The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether this case should be dismissed due to Petitioner's failure to file a timely Petition for Relief as required by Rule 60Y-5.008, Florida Administrative Code; and if not, (b) whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her handicap by creating a hostile work environment, failing to accommodate her disability, and causing Petitioner's constructive discharge contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white female. She applied for a cashier's job at Respondent's store in Defuniak Springs, Florida, on March 30, 2000. Petitioner's job application indicated that she was available to work on any shift and any day of the week, including days, evenings, nights, Saturdays, and Sundays. As a general rule, Respondent hires people that are available to work on an as needed basis. However, there is no persuasive evidence that Respondent always refuses to hire people who are not available to work at all times. On April 13, 2000, Petitioner began working for Respondent as a part-time cashier. She only worked a few days before she suffered two heart attacks on the same day, neither of which occurred while she was at work. Her medical records indicate that she began having heart problems in 1996 and that a stent was implanted in an artery of her heart on April 21, 2000. On April 23, 2000, Petitioner requested a medical leave of absence, expecting to return to work on or about June 1, 2000. Respondent granted this request. On May 1, 2000, Petitioner's doctor certified that Petitioner had a diagnosis of "S/P Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction." The doctor stated that Petitioner could return to work and resume normal activity pending a follow-up evaluation on May 30, 2000. On June 13, 2000, Petitioner's doctor certified that Petitioner could anticipate returning to work on July 17, 2000. Petitioner was scheduled to repeat a heart catheterization on July 14, 2000. Medical records indicate that Petitioner underwent a stent-implant in an artery of her heart at that time. On July 21, 2000, Petitioner tendered her resignation because she did not expect to return to work. Respondent accepted Petitioner's resignation, indicating on the exit interview form that she was eligible for rehire. The exit interview form also indicates that Petitioner had qualified for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits due to her heart condition. Petitioner recovered from the surgery and applied for re-employment with Respondent on September 9, 2000. Petitioner sought a full-time position, indicating on her second employment application that she was available to work at any time. She specifically requested as many hours as Respondent could give her. Petitioner confirmed her availability to work with no job restrictions during her job interview. On October 26, 2000, Petitioner completed a Form 8850, Pre-screening Notice and Certification Request for the Work Opportunity and Welfare-to-Work Credits. On this form Petitioner certified that she had advised Respondent of her receipt of SSI benefits for any month ending within the last 60 days. Respondent rehired Petitioner to work as a peak-time (part-time) cashier beginning on October 30, 2000. Petitioner accepted the position even though she knew that working as a cashier involved a lot of stress and would require her to lift items as heavy as 50 pounds. Shortly after being re-hired, Petitioner actively sought more work hours in addition to her regular schedule. Respondent accommodated Petitioner's request by letting her work on the floor as a stock clerk, as well as a cashier. Approximately two weeks after returning to work, Petitioner required hospitalization again due to a heart attack. She was discharged from the hospital on November 27, 2000. Petitioner's doctor instructed her to rest and limit her activity, including walking, heavy exercise, and/or lifting more than five pounds, resuming normal activity on the second day as "tolerated." On December 2, 2000, Petitioner was admitted to the emergency room again after work. Petitioner's doctor recommended that Petitioner not return to work until she was evaluated again on December 11, 2000. Petitioner's doctor released her to return to work on December 12, 2000. Respondent's employees and management were aware of Petitioner's heart condition but they were not aware that Petitioner had a disability requiring accommodation. The doctor's release-to-work contained no medical restrictions. During December 2000, Petitioner worked as a cashier and on the customer service desk receiving items returned by customers. The latter job occasionally required Petitioner to handle heavy items. On January 9, 2001, Respondent gave Petitioner a performance appraisal. The appraisal indicated that Petitioner worked well with others, assisted in raising funds for charity, and participated in associate functions. Respondent's performance standards include "below," "meets," or "exceeds" expectations. Petitioner's performance appraisal indicates that she "met" performance expectations in all areas except one area of productivity. She received a "below" expectations rank as to the number of items she scanned per hour. Based on the overall appraisal, Petitioner received a pay raise commensurate with the "meets" expectation criteria. On February 6, 2001, Petitioner's doctor excused her from work for a week due to illness. The doctor indicated that Petitioner could return to work on February 9, 2001, if she was feeling well. Otherwise, Petitioner would need another medical evaluation before she returned to work. On February 12, 2001, Petitioner's doctor excused her from work until February 14, 2001. Petitioner's medical records indicate that Petitioner had bronchitis, asthma, and flu-like symptoms. Around the middle of February 2001, Petitioner requested that she be scheduled to work the night shift only two nights per week. Respondent's associate schedules, which were computer-generated weeks in advance of the scheduled work, show that Respondent granted her request. Petitioner was scheduled to work after 6:00 p.m. as follows: (a) two times from February 24, 2001, to March 2, 2001; (b) one time from March 3, 2001, to March 9, 2001; (c) one time from March 10, 2001, to March 16, 2001; and (d) two times from March 17, 2001, to March 23, 2001. Respondent posts daily or weekly schedules to make corrections to the computer-generated schedules. Two such undated handwritten schedules indicate that Petitioner was scheduled to work a day shift on two days. Petitioner actually worked after 6:00 p.m. as follows: one time from February 10, 2001, to February 23, 2001; one time from February 24, 2001, to March 9, 2001; and no times from March 10, 2001, to March 23, 2001. On or about February 20, 2001, Petitioner told her supervisor that she planned to resign on March 1, 2001. In a subsequent handwritten note dated February 27, 2001, Petitioner advised Respondent that she intended to quit work on March 23, 2001. The note states that she was leaving due to illness but wanted to return when she was well. On or about March 8, 2001, a customer in an express checkout lane, limited to 20 items, made a written complaint to Petitioner's supervisor that Petitioner had been rude. Specifically, the customer alleged that Petitioner had expressed her objections to the customer having more than 20 items when the customer had exactly 20 items. The customer claimed that Petitioner's comments were embarrassing. Petitioner's supervisor gave Petitioner a verbal coaching. The supervisor reminded Petitioner of Respondent's policy that the customer was always right. During the hearing, Petitioner stated that she agreed with this policy. Under protest, Petitioner complied with the supervisor's request for Petitioner to write an apology to the customer. The written apology stated that Petitioner was sorry if she hurt the customer's feelings and asked the customer to please go to Petitioner's checkout line again. The supervisor also wrote an apology to the customer. On March 12, 2001, Petitioner underwent a medical examination at Doctors Medical Center of Walton County due to chest pains radiating into her right arm. The medical history taken at that time indicates that Petitioner's medical history included two heart attacks and five stents in her heart arteries. Petitioner's doctor wrote an excuse for Petitioner missing work on March 13, 2001. The note states that Petitioner could return to work on the following Monday, March 19, 2001. On March 21, 2001, Petitioner had an altercation with a customer service manager. The incident occurred because Petitioner and another cashier were scheduled for breaks about the same time. The manager allowed the other cashier to go on break before Petitioner because the co-worker's line was empty and Petitioner had customers in her line. Raising her voice, Petitioner protested that she was due a break before her co-worker. The manager told Petitioner to stop harassing him. Petitioner subsequently complained to her supervisor. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she got "sassy" with the customer service manager on March 21, 2001. The morning after the altercation with the customer service manager, Petitioner told her co-workers that she intended to have the store manager fired because she was having him investigated. As a result of her comments, Petitioner was invited to the rear office where she spoke to the regional personnel manager on the phone. During that conversation, the personnel manager told Petitioner she could call him at home if she felt more comfortable doing so. The personnel manager excused Petitioner from work for the next two days with pay through March 23, 2001, the effective date of her resignation. Petitioner's final exit interview is dated March 22, 2001. On the exit interview form, Petitioner indicated that she quit her job because she did not like the way the store manager ran the store and due to her health. Petitioner indicated that the termination was voluntary due to her health. After Petitioner signed the exit interview form and left the store, Respondent's staff had further conversation with the regional personnel manager and completed a section on the form reserved for the employer. This section indicates that Petitioner had a bad attitude and, if she had not resigned, Respondent would have terminated Petitioner. Competent evidence shows that Petitioner did have a bad attitude after being rehired. She always took the position that she was right and did not want to communicate with certain managers. Petitioner understood that she could only work for six months without losing her SSI benefits. Her resignation on March 23, 2001, occurred just prior to the end of the six-month period. Due to her health problems, Petitioner has not worked since she resigned her job with Respondent. She has not looked for work and does not intend to do so because she continues to receive SSI. During the hearing, Petitioner discussed several incidents in support of her allegations of discrimination based on her disability. However, Petitioner admitted that her memory was bad and that she could not recall the specific dates involved. On several occasions, Petitioner complained to Respondent's district manager about the way the store manager ran the store. For example, Petitioner complained that someone was selling Avon products in a fitting room. The district manager determined that there was no merit to this allegation. On another occasion, Petitioner complained to Respondent's district manager that the store manager had made an inappropriate religious comment to Petitioner. Upon subsequent investigation, the district manager determined that the store manager had made one such comment to another employee but not to Petitioner. The store manager was advised to refrain from making such comments in the future. Petitioner testified that if an employee was not a member of the store manager's "holy roller" church, the employee was nothing in the opinion of the store manager. Petitioner's testimony that she was treated differently from other employees because she would not "suck up" to the store manager and because she was not a member of his clique is not persuasive. Petitioner told the district manager that she did not like the way the store manager criticized employees in the office. However, Respondent's policy is to provide praise in public and constructive criticism in private. Respondent has a policy to send employees flowers when they are hospitalized. Petitioner complained to Respondent's district manager that the store did not send her flowers when she was in the hospital. According to Petitioner, the store manager told her at some point in time that she was going to die and where she was going to be buried if she did not quit her job. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the store manager did not make this statement. Petitioner presented testimony that Respondent's managers called her a whiner. Petitioner also presented testimony that the assistant store manager stated that she would not baby-sit dummies (retarded people). The most persuasive evidence indicates that Respondent's managers never made these comments. To the contrary, Respondent does not have a policy against hiring people with disabilities. In fact, at the time of the hearing, Respondent had another disabled person working at the store in Defuniak Springs, Florida. Sometime after Respondent rehired Petitioner in October 2000, she began to experience chest pains while she was working as a cashier. Petitioner's co-workers were aware of Petitioner's problem but there is no competent evidence that Respondent's managers were aware of her specific symptoms. In fact, none of Respondent's managers who testified at the hearing could remember Petitioner complaining of chest pains while she was working as a cashier. When Petitioner requested permission to leave work due to illness, she was told to wait for relief, then to close her register and go to the office to check out. The process took about 20 minutes. At the time in question, Petitioner drove herself to the doctor's office. She did not request anyone to drive her and no one offered to do so. After being examined by her doctor, Petitioner 's doctor recommended that she travel to the hospital by ambulance. Petitioner refused this recommendation and elected to call a friend to take her to the hospital in Defuniak Springs, Florida. Eventually, Petitioner was placed in intensive care and transferred to a hospital in Pensacola, Florida, where she underwent the replacement of a stent due to its collapse. There were times when Petitioner was not allowed to leave her register before a break to take her medication; however, she was allowed to have water at her register so that she could take her medication at her workstation. On the one occasion that Petitioner could not locate her nitroglycerine prescription, she was told to finish with a customer before going to the store's pharmacy to obtain a new prescription. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that she was not allowed to operate machinery while taking some of her prescribed drugs. Therefore, Petitioner did not take those medications when she went to work. There is no evidence that Respondent was aware that Petitioner was not taking prescribed medications in order to work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Since August 24, 1972, Gladys Karnitz has held cosmetology license No. CL- 0075512. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. During this period, she has been registered to practice cosmetology in Florida as a master cosmetologist. Id. On June 13, 1986, Ms. Karnitz obtained salon license No. CE-0041778 for a 1600- square foot facility in a shopping center in Destin, A Total Image Salon. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. From January to March of 1988, Donna Blackburn, known then as Donna Stack, worked as a receptionist in A Total Image Salon. After Gladys Karnitz spent a day teaching her how to perform manicures, pedicures and waxing, she asked Ms. Blackburn to render these services to the salon's patrons, even though she knew Ms. Blackburn was not licensed by the Board of Cosmetology. Ms. Blackburn agreed to and did perform manicures, pedicures, and waxing for salon clients on numerous occasions during the three months she worked there. Clients paid the salon for her services, and sometimes gave Ms. Blackburn tips. In April of 1988, Sheila Masters worked two or three weeks as a salaried employee for Gladys Karnitz at A Total Image Salon. She performed manicures and "nail sculptures" for salon customers who paid the salon for her services. Gladys Karnitz knew Sheila Masters was unlicensed, and that their arrangement was unlawful. She told Ms. Masters that she could "get her out of it," if they were caught, because she knew somebody. When DPR's L. M. Rabiteau and W.D. Taylor investigated, as a result of an anonymous complaint that Ms. Karnitz was employing unlicensed persons, she delayed producing appointment books until she had altered them in an effort to conceal appointments for Ms. Blackburn's services. Eventually she admitted hiring Ms. Masters, which she characterized as acting as a "good Samaritan." She claimed Ms. Masters had told her she was licensed and would bring her license in. In fact, Ms. Karnitz was well aware that Ms. Masters had no license.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Cosmetology impose an administrative fine of $1,000 and suspend respondent's license for 180 days. DONE and ENTERED this day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. Robert T. Benton, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Copies furnished: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of June, 1989. Tobi C. Pam, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0729 Gladys Karnitz c/o A Total Salon 5003 Highway 98 East Destin, FL 32541 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0729 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Cosmetology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact On August 7, 1983, the Petitioner, accompanied by two companions, a male and female, entered the Richway Department Store at 1941 South Military Trail in West Palm Beach, Florida. The male approached the store's service desk and attempted to obtain a refund for some silverware. Previously, the store security manager, Art Riggott, had been informed by telephone call from another local Richway Store that if two black females and a black male attempted to obtain a refund for silverware at his store, a refund should be refused. When Mr. Riggott advised the male that a refund for the silverware could not be issued without a receipt for its purchase, he left the silverware on the service desk counter and exited the store. While the two women were in the store, Mr. Riggott and another security officer kept them under surveillance. In the ladies wear department, they placed several articles of clothing in a carriage, including two women's jackets, and continued through the store, placing several other articles of merchandise in the carriage also. In the domestic department, the Petitioner was observed as she put the two jackets in her purse. The women then left the carriage in an aisle with the other merchandise in it, and exited the store. Outside, they rushed toward a red car parked at the curb, which was driven by the male who had sought the refund for silverware. The Petitioner was arrested. The other woman was able to get into the car before it sped off with one door open. The Petitioner was taken to the store office where her purse was opened and the two women's jackets were removed. The jackets had Richway price tags on them. They had been received by the Richway Store only two days before. When the Petitioner failed to appear at her scheduled court appearance, a bench warrant was issued for her arrest. She did appear at a subsequent hearing on January 20, 1984, and entered a plea of no contest to the offense of retail theft. The court withheld adjudication of guilt, ordered the Petitioner to pay a fine of $90.00, and rescinded the outstanding bench warrant. The Petitioner paid the fine. In 1985, after graduating from college, the Petitioner applied to the Dade County School Board for a teaching position. On her application, the Petitioner answered "no" to the question "Have you ever been convicted, fined, imprisoned or placed on probation in a criminal proceeding?" On this application, the Petitioner also certified that the information she provided was true, correct and complete to the best of her knowledge and belief, and that the information was furnished in good faith. The application includes the statement that any omissions or false statements will constitute reason for dismissal. The Petitioner was hired and worked during the 1985-1986 school year, but she was dismissed from this position when school officials learned of her criminal prosecution and the false statements on her employment application. On April 9, 1986, the Petitioner applied to the Department of Education for a Florida teaching certificate. On this application, the Petitioner answered "no" to a question "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" Because the results of a routine fingerprint check by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement disclosed that the Petitioner had been arrested and prosecuted for shoplifting in August of 1983, the Petitioner's application was denied. On November 26, 1986, the Petitioner filed another application for a Florida teaching certificate. On this application the Petitioner disclosed that she had been arrested in West Palm Beach for shoplifting on August 3, 1983, and that adjudication of guilt was withheld. The Petitioner's falsification of her applications for employment and for a teaching certificate are acts of extreme dishonesty and conduct which would seriously reduce her effectiveness as an employee of the school system. Such conduct violates the Principles of Professional Conduct for Educators, and is unacceptable for members of the teaching profession.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Cherry D. Cornelius for a Florida teaching certificate, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 2nd day of April 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Cherry D. Cornelius 231 S.W. 15th Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Sydney McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. David Holder, Esquire P. O. Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Department of Education 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield Administrator Professional Practices Services Department of Education 319 West Madison Street Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position or resigned from the Career Service System.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner received an approved education leave of absence without pay from his Career Service position at Hendry Correctional Institution from August 29, 1986, until May 15, 1987. The purpose of the leave was to allow the Petitioner to obtain a master's degree in library science through a government sponsored, professional training grant program. As a condition of the grant program, the Petitioner agreed to return to Hendry Correctional Institution following the completion of his degree. The anticipated completion date was May 15, 1987. If there was no vacancy on staff at that time, the Petitioner agreed to accept employment first in another state correctional institution library in Florida. If no vacancies were located in state correctional institutions, the Department of State, Division of Library Information Services, would assist him in finding suitable employment in other Florida libraries. On May 5, 1987, and June 26, 1987, the personnel manager at Hendry Correctional Institution wrote to the Petitioner to inquire whether he intended to return to the institution. The Petitioner did not reply to the inquiries. On June 30, 1987, the personnel manager at another correctional institution in Florida wrote to the Petitioner and offered him employment as a Librarian II. The Petitioner counteroffered with a conditional acceptance of employment if he could begin work on September 1, 1987. The personnel manager wrote to the Petitioner to determine why the counteroffer was made. The Petitioner had no further contact with the institution. Upon completion of the master's degree course work, the Petitioner wrote to various persons involved in the grant administration and attempted to demand unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of the agreement which would inure to his benefit. All of these attempts to change the terms of the contract were unsuccessful. The Petitioner accepted employment in another state sometime between May 1987 and September 27, 1987, the date he wrote to Respondent about his new job. The letter was received by the Bureau of Personnel on October 15, 1987. In the same letter, the Petitioner acknowledged that he had breached the terms of the professional training grant program. He offered to repay the grant by making monthly installments of $50.00 toward the outstanding balance. On October 21, 1987, Hendry Correctional Institution sent the Petitioner a letter which stated he had been deemed to have abandoned his position at the institution and resigned from the Career Service system effective October 21, 1987.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Joseph Testasecca, Respondent, held a Florida Teaching Certificate and was employed as elementary art coordinator in the Hillsborough County School District. He has been employed by the Hillsborough County school Board for 25 years, having begun as the first full- time art instructor in the Hillsboro County School System. Mr. Testasecca is 51 years old and has been married to his wife, Alicia, for 23 years. He is an active member of the Corpus Cristi Catholic Church in Temple Terrace, Florida. In 1970, Respondent was selected as one of eight instructors from throughout the county to teach a newly formed gifted student program. Students qualified for the program by having an IQ of 132 or higher. In 1973, the Hillsborough County School Board formed a Division of Performing Arts. Respondent applied for and was selected as coordinator of the Division, a position he holds to this date. His primary duties involve running an Arts in the schools' program throughout Hillsborough County and acting as liaison between the School Board and area art related organizations such as the Tampa Museum, the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center, the University of South Florida and the Arts Council of Tampa. The majority of his time is spent outside the office working in the community. Throughout his adult life, Respondent has maintained a strong interest in the arts. He is an accomplished painter and has, with his wife, assembled a prize art collection of some 200 pieces which he keeps in his home. During the 1987-88 school year, Michael Bailey was a senior at Gaither High School and applied for enrollment in the executive internship program for the first semester. The internship program was designed to provide a means for seniors to gain practical working knowledge of the business world by serving as interns to various businesses in the community. Bailey was interviewed by Respondent for one of the internship programs as were several other students. Respondent's first and second choices opted to go with another teacher and, at the request of the coordinator of the program who was having trouble placing Bailey, Respondent selected Bailey to serve as intern in the arts program. The work schedule was roughly 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each school day. Bailey's duties involved constant travel with Respondent from one location to another within the school district. Respondent treated Bailey as an equal and Bailey was very favorably impressed with Respondent. In fact, Bailey became possessive of Respondent's time and company and insisted on accompanying Respondent on trips and to meetings at which Respondent preferred Bailey not to be present. A luncheon birthday party for Theresa Solomon was held at Malio's Restaurant on October 22, 1987, sponsored by her supervisors which included Respondent. The luncheon was attended by Douglas Lerner, Respondent's assistant; Claudia Davidson, a music teacher; Solomon; Respondent and Bailey. Solomon had requested Respondent not invite Bailey because of the latter's tendency to monopolize conversation and his general boorishness. However, Bailey insisted that he be allowed to accompany Respondent to this luncheon. At the luncheon one of the attendees ordered a bottle of sparkling wine which was poured into five glasses by the waitress. When asked about being old enough to drink the wine, Bailey replied that his parents allowed him to drink and yes, he will have a glass. Bailey also made comments about his twin brother being an alcoholic. Respondent did not stop Bailey from having the glass of wine. During the luncheon, Bailey drank about half of one glass of wine poured for him. On October 23, 1987, a Friday, when interns attend regular classes, Respondent left a message with the secretary to advise Bailey on Monday morning, October 26, when he arrived at the office, to join Respondent at the Tampa Theatre. A superintendent of schools meeting was being held in Tampa, and Respondent was charged with taking some of these people on a tour that morning. The secretary was ill Monday, did not report to work, and Bailey did not get the message. Two witnesses, Doug Lerner and Betty Clark, testified that Monday morning, October 26, 1987, Bailey was quite upset because "Joe left me again." He was pouting, morose and refused to participate in any other projects offered. Bailey was heard by one or two to say regarding Respondent, "He'll get his." Respondent returned to the office just before noon and had to go to an elementary school that was being painted. He took Bailey with him at this time. After visiting the elementary school Bailey asked Respondent to show him Respondent's art collection. Since Respondent had food left over from a party the evening before he decided then to go to his house for lunch. While at Respondent's home, most of the incidents forming the basis of the charges here involved allegedly occurred. Bailey testified that Respondent approached him from the rear while he was standing in the living room and pressed his body against Bailey's body, than Respondent rubbed his shoulder and cheek and fondled Bailey's genitals. Shortly thereafter Respondent allegedly asked Bailey to sit on the couch along side him, but Bailey sat on a couch opposite and Respondent then sat on Bailey's lap and again stroked Bailey's face and/or shoulder. When little response was received from Bailey Respondent ceased and they departed. Respondent denies any such incidents occurred. Both Respondent and Bailey agreed that they stopped at Respondent's home for lunch. In his testimony, Bailey did not disagree that after leaving the office around noon they first went to the elementary school and then drove another 15 minutes to Respondent's house; that a quick tour of the art collection was held; that they had lunch; and that they left in time for Respondent to make his two o'clock appointment. According to Respondent they could not have spent more than 25 minutes at his home and that included the art tour, lunch fixing and eating. Under that scenario there was little, if any, time for peccadillos. Upon their return to the school that afternoon October 26, Bailey reported to Mrs. Dupereaux, the school board employee in charge of the intern program, that Respondent had made the improper sexual advances to which Bailey had testified. She cautioned him to be sure of his facts in view of the serious of the charge. Upon his arrival home Bailey went to his sister's house and related the incident to her. He then went to his girlfriend's mother who is president of the Gaither High School PTA and related the events to her. Later that evening he told his parents. While the fresh complaint lends more credence to the events as described by Bailey, on the other hand there is the reputation of Respondent who has taught in the Hillsborough County School System for some 25 years during which no similar incidents have ever been reported. No witness, other than Bailey, testified to any reason to suspect Respondent of ever having made homosexual advances to any other person. The following day, Bailey accompanied Respondent to the University of Tampa Museum, and upon their return to the office, Bailey testified Respondent put his arm around Bailey's shoulder and asked "What's the matter? Don't you want me to cream in your ass?" Respondent not only denies any such comment was made but also denies that such language would be used by a person in Respondent's generation. No further contact was made between Respondent and Bailey. In other areas, on which Bailey testified, his credibility suffers from his recollection of events as opposed to the facts as related by others. For example, his account of his actions at Malio's Restaurant differs sharply from the account by others present. Similarly, his recollection of his grade point average at Gaither High School was considerably higher than his actual grade point average as shown by school records. Bailey's behavior in attempting to monopolize Respondent's time and to intervene where he was not wanted is a factor somewhat equivocal in arriving at the ultimate fact regarding the alleged incident. Obviously, had Respondent been more forceful in maintaining the teacher-student relationship with the ultimate superiority in the teacher, Bailey would not have developed this possessiveness and feeling of equality which lead him to believe he had a right to accompany Respondent to all functions and to resent any rebuff. Finally, the fact that Petitioner attempted to introduce the results of a polygraph examination which Petitioner was fully aware are, absent stipulation, inadmissible in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, cast further doubt on the merits of Petitioner's case. This attempt to improperly influence a fact finder by proffering the results of a polygraph examination should not be condoned and should lead the fact finder to insure no improper inferences are drawn from such information.
