, 1990, were being investigated. On June 15, 1990, the Respondent was arrested and was charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious assault on a child. The Respondent posted $15,000 bond and was released. His arrest was widely publicized in television and newspaper coverage. On June 28, 1991, the State Attorney dismissed all of the criminal charges against the Respondent. The School Board conducted an internal investigation and concluded that the allegations that formed the basis for the Respondent's arrest were unfounded. The Respondent was returned to a teaching position in the summer of 1991. Events during the 1991-92 school year For the 1991-92 school year the Respondent was assigned to teach a split shift at two schools, Parkway Elementary School and Madie Ives Elementary School. The Principal at Parkway was Jack Silberman. The Principal at Madie Ives was Sally Blonder. During the 1991-92 school year, Principal Silberman met with the Respondent and told him that he should not touch any students in any improper manner and went on to emphasize that the Respondent should watch himself and make sure he did not touch any students in an improper way. In February of 1992 several students at Madie Ives Elementary School complained that the Respondent had touched them improperly or in a manner which they found to be offensive. During the 1991-92 school year there were no such complaints at Parkway Elementary School. One of the students who complained in February of 1992 was S. K. On one or more occasions during the 1991-92 school year the Respondent placed his hands on S. K.'s shoulders 10/ and turned her around in line when she was facing the wrong way. In doing so, the Respondent did not touch S. K.'s breasts, nor was there anything else improper about the manner in which he touched her. The act of turning S. K. around in line was a reasonable act under the circumstances and was within the scope of the Petitioner's duties as a teacher. One of the other students who complained in February of 1992 was M. C. On one occasion during that school year, M. C. walked up behind the Respondent, who was at that time busy watching some other students. M. C. stood quietly behind the Respondent waiting for an opportunity to ask him a question. The Respondent did not know that M. C. was standing behind him. The Respondent took a step backward and accidentally stepped on M. C.'s foot. The Respondent immediately (without looking around behind himself) reached out behind himself with one hand and instinctively tried to prevent himself and whoever he had stepped on from falling down. In doing so, his hand touched M. C. somewhere in the general area of her low back, hip, or buttocks. This touching of M. C. was entirely accidental. The Respondent did not grab, squeeze, or fondle M. C.'s buttocks, nor did he engage in any other improper touching of M. C. On another occasion during that school year, M. C. walked off of the soccer field with a severe limp. The Respondent, concerned that she might have a serious injury, told M. C. to sit down on the sidelines and he asked her where it hurt. She indicated the shin area of one leg, just above the ankle. The Respondent touched her shin to determine whether there was any palpable injury. He did not feel any indication of a serious injury. Thereupon, he suggested that M. C. rub the injured area with her fingers and briefly demonstrated what he was suggesting. The Respondent's actions of touching and rubbing S. K.'s shin was a reasonable act under the circumstances and was an act that was within the scope of the Respondent's teaching duties or, if not technically within his duties, was an act which it was reasonable for him to believe was within the scope of his teaching duties. There was nothing improper about the manner in which the Respondent touched M. C.'s shin. Pending an investigation of the February 1992 allegations, the Respondent was reassigned to teach only at Parkway Elementary School. The Respondent continued to teach at Parkway Elementary School without incident until sometime in mid-April of 1992, when a television station filmed the Respondent and broadcast a news story about the then-pending allegations and the Respondent's prior arrest on charges of lewd and lascivious conduct. A local newspaper also published a story about the pending allegations, prior allegations, and the prior arrest on charges of lewd and lascivious conduct. As a result of the television coverage and pressure from parents, in mid-April of 1992 the Respondent was reassigned to work in a position that did not involve contact with students. He continued to work in that position until February 17, 1993, when the School Board suspended the Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against him.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that in Case Number 92-6921, a Final Order be issued to the following effect: Dismissing the charges set forth in Counts Two, Four, Seven, Eight, and Nine; Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the charges set forth in Counts One, Three, Five, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve; and Imposing the penalty of revocation of the Petitioner's teaching certificate. On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that in Case No. 93-2723, the Dade County School Board issue a Final Order in this case concluding that the evidence is insufficient to establish any of the charges in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 1994, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 1994.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent from her employment with the Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an art teacher at Western High School ("Western High"). Respondent's career with the School Board, which spans some 21 years, has not proceeded entirely without incident: on January 31, 1997, Respondent uttered profanity in the presence of her students, which resulted in the issuance of a written reprimand that directed her to "cease and desist from inappropriate remarks"; several months later, Respondent's further use of colorful language led to a second written reprimand; and, in August 2009, Respondent agreed to serve a three-day suspension "for inappropriate language." The School Board now seeks to suspend Respondent for five days based upon an allegation that, on August 16, 2013, she used profanity and "aggressively grabbed" a female student's arm during an episode in Western High's parking lot. The facts relating to the instant charges are recounted below. Instant Allegations On the morning of August 16, 2013——the final weekday before the start of the 2013-2014 school year——Respondent arrived at Western High's campus to place the finishing touches on her classroom. On several occasions throughout the day, one of Western High's assistant principals announced that the school's parking lot would be locked at 5:30 p.m. The final such warning, which was made at 5:15 p.m., prompted Respondent to exit the building approximately five minutes later. As she headed toward her vehicle, Respondent (accompanied by her mother, Carol Fischer, herself a longtime educator) noticed several groups of students decorating parking spaces in the school lot. As explained during the final hearing, the students' presence was not unusual, for incoming seniors at Western High were authorized, pursuant to a school fundraiser, to "purchase" a parking space and adorn it as each saw fit. Mindful that the school gate would soon be locked, Respondent walked toward the groups and, from a distance of approximately 50 yards, loudly directed them to pack up their belongings and leave the campus. Each of the groups complied, save for one, which prompted Respondent to approach the stragglers and repeatedly announce——with diminishing volume as she made her way closer——that they needed to go home. Suffice it to say that these importunings had no discernable effect on the group's activities; as a result, Respondent continued toward the parking spot where the students were working. Now in their immediate vicinity, Respondent informed the group (which included two female students, N.S. and T.C., both of whom were incoming seniors at Western High) that they had two minutes to gather their possessions and leave the campus. During the ensuing interaction, T.C. began to argue with Respondent and, to make matters worse, acted as if she intended to continue painting. Her patience understandably waning, Respondent reached toward T.C. and, in a non-violent fashion, placed her hand on the student's upper arm. This brief physical contact, intended to secure T.C.'s complete attention and gesture her in the direction of the exit, was instantly met with a vocal objection. Respondent immediately reacted by stepping backwards,1/ at which point the group began to gather up the painting materials. T.C. and the other students departed the parking lot a short time later. Contrary to the complaint's allegations, the credible evidence demonstrates that, although Respondent addressed the students with an elevated voice (but only as she approached from a distance), she at no point used profanity or any other inappropriate language.2/ Further, the record is pellucid that Respondent's momentary, gesturing contact with T.C. was completely innocuous and in no way constituted an "aggressive grab."3/ Indeed, T.C. acknowledged during her final hearing testimony that Respondent plainly intended no harm.4/ Finally, and with respect to the charge of insubordination, there has been no showing that Respondent's behavior ran afoul of any direct order. Although the School Board attempted to prove the existence of a "no touching whatsoever" rule, the testimony on that point was internally contradictory and ultimately unpersuasive. In any event, and as discussed shortly, a general policy——i.e., one applicable to all employees——does not constitute a direct order for the purpose of sustaining an insubordination charge. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of misconduct in office. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order: exonerating Respondent of all charges brought against her in this proceeding; and awarding Respondent any lost pay and benefits she experienced as a result of the five-day suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Lee County (School Board) should terminate the Respondent, Christel Freeman, for fighting with another school bus employee on School Board property.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Christel Freeman, has been a school bus driver employed by the School Board since 2002. There was no evidence that she was anything other than an exemplary employee until an incident that occurred at the School Board’s Leonard Street bus compound at the end of the work day. She and her boyfriend, Mike Ortes, were driving their personal vehicle from the back of the compound to the front, where the employees clock out and usually visit for a while before going home, when she spotted another employee, Ashley Thomas, who had just recently been transferred to Leonard Street. The Respondent approached Thomas, who was visiting with co-workers at a picnic table, because she suspected that Thomas was having sexual relations with her boyfriend and wanted to tell Thomas to stay away from her boyfriend, stop interfering with the Respondent’s family unit, and stop “talking trash about her.” When she got within earshot, the Respondent asked Thomas if they could talk in private. Thomas said, yes, and the two walked away from the co-workers at the picnic table. The Respondent began to tell Thomas what she wanted to talk about, and the conversation soon became heated. After they left the view of the co-workers at the picnic table, they passed another co-worker who was sitting in a vehicle and who said something to Thomas. As Thomas turned to respond to the speaker, the Respondent struck Thomas with her hand or fist on the side of the face, near the eye. Thomas was carrying her car keys, cell phone, and purse and was surprised by the blow. When the Respondent followed up with another blow, Thomas began to defend herself by hitting back. The nearby co-workers very quickly ran to the combatants to separate them. In the process, the combatants fell down, with the Respondent landing on top. The scuffling continued for a brief time until the combatants were separated. By this time, Thomas’s shirt had been torn open at the front buttons, her face was bruised and swelling, and her eye was hurt. The Respondent also had an eye injury from being hit with Thomas’s car keys. The police were called, but the Respondent left the scene with her boyfriend by the time the police arrived. After some leading questions by the Respondent, Ortes supported her testimony that they went to the hospital for emergency treatment for her eye and, once there, called the police, who responded to the hospital. After discussing the incident with the police, neither woman pressed charges. The Respondent’s primary defense is that after she called Thomas a “nasty bitch,” Thomas struck her first with the car keys, and the Respondent defended herself. However, the other witnesses to the incident saw it the other way around, with the Respondent hitting first without provocation. The Respondent attempted to undermine that testimony by saying those witnesses were family and friends of Thomas. To the contrary, the evidence was that the family and friends of Thomas were not the eyewitnesses who testified; rather, Thomas’s family and friends either did not testify or testified that they were not eyewitnesses to the incident. While the Respondent attempted to downplay the state of her emotions at the time of the incident, it is clear from the evidence that she was angry at Thomas and initiated the conversation in that state of mind. It is possible that what triggered the Respondent’s violence was Thomas saying the Respondent should ask her boyfriend for the answers to her questions, which the Respondent took as flaunting an admission that they were having sexual relations. According to the Respondent’s testimony, her job with the School Board is very important to her and her family. Notwithstanding that she has not admitted instigating the fight with Thomas and throwing the first blow, she understands that the consequences of engaging in similar conduct again would certainly be the permanent loss of her job. For that reason, it is unlikely that she would put herself in that position in the future. There is a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC) that governs the Respondent’s employment. The procedure followed in the Respondent’s case is set out in sections 7.10 and 7.103 of the SPALC agreement. Section 7.10 of the SPALC agreement provides: The parties agree that dismissal is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee’s job seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary actions(s) taken against SPALC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee’s record. Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause. Section 7.10 also states that employee misconduct is a ground for suspension without pay or termination of employment. The SPALC agreement does not define misconduct. The School Board has policies that govern employee conduct. Policy 4.09 adopts a “zero tolerance” policy for threats of violence. It prohibits “any verbal, written or electronically communicated threat, suggestion or prediction of violence against any person.” Id. “Any serious threat of violence shall result in immediate disciplinary action and referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency.” Id. School Board Policy 5.29(1) states: “All employees are expected to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional ” School Board Policy 2.02(2) describes and prohibits “unacceptable/disruptive behavior.” This includes “[u]sing unreasonable loud and/or offensive language, swearing, cursing, using profane language, or display of temper.” Id. at ¶ (b). It also includes “[t]hreatening to do bodily or physical harm to a . . . school employee . . . regardless of whether or not the behavior constitutes a criminal violation.” Id. at ¶ (c). It also includes “[a]ny other behavior which disrupts the orderly operation of a school, school classroom, or any other School District facility.” Id. at ¶ (e). Section 7.103 of the SPALC agreement allows an employee being terminated to either file a grievance under Article 5 or request a hearing before the School Board, but not both. Section 7.13 of the SPALC agreement provides that employees “shall not engage in speech, conduct, behavior (verbal or nonverbal), or commit any act of any type which is reasonably interpreted as abusive, profane, intolerant, menacing, intimidating, threatening, or harassing against any person in the workplace.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of employee misconduct and either terminating her employment, or suspending her without pay and reinstating her upon entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Pam Stewart, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Nancy J. Graham Superintendent of Lee County Schools 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Robert Dodig, Jr., Esquire School District of Lee County 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Christel Freeman 2119 French Street Fort Myers, Florida 33916-4434
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for Petitioner, the St. Lucie County School Board, to terminate the employment of Respondent, Josephine Knight.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of St. Lucie County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"). Respondent, Josephine Knight, is employed by the School Board pursuant to a professional services contract. Ms. Knight has been employed as a teacher for approximately 15 years. At all times relevant to this matter, Ms. Knight was assigned to work at St. Lucie Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as the "Elementary School"). At all times relevant to this matter, the principal of the Elementary School was Dr. Jayne Hartman. Prior to the 1997/1998 school year, Dr. Hartman interviewed Ms. Knight for a position at the Elementary School and subsequently recommended her for a position. Ms. Knight was assigned as a temporary fourth grade teacher during the 1997/1998 school year. Ms. Knight was assigned as a third grade teacher for the 1998/1999 school year. Ms. Knight had been assigned to fourth grade class while employed by the School Board until this year. Ms. Knight was disappointed with her new assignment. During her first two years of assignment to the Elementary School, Dr. Hartman observed Ms. Knight and made suggestions for improvement. Rather than accepting Dr. Hartman's efforts to constructively criticize her, Ms. Knight grew resentful and defensive. Although the evidence failed to support Ms. Knight's characterization of her treatment during the 1997/1998 and 1998/1999 school years, Ms. Knight felt that she was being subjected to "unremitting harassment from her principal." Ms. Knight responded to Dr. Hartman's criticism by attempting to transfer from the Elementary School to another school within the School Board's district. Ms. Knight was unsuccessful in finding another school that would accept her. Dr. Hartman recommended Ms. Knight's reappointment at the Elementary School for the 1999/2000 school year. Prior to the commencement of the 1999/2000 school year Dr. Hartman directed all staff, including Ms. Knight, to attend a staff breakfast on August 16, 1999. The breakfast was to be followed by a meeting of all teachers in the media center of the Elementary School. Dr. Hartman had arranged for teachers assigned to teach the same grade to sit together during the meeting and had prepared handouts for each teacher. Those handouts were placed at each teacher's assigned seat. Ms. Knight failed to attend the breakfast on August 16, 1999. She did attend the teachers' meeting, but arrived late and refused to sit at the table with the other third grade teachers. On August 18, 1999, Ms. Knight again arrived late for a staff meeting. Later in the morning of August 18, 1999, Ms. Knight wrote a note to Dr. Hartman informing her that she intended to use comp time during lunch. Rather than follow school policy, Ms. Knight left during lunch without first determining whether her use of comp time had been authorized. On August 19, 1999, Dr. Hartman spoke to Ms. Knight in the morning and told her that she needed to speak with her. Ms. Knight went to see Dr. Hartman later that same day. Dr. Hartman verbally counseled Ms. Knight. Dr. Hartman spoke to Ms. Knight about her lateness in arriving at staff meetings, her use of comp time prior to getting approval, and her refusal to sit with other third grade teachers as she had been directed. Dr. Hartman asked Ms. Knight to explain her actions, but Ms. Knight took notes and refused to answer Dr. Hartman. Due to Ms. Knight's misconception that she was being harassed by Dr. Hartman and in anticipation of the August 19, 1999, counseling session, she had prepared a letter of resignation the night before the August 19th meeting with Dr. Hartman. During the August 19th meeting, Ms. Knight gave Dr. Hartman the letter (hereinafter referred to as the "Resignation Letter"). In pertinent part, Ms. Knight wrote the following in the Resignation Letter: The intended purpose of this letter is to inform you of my resignation from my present position as a third grade teacher so soon after starting my fifteenth year in the system. After considering my remaining options, I decided to depart from this position because of YOU and the lack of professionalism displayed on your behalf. I have been subjective [sic] to an extraordinary amount of harassment every [sic] since I've been under you supervision. This included lack if [sic] administrative support, extreme and undue stress, your trifling and vindictive ways, and last but not least, your prejudice and racist attitude towards students, minorities, and me. These are conditions in which no one should be subjective [sic] to in the workplace. In fact, it seems to almost define going postal. You and I know the countless times I have tried to relocate to another school unsuccessfully. Which means as [sic] September 2, 1999 I will be resigning. [Emphases added]. The accusations Ms. Knight made in the Resignation Letter concerning Dr. Hartman, to include the allegations that she knew of Ms. Knight's unsuccessful efforts to transfer, are incorrect. Those accusations were the result of Ms. Knight's inability to deal with constructive criticism. After fully considering the Resignation Letter and Ms. Knight's negative attitude toward her, Dr. Hartman reasonably concluded that Ms. Knight had threatened her and she reasonably became concerned for her personal safety. On the evening of August 19, 1999, Dr. Hartman contacted Russell Anderson, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, and reported the incident to him. Dr. Hartman also contacted Jane Grinstead, her immediate supervisor, and read the Resignation Letter to her. Finally, Dr. Hartman contacted Dave Morris, the Coordinator of Safety/Security for the School Board, and advised him of Ms. Knight's reference to "going postal." The morning of August 20, 1999, School Resource Officer McGee met with Dr. Hartman. Officer McGee was assigned to stay with Dr. Hartman the entire day because of the threat contained in the Resignation Letter. Mr. Russell, Dr. Hartman, and Officer McGee met with Ms. Knight and a union representative on August 20, 1999, to discuss the Resignation Letter. When asked about her reference to "going postal," Ms. Knight admitted that she understood that it meant to "kill or shoot your boss," or words to that effect. Following the meeting of August 20, 1999, a Friday, Ms. Knight was informed that she would be placed on temporary duty assignment from Monday, August 23, 1999, until the effective date of her resignation, September 1, 1999. On Monday, August 23, 1999, Ms. Knight withdrew her resignation. Because it had not been approved by the School Board, the resignation was considered rescinded. In light of the threat of violence contained in the Resignation Letter, the School Board informed Ms. Knight on August 24, 1999, that she was suspended without pay pending a review and final resolution of the matter. Based upon a review of Ms. Knight's personnel file, Mr. Russell concluded that Ms. Knight should be terminated from employment with the School Board. In addition to the Resignation Letter, Mr. Russell considered certain incidents described in paragraph 7 of a Statement of Charges to Terminate Respondent Josephine Knight's Employment with Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Statement of Charges"). Mr. Russell conferred with Dr. William Vogel, the Superintendent of Schools, concerning the matter. Mr. Russell recommended that Ms. Knight should be terminated from employment with the School Board. By letter dated October 6, 1999, Dr. Vogel informed Ms. Knight that he would be recommending her termination from employment to the School Board due to her "violation of School Board Policies." Ms. Knight timely requested a formal administrative hearing to contest Dr. Vogel's decision. The Statement of Charges further defines the basis for the School Board's action in this case: That the foregoing acts as set forth in this statement and attached exhibits, constitutes just cause under Fla. Stat. s 231.36(1)(a) to terminate Josephine Knight's employment with the St. Lucie County School Board. See Fla. Stat. s 231.36 and School Board policy 3.57 attached as Exhibit O. School Board policy 3.57 provides, in pertinent part, the following anti-violence in the workplace policy: All employees will refrain from any speech, conduct, activity, or behavior of any type that is reasonable interpreted as abusive, profane, intolerant, menacing or intimidating. No speech, behavior, activity or other conduct shall occur or be made by any employee where it is reasonably interpreted that the primary motivating intent is to intimidate, threaten or abuse any person in the workplace. The School Board has zero tolerance for violations of this policy. Any person employed by the School Board who communicates a threat of violence to any other School Board employee is subject to termination. The particular incidents which the School Board considered in concluding that there was just cause for Ms. Knight's termination and that the foregoing policy had been violated by Ms. Knight included the comment about "going postal" in the Resignation Letter and the incidents described in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Charges. While the incidents described in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Charges may indicate a lack of judgment, unacceptable treatment of students, and a hot temper on Ms. Knight's part, they are not relevant in considering whether Ms. Knight displayed conduct contrary to School Board policy 3.57 or just cause. Ms. Knight's Resignation Letter, however, does support the School Board's decision. Based upon the events of August 16 and 18, 1999, Dr. Hartman reasonably concluded that Ms. Knight's comment about "going postal" in the Resignation Letter was primarily motivated by an intent to "intimidate, threaten or abuse" her. The day after the Resignation Letter was provided to Dr. Hartman, Ms. Knight admitted to Dr. Hartman and Mr. Russell that she knew what the terms meant and no other reasonable explanation has been offered by Ms. Knight to explain why she made the comment. Ms. Knight's suggestion at hearing that she was merely trying to get the School Board's attention so that she would be transferred to another school was not convincing and, even if true, would not diminish the reasonableness of Dr. Hartman's reaction to the threat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the St. Lucie County School Board finding just cause for the termination from employment by the School Board of Josephine Knight. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Coke, Esquire J. David Richeson & Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire Florida Education Association 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 5675 Tampa, Florida 33675 Dr. William Vogel, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 2909 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34947 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with the St. Lucie County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Parties/Background Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida. In or around 1987, Respondent graduated from Florida Atlantic University with a bachelor of science degree in education. It is undisputed that Respondent holds no other professional degree, much less one that would permit him to utilize the title "doctor." (The significance of this point will be illustrated shortly.) The following year, in 1988, the School Board hired Respondent as a classroom teacher, a position he has held since that time. By all appearances, Respondent's employment with the School Board proceeded without incident for more than 20 years, during which period he earned favorable performance evaluations and received no disciplinary sanctions. In October of 2011, and as a minor bump in the road, the principal of Port St. Lucie High School ("PSLHS"), Dr. Mark Rendell, issued Respondent a "letter of concern" after he received information that Respondent had criticized a PSLHS graduate in a Facebook posting. Among other things, Dr. Rendell's letter cautioned Respondent that communications with members of the public should be "carried out in an ethical and professional manner," and that educators are held to a "higher standard than other citizens." Respondent's real troubles with the School Board began on May 18, 2012, with his arrest in Okeechobee County in connection with several criminal offenses——charges to which he would later plead no contest. The conduct that led to the arrest is fully explicated below; suffice it to say for the moment that Respondent allegedly utilized an inauthentic animal inspection certificate in connection with his sale (and shipment) of a dog to an out-of-state purchaser, Gail Richards. The School Board's ensuing investigation into Respondent's behavior, which culminated in the filing of the instant Complaint, uncovered other instances of alleged wrongdoing, namely: that Respondent had sold and shipped animals with bogus inspection records in two transactions that preceded the sale to Ms. Richards; and that, in connection with his service as a dog judge for the American Kennel Club, Respondent had misrepresented his educational qualifications by using the title "doctor." The undersigned begins with the facts relating to Respondent's transactions with Ms. Richards and the other purchasers. Transactions at Issue At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent bred and sold animals——specifically, cats and longhaired dachshunds——under the moniker "Aviance Show Dogs." Respondent's activities in this regard, which occurred during his employment with the School Board, occasionally involved the shipment of animals by commercial aircraft to out-of-state purchasers. The School Board alleges, and Respondent does not dispute, that an animal shipped from state to state via a commercial airline must be accompanied by a health inspection certificate, a document formally known as a "Certificate for Interstate or International Movement of Small Animals" (hereinafter "inspection certificate"). The pre-printed language of an inspection certificate solicits, among other information, the name and contact information of the animal's owner, a description of the animal, the identity and address of the purchaser, and, most important, a certification from a licensed veterinarian that the animal has been vaccinated for rabies, as well as examined and found to be free from clinical signs of contagious disease. As alluded to previously, the School Board contends that, in connection with three separate transactions that occurred over a span of 19 months, Respondent utilized inspection certificates that were fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate. The first transaction in question, which took place in late February or early March of 2009, involved Respondent's sale and shipment of a dachshund (named "Uno") to co-purchasers who resided in the state of Texas. Oddly, the dachshund, which Respondent shipped from Florida by commercial airline, was accompanied by a "State of California Department of Food and Agriculture" inspection certificate. Even more peculiar is the fact that, notwithstanding Respondent's admission in this proceeding that Uno had never been to California, the inspection certificate's handwritten entries indicated: that Uno was evaluated for signs of contagious disease at the Santa Clara Pet Hospital on February 28, 2009; that "Jennifer W. Lawrence," a California veterinarian, performed the examination (the inspection certificate bears what purports to be her signature); that Dr. Lawrence holds California license number 12620; and that, on the date of the examination, a rabies vaccine was administered. As it happens, there is a Dr. Jennifer Lawrence who holds license number 12620 and practices veterinary medicine at the Santa Clara Pet Hospital in Santa Clara, California; the problem, though, is that Dr. Lawrence——who, prior to this proceeding, had never heard of Respondent——credibly testified that she neither examined Uno nor signed the inspection form. What is more, Dr. Lawrence's testimony establishes that Uno has never been examined or treated by any veterinarian employed at the Santa Clara Pet Hospital. In other words, the veterinary information handwritten on the face of Uno's inspection certificate is false. Three months later, on June 5, 2009, Respondent shipped a cat named "Beau" by commercial aircraft from Florida to a purchaser in Texas. The "State of California" inspection certificate accompanying the shipment listed Respondent's name and address, the purchaser's contact information, and the cat's name, age, and gender. Although the inspection certificate's handwritten notations also indicate that Dr. Jennifer Lawrence examined Beau at the Santa Clara Pet Hospital (on June 4, 2009, a day Respondent concedes1/ he was not in California), Dr. Lawrence's credible testimony establishes, once again, that she did not sign the certificate, and, further, that the animal in question had never been evaluated or vaccinated by any veterinarian at her clinic. By all appearances, the two transactions discussed above did not result in any direct, adverse consequences to Respondent; the same cannot be said for the next sale at issue, which involved Respondent's shipment of a dachshund (identified as "Jackson") to Ms. Richards. It is undisputed that, on or about October 16, 2010, Respondent shipped Jackson by commercial airline from Florida to Missouri, where Ms. Richards resided. As with the other sales, Jackson was accompanied by a "State of California" inspection certificate that included Respondent's name and contact information, the name of the purchaser, and a description of the dog. The face of the inspection certificate also indicated that "Dr. Drew Lawrence" had examined and vaccinated Jackson at the "San Jose Animal Hospital" on October 14, 2010. (Whether such a veterinarian or clinic actually exists is of no moment, for Respondent admits that Jackson was never examined by a "Drew Lawrence" in the state of California or anywhere else.2/) The peculiarities of Jackson's inspection certificate did not go unnoticed: a short time after delivery, Ms. Richards contacted Respondent and inquired about the handwritten notations regarding the dog's purported examination and vaccination. Dissatisfied with Respondent's explanation, Ms. Richards ultimately filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Agriculture. Thereafter, on June 7, 2012, the State of Florida charged Respondent by information with three criminal offenses, all of which related to the transaction with Ms. Richards. In particular, Respondent was charged with: forgery of a certificate of veterinary inspection, a third degree felony3/ (Count I); failure to inoculate a dog or cat transported/offered for sale, a first degree misdemeanor (Count II); and failure to include a health certificate with a dog or cat offered for sale, a first degree misdemeanor4/ (Count III). Some six months later, on December 5, 2012, Respondent reached a plea agreement with the State, the terms of which called for the dismissal of Count II and the entry of no contest pleas to Counts I and III. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of the misdemeanor charge and sentenced to a probationary term of 12 months. With respect to the felony offense, the adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on probation for five years; as a special condition of that probation, Respondent was ordered to make restitution to Ms. Richards in the amount of $2,050——Jackson's approximate purchase price. Although Respondent does not deny that the three inspection certificates at issue contained illegitimate veterinary information, he asseverates that the inauthentic entries were made without his knowledge or involvement. In particular, Respondent claims that the three animals in question were examined at his residence (in Okeechobee County) by a veterinarian who operated a mobile clinic; that the veterinarian supplied the inspection certificates; that he (Respondent) filled out some of the information on each of the forms, such as his name and address, the identities of the purchasers, and the names of the animals; and that the mobile veterinarian was responsible for the bogus vaccination and examination entries, which Respondent asserts he never saw. For a multitude of reasons, Respondent's explanation is rejected. First, Respondent's claim that he has no recollection of the mobile veterinarian's identity or the name of the clinic (a business he purportedly used on at least three occasions over a span of more than 19 months) is dubious at best. Further, it is highly improbable that Respondent could have managed to fill out some of the information at the top of each form——which he concedes he did——without taking notice of the headers reading "State of California." If that were not enough, Respondent's version of the events contemplates, incredibly, that the mobile veterinarian, on his or her own accord and without Respondent's involvement, affixed (to two of the forms) "Jennifer Lawrence" and "Santa Clara Pet Hospital"——a veterinarian and animal clinic used by Margaret Peat, a longtime acquaintance of Respondent's and a person with whom Respondent has co-owned various animals.5/ Finally, the record contains written statements from Respondent, albeit in connection with different transactions than the three at issue in this matter, which reflect his willingness to utilize illegitimate inspection certificates. For instance, on March 1, 2010, Respondent posted, via Facebook, the following message to Ms. Peat concerning an impending shipment of two dogs, "Blossom" and "Dimitri": That would be the perfect home for Blossie. I have a show 12-14 of March but I can run her to the airport any other day. I'd like to ship Dimitri at the same time to you so that I can combine the trip and the shipping. . . . PBI is the airport, use West Palm Beach and use Continental or Delta. I think both do prepay. I will use two of the blank health certificates you gave me so there will not be a charge for that . . . . Petitioner's Exhibit 23A, p. 16 (emphasis added). Subsequently, on April 19 and May 3, 2011, Respondent wrote as follows to a buyer identified as Jacqulyn Waggoner: Sorry for the delay. . . . I can have [the dog] out this Friday. The crate you used is way too small so I'll buy the next size up. I will do a health certificate from another dog so expenses will stay at a minimum. * * * So is [the flight] paid and confirmed? I'm sending [the dog] with a fake health certificate so you don't have a charge on that. Petitioner's Exhibit 22, pp. 392-393; 399 (emphasis added).6/ Based upon the findings detailed above, it is determined that Respondent was aware of, and responsible for, the illegitimate notations to the three inspection certificates in question.7/ Other Allegations As noted previously, the Complaint further alleges that Respondent has inappropriately utilized the title "doctor" in connection with his service as a dog judge for the American Kennel Club ("AKC"), and that such conduct occurred during his term of employment with the School Board. The first documented instance of such behavior occurred in 2002, when Respondent submitted several applications to the AKC for placement on its registry of dog judges. In one of the applications, dated March 28, 2002, Respondent wrote his name as: "John S. Contoupe, DR." The other application reads, similarly, "John S. Contoupe DR." Not surprisingly, the AKC identifies Respondent in its directory of judges as "Dr. John S. Contoupe." Subsequently, in late 2010 or early 2011, Respondent traveled to Russia to judge a dog show for an international organization. Upon his return, Respondent drafted an article (for a hunting publication of some sort) in which he described his overseas experience. The article, which Respondent disseminated to the publisher by e-mail using his School Board account, contained the following closing: "Respectfully, Dr. John S. Contoupe."8/ Respondent's inappropriate use of the title "doctor" has not been limited to written expression. Indeed, an acquaintance of Respondent's in the dog show community, Marianne McCullough, credibly testified that, during their first meeting in or around 2010, Respondent introduced himself as "doctor." Ms. McCullough further recounted, again credibly, that she has observed other persons address Respondent as "doctor" on various occasions and that Respondent never corrected them. Another witness called by the School Board, Mary Boyle (who likewise met Respondent at a dog show roughly four years ago), testified truthfully that she believed——erroneously, as she later found out——that Respondent held a doctoral degree, that she would introduce him to others as "doctor," and that Respondent never corrected her. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office by virtue of his violation of School Board Policy 6.301(3)(b)(vii), a provision that subjects an employee to discipline, including termination, upon a conviction for any criminal act that constitutes a misdemeanor. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of immorality, as that offense is defined by the State Board of Education. Although Respondent's use of the title "doctor" and falsification of the inspection certificates were unquestionably dishonest, there has been no showing that such behavior, which occurred outside the presence of students, brought the education profession into public disgrace or impaired Respondent's service to the community. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of gross insubordination. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the disposition of Respondent's criminal offenses did not involve a conviction for, or plea of guilty to, a crime involving moral turpitude.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding Respondent: guilty of violating School Board Policy 6.301(3)(b)(vii); guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2); not guilty of immorality; not guilty of gross insubordination; and not guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. It is further RECOMMENDED that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2013.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession, specifically Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him pursuant to Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Chavero holds a Florida Educator's Certificate that is currently valid. Chavero was employed as a public school teacher in the Dade County School District at all times pertinent to this proceeding. In the 1999-2000 school year, Chavero taught English and math at Braddock. All of his students were enrolled in an Alternative Education Program known as the STARS Program. The STARS Program is offered as a last resort to students who, because of bad behavior, poor grades, or other problems, need extra assistance and attention to remain in school. If a student in the STARS Program fails to perform satisfactorily, he or she may be expelled. Chavero believed that student misconduct and a general lack of discipline at Braddock (and other schools) were preventing pupils from learning and teachers from teaching. Consistent with his pedagogic philosophy, Chavero aspired to teach his students not only the content of a course but also such social skills as proper behavior, dress, and manners. Braddock's Principal, Dr. Donald Hoecherl, disagreed with Chavero's view that behavior and social skills should be taught in the classroom. Principal Hoecherl told Chavero not to teach his students how to conduct themselves in socially acceptable ways. Apparently, the principal's admonition reflected the administration's sensitivity to the perceived "low self-esteem" of students in the STARS Program. Chavero was expected to be flexible and to refrain from confronting students or "coming on too strong" with them. This type of teaching was completely out of character for Chavero. Predictably, he was not able to abandon the authoritarian style that suited his personality and beliefs. As a result, Chavero developed a reputation as a strict disciplinarian — but "nothing out of the ordinary," in the words of V. D., a former student who testified against him at hearing. Transcript ("T-") 49. Indeed, according to this same student, Chavero's classroom rules were "pretty much the same" as other teachers'. T-49. Students began to complain, however, that Chavero was making too frequent use of a form of punishment called an “exclusion.” An exclusion is a temporary in-school suspension that the teacher may impose when a student is disrupting the class. Upon being excluded, the misbehaving student must leave the classroom and spend the remainder of the period in detention at another location. Assistant Principal Jane Garraux investigated the student complaints and concluded that Chavero’s use of the exclusion was excessive. She also determined that most of Chavero’s students (as many as 70 percent) were failing his classes. By comparison, other teachers in the STARS Program were giving passing grades to between 80 and 95 percent of their students. Following her investigation, the assistant principal initiated an evaluation of Chavero in November 1999 that led to the identification of performance deficiencies in the area of classroom control. He was placed on a 90-day performance probation and, as a result, needed to correct the identified deficiencies within that period or face termination of employment. See Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes. While on performance probation, Chavero was observed and evaluated several times. In the opinion of his assessors, Chavero’s performance continued to be unsatisfactory. In February 2000, he resigned. 2/ The Commissioner sought to prove that, in the months leading to his resignation, Chavero: (a) refused, on occasion, to answer students’ questions about lessons and assignments; (b) used the exclusion tool excessively, in relation to other teachers in the STARS Program; (c) demanded more from his students in terms of academic performance and classroom decorum than his colleagues were requiring; and (d) became angry and raised his voice in class at times. This is not a proceeding to terminate Chavero’s employment, however, and poor performance does not constitute a basis for discipline under Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes — not, at least, without more than has been shown here. 3/ Therefore, even if all the general deficiencies in Chavero’s performance that the Commissioner attempted to prove at hearing were found to have existed, none amounts to a violation either of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) or of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. There were, however, two specific occasions on which Chavero allegedly lost his temper and threatened the physical safety of a student or students. Together, these particular instances are the heart of the Commissioner’s case against Chavero and therefore require closer scrutiny. The First Period Incident On January 27, 2000, Chavero gave his first period class a mid-term examination. Near the end of the period, Chavero allowed the students who had completed the test to talk quietly, provided they would not bother the few who were still working. V. D. and J. A., who were sitting together in the back of the room, began conversing with one another. The class soon began to get loud, and Chavero told the students to be quiet. He held up V. D. and J. A. as an example of how he would like the class to behave, saying: "Why can't you guys whisper like J. A. and V. D." The class momentarily calmed down but quickly became noisy again. Chavero began to get angry. He told the students to lower their voices. V. D. continued to talk, and Chavero yelled at her to be quiet. Instead of obeying, V. D. denied that she had been talking loudly, which caused Chavero to yell at her some more. V. D. asked Chavero not to scream at her; he did not stop. At some point during this exchange, V. D. said to Chavero: “What the f*** is your problem?” Enraged, Chavero slammed his fist on a desk and moved quickly toward V. D. Some students, including V. D. and J. A., recall that as Chavero approached V. D., he raised his open hand, palm facing forward, as if to strike her. A number of other students, however, in written statements prepared on January 27, 2000, made no mention of the teacher’s raised hand. For his part, Chavero adamantly denied having raised his hand against V. D. V. D.’s immediate reaction suggests that she was not intimidated or frightened by Chavero’s rapid approach, regardless where his hand was. V. D. testified that she “lost [her] temper,” “got up and . . . exchanged a few words” with Chavero. T-55. More important, it is undisputed that Chavero did not touch V. D. Rather, he returned to his desk at the front of the class to write a “referral” — that is, a written account of V. D.’s misconduct that would be provided to the assistant principal for further handling. V. D. gathered her belongings and left the room. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to hit V. D. or to cause her unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that V. D. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that V. D. was in danger of likely being harmed in Chavero’s classroom on January 27, 2000. As a result, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety. The Third Period Incident R. G. was a student in Chavero’s third period math class. R. G.’s academic performance was extremely poor, and he frequently was excluded for bad behavior. He was defiant and aggressive, openly challenged Chavero’s authority, and, on at least one occasion, threw staples at the teacher. One day — the precise date of this event is not clear, but it apparently occured after January 27, 2000 — R. G. was in Chavero’s class, sitting in the back, not doing his assignment. Because R. G. was refusing to do his schoolwork, Chavero wrote a referral to send him to the assistant principal. R. G. testified that before Chavero wrote the referral, he had insulted R. G. by saying that his (R. G.’s) mother was raising an animal. However, another of Chavero’s former students named F. V., who witnessed this particular incident and testified at hearing on the Commissioner’s behalf, did not hear Chavero make this remark to R. G. Indeed, F. V. testified that he had never heard Chavero make rude or disrespectful comments to his students, nor had he observed Chavero become angry with the class. Chavero denied having insulted R. G., and the evidence supports his denial. After Chavero had filled out the referral, R. G. rose from his seat and approached Chavero’s desk. R. G. reached out to snatch the referral from Chavero’s hand in a manner that, according to F. V., was apparently intended “just to . . . annoy” Chavero. T-93. Specifically, as R. G. grabbed for the referral, he made a feint toward Chavero’s grade book. As F. V. explained, it was well known that Chavero “didn’t like it when people touched [his] grade book.” T-93. In the process, R. G. may have hit Chavero’s hand, although he denied having done so. Reacting to R. G.’s provocative act, Chavero slapped R. G.’s hand away. R. G. was neither injured nor embarrassed by this. Rather, he became angry and began yelling and cursing at Chavero, insulting him. Both R. G. and F. V. recalled that Chavero then said to R. G., “Oh, hit me if you’re a man,” or words to that effect. Chavero, however, testified that his exact statement to R. G. was: “[I]f you try to be physical you’ll get in trouble.” T-124. Chavero was the most credible witness of the three. After Chavero warned R. G. not to become physical, R. G. left the classroom. The Commissioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Chavero intended either to harm R. G. or to cause him unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; that R. G. suffered any physical or emotional injury or felt embarrassed or degraded; or that R. G. was in danger of likely being hurt in Chavero’s classroom on the day of the third period incident. To the contrary, it appears that R. G.’s aggressive and provocative behavior may have threatened Chavero’s physical safety. Consequently, it cannot be said without hesitancy that the conditions in Chavero's classroom that day were harmful to learning or to a student's mental or physical health or safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent Armando M. Chavero. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of February, 2001.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as alleged in the letter from Duval County School Board dated May 25, 2017; and, if so, the appropriate disciplinary action.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Duval County, Florida. Art. IX, § (4)(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell is a teacher covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between Duval Teachers United and the Duval County School Board for 2014-2017. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was a teacher assigned to Hyde Grove. During the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach second-grade students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2016-2017 staff handbook which required staff members to strive to achieve ethical conduct and to familiarize themselves with the Code of Ethics. Teachers are trained to avoid touching students aggressively and to avoid leaving students unsupervised. The staff handbook provides that students should not be left unsupervised in a classroom or other area. The policy also provides that no student should be sent to the playground without teacher supervision. Ms. Sapp, the principal of Hyde Grove, provided training to the staff during pre-planning training and orientation week. One of those trainings was on Ethics and Professionalism. The training in-service record reflects that Respondent completed the training. During the training, Ms. Sapp provided guidelines for interaction with students and demonstrated the training principles. To avoid aggressive touching of students, she gave examples as follows: “[i]f a student falls down to the floor, pouting, as children would do, . . . basically ask for them to get up, but, rule of thumb, just not to put your hands on the student.” Ms. Sapp testified that teachers could exercise various strategies to diffuse a situation with a student engaged in disruptive behavior. Teachers are trained to create distance between the child who is being disruptive and the adult, until someone else could remove that child. Another strategy is to transfer the disruptive student to the partner-teacher for time- out. A teacher could also send the classroom partner for help or call the administration for assistance. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that her partner-teacher, Ms. Hinton, was absent on the day of the incident so she did not use that strategy. However, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell did not otherwise use any of the suggested strategies during the incident with the student. The facts that serve as the basis for this case occurred in April 2017. On April 20, 2017, at approximately 2:45 p.m., classes were preparing for afternoon dismissal. At around the same time, Ms. Jones, the Team-Up instructor arrived at the classroom she shared with Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. Team-Up is an after-school program that provides academic enrichment, arts and crafts, and homework assistance. The Team-Up program operates from 2:55 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. each day. As she entered the classroom, Ms. Jones saw Ms. Stripling-Mitchell talking to students to prepare them for dismissal. The students were working on the iReady program using laptops. Respondent was working with three students who were seated in the back left corner of the classroom. Ms. Jones noticed that J.K. was being noncompliant with Ms. Stripling- Mitchell’s requests to continue working on the iReady program. As a result of the disruptive behavior, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell directed the student to return his laptop to the laptop cart and leave her classroom. The student continued to be disruptive and stated that he was not going to leave. Ms. Jones heard Ms. Stripling-Mitchell say, “[l]et me help you out with it,” and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell led the student by his left arm to the front of the classroom. Ms. Jones also heard the student say, “[n]o. I didn’t do anything. Get your hands off me.” While the student walked with Respondent side by side, he continued to resist. When the two arrived at the front of the classroom, the student turned and faced Respondent. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell bent over toward the student’s face. Her face was a few inches from the student’s. Ms. Jones saw Ms. Stripling-Mitchell pointing and waving her finger in the student’s face while saying, "[w]hat did your mother tell you? Didn't she tell you to respect me? I'm going to call your mother and she's going to beat your butt." Ms. Jones testimony about this statement is different in her written statement, which states, “[M]s. Stripling-Mitchell said, What did your mother tell you about being disruptive? What did your mother tell you about being disrespectful to me? I am going to call your mother and tell her everything you have done here today so she can get on your butt!” Ms. Jones was at the back of the room, near the sink, on the opposite side of the room from Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student. Although the statements are different, the difference is of minor significance. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell threatened to call the student’s parent while she and J.K. were at the front of the classroom and in front of other students. The student in turn yelled at Respondent to get out of his face. At the same time, he raised the laptop above his head and swung it at Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. Respondent blocked the laptop and took it from the student. The student then attempted to punch Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. She dropped the laptop and blocked his punch. Although Ms. Jones witnessed the events, she had not intervened to assist Ms. Stripling-Mitchell at this point. Ms. Jones contacted the administration office two times, but the teachers did not receive assistance in the classroom. After Ms. Stripling-Mitchell struggled with the student, she restrained him against one of the two dry-erase boards using her hand and forearm. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was directly facing the student with her back to the classroom, and the student’s back was against the dry-erase board. Ms. Jones testified that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student continued to argue and they moved along the dry-erase board laterally, for approximately eight feet. Ultimately, Ms. Jones separated Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student. Ms. Jones walked the student to Ms. Sapp’s office. During the walk to the principal’s office, the student complained of shortness of breath and was breathing heavily. Ms. Sapp was notified that a student was in her office and there was an issue she needed to address. Ms. Sapp testified that when she initially saw the student, he was crying, huffing and puffing, and breathing hard. When Ms. Sapp asked what happened, the student told Ms. Sapp that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell placed her hands around his throat and that he could not breathe. After J.K. told his account of the incident, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell arrived in the office. Ms. Sapp then met with J.K. and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. During the meeting, J.K. repeated that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choked him. Ms. Stripling- Mitchell interrupted J.K. and engaged him in reenactment of the incident. The reenactment consisted of Ms. Stripling-Mitchell demonstrating how she restrained the student using her hand near his neck. Ms. Sapp then stopped the reenactment and asked the student to wait outside her office. Ms. Sapp told Ms. Stripling-Mitchell she should not touch the children, and Ms. Stripling acknowledged in agreement this was the school policy. Ms. Sapp testified that it was unacceptable for Ms. Stripling-Mitchell to instruct the student to leave her class and go sit at the picnic bench without supervision. Ms. Sapp finished her meeting with Ms. Stripling- Mitchell, and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell returned to her classroom. Before Ms. Sapp met with J.K. and Ms. Stripling- Mitchell, she contacted the Office of Professional Standards for guidance regarding the appropriate next step. Ms. Sapp was advised to obtain statements regarding the incident. Ms. Sapp later asked Ms. Jones to send students who had knowledge of the incident to her office. After speaking with the students, Ms. Sapp asked the students to write statements about the incident as requested by the Office of Professional Standards. The statements were provided to the investigator conducting the investigation of the allegations, Mr. Gregory. Mr. Gregory collected the written statements and interviewed five students the day following the incident. Overall, the students provided varied descriptions of what happened. Mr. Gregory also conducted an interview of Ms. Jones, a portion of which occurred in the classroom, and requested that she provide a written statement. In addition to obtaining witness statements, Mr. Gregory researched Ms. Stripling-Mitchell’s discipline history. He discovered that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell had been the subject of prior investigations that resulted in disciplinary action. On May 18, 2012, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was investigated for use of profanity, demeaning, and derogatory communication directed toward employees. She was issued a written reprimand, a Step II disciplinary action. In December 2016, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was involved in an incident with a different student that is of direct relevance to this proceeding. In that incident, a parent complained about Ms. Stripling-Mitchell’s interaction with their child. It was determined that during an interaction with a disruptive student, Respondent pushed that student to the floor and verbally reprimanded him in front of other students. The incident resulted in the child being subject to embarrassment and physical aggression. On January 9, 2017, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was issued a written reprimand, her second Step II disciplinary action. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was also directed to seek assistance from the Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”) to obtain training on strategies for deescalating situations. After the interviews and review of the statements, Mr. Gregory concluded that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell used inappropriate physical contact with J.K. by restraining him against the wall with her hand and arm against his throat, after J.K. swung the laptop at her. Although not specifically alleged in the Notice, there was a dispute whether the student was choked. Ms. Jones testified that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choked the student during the incident. However, she did not mention choking in her written statement. At hearing, Ms. Jones was confronted with a text message addressing that issue. The texts were as follows: Ms. Stripling-Mitchell: I was told that Ms. Timberlake planned or plans to call DCF or someone since J.K. told her I choked him that why he tried to hit me. LIES!! Ms. Jones: What!!! That’s a freaking lie!!! You did not choke him!!! Ms. Jones’ testimony regarding Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choking J.K. was not credible. There was also a dispute regarding whether Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist toward the student. Ms. Jones testified Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist and threatened to strike the student. Ms. Jones did not mention this allegation in her written statement provided days after the incident. Ms. Jones also did not mention this alleged observation when Mr. Gregory interviewed her. Ms. Stripling- Mitchell testified that she did not raise her fist to strike J.K. The student provided a statement describing the incident in his own words. He indicated that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell placed her hand on his neck. There was no reference in the student’s statement that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell tried to punch him. Several other students provided written statements which also did not include any indication that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell raised her fist toward the student. The undersigned finds no credible evidence that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist to strike the student. There was much discussion at hearing regarding the description and behavioral history of the student. Ms. Jones described the student as a seven-year-old, scrawny boy, standing at four feet, nine inches. She also stated that the student could be sweet, but could be provoked “if things don’t go his way, if you threaten him or when the children . . . play a game called “the dozens.”2/ Ms. Stripling-Mitchell, on the other hand, described the student as routinely disruptive and noncompliant with staff. Between October 2016 and April 2017, J.K. engaged in conduct that resulted in six referrals. The referrals involved pushing another student, attempting to trip a student multiple times, stabbing a student in the arm with a pencil, and fighting. There were no referrals that involved a confrontation with a teacher. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell provided her account of the incident at hearing. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that she became the student’s teacher in August 2016. Shortly after he became her student, she became aware of his disruptive behavior. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell had a practice of telling J.K., “[I]’m going to call your mom if you don’t settle down,” to encourage him to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior. On April 20, 2017, Respondent was working with three students on the iReady system when she heard someone say “[t]he folder hit me.” When she approached a group of three boys, including J.K., one student said, “J.K. just hit me with a folder.” Ms. Stripling-Mitchell instructed the boys to get back to work. Before she returned to her seat, she heard someone say “Stop.” She then returned to J.K. and told him, “[y]ou’re going to need to go sit on the picnic table.” J.K. agreed to return to the iReady activity. However, a short time later, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell heard a loud yell from one of the boys at J.K.’s table. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell then repeated to J.K., “[y]ou’re going to have to leave.” Ms. Stripling-Mitchell recalls that Ms. Jones arrived and sat at a table in the opposite corner of the room and began changing her shoes. During this time, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell continued to engage in a back-and-forth exchange with J.K. Similar to Ms. Jones’ account of the incident, J.K. swung the laptop at Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and she blocked it. Then, J.K. tried to punch her, which she also blocked. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that after she blocked his punch, J.K. continued to attack her by trying to throw her to the floor. She testified that she had to restrain him against the dry-erase board to avoid falling. It is disputed whether the student continued to attack Ms. Stripling-Mitchell after she took the laptop and blocked his punch. Ms. Jones testified the student was not attacking Ms. Stripling-Mitchell, but rather he was trying to get away while Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was restraining him. On the other hand, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that the student was trying to “flip” her, which is why she restrained him. The undersigned finds Ms. Jones’ testimony more credible. After J.K.’s failed attempt to punch her, there was no evidence of a threat for which Ms. Stripling-Mitchell needed to defend herself. Even if there was a threat, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell inappropriately touched J.K. by restraining him against the dry-erase board using her hand against his neck area. Ultimate Findings of Fact Overall, the credible evidence demonstrates that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell restrained the student against the dry- erase board using her hand near his neck. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she told the student that his mother was going to discipline him at home for his behavior in front of other students. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she instructed the student to leave her classroom to sit at the picnic bench.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Duval County School Board, enter a final order sustaining the Step III written reprimand and suspension without pay disciplinary action imposed against Respondent, Stephanie Stripling-Mitchell, as an instructional employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 12th day of December, 2017.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent had just cause to suspend Petitioner for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that the School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was employed full-time with the School Board as a teacher and held a professional service contract. Mr. Boundy had been a teacher with the School Board for 15 years. In his professional career, Mr. Boundy had been a teacher, then had practiced law in the State of Florida for 15 years, and had become a teacher again. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was assigned to Nautilus Middle School, hereinafter Nautilus, in the Miami-Dade County’s school district. He was assigned to teach science. On September 30, 2005, Mr. Boundy was teaching his science class at Nautilus. He was having problems with one particular student, D. M., who was approximately 14 years of age.1 D. M. had just returned to class from being on indoor suspension, for cutting class. Earlier that day, after having returned from indoor suspension, D. M. had been involved in a physical altercation, a “minor”2 fight, and Mr. Boundy counseled him. At lunch time, another teacher broke-up a fight between D. M. and another student; Mr. Boundy counseled him again. Mr. Boundy determined that the first fight did “not” warrant a “write-up” and that the second fight perhaps “may” have warranted a write-up but that he decided not to do so.3 After lunch, while in Mr. Boundy’s class, D. M. had another fight with a student, which was D. M.’s third fight that day. Mr. Boundy has a policy in his class that, “after three strikes, you’re out,”4 therefore, instead of counseling D. M. again, Mr. Boundy determined that a “write-up” was warranted and that D. M. had to leave his class. Mr. Boundy told D. M. to leave the class and go to the office. Before leaving the class, D. M. began spraying perfume and then walked out into the hallway but did not go the office. Mr. Boundy observed D. M. still outside in the hallway. When Mr. Boundy walked out of his class into the hallway, he observed D. M spraying perfume in the hallway. Mr. Boundy asked D. M. to give the perfume to him (Mr. Boundy). D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy at which time Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.’s hand and pulled it behind his (D. M.’s) back and told D. M. that he (D. M.) needed to go to the office. The hallway outside of Mr. Boundy’s classroom is equipped with a surveillance camera, which recorded the interaction between Mr. Boundy and D. M. after the contact described above. The surveillance camera does not record as a regular video camera but records as a series of snapshots or still pictures approximately every second, with gaps in between the snapshots; therefore, the surveillance camera fails to reveal completely what happens within a segment of time.5 As a result of the gaps in between snapshots of the surveillance camera, the testimony of witnesses is crucial in determining what happened. While in the hallway, the surveillance camera shows Mr. Boundy’s back to it and D. M. directly in front of him in such close proximity as if their bodies were touching. Mr. Boundy testified that he took D. M. by the arms and was directing him toward the doors leading to the office. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found to be credible. Subsequently, while also in the hallway, the surveillance camera, in several snapshots, shows Mr. Boundy and D. M. separated, with D. M. facing Mr. Boundy, who testified that D. M. wrestled away from him. The surveillance camera also shows, in one snapshot, Mr. Boundy’s left hand on D. M.’s right shoulder and, in another snapshot, D. M. moving back toward the classroom. Mr. Boundy testified that D. M. was going back to the classroom without his (Mr. Boundy’s) permission. D. M. admitted that he was returning to the classroom without Mr. Boundy’s permission. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found credible. Further snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy grabbing D. M. by the arms and shoulder area, when D. M. gets close to the classroom, and pushing D. M. down the hallway; and shows some students observing the conduct in the hallway. Also, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy and D. M. exiting the exit doors at the stairwell, with Mr. Boundy continuing to hold D. M.’s arms. After they go through the exit doors, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy releasing D. M. and watching D. M. go down the stairs. Mr. Boundy testified that he told D. M. to go to the office. D. M. does not deny that Mr. Boundy told him to go to the office at that point. D. M. went to the main office. The school counselor, Amy Magney, talked with D. M., who was loud and appeared to be agitated. Ms. Magney observed marks on D. M.’s arms and the back of his neck, which she described as “very red.” D. M. informed Ms. Magney that Mr. Boundy’s forceful touching had caused the red marks. Ms. Magney took D. M. to the assistant principal, Ms. Gonsky, who observed marks on D. M.’s arms, which were red, and marks on D. M.’s the neck, shoulder area, which Ms. Gonsky described as a “little red.” Mr. Boundy admits, and at no time did he deny, that he grabbed D. M. by the arms and shoulder area. For example, at the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, Mr. Boundy admitted that he held D. M.’s arms by the back directing him towards the stairs. A detective of the School Board’s police department reviewed the snapshots by the surveillance camera. From the detective’s observation, he determined that Mr. Boundy did not take any malicious action against D. M.; that D. M. was resisting Mr. Boundy; that, at one point, D. M. made an aggressive action against Mr. Boundy; and that Mr. Boundy was “directing, escorting” D. M. through the exit doors. D. M. testified that Mr. Boundy also grabbed him around the neck. Mr. Boundy denies that he grabbed or touched D. M.’s neck but admits that he grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area. V. V., a student in Mr. Boundy’s class, testified that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. by the neck, pushing D. M. out of the classroom. Also, the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, indicates that the same student stated that, while Mr. Boundy and D. M. were in the hallway, D. M. swung at Mr. Boundy and struck him in the chest. Mr. Boundy denies that he was struck by D. M. and D. M. denies that he struck Mr. Boundy. V. V.’s testimony is not found to be credible. The snapshots by the surveillance camera do not show Mr. Boundy grabbing or touching D. M.’s neck. Ms. Magney was the first person in the school's office to observe the marks, and when she saw the marks on the back of D. M.’s “neck,” the marks were “very red”; however, when Ms. Gonsky, the second person in the school's office to observe the marks, the marks around the “neck, shoulder area” were a “little red.” Further, D. M. had been in two physical altercations before the incident with Mr. Boundy and the last altercation had occurred at lunch time. Ms. Gonsky’s account of the location of the red marks is not inconsistent with Mr. Boundy’s testimony, regarding the shoulder area. Additionally, when Ms. Gonsky observed the marks at the neck, shoulder area, they were a little red, not red or very red. The undersigned finds Mr. Boundy’s and Ms. Gonsky’s testimony and account more credible regarding the marks being at the shoulder area, not the neck. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area and that the marks at the shoulder area were caused by Mr. Boundy and were a little red. No dispute exists that D. M. was being disruptive. Mr. Boundy had counseled D. M. on two occasions that same day for fighting. D. M. had committed a third strike by fighting again in Mr. Boundy's class, and according to Mr. Boundy's classroom policy of which the students were aware, the third strike meant that the student was leaving the classroom and going to the school's office. Mr. Boundy was going to write-up D. M. for the incident but did not do so. Before he could write-up D. M., Mr. Boundy was summoned to the school's office after the administrators in the office observed the marks and heard D. M.'s version of the incident. At the beginning of each school year, the principal of Nautilus, Caridad Figueredo, has an opening meeting, consisting of two days. At the opening meeting, among other things, Ms. Figueredo notifies the Nautilus' faculty that they must comply with the rules of the School Board and the Code of Ethics, and some of the rules are reviewed with the faculty. Further, at the opening meeting, Nautilus' faculty is provided a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Nautilus' faculty signs an acknowledgement that they understand that they are responsible for becoming knowledgeable about the rules and adhering to them. Mr. Boundy signed an acknowledgement and received a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Regarding physical contact, Ms. Figueredo indicates at the opening meeting that the School Board prohibits using physical contact to maintain discipline or to affect a student’s behavior. As a result, at the opening meeting, she informs Nautilus' faculty, and stresses to them, that they should not use physical force or, generally, to come in physical contact with the students. However, as to coming into physical contact with students, an exception is recognized and allowed in the touching of a student by a teacher if the teacher has a rapport with the student and the student has no objection to or approves of the teacher just tapping him or her. That exception is not applicable in the instant case. Nautilus had a 2005-2006 Faculty and Staff Handbook, hereinafter Handbook. The Handbook contained a Progressive Discipline Plan, hereinafter Plan, for teachers to use when they encounter disruptive students. The Plan contained several steps of action, which provided in pertinent part: Step I: Teacher The teacher may handle discipline in the following ways (list not inclusive): Move close to the student – use verbal and/or non-verbal techniques to correct behavior problems * * * Speak with the student on a one-to-one basis * * * Contact parent (verbal and/or written) Hold parent or student/parent conference PLEASE NOTE: Parent contact is REQUIRED before a referral can be made to the administration. Only disciplinary problems involving infractions of the Code of Student Conduct Group III or higher (fighting . . .) may be directly referred to the administration using a case management form. * * * Step IV: Referring Students For Administrative Action Students should be sent directly to the appropriate administrator only when critical incidents occur such as fighting . . . Please use your emergency button to request for[sic] assistance. If a student becomes disruptive and you request removal the administrator will take the appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary according to the Code of Student Conduct and provide teachers immediate feedback. (emphasis in original) The Handbook also contained a section entitled “Things To Remember When Dealing With A Student,” which provided in pertinent part: 4. DON’T: Snatch things away from students. Become confrontational. Physically block an exit. Argue or get on the student’s level. Shout or put them down. Disrespect them. * * * 6. Use common sense regarding touching students: Be aware that affectionate gestures may be misconstrued. Avoid physical contact of any kind in situations involving you and student (i.e. where there are no witnesses). Additionally, the Handbook contained a section entitled “How to Avoid Legal Complications as an Educator,” which provided in pertinent part: Respect the space of others. Do not place your hands on students. * * * Know the laws, School Board policies and school rules, and follow them. * * * Corporal punishment is prohibited in Miami- Dade County Public Schools. Treat each student with respect. Establish a policy regarding discipline. Distribute the policy to students and parents at the beginning of the year or when the students begin your class. The School Board has established “Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment,” which provides in pertinent part: Purpose of the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment This document, Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment, is incorporated by reference and is a part of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Maintenance of Appropriate Student Behavior. It has been prepared to assist school administrators in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. These procedures and directions are set forth to guide and promote orderly and productive participation of students in school life and support the achievement of Florida's education goal for school safety and environment, Section 229.591(3)(e), F.S. Student actions and behaviors that can be defined as disruptive and/or threatening must be dealt with according to Florida Statutes, and Florida Board of Education and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules. This manual contains information necessary to assist school administrators in making the most appropriate decisions and taking warranted action in promoting maintaining a safe learning environment. * * * Administrators, counselors, and appropriate staff are expected to become familiar with this document, to review it periodically, and to utilize it according to its inherent purpose -- promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As the administration and staff at each school site address the requirements of current Miami- Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) guidelines, they should also review modifications of requirements related to school discipline and school safety as established by the Florida Legislature. * * * GUIDELINE #39: REMOVAL OF STUDENT FROM CLASS AND POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF THE STUDENT BY THE TEACHER CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: Florida Statutes and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules allow for teachers to remove a disruptive student from class if the behavior of the student has an adverse effect on the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with students or the ability of the students to learn. Section 232.271, F.S., provides for the right of the teacher to refuse to accept a student back to class who has been removed for disruptive behavior which adversely affects the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with the students or with the ability of the students to learn. Provisions for Exceptional Students: The Placement Review Committee shall refer to the IEP team all exclusion requests for students from exceptional education classes. Temporary Removal from Class 1. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive, prior to the student's return to class, a report describing corrective action(s) taken. Guidelines for implementing this provision shall be developed by each Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC). Code of Student Conduct Infractions The principal or designee will follow the Code of Student Conduct on all disciplinary matters. Only those disciplinary problems which disrupt a teacher's instruction, when the teacher requests the student's permanent removal from class, shall be referred to the Placement Review Committee, if the request is not resolved by the principal. A CFR was held on November 15, 2005. A Summary of the CFR was prepared and provides in pertinent part: [Mr. Boundy was asked]: 'Did you touch the student?' [Mr. Boundy] replied: 'Yes and it will never happen again.' * * * The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you [Mr. Boundy] during the conference: Adhere to all M-DCPS [Miami-Dade County Public Schools] rules and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Rules [sic] 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Cease and desist from utilizing physical means to effect the behavior of students. * * * During the conference, you [Mr. Boundy] were directed to comply with and were provided copies of the following School Board Rules: 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties 6Gx13-4A-1.213, The Code of Ethics You [Mr. Boundy] were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's [School Board's] concern for any behavior, which adversely affects this level of professionalism. You [Mr. Boundy] were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. . . . Further, attached to the Summary of the CFR was "Guideline #9: Corporal Punishment, Current Law and/or Practice, from the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment," which provides in pertinent part: GUIDELINE #9: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS PROHIBITED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. . . . Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), F.S., defines corporal punishment as: . . . the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rule. However, the term 'corporal punishment' does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary for self-protection or to protect other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with the Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331, Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students and Article VIII of the Contract Between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to Mr. Boundy’s going into the hallway, to confront D. M., alternative avenues were available to Mr. Boundy for sending D. M. to the school's office without confronting him in the hallway. Nautilus has a protocol that, whenever a teacher is unable to control a disruptive student by using classroom management techniques, the teacher can press a security button, located in the classroom, and a security monitor or an administrator will immediately come to the classroom. The security monitor or administrator will assess the situation and remove the disruptive student. Mr. Boundy failed to use this established protocol. The undersigned does not find credible the testimony given on alternative methods of dealing with D. M., as a disruptive student, in terms of in-school suspension, student mediation, conflict resolution, parent involvement, alternative education, suspension, and expulsion as being applicable to the instant case. These alternatives are available after the student is removed from the classroom to the school's office; they fail to address the immediate removal of the physical presence of a disruptive student from the classroom. The exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline Nos. 9 and 39, regarding the use of physical restraint techniques for situations involving Exceptional Student Education (ESE), is not applicable to the instant case. Mr. Boundy's class was not an ESE class, and D. M. was not an ESE student. Also, the exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline No. 9, regarding situations to protect other students, is not applicable to the instant case. None of the other students in Mr. Boundy's class were in harm's way or needed protection in the hallway outside Mr. Boundy's classroom. However, the exception to corporal punishment in a situation for self-protection, i.e., the protection of Mr. Boundy from D. M., was applicable in the instant case. When D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy, Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.'s arms and put his (D. M.'s) arms behind his back; at that instant, Mr. Boundy was in need of self-protection and he (Mr. Boundy) acted appropriately. But, the evidence fails to demonstrate that, after Mr. Boundy prevented D. M. from striking him, Mr. Boundy continued to be in need of self-protection. Self-protection failed to continue to exist and failed to exist during the time that Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall to the exit doors. The Administrative Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Gretchen Williams, testified that Mr. Boundy's use of physical contact in the handling of D. M. in the hallway and that the presence of red marks on D. M., exemplified excessive force, which rendered Mr. Boundy's action as a violent act. Further, she testified that Mr. Boundy's conduct was corporal punishment; that his violent act constituted unseemly conduct; and that his violent act was contrary to the School Board's prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment, which constituted unseemly conduct and was conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Williams' testimony is found to be credible. Also, the School Board's Administrative Director, Region II, DanySu Pritchett testified that Mr. Boundy's physical force constituted violence in the workplace; and that he failed to maintain the respect and confidence of the student and the value of worth and dignity of the student through the use of physical force. Further, she testified that the failure to use an alternative method of removal by using the emergency call button was poor judgment and constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Pritchett's testimony is found to be credible. Additionally, Ms. Figueredo, testified that Mr. Boundy subjected D. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by using physical force in the hallway in front of D. M.'s classmates while Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall. Further, Ms. Figueredo testified that, during the hallway incident, Mr. Boundy engaged in corporal punishment, conduct unbecoming an employee of the School Board, unseemly conduct, and poor judgment, and was not a good role model to the students and staff. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Also, Ms. Figueredo testified that Mr. Boundy's use of poor judgment and failure to use established protocol and to exemplify a good role model to the students and the staff caused Mr. Boundy to lose his effectiveness. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Pending the investigation of the incident by the School Board, Mr. Boundy was removed from the classroom. He was placed on alternative assignment, i.e., at his home. Due to Mr. Boundy's failure to follow established protocol at Nautilus for the removal of D. M. from the classroom, to the physical force used by Mr. Boundy, to the marks that were a little red and were caused by the physical force, and to the seriousness of the incident, by memorandum dated November 21, 2005, Ms. Figueredo recommended a 30-day suspension for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Ms. Pritchett agreed with the recommendation. By memorandum dated December 1, 2005, the School Board's Region Center II concurred in the recommendation. On February 28, 2006, a meeting was held with Mr. Boundy to address the forthcoming School Board's consideration of the recommendation for a 30-day suspension without pay. Those in attendance included Mr. Boundy, Ms. Williams, Ms. Pritchett, Ms. Figueredo, and a UTD representative, Mr. Molnar. The determination was that Mr. Boundy would be recommended for a 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, including but not limited to "deficient performance of job responsibilities; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; and violation of State Board Rule 6B-1.001, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment--Prohibited." By letter dated March 1, 2006, Mr. Boundy was notified by the School Board's Assistant Superintendent, among other things, that the School Board's Superintendent would be recommending, at the School Board's meeting scheduled for March 15, 2006, the 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, indicating the violations aforementioned. By letter dated March 16, 2006, the School Board's Assistant Superintendent notified Mr. Boundy, among other things, that the School Board had approved the recommendation and that he was not to report to work at Nautilus from March 16, 2006 through April 26, 2006.
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 just cause existed for the 30-day suspension, without pay, from employment of Robert Boundy. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 30th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1 on or about January 8, 1976, by possession of marijuana on school grounds.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 16 year old, 11th grade high school student attending Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida. On January 8, 1976, Respondent was found in possession of 32 grams of marijuana on the grounds of Marathon High School. (Stipulation of the Parties) On April 21, 1976, the Circuit Court of Monroe County, Florida, accepted Respondent's plea of guilty to a charge of possession of marijuana, withheld adjudication as a delinquent and placed him on probation for a period of six months under the supervision of a Youth Counselor, State of Florida Youth Services Division. Conditions of probation included a curfew, weekly meetings with the counselor and part-time employment while attending school. (Testimony of Seale) At the time of his apprehension, Respondent admitted possession of marijuana to authorities and cooperated with them by divulging its source. Respondent denies any prior arrests and, in the opinion of the Youth Counselor, he is not likely to commit an offense of this nature in the future. He has evidenced remorse and desires to continue attendance at the high school. The Youth Counselor feels that it would serve no useful purpose to prevent him from further attendance. (Testimony of Seale, Collins) Respondent is not a problem student nor is he considered to be incorrigible or a socially maladjusted child. An alternative to expulsion exists at Marathon High School in the form of a rehabilitative program for socially maladjusted children that is supervised by one instructor who exercises close supervision over the students in the program. A student who is expelled from high school may enter an evening adult education program whereby he can acquire necessary academic credits by attending evening classes. The principal of Marathon High School recommends that Respondent be expelled because of the seriousness of his offense as evidenced by the unusually large amount of marijuana. (Testimony of Gradick)
Recommendation That Respondent, Gordon Collins, be expelled from Marathon High School, Marathon, Florida, effective June 8, 1976, for violation of Monroe County District School Board Policy Rule 2.5.1, by possession of marijuana on the school grounds on or about January 8, 1976. DONE and ENTERED 14th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Glenn Archer, Jr. Assistant Superintendent Post Office Drawer 1430 Key West, Florida 33040 Peter Lenzi, Esquire Post Office Box 938 Marathon, Florida 33050
The Issue The first issue in this case is whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher abused, mistreated, or otherwise behaved inappropriately towards one of his special-needs students; if the allegations of wrongdoing are proved to be true, then it will be necessary to decide whether the school board has just cause to terminate the teacher's employment.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Edouard Jean ("Jean") was employed as an Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher in the Broward County public schools, a position which he had held for the preceding 16 years. During that period, Jean taught students with disabilities, who typically receive specially designed instruction and related services pursuant to individual educational plans. Ahead of the 2013-14 school year, Jean was transferred to Crystal Lake Middle School, where he had not previously worked. He was placed in an "SVE" class and assigned to teach ESE students having "varying exceptionalities." Jean's class contained a mix of high- and low-functioning students, about nine in number. Jean's colleague, Ray Montalbano, taught a similar SVE class in a nearby room. At the beginning of the school year, the two ESE teachers agreed to share responsibility for their respective students under an arrangement that separated the higher functioning students from the lower functioning students. Jean and Mr. Montalbano took turns teaching the two groups, exchanging one for the other at midday. In this way, each teacher spent roughly equal time with the respective sets of students. For the last hour of the day, they combined the two groups and jointly instructed the approximately 18 students in Mr. Montalbano's classroom, which was larger. There were two paraprofessionals, or teacher's assistants, working in Jean and Mr. Montalbano's SVE classes. One, named Lisa Phillips, was assigned to both teachers; she alternated between their classrooms during the day. The other, Donna Rollins, was assigned to Mr. Montalbano's class, where Jean spent an hour each afternoon. In view of the cooperative arrangement between Jean and Mr. Montalbano, both of the teacher's assistants regularly worked in the same classroom as Jean and assisted with the provision of instruction and services to the 18 students for whom Jean and Mr. Montalbano were responsible. On October 15, 2013, Jean was removed from his classroom and informed that he was the target of a criminal investigation arising from allegations that he recently had abused one of his pupils, a 13-year-old boy with Down Syndrome named Z.P., who was among the lower functioning students. Jean's accuser was an occupational therapist named Lisa Taormina, who at all relevant times worked as an independent contractor for the School Board, providing services to students at various public schools in Broward County. Jean consistently has denied Ms. Taormina's allegations, which shocked and surprised him. Ms. Taormina, who that year was seeing students at Crystal Lake Middle School once per week each Friday, reported having observed Jean mistreat Z.P. on October 4, 2013, and again on October 11, 2013. Ms. Taormina claimed that the alleged events of October 4 took place in Jean's classroom with Ms. Phillips in attendance. The alleged events of October 11, in contrast, purportedly took place in Mr. Montalbano's classroom during the hour when the two SVE classes were combined. Thus, the alleged abuse supposedly occurred in the presence of Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and a substitute teacher named Shirley Ashcroft who happened to be there that day. Ms. Taormina's allegations were investigated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office and the Broward District Schools Police Department. During these investigations, neither Z.P. nor any of the other students were interviewed, because most of them (including Z.P.) are either nonverbal or too intellectually limited to be reliable witnesses.1/ All of the adults were questioned, however, and none of them corroborated Ms. Taormina's allegations. Unsurprisingly, therefore, no criminal charges were brought against Jean. On the strength of Ms. Taormina's allegations, the School Board nevertheless determined that Jean had abused Z.P. and thus should be fired. As it happens, Ms. Taormina's final hearing testimony is the only direct evidence against Jean, whose colleagues Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and Ms. Ashcroft, to a person, credibly denied under oath having ever seen him mistreat Z.P. or any other student. The outcome of this case, therefore, depends on whether Ms. Taormina's testimony is believed likely to be an accurate account of the relevant historical events. In assessing Ms. Taormina's credibility, the undersigned finds it especially significant that Jean's co- workers, who were able to observe him for extended periods of time on a daily basis in the classroom, never witnessed him engage in any troubling or suspicious behavior during the roughly seven weeks he taught at Crystal Lake Middle School; to the contrary, everyone who testified (except Ms. Taormina) who had seen Jean in the classroom praised his performance generally, and his relationship with Z.P. in particular. The undersigned credits the consistent, mutually corroborative, and overwhelmingly favorable testimony about Jean's exemplary conduct. Because an isolated incident, however out of character, can be squared with evidence of otherwise superlative performance, the fact that Jean was well regarded by the employees with whom he closely worked does not exclude the possibility that Jean abused Z.P., but it does diminish the likelihood that he could have abused Z.P. on multiple occasions. For that reason, if Ms. Taormina claimed only to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P. once, her testimony likely would have been more believable. Ms. Taormina claims, however, to have seen Jean abuse Z.P. on two separate days——on consecutive weekly visits to the school, no less. If Ms. Taormina is to be believed, Jean's alleged abuse of Z.P. was not an isolated incident but was rather, if not necessarily part of a pattern of behavior, at least something Jean was capable of repeating. Here it bears emphasizing that Ms. Taormina saw Jean, at most, once per week for relatively brief periods of less than 30 minutes apiece. Within the context of this limited contact, Ms. Taormina (if she is believed) happened to witness Jean abuse Z.P. on back-to-back visits, while Jean's colleagues, who saw him every workday, never noticed anything amiss. Logically, there are, broadly speaking, two possible explanations for this anomalous situation. First, Jean might have abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was present in the classroom, which would explain why no one else ever saw him mistreat the student, so long as the failure of the four other adults in the room on October 11 to witness the alleged misconduct——a lack of attentiveness that defies reasonable expectations——is overlooked. Given that Ms. Taormina's brief weekly visits comprised such a tiny percentage of Jean's total time with the students, however, to abuse Z.P. only in her presence probably would have required Jean to act according to a plan, which beggars belief;2/ otherwise, Ms. Taormina's presence at the very moments that all such abuse occurred was a most remarkable coincidence. At any rate, while the probability that Jean abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was around to witness his misdeeds is perhaps greater than zero percent, the undersigned regards this explanation as far too implausible to be considered likely. Alternatively, and likelier, Jean might have abused Z.P. not only in Ms. Taormina's presence, but also in her absence. Because Ms. Taormina is the only person who has ever claimed to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P., however, to accept this explanation requires believing that Jean's co-workers never saw him abusing Z.P., or that everyone who witnessed such abuse except Ms. Taormina resolved not to report it.3/ Yet both situations are unworthy of belief. More likely than not, if Jean were abusing Z.P. at times when Ms. Taormina was not in the room, which was most of the time, then at some point over the course of seven weeks Mr. Montalbano or one of the paraprofessionals would have noticed something wrong4/——and none of them did, as found above. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine——and impossible reasonably to infer in the absence of any supporting evidence——that another teacher or paraprofessional, or some combination of these employees, would fail to report suspected child abuse and lie under oath to protect Jean. In any event, the undersigned has found that Jean's fellow employees never saw Jean abuse Z.P., which means that, in all likelihood, Jean did not abuse Z.P. when Ms. Taormina was not in the room. In sum, it is unlikely that Jean repeatedly abused Z.P. only in Ms. Taormina's presence; and yet, it is unlikely that Jean ever abused Z.P. during the vast majority of the time when Ms. Taormina was not in the room (but another adult or adults typically were). Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Jean likely never abused Z.P. at all, contrary to Ms. Taormina's allegations. The foregoing reasons are sufficient for the undersigned to reject Ms. Taormina's testimony as ultimately unpersuasive and to find that the School Board has failed to prove its allegations against Jean. Nevertheless, Ms. Taormina was a good witness in many respects. Her story has been consistent, her recollection seemingly clear, her testimony vivid and detailed. Ms. Taormina is articulate and her demeanor at hearing suggested sincerity. She had barely known Jean before the events at issue and was not shown to have had grounds to dislike him or any other motive for damaging him with false allegations of misconduct. Thus, while not necessary to the disposition, it is desirable to examine Ms. Taormina's specific accusations in greater detail. Ms. Taormina claims that on October 4, 2013, while Z.P. was lying on his back on the floor, Jean spun Z.P. around, using the student's legs as a handle for twirling the boy's body. Then, she says, Jean tapped Z.P. with a ruler to prod him into getting up from the floor. Z.P. refused to rise, and Jean resumed spinning the student. Ms. Taormina recognized that Jean and Z.P. were "playing around" and concluded nothing "abusive" had occurred, but she deemed Jean's conduct "inappropriate." As mentioned, Z.P. is cognitively limited in consequence of Down syndrome. He was also, at the time of the events at issue, aggressive, sometimes mean and abusive towards teachers, including Jean, and known to bite, scratch, kick, and spit on others. Z.P., who was a big boy, could be difficult to redirect. By October 2013, however, Jean had established a rapport with Z.P. The student liked his teacher, and Jean and Z.P. would play with each other. One activity that they enjoyed entailed Jean spinning Z.P. around——which is what Ms. Taormina observed. Except for Ms. Taormina, no one who witnessed Jean playfully spinning Z.P.——which Jean admits doing——considered this activity to be inappropriate. There is no persuasive evidence in the record establishing an objective standard of conduct that Jean might have violated when he played with Z.P. in this manner. Striking Z.P. with a ruler would be another matter, of course. Jean denies ever having done that, however, and no one but Ms. Taormina claims to have observed Jean misbehave in such fashion. The undersigned finds, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean did not hit Z.P. with a ruler on October 4, 2013, as alleged, but rather tapped the floor with it, as he testified. According to Ms. Taormina, Jean's conduct the following week, on October 11, was worse. She testified that, upon arriving in the classroom, she noticed that Jean's fingers were resting on the back of Z.P.'s neck as he (Jean) moved the student around. To Ms. Taormina, "it looked . . . like [Jean] was searching for, like, a pressure point or tender point . . . ." In fact, Jean was not searching for a pressure point, and he did not dig his fingers into a tender spot on Z.P.'s neck, which explains why no one (including Ms. Taormina) saw or heard the student cry out or grimace in pain. The undersigned credits Jean's testimony that he touched Z.P.'s back and shoulders to guide or comfort him, not to hurt him. Ms. Taormina asserted that after putting his fingers on the back of Z.P.'s neck, Jean gave Z.P. a "violent shaking" which caused Z.P.'s head to rock up and down ("just flapping back and forth") so fast that Z.P.'s features were an unrecognizable blur, but only for "just a few seconds." Somewhat incongruously, however, she characterized this "mockery" as being "more, like, playing" and noted that Jean, who was smiling, did not appear to be acting out of anger. The behavior that Ms. Taormina recounted is indeed disturbing. Yet some of the details seem a bit off. For example, although no expert testimony was presented, the undersigned's rudimentary understanding of simple biomechanics makes him think that violently shaking a passive or helpless person so hard that his features become blurry (assuming this could be accomplished in just a few seconds' time) would cause the victim's dangling head, not to flap up and down (rapidly nodding), as Ms. Taormina described, but to rotate uncontrollably. The undersigned finds it difficult, too, to imagine that such abuse could ever look "like playing." Moreover, it seems peculiar, given the number of adults in the room, that Ms. Taormina did not immediately intervene or speak up to protect Z.P., if Jean were harming the student as she has stated. More important, it is likely that a vigorous physical battery such as the attack on Z.P. that Ms. Taormina recalls would have caused a considerable commotion. And yet, even though there were four other adults in the room besides Jean and Ms. Taormina, no one but the occupational therapist noticed Jean inflicting this alleged abuse. The undersigned cannot find, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean violently shook Z.P. as alleged. This incident, therefore, was not proved. After Jean allegedly shook Z.P., according to Ms. Taormina, the student climbed up on a table, where he proceeded to eat a banana. Ms. Taormina testified that all of the students and adults in the room (except her) laughed at Z.P. when someone exclaimed that he looked like a monkey. She said that Jean then led Z.P. to a garbage can and made him spit out the piece of banana in his mouth. When Z.P. got down on the floor afterwards, said Ms. Taormina, Jean hit the student with a broom to compel him to stand and, having no success with that, lifted Z.P. by his shirt and pants and shook him a few times before standing the boy upright. Once on his feet, Z.P. wet his pants, Ms. Taormina stated. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the undersigned finds that Z.P. did, in fact, eat a banana while standing on a table. Further, Jean did hustle Z.P. to the garbage can to spit out the banana in his mouth because the boy was gagging on the fruit. The evidence does not support a finding that the adults laughed at Z.P., although one student did call him a monkey, which prompted Jean to reprimand the offender. The evidence does not support a finding that Jean struck Z.P. with a broom, an act of abuse which Jean credibly denied, or that Jean picked up Z.P. and shook him, a feat which likely could not be accomplished, given the student's size and weight, and which Jean credibly denied. Z.P. did urinate on himself, as Ms. Taormina reported, but the greater weight of the evidence establishes that this was not a response to stress, fright, or abuse, but a common occurrence. In sum, the evidence does not support a determination that Jean likely mistreated Z.P. as alleged. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of immorality as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(1).5/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(2).6/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of incompetency, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(3).7/ It is undisputed that Jean was never charged with, much less found guilty of, any crime as a result of the events which gave rise to this proceeding. Therefore, the School Board does not have just cause to terminate his employment pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for "being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order exonerating Jean of all charges brought against him in this proceeding, reinstating him as an ESE teacher, and awarding him back salary as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 23rd day of December, 2014.
