The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner's, Orange County School Board, suspension without pay of Razzi Lee Smith from his position of classroom teacher is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, posthearing briefs and memoranda, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. During times material to the allocations herein, Respondent, Razzi Lee Smith, was employed by the Petitioner, School Board of Orange County, Florida, as a classroom teacher at Rock Lake Elementary School. On October 7, 1980, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay from his position as a teacher pending a hearing. Respondent requested a hearing pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 120.57(1) and 231.36, Florida Statutes (1979). The charges upon which the suspension is based are, in summary fashion, that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office. The specific charges are based upon the following grounds: On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent twice refused a lawful and reasonable order of his Principal. On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent threatened his Principal. During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent evidenced in the presence of others, a continuing belligerent and hostile attitude towards his Principal. During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent failed to follow the established written procedures for calling in if he was to be late or not present. 5. On September 2, 19, 22, 24 and 25, 1980, Respondent failed to report to the school by 8:00 o'clock a.m. as required in the Faculty Handbook. Additionally, Respondent was charged with misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty based upon the following grounds: On August 29, 1980, Respondent was absent from his assigned work location at Rock Lake Elementary School. On September 12, 1980, Respondent took sick leave for one half day claiming that he was too sick to finish the school day at Rock Lake Elementary School but later attended a football game in Tampa, Florida. On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave claiming to be too sick to teach at Rock Lake Elementary School but attended football practice at Jones High School as a coach. On September 26, 1980, Respondent provided the Superintendent with a false oral statement, to wit, that he did not leave to go to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, until approximately 7:00 o'clock p.m., arriving at the game around half time at 8:30 p.m., when in fact Ice left to go to the game with the Jones High School football team. Lois Begley has been the acting principal at Rock Lake Elementary School since approximately February, 1980. Upon assuming the duties of acting principal, Ms. Begley immediately advised teachers at Rock Lake to report for work at 8:00 o'clock a.m. and leave at 3:30 p.m. Petitioner has a policy whereby teachers who find it necessary to be absent must report such intentions by 6:30 a.m. by notifying either Ms. Begley or an office employee at Rock Lake, Caroline Johnson. Respondent was advised of this policy; was warned of his breach of said policy on two occasions during February and March of 1980, and admitted that he was aware of the policy. (Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4 and 5) Ms. Begley stressed the need to know of a teacher's intended absence prior to 7:00 o'clock a.m. in order to recruit a substitute teacher. Subsequent to March, 1980, Respondent was again advised of Petitioner's policy respecting timely reporting for duty at Rock Lake Elementary School. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6) During a faculty meeting held during the afternoon of the last day of preplanning, August 29, 1980, Ms. Begley observed that Respondent was not present. She inquired of Respondent's whereabouts and was advised by an office employee that Respondent had called and reported that he was experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley observed Respondent at Jones High School later that same afternoon. During the last week of August, 1980, Respondent advised Ms. Begley that he had been leaving Rock Lake approximately one hour early each day during the preplanning week to assume coaching duties at Jones High and that this was cleared prior to Ms. Begley's tenure as acting principal at Rock Lake. Ms. Begley reluctantly agreed to Respondent's early departure during that school year, however, she made clear to Respondent that he would be expected to teach a full day the following year. Respondent and Ms. Begley made an agreement whereby he would report to work one half hour early, i.e., at 7:30 a.m., in order to make up for one half of the time lost due to his early departure from Rock Lake to coach at Jones High School. Respondent failed to report for duty at 7:30 a.m. as was his agreement with Ms. Begley. September 2, 1980, was the first school day for students at Rock Lake. Respondent reported for work at approximately 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980, and several students were observed milling around in the hallways attempting to find Respondent to enter their homeroom class. Respondent called the office at Rock Lake at approximately 8:30 a.m. on September 2, and advised that he was again experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley offered to assist Respondent in getting a ride to school. Within minutes, Ms. Begley had located a ride for Respondent. Ms. Begley called to so advise Respondent, whereupon Respondent told Ms. Begley that he had found a ride. As stated, Respondent reported for duty at 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980. Ms. Begley counselled Respondent regarding his claimed transportation problems again and stressed the reasons for her need to be alerted when he would be reporting late for work. Respondent generally discussed his problems with Ms. Begley on September 12, indicating that he was encountering personal problems that he did not care to divulge and that there were rumors about him being circulated around the school amongst other faculty members. Ms. Begley later discussed the problem regarding that fact that he had failed to make up 150 of the 300 minutes that he owed the School due to his early departure to coach at Jones High Sclcool during the week of preplanning. Ms. Begley did not take disciplinary action against Respondent due to his lateness in reporting for duty on the first day of school. Respondent requested the services of a substitute teacher to "fill in" for him during the afternoon of September 12, 1980, because he was ill. Respondent initially refused to divulge to school officials the nature of his illness. He attended and coached a football game between Jones High School and a local high school in Tampa that night. On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. As late as 8:30 a.m. on that day, several students were unable to get in class and Respondent failed to call to advise Ms. Begley or the designated official that he would report for work late. When questioned as to the reason for his tardiness by Ms. Begley, Respondent replied that he had earlier advised her that he was having transportation problems. Ms. Begley again counselled Respondent regarding his continued tardiness in reporting to work. At that time, he was also directed not to use school supplies to photocopy football plays for use at Jones High School without proper authorization. On September 19, office aides, Ann Green and W. Oliver, work situs was in the immediate area where Respondent was counselled by Ms. Begley and were in earshot of the conversations. Respondent balked and became vocal about being counselled by Ms. Begley for reporting late. Ms. Begley reported the incident to Dr. Skaggs, Superintendent in charge of employee relations and Ron Blocker, Area Superintendent, who serves as a liaison between the superintendent and individual school principals. During the conference with Ms. Begley on September 19, Respondent voiced displeasure about the working conditions at Rock Lake and expressed a desire to transfer when Ms. Begley reported what she termed to be threatening remarks by Respondent to Dr. Skaggs. On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. and was summoned for a conference with Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. During the conference, Respondent expressed disagreement or displeasure regarding the atmosphere in which he was being questioned and indicated that he preferred to leave. Respondent was warned of the consequences that might flow from his acts and conduct which could include either disciplinary action by way of a suspension or a failure to be reappointed for another term should he not heed the advice and warnings given him by his Principal, Ms. Begley. 2/ On September 22, 1980, Respondent reported for duty at approximately 8:14 a.m. Respondent did not call to advise Ms. Begley or the other designated official. Ms. Begley spoke to Respondent about his reporting tardy at approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 22, 1980. Present during the conference were Respondent, Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. Respondent was invited to offer and explanation or statement with reference to his continued pattern of reporting for duty late, however, he refused to make any verbal response. Ms. Begley reduced the oral reprimand to writing and delivered it to Respondent who failed to accept or verify that he was issued a reprimand. On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave and, therefore, did not report for work at Rock Lake. On that same day, however, Ms. Begley observed respondent at the football field at Jones High School between the hours of 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. working with a small group of football players. On the following day, September 24, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:07 a.m. Ms. Begley summoned Respondent to a conference, explaining to him at the outset of the possible consequences that might result from the conference. Given the gravity of the possible consequences, Ms. Begley inquired if Respondent cared to bring a witness or other representatives to be present with him during the conference. During the conference, Ms. Begley advised Respondent that she regreted having to give him a written reprimand but that his acts and conduct gave her no alternative. A copy of a reprimand was then given Respondent which he refused to sign acknowledging acceptance (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7). The parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement requires that written reprimands respecting lateness or failure to report for work be documented by a letter to that effect (Petitioner's exhibits Nos. 8 and 9). Ms. Begley, then, during the conference, asked Respondent if she could be of any further assistance to him, whereupon, Respondent in a hostile manner advised that he did not need or want any assistance and began pointing his finger at Ms. Begley telling her to "leave him alone." Respondent was told by Ms. Begley that that kind of conduct (vocal and belligerent outbursts) could result in disciplinary action to him. Ms. Begley inquired of Respondent what type leave he took on September 23, 1980, whereupon, Respondent advised that he went to see a doctor. Ms. Begley then asked Respondent to provide her with a doctor's statement to document that claim. Respondent never provided Ms. Begley with a medical excuse for his absence as requested. Ms. Begley considered that Respondent's demeanor and mannerism during the conference of September 24, 1980, constituted a threat based on the tone of his voice and the message, i.e., "quit messing with me. Stop bothering me--I'll do more than threaten you" (when Ms. Begley asked Respondent if he was threatening her). She also considered that Respondent's failure to signify acceptance of the reprimand constituted a compromise of her authority. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, pages 22, 23). Respondent later discussed the decision to discipline Respondent and ultimately decided to recommend his dismissal to Superintendent Skaggs and Area Superintendent Blocker during the evening of September 25, 1980. The possibility of a transfer was considered by Ms. Begley but rejected inasmuch as she was of the opinion that a transfer would not serve any useful purpose in correcting the problems evidenced by Respondent's erratic work habits. Ms. Begley considered that her attempt to reprimand Respondent was ineffective and incomplete based on his refusal to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the reprimand plus the combination of the insubordinate attitude displayed by him in the presence of his peers, his neglect of duty and tardiness in reporting for work, when combined, warranted a recommendation to the Superintendent that Respondent be dismissed as opposed to a transfer or some other lesser form of reprimand or discipline. Ron Blocker, the area administrator and liaison between the Superintendent and the Principal were summoned to Rock Lake Elementary School to assist Ms. Begley in what was once thought to be a possible teacher resignation. During the conference on September 24, 1980, Administrator Blocker advised Respondent that his failure to sign for receipt of a written reprimand could have grave disciplinary consequences in view of the gravity of the charges and Respondent's hostile conduct as manifested throughout the conference. Administrator Blocker recalled the forceful tone used by Respondent in telling Ms. Begley that he was "doing more than threatening her." Administrator Blocker also recalled Respondent's refusal to advise Begley of the reason for his absence the day prior to the conference indicating instead that she would know at the end of the work day. During the conference, Administrator Blocker recalled that he twice cautioned Respondent that his (Respondent's) refusal to follow an administrative directive may be interpreted as "gross insubordination" which could lead to possible termination or failure to be reappointed (as a teacher) the following school year. Calvin Perry is Director of Drivers Education and is the head football coach at Jones High School. As head football coach, Coach Perry is familiar with the duties of Respondent, a paid assistant coach assigned to coach the defensive team at Jones High School. Coach Perry confirmed that Respondent was present at the September 12, 1980, game in Tampa indicating that Respondent was present during the pre-warm ups and was present throughout the entire game. Coach Perry credibly testified that Respondent was present for football practice on September 23, 1980, having reported at the start of practice at approximately 3:00 p.m. and remained throughout the practice session which lasted until approxiately 5:15 p.m. However, Coach Perry also acknowledged that Respondent indicated that Respondent was ill at the game in Tampa. James L. Schott, Petitioner's Superintendent was shown copies of the letters sent to Respondent bearing the dates September 26, and October 4, 1980, respecting his suspension of Respondent without pay. Superintendent Schott explained that a conference was called to hear the nature of the charges; to hear both sides; to evaluate the evidence and determine the nature of, if any, recommended penalty he would make to the School Board, prior to making any recommendation based on the subject charges. Superintendent Schott recalled that while Respondent explained that he was ill on September 12, 1980, he was able to attend a football game in Tampa although he arrived during halftime because he was not feeling well and was uncertain as to whether he would attend the game at all. Respondent maintained his "story" to Superintendent Schott about attending the Tampa game during halftime. When Respondent advised Superintendent Schott that he also took sick leave on September 23, 1980, Superintendent Schott reminded Respondent of the similar situation by him on September 12, and, therefore, asked that he bring any documentary evidence of illness that he had so that it could be considered prior to his making any decision on the pending charges against him. Therefore, Superintendent Schott counselled Respondent regarding his failure to follow what he considered to have been lawful and reasonable requests regarding his attendance and timely reporting to work. During the Superintendent's conference with Respondent on September 26, 1980, he determined that Respondent was late approximately 50 minutes on September 19; approximately 14 minutes on September 20th and several minutes late on September 21 and 22. On September 23, respondent was absent for work claiming sick leave. According to Superintendent Schott, Respondent acknowledged that he might have made a threat to Ms. Begley during the conference on September 24, 1980. Superintendent Schott was able to independently determine from an investigation of the charges that Respondent had offered false information regarding his attendance to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, inasmuch as other credible evidence indicated Respondent's presence at that game throughout its entirety. After considerable deliberation, Superintendent Schott determined that termination was the only appropriate remedy that he should recommend to the full School Board to discipline Respondent. In making this decision, Superintendent Schott reflected on the facts that Respondent had obviously been terminated for failure to report to work as assigned and that to transfer Respondent would merely pass the problem to another Administrator to grapple with. Superintendent Schott, after much consideration, made the decision to recommend Respondent's termination without animosity and with much sensitivity to the problem based on the rapport that Respondent appeared to have with the youth and his peers at Rock Lake Elementary School. Superintendent Schott offered that teaching was more by example than by class room actions and that the responsibility of a teacher included getting to work promptly and was more than the usual duties expected once a teacher gets to class such as adding columns, deciphering words, reading etc. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent is a 1975 graduate of South Carolina State College and as stated, has been employed as a sixth grade teacher at Rock lake since the 1979- 80 school year. While so employed, Respondent has been involved in several school related activities outside his normal teaching duties, including Chairman of the Student Council; contact or liaison for Career Education; Chairman of the Safety Patrol; Scout leader and CTA representative. 3/ Respondent admits to not returning for duty on August 29, 1980, as charged. However, he exclaimed that he encountered car trouble enroute to his mother's home for lunch and consequently had to walk a distance of approximately two miles. Respondent also reported late for duty on September 2, due to transportation problems and did not arrive until approximately 8:45 a.m. Respondent also left school on September 12, 1990, at approximately 12:50 p.m. due to illness. Respondent admitted that he attended the game in Tampa on the evening of September 12, 1980. Respondent explains that this was possible because his health improved from the nauseated condition that he had suffered earlier during the day. Respondent rode to the game in Tampa with scouting coaches Smith and Robertson and arrived at the stadium in time for program warm-ups. 4/ Respondent also admitted reporting for work late on September 19 and 22, 1980. Respondent refused to sign a statement acknowledging acceptance of the written reprimand by Ms. Begley on September 24, 1980, based on his claimed "lack of trust" for Ms. Begley. In this regard, however, Respondent admits that Ms. Begley explained to him that signing the statement attached to the reprimand in no way signified agreement with the contents of the reprimand. Respondent claimed to have felt pressured to tell the Superintendent that he left Orlando at approximately 7:00 p.m. on the evening of September 12, 1980, and arrived at the game at halftime but that there was no willful attempt by him to misstate or otherwise misrepresent the facts to Superintendent Schott. The facts do not evidence a basis for Respondent's feeling. In this regard, Respondent admitted that he arrived at the game on September 12, 1980, before it started and remained for the duration of the game. Respondent did not verbally respond to inquiries by Ms. Begley during the conference with Ms. Begley and Area Superintendent Blocker because he considered Ms Begley's inquiry to be a form of harassment and an attempt by her to treat him as a "child." Finally, Respondent considered that by telling Ms. Begley that he was initially experiencing transportation problems excused his reporting requirements when he subsequently reported for work late.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be dismissed as an instructional employee of the Orange County School System. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2012), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at hearing, and upon the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 739881, covering the areas of Physical Education and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2015. He has held a certification in Florida since 2005. Respondent is African- American. At all times relevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been employed as an In- School Suspension (ISS) Teacher at the CARE Program in the Calhoun County School District (District). The CARE acronym is shorthand for character, achievement, respect, and education. The CARE Program is a second-chance school for students who have been suspended for more than ten days, have been suspended for drug offenses, or who are currently in a juvenile facility. The first time a student is assigned to the CARE Program, it is for a 90-day term. If the student does well, he or she returns to their regular school. The second referral is for a period of 180 days; the third for a year. The CARE Program generally has approximately 30-40 students at a time. In November 2012, the program had approximately 31-32 students. The CARE Program is located at a facility that used to house a vocational complex, next to the adult school. Also housed in this complex is the In-School Suspension (ISS) class, where students serve in-school suspensions of less than ten days. Students are referred to the ISS class for behavior such as tardiness and being disruptive in the classroom. The number of students in the ISS classroom varies, because it depends on how many students have been referred. There is a limit to how many students can be in the ISS class, because each school has a cap on the number of students it can refer at any given time. Testimony varied as to how many students were present at the time of the incident giving rise to this case. The most reasonable and credible testimony indicates that on November 14, 2012, there were approximately 15-20 students in the ISS class. There was adequate room in the ISS classroom for the number of students in the class. Some time prior to the incident giving rise to this case, part of the complex where the CARE Program and the ISS class were housed underwent construction. As a result, several staff members working in the complex had tires punctured because of construction debris in the area. The District would reimburse employees for repairs to tires that were punctured if the employee submitted the documentation related to the repair. Respondent had requested two new tires, as opposed to repair of his tires. Although the record is not clear when Respondent made his request, there was some delay in any action being taken to address it. Wilson McClellan was the superintendent of the District from 2000 to 2004, and then again from 2008 to 2012, after which he retired. Mr. McClellan, who is Caucasian, was an educator in Calhoun County for approximately 25 years. He had worked with Respondent in a summer recreation program at some point before Respondent was hired by the District. Mr. McClellan had told Respondent that if there was an opening in Calhoun County, he would give Respondent a call and let him know. On November 13, 2012, Mr. McClellan was defeated in his bid for re-election as superintendent. The next day, he visited the CARE Program and spoke with several of the staff there, presumably to touch base with people with whom he had worked. He came to the CARE Program around midday, and class was in session. While he was there, Mr. McClellan went to speak with Respondent about Respondent’s pending request for reimbursement for his tires. While repairs had been authorized, no other staff member had requested new tires. Mr. McClellan told Respondent that he would need to submit documentation for the reimbursement for action by the School Board, as opposed to the superintendent, because Mr. McClellan did not feel comfortable authorizing the expenditure when no one else had requested reimbursement for new tires instead of repair of existing ones. Mr. McClellan knocked on the door to the ISS classroom and he and Respondent went into the small office adjacent to it. When he told Respondent about the need to submit the reimbursement matter to the Board, Respondent became angry and walked back into his classroom. Respondent told McClellan, in the presence of his students, that if he had a different last name and a different color, then the results would have been different. McClellan denied Respondent’s claim and left the classroom. Mr. Thomas’s classroom had an inside door, going into a hallway, and an outside door that led to a covered pavilion area with picnic tables. Also adjacent to the area with the picnic tables is Barbara Hathaway’s office. Ms. Hathaway served as the Dean of Students for the CARE Program, a position that functions much like a principal does in a traditional school. When Mr. McClellan left the classroom, he went to the area with the picnic tables. Ms. Hathaway saw him there and came out to speak with him. While Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan were speaking, Respondent came out of his classroom and asked Ms. Hathaway to get someone to cover his class because he was “pretty hot” and needed to walk. According to Ms. Hathaway, Respondent was agitated and upset. She did not understand him to mean he was overheated based on temperature, but rather that he was upset or angry, and her testimony is credited. Without waiting for coverage for his class, Respondent walked away from the classroom and the area where Mr. McClellan and Ms. Hathaway were standing and up the sidewalk. Ms. Hathaway left to ask another staff member to cover the classroom and was going to walk back outside when she heard Mr. Thomas speaking loudly. She could not hear what Mr. Thomas said, but his tone was agitated. She noticed that the ISS classroom door to the outside was open, and the students could hear the heated conversation between their instructor and the superintendent, so she opened the inside door and told a student to shut the outside door. Ms. Hathaway thought from the students’ reactions that they were enjoying the interchange between Mr. McClellan and Mr. Thomas. She used her phone to call for a resource officer because she felt the situation was agitated and that someone should be present to intervene. After Ms. Hathaway walked inside to arrange for coverage for the classroom, Mr. Thomas had walked back down the sidewalk to Mr. McClellan. He repeated to Mr. McClellan that in this county, if he had a different last name and a different color, it would probably be a different result. Mr. McClellan became impatient and said, “shut up Ed, I am just not wanting to hear any more about that.” Mr. Thomas walked closer to him, glared and said, “if you ever say shut up again to me, I will be the last black man you ever say that to.”1/ Mr. Thomas is a large, imposing figure, and according to Mr. McClellan, he spoke in a loud, angry voice and “bowed up” in a threatening gesture; however, he was never close enough to the superintendent to actually strike him. While Ms. Hathaway could not hear the actual language being used, both Ms. Barbee, who came to cover the ISS classroom, and the students in the classroom were able to hear the colorful exchange. Ms. Barbee testified that she did not remember the actual conversation, but that there was “some cussing and hollering.” Her statement written the day of the incident indicates that Mr. Thomas used the term “f**k.” Likewise, P.G., one of the students in the classroom, testified that Mr. Thomas told Mr. McClellan, “don’t tell me to shut the f**k up,” and for him to “shut the f**k up.” P.G. believed the students in the room were shocked at the interchange.2/ After this exchange, Respondent once again walked away from Mr. McClellan and up the sidewalk away from his class. On both occasions, Respondent was five to six classroom lengths away from his classroom, and unable to monitor in any way the actions of his students. Ms. Hathaway, as noted above, was not present for this heated exchange and did not hear what was said. When she returned outside, Mr. Thomas was standing on the sidewalk up the hill from the classroom. She spoke to Mr. McClellan, who told her about the conversation with Mr. Thomas. What he told her involved the reimbursement issue and not any complaint about overcrowding. About that time Warren Tanner, the school resource officer, came around the corner. When he arrived, he saw Ms. Hathaway and Mr. McClellan sitting on a bench under the pavilion, and Mr. Thomas was standing at the end of the driveway at the end of the building. Mr. Tanner asked what had happened, and Mr. McClellan told him that Mr. Thomas had threatened him. Mr. Thomas walked back down the hill to where the others were standing, and Mr. McClellan told him to go home for the rest of the day. Mr. Thomas went into his classroom briefly, then came out and asked Mr. McClellan if he was sending him home for the rest of the day, and was told, “yes.” Mr. Thomas got in his truck to leave, then got out and asked Mr. Tanner if this was going to be a complaint, and Mr. Tanner told him, not at this time. Mr. McClellan returned to his office and called David House, the school board attorney. He related the events of the morning and told Mr. House that, in light of past behavior by Mr. Thomas and the current incident, he was considering terminating Mr. Thomas. Later that afternoon, Vicki Davis, assistant superintendent for the District, called Mr. Tanner and asked him to collect statements from those who witnessed or heard the morning’s events. Mr. Tanner got statements from Mr. McClellan, Ms. Hathaway, Ms. Barbee, and several students in Mr. Thomas’s class.3/ On Thursday, November 15, 2012, Mr. McClellan wrote to Mr. Thomas advising him that he was suspended with pay, effective immediately. Respondent had been the subject of discipline previously, and there had been concerns expressed about his behavior during his employment in Calhoun County. For example, in January 2008, he received a formal reprimand for allegedly confronting a fellow teacher in front of students in a loud, belligerent, and profane manner.4/ On June 3, 2008, Respondent received a second reprimand for allegedly leaving a magazine with an unclothed woman on the cover in the Health Building bathroom where it could be viewed by students. On January 13, 2011, Neva Miller, the principal of Blountstown Middle School, wrote a lengthy letter to Superintendent McClellan detailing several alleged incidents involving Mr. Thomas that caused her to “express concerns that I have as to the effectiveness and concerning anger control abilities of Edward Thomas.” A two-page document titled “Ed Thomas Issues Calendar Year 2011” was placed in his personnel file, recounting a series of concerns regarding alleged deficiencies in his performance. On February 23, 2012, Ms. Hathaway, as Dean of the CARE Program, documented an alleged incident involving a ninth-grade student.5/ On December 11, 2012, Mr. McClellan’s successor, Superintendent Ralph Yoder, issued a Notice of Charges for Dismissal to the Calhoun County School Board, recommending Respondent be suspended without pay and dismissed from employment by the District. The Notice of Charges stated, “Mr. Thomas has a history of engaging in insubordinate, hostile and confrontational behavior toward faculty members and administrators, which began in 2007 and culminated in an incident that occurred on November 14, 2012, involving the former Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Tommy McClellan. Mr. Thomas has been repeatedly instructed by persons in authority to correct his behavior, but he has failed to do so.” The Notice goes on to describe 13 separate incidents and references several others. Only the incident involving Mr. McClellan on November 14, 2012, is alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and Petitioner presented no evidence to prove what happened with respect to the other incidents. No findings are made concerning the validity of the other allegations in the Notice of Charges. It is considered solely to show that the District took action with respect to Respondent’s employment. Likewise, it is unclear what, if any, proceedings were conducted with respect to the Notice of Charges before the school board. Respondent acknowledged that his employment was terminated as of December 11, 2012, the day the Notice was issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), as well as Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that the Commission suspend Respondent’s teaching certificate for one year; that he submit to an evaluation for anger management by the Recovery Network on terms to be set by the Education Practices Commission; and that upon re-employment as an educator, Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years, with terms and conditions to be set by the Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (2011), or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed by the Education Practices Commission.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a teacher certified by the State of Florida, holding Florida Educator’s Certificate 958493, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Exceptional Student Education (ESE), and Autism Spectrum Disorders, valid through June 30, 2014. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was employed by the Bay County School District as an ESE teacher at Margaret K. Lewis Center (MKL Center). This is a second career for Respondent. She left a business and technology career to pursue a career in education, specifically working with students with special needs. Respondent obtained her Master’s degree and a special designation to work with special needs students. Respondent was motivated to pursue teaching special education students because she had an aunt with Down’s syndrome who had limited educational opportunities. Respondent taught at Oscar Patterson Elementary for the 2006-2007 school year, and then transferred to MKL Center beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. After Respondent received her state educational certification in autism spectrum disorders, she requested to be assigned to teach an ESE class beginning with the 2010-2011 school year. That year, she was voted as “Teacher of the Year” by her peers. The class to which Respondent was assigned was a challenging class. It was not unusual for students in this classroom to bite, kick, hit, pinch, and trip staff. During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of students was reduced from eight to four, and the number of paraprofessionals was increased from two to three. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were four students in her classroom: C.B., J.B., K.M., and D.C. One paraprofessional, Patricia Lewis, was assigned specifically to D.C. The other two paraprofessionals, Jennifer Shea Saulmon and Nancy Davis, worked with all of the children, and when able to, Patricia Lewis did as well. Ms. Davis, Ms. Saulmon, and Ms. Lewis have seven, fourteen and twenty-seven years of experience, respectively. C.B. had a severe mental disability with a limited ability to comprehend verbal communications and a limited ability to communicate. C.B.’s communication involved single words, sounds, and gestures. He could discern the speaker’s mood, but might not fully understand the content of what was said. For example, C.B. might not understand that someone was saying hello, but would understand that the speaker was friendly towards him. C.B. also had problematic behaviors including biting, pinching, scratching, and hitting. C.B. had an awkward gait and wore ankle orthotics (AFO’s), a type of plastic brace, over his shoe and lower leg to provide stability from the foot to the leg, and to assist in improving his ability to walk. C.B. was ten years old. J.B. was approximately 11 years old in January 2012, and was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He also had a limited ability to communicate using single words, sounds and utterances, and gestures. J.B. also used an iPad to communicate. Over time, someone working with J.B. would develop a greater ability to understand and communicate with him. J.B.’s difficult behaviors included spitting, hitting, kicking, and pinching. K.M. was 11 in January 2012. K.M. was diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, and had previously suffered a stroke which limited her use of one arm. She also had significant intellectual limitations. However, K.M.’s ability to communicate was greater than the other members of the class, and she could understand verbal communications. In addition, K.M. was more independent than her classmates, and was a risk for elopement from both the classroom and the campus. As stated by one of the paraprofessionals, K.M. “was a runner.” By all accounts, K.M.’s behaviors were consistently disruptive, and managing her in a classroom took a significant effort. D.C. was also 11 in January 2012. D.C. was diagnosed as autistic and engaged in repeated self-injurious behaviors. When upset, D.C. would repeatedly strike himself in the head and face, and he often wore a football helmet as a protective measure. D.C. was very strong, and attempts to prevent him from hurting himself could often result in staff members being hurt. There was testimony at hearing that his behavior plan addressed how many he times he was allowed to hit himself or how long he was allowed to hit himself without intervention. However, the behavior plan for D.C. was not in evidence. A portion of the classroom was designed specifically for D.C., with padded walls and a padded floor, in light of D.C.’s tendency to hit his head against hard surfaces as well. He had some beads that he played with that sometimes calmed him. At some point during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began to show signs that the stresses of her very challenging classroom were having an effect on her. After the Christmas break, her stress seemed to have intensified. Respondent was having trouble sleeping, suffered from high blood pressure and pain from injuries sustained in the classroom, and was experiencing some depression. Respondent began to “self- medicate” with alcohol at night. There was no credible evidence that Respondent ever drank during the day or was under the influence of alcohol during work hours. At the end of the school day on January 30, 2012, Ms. Lewis approached assistant principal Elizabeth Swedlund to voice some concerns about Respondent’s behavior in the classroom. Ms. Lewis related some events that had occurred in the classroom that day, as well as some general concerns regarding treatment of the students in the classroom. She voiced the following concerns: that Respondent took away D.C.’s beads and would allow him to hit himself for a period of time longer than allowed by his treatment plan; that she made statements to K.M. such as “I could kill you” or “go play in the street”; and that she hit C.B. with a closed hand and kicked him while working in “circle time.” On January 31, 2012, Ms. Swedlund notified her principal, Britt Smith, of the conversation with Ms. Lewis. She decided to speak with the other paraprofessionals in the classroom and after doing so, to report the information to the abuse registry. Principal Smith notified Sharon Michalik, the District’s Executive Director of Human Resources, of the issue with respect to Respondent. As a result, Mike Jones, Chief of Safety, initiated an investigation. Mike Jones visited the campus the following day. All three paraprofessionals were interviewed and asked to provide written statements. He took Respondent for a drug and urine test, which came back negative. On Friday, February 3, 2012, Respondent was notified to meet with Ms. Michalik and other administrators to review the allegations. After this meeting, Respondent was suspended with pay, and the School District planned to proceed with a recommendation for termination. However, instead the parties entered an agreement executed on March 30, 2012, through which Respondent would take a medical leave of absence and would only be allowed to return to a position with the School District if she was found fit for duty. If she returned, she would be required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. On March 30, 2012, the Department of Children and Families issued a letter to Respondent stating that it found no indicators of physical injury and no indicators of bizarre punishment. On April 27, 2012, Respondent was evaluated by psychologist David J. Smith who opined that at that time, she was not fit for duty. She was re-evaluated on July 26, 2012, and cleared to return to work. At that time, she was assigned to a different school. One of the issues raised by Ms. Lewis was that Respondent permitted D.C. to hit himself more frequently than allowed by his behavior plan. The Administrative Complaint specifically charges that she allowed D.C. to hit himself repeatedly for up to ten minutes, while his behavior plan indicated that he should be allowed to hit himself up to three times. The behavior plan was not entered into evidence. The evidence was unclear as to what the plan actually required, and it was equally unclear exactly what Respondent was doing. For example, there was testimony that she would attempt to redirect him once he started hitting himself, but did not physically intervene for ten minutes. There was other testimony that there was never a time when he was allowed to simply hit himself with no one doing anything. Without being able to examine the behavior plan, and without being able to specify the exact incident or incidents at issue, it is not possible to determine whether Respondent was varying from the requirements of the behavior plan, or if any variation was significant. Ms. Davis reported to Ms. Swedlund that on or about Friday, January 27, 2012, J.B. was in time-out because of bad behaviors. While he was in time-out, he was sitting behind a rolling partition, and Respondent was holding the partition in place so that J.B. would have to remain in place. J.B. spat at Respondent, which is something he did often. Ms. Davis reported that while holding the partition Respondent spat back at him, an action that shocked Ms. Davis. Respondent denies ever spitting on J.B. She testified via deposition that J.B. was spitting while in time-out, and she was holding the barrier while talking to him. She responded to his behavior by saying “you do not spit.” Respondent testified that it was possible that some spittle may have fallen on J.B., but that she never intentionally spit on him. The only person who testified regarding the spitting was Ms. Davis. While she was a very credible witness, there was no testimony regarding how close she was to Ms. Henson or to J.B., or that J.B. reacted in any way. Neither of the other paraprofessionals in the room testified that they saw or heard about the incident, and it is implausible to think that such behavior would go without comment. It is conceivable that in saying, “you do not spit,” that spittle would result. Given the high burden of proof for this proceeding, the allegation has not been proven by clear and convincing evidence. As previously stated, K.M. presented a classroom management problem. She had a tendency to run around the classroom, take her clothes off, or run out of the classroom and sometimes out of the building. She also would tear up items in the classroom and could be very disruptive. Ms. Lewis felt that Respondent had a hard time getting past her dislike of the child. She had heard her say things like, “I could just kill you right now,” and “go ahead and go into the street.” While Ms. Lewis believed K.M. could understand such statements, she did not react to them, except perhaps to run faster. Ms. Lewis did not believe that Ms. Henson was serious when she made the statements, but more likely made them when frustrated by K.M.’s behavior. Respondent did not recall ever making such statements. Neither Ms. Lewis nor the Administrative Complaint identified exactly when Respondent was to have made these statements, although Ms. Lewis specified that they were statements made at different times. While Ms. Lewis testified that she believed Respondent did not like K.M., it is just as likely that she did not dislike the child, but was extremely frustrated by her behavior. All of the paraprofessionals testified that Respondent truly loved the children she worked with, but that she was frustrated and overwhelmed in the very challenging classroom in which she taught. While the evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent made the statements, even Ms. Lewis testified that she did not believe Respondent was serious when she made them. Regardless, the statements were not appropriate statements to make to a child, especially a child with limited intellectual abilities that might not be able to discern whether Respondent was serious. They are, by their nature, disparaging statements. Finally, the incident which caused Ms. Lewis to approach Ms. Swedlund about Respondent involved Respondent’s reactions to C.B. C.B. liked to work on the computer. He would play computer games, such as Dora the Explorer, and was rewarded with computer time for good behavior and finishing all of his assigned work. On Friday, January 27, 2012, C.B. had a rough day, and had been hitting, pinching, and kicking staff. Respondent had spoken with his mother about his behaviors to see if there had been any changes at home that might have contributed to his aggressive behavior. Respondent had told C.B.’s mother that they would have to try some different methods to get C.B. to comply, and that his playing on the computer all day would have to stop. The paraprofessionals testified that on Monday, January 30, 2012, Respondent seemed agitated all day. One said she seemed to carry the frustrations of Friday into Monday. That morning Jennifer Shea Saulmon went to the cafeteria to pick up C.B., who had walked from the parent pickup area without incident, and seemed to be in a good mood. When they reached the classroom, C.B. went straight to the computers. Respondent immediately told him that he could not have computer time. Ms. Saulmon was upset by this, because C.B. had not misbehaved that morning. She questioned Ms. Henson’s decision, and Respondent responded that he could not play on the computer all the time. He then completed his morning work without any disruption, and then walked over to the computers. Ms. Saulmon told him he could not play on the computer at that time. At about 9:15 a.m., the class began “circle time.” During this time, the students sit on the outside of a u-shaped table while Respondent sits on the inside of the “u.” C.B. did not like circle time. On this particular day, he was sitting at the end of the u-shaped table, to Respondent’s left. He began, as he often did, to hit and bite. According to Ms. Saulmon, this behavior usually subsides after about five minutes. This day, however, it did not. C.B. continued to pinch and hit Respondent. In response, Respondent put her arm up with a closed hand (so that the child could not pull and bend back a finger) in a blocking motion, as the teachers and paraprofessionals had been taught to do in order to protect themselves. She said out loud, “I’m blocking, I’m blocking.” However, rather than simply holding her arm up to block against any blows, she would swing her arm toward him to stop the blow, and in doing so, made contact with his arm. Although to Ms. Davis it looked like Respondent was hitting him, she never thought Respondent was trying to hurt C.B. Each time Respondent blocked C.B., he pinched her again, and she blocked him again, which made him angrier. He then started kicking her, and Ms. Davis and Ms. Saulmon believed she kicked him back. However, neither paraprofessional could say that Respondent actually made contact with C.B. They were pretty certain that C.B. was kicking Respondent, and they could see movement toward him by Respondent, and C.B. responded angrily by squealing as he usually did when frustrated or angry. It is just as likely that Respondent was using her leg or foot to try to block C.B.’s kicks, as she stated in her deposition, and that C.B. was angry because she was blocking him. Nonetheless, Respondent’s clear agitation in the classroom that day led to Ms. Lewis’ conversation with Ms. Swedlund about Respondent’s behavior. While all of the paraprofessionals stated concerns about Ms. Henson’s ability to handle that particular class, all were very supportive of her continuing to teach in the special education area. All three seemed to think that the environment of that particular class, which by any measure would be extremely challenging, is one that overwhelmed Respondent, and that she had been in that setting too long. When Respondent returned to work at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, she was transferred to Beach Elementary School. The principal at the new school is Glenda Nouskhajian. Ms. Nouskhajian considers Respondent to be one of her lead teachers in the ESE department, and has no performance- related concerns about her. The only issue Respondent has had since coming to Beach Elementary was a minor paper-work issue related to transferring schools within the district. Respondent is not working in a stand-alone classroom like she was before. She is what Ms. Nouskhajian referred to as a “push-in,” meaning that she goes into other teachers’ classrooms and works with students in small groups in an inclusion setting. She works with the lowest quartile of students, and helps with all of these students’ interventions. Ms. Nouskhajian testified that the students with whom Respondent works are making “great strides,” and Respondent is an educator she would “absolutely” seek to retain. Ms. Nouskhajian knew that there was an issue at Respondent’s prior school, but did not investigate the details. She stated that Respondent had been placed at Beach Elementary by Sharon Michalik, and “I knew that if she was a danger to students, Sharon Michalik would not have placed her at my school . . . . That she went through the counseling and everything she had to do so when she came to my school it was a total fresh start.” Since coming to Beach Elementary, Respondent’s evaluation for the 2012-2013 school year was overall effective, with all categories rated as effective or highly effective. In sum, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent made inappropriate remarks to student K.M. There is not clear and convincing evidence that Respondent spat on J.B., or that she hit or kicked C.B. Likewise, there is not clear and convincing evidence that she varied significantly from D.C.’s behavioral plan or acted in a way that allowed him to hurt himself. There is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was frustrated and overwhelmed in the autistic classroom and, despite having asked for the assignment, had been teaching in that environment for too long to be effective, given the violent tendencies of the children in that setting. There is clear and convincing evidence that she took a leave of absence in lieu of termination and could only return to the classroom after an evaluation found her fit for duty. A change of setting was needed and has served to re-invigorate Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent has violated rule 6A- 10.081(3)(e). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded and placed on probation for a period of two years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission in its discretion may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 24th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: David Holder, Esquire J. David Holder PA 387 Lakeside Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Emily Moore, Esquire Florida Education Association 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's educator's certificate should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint filed on November 7, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Richard T. Vaughn, Jr., is licensed as a teacher having been issued Florida Educator's Certificate 678116 by the Department of Education. The certificate covers the area of sociology and was valid through June 30, 1995. When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at the Marion Regional Juvenile Detention Center (MRJDC) and The Phoenix Center in the Marion County School District. Based on conduct which occurred during school year 1993-94, on May 19, 1994, respondent was suspended from his teaching position by the Marion County School Board (Board). After an administrative hearing was held in December 1994, a final order was entered by the Board on March 31, 1995, terminating respondent for misconduct in office, incompetency, and willful neglect of duty. After learning of the Board's action, and conducting a further inquiry, petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, as Commissioner of Education, issued an administrative complaint on November 7, 1995, alleging that respondent's conduct also constituted a sufficient ground to discipline his teacher's certificate. The charges stem from incidents which allegedly occurred while respondent taught at MRJDC from September 1993 until April 7, 1994, and at The Phoenix Center from April 8, 1994, until May 17, 1994. In his request for a hearing, respondent has denied all material allegations. During most of school year 1993-94, respondent taught at MRJDC, which is a detention facility for students who are awaiting trial on criminal charges. As might be expected, the students at MRJDC "are very difficult to work with." At hearing, respondent's supervisor established that respondent had "difficulty" with his work, he was "uncooperative" with other faculty and staff, and he had "problems" with his peers. His behavior was generally described by all witnesses as being "bizarre" and "irresponsible." On some occasions, he would become angry with his students and "storm" out of his classroom leaving the students unsupervised. While respondent was teaching at MRJDC, it was necessary for the principal of the school's education center to meet with respondent because he would not speak to any of his colleagues. Respondent took the position that speaking with his peers was not in his job description, and thus it was unnecessary for him to do so. Although admonished by the principal to communicate with his peers, respondent continued to be abrupt and uncommunicative. During his tenure at MRJDC, respondent exhibited irrational and explosive behavior while teaching his classes. For example, he frequently engaged in screaming tirades against students who failed to meet his disciplinary expectations. In addition, it was not unusual for respondent to be confrontational with his students, and if threatened by one, he would challenge the student to carry out the threat, or to meet him outside the classroom to resolve the matter. Respondent's pattern of explosive behavior at MRJDC culminated on April 7, 1994, when the MRJDC superintendent was called to respondent's classroom to resolve an "emergency" situation. As it turned out, a student had thrown some pencil lead, hitting respondent in his glasses. Respondent began yelling at the student and challenging him to come outside the classroom and "take him on" to settle the score. When the superintendent arrived, she asked respondent to leave campus for the remainder of the day. However, respondent became abrupt and confrontational with the superintendent, initially refused to leave, and continued yelling at the student for another five minutes. Because of respondent's pattern of irrational and explosive behavior throughout the school year, and his loss of effectiveness as a teacher at MRJDC with both his colleagues and his students, a decision was made to transfer respondent to The Phoenix Center, an alternative education school, in order to give him one final opportunity. Effective April 8, 1994, respondent was reassigned to The Phoenix Center as an exceptional student education teacher. His class consisted of no more than four or five students. Despite the small number of students, respondent continually called the dean of students to resolve disciplinary problems which arose in his classroom. It can be reasonably inferred that respondent lacked the necessary demeanor and temperament to effectively manage and control his classroom. On May 3, 1994, respondent was described as being "incoherent" and "in a rage" while engaged in an altercation with a student who had threatened him. While the student was being led from the classroom to the principal's office by the dean of students, respondent became "agitated" and followed the student down the hallway continuing to challenge him to carry out his threat. Although ordered by the dean to return to the classroom, respondent initially refused to do so. Respondent's explanation for his conduct was that he was trying to prove a point with the student. For at least the second time that school year, respondent was instructed by the principal not to challenge students who had made threats. By engaging in the conduct described in the previous finding of fact, and that described in findings of fact 6 and 7, respondent intentionally exposed his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. On May 6, 1994, while coaching a school softball team, respondent became outraged over a call by the umpire and left the campus without permission. During his absence, the students were unsupervised. On May 17, 1994, respondent was returning to campus in his automobile when he approached a group of students in the roadway. One female student ignored her teacher's request to move and intentionally remained in the middle of the road. As he approached the student, respondent gunned his engine and drove straight for the student but hit his brakes stopping just short of her. Respondent later explained that he was merely trying to prove the point that if a student remained in the road with a car approaching, she would "be in trouble." By engaging in this conduct, respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect a student's physical safety. By virtue of his personal conduct over the school year at both MRJDC and The Phoenix Center, respondent's effectiveness as a classroom teacher has been seriously reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding respondent guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code, revoking his certificate for one year, allowing him to reapply for an educator's certificate only upon certification by a mental health professional that he is competent and capable of performing his duties as an educator, and upon reemployment, placing him on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 224-B Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl J. Zahner, II, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard T. Vaughn, Jr. 1731 26th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is used in Section 23.167, Florida Statutes. By memo dated November 6, 1981, all principals in Pinellas County were advised by Seymour Brown, Director, Secondary Placement and Substitute Teachers, that Thomas A. Rateau, Petitioner, was eligible to substitute in their schools as a teacher in business education and mathematics for grades 7 through 12. That substitute teacher offer was conditioned upon Rateau passing the November 11, 1981, physical examination. Rateau passed this examination. The principal at Dunedin Senior High School needed a teacher in business education to complete the semester ending January 25, 1982. He reviewed the applications on file in the office of Dr. Seymour Brown, interviewed Petitioner, and selected Petitioner to fill the vacancy at his school. The principal notified Dr. Brown of his choice and Petitioner was offered a contract for a teaching position in the Pinellas County school system for the 1981-82 school year for a period of 32 duty days beginning November 30, 1981, and ending January 25, 1982, which Petitioner accepted (Exhibit 2). This offer and acceptance were conditioned upon acceptable certification by licensed medical practitioner on a medical information form provided by the Personnel Department (Exhibit 2). At his option Petitioner took the medical information form to his attending physician, Dr. Guiterrez, who, on November 24, 1981, conducted a complete physical examination. Dr. Guiterrez summarized Petitioner's condition as "physically healthy." Following this entry the box checked provided: "Has permanent physical limitations acceptable for this job. Re-examine before transfer to another position." Dr. Guiterrez also completed the School Board form (Exhibit 6) in which he wrote or checked the following: Diagnosis: Status Post-spinal Surgery Prognosis: Fair Medication Prescribed: Bufferin Dosage: Restrictions, If Any: No heavy lifting Eligible To Work: Yes Under My Care: Yes The physical examination conducted by Dr. Guiterrez was forwarded' to the School Board examining physician, Dr. Joseph A. Baird. Dr. Baird had Petitioner complete the medical information part of Exhibit 12. Therein Petitioner acknowledged that he had had back surgery, that he has a current medical problem with his back, that he has received worker's compensation, and that he has physical limitations. In describing his worker's compensation claim (Exhibit 12), Petitioner stated that while employed by the U.S. Postal Service an industrial accident caused by a failure of equipment exacerbated an unknown, pre-existing condition which was determined to be a tumor growing in his spinal column. Surgery subsequently removed that part of the tumor that had grown out of the bottom of his spine. He was terminated by the postal service because he could no longer perform the continually heavy lifting required by his postal service job. Dr. Baird questioned Petitioner about his back problems and learned that if the tumor again grows out of his spine Petitioner may need additional surgery. Dr. Baird observed the scar on Petitioner's back, had Petitioner bend at the waist and checked his knee-jerk reflexes. This examination took less than five minutes. Dr. Baird then contacted Patricia Diskey, Employment Coordinator for the School Board, and discussed with her Petitioner's condition and asked her to provide him with the physical requirements for a teacher of business education in a Pinellas County high school. Following this discussion, Dr. Baird submitted the form letter to the office of Dr. Brown stating simply that Petitioner did not meet the physical requirements necessary for employment in the Instructional Department of the Pinellas County School Board (Exhibit 11). At the hearing Patricia Diskey testified that the job requirements for a high school business education teacher included the ability to do frequent and heavy lifting of typewriters, computer components, and other office equipment used to teach business education; to be able to bend down to clearly see the data processing screen used by the students; to move numerous books from classroom to classroom; to transport equipment to the school's service center several blocks distant, take the equipment into the center for repairs and return with replacement equipment; and to stand for long periods of time. She also testified that business education teachers would be required to lift and move equipment around the classroom weighing up to 100 pounds. However, no evidence was presented that a demonstration of such physical ability was ever required of a business education teacher in the Pinellas County school system. Dr. Baird never includes a muscle-tone test in the examinations he conducts for teacher applicants. Petitioner was not requested to demonstrate his capability or inability to lift equipment used in the classroom. Physically, Petitioner is a well-developed white male. Exhibit 12 shows him 5 feet eleven and one-half inches in height and weight of 225 pounds. He is not obese and gives the appearance of one having greater than average strength normally found in men his age. Respondent presented evidence that it has employed disabled persons, and a list of those handicapped persons employed in Respondent's secondary schools was presented as Exhibit 9. It is noted that the majority of those handicapped employees listed have permanent type disabilities such as blind in one eye, deformed arm, legally blind, uses crutches, part of limb missing, speech impediment, hearing problems, limps, crippled leg, etc. Respondent also presented evidence that persons suffering back problems were hired by the School Board (Exhibit 10), one of whom was a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair, but produced no evidence that it had employed a teacher so handicapped.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the head of the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in the State of Florida. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent has been licensed in the fields of elementary education and exceptional student education. Her Florida education certificate number is 840291. Her certificate expires on June 30, 2010. Respondent was employed by the Bradford County School District from 1994 to 1996, from 1998 to 2001, and finally from 2004 to 2007. She has worked as a substitute teacher, a parent specialist, and a teacher of varying exceptionalities. At the time of the events alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the principal and teacher at Believer's School of Learning (Believer's School) in Bradford County School District. Believer's School was a charter school, for grades K-3, meant to give alternatives to traditional public school. Charter schools fulfill various purposes such as improving student learning and increasing learning opportunities. With respect to the Believer's School, a special emphasis was placed on low- performing students and reading. An "exceptional student" is defined by Section 1003.01(3)(a), Florida Statutes, as: ny student who has been determined eligible for a special program in accordance with rules of the State Board of Education. The term includes students who are gifted and students with disabilities who have an intellectual disability; autism spectrum disorder; a speech impairment; a language impairment; an orthopedic impairment; an other health impairment; traumatic brain injury; a visual impairment; an emotional or behavioral disability; or a specific learning disability, including, but not limited to, dyslexia, dyscalculia, or developmental aphasia; students who are deaf or hard of hearing or dual sensory impaired; students who are hospitalized or homebound; children with developmental delays ages birth through 5 years, or children, ages birth through 2 years, with established conditions that are identified in State Board of Education rules pursuant to s. 1003.21(1)(e). Respondent had Exceptional Student Education (ESE) students in her school. Believer’s School was required to follow federal and state guidelines with respect to ESE students. Those requirements include keeping complete, current and accurate records with respect to exceptional education students. These recordkeeping requirements are required by federal and state law and are necessary for the school system of Bradford County, of which Believer's School was a part, to remain eligible for federal and state funds allocated to pay costs associated with educating exceptional students. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 6.03028(3), Respondent was required to prepare an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each ESE student attending Believer's school. Rule 6A-6.03028(3) states: (3) IEP Requirements. An IEP or individual family support plan (IFSP) must be developed, reviewed, and revised for each eligible student or child with a disability served by a school district, or other state agency that provides special education and related services either directly, by contract, or through other arrangements, in accordance with this rule. Parents are partners with schools and school district personnel in developing, reviewing, and revising the IEP for their student. An IEP is necessary to evaluate the student's educational level, to establish short and long-term educational objectives, to develop alternative ways to accomplish those objectives, and to record the progress of the plan and establish a means for review of the student's educational progress. The proper preparation and maintenance of an IEP is a basic responsibility of the Respondent for exceptional education students at Believer's School. An improperly prepared IEP is potentially harmful to the learning of an ESE student because services and accommodations must be listed on the student's IEP before they can be provided. IEP’s are created by an IEP Team during a meeting involving the parties as set out in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(c) as follows: (c) IEP Team participants. The IEP Team, with a reasonable number of participants, shall include: The parents of the student; Not less than one (1) regular education teacher of a student with a disability... Not less than one (1) special education teacher of the student, or where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the student; A representative of the school district who is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities, is knowledgeable about the general curriculum, and is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the school district. . . An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results who may be a member of the IEP Team as described in subparagraphs (3)(c)3., or (3)(c)4., of this rule;. . . Upon completion, the IEP is signed by the regular education teacher, the ESE teacher, the local education agency (LEA), and the parent or guardian of the student. The LEA is ultimately responsible for what goes into the IEP. If something is in the IEP it is because the LEA determined that it was feasible to carry out. The ESE teacher examines the psycho-educational reports and the specialized needs of the student. He or she often provides strategies to the regular education teacher to use with the ESE student. The regular education teacher is the most familiar with the curriculum being used for the student’s grade level. He or she provides insight as to how that curriculum can be adapted for the ESE student. Members of the IEP Team for an ESE student are supposed to be teachers and individuals associated with the student’s current grade level and involved in the student's education, in order to provide accurate curriculum and services for the student. The IEP Team is supposed to review the child’s test scores or have access to the child, know about the curriculum being used, and what types of accommodations an ESE student of the particular grade level would need. By signing the IEP, the individual team members are stating they met to discuss the ESE student, to develop goals and objectives and services for the student, and that they will follow up on making sure those goals and objectives are met. IEP's are updated on an annual basis. The annual IEP conference is mandatory, and failure to provide such a conference is a violation of federal, state, and School Board rules and policies. Failure to hold such a conference deprives the parents of the exceptional student any meaningful participation in determining the student's educational goals and may deprive the child of the assistance to which he or she is entitled. It also jeopardizes continued state and federal funding of the School Board's exceptional education program. Respondent was instructed, as were other teachers of exceptional students in the school district, that every IEP must be reviewed at least once a year through an annual IEP conference. Respondent was trained in how to prepare IEPs by the Bradford County School District on July 19, 20, and 21, 2005. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) requires that the school notify parents of an ESE student that an IEP meeting is scheduled prior to the IEP Team Meeting taking place. This notification is more than a formality; it is meant to insure meaningful participation by parents or guardians in the IEP process. Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b) states as follows: (b) Parental participation in meetings. Each school district shall establish procedures that provide the opportunity for one or both of the student’s parents to participate in meetings and decisions concerning the IEP for the student. Parents of each student with a disability must be members of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their student. Procedures to ensure participation in meetings shall include the following: Notifying parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend; and Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place. A written notice of the meeting must be provided to the parents and must indicate the purpose, time, and location of the meeting, and who, by title or position, will be attending. . . . * * * A meeting may be conducted without a parent in attendance if the school district is unable to obtain the attendance of the parents. In this case, the district must have a record of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreed on time and place, such as: Detailed records of telephone calls made or attempted and the results of those calls; Copies of correspondence sent to the parents and any responses received; and Detailed records of visits made to the parents’ home or place of employment and the results of those visits. To comply with Rule 6A-6.03028(3)(b), it is Bradford County School District’s policy to send out a Parent Notification Form 10 days prior to an IEP team meeting. A few days after the first notification was sent, a second notification is sent to the parent. After the two written notifications are sent, a phone call is made to the parent of the ESE student. Student S.B. began school in the Bradford County School District when she was in pre-K. She was identified as a student with developmental disabilities. In 2005, she was living in Richmond, Virginia, and found to be eligible for exceptional education services as a student with a developmental disability. Upon return to Florida, S.B. was enrolled in Southside Elementary on March 17, 2005. In May 2005, an IEP team met, determined that S.B. was a student with specific learning disabilities, and developed an IEP outlining the services required for S.B. Without those services, S.B. would not receive a free appropriate public education as contemplated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or Florida law regarding the provision of exceptional education. IEPs for exceptional education students are required to be completed every year before the prior year’s IEP expires. S.B.’s next IEP was due on May 17, 2006. On February 13, 2006, S.B. enrolled in Respondent’s charter school, Believer's School of Learning, approximately three months before S.B.’s next IEP was due. There was apparently some delay in providing S.B.'s May 2005 IEP to Respondent, but the length of the delay is unclear. In order for a school district to receive the extra funding for its ESE students all the ESE students’ IEP’s must be current by "FTE week." FTE week is when the schools determine a final head count of all the students that are in attendance. The FTE week for Bradford County School District in 2006 was October 13, 2006. All the ESE students within the school district had to have their IEPs in by that date or the schools would not receive the extra funding associated with that student. If S.B.’s IEP was not turned in before October 13, 2006, Believer's School would have only received its normal funding only instead of the additional ESE funding. As of the last week of September 2006, Respondent had not completed the IEP for S.B. In late September, Respondent called Verdell Long, and asked for some assistance in preparing an IEP for a third grader. On September 28, 2006, Respondent met with Verdell Long, at Bradford County High School, during Ms. Long’s lunch break, for assistance with preparing an IEP for a third grader at her charter school. Verdell Long was a high school teacher at Bradford County High School who had worked with ESE students, with a focus on mental retardation from grades K-12. She had assisted Respondent with IEPs in the past. She understood that she was assisting with a “sample” IEP to be used as a model. However, it was Respondent’s intention to use the product created as an IEP for the student S.B. The day of the meeting Verdell Long’s computer was not working so she could not access the IEPs she had on file. She asked another high school teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes to assist in the meeting. Dr. Haynes was an ESE teacher at Bradford County High School in September 2006. She was very experienced with preparing and writing IEPs, having just completed a doctoral dissertation which included copies of third and fifth grade IEPs. Dr. Haynes had not previously met Respondent. Dr. Haynes brought several blank “dummy” IEPs with her to the meeting in order to have examples to show Respondent. The IEP prepared at the meeting included the various components of an IEP, such as the measurable goals and objectives for a third grader, but did not include the demographic information on any student. The document prepared at the meeting did not have a student’s name or test scores on it anywhere. Respondent did not bring the student S.B. or her test scores with her to the meeting. However, neither Ms. Long nor Dr. Haynes expected to see individualized information because they did not understand that an IEP for an actual child was being prepared. Verdell Long signed the IEP as the ESE teacher, Dr. Vivian Haynes signed as the LEA, and Respondent signed as the regular education teacher. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was contracted with Believer's School by the Bradford County School District to provide services as an LEA representative or an ESE teacher. Both Verdell Long and Dr. Vivian Haynes believed the purpose of the meeting was to construct a model IEP in order to assist Respondent with properly preparing an IEP for an ESE student. Neither expected the document created at their meeting to be submitted as an actual IEP for S.B., or any other student, and neither considered the meeting to be an IEP team meeting. Neither Verdell Long nor Dr. Vivian Haynes was shown a Parent Notification Form indicating that their meeting was to be an IEP team meeting. Neither would have signed the IEP if they had seen such a form because they did not believe that an IEP team meeting was being conducted. After the meeting on September 28, 2006, Respondent took the IEP form prepared with the help of Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes, and inserted information specific to S.B. She then submitted the form as S.B.’s IEP and turned in to the Bradford County School District. Submitted with the IEP form was a document which purported to be the Notification of Meeting Form for the IEP team meeting. Only one notification is referenced. The form was dated September 15, 2006, and identified Dr. Vivian Haynes and Verdell Long as participants in the meeting, notwithstanding Respondent's acknowledgement that she did not meet Dr. Haynes until September 28, 2006, and did not know until that time that Dr. Haynes would be participating in the meeting. The form also indicated that the IEP meeting would take place at the Believer's School, as opposed to the Bradford County High School, where the meeting between Respondent, Ms. Long and Dr. Haynes took place. There is no other indication of other attempts of notification. The signature line reserved for a parent or legal guardian is signed by a Rudolph Williams and dated September 29, 2006, the day after the meeting took place. Respondent claims that Mr. Williams is S.B.'s stepfather. However, there is nothing in the Bradford County School District's records to indicate that Mr. Williams is a parent or legal guardian of S.B., and school district officials were not aware of anyone by that name living in the home. By her own admission, Respondent did not keep "official records" for any of her students, including ESE students. She was not particularly concerned with who signed the IEP, because she apparently considered it to be simply a matter of paperwork to be filed with the School District. In her view, the person responsible for ensuring that a child is receiving the appropriate education is her teacher, regardless of the directives in the IEP. She felt that some of the things identified as required simply could not be done at a school her size. She did not consider the role of the LEA and the ESE teacher on the IEP to be all that important. To her, the real responsibility for the child's education lay with the teacher who worked with her on a daily basis. S.B. was later withdrawn from Believer's School and now attends Starke Elementary School. Believer's School has since closed and is no longer operating as a charter school.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent to be guilty of the violations alleged in Counts Two through Seven and dismissing Count One of the Administrative Complaint; imposing a fine of $500; suspending her certificate for one year and placing Respondent on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 22nd day of October, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the Respondent's employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed as a behavioral interventionist with the Palm Beach County School District during the 2000-2001 school year. A behavioral interventionist is a non- instructional employee who works primarily with students receiving services through Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Programs. In addition to monitoring performance and behavior of ESE students, Respondent supervised regular education students who were serving in-house suspensions, performed bus and cafeteria duty, and helped maintain discipline throughout the campus. Respondent also served as an assistant football coach. Respondent received specialized training in order to perform his duties as a behavioral interventionist. He received child development training and attended approximately 12-13 workshops dealing with physical restraint and conflict resolution issues. Respondent is not a member of a collective bargaining unit. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Student 1, a male, was 17-years old and a junior at Forest Hill. Student 1 is 5'10" tall and weighs approximately 260 pounds. Respondent is 6'3" tall and weighs approximately 250 pounds. Respondent is a former professional football player who routinely lifts weights. On December 11, 2000, between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Student 1 was in the area of the outdoor basketball court watching a basketball game. Student 1 had permission to be on the campus of Forest Hill, but he should not have been in the area of the outdoor basketball court. Respondent was in the weight room at Forrest Hill that afternoon demonstrating weight lifting techniques to a group of his football players. After he completed his weight lifting workout, Respondent went to the outdoor basketball court to play basketball. Respondent began playing basketball with a group of students, including students who did not play football. Student 1 could have played if he had wanted to do so. Student 1 was not playing when the acts at issue in this proceeding occurred. Shortly after the game began, Student 1 was standing off the basketball court observing the game when the basketball ball was thrown out of bounds near him. Respondent walked up to Student 1 and said, "why don't you get the ball fat boy?" In response, Student 1 used profane language and was disrespectful towards Respondent. Respondent reacted by tapping Student 1 on the cheek with his open hand. Student 1 asked Respondent why he hit him, but received no response. As Student 1 attempted to walk away, Respondent tapped him again on the back of the head and the two exchanged words. Respondent was not justified in making physical contact with Student 1. Student 1 again addressed Respondent using profane language. Respondent reacted by taking Student 1 to the ground using a technique that he had been trained to use to restrain students. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent placed Student 1 in a chokehold when he took him to the ground. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent did not use a chokehold on Student 1. There was also a conflict in the evidence as to whether Student 1 had become aggressive and whether Respondent was merely trying to restrain Student 1. The evidence is clear that Respondent physically restrained Student 1 because Student 1 had been disrespectful towards him, not because Student 1 had become combative. Respondent was not justified in physically restraining Student 1. Student 1 was on the ground when Respondent released him from the restraining hold. As Student 1 was attempting to rise, Respondent hit him with his forearm, which forced Student 1 back to the ground. Witnesses at the basketball court told Student 1 to stay down, but he attempted to rise and saw Respondent in a three-point position typically assumed by football linemen. Almost immediately, Respondent came at Student 1 again and forearmed him back to the ground. Student 1 fell back to the ground, biting his tongue as he went down. He then got up and began cursing. After an interval of a few minutes, Student 1 asked Respondent why he had hit him and began to spit in the general direction of Respondent. Respondent, believing that Student 1 was spitting at him, grabbed him in the area of the neck and forced him against the fence surrounding the basketball court. Respondent told Student 1, "Don't play with me boy, I'm not a kid." Respondent was not justified in that use of force against Student 1. The incident lasted over a period of several minutes. Student 2 was present during the entire incident and Student 3 was present during the latter part of the incident (when Respondent grabbed Student 1 by the neck and forced him against the fence). Both witnesses corroborated Student 1's version of the events. No other student witnesses testified at the final hearing. Student 1 complained that afternoon to a coach named Coleman about what had occurred and he also told his mother later that evening when he got home. Student 1 complained to his mother that his neck hurt and she took him to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a sprained neck. On December 12, 2000, Student 1 and his mother returned to the school and complained to Assistant Principal Mark Sagovac, about what happened the afternoon before. Mr. Sagovac thereafter spoke with Respondent, who did not deny the incident had occurred. Respondent admitted to Mr. Sagovac that he called Student 1 a "fat boy" and asked him to get the ball, which had rolled out of bounds. Respondent further told Mr. Sagovac that he pushed Student 1 to the ground with his forearm and forced Student 1 up against the fence because he felt Student 1 was threatening him. After speaking with Respondent, Mr. Sagovac interviewed Student 1 again and spoke to other witnesses. Some time thereafter a meeting was held between Student 1, his mother, Respondent, Mr. Sagovac, and Assistant Principal Green, who is also an assistant principal assigned to Forest Hill. The incident was discussed again and at one point, Respondent apologized to Student 1 and his mother. After the meeting concluded, Mr. Sagovac issued to Respondent a verbal reprimand with written notation for the actions he took on December 11, 2000. Prior to serving the Respondent with the verbal reprimand with written notation, Sagovac did not consult with his principal or anyone in the Petitioner 's Personnel Office or Office of Professional Standards to determine if he was complying with policy or if he was following accepted personnel practice concerning the contemplated discipline. Mr. Sagovac was not complying with school policy when he issued the verbal reprimand with written notation. Mr. Sagovac did not have the authority to discipline Respondent. Shortly after the conclusion of the meeting attended by Student 1, his mother, Respondent, and Mr. Sagovac, a complaint was made to the school district's police department concerning the December 11, 2000, incident. Based upon the complaint, a criminal investigation into Respondent's actions was initiated. There was no evidence as to the status of any criminal charges presented at the final hearing. Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards received information concerning the criminal investigation, which caused it to open its own administrative investigation. After the Office of Professional Standards received the police report and the attached documents, the case was assigned to an investigator. During the Petitioner's investigation, Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay and assigned to duty at his home. This assignment became effective February 1, 2001. After Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards completed its investigation, it prepared a report of the incident and, consistent with its rules, submitted the case for review to a case management committee. Case management review is a process whereby approximately a dozen high level employees working for the district meet at the direction of the Superintendent to review pending personnel cases which may result in the suspension of employment without pay or the termination of employment. Respondent's case management committee determined that probable cause existed to sustain the allegation Respondent used inappropriate physical force on the student in question. Once probable cause was found, it further determined that the level of the force used warranted a recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. Based upon the case management committee's recommendation to terminate Respondent for having engaged in inappropriate physical force on a student, Superintendent of Schools Arthur C. Johnson notified Respondent by letter dated May 8, 2001, that he would recommend to the School Board at its meeting to be held May 16, 2001, that Respondent's employment be terminated and that he be suspended without pay pending the completion of the proceedings to terminate his employment. On May 16, 2001, the School Board voted to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. It is the policy of the Petitioner that no employee is to use physical force with a student unless the employee is breaking up a fight, acting in self-defense, or protecting the student from hurting him or herself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2002.
