Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Bradford County School Board as a cosmetology instructor on a continuing teaching contract at the Bradford-Union Area Vocational-Technical Center (Va-Tech Center) in Starke, Florida, for the school year 1983-1984. Respondent's class was designed to prepare students to become licensed cosmetologists. On one occasion prior to Christmas, 1983, Mary Lee Wolf and Rose Smith, students of Respondent, brought an unopened bottle of wine onto the Vo-Tech Center grounds and presented it to Respondent during a class. There is no evidence that Respondent solicited the gift. Subsequently, on another date and after class hours, students Mary Lee Wolf, Tina Moyer, Bonnie Banks and Respondent's teaching aide, Helen Van Wart, opened the bottle and drank wine from cups in Respondent's presence. Respondent was served a cup, but there is no direct, credible testimony that Respondent personally consumed any wine. There is no evidence that any of those who consumed the wine were minors. In February 1984 the Ace Beauty Company, in conjunction with the Florida Cosmetology School Association, put on the Florida Sunshine Trade Show in Tampa, Florida. Attendance by students in Respondent's class at this particular trade show was encouraged by Respondent and pre-authorized by the Vo- Tech Center Director, David B. Smith, Jr. Mr. Smith made no provisions for a teacher's aide to fill in for Respondent on Monday, February 13 and Tuesday, February 14 because Respondent informed him that all but one or two of her students would be attending the trade show from February 11 through February 14, 1984. In fact, seven students did not attend and those who attended returned late February 13. On Friday, February 10, 1984, Mr. Smith approved use of the Vo-Tech Center van for Respondent's field trip, provided only Respondent drive the van. The same day, Respondent gave Mr. Smith a signed Application for Leave, requesting leave from February 11, 1984 through February 14, 1984. Past experience indicated trade shows may exceed the printed agenda. Saturday morning, February 11, 1984, Respondent and the eleven students travelling to the cosmetology show in Tampa, met in the Vo-Tech Center parking lot to board the van. While passing luggage to the Respondent for loading into the van, Bonnie Banks saw liquor bottles protruding from paper bags and remarked to Respondent that it looked like a party was planned. Respondent did not answer her Various students drank mixed alcoholic beverages from paper cups while standing near the van. Those involved took some care to shield their activities from Respondent and there is no direct credible evidence in the record to indicate Respondent was present or observed this alcoholic consumption on the school parking lot. Before climbing aboard the van, several of the students heard Respondent comment to the effect that the students were all adults and she expected them to behave that way. Some interpreted this to mean they were being given tacit permission to drink alcoholic beverages; others interpreted it as a warning either not to drink alcoholic beverages on the trip or not to let Respondent observe them drinking, if they did. Some of the students drank mixed alcoholic drinks from paper or plastic cups in the van while Respondent drove the van to Tampa. Mary Lee Wolf "tasted" some Kahlua liquor from a bottle in a brown paper bag. At one point, another liquor bottle in a brown paper bag rolled forward on the floor near Respondent in the driver's seat and Respondent passed it back to students behind her with an admonition to the effect of "keep it down back there." While it is unclear whether this comment was directed to Ms. Wolf or to someone in control of the rolling bottle, of those students who observed the bottle incident, all understood Respondent's comment to mean "don't let the liquor be seen" as opposed to "stop drinking and don't be so loud." While en route to Tampa, Respondent stopped in Gainesville, Florida, to refuel. At this stop, students Paula Tanner, Bonnie Banks, and Kay Kane left the van, purchased a six pack of beer at an adjoining convenience store and brought it back in a brown bag to the van. Respondent was in an adjoining bakery and did not see the beer loaded. Thereafter, various students drank beer from paper and plastic cups while Respondent drove the van. There is no evidence that any of these students was a minor and there is no direct, credible evidence Respondent consumed any alcoholic beverages in the van. Also at the Gainesville stop, Respondent drove from the gas pumps to another parking location without closing one of the van doors. The open door contacted the bumper of a parked car. There was little or no visual damage to the van but the students had difficulty closing the door again. Respondent had the necessary minor repair work done to the van in the Vo-Tech mechanical shop upon her return but did not report the accident to Director Smith. When Respondent unloaded the van in Tampa, several beer cans littered the van floor and a liquor bottle was dropped and broken in proximity to Respondent. Upon arrival in Tampa, Respondent registered in the Hyatt Regency Hotel, where the trade show was located. For financial reasons, several students had pre-registered in the less expensive Econo-Lodge some distance from the trade show. Respondent permitted Rose Smith to transport these students to and from the Econo-Lodge accommodations to the cosmetology show at the Hyatt Regency throughout the group's stay in Tampa. She jestingly told Rose Smith to say she was Respondent. On Sunday evening, after all educational activities ceased, Rose Smith also drove several of the students to the Confetti Lounge where they consumed alcoholic beverages. Rose Smith and some other students consumed alcoholic beverages in the van on this occasion. Respondent did not accompany the group to the Confetti Lounge. The Florida Sunshine Trade Show ended at 4:00 p.m., Monday, February 13, 1984. Respondent drove the van back to Starke that evening. During the return trip, some students complained of what they considered excessive speed. Respondent's reply to Paula Tanner's complaint was that if she did not like the ride she could get out and walk. The group arrived at the Vo-Tech campus at approximately 10:30 p.m. People were present on the grounds, in the classrooms, and in the administration offices when the cosmetology students arrived and for some time thereafter Respondent waited at the Vo-Tech Center for most of the students to be picked up. At student Lisa Morgan's request, she eventually took the remaining students home, but Ms. Morgan refused Respondent's offer to wait with her and insisted on waiting for her own ride which did not arrive until after 1:30 a.m. Tuesday morning, February 14, 1984. Respondent retained the Vo-Tech van at her home on Tuesday, February 14, 1984. On February 15, 1984, she reported for work. This is the day the van was repaired. In separate conversations with Barbara Casey, secretary to Director Smith, and with Martha Smith, (Mrs. David Smith) media specialist, Respondent gave the impression she had returned to Starke late Tuesday night. Respondent also submitted a newspaper release to that effect. On or about Friday, February 17, 1984, Respondent submitted to Director Smith a per-diem voucher requesting compensation from 9:30 a.m., February 11, 1984 to 11:00 p.m., February 14, 1984 when she had in fact returned at 10:30 p.m., February 13, 1984. At Mr. Smith's request for a supporting agenda she submitted a typed agenda for the trade show indicating activities through part of Tuesday, February 14, 1984. Four other per diem requests submitted by Respondent during the previous four years for field trips had exceeded the time periods established in their respectively attached agendas. In each instance, Mr. Michael Reddish, finance officer, reduced the time requested and made a reduced per diem reimbursement payment to coincide with the agenda submitted. Each time he did this he informed Director Smith of these actions; neither Smith nor Reddish informed Respondent of these actions, but it may be inferred that she was aware her per diem reimbursement payments were being reduced from the hours she had requested so as to coincide with the agendas she had submitted simultaneously with her per diem reimbursement requests. The per diem reimbursement request submitted on February 17, 1984 with supporting agenda amounted to a request for fifty dollars ($50.00) more than the actual time spent by Respondent on the trade show trip. Respondent's class procedures involved several sources of funds: individual student contributions to a profanity jar, proceeds of a class hot dog sale, fees charged to patrons for student beauty services, charges to students for supplies used by them in class, charges to students for sale of materials such as shampoos and permanents which they took home, and charges to students for special purchase items such as mannequins. Mannequins are false "heads" with rooted hair for hair services' practice. The profanity jar was apparently Respondent's idea to teach decorous language for purposes of future employment. Students who "cussed" were required to deposit various amounts of small change into the jar for each infraction. The amount in this jar at any point in time was never established by any credible evidence, nor has it been established what became of it or that Respondent emptied it. Proceeds from the class hot dog sale were originally intended to be used for groceries for use only for those students attending the trade show field trip. Instead, Respondent responded to non-attenders' complaints and purchased hairspray for the whole class. Although the highest "guesstimate" for hot dog monies was $25, the exact amount of proceeds from the hot dog sale has never been established by any direct credible testimony. At the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year, Director Smith and Respondent agreed that because Vo-Tech and the students each derived some benefit from student use of supplies, the school would charge students half price for supplies they wished to use at home. These types of supplies were initially purchased by the school from internal student money generated from student work on patrons and from sale of the supplies to students. They were internal funds and not county monies in Director Smith's eyes. Director Smith required that funds received from students and patrons be accounted for daily but no one in his office checked up on this. It was left to a teacher or a student to report these amounts on "Report of Monies" logs from each class daily. There is confusion in the testimony of Director Smith, Ms. Edwards, secretary-bookkeeper, and Ms. Norman, school clerk, as to what constituted retail sales and what constituted internal funds, and as to whether wigs and mannequins on hand constitute "supplies" (always retail sales) or are always classified in the category of special pre-paid purchase items. Students could purchase mannequins through the school office but mannequins were normally purchased by the school with county money and Mr. Smith's understanding was that in the 1983-1984 school year there had been only one purchase of mannequins made with county monies and therefore they were not for resale. Ms. Edwards and Ms. Norman thought sale of supplies to students could not generate internal funds and was not permitted, contrary to Mr. Smith's understanding, and both ladies were vague as to whether there had been another set of mannequins for students to purchase. All three administrators agreed resale of items purchased with county funds was improper. Ms. Edwards and Ms. Norman are the persons who determined no amounts of monies in any category had been turned in from Respondent's class in the 1983-1984 school year. On one occasion, student Elizabeth Kelly paid for a mannequin in advance with a check from her grandfather to her, which she endorsed over to Helen Van Wart. She eventually received the mannequin from Helen Van Wart. On another occasion, Bonnie Banks delivered a blank check for $24.00 to Respondent. It was cashed with the name "Betty J. Hutson" filled in and also endorsed on the back. That name is Respondent's name and Bonnie Banks thought that was Respondent's signature but no predicate/foundation/reason exists in the record for that assumption. Bonnie Banks also received her mannequin. In the 1983-1984 school year, money for all supplies regardless of how categorized were collected by Respondent's teacher's aide, Mrs. Van Wart, but the keys to the supply cabinet were freely given out to students. Permanents were left sitting on an open shelf. Mrs. Van Wart did not routinely give out receipts and none of the money students recall paying for supplies was turned in to the Director's office. In the previous years, student monies and retail sales for patrons services and sales to students had been turned in to the office from Respondent's class. In 1983-1984, no theft of monies or supplies was reported to the Director by anyone. Only one student, Elizabeth Kelly, recalls Respondent mentioning some money was stolen but how much or from what source this money was derived was never established by any direct credible testimony. No credible testimony established any supplies were actually missing from the supply cabinet and an outside year end audit revealed no problems in Respondent's class. Petitioner established that over a period of approximately three years, Respondent fell asleep several times while under the hairdryer during class while her students practiced on her. On one other occasion, she was absent from the classroom for a short period of time on a personal errand off- campus. The maximum period of time she was gone was less than an hour and a half and during this period she was entitled to take her lunch. During this absence, a patron was permanented by a student and injured. It is contrary to Vo-Tech policy for students to use chemicals without on-site instructor supervision and Respondent did not advise Director Smith of the patron's injury. She further requested her students to say she was in the school cafeteria when it happened. Cosmetology students attending a normal day of classes on campus would be legitimately credited with seven (7) hours toward their state board requirement. Feeling trade shows were worthwhile learning experiences, Mr. Smith authorized granting students eight (8) hours for the planned activities of a field trip day. At the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year, Respondent told her entire class that no-one-would be required to attend class the day following any multi-day trade show or seminar. On Friday, February 10, 1984, Respondent told her class that they would be returning from the trade show on Monday evening, February 13; that there would be no class on Tuesday, February 14; and that everyone would still get credit for class on Tuesday. Respondent advised her class that students not attending the trade show would receive attendance credit whether or not they attended school on Monday or Tuesday. Seven students were not in school or any school approved instructional program on Monday, February These were the students not attending the trade show that day. Eighteen students were not in school or any school approved instructional program on Tuesday, February 14, 1984. This included the eleven students who had returned from the Tampa trade show with Respondent the night before. Respondent gave all the students credit for seven (7) hours on Monday and seven (7) hours on Tuesday instead of eight (8) hours for Sunday and eight (8) hours on Monday for the students attending the trade show and zero (0) hours credit for the "stay at homes" on Monday and zero (o) hours credit for all students for Tuesday. Director Smith testified he would have no problem if she had given eight (8) hours per day for the trade show activities but the attendance records did not reflect that specifically. Interestingly, after Respondent was suspended, Mr. Smith confirmed Respondent's practice by crediting all students just as Respondent had. Before and during the trade show trip, and at various times thereafter Respondent instructed the students who had been on the field trip, that if asked, they were to say they returned to the Vo-Tech Center grounds on February 14, 1984, instead of a day earlier. Respondent's immediate supervisor, David Smith, instituted an investigation of Respondent' a activities approximately February 17, 1984. Be did not immediately advise her of the serious allegations concerning allegedly missing supplies and leave requests/per diem claims. Respondent was not aided by him in correcting the latter concern. Particularly, she was prevented from correcting the leave requests/per diem claims. On March 17, 1984, Respondent submitted a letter stating she was at home on February 14, suffering from exhaustion and wished to amend her leave and per diem requests. On March 19, 1984, Respondent submitted an amended sick leave request. Director Smith refused to approve these as over thirty days from date of the sick leave and because he considered the initial requests to be fraudulent.
Recommendation Upon assessment of the facts found, and in the conclusions of law reached and in consideration of the argument of counsel, it is recommended 1. That the Bradford County School Board enter a Final Order ratifying Respondent's suspension of employment with the Bradford County School Board without pay and continuing that suspension without pay to and including the end of the 1984-1985 school year, a total of 2 school years. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1985.
The Issue Whether there was “just cause” for the termination of Respondent’s employment, as that term is referred to in section of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, by: Respondent’s using school district property for personal gain, by working on tasks related to a student-based educational European trip through Education First (EF) during her district duty hours in the spring of 2009. Respondent’s consuming excessive alcoholic beverages in the presence of students and parents of Buffalo Creek Middle School (BCMS) during an EF trip in the summer of 2009. Respondent’s reporting to BCMS on August 14, 2009, in order to collect her personal belongings, and appearing to be inebriated Respondent’s contacting witnesses to the investigation to discuss details of the investigation. Respondent’s coming on school grounds on December 7, 2009, while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Manatee County, Florida, is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent, Tammy M. Johnson, has been employed with the School District of Manatee County since February 8, 2000. She was most recently employed as the senior secretary at BCMS. As the senior secretary to the principal of BCMS, Respondent served as the point person for the principal of the school, working hand-in-hand with the principal. Her duties included screening the principal’s mail and phone calls, handling substitute teachers, performing payroll duties, handling leave forms, coordinating clerical office staff, and handling emergency situations as they arose within the school. Respondent was exposed to confidential school information on a regular basis, such as complaints regarding faculty and staff and policy changes being considered within the district. Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis, which was renewed from year to year. Her employment contract was for a term of 11 months and lasted typically from early August to June of the following year. While employed full-time as the senior secretary, in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Respondent organized a trip to Europe through the student-based educational travel company EF. Respondent sought to recruit BCMS students and their family members to sign up for the trip by placing fliers on campus, posting a sign-up board at the incoming students’ open house, and placing a notice about the trip in the school newsletter. Respondent routinely included a signature line in her school-assigned email address that identified her not only as a Senior Secretary but as an EF tour guide in every email that she sent from her school account. Announcements about informational meetings related to the EF trip were made over the school intercom and these meetings occurred on school property in the evenings. Respondent made fliers at BCMS advertising the EF trip on at least two occasions using school equipment. On one occasion, she made 750 fliers using school paper. During the time Respondent was conducting these activities, her principal was Scott Cooper. Cooper knew of Respondent’s activities in promoting the trip, and that she was using school resources to accomplish it. He did not object or tell Respondent to stop doing so; in fact, he encouraged such trips. Respondent ultimately recruited 10 student participants for the EF trip, all of whom were students at BCMS. The trip also included 15 adult participants, all of whom were family members of BCMS students. In exchange for her work organizing, promoting and chaperoning the EF European trip, Respondent was to receive, and did receive a free spot on the trip to Europe. Respondent served as the group leader for the EF group of BCMS students and parents. Three other BCMS teachers became involved in the EF trip as chaperones: Joseph Baker, Malissa Baker and Jessica Vieira. They also used school resources to promote the trip. The EF trip to Europe took place from June 22, 2009, to July 1, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) received a complaint that Respondent was misusing school resources for personal gain. OPS opened an investigation into these allegations. Shortly before Respondent left for Europe, Scott Cooper was replaced as principal. The newly-appointed BCMS Principal Matt Gruhl, met with Respondent to discuss his concern that she included an EF tagline in the signature block of all of her school emails. Gruhl asked Respondent to remove the EF tagline from her email, take the EF poster off of her door, make any necessary copies at a non-school location, and pay standard rates in the future for any advertising done in the school newsletter. Respondent complied with the directive. On June 22, 2009, the flight for the EF trip left from Tampa. Prior to the flight’s departure, Respondent purchased several small bottles of vodka in the airport duty-free shop. Several students observed Respondent doing so. Respondent drank two vodka-and-cranberry drinks on the flight to Europe in the presence of BCMS students and parents. Upon arrival in London, Respondent went with several other parents to a pub across the street from the hotel. While there, Respondent had too much to drink that evening and became intoxicated. Several BCMS students said that Respondent was speaking so loudly that they were able to hear her all the way across the street and up to the fifth story of the hotel. These students were upset by Respondent’s behavior. Respondent was very loud when she returned from the pub. BCMS parents had to help Respondent into the lobby, as she was falling over and laughing loudly. The adults tried to persuade Respondent to go to bed, but she insisted on ordering another drink in the lobby. Respondent was finally coaxed to go upstairs to bed, and she began banging on all the doors to the hotel rooms in the hallway. Respondent had to be physically restrained from banging on the doors. On more than four occasions Respondent was observed mixing vodka-and-cranberry juice drinks in a Styrofoam to-go cup before leaving the hotel with students for the day. The BCMS students on the EF trip commented on multiple occasions about Respondent’s drinking on the trip. The students did not want to go off alone with Respondent because they did not feel safe with her. The students also made observations that Respondent was drunk and stumbling around. On the return plane ride from Europe to Tampa, Respondent again was drinking alcoholic beverages to excess and exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior. While Respondent was in Europe with the EF trip, she had received a text message notifying her that she may be under an OPS investigation. Shortly after Respondent returned, she approached Gruhl and asked him whether there was an investigation concerning her being conducted by OPS. When Gruhl declined to comment on any pending OPS investigations, Respondent then called Debra Horne, specialist in the Office of Professional Standards, and asked whether there was an investigation being conducted. Horne confirmed that there was an open investigation and told Respondent that it might not be resolved until after school started because it involved students and parents. After speaking to Horne, on or about July 20, 2009, and being made aware that she was involved in an open investigation, Respondent called Vieira and told her that they needed to get their stories straight. Respondent also left messages for Joe and Malissa Baker stating that she heard that there was an OPS investigation and wanted to know if they had any information or had heard anything about the investigation. Respondent was only partially aware of a School Board rule which prohibited contacting potential witnesses during an investigation, although she was aware that she was expected to abide by all School Board rules. Gruhl spoke to Horne and reported Vieira and Malissa Baker’s concerns. Horne expanded her open investigation to include the allegations about Respondent’s behavior on the trip. Effective August 3, 2009, Respondent was removed from her position and placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation of her conduct by the Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards. During the time of paid leave she was required to report daily to her principal and could not travel outside the country without permission. After Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave, she came to the BCMS campus on August 14, 2009, to pick up her belongings from her office. She met Gruhl and Assistant Principal Nancy Breiding at the school. Gruhl observed that Respondent smelled strongly of alcohol. She had difficulty keeping her balance and ran into walls, ran into doorways and almost fell when she tried to adjust her flip-flop. Respondent also had great difficulty following the line of conversation when she was speaking with Gruhl and repeated herself numerous times. Concerned, Gruhl permitted Respondent to leave campus after observing that her husband was driving her. He did not seek to send her for drug or alcohol testing, as provided in school board rules. Respondent testified that she had “just one” vodka and grapefruit drink at lunch earlier that day. She denied that Gruhl’s observations were accurate, but also alleged that she was on a prescription medication, Cymbalta, and stated that it caused her to be increasingly emotional and somewhat dizzy. However, she testified that she was completely unaware that combining the medication with alcoholic beverages would have an adverse effect on her. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Gruhl’s observations of Respondent’s behavior on August 14, 2009, were incorporated into the OPS investigation. Horne interviewed Respondent on August 20, 2009, regarding the allegations made prior to the trip and the allegations made concerning her behavior on the EF trip. On September 1, 2009, the results of the OPS investigation was presented within the chain-of-command, who recommended to Superintendant Tim McGonegal that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The Superintendant concurred with their recommendation, and on September 21, 2009, the Superintendant notified Respondent that he intended to seek termination of her employment, or, should she request an administrative hearing, suspension without pay pending the outcome of that hearing. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At their meeting on October 13, 2009, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay. While on unpaid suspension, Respondent had no duties, was not required to report to anyone, and was not limited in her ability to travel. However, she was still a School District employee. On December 7, 2009, while on suspension without pay, Respondent returned by car to the BCMS campus while school was in session to check her son out early for a doctor’s appointment. Aware that she was under investigation for excessive drinking, Respondent admitted that she nonetheless had a drink at lunchtime before going to pick up her son from school around 2 p.m. While on campus, Respondent’s eyes were glassy, she smelled of alcohol, and she was unkempt, which was out of keeping with her usual appearance. When Gruhl learned of the incident on December 7, 2009, he recommended to the Superintendant that Johnson not be permitted to return to the BCMS campus On December 7, 2009, the OPS opened an addendum investigatory file on Respondent concerning the events of December 7, 2009. The addendum OPS investigation alleged that, on December 7, 2009, Johnson entered the BCMS campus while under the influence of alcohol. The testimony of Horne, Keefer, Vieira, Hosier and Gruhl is credible. Respondent’s testimony is found to be unreliable.
The Issue Whether Ms. Rokos' teaching certificate should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for gross immorality or moral turpitude in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), and (f), Florida Statutes (1987), of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e), and (h), Florida Administrative Code, the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, and Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact Nicole D. Rokos holds Florida Teaching Certificate 542378, in the areas of mental retardation and specific learning disabilities. She is 35 years old and has taught at exceptional student education programs for 11 1/2 years. At the time of the incident involved, Ms. Rokos was employed as a special education teacher at Ely High School by the School Board of Broward County. Ms. Rokos teaches students who are learning disabled, mentally handicapped, and emotionally disturbed. Learning-disabled students are typically of average or above average intelligence who do not learn in the same way as regular students, but require different teaching strategies and methods to succeed academically. Ms. Rokos often had contact with her students in addition to her regular class periods. She attempted to involve students in activities relating to areas in which they were insecure in order to improve their self-concept. As a teacher for 8 1/2 years at Ely High school, Ms. Rokos received very good evaluations of her performance which noted not only her teaching skills, but also her involvement in extra-curricular activities, see, e.g., the evaluations of December, 1982 and February, 1985. None of her evaluations contained any entries in the portion of the form used to describe areas needing improvement. Other teachers at Ely High School regard Ms. Rokos as an excellent teacher. Former students also regard her as an inspiring teacher. One of Ms. Rokos' students at Ely High School in 1988-89 school year was Earl Thomas Williams, Jr. He has learning disabilities in the areas of oral and written communication and mathematics and is of average intelligence. During December of 1988-89 school year he was 18 years of age, 6'3" tall and weighed 226 pounds. During evenings Earl Williams often would call Ms. Rokos for help with homework. Earl's father has high regard for Ms. Rokos, and believes that due to her work with Earl, Earl has stayed in school, and now attends community college. During the 1988-89 school year Marla Henderson, a cousin of Nicole Rokos by marriage, also attended Ely High School. She met Earl Williams through Ms. Rokos. Marla and Earl went out together from mid-September to mid-November, 1988. On December 3, 1988, at Earl's suggestion Ms. Rokos and another teacher accompanied Marla Henderson and Earl Williams to an Ely High School football game. That night Ms. Rokos dressed in socks and sneakers, white jogging shorts, white sweatpants which said "Tigers" down the side in orange letters, white tank top under a gray T-shirt with "Ely" written in orange letters across the front and a green "Ely" windbreaker. Earl Williams wore a yellow shirt, white jeans, and under them black cotton shorts that reach to the mid- thigh, which are similar to spandex bicycle shorts, but which fit somewhat more loosely. Those shorts had large white lettering horizontally at the elastic waist, as well as large white lettering vertically on the outside thigh area. After the game, at approximately 10:00 p.m., all four returned to the other teacher's home, where Ms. Rokos picked up her car, and left with Marla and Earl. Ms. Rokos' car has tinted windows. Marla was in the front seat and Earl in the back. Earl was sulking due to the recent break-up of his relationship with Marla. Ms. Rokos first dropped off Marla at approximately 11:00 p.m. Before returning to Earl's home, Earl ostensibly asked Ms. Rokos if they could go to a park and talk. Ms. Rokos drove to Kester Park in Pompano Beach, a park of approximately one square block. She pulled into the park between tall trees which line the perimeter of the park. The tree canopy obscured the light from near-by street lights in the car. A home invasion robbery had been reported to the Pompano Beach Police Department at a home near the park at about 11:00 p.m. At approximately 11:30 p.m. Officer William Weir of the Pompano Beach Police Department was in the area. He found Ms. Rokos' vehicle pulled between the trees at the park, which was then closed. Because the park was closed, and the car was partially concealed from view by the trees, he was alarmed, because the car could have been involved in the nearby robbery. Officer Weir was in a marked police car. Officer Weir drew near Ms. Rokos' car, and parked behind it so that the car could not back on to the street, nor go forward because of the trees and foliage in the park. He activated the spot lights on the top of his car, and could clearly identify a female figure inside the car. The driver side window was partially opened. As Officer Weir approached the car on foot, the driver attempted to back out, and although the car lurched back, its path was obstructed by the police car. As Office Weir reached the side of the car, a back-up officer arrived on the scene and also approached the vehicle. Officer Weir shined his police flashlight into the automobile where he could see Ms. Rokos and, for the first time, a man who was sitting in the passenger seat, who had not been visible before because the passenger seat was fully reclined. Officer Weir saw that Ms. Rokos was dressed only in a shirt, and was nude from the waist down. He could clearly see her thighs, pubic hair and genital area. Earl Williams was completely nude, and attempting to hide his genitals with the cloth of his yellow shirt. Officer Weir saw the student's penis protruding from beneath the material and his pubic hair. All facts taken together have led the Hearing Officer to infer that sexual contact between Ms. Rokos and the student had occurred or was imminent but interrupted by Officer Weir. In order to investigate further, Officer Weir directed both Ms. Rokos and Earl Williams to dress and exit the vehicle. After seeing Ms. Rokos' clothing with the Ely High School logo and noting the youth of her passenger, he asked whether she was a teacher. Initially, she denied it but later admitted to Officer Weir that Earl Williams was one of her students. Earl Williams readily admitted he was a student at Ely and Ms. Rokos was his teacher. She asked the officer not to report the incident, and was obviously distraught. Officer Weir then determined that Earl Williams was not a minor, and then warned Respondent about her conduct and allowed both of them to leave. Although no arrests were made, Officer Weir did file a uniform offense report about his contact with Ms. Rokos and Earl Williams at the end of his shift. Ms. Rokos testified that she was not nude, but had removed her socks, shoes, and sweatpants to be more comfortable, but was still wearing her shorts, and that Earl Williams had removed his shirt, which was in his lap, and had taken off his jeans, but he was not nude because he was wearing the black shorts. The testimony of Officer Weir is more credible. He saw the student completely nude and Ms. Rokos nude from the waist down. His testimony was emphatic and specific. Moreover, it was quite cool during the early morning hours of the night of December 3-4, 1988. There is no reasonable explanation for a teacher to have been parked in a car in a closed city park late at night with a student who had, according to her testimony, removed both his shirt and jeans, and for her to have removed her running shoes, socks, and sweatpants. Moreover, due to the bold white lettering horizontally across the waistband of the student's black shorts, and the bold white lettering vertically down the outside thigh of the shorts, the police officer would not have mistaken the shorts for flesh, even though the student is black. After receiving the incident report completed by Officer Weir, Lieutenant DeFuria of the Pompano Beach Police Department forwarded the report to the Director of Special Investigations at the School Board of Broward County, Howard J. Stearns. After reviewing the report on December 5, 1988, the first school day following the incident, Mr. Stearns had the administrators of Ely High School notify Ms. Rokos to meet with him at his office concerning the incident. At the interview, Ms. Rokos told Stearns that she was wearing underpants and the student was not nude. Having heard her denial, Mr. Stearns suggested that if she were being truthful, then Officer Weir must be lying, and the Pompano Beach Police Department should be requested to investigate the false report made by Officer Weir. Mr. Stearns began to dial the number of the Police Department, when Ms. Rokos relented and said that she did not think that any investigation of Officer Weir should be made. Ms. Rokos then broke into tears and asked to see her union representative. After meeting with that representative, Ms. Rokos resigned her position with the School Board of Broward County. One of the reasons she did so was to avoid the publicity incident to an investigation into the incident by the School Board. As the result of being discovered in such a compromising situation with one of her own students, Ms. Rokos has lost her effectiveness as a teacher in Broward County and would not be reemployed by the School Board of Broward County as an educator.
Recommendation It is recommended that the teaching certificate of Nicole D. Rokos be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of January, 1990. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 12th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-3947 Rulings on findings proposed by the Commissioner of Education: 1. Adopted in finding of fact 1. 2. Covered in finding of fact 1. 3. Adopted in finding of fact 6. 4. Adopted in finding of fact 6. 5. Adopted in finding of fact 11. 6. Adopted in finding of fact 12. 7. Adopted in finding of fact 12. 8. Adopted in finding of fact 12. 9. Adopted in finding of fact 13. 10. Incorporated in finding of fact 13. Considered in finding of fact 15. Considered in finding of fact 16. Considered in findings of fact 6 and 12. The remaining portions of the proposal are rejected as argument. It is true, however, that it would have been impossible for Earl Williams to have disrobed without Ms. Rokos being aware of it. Discussed in finding of fact 15. Rejected as unnecessary. Discussed in finding of fact 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Discussed in finding of fact 17. Rulings on findings proposed by Ms. Rokos: Adopted in finding of fact 1. Adopted in finding of fact 2. Generally adopted in finding of fact 3. To the extent appropriate, the evaluations are discussed in finding of fact 4. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 5. Rejected as subordinate to the findings of fact made in findings 3-5. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 5. Discussed in finding of fact 6. Discussed in finding of fact 7. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted as modified in finding of fact 8. Discussed in finding of fact 9. Discussed in finding of fact 10. Rejected, see the findings made in finding of fact 10. Rejected; even if Ms. Rokos and Earl Williams discussed any matters relating to school, such discussions were not the focus of their activities in the car. See, the final sentence of finding of fact 12. Discussed in finding of fact 12. Discussed in finding of fact 12. How far the window was open is not significant; the officer had an adequate view of the scene. Adopted in finding of fact 12. Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 15. Adopted in finding of fact 13. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. 25 and 26. Discussed in finding of fact 16. To the extent appropriate, discussed in finding of fact 16. It is not clear whether Mr. Stearns said anything which would have led Ms. Rokos to believe than the school board would not report the matter to the Department of Education. The school board had no choice, and the matter was reported and investigated by the Department, which led to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks & LeBoeuf, P.A. 836 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Respondent should be suspended and/or discharged from employment as a teacher with the School Board of Dade County for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges filed on August 11, 1989. That Notice alleges that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3), violations of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession (specifically, Rules 6B-1.001(3) and 6B-1.005(3)(a) and (e),) conduct unbecoming a School Board employee in violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4C- 1.01 and/or violation of the School Board's ccrporal punishment policy set forth in School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a teaching certificate from the State of Florida and has been employed pursuant to a continuing professional contract with the School Board of Dade County ("School Board") since September, 1986. During the 1988/1989 school year, Respondent was assigned as an elementary school teacher at Broadmoor Elementary School. As part of his duties as a teacher at Broadmoor, Respondent supervised the children on the physical education field at the school prior to the commencement of classes. The number of students playing in this area each morning often exceeded two hundred and, at the time in question, Respondent was the only teacher assigned to supervise the children. On April 3, 1989, while carrying out his duties as supervisor of the physical education field prior to the commencement of classes, Respondent was involved in an incident involving a student, R.S. who was eight years old and in the third grade at the time. The initial encounter between Respondent and R.S. on that date occurred when Respondent was distributing balls to the students to play with. The student struck Respondent in the back and ran off to the playing field. A few minutes later, the student struck the Respondent a second time by punching him in the stomach when he attempted to break up an altercation between and another student. After punching Respondent in the stomach, R.S. again ran off. Shortly thereafter, a dispute arose between R.S. and several other students who were playing box ball. The other students contended that R.S. was "out". However, R.S. refused to leave the game. The other students called Respondent over to intervene. Respondent instructed the students to replay the point. On the replayed point, R.S. was again "out", but she refused to leave the game and Respondent approached her and directed her to give him the ball. After turning the ball over to Respondent, R.S. began yelling and kicking at Respondent to get the ball back. In grabbing for the ball, R.S. tore the sleeve of Respondent's shirt and ripped some buttons off it. Respondent grabbed R.S. by the arm and told her that they "needed to talk." Respondent attempted to physically remove R.S. from the playing area by grabbing her arm and leg. R.S. resisted the efforts. In trying to restrain and control the student, the Respondent applied a "PIT" hold which Respondent had learned while teaching emotionally disturbed children at the Montenari School. The acronym PIT refers to prevention intevention training. While there is some indication that PIT methods include procedures for incapacitating an individual and placing them on the ground, the Respondent in this case did not attempt to place the student on the ground. Instead, Respondent attempted to hold the student in a position where she could no longer effectively strike or kick at him. R.S. is not emotionally disturbed and does not have a history of discipline probless. While PIT methods are apparently used to restrain violent or aggressive emotionally disturbed students, they are not authorized by the Dade County Public School System for use in restraining students in a regular school. At the time of this incident, the student, R.S., was in third grade and weighed approximately 60 pounds. The Respondent weighed approximately 250 pounds. While Respondent was holding the student and attempting to remove her from the area as described above, the student and the Respondent fell to the ground. While the student contended that the Respondent deliberatley "slammed" her to the ground, the more persuasive evidence indicates that both Respondent and the student accidentally fell while Respondent was attempting to remove her from the playing area. Thus, it is found that Respondent did not deliberately throw the child to the ground. While on the ground, the student continued to struggle and attempted to get up. Respondent pushed her back to the ground and held her down. As a result of the struggle, the student suffered scrapes on the side of her face and a swollen lip. It is unclear whether the injuries occurred as a result of the fall or Respondent's subsequent actions in pushing the student back to the ground. After the student calmed down, the Respondent took R.S. to his room rather than to the Administrative Office or the clinic as required by school policy. Petitioner contends that no administrative staff was in the office at the time and that he attempted unsucessfully to contact the student's parents. However, he did not alert any other school personnel or administrative staff of this incident and the student was left unattended in the Petitioner's office for a short period of time. Other students alerted R.S.'s homeroom teacher of the incident and that teacher located the student and brought her to the clinic where she was treated and her parents were contacted. R.S. had punched Respondent on prior occasions. However, Respondent never reported those incidents to school administrators or to the student's parents. Instead, he attempted to work with the child utilizing nonviolent techniques. Several parents of students at the school have voiced concern over the incident and Respondent's handling of the matter. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher at the school has been impaired.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misconduct in office and imposing a ten day suspension without pay upon Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 21st day of February, 1990.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Kevin R. Sanders, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Commissioner of Education with the Education Practices Commission on June 10, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, as the Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, is authorized to enter complaints against persons holding teaching certificates in the State of Florida. Respondent, Kevin R. Sanders, has held at all times relevant to this proceeding Florida Teaching Certificate No. 660581. The certificate was issued by the Department of Education and is valid through June 30, 2002. Mr. Sanders is authorized to teach in the areas of physical education and general science. (Stipulated Facts). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Sanders was employed by the Escambia County School District (Stipulated Fact). During the 1995-1996 school year1, Mr. Sanders served as a teacher and coach at Pensacola High School (hereinafter referred to as the “Pensacola High”) (Stipulated Fact). Mr. Sanders was assigned responsibility for the supervision of an in-school suspension class (hereinafter referred to as the “ISS Class”) (Stipulated Fact). Mr. Sanders was assigned to serve as the ISS Class teacher for each class period except for one period, which was his planning period. ISS Class students went to a physical education class taught by Jack Jackson during Mr. Sanders’ planning period. Pensacola High’s ISS Class was a disciplinary program established for students who have exhibited behavior warranting suspension from school. Rather that suspending the student from school, the student is assigned to the ISS Class so that he or she will continue to attend school and receive academic instruction. Deans at Pensacola High responsible for disciplinary actions determine whether a student’s conduct warranted referral to the ISS Class and the length of the referral. Students assigned to the ISS Class would continue to receive academic assignments from their teachers. They were required to work on those assignments while in the ISS Class. While students were in the ISS Class, they were not allowed to talk or to sleep. Mr. Sanders wrote the in-school suspension program for Pensacola High, so he was familiar with the purpose of the program. Class periods at Pensacola High were one and one-half hours in duration. There were seven class periods, numbered 1 through 7. On even days, i.e., October 4, class periods 2, 4, 6, and 8 were held. On odd days, i.e., October 5, class periods 1, 3, 5, and 7 were held. Class period 7 was the last class period held on odd days and class period 8 was the last class period held on even days. A “varsity sports” class was scheduled for the last school period, period 7 or 8, of the school day. The varsity sports class consisted of two combined physical education classes. The teachers responsible for these classes were Mr. Jackson and Toby Peer. During the fall of 1995, students in the varsity sports class engaged in weightlifting. Mr. Sanders wanted to act as the instructor. Mr. Sanders was not, however, scheduled to participate in the varsity sports class. His responsibility was to supervise the ISS Class. Early during the fall of 1995, Mr. Sanders, Horace Jones, the Principal of Pensacola High, and David Wilson, the head football coach at Pensacola High, met to discuss allowing Mr. Sanders to supervise the weight training program for the varsity sports class. Mr. Sanders and Mr. Wilson explained to Mr. Jones that weightlifting would only be taught every other day, on odd days. They asked Mr. Jones for permission for Mr. Sanders to go the football stadium where the varsity sports class was held to supervise the weightlifting. Mr. Jones agreed to allow Mr. Sanders to go to the football stadium during class period 7 to supervise weightlifting. Mr. Jones did, however, indicate that Mr. Sanders’ ISS Class should be supervised. The testimony in this proceeding concerning the conditions, if any, that Mr. Jones imposed on Mr. Sanders and/or Mr. Wilson, was contradictory. Mr. Jones indicated that he did not give Mr. Sanders permission to take his ISS Class to the stadium or otherwise remove them from their normally assigned classroom. Mr. Sanders testified that Mr. Jones was aware that Mr. Sanders was taking the students to the stadium on the days that he supervised weightlifting. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Jones either gave express permission for the ISS Class to be taken to the stadium when Mr. Sanders was supervising weightlifting or was aware that the ISS Class was being taken to the stadium. Mr. Sanders’ ISS Class was assigned to room 30-A, which was located on the second floor of the main classroom building of Pensacola High. Room 30-A is located on the west end of the main classroom building. Subsequent to obtaining permission to supervise weightlifting for the varsity sports class, Mr. Sanders took his ISS Class to the football stadium during class period 7. Mr. Sanders left the students in the bleachers of the stadium above the weightlifting room. The weightlifting room was located in a room just below the bleachers where he left the students. While the students were in the bleachers, they were not directly supervised by any teacher or adult. There were assistant football coaches on the football field in the stadium supervising athletes engaged in football drills some of the time that the ISS Class was left in the bleachers, but they were not assigned the responsibility to supervise the ISS Class. Mr. Sanders would usually, but not always, inform Mr. Wilson that he had arrived to supervise the weightlifting training. Mr. Sanders did not, however, insure that the students in his ISS class were actually being directly supervised by another teacher or adult. Nor did Mr. Wilson tell Mr. Sanders that any arrangement had been made to provide supervision for the ISS Class on October 17, 1995, or on any other occasion. On October 17, 1995, Mr. Sanders had eight students assigned to the ISS. For class period 7, Mr. Sanders escorted his class from classroom 30A to the stadium (Stipulated Fact). When the ISS class arrived at the stadium, Mr. Sanders directed the eight students to sit in the bleachers and told them to remain seated there. Mr. Sanders then left the eight students, went around the side of the stadium and went into the weight room located just below where he had left his students. Mr. Sanders could not see or hear the eight students that he left in the bleachers from the weight room. When Mr. Sanders left the eight students, there were no other teachers or adults left to supervise the eight students. Mr. Sanders left them unsupervised despite the fact that the eight students had evidenced disciplinary problems and, therefore, had evidenced a need for close supervision. Some of the students were in the ISS Class due to truancy, but were left unsupervised by Mr. Sanders. Although there were other assistant coaches present to supervise students in the stadium area, the evidence failed to prove that any of those coaches, including Mr. Core, who was on the stadium football field part of the time that the ISS Class was sitting in the bleachers, were in charge of supervising the ISS Class. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Core or any other teacher present that day had been given such an assignment. Because Mr. Core was engaged in supervising passing drills with the football team, even if it had been proved that he was in charge of the ISS Class, he could not be expected to provide reasonable supervision of the ISS Class and supervise passing drills. Despite Mr. Sanders' testimony that supervision of the ISS Class was the responsibility of Mr. Wilson, he also testified that he left the weightlifting room on several occasions to check on the students. The evidence failed to support either explanation. At some time after Mr. Sanders left the ISS Class students in the stadium, a 15 year-old female student (hereinafter referred to as “Student X”) that had been assigned to the class that day left the other students to go to the ladies’ restroom under the stadium (Stipulated Fact). She was gone approximately 45 minutes. Student X had been determined to have a Specific Learning Disability and was in the exceptional student education program. While Student X was under the stadium stands, she performed oral sex on several male students in the ladies’ bathroom (Stipulated Fact). Eight male students were subsequently arrested, charged and prosecuted for committing an unnatural and lascivious act with Student X. Seven students pled no contest to the charge, and one was tried and acquitted (Stipulated Fact). Five of the male students were supposed to be in the varsity sports class. At or close to the end of class period 7, an assistant coach came into the weightlifting room and told Mr. Sanders that he had heard that there was a girl underneath the stadium and suggested that Mr. Sanders “might want to go check.” Mr. Sanders left the weight room and began searching under the stadium from the north end where the weight room was located, to the south end. Mr. Sanders eventually found Student X and a male student in a small room in the back of the boys’ junior varsity locker room under the south end of the stadium. Mr. Sanders found Student X and the other student talking. He instructed the male student to return to his drivers' education class. Mr. Sanders took Student X back to the bleachers and the ISS Class. Mr. Sanders did not report the incident nor take any action against Student X or the male student he found her with. The next day, Student X reported that students in ISS Class were teasing her about having done something bad. Although not known by teachers at the time, Student X was being teased about what had happened to her on October 17, 1995. She reported the teasing to the Dean's office. Richard Souza, the head of the exceptional student education program, talked to Student X and concluded that Student X should not be sent back to the ISS Class. 38. Student X was teased further on the bus and in other parts of the school about the incident. What had happened to Student X on October 17, 1995, was not discovered until several days after the event took place. Student X was ultimately transferred to another school. Mr. Sanders' was issued a written reprimand for his involvement in the October 17, 1995, incident by the Superintendent of Schools, School District of Escambia County. Mr. Sanders was subsequently transferred to Workman Middle School as a physical education teacher. Mr. Sanders contested the suggestion in the reprimand that he was required to "provide direct supervision" of the ISS Class. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Sanders breached his responsibility to the ISS Class when he failed to make reasonable effort to protect the students of the ISS Class from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental and/or physical health and/or safety. He breached his responsibility when he left the students unattended and unsupervised. Until he knew that another teacher or adult had taken over the supervision of the ISS Class, it was unreasonable for him to abandon them. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Sanders "intentionally" exposed any student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The evidence in this case proved the following facts concerning the aggravating and mitigating circumstances required to be considered in disciplinary cases by Rule 6B-11.007(3), Florida Administrative Code: The offense is this case was severe. Mr. Sanders breached one of the most important duties of a teacher: to insure that the students under his charge were properly supervised. The offense did not constitute a danger to the "public." The evidence only proved one repetition of Mr. Sanders' offense. It has been almost four years since the incident. Mr. Sanders has not been disciplined by the Education Practices Commission. Mr. Sanders has been an educator for approximately ten years and was, and still is, well thought of by some in the Escambia County School Board. He has been an educator in Florida since the 1989-1990 school year and was an educator in Alabama for one year prior to that. The actual damage as a result of the lack of supervision of the ISS students was severe. One student was severely harmed and the other students, who had evidenced a great need for supervision, were left unattended. The penalty will not be as effective a deterrent as the publicity concerning the incident. If Mr. Sanders is suspended, as recommended by Petitioner, it would have a serious impact on his livelihood. The evidence failed to prove any effort at rehabilitation by Mr. Sanders, nor is there any rehabilitation reasonably necessary in this matter. Mr. Sanders was not forthright concerning his responsibility in this matter. Mr. Sanders did not admit his responsibility to stay with the students at a minimum until he knew they were supervised. Instead, he attempted to lay the blame elsewhere. Mr. Sanders is currently employed as a teacher for the Escambia County School District. He is employed at Tate School. There was only one violation. Therefore, there was no need for any "[a]ttempts by the educator to correct or stop the violation or refusal by the licensee to correct or stop the violation." There have been no related violations against Mr. Sanders in another state, including findings of guilt or innocence, penalties imposed and penalties served. Mr. Sanders was negligent in his actions, but he did not commit any violation independent of his neglect. There were no penalties imposed for related offenses. No pecuniary benefit or self-gain enured to Mr. Sanders. The degree of physical and mental harm to Student X was great. No physical and/or mental condition contributed to Mr. Sanders' violation, including recovery from addiction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Kevin R. Sanders has violated the provisions of Section 231.29(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that he violated Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in Count One and Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count Three of the Administrative Complaint alleging that Mr. Sanders violated Rule 6b-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Sanders' teaching certificate be suspended for a period of six months, that he be issued a letter of reprimand, and that he be placed on probation for a period of two years following his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1998.
The Issue By this Petition, the School Administration of Lee County, Florida, seeks to expel Ronald Dale Slayback on charges that on November 4, 1975, while a student at Riverdale High School, he engaged in throwing chairs at other students. Although the witness who observed Slayback throw chairs did not appear and testify inasmuch as his presence was required at the school at the time of the hearing, the principal of the school, James Middlebrooks, Jr., testified that at the preliminary hearing Slayback acknowledged that he had thrown chairs during the incident on November 4, 1975. The chairs involved in these incidents were chairs with metal legs and backs, and hard plastic seats and backs. They could cause serious injury to anyone hit by them. At the time of the incident some 400 to 600 students were passing through the common area inside the building during a class change, and, but for the prompt and effective action of school officials, a race riot could have resulted. Ronald Slayback testified in his own behalf. As Slayback was walking across the common area he was hit in the back with a chair. He also stated he was hit a second time as he ran toward Assistant Principal Hadley. When the chair was thrown at him he reacted by throwing another chair at his assailant, Ronald Tape. He indicated that part of his chair throwing was in self defense and the other part was in retribution for having been hit with a chair. Slayback has caused few disciplinary problems at Riverside. The only other problem involved his overreaction the year before when his brother was arrested. The brother was found not guilty of the offense for which he was arrested. In view of Ronald Slayback's prior disciplinary record, or lack thereof, expulsion in this case does not appear warranted. From the foregoing it is concluded that Ronald Slayback is guilty of throwing chairs at other students as alleged. This is a serious offense and can cause injury to pupils in the school. All students were advised that chair throwing would not be tolerated and, if committed, would result in expulsion. It is therefore, RECOMMENDED that Ronald Slayback be suspended for 30 days. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of December, 1975 in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Blair, Esquire Post Office Box 1467 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Ronald Slayback Route 4, Carta Hana Avenue Ft. Myers, Florida 33904
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Samuel Parrondo (Respondent or Mr. Parrondo) violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2015), and implementing administrative rules,2/ as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is the state agent whose office is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator certificates. Mr. Parrondo holds Florida Educator Certificate 1083050, covering the areas of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and ESE, which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times relevant to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Mr. Parrondo was employed as an ESE teacher at Olsen in the Broward County School District. Ms. Knighton was the ESE specialist at Olsen. During her first year there, she walked in on Mr. Parrondo restraining a female student. Ms. Knighton found Mr. Parrondo lying on top of the student with his hand on her head, pushing her face into the floor mat, and his whole body weight on top of her. The student was screaming. Ms. Knighton told Mr. Parrondo to get off of the student. Mr. Parrondo informed her that the student did not go to "timeout" as she had been told to do. Ms. Knighton contacted her district program specialist to determine if Mr. Parrondo had received Professional Crisis Management (PCM) training, which teaches how to appropriately restrain students whose Individual Education Plans permit restraint. She learned that he had not. The mats were removed from Mr. Parrondo's classroom, and he was directed not to restrain students, because he had not been trained. Student J.M. was an 11-year-old ESE student who was described as able to understand instructions, but nonverbal, and with a low comprehension level. He was able to communicate with some sign language and a few words. He was sometimes aggressive in his interactions with the teachers; he would "come at them" and try to butt them with his head or grab them with his fingers. Student J.M. was described as tall and thin, and "really strong." Ms. Barbara Bond, a speech language pathologist, testified that sometime before the 2016 Spring Break, Student J.M. tapped her with his head. Mr. Parrondo responded by throwing Student J.M. to the ground and putting himself over Student J.M. "like when you're making a snow angel" with his arms outstretched and completely covering Student J.M.'s body. Ms. Bond testified that she supposed Mr. Parrondo was trying to protect her, but that he overreacted. She testified that Student J.M.'s action had not been a "head bang" and that she believed he could have just been trying to communicate with her. On March 11, 2016, Mr. Parrondo was attempting to get Student J.M. to come with him to conduct some periodic testing. Ms. Zuniga, Student J.M.'s aide, had taken Student J.M. to breakfast that morning, as she usually did, and had been with him all morning. She advised Mr. Parrondo that she thought that Student J.M. may have to go to the bathroom, although he had gone earlier, because of the way he was pacing back and forth. Student J.M. did not want to go to the testing. Mr. Parrondo said "Let's go" to him several times and said, "I'm not playing with you." However, Student J.M. would not cooperate and began to get aggressive toward Mr. Parrondo, moving his arms in "boxing" or "pawing" motions, perhaps trying to grab Mr. Parrondo, or ward him off. Student J.M. then put his head on Mr. Parrondo's chest. Ms. Sweeting, who was also present in the classroom during the incident, said that when she saw this, she thought perhaps Student J.M. was going to try to head butt Mr. Parrondo, because Student J.M. had done this before, but that Mr. Parrondo did not let him. Ms. Sweeting credibly testified as to what happened next. Mr. Parrondo became very upset with Student J.M. Mr. Parrondo was holding onto Student J.M.'s arms and told him to sit down, but Student J.M. would not do it. Mr. Parrondo then grabbed Student J.M. by the side of his neck and "slung" or pushed him down to the ground. Mr. Parrondo then sat on top of Student J.M. to subdue him until Student J.M. calmed down, which he did in a few minutes. When Student J.M. got up, Ms. Zuniga noticed a red mark on his neck that had not been there earlier. It is a reasonable inference that Student J.M. was scratched during the altercation. Between 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., Mr. Parrondo took a picture of the mark on Student J.M.'s neck and texted it to Student J.M.'s mother, saying, "Mom, [Student J.M.] has what appears to be a scratch on his neck from a nail. It is not bothering him or anything. I just wanted to inform you." A few minutes later Mr. Parrondo called Student J.M.'s mother on the telephone to confirm that she received the e-mail. In response to her question, he assured her that Student J.M. was doing fine. When she said that her son did not have a scratch when he went to school, Mr. Parrondo replied that he had noticed that Student J.M.'s nails were long. He said nothing to her about the altercation. The text and call to Student J.M.'s mother were made in the course of Mr. Parrondo's professional dealings. Mr. Parrondo stated that the altercation came about because he had observed Ms. Zuniga and Student J.M. in "some sort of disagreement" and that Ms. Zuniga was acting as if she felt threatened by Student J.M., so he went to assist her. He testified that she was near her desk with her hands up and was pulling back from Student J.M. because he was swinging his arms erratically. Mr. Parrondo said that he intervened to avoid any possible injury to Ms. Zuniga or to other students. Mr. Parrondo testified that he moved behind Student J.M. and was holding his wrists trying to control him. He testified that Student J.M. squirmed to the floor and that Mr. Parrondo squatted down with him to continue holding him and was speaking into his ear. Mr. Parrondo testified that Student J.M. calmed down quickly and was soon ready to go to the restroom and then on to testing. Mr. Parrondo stated that he did not grab Student J.M. by the neck, did not take him to the ground, and did not lay on top of him. However, Ms. Zuniga testified that the incident began when Mr. Parrondo attempted to take Student J.M. for testing, and said nothing about Student J.M. acting aggressively toward her or any student in any way. Mr. Parrondo's account that he was attempting to prevent injury to Ms. Zuniga or other students is not credible. His testimony that he did not grab Student J.M. by the neck, take him to the ground, or sit on him is also rejected in favor of the testimony of Ms. Sweeting. Mr. Parrondo also stated that his purpose in texting the note and photograph and telephoning Student J.M.'s mother was to document the injury and gather information. He noted that child abuse is always a possibility that he must consider, although he doubted it in this case because he knew the family. This testimony was also not credible. Under all of the circumstances, it is clear that Respondent's communications were instead intended to forestall inquiries into the altercation and deflect any blame for the incident away from Mr. Parrondo. They were calculated to mislead or misdirect Student J.M.'s mother with respect to the cause of the injury. Mr. Parrondo had not received PCM training at the time of the March 11, 2016, altercation, although he had requested it several times. Mr. Parrondo had been given a radio, knew that he was not to restrain students, and was aware that school procedure required that he call for assistance. As Ms. Knighton testified, Olsen had a PCM-trained security specialist employed at the time of the March 11, 2016, altercation who could have been dispatched to assist Mr. Parrondo. No evidence was introduced at hearing as to any prior discipline relating to Mr. Parrondo's Florida Educator Certificate.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent, Samuel Parrondo, in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(a) and suspending his educator certificate for one year, followed by a two-year period of probation under conditions imposed by the Commission to ensure that he is properly trained and monitored and does not constitute a danger to students. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2019.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a non- instructional employee, and, if not, what penalty is reasonable.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent as a bus operator on May 17, 2001. The employment is governed by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between Petitioner and the Support Association of Lee County (SPALC). Respondent is an educational support employee, defined in Subsection 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008).1 On March 26, 2009, a jury convicted Respondent of burglary of a dwelling, a second degree felony, and one count of battery. Respondent unlawfully entered the home of her husband and, while remaining inside without permission, committed battery on another individual who was there with her husband's permission. School Board Policy 5.04 prohibits the employment of an individual who has committed burglary within the past 10 years. The policy also prohibits the employment of an individual who has committed battery within five years. Respondent is not employable under either guideline, and Respondent presented no evidence in mitigation of either policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 26th day of February, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was a noninstructional employee of the School Board of Date County, Florida at all times material hereto, and was assigned to Thomas Jefferson Junior High School as a teacher's aide. The Respondent has six years' experience as a teacher's aide with the Dade County School System. He has a high school education and thirteen months of college, as well as twelve months of technical training, including studies in psychology. The Respondent has never, in all the time he has been employed in the Dade County School System, had any complaints lodged against him for aggressive or violent conduct and has never been previously involved in an incident in which he struck a student, although on one occasion he had to defend himself when a student attacked him. On September 22, 1980, the Respondent escorted some students to a physical education class on the school athletic field. While he was attempting to get the complaining student, Jose Velez, to return to the classroom, that student threatened him with violence and ultimately physically attacked the Respondent. Mr. Turnquist had to restrain the student and escort him to the school office for imposition of disciplinary measures regarding his behavior. The Petitioner's first witness, Gloria Randolph, is the Assistant Principal for Curriculum and Teacher Morale. She supervises the Exceptional Student Department, as well as the teachers' aides, and is acquainted with the protagonists in the subject incident. She observed the Respondent enter the school office with the student, Jose Velez, conversing in loud voices, both the Respondent and Velez appearing quite agitated. The Respondent told her that he "brought this boy up here and want something done about it." The Respondent and the subject student, at that time, were standing about five feet apart. She stepped between them, but the student kept advancing and she had to shove him back repeatedly. The student, Velez, acting in an aggressive, mocking manner, urged the Respondent to hit him, and threatened him with bodily harm. The tension between the two kept increasing, with the ultimate result that the Respondent struck the student with a light blow to the cheek. According to both Petitioner's witnesses, the student seemed relieved at that point and immediately calmed down. Witness Randolph acknowledged that the Respondent exercised good judgment, up until the point of striking the student, because he followed appropriate procedures in bringing the student to the office for disciplinary measures to be taken, and did not indulge in an argument with the student, although she did feel it was poor judgment for him to strike the student. The student, Jose Velez, is at least six feet in height and is considerably taller than the Respondent. Petitioner's witness, Marilyn Mattran, a teacher at Jefferson Junior High School, who was in the office and observed the subject altercation, established that Velez repeatedly threatened the Respondent with physical harm and that the student engaged in most of the yelling and in the aggressive behavior she observed. She corroborated the fact that when the Respondent actually struck Velez, that he immediately calmed down. She also corroborated the testimony of witness Randolph, as well as the Respondent's witness, Leah Alopari, that Jose Velez is an emotionally disturbed student who has an extensive history of aggressive, violent behavior and has made a practice of threatening students and teachers with physical violence and harm, even to the extent of threatening the use of a deadly weapon. He has, on occasion, done physical violence to other children. These three witnesses all acknowledged that the Respondent has never in the past, in their experience, demonstrated poor judgment in his conduct toward and transactions with students or teachers. Leah Aloari is the Respondent's supervising teacher. Jose Velez was one of her students, and she corroborated the fact, demonstrated by the other witnesses, that this particular student was aggressive, difficult to control and prone to engage in violent behavior. The Respondent assisted her in helping discipline her students, with the academic program and in escorting children to and from lunch, classes and the athletic field. She has never observed the Respondent engage in violent behavior in his relations with teachers or students, nor commit an act which exhibited poor judgment or misconduct in the course of his duties. As indicated above, the Respondent has had an exemplary record in his six years with the Dade County School System. Jose Velez, on the other hand, has been a constant disciplinary problem as acknowledged by the Petitioner's and Respondent's witnesses. The Respondent has a chronic neck injury involving a pinched nerve in the neck, and genuinely believed himself to be in danger of physical assault and harm by Velez when the incident occurred in the office. He believed it unwise to retreat in the fact of Velez's threats and aggressive advance upon him because he felt Velez was about to physically attack him. The Respondent did not feel that the other teacher and the Assistant Principal, who were the only other persons in the office at the time, could have restrained or adequately controlled Velez alone if he had retreated. There is no question, especially in view of the fact that the Respondent had already been assaulted by the student on the athletic field, that he genuinely believed that the situation called for him taking steps to defend himself. His act of self-defense in striking the student was itself marked by some restraint in the sense that he withheld striking the student with as much force as he was capable of. There is no evidence that he caused any permanent harm to the student. Indeed, even the Petitioner's witnesses established that it had the beneficial effect of calming the student down and preventing any further violent conduct on his part or possible injury to the students, the Respondent, others present, or possible damage to the Petitioner's property in the immediate vicinity. The undersigned considers it significant also that the student, although initially complaining of the Respondent's action, did not appear and testify at the hearing in furtherance of his complaint against the Respondent and that there was no significant physical injury inflicted upon Velez.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether just cause exists to discipline Respondent based on allegations that he used inappropriate language when talking to students, in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Woodard has worked in the Duval County public school system since 2002. There was no evidence presented of any prior incidents of inappropriate behavior, or of discipline being imposed upon Woodard by the School Board. During the 2014-2015 school year, Woodard was employed by Petitioner as an In-School Suspension (“ISSP”) teacher at Northwestern. The ISSP teacher is an instructional and leadership position, and the ISSP teacher is supposed to set an example for students and help them modify their behavior. The ISSP class was created to allow students who engage in disciplinary misconduct to remain in school rather than being removed from the classroom environment. The referral of students to ISSP can come from administrators, teachers, or any other employee who observes student misconduct. Although Woodard taught the ISSP class, he did not discipline students or assign them to ISSP, and he did not give students grades. During the 2014-2015 school year at Northwestern, Woodard was assigned to the gym in the mornings, where sixth- graders were directed to go after eating breakfast in the cafeteria, to wait for their teachers to pick them up and take them to class. On January 23, 2014, the Duval County School District’s (“District”) Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation of allegations that Woodard used inappropriate communications with and/or in the presence of students. The investigation, which was conducted by Investigator Reginald Johnson in the District’s Office of Professional Standards, sustained the allegations. On September 29, 2015, Woodard received a Step III Progressive Discipline – Reprimand and Suspension Without Pay (Revised 9/29/15) for conduct the District alleged violated the Florida Code of Ethics, rules 6A-10.080(2) and 6A-10.080(3) and the Principles of Professional Conduct, rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). The Step III Progressive Discipline alleged that Woodard used the term D.A.N. or DAN when talking to or referring to students at Northwestern, which the District alleged was an acronym for “dumb ass niggers.” In his defense, Woodard testified that in mentoring students, he shared stories from his childhood and his own life in order to be more relatable to students. According to Woodard, he used the story of his childhood friend Dan to impress upon students that it is not where you start, it is where you end up. Woodard’s friend Dan used to skip school, get to school late, fight, and disrespect authority, and Woodard urged his students not to be a Dan. As discussed below, Woodard’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Student D.M. testified that Woodard called students D.A.N.s in the gym and in ISSP class when the students were either acting up or in trouble. D.M. also testified Woodard wrote the word D.A.N. on the board in ISSP class with periods in the word, and the word stayed on the board in ISSP class. D.M. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. Student H.N.J. was in ISSP class with about seven other students when Woodard told them that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. said Woodard called students D.A.N.s when they were acting up and disrespectful, and that Woodard gave two meanings of the word D.A.N.-–“dumb and nobody” and “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. does not remember Woodard relating a story about a friend named Dan. Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward students made H.N.J. feel put down and “sad and mad at the same time,” and the fact that Woodard was a teacher made this worse. Student B.S. stated Woodard yelled at students and called them D.A.N.s in the gym whenever they were talking loud or would not listen. B.S. does not recall Woodard telling a story about a friend named Dan. B.S. learned that D.A.N. means “dumb ass niggers” from A.W., another student. Woodard’s reference to students as D.A.N.s made B.S. feel “sorry and mad,” and she began crying on the witness stand. Student K.H. testified that Woodard called her a D.A.N. when she stepped out of line in the gym and that he called other students D.A.N.s when they were misbehaving, fighting, or being loud. K.H.’s friend told her that D.A.N. means “dumb ass nigger.” K.H. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. K.H. and her brother, student D.H., complained to their mother about Woodard calling students D.A.N.s. The mother of K.H. and D.H. contacted Northwestern and later the media after the school did not do anything about the complaint. Woodard’s use of the term D.A.N. made K.H. “feel disrespected and low life because it’s not supposed to be used towards children” and because Woodard is a teacher and the same race as K.H. During the 2014-2015 school year, student D.H., was in the seventh grade at Northwestern. D.H. heard his friends in math class calling each other D.A.N.s. So he asked one of his friends what D.A.N. meant. D.H.’s friend (a student named “J”) told D.H. that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers” and that Woodard called kids that word. D.H. was bothered that someone of his own race was calling him that, and also that it came from a teacher. The students’ descriptions of Woodard’s comments and behavior were fairly consistent. The things they reported hearing and observing were very similar to contemporaneously written statements from them and other students. The alleged remarks were similar in nature to one another but not exactly the same, so the comments did not seem rehearsed or planned. The students were very direct and unwavering when testifying at final hearing. The testimony of H.N.J. was particularly persuasive and clearly established that Woodard intended to use the term D.A.N. as a derogatory epithet: either “dumb and nobody”; or “dumb ass niggers.” Significantly, none of the students who appeared at hearing would have had a motive to testify falsely. As noted, Woodard did not assign grades to any of these students or assign them to ISSP, so none would have had an axe to grind with Woodard. The testimony of the students is credible. Teacher Linda Raggins testified that she heard Woodard tell students in the gym “to not act like Dan.” Toward the end of the school year, Raggins asked Woodard “who is Dan?” Woodard gave Raggins two explanations, the first of which she did not recall. The second explanation Woodard gave Raggins was that “some people use Dan to mean dumb ass niggers, but that’s not how I – that’s not what I’m talking about.” Raggins did not recall Woodard providing any other meaning for the word D.A.N. Raggins is a union representative and first agreed to provide a written statement, but then declined to provide a statement on the advice of counsel. Raggins did not tell Investigator Johnson that Woodard told a story about someone named Dan. Former teacher Jason Ludban heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. a handful of times. Ludban said that Woodard used the term D.A.N. “openly and loudly for all to hear,” which made Ludban believe it was acceptable. Ludban learned from a student that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” Ludban never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. If Ludban believed that Woodard was using the term D.A.N. to mean “dumb ass niggers,” Ludban would have had a duty to report it. Woodard gave Investigator Johnson the names of three additional student witnesses, whom Johnson interviewed. One of the students confirmed that Woodard wrote the word “D.A.N.” with periods on the board in ISSP class. Two of the students told Johnson that Woodard told them the story of a friend named Dan, but this occurred about two weeks prior to the date Johnson interviewed them, after the allegations were reported in the media and when Woodard was already facing discipline. Despite Woodard’s claim that Dan was a real person, Investigator Johnson does not recall Woodard telling him the last name of Dan or giving him any contact information for “Dan.” Johnson would have interviewed Dan if Woodard had provided that information. Woodard also did not provide Investigator Johnson with the names of any adults at Northwestern to whom Woodard told the Dan story. None of the witnesses Investigator Johnson interviewed--students or adults-- stated that Woodard told them a story about a friend named Dan. It is within management’s discretion to skip a step of progressive discipline if the conduct is severe. Assistant Superintendent Sonita Young recommended Step III discipline against Woodard because he was in a position of authority and his role was to provide support to students in terms of behavior modification, but Woodard used derogatory language that was offensive toward students. In deciding whether discipline is warranted, the District looks at the totality of the circumstances, including the number of times an incident occurred, how many witnesses there were to the incident, the severity of the incident, whether harm occurred to the child’s physical or mental well-being, whether the employee has been previously disciplined for the same conduct, and whether the employee acknowledged his behavior and is willing to modify his behavior. According to Assistant Superintendent Young, the factors supporting the Step III discipline were that Woodard said the derogatory word D.A.N. to multiple students, the students were middle school students, the student population was fragile and of very low socioeconomic status, and the conduct was repeated over a period of time rather than a singular incident. The fact that this language was used by a teacher, a person in a position of authority whom students have the right to feel “safe” around, were additional factors supporting the discipline. Young believes that Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward or around students showed poor judgment and was damaging to them. Respondent called various character and fact witnesses (Jasmine Daniels, Tiffany Thomas, Tabitha Johnson, Pastor Fredrick Newbill, Niger Lambey, Ricky Stanford, and Daniel Drayton) who testified that Woodard told the story of his friend Dan at a church youth group, in his sermons, or that they knew the story from growing up with Woodard. However, none of the witnesses testified that they heard Woodard tell the Dan story to District students or in a District classroom. Pastor Newbill testified that in his community, D.A.N. has been used as a racial epithet for “dumb ass niggers” for at least the last 25 years. Dr. Arvin Johnson, the former principal of Northwestern, received a complaint about Woodard from a parent in May 2015, near the end of the 2014-2015 school year. Dr. Johnson, who is a friend of Woodard, heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. with students once or twice, but he never heard Woodard tell students a story about a friend named Dan. Although Dr. Johnson has known or worked with Woodard for approximately 12 years, the first time Woodard told Dr. Johnson the story of a friend named Dan was in connection with the parent’s complaint against Woodard in May 2015. Although Woodard has been employed with the District since 2002, he admitted that he did not tell the Dan story to students during the first 12 years of his employment. Woodard did not begin telling the Dan story to District students until the 2014-2015 school year. After not speaking to Daniel Drayton for several years, Woodard called Drayton in 2015 to remind him of the Dan story. Woodard stated that if he knew there was a negative interpretation of D.A.N. he would not have used the term, but his explanation to Ms. Raggins shows that he knew that a racially derogatory meaning of the word D.A.N. existed. Woodard claims that the students lied about him using D.A.N. as an acronym for “dumb ass niggers,” but he could not offer an explanation as to why students, whom he claims “loved” him, and were excited to attend his class, would lie about him. The greater weight of the evidence supports the contention that Woodard used the term D.A.N. in the presence of his ISSP students as a derogatory racial epithet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board, rescinding its suspension of the employment of Ernest Woodard and, instead, issuing a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 30th day of November, 2016.
