The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke, suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2016). Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2016). Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 829054, covering the areas of Education, Leadership, Physical Education, Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as an Exceptional Student Education Teacher at Holly Hill School in the Volusia County School District. Holly Hill School is a combined K-8 school. During the time in question, Respondent shared a small office with Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards. The office was formerly a teachers’ lounge/lunchroom. It still had a counter, sink, and refrigerator, and had bathrooms that continued to be used on occasion by other teachers. Each of the three teachers who shared the office had their own desk. The office also included two smaller tables at which the teachers could provide service to their ESE students when necessary. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Pollok knew Mr. Edwards, who had been in the ESE program, but did not know Respondent. The incidents described herein occurred between the start of the 2013-2014 school year on August 13, 2013, through late November, 2013, when Respondent was removed from the classroom. Racial Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent made numerous statements of a racial nature. While on hall duty between classes, Respondent would occasionally call African-American children “Bebe’s kids.” The reference was to an animated television show in which “Bebe’s kids” were unruly and ill-mannered African-American children. Mr. Edwards understood the comment to be derogatory, and noted that the children hearing the comment would occasionally react, even to the point of commenting that they did not want to be referred to as such. Respondent’s statements were also heard by Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who likewise understood the term to be derogatory, and observed that the children at the receiving end of the comment looked shocked. She advised Respondent that he should not call them that name. Ms. Pollok testified that Respondent routinely called children “nappy” during hall duty when students transition from one period to the next. The comments were directed to middle school students, whose reactions were perceived by her as being ones of humiliation or embarrassment.1/ Mr. Edwards testified that he heard Respondent refer to African-American children as “nappy,” though not with the frequency with which he called them “Bebe’s kids.” Respondent testified that he only called one child “nappy” at the request of the child, an ESE student -- though not one of his students -- who wanted to be called “napster” or “nappy.” There was no competent, substantial evidence to support that claim. No other teacher substantiated such a request, and Mr. Edwards and Ms. Burnam-Hoyt testified credibly that the term was used more broadly. In any event, as stated by Ms. Fisher, there would be no reason to address any student by that type of obviously inappropriate term, even if requested. Mr. Edwards perceived Respondent’s comments as inappropriate, and they made him uncomfortable. He believed, rightfully, that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable as well. There was no evidence that any student’s learning ability or mental health was actually adversely affected by Respondent’s racially-demeaning statements. Nonetheless, under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect students at Holly Hill School from humiliation and embarrassment, conditions reasonably understood to be harmful to their learning environment and their mental health. Sexual Comments Over the period of time in question, Respondent repeatedly made statements of a sexual nature. On occasion, when Ms. Pollok arrived to work in less than a cheerful mood, Respondent would state to the effect of “What's the matter, Pollo[]k, why are you grumpy? Am I going to have to go downstairs and talk to your husband about how to wake you up properly?” The first time he made the comment, he accompanied it with hip thrusts and grunts, i.e., sounds that people make when they're having sex, thus accentuating the sexual nature of the comment. The first time Respondent made the statement, Ms. Pollok felt awkward, left the office, and went to her husband’s classroom (he was also a teacher at Holly Hill School) where she stayed until the school day started. When he continued to make such statements on a more regular basis, it made her uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards heard Respondent make the statement to Ms. Pollok on one or two occasions. Respondent denied having ever made the comments, attributing them to Mr. Anderson, who laughingly took credit. Regardless of whether Mr. Anderson may have also made comparable statements, the testimony of Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that Respondent made the statements at issue is more credible, and is accepted. Ms. Burnam-Hoyt, who enjoys a well-known and long-term relationship with her wife, would occasionally visit the office. On one occasion, while in the presence of Mr. Edwards, Respondent told Ms. Burnam-Hoyt that she looked nice that day and said “I wish you would switch teams.” Though she gave an off-hand reply, Ms. Burnam-Hoyt did not discuss her sexuality, especially in the workplace, and was offended by the comment. On several other occasions, when Ms. Burnam-Hoyt was not in the room, Respondent commented in the presence of both Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards that he wished “she didn’t bat for the other team.” On one occasion, when Ms. Pollok had returned from ESE training and asked Respondent about his day, he replied that “it was pretty boring until your old boss, what's her name, Mandy [Elzy], bent over and showed me her boobs.” Respondent commented, with regard to Anna Garces, that “she was spicy and he'd like to make her his consuela.” When Donna Mounts, a P.E. instructor, would come to the office, Respondent’s favorite phrase was that he “would like to mount Coach Mounts.” Respondent did not make the statement directly to Ms. Mounts, but he made it in the office on a routine basis. Respondent commented regarding Marcie Lockamy, an African-American assistant principal, that “I don’t normally do black ladies, but she’s pretty hot . . . I’d get at that.” Respondent’s denial that he made the statement, or that he even knew who Ms. Lockamy was, was not convincing. Respondent’s comments were repetitive, and he would make some statement every day. Ms. Pollok and Mr. Edwards told Respondent that he should “tone it down.” In particular, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that he advised Respondent “at different points” that his comments about women were not appropriate, not only because of his own view of the matter, but because he believed them to be disturbing to Ms. Pollok. The requests and recommendations had no identifiable effect. Mr. Anderson’s testimony in this case, apparently designed to exonerate Respondent and transfer responsibility for many of the statements to himself, was not persuasive, and in several instances, conflicted with the more credible testimony of other witnesses.2/ Respondent’s general defense to his sexual comments was that he was just “joking around,” that they occurred when he and the target of his comments “were talking and laughing and having a good time in between classes,” that they were a “jovial gesture,” and the like. He denied that they were perceived as offensive by any the persons within earshot, a statement denied by the persons exposed to his comments. Individually, Respondent’s comments could be categorized as puerile. Collectively, and over time, they rose to the degree that they created a hostile, abusive, offensive, and oppressive environment in the small office that constituted the workplace for the three teachers. Threatening Comments The Administrative Complaint alleges that, over the period of time in question, Respondent made “threatening comments to or around [Ms. Pollok].” As to comments regarding Respondent’s prior work- history as a police officer, Mr. Edwards testified credibly that they were nothing more than “experiences that people have or wanted to share.” Mr. Edwards did not take those statements as threatening. When Respondent discovered that he was being investigated by Holly Hill School, he was understandably upset. He made some comments that expressed his frustration. However, Mr. Edwards testified that Respondent did not threaten him or Ms. Pollok. Respondent admitted to being upset and frustrated, but denied either expressing, or having the intent to harm anyone. The comments, under the circumstances, were not so out of line as to objectively constitute a threat to one’s safety or welfare. Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s allegedly threatening statements created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment in violation of rule 6A-10.081(5)(d). Holly Hill School’s Response Ms. Pollok complained of Respondent’s behavior to various administrators at Holly Hill School, including Mr. Strother, and went so far as to request a reassignment of her duties so as to avoid Respondent. On November 1, 2013, Mr. Strother spoke with Respondent. The conversation was “short and brief,” and non-specific, with Mr. Strother generally advising Respondent to “be cognizant of conversations you're having and what you're saying around other people.” On or about November 4, 2013, Ms. Pollok renewed her complaint to Mr. Strother about Respondent’s comments about “the ladies,” and their looks and sexual preferences. Mr. Strother could tell that the comments made Ms. Pollok uncomfortable. Mr. Edwards had also spoken to Mr. Strother regarding Respondent’s comments. As a result of those complaints, Mr. Strother sent out an email directing all teachers to have “professional conversations,” and to lead “by example with appropriate conversation.” Though the email was not specific, included other topics, and was sent to a number of Holly Hill School employees, it nonetheless should have placed Respondent on notice to heed not only Mr. Strother’s earlier advice, but also the earlier admonitions from Mr. Edwards and Ms. Pollok to “tone it down.” It did not have the intended effect. On November 20, 2013, Ms. Pollok reported Respondent’s unabated comments about women and those made towards students to Ms. Fisher. Ms. Pollok was upset and crying during their discussion. Ms. Fisher then spoke with Mr. Strother to confirm Ms. Pollok’s earlier complaints. Ms. Fisher reported the allegations to the school district, and on November 21, 2013, an investigation of Respondent’s conduct was initiated. The investigation delved into the sexually-inappropriate comments, and extended into areas that are not the subject of this proceeding, for which Respondent received a reprimand. As to the comments directed to students, which were determined to be violative of principles of professional conduct and school board policy for failing to protect students or exposing them to excessive embarrassment or disparagement, Respondent was suspended without pay for five days, and transferred from Holly Hill School.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6A-10.081(3)(a) and 6A-10.081(5)(d). It is further recommended that the Education Practices Commission impose a suspension of the Respondent's educator certificate for a period of one year, and a probationary period of one year upon his return to teaching in any public or private school in Florida on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Educational Practices Commission determines are necessary to prevent recurrences of the conduct proven in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 23rd day of January, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, may terminate Respondent's employment as an instructional employee based upon the conduct alleged in the letter from Assistant Superintendent Ron Ciranna to Respondent dated March 3, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Brown has been employed by the School Board as a teacher for 11 years. She is a member of the Polk Education Association, the collective bargaining unit for teaching personnel; is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Polk Education Association; and holds a professional services contract with the School Board pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. During the first several years of her employment, Ms. Brown was assigned to Dundee Elementary School as an Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher, working with children classified as severely emotionally disturbed, emotionally handicapped, and varying exceptionalities. When she transferred to Spook Hill, Ms. Brown initially worked in a self-contained varying exceptionalities classroom. Three years ago the principal of Spook Hill, Matthew Burkett, requested that Ms. Brown transfer to a new ESE Pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) unit that was being established at the school.2 Ms. Brown started work in the ESE Pre-K unit at the start of the 2005-2006 school year and has remained there ever since. Most of the children in Ms. Brown's class were classified as educable mentally handicapped, or EMH. Testing showed that they were developmentally delayed, with developmental ages that were typically one to two and one-half years behind their chronological ages. At any given time, there could be as few as four or as many as 12 children in Ms. Brown's class. A paraeducator was assigned to assist Ms. Brown. The ESE Pre-K classroom was a portable with a ramp leading to the front door. The front door had a gate with a pool lock. The pool lock was chest-high to an adult, out of the reach of most small children. Outside the portable was the ESE playground, which was completely fenced, with a gate and lock. The playground contained a swing set and other equipment. A child could not exit the playground without adult assistance. The school bus pick-up area was just outside the playground gate. Between January 22, 2007, and February 12, 2008, Mr. Burkett disciplined Ms. Brown 16 times, through verbal warnings, written reprimands, letters of concern, and recommendations to the superintendent for suspensions. The first documented disciplinary action was a "written confirmation of a verbal warning" from Mr. Burkett to Ms. Brown dated January 22, 2007. The letter references "many issues" that had been discussed at a January 19, 2007, conference, stating that Ms. Brown had already addressed several of the issues discussed. Mr. Burkett then wrote: I would like to target the issue of "falling asleep" during nap time as a very critical area which must be corrected. You stated that it has happened because you have to model and cuddle with the children to get them to fall asleep and that your para was present. I instructed you to sit up while cuddling the children to sleep and that you must not ever fall asleep. Please know any instance from this point on that jeopardizes the health and safety of the students will result in further disciplinary action. On February 8, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a written reprimand to Ms. Brown. The reprimand letter stated that on February 2, 2007, at 12:45 p.m., Mr. Burkett walked through Ms. Brown's class to observe. The room was quiet and dark. All the students were lying down, and some of them were already asleep. Mr. Burkett observed that Ms. Brown was lying down with several students. She was not asleep, and she responded when spoken to by Mr. Burkett, who nonetheless felt obliged to issue a written reprimand in light of his prior warning. Ms. Brown signed the reprimand letter, acknowledging receipt, but also wrote the following: "Due to this concern I have quit sitting w/any students. I sit in my chair w/students around my desk. Any parent concerned about their child not napping will be directed to the office (Burkett or [assistant principal Sharon] Neal)." On February 9, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a "letter of concern" to Ms. Brown regarding conferences held on February 2, 5, and 8, 2007. The letter discussed a number of concerns that had been voiced by parents or school administrators. Ms. Brown's high school student assistant had not submitted the required application to obtain volunteer status and would be barred from the classroom until her paperwork was completed. An unauthorized man had been seen in Ms. Brown's class. The man was an old classmate of Ms. Brown's and was helping her to plan a class reunion. Mr. Burkett informed Ms. Brown not to conduct personal business during the school day. A parent observed that Ms. Brown was "always on her cell phone." Ms. Brown had been repeatedly cautioned about cell phone use, and the letter of concern directed her not to have her personal cell phone on her person during the school day. Another parent observed that nap time appeared to last for two hours. Mr. Burkett instructed Ms. Brown that nap time should be only one hour long. The letter of concern also addressed the issue of parents dropping off students to Ms. Brown's class prior to the 7:15 a.m. start of the school day. Mr. Burkett told Ms. Brown that he would intervene on her behalf to stop the children from arriving early, but Ms. Brown stated that she was voluntarily arriving early to take the children and would voluntarily continue to do so. On the same day as the letter of concern, February 9, 2007, Mr. Burkett also issued a "written documentation of a verbal warning" to Ms. Brown. This warning concerned Ms. Brown's having left the campus from 11:30 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. on February 7, 2007, without permission from the school's administration. The letter stated that Mr. Burkett was forced to send the assistant principal, Ms. Neal, to Ms. Brown's classroom to assist with the supervision of the students in Ms. Brown's absence. Ms. Brown's excuse was that she had to take her niece to work at McDonald's. Mr. Burkett's letter of concern emphasized that, whatever the emergency, Ms. Brown was required to make arrangements with the administration before leaving the campus. On March 6, 2007, Mr. Burkett issued a written reprimand to Ms. Brown "for your continued use of your personal cell phone during student contact time." On March 1, 2007, Mr. Burkett observed Alice Staton, Ms. Brown's paraeducator, sitting on the swing set holding a child. Ms. Staton yelled across the playground, "Get back in that room." Mr. Burkett saw three of the ESE Pre-K students outside the classroom, running up and down the portable's ramp. The door and gate to the portable were open. Mr. Burkett "corralled" the three students back into the classroom, where he observed three other students in Ms. Brown's chair, swinging it in circles. Mr. Burkett then noticed that Ms. Brown was speaking on her cell phone. She did not notice that Mr. Burkett had entered until he walked all the way across the room toward the students in her chair. According to the written reprimand, Ms. Brown then "placed the phone down discreetly and proceeded to use a loud tone of voice instructing the class to clean up." Ms. Brown submitted a handwritten response to the letter of reprimand. She did not deny the facts as stated by Mr. Burkett, but offered her justification for this "unexpected" incident: A parent called my cell # at the time we were having issues with a student who was screaming & crying. Alice walked this student outside to make the room quieter. She accidentally left door & gate open. I thought she told me she would be outside. I didn't hear the "playground" due to the child screaming. I turned[,] was helping students clean when my cell phone rang. It was a parent checking on her child. I may have been on the phone 2-3 seconds. Mr. Burkett had walked in. Alice had eye contact with the outside students & I had eye contact with the ones in the room. At the hearing, Mr. Burkett testified that, although Ms. Brown's use of her personal cell phone violated the directive of his February 9, 2007, letter of concern, his overriding motivation in reprimanding Ms. Brown was the lack of supervision he observed during the incident. He believed that the children running on the ramp were out of the sightline of either Ms. Brown or Ms. Staton, and he observed that Ms. Brown was so engrossed in her telephone conversation that she did not even see him enter the portable. By letter dated March 14, 2007, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown without pay for a period of one day effective March 22, 2007.3 The grounds for this suspension were the events of March 1, 2007, as recited in Mr. Burkett's written reprimand of March 6, 2007, as well as the following, as stated in Superintendent McKinzie's letter: Later that same day [March 1], it was reported to the principal that not only did you use your cell phone again, but you asked the para assigned to your class to "keep watch" for you. This statement was provided for [sic] in writing by another employee and notarized. This action took place immediately after you had just left a conference with Mr. Burkett in which you were given a directive not to have your cell phone in class. The principal discussed with you his concerns regarding student safety and told you that you could not provide adequate supervision while on personal cell phone calls. By letter dated April 18, 2007, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown without pay for one day effective April 25, 2007. The grounds for the suspension were stated as follows in Superintendent McKenzie's letter: This action is based on an incident which happened on March 19, 2007. On that date, Principal Matt Burkett was notified that you had allegedly hit a high school student on the campus of Spook Hill Elementary. Your classroom paraeducator witnessed the altercation and attested that you had engaged in an argument during student contact time. She stated that you slapped the student in the face and that she saw you follow the student in your truck off campus. Principal Burkett spoke with you regarding the alleged incident. You admitted that you did slap the student in the face and that you did get in your truck and follow her off campus. By your own admission, you stated that there had been a prior altercation off campus with this particular student. Clearly, you allowed a personal situation to escalate into a violent confrontation on the school campus. Although you did apologize for your actions, your behavior was totally unprofessional and cannot be condoned. Your lack of judgment in this situation jeopardized the safety of the students in your charge. Please remember that teachers are role models for their students and should behave accordingly. On May 8, 2007, Mr. Burkett wrote a letter of concern to Ms. Brown to inform her of continuing inadequacies that Mr. Burkett was observing in Ms. Brown's job performance. The letter notes that on March 8, 2007, a Professional Development Plan ("PDP") had been established "to address the learning environment in your classroom." A PDP is a plan to help struggling teachers in areas of inadequate performance. A team of professionals is assigned to work with the teacher to aid in professional development and address the teacher's inadequacies. In his letter of concern, Mr. Burkett noted the following specific PDP items that were "in need of positive change": Circulate and monitor with appropriate proximity during all activities. (On 3/20 on your observation I marked you for remaining at desk. On 4/15, 4/26, 4/30, and 5/7 as I walked into your room you were sitting behind your desk.) Provide structured hands-on activities during outside play. (I have taken photos of your play area, as well as the equipment for outside play activities. They indicate a need to enhance and organize the learning environment.) Constantly engage and interact with students. (Please refer to item number one.) Daily schedule will be posted. (On 4/26 Mrs. Neal and I addressed the need to post your daily schedule and be certain that times are indicated.) IEP's must be in compliance.[4] (I showed you the report in which two of your students were listed as out of compliance.) Safety issues will be jointly addressed and teacher will comply with all administrative directives. (On 5/4/07 you called for the school resource officer. . . . I entered your classroom and observed you talking on your personal cell phone. You have also been tardy to work which is an issue we have addressed in the past.) On September 5, 2007, Mr. Burkett wrote a letter to Superintendent McKinzie recommending that Ms. Brown be suspended, based on "her history of jeopardizing the safety and welfare of her students" and in light of the following specific incident: On August 31st I went into Ms. Brown's Pre-K room and she was not present. I noticed a student tipped over strapped into a high chair. I asked the para-professional where the teacher was and she stated "I do not know." She said the teacher stated she "had to get out." The para also stated she did not place the child in the high chair. According to the para the teacher had been gone for about ten minutes. I was in the room for five minutes before the teacher returned. Ms. Brown sent me an email and stated she went to the restroom and laminated some things. I am very concerned because Ms. Brown has explained on several occasions the severity of the needs her students have and the need for more time to have in small group teaching. Therefore, while I understand the need for a bathroom break, I do not understand the need to choose this critical time to laminate. Secondly, she left a child in a high chair as a "time out" which is an inappropriate use of the chair. Furthermore, she left the child for an excessively lengthy time and in fact she left the classroom while the child was still restrained. As a result of her actions the child turned over in the high chair. At the hearing, Mr. Burkett conceded that the child's IEP stated that he could be strapped into the high chair for feeding. However, neither Ms. Brown nor Ms. Staton offered affirmative testimony that the child was in fact strapped into the high chair for feeding. Because no testimony or other evidence was presented to contradict the version of events set forth in Mr. Burkett's letter to Superintendent McKinzie and adopted by Mr. Burkett at the hearing, Mr. Burkett's version is credited. By letter dated September 10, 2007, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown without pay for five days effective September 17, 2007, through September 21, 2007, as a "result of your continued lack of attention to the safety and welfare of the students in your charge."5 In a letter dated January 25, 2008, Mr. Burkett recommended to Superintendent McKinzie that Ms. Brown be suspended "as a continuation of the progressive discipline section 4.4-1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement." Mr. Burkett noted that Ms. Brown received a verbal warning on February 9, 2007, for leaving campus without permission, and was suspended on April 25, 2007, for an incident that included her leaving the campus. Mr. Burkett's letter described the current incident as follows: On January 17, 2008, Ms. Brown once again left campus without permission during her contact hours which extend to 3:15 pm. At approximately 2:25 pm transportation contacted the school to ascertain the whereabouts of a Pre-K child because they had a bus at Spook Hill waiting on a student. The teacher placed the child on another bus. However, transportation needed to confirm the child was placed on a different bus before they allowed the bus to leave. As a result of Ms. Brown leaving the campus without informing the administration there was an unnecessary delay in getting vital transportation information regarding what bus the child was placed on by the teacher. Furthermore, there was tremendous stress placed on the office staff as they tried locating and contacting Ms. Brown in order to confirm the child was safely on the bus. In our conference on January 23, 2008, regarding the matter Ms. Brown acknowledged she left campus for a personal matter and that her actions were incorrect and she apologized for the incident. Unfortunately, Ms. Brown chose not to follow clearly stated written instructions from her previous disciplinary actions. By letter dated January 30, 2008, signed by Mr. Ciranna, assistant superintendent for Human Resource Services, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown for five days without pay effective February 6 through February 12, 2008, based on Mr. Burkett's recommendation. In a letter dated February 11, 2008, Mr. Burkett recommended to Superintendent McKinzie that Ms. Brown be suspended for failure to complete her students' progress reports as required by their IEPs. The letter stated, in relevant part: I met with Ms. Brown on January 31st, 2008, and asked if she completed progress reports for her students. She replied that she did not have time to complete them. I gave her a directive to complete her student's progress reports and I provided her coverage. On February 1st, 2008, Ms. Brown sent me a letter which stated: "Yesterday when we met you asked me about my progress reports. I spoke from memory and indicated that I was way behind because of the time it takes me to work with my one on one student. Because of the assistance you provided, I was able to review the information and found I was not as far behind as I had indicated." According to a report provided to me by Chris English (Network Specialist) not a single progress report was created by Ms. Brown prior to January 31st, 2008. To further understand the severity of this offense it should be noted that Ms. Brown is currently on a Professional Development Plan (PDP) and one of the strategies is written as follows: "All IEP's and IEP notices must be in compliance and correctly written. Teacher will provide a one week notice if coverage is needed so she can prepare the IEP." Prior to our meeting on January 31st, 2008, Ms. Brown has never requested coverage to complete progress reports as part of the student's IEP. In a written response, Ms. Brown stated that she had "asked at least twice in the past for assistance to complete IEP paperwork a week in advance and was not provided coverage." While she stated her general disagreement with Mr. Burkett's letter, Ms. Brown did not otherwise contradict any of the specific factual assertions made by Mr. Burkett. At the hearing, Mr. Burkett testified that prior to February 12, 2008, he had a discussion with the School Board's director of employee relations about terminating Ms. Brown's employment, but that Superintendent McKinzie decided to suspend Ms. Brown on this occasion. By letter dated February 12, 2008, signed by Mr. Ciranna, Superintendent McKinzie suspended Ms. Brown for one day without pay effective February 20, 2008, based on Mr. Burkett's recommendation. By letter dated February 29, 2008, Mr. Burkett recommended to Superintendent McKinzie that Ms. Brown be terminated as an employee with the School Board. This recommendation led to the suspension and termination letter of March 3, 2008, the relevant terms of which are set forth in the Preliminary Statement above. Mr. Burkett based his recommendation on "multiple issues extending over the course of the past year," as well as the following specific events occurring during February 2008: During Ms. Brown's recent suspension she acted insubordinately by coming on school campus during her suspension. I met with Ms. Brown on February 4, 2008, and I gave her a directive not to come on campus for any reason during her suspension days. Ms. Brown later called me on the phone and asked if she could come after the school day to do her lesson plans. I again stated to her that she could not be on school campus during her suspension days. On February 11, one of Ms. Brown's five suspension days, it was brought to my attention that she was on campus and delivered lunch to her paraprofessional. I have a statement from Ms. Brown in which she admits she delivered lunch. I also have a statement from the paraprofessional which states, "Yesterday, I called Ms. Brown about the Valentine's list. She called me back and asked if I wanted her to bring us lunch. I told her no and she is not supposed to be on campus. She said it was alright if she went to the office. She called me later again, and told me to come to the back of the lunch room door to get the lunch. . ." Additionally, I have a statement from my secretary in which Ms. Brown asked her "not to let Mr. Burkett know that she was here because she would get in trouble." Ms. Brown was previously suspended on March 22, 2007, in part for asking her paraprofessional to "watch out" for administration so she could insubordinately use her cell phone. Ms. Brown's actions depict an employee that has an established pattern of deliberate insubordination. Most concerning of all, in a four day span of time between February 19, 2008, and February 22, 2008, Ms. Brown continued to display a pattern of allegations [sic] of child endangerment. The following is a brief description of the incidents: On February 19, 2008, Mrs. Jenny Baker, a paraprofessional, was covering her classroom so I could serve her notice of suspension for February 20th. Mrs. Baker stated that upon Ms. Brown's return to class she asked if she could leave. Since the teacher did not respond Mrs. Baker left the portable to attend to her other duties and noticed three Pre-K students behind her and Ms. Brown was nowhere in sight. It was obvious that these students had left Ms. Brown's classroom without her supervision. Mrs. Baker waited for the other para to return from the buses to escort the kids back into the class. On February 19, 2008, I went to the classroom at approximately 2:30 (after Mrs. Baker had informed me of her concern). I noticed Ms. Brown at her computer behind her desk. The door to the portable was wide open and two students were sitting out of the teachers [sic] view behind the "cubby." These students could have readily left the classroom without Ms. Brown's knowledge. It was previously recommended by Ms. Sherwin (Educational Diagnostician) on February 5, 2008, that "in general, I think rearrangement of your classroom. . . may help. . . . I am particularly concerned with the arrangement that has the area between your door and shelving not visible to you at all times." On February 21, 2008, Mrs. Neal, the assistant principal, was walking through Ms. Brown's portable. Upon entering she noticed Ms. Brown getting up from her desk. The para was placing a band aid on another child. Ms. Brown stated that she was printing progress reports. Mrs. Neal stated the room was "a mess" and she began to straighten a piece of carpeting so the kids would not trip over it and hurt themselves. Mrs. Neal then counted the students and noticed one was missing. "Ms. Brown . . . looked puzzled." The paraprofessional and the teacher began to look for the missing child. She was found by Ms. Brown in the bathroom. The duration of time the child was missing was approximately five minutes. On February 22, 2008, at approximately 10:40 a.m. I was walking the exterminator to the classroom. As we walked up to the portable I noticed the front door wide open and two Pre-K students were on the ramp running. One tripped and fell. I rushed to the gate because I thought he was hurt, but he was already up and running down the ramp again. Clearly, these two students were not able to be observed by Ms. Brown and were not under her supervision or control. The exterminator and I entered the gated area and then Ms. Brown came out yelling for the boys to "get back in here." * * * I am entirely in favor of helping employees grow professionally as can be established by allowing Ms. Brown to create a second Professional Development Plan. However, she has established a pattern of allegations of child endangerment that results in disciplinary action. In addition, her multiple serious violations of school and district policies over the course of time have also established a pattern necessitating disciplinary action. It is for this reason that I am recommending termination pursuant to Article 4.4-1 of the collective bargaining agreement. As to the February 11, 2008, incident described in his letter, Mr. Burkett testified that Ms. Brown knew that she was not to come onto the campus while under suspension, because he had discussed the matter with her during one of her previous suspensions. Mr. Burkett testified that he was following School Board policy in prohibiting Ms. Brown from entering the campus during her suspension. Ms. Brown testified that as of February 11, 2008, she had never been told not to come on the campus while serving a suspension. Ms. Brown stated that she simply wanted to do something nice for Ms. Staton, her paraeducator, by way of bringing lunch. Ms. Brown had known Ms. Staton since the former was herself a student at Spook Hill. While Ms. Brown's good intentions may be credited, her testimony that no one had told her not to come on campus during a suspension is not credible. Her stealth in bringing lunch to Ms. Staton indicates that she knew she should not be there. Further, Mr. Burkett's letter quotes a statement from Ms. Staton in which she told Ms. Brown that she was not supposed to be on the campus. Ms. Staton testified at the hearing, and Ms. Brown had ample opportunity to question her about the events of February 11, 2008, and her statement to Mr. Burkett. However, Ms. Staton was questioned only about the February 21, 2008, incident. Mr. Burkett testified that the February 19, 2008, incidents were of greater concern to him because of the child safety issues involved. Mrs. Baker, the paraeducator who covered the class for Ms. Brown, testified that Ms. Brown was quiet when she returned from her meeting with Mr. Burkett. Ms. Brown sat at her computer. Mrs. Baker announced that she was now leaving the class, but Ms. Brown did not respond. Mrs. Baker walked out to the gate. When she started to close the gate, she looked behind her and saw three children who had followed her out of the class. Ms. Brown was still in the classroom, apparently unaware that the children had walked out. Mrs. Baker saw that Ms. Staton was outside placing another child on a school bus. On her way back into the classroom, Ms. Staton took charge of the three children who had followed Mrs. Baker out the door. Mrs. Baker returned to the main office. When Mr. Burkett asked how things had gone, she reported the incident to him. Ms. Brown testified that she did not recall the incident. Mrs. Baker's version of this incident is credited. After receiving the report from Mrs. Baker, Mr. Burkett was concerned for the children. He went to the class and saw Ms. Brown sitting at the computer behind her desk, and two students sitting out of her view though the door to the portable was wide open. Mr. Burkett testified that experts from the School Board had already come into the portable and discussed the room set-up with Ms. Brown, particularly the fact that there were obstacles to her having a clear line of vision from the desk to the door. A bookshelf that extended from the "cubbies" blocked her view of the doorway. Mr. Burkett noted that the two children could have walked out of the classroom without Ms. Brown seeing them. Ms. Brown testified that the two students in question rode the last bus from the school. Ms. Staton had already left the classroom to go on bus duty. Ms. Brown left the door open so that she could see the bus as it came around the side of the portable. The two students sat there playing as Ms. Brown worked at her desk. No one else was in the classroom. Ms. Brown could hear the children as she worked and testified that she could have heard them go out of the room because the front ramp squeaks. She also could have seen them through the windows. Ms. Brown was adamant that she knew the children in her class and she knew where these two children were, sitting there waiting on their bus. This was their daily routine, and there was nothing unusual about this day other than Mr. Burkett's entrance. Ms. Brown testified that Mr. Burkett said nothing about his concerns for the children's safety at the time. The only discussion was "something about the cubbies." Mr. Burkett came to the room the next morning and said the cubbies had to be moved. He and Ms. Brown moved the cubbies before the children arrived, making the door more visible from Ms. Brown's desk. Ms. Brown testified that the room had been arranged the same way since school started in August and that she was concerned because consistency is vitally important to students who are functioning at the level of 18 to 24 months of age. Any change to their environment can throw off their routines and cause them to have bad days. Ms. Brown did not believe that moving the cubbies was necessary. As to the events of February 21, 2008, assistant principal Sharon Neal testified that she went to observe Ms. Brown's classroom on that date. As she walked in, Ms. Neal saw Ms. Brown sitting at her computer. She asked Ms. Brown how many students were in the class, and was told that all the students were present. Ms. Neal counted the students, then recounted them. Then she told Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton that if everybody is here today, then someone is missing. Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton began to count, then began searching the room. After a minute or two of searching, they wondered if perhaps Student D. was in the bathroom.6 They opened the bathroom door and found Student D. Ms. Neal discussed with Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton what could have happened with the child going missing for a period of several minutes. Ms. Brown testified that when Ms. Neal stated that a child was missing, she responded that the child had to be somewhere in the classroom. She knew this because the front door was equipped with a buzzer that went off when the door was opened, and Ms. Brown's desk was next to the back door. She and Ms. Staton scanned the portable and quickly concluded that the child must be in the bathroom. Ms. Brown testified that Student D. was a very large child whose functional age was eight months. She wore pull-up diapers, though it was becoming difficult to find diapers to fit the child. Ms. Brown and the child's mother had been working diligently on potty training the Student D. This was the first time she had gone to the bathroom on her own. Ms. Staton confirmed their surprise at finding Student D. on the potty, because they did not believe her capable of going to the bathroom alone. Ms. Staton conceded that neither she nor Ms. Brown knew where the child was before Ms. Neal noted that a student was missing. As to the events of February 22, 2008, Mr. Burkett testified that there had been an insect problem in the portable, and therefore an exterminator had been called. As Mr. Burkett walked the exterminator down to the classroom, he noticed the door of the portable was "wide open." Two Pre-K students were running down the ramp, and one of them tripped and fell. Mr. Burkett was concerned for the student's safety, but the child popped up and started running again. Mr. Burkett estimated that another 30 seconds passed before Ms. Brown came out of portable, "yelling for the kid to get back inside." Mr. Burkett noted that this was yet another incident in which "the door was open, the kids were on the loose, and not properly supervised." Ms. Brown testified that the students were working at their regular daily schedules when the phone rang in the classroom. The school secretary was calling to tell Ms. Brown that Mr. Burkett and the exterminator were on their way to spray the classroom. The secretary told Ms. Brown that she needed to have the children out of the portable by the time Mr. Burkett and the exterminator arrived. Ms. Brown and Ms. Staton began trying to quickly move the students out of the portable. Ms. Staton secured the women's purses, then went outside to unlock the shed on the playground as instructed by the secretary. Meanwhile, Ms. Brown was lining up the children to proceed out the door. Ms. Brown turned momentarily to get diapers from the changing table. As she turned, two of the children took off and ran out the door. Ms. Brown testified that these were two boys who were prone to running away. She knew who they were because she could hear them laughing. She turned and ran to the door and called their names. When she got to the ramp, Mr. Burkett was helping one of them up from where he fell. Ms. Brown testified that it usually takes from five to ten minutes to line up the children, get the diapers and other supplies, and proceed out the door as a class even when the move is planned, and she has Ms. Staton to help with the children. In this situation, she was moving the children on short notice, and Ms. Staton was busy securing the purses and unlocking the shed. There is no real contradiction between Mr. Burkett's and Ms. Brown's versions of this incident, save for Mr. Burkett's estimate that 30 seconds passed between the time the student fell on the ramp and Ms. Brown appeared at the door of the portable. It is found that Mr. Burkett's estimate of the time is likely exaggerated due to his dismay at the situation and that Ms. Brown in all likelihood came out the door only a few seconds after the boys. Ms. Brown's version of events, while credible, calls her judgment into question. She described a somewhat frantic decampment from the portable, as if she believed Mr. Burkett would order the exterminator to begin spraying whether or not the children were out of the classroom. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Burkett would not have preferred a slow but orderly procession to the scene he encountered. Except where noted in the above findings of fact, Ms. Brown did not contest the factual allegations made against her. Ms. Brown's defense was twofold. First, the great majority of incidents cited as grounds for discipline were run of the mill occurrences in a Pre-K ESE classroom. Second, the sheer number of disciplinary actions establish a concerted effort by Mr. Burkett to build a record against Ms. Brown by seizing any opportunity to find fault with her job performance. As to her first defense, Ms. Brown testified as follows regarding the four incidents described in Mr. Burkett's letter recommending termination: Those are things that can happen at any moment at any time in an ESE Pre-K classroom. There's children that pull away from their teachers, their parents. These children are sent to our room to get some structure, and to help them to cognitively, socially, behaviorally develop, because they are delayed in all that development. Ms. Brown's point is valid as to some of the disciplinary incidents cited in the termination letter. The February 19, 2008, incident essentially involved a difference of opinion between Mr. Burkett and Ms. Brown. He believed that she should have the children in her line of vision at all times. She believed it was safe to be able to hear what the two children were doing and testified that this had been her daily practice all year. The February 21, 2008, incident was a matter of Student D. unexpectedly taking the initiative to go to the bathroom alone. The February 22, 2008, incident involving the exterminator was simply a matter of two students bolting for the door as soon as Ms. Brown's back was turned, something that could happen at any time with a group of Pre-K children. Ms. Brown is correct when she argues that the events of February 19 through February 22, 2008, standing alone, would provide slim grounds for the dismissal of a veteran ESE teacher. However, these events were not the sole factual basis for the School Board's decision to terminate Ms. Brown's employment. The termination letter makes clear that the School Board considered these events to be emblematic of a long history of Ms. Brown's "pattern of failing to properly supervise the students under your care." The termination letter references all of Ms. Brown's previous suspensions and, expressly, references Ms. Brown's insubordination in entering the campus during her suspension despite Mr. Burkett's directive that she was not to come onto campus for any reason during that time. Ms. Brown had been suspended five times between March 14, 2007 and February 12, 2008. The March 14, 2007, suspension was for insubordination regarding the use of her personal cell phone. The April 18, 2007, suspension was for a physical altercation with a high school student, followed by Ms. Brown's leaving the campus in pursuit of the student. The September 10, 2007, suspension was for the inappropriate use of a high chair for student discipline, resulting in the student's falling while strapped into the chair. The January 30, 2008, suspension was for leaving the campus for personal reasons, without permission or notice to the administration, resulting in confusion as to whether a student was on the correct bus. The February 12, 2008, suspension was for Ms. Brown's failure to complete student progress reports. The events of February 19 through February 22, 2008, must be viewed in light of Ms. Brown's disciplinary history since at least her first suspension on March 14, 2007. In that light, these relatively minor events indicated to Mr. Burkett and the School Board that Ms. Brown's performance showed no prospects of improving. A consistent theme throughout Ms. Brown's disciplinary history, in addition to her continuing insubordination, was her failure to adequately supervise the children in her care. The fact no child was seriously injured in any of these events was fortuitous, not a reason to minimize or overlook Ms. Brown's often casual approach to minding these very young ESE students. The School Board had taken every disciplinary action available to it under the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement, including multiple suspensions short of moving for termination. This last point addresses Ms. Brown's second argument, that the number of disciplinary events indicates a vendetta on the part of Mr. Burkett. No evidence was offered that Mr. Burkett bore any personal animus toward Ms. Brown. The evidence indicated that Ms. Brown was under additional scrutiny because of her disciplinary history. The evidence further indicated that Mr. Burkett made reasonable effort to assist Ms. Brown in improving her performance, including the establishment of a PDP and the appointment of a team of professionals to observe her class and offer advice. The number of disciplinary events indicates, if anything, forbearance on the part of Mr. Burkett and the School Board, imposing multiple suspensions rather than moving precipitously to the final step of termination. The evidence did not establish that Mr. Burkett was motivated by anything other than the desire to ensure the safety of the students at Spook Hill.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Deana Brown as a teacher at Spook Hill Elementary School. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 3rd day of February, 2009.
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(f), (1)(g), and (1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1128573, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, which is valid through June 30, 2021. During the 2013-2014 school year, until her voluntary resignation effective June 3, 2015, Respondent was employed as a language arts teacher at Gulf Breeze High School. Since that time, Respondent has been employed as a third-grade teacher at a private Christian academy in Pensacola, Florida. Material Allegations The material allegations upon which the alleged violations are predicated are, in their entirety, as follows: On or about July 19, 2008, Respondent illegally operated a boat while under the influence of alcohol. As a result of conduct, she was arrested and charged with Boating Under the Influence. On or about February 18, 2009, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of Boating Under the Influence. In or around January 2015 through March 2015, Respondent provided a forum where underage students illegally consumed alcohol and/or consumed alcohol in the presence of students. This conduct includes, but is not limited to, instances: in or around February 2015, wherein Respondent provided alcohol to underage students; and on or about March 20, 2015, when Respondent drove to J.H.'s, a student's, home, while under the influence of alcohol, and thereafter, attempted to drive J.H. while so inebriated. On or about April 24, 2015, Respondent illegally operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. On or about May 26, 2015, as a result of the aforementioned conduct, Respondent was arrested and charged with DUI-Second Conviction More Than Five (5) Years After Prior Conviction. On or about April 7, 2016, Respondent pled nolo contendere to an amended charge of Reckless Driving; adjudication was withheld. Count 1 Count 1 alleged a violation based upon Respondent having “been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation.” The Count was based on the two incidents described in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Amended Administrative Complaint as follows: Boating Under the Influence -- 2008 On or about July 19, 2008, Respondent was maneuvering a boat onto a trailer at the Navarre Beach boat ramp. Her husband was driving their vehicle, and had backed their trailer into the water. As a result of actions at that time, Respondent was placed under arrest for Boating Under the Influence (BUI), a misdemeanor (her husband was arrested for Driving Under the Influence). Respondent entered a plea of no contest to the BUI offense and, on February 18, 2008, was adjudicated guilty. Subsequent to the final hearing, counsel for Petitioner researched the issue and discovered that the incident occurred prior to Respondent’s initial certification as a teacher. As a result, Petitioner correctly concluded and stipulated “that no disciplinary action should be taken as a result of this conviction.” Driving Under the Influence -- 2015 On April 24, 2015, Respondent and a friend drove, in the friend’s car, to Pensacola Beach for drinks. Respondent left her car in a Publix parking lot. Upon their return, Respondent correctly perceived that she was not fit to drive home. Her phone was dead, so she got into her car and started it in order to charge the phone. She called her son and asked that he come pick her up. At some point after calling her son, Respondent called her soon-to-be ex-husband, from whom she was in the process of a bitter divorce, and engaged in a heated and animated discussion with him. A complaint was called in, and Officer Kidd was dispatched to the scene. Upon his arrival, Officer Kidd observed Respondent in her car, with the engine running, “yelling at someone on the phone.” He noticed a bottle of Crown Royal in the center console. Respondent refused to perform field sobriety tasks. Office Kidd’s observations of Respondent while she was in the car and upon her exiting the car led him to believe that she was impaired. Respondent had been in the car, with the engine running, and was clearly in control of the vehicle regardless of her intent to drive. Although Respondent’s son arrived on the scene to take her home, Respondent was arrested and transported to jail.2/ Respondent was charged with DUI. The charges were reduced, and she entered a nolo plea to reckless driving. The trial judge withheld adjudication. Count 2 Count 2 alleged a violation based upon Respondent having “been found guilty of personal conduct that seriously reduces that person’s effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.” The Count was based on the incidents described in paragraph 4 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. March 20, 2015 -- The Garage On or about March 20, 2015, over spring break, Joshua Hartley was at Pensacola Beach with friends, including Respondent’s son. He had his father’s car. Apparently, Joshua’s father, Jon Hartley had been trying for some time to reach Joshua and have him return the car. Joshua and his group of friends had plans to stay at the beach into the evening. Respondent’s son suggested that Respondent, who he knew to be at the beach, could follow Joshua home, and then return him to his friends at the beach. Respondent was called, and she followed Joshua from the beach to his house, a drive of perhaps 15 minutes. When Joshua and Respondent arrived at the house, Mr. Hartley, Ms. Barrett, and a third man were sitting and drinking in the open garage. Other than agreement that Respondent and Joshua showed up at the house at the same time, the description of the events by Joshua Hartley, Mr. Hartley, and Ms. Barrett were so divergent that the three might well have been in different places. Ms. Barnett described the incident as occurring between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m., when it was dark. She testified that Joshua and Respondent pulled up in separate vehicles, and that Mr. Hartley initially approved of Joshua returning to the beach with Respondent as a good deed, since Joshua purportedly indicated that “she’s really drunk.” She indicated that Joshua got into the passenger seat of Respondent’s vehicle, whereupon Respondent put the vehicle in gear, and lurched forward, almost hitting Mr. Hartley’s vehicle. At that time, Ms. Barrett indicated that Mr. Hartley ran down, startled by the driving error, told Joshua that he could not go with her, and offered to let Respondent stay with them until she sobered up. Ms. Barrett further described Respondent as essentially falling out of her bathing suit, barefoot, staggering, with slurred and vulgar speech, and highly intoxicated. After about an hour, and as Respondent was preparing to leave, Ms. Barnett testified that Joshua, who had remained with the adults in the garage since his arrival, went to his room. Ms. Barnett testified that Respondent then excused herself to use the restroom. Ms. Barnett testified that after 15 minutes or so, she went inside, and found Respondent “exiting Joshua’s bedroom.” Her description of the event is not accepted, and her veiled insinuation that something improper occurred -- for which no evidence exists -- did not go unnoticed. Mr. Hartley described the incident as occurring between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. He testified that Joshua and Respondent arrived at the house in Respondent’s car with Joshua as the passenger. He was “positive” that Joshua was not driving because he was 15 years old and did not have a driver’s license. When they pulled into the driveway, Mr. Hartley testified that he walked down to the vehicle and that Joshua got out of the car. Mr. Hartley was unsure if Joshua stayed in the garage at all, but at most went to his room after a matter of minutes. Respondent joined the adults in the garage. Mr. Hartley indicated that Respondent “looked like she had been at the beach” and, though her speech was not slurred, he could tell she had been drinking because he could smell alcohol and by “the way she was speaking.” His description of Respondent was far from the florid state of intoxication as described by Ms. Barnett. Mr. Hartley offered no description of Respondent’s vehicle lurching forward, Respondent staggering, or of Joshua asserting that Respondent was really drunk. Finally, his concern that “the grown, intoxicated woman [as described by counsel in his question] was in your 15 year old son’s bedroom” was based solely on Ms. Barnett’s description of what she claimed to have seen. Joshua testified that he drove to his house in his father’s black Lincoln Aviator, and that Respondent followed in her white Ford Expedition. It was daylight, around 4:00 in the afternoon. Upon their arrival, Respondent pulled onto the grass next to the driveway. Mr. Hartley was mad, possibly about Joshua having the car, would not let him return to the beach, and sent him to his room within a minute of his arrival. Joshua testified that Respondent was in typical beach attire. He had no complaint as to Respondent’s actions either at the beach or at his house, and did not see her drinking. He did, however, indicate that “they” told him that “she might have been drunk or something.” He testified that after Respondent spent some time with the adults in the garage, she then went inside to use the restroom. Joshua’s door was open, and Respondent stood at the door and apologized if she had gotten him into trouble. She then left. Given the dramatic divergence in the stories of the witnesses, the evidence is not clear and convincing that anything untoward occurred when Respondent agreed to give Joshua a ride to his house to return his father’s car, and offered to return him to his friends at the beach. Though credible evidence suggests that Respondent had alcohol on her breath, there was no evidence that she was “under the influence of alcohol,” that she was not able to lawfully drive a vehicle, or that Joshua suspected that she had been drinking. Ms. Barrett’s more dramatic testimony that Respondent was drunk and staggering, falling out of her clothes, with her speech slurred and profane, and the intimation that she was in Joshua’s bedroom in that condition, is not accepted. The evidence adduced at the hearing was not clear and convincing that, on March 20, 2017, Respondent engaged in personal conduct that seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the district school board. February 15, 2015 -- Mardi Gras There was a good bit of evidence and testimony taken that Petitioner was seen drunk and staggering down the street at the 2015 Pensacola Mardi Gras, and was seen and assisted by students in that condition. However, the basis for the Amended Administrative Complaint was not that Respondent was publically intoxicated, but that she “provided alcohol to underage students.” Pensacola has a Mardi Gras event with a parade and floats. In 2015, “Fat Tuesday” was on February 17. The big 2015 Mardi Gras parade was on Sunday, February 15. Respondent had a group of friends that were in a Mardi Gras Krewe and she had been helping them with the float. She apparently drank a good bit. By the time her friends were ready to join the parade, around noon to 1:00 p.m., Respondent determined that she was drunk enough that she should go to the hotel room the group had rented. Unlike the evidence for the “Garage” incident, the evidence was convincing that Respondent was very intoxicated. Ms. Smith testified that Respondent joined a group of alumni and students at a Subway parking lot where they had gathered to watch the parade. The evidence is persuasive that Respondent came upon the scene by happenstance, and that the parking lot was not her destination. While there, Respondent very likely consumed one or more “Jello-shots.” However, the suggestion that Respondent was in any condition to have brought the Jello-shots with her to the parking lot is rejected. Rather, the evidence supports that the shots were there, and that she partook. It would not have been out of character for Respondent to have taken them and handed them around. Furthermore, the testimony that Respondent was distributing beers to students is, for the same reason, simply not plausible. After a while, Ms. Smith, followed but not assisted by Mr. Brayton, assisted Respondent to her hotel. Respondent was, by this time, in a state colloquially known as “falling-down drunk.” She could not walk unassisted, and at one point laid down on a picnic table. It was at this time that Respondent and Ms. Smith were photographed, a picture that received some circulation. Ms. Smith finally delivered Respondent to her hotel, where Respondent’s son saw them and relieved Ms. Smith of any further duties. Mr. Brayton’s testimony that he thereafter entered Respondent’s hotel room was not supported by Ms. Smith or others. His testimony regarding Respondent’s son and his friends at the hotel was not clear and convincing. January 2015 -- The House Party Amelia Smith testified to an alleged incident in the fall of 2014 in which she was at Respondent’s house and students were having a party in the garage at which students were drinking. There was no allegation in the Amended Administrative Complaint as to any event in the fall of 2014. Ms. Klisart testified to an incident involving students drinking at Respondent’s house around the Martin Luther King holiday, which in 2015 was on January 19. That corresponds to Petitioner’s statement that she returned to her house after an evening celebrating her birthday,3/ to find her son and his friends having a party in the garage at which students were drinking. The allegation in the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent provided a forum where underage students illegally consumed alcohol in January 2015 was adequately pled. The evidence supports a finding that Respondent had been drinking when she arrived at her house. The evidence is not clear and convincing that she joined the students in the garage, but she clearly knew the party was ongoing, that it involved high school students, that the students were drinking, and that she made no effort to put a halt to the party. Notoriety of the Incidents The evidence is clear and convincing that the incidents described herein were widely known by students at Gulf Breeze High School, by other teachers, and by the school administration. Counts 3 and 4 Count 3 alleges that “Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules.” Count 4 alleges “that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety.” Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [a student’s] health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, by allowing, if not condoning, student drinking at her home in January 2015, failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from harm.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), and rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of five years, and be required to obtain treatment through the Recovery Network Program at a frequency and for a duration deemed appropriate by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 2017.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Background The School Board is a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. 1 At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties stipulated that students N.E., C.Z., T.C., and S.M., were unavailable, and that their deposition testimony, included within the School Board’s Exhibit No. 12 and Respondent’s Exhibit Nos. 16 through 18, could be received in evidence in lieu of their live testimony. The School Board hired Respondent in 2010 as a teacher at Campbell Drive K-8 Center ("Campbell Drive"), a public school in Miami-Dade County. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years and at all times relevant to this case, Respondent was employed at Campbell Drive as an intensive reading teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The alleged conduct giving rise to the School Board’s proposed suspension and termination of Respondent occurred during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Allegations Involving K.S. The School Board alleges in paragraph 10 of the Notice of Specific Charges that during the 2016-2017 school year Respondent made grossly inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact with K.S. At the time of the alleged conduct, K.S. was a female 12-year-old student in Respondent’s seventh-grade intensive reading class. Specifically, paragraph 10 of the notice alleges: During the course of the school year, beginning sometime after the Winter Recess, he would touch her private area over her clothing. On one day during lunch, the Respondent requested that this student come to his room during lunch to make up a test. When she arrived in the room, the Respondent initiated physical sexual contact with the student. In addition to touching the girl beneath her clothes, the Respondent exposed himself to her and had her touch his private area. After the brief encounter, the girl exited the room. During the course of the school year the Respondent also asked her to engage in sexual acts and made sexual comments to her. The School Board further alleges in paragraph 10 of the notice that during the 2017-2018 school year, when K.S. was a student in Respondent’s eighth grade intensive reading class, "Respondent requested a sexual favor from [K.S] on a small note that he had handed her." At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with K.S. 2 K.S.’s Written Sworn Statement to Detective Webb On March 2, 2018, K.S. was interviewed by Detective Steven Webb, with the School Board’s police department, regarding alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by Respondent against her. That same day, K.S. gave a written sworn statement to Detective Webb, received into evidence as Respondent’s Exhibit No. 11. In this sworn statement, K.S. stated that during the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent "became sexually active with students, he did multiple things." K.S. went on state that Respondent: started off by touching my private area and then he advanced a couple of days later by pulling his pen[n]is (sic) out and grabbing my hand and, placing it there. One day he sent a student to get me from the cafeteria and on the pass it stated that I had to make up a test, but when I entered his class he rubbed my breast, and started to suck them for about 10 to 15 seconds, and then I pushed him away. He was dropping my grade until I did the things he wanted me to do with him which is to have sex, give him head, thing of that nature. Recently, about 2-3 weeks ago he asked me to do things with him and that’s a reason to why I left early recently. 2 K.S. did not complete her seventh-grade school year at Campbell Drive. Before the school year ended, the principal of Campbell Drive asked K.S. to leave the school because of disciplinary problems involving physical altercations with other students and defiant behavior. K.S. subsequently enrolled in Villa Prep Academy, a private school where she completed her seventh-grade year. K.S. did not attend Villa Prep Academy for very long because she was dismissed from that school during the early part of her eighth-grade year. In December 2017, K.S. re-enrolled in Campbell Drive. Upon her return, K.S.’s mother requested that she be put in Respondent’s classroom and K.S. was a student in Respondent’s eighth-grade intensive reading class for the remainder of the 2017-2018 school year. There was nothing mentioned in K.S.’s written sworn statement about Respondent engaging in any inappropriate conduct toward K.S. while she sat at her desk in Respondent’s classroom. K.S.’s Audio Recorded Interview with Detectives Webb and Ochoa In a subsequent audio recording interview of K.S. on March 2, 2018, by Detective Webb and Detective Gil Ochoa, received into evidence as the School Board’s Exhibit No. 5, K.S. initially described the cafeteria pass incident as follows: K.S. stated she left the cafeteria with her food tray in hand and went to Respondent’s classroom. Upon entering Respondent’s classroom, she began telling him things about her family. K.S. stated Respondent then took away her food tray, set the tray down, and pulled her over to another area of the room, at which time he touched her breasts over her shirt, lifted up her shirt and sports bra, exposed her breasts, and sucked on one of her breasts for about 10 to 15 seconds. K.S. stated she got scared and left the classroom, and that is all he did that day. K.S. failed to mention anything about Respondent pulling out his penis on this occasion until asked specifically about it by Detective Ochoa near the conclusion of the interview. School Board’s Ex. 5 at 13:22. K.S. then stated that she saw his penis, but she was scared and looked away. K.S. made no mention of Respondent placing her hand on his penis. During this interview, K.S. went on to describe another occasion in Respondent’s class that occurred after school was dismissed for the day. According to K.S., on this particular occasion, Respondent asked her "to give him head" and "to have sex with him." However, according to K.S., it never happened. K.S. further stated that recently (two to three weeks ago), Respondent asked that she "give him head." There was no mention in this interview of Respondent touching K.S.’s vaginal area or dropping her grades. The entire audio recorded interview lasted approximately 15 minutes. At the conclusion of the interview, K.S. was asked if there was anything else that she remembered that she wanted to add. K.S. declined and she did not state any other alleged inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact by Respondent. K.S.’s Testimony at Hearing At the final hearing, K.S. testified that toward the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent moved her seat next to his because she was easily distracted by the other students and failed the first test. Subsequently, the following exchange occurred between counsel for the School Board and K.S.: Q: Now, during that school year, did Mr. Rizo ever do anything inappropriate to you during class time? A: Yes. Q: All right. Can you explain to the Judge what he would do to you? A: He would, like, walk by, ‘cause since I was sitting so close to him, he would just touch me, like, my private areas or he’ll just, like go down on my arm, like that. Stuff like that. Q: All right. Now, this would occur during class time? A: Yes. Q: When specifically--was there a specific time that it would occur during class time? A: Mainly when we were testing or doing our work. T. Vol. 1, pp. 28-29. Counsel for the School Board went on to question K.S. about the testing process and Respondent’s efforts to curtail students cheating on tests. K.S. testified that students placed raised stapled manila folders on their desks to prevent students from seeing each other’s tests. Counsel for the School Board then asked K.S., in leading fashion: "So it was this time, during the testing, when he would touch you? K.S. responded: "Yes." Id., Vol. 1, pp. 29-30. However, K.S. could not describe the number of times "this occurred" during the 2016-2017 school year. Moreover, this alleged inappropriate touching supposedly occurred while 20 to 25 other students were in the classroom. At hearing, K.S. testified at one point that Respondent’s touching of her vaginal area occurred every time they had tests, but she acknowledged that the raised stapled manila folders were not always present on the students’ desks during testing. At hearing, K.S. further acknowledged that had the inappropriate touching occurred as she testified to, any student at any point could have looked and seen Respondent caressing her in her vaginal area. Counsel for the School Board then inquired of K.S. if there was "ever anything more serious that [Respondent] did to [her]" that school year (2016- 2017). In response, K.S. described the alleged cafeteria pass incident as follows: A: I was in lunch--because I was in seventh grade at the time, seventh grade goes to lunch before anybody, and he sent one of his eighth grader students with a pass to go to get me. Because in order to leave the lunchroom, you have to have a pass. Security didn’t let you leave the lunchroom. Security called me and told me that my teacher was calling me to make up a test. When I got in the room, I had my tray in my hand, and he took my tray, put it down, he exposed himself. And then there was a corner and he, like, put me in the corner and he sucked on my breast. T. Vol. 1, pp. 32-33. However, moments later, K.S. described the incident differently: First he pushed me to the corner, and then after he sucked my breast, then he exposed himself. And then I was just scared. And he--when he exposed himself, he grabbed my arm and he made me touch his area, and then I grabbed my tray, I threw it away, and then I left. Id. at p. 33. According to K.S., she was in Respondent’s classroom on this particular occasion between five or ten minutes. The corner of Respondent’s classroom is located right next to the door entering the room. K.S. testified that the incident occurred with just Respondent and K.S. in the classroom, but with the other student who had retrieved K.S. from the cafeteria still waiting outside the door when K.S. left Respondent’s classroom. At hearing, counsel for the School Board also asked K.S., in leading fashion, whether she ever told the police officers that Respondent would "suck on your breasts or try to have sex with you multiple times?" In response, K.S. testified: "I told them--I told them the suck on my breast part, when he exposed him. And then when they asked about my eighth-grade- year, I told them how he wrote on a sticky note that I want to give him head, like oral sex …." Inconsistently, K.S. testified in her deposition that Respondent wrote on the sticky note: "Can I eat her?" According to K.S. in her deposition, Respondent picked up the sticky note, showed it to K.S., and she grabbed it from him and threw the note away. School Board’s Ex. 11, p. 11. At hearing, K.S. testified that Respondent handed her the sticky note and that she then threw it away. K.S. and Respondent never communicated by telephone, text, e-mail, or social media. There are no witnesses to any of the alleged incidents. K.S. never reported any alleged inappropriate conduct by Respondent to her parents, a teacher, or school administrators. However, at hearing, K.S. testified she told V.S.C. about Respondent’s conduct toward her during the 2016-2017 school year when V.S.C. came to her house on a single occasion sometime during K.S.’s eighth grade school year. Allegations Involving V.S.C. The School Board alleges in paragraph 11 of the Notice of Specific Charges that during the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent also made inappropriate comments to V.S.C. during his role as an afterschool care supervisor, and that he would "bump up against" V.S.C., "rubbing himself on her buttocks area." V.S.C. was not a student in Respondent’s classroom. The alleged inappropriate conduct occurred while V.S.C., a female 14-year-old eighth grade student at Campbell Drive, attended the school’s Students with a Goal ("SWAG") afterschool program. SWAG is an outdoor program where students can engage in a variety of recreational activities. Respondent was one of six school staff members that participated in the program. At any given time, there were approximately 100 students in attendance. Students could play soccer, basketball, football, dodge ball, board games, or do homework. Students could freely rotate through the different activities by simply notifying the adult conducting the desired activity. Respondent primarily engaged in soccer, but would occasionally participate in other activities. At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with V.S.C. V.S.C.’s Audio Recorded Interview with Detective Bernice Charley On March 6, 2018, V.S.C. was interviewed by Detective Bernice Charley, with the School Board’s police department, regarding alleged inappropriate sexual conduct by Respondent against her. An audio recording of the interview was received into evidence as the School Board’s Exhibit 8.3 During the interview, V.S.C. stated that while she and Respondent were at SWAG during the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent told her he wanted to slap her face with his penis; he asked her if she liked it rough (referring to sex); and he told her his penis was his "third leg." According to V.S.C., she and Respondent would engage in a verbal "back and forth," and he would say these comments in front of other students at SWAG. Additionally, V.S.C. stated she and Respondent would "bump" into each other at SWAG. According to V.S.C., Respondent would bump into her side or back from behind. During the interview, V.S.C. stated she had a bad memory. V.S.C. was reluctant to speak and there were many long pauses by her after questioning by Detective Charley. After much prodding and requests by Detective Charley for V.S.C. to "open-up," V.S.C. actually stated: "There’s nothing to talk about because nothing did happen." School Board’s Ex. 8, at 38:48-38:52. After further pauses, prodding, and requests by Detective Charley for V.S.C. to "open up," V.S.C. stated that Respondent also touched her breasts one time while they were at SWAG. According to V.S.C., this incident occurred with her shirt on. The School Board argues in its proposed recommended order that V.S.C. also described another incident while she and Respondent were at his classroom. According to V.S.C., Respondent was standing at his desk and V.S.C. was standing in the doorway, at which time Respondent stated to V.S.C.: "me and you here and now," followed by Respondent tapping on his desk. V.S.C. interpreted this comment as meaning that Respondent wanted 3 The audio recorded interviews of K.S. and V.S.C. (School Board’s Exhibits 6 and 8) are contained on a thumb-drive accompanying the School Board’s written exhibits received into evidence at the hearing. to have sex with her. According to V.S.C., other students were present when Respondent allegedly made the comment. Notably, this alleged incident is not referred to in the Notice of Specific Charges. The notice was, therefore, insufficient to inform Respondent of the School Board’s contention. The entire recorded interview lasted approximately 52 minutes. Much of the interview involved Detective Charley’s repeated efforts to redirect V.S.C. and her attempts to have V.S.C. "open-up." V.S.C.'s Testimony at Hearing At the final hearing, V.S.C. could not even remember whether she was in seventh or eighth grade during the 2017-2018 school year. In any event, V.S.C. testified that during the 2017-2018 school year, she attended Campbell Drive and the afterschool SWAG program. Respondent and V.S.C. did not have much interaction in the SWAG program. V.S.C. testified that she did not really participate in any of the SWAG activities; rather, she would either just "hang-out with [her] friends or sleep," or watch her friends and Respondent play soccer. However, most of V.S.C.’s time was spent sleeping near a tree, far away from where Respondent spent most of his time with the soccer group. When asked if Respondent ever did anything inappropriate to her during the SWAG program, V.S.C. testified that he talked about his "private part" to her, saying that "it was big," and referring to it once as "his third leg." Counsel for the School Board then asked V.S.C. in leading fashion: "Okay. Did he ever mention anything that he would like to do with his private part," to which V.S.C. responded, "I don’t remember. I just know that he talked about it once." T. Vol. 1, p. 82. V.S.C. described unspecified things that Respondent allegedly said to V.S.C. as "playful, like, in an inappropriate way," and "weird." Counsel for the School Board then asked V.S.C. in leading fashion: "Do you remember telling these things that he would say to you to the police at a given point," to which V.S.C. responded, "I barely remember. It’s, like, such a long time ago now." Id. at p. 83. As with her recorded interview with Detective Charley, V.S.C. was reluctant to testify at hearing and there were many long pauses by her after questioning by the School Board’s counsel. After further prodding and requests by the School Board’s counsel to describe "the things he would say to you, other than his talking about his private part," V.S.C. described the aforementioned verbal incident in Respondent’s classroom. On cross-examination, V.S.C. acknowledged this comment was loud enough so that other students could hear it and that she read a sexual connotation into the comment. Id. at p. 97. Counsel for the School Board again asked V.S.C. if Respondent ever made any other comments to her during SWAG, to which V.S.C. responded, "I can’t remember." Id. at p. 85. Subsequently, the following exchanges occurred between counsel for the School Board and V.S.C.: Q: Did he ever threaten to slap you with anything?" A: Yeah, with his penis. Q: What did he say? A: He said he wants to, like, slap me in the face with his penis. Q: And when did he say that? A: I think in SWAG. Yeah, it was in SWAG. * * * Q: Do you remember Mr. Rizo touching you in any other way other than bumping you with his hip or anything like that? A: When we would play fight, he would, like, put his pelvis, like, on my back area. Q: What would he do with his pelvis? A: He would just, like, be there, like, behind me and play fighting me. Q: Did he ever try to touch you sexually in any way? A: I guess, yeah, if he’s doing that, if he’s behind me like that. Id. at pp. 87 and 92. V.S.C. never reported any alleged inappropriate conduct by Respondent to her parents, teachers, or school administrators. At hearing, V.S.C. acknowledged that she and K.S. were friends. At hearing, V.S.C. admitted that she and Respondent were never alone during the SWAG program and that she was always close to the other students. At hearing, nothing was mentioned about Respondent touching V.S.C.’s breasts. Allegations involving N.E. In paragraph 12 of the Notice of Specific Charges, the School Board alleges that "Respondent also made sexual advances and over the clothing sexual contact with a third female student [N.E.] during the 2017-2018 school year." However, N.E. did not testify live at hearing and the School Board did not present any eyewitness testimony in support of the allegations. At hearing, Respondent vehemently denied making any sexual comments or engaging in any sexual contact with N.E. Ultimate Findings of Fact At hearing, the undersigned had the opportunity to observe the testimony and demeanor of Respondent, K.S., and V.S.C. The testimony of Respondent is credited and is more persuasive than the testimony of K.S. and V.S.C., which is not credited or persuasive. Notably, K.S.’s and V.S.C’s versions of the events as set forth in their statements to the police and testimony at hearing were vague, differed in key respects, and much of their testimony and statements to the police were obtained through patently leading questions. Moreover, V.S.C. admitted that her memory is bad and that "there’s nothing to talk about because nothing did happen." It is also inconceivable that K.S. would have returned to Respondent’s classroom for intensive reading during the 2017-2018 school year had the alleged conduct during the 2016-2017 school year actually occurred. Had the alleged incidents occurred as testified about by K.S. and V.S.C., who were friends, it is also expected that there would have been eyewitnesses. In sum, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Respondent did not engage in inappropriate physical and verbal sexual contact with K.S., V.S.C., or N.E., as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, and Respondent did not engage in conduct with K.S., V.S.C., or N.E., which constitutes misconduct in office or immorality.4 4 K.S. and N.E. were also friends. As detailed above, N.E. did not testify at the hearing. However, an audio statement and a written statement purportedly authored by N.E., both of which are hearsay, were received into evidence at the final hearing as the School Board’s Exhibit Nos. 6 and 16, respectively. Although hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, this does not necessarily mean that the undersigned must use the hearsay in resolving a factual issue. The statements cannot be used as the sole basis to support a finding of fact, because they do not fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, the statements do not supplement or explain other non-hearsay evidence. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. ("Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions."). At hearing, the parties stipulated to the receipt into evidence of N.E.’s deposition testimony in lieu of her live testimony. Even if the audio statement and written statement could be used by the undersigned, however, the audio statement, written statement, and deposition testimony would not be given any weight based on the live testimony Respondent presented at hearing. Unlike N.E., who did not testify live
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order rescinding the suspension and termination of Respondent, Oscar D. Rizo, and reinstate Respondent with full back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 18th day of May, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for termination of Respondent's contract of employment with the Seminole County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for hiring, monitoring and disciplining teachers for the School. The School Board is the governing board of the School District of Seminole County, Florida, pursuant to Section 4, Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Sections 1001.32, 1001.33, 1001.41, 1001.42 and 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2009). (Unless stated specifically otherwise herein, all references to the Florida Statutes shall be to the 2009 codification.) Respondent is a licensed school teacher, certified by the State of Florida. She began teaching in 1992; her employment at the School started in 2002. Respondent is certified as an Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher and an Emotionally Handicapped (EH) teacher for grades K through 12. In the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was teaching social studies and math classes for mentally handicapped students at the School. On March 11, 2009, during her third period math class, Respondent engaged in an argument with one of her female students (J.P.). J.P. was a junior (11th grade student) at that time. The argument between J.P. and Respondent forms the basis of the School Board's decision to seek termination of Respondent's employment. On the date in question, another student (B.) had been disciplined by Respondent and sent to the dean's office, because the student lied to Respondent about why she was tardy to class. was upset about B. being disciplined, because B. was J.P.'s friend. After B. was sent to the office, there were five students remaining in Respondent's class. J.P. was observed by Respondent talking to one of the other students, L.S. Respondent told J.P. to stop talking and to do her work. J.P. took great offense to this and began to berate Respondent about not being an effective teacher. Up until this point in time, Respondent considered J.P. to be one of her favorite students. Respondent had taught J.P.'s brother in previous years and had taught J.P. for three years. The relationship between J.P. and Respondent had always been cordial, friendly, and positive. Respondent would purchase food for her students (including J.P.) and would subsidize her students' field trips out of her own funds. On the March 11, 2009, date, however, J.P. was very upset with Respondent and made several derogatory comments about Respondent. J.P. told Respondent that she (Respondent) did not teach well and did not help her students when they needed help. Among other comments, J.P. said that Respondent talked on the phone too much, did not go over work with students, and did not know how to teach. (There was no non-hearsay corroboration of these allegations by any other students at final hearing.) When J.P. first started talking, Respondent was calm and seemed amused by J.P.'s accusations. The discussion, however, then degenerated into a veritable shouting match between the student and the teacher. During that shouting match, ugly things were said by both Respondent and J.P. Respondent used several curse words that were inappropriate in the classroom setting. J.P. initiated the cursing between the parties, but Respondent, apparently in an effort to show J.P. that she was not going to be shocked by J.P.'s language, repeated the offensive words in response to J.P. Respondent made disparaging remarks bout J.P. and J.P.'s family and even made comments about J.P.'s mental capacity and inability to learn. The tone of the comments was very harsh. During the entire tête-à-tête between Respondent and J.P., there were other students in the classroom. While the debate was going on, some students were working on their assigned tasks. One student (L.S.) began taping the conversation at some point in time on her MP3 player. That recording was provided to administration at the School and formed the basis of an investigation by the School Board. The argument lasted for the majority of the class period on that date. The MP3 recording lasted 26 minutes and ended when the bell rang for the end of class. While the argument was going on, it seems that Respondent was moving around the classroom, but she was obviously not helping any students with problems at that time. Her entire energies were devoted to the argument with J.P. The tone used by Respondent and words she used were, she admits, inappropriate and wrong. It is clear the student was somewhat out of control, but engaging in a vicious debate with her was not the appropriate response from a teacher. Respondent is extremely remorseful about what transpired between her and the student on that day. Respondent had been previously reprimanded for using inappropriate words in a classroom setting in the 2003-2004 school year. In the 2004 incident, however, Respondent had written various curse words on the board after hearing a mentally handicapped student utter such a word. Respondent used that incident as a teaching moment to instruct her class that some words were not acceptable in the classroom or in public. For some reason, the School Board determined that the presentation of those words, even when intended to be instructional in nature, was wrong. (Apparently the only cursing condoned at all at the School is by sports coaches during practice times.) Respondent was issued a written reprimand for that incident and warned not to utilize those words in class again. During the March 11, 2009, argument with J.P. (five years after her prior reprimand), Respondent did utter some of the words she had been instructed not to repeat. Granted, her use of the words was in direct response to J.P.'s initiation of the words, but Respondent did technically violate her directive from the earlier reprimand. Besides the use of inappropriate language during the argument with her student, Respondent also overstepped the boundaries of professionalism in other ways. First, she disclosed certain confidential information about J.P. to other students. Respondent stated out loud that J.P. was seeking a special diploma, because J.P. was incapable of earning a regular diploma. Second, Respondent made disparaging remarks about J.P. and J.P.'s family, comments which were intended to embarrass or hurt J.P. The tone of the argument, though heated, carried an underlying hint of the long (and friendly) relationship between Respondent and the student. Respondent said she could not conceive of J.P.'s speaking that way to any other instructor; it was outside her normal behavior. J.P. apparently told the School administrators that she had never spoken to another teacher in that fashion. But J.P. obviously felt comfortable enough with Respondent to voice those opinions to Respondent in that manner. Respondent's tenure at the School has been generally positive. Her teaching skills have resulted in very laudatory annual evaluations. In September 2008, Respondent was provided an investigative summary of an incident, but there was no discipline imposed. A memorandum was issued by Assistant Principal Nash in May 2004 concerning an incident, but, again, no discipline was imposed. Respondent did receive a reprimand for the March 2004 incident concerning curse words mentioned above. Each of the students' parents who had met with Respondent and observed her teaching skills was complimentary about her. (The single parent testifying at the final hearing, who had negative comments about Respondent's working with ESE students, had never met Respondent, never attended his child's IEP meetings with Respondent, and had never had any communication with Respondent. Even that parent, however, said he believes Respondent "needs another chance.") Respondent has a good reputation with other educators and administrators. The School Board is seeking termination of Respondent's employment for the March 11, 2009, incident. The basis for the recommendation for termination seems to be that the argument was serious in nature and followed on the heels of a prior warning against using improper language in the classroom. However, other disciplinary cases against educators guilty of somewhat similar (though different in some respects) violations have resulted in much less severe punishment. For example: A letter of reprimand and two-day suspension without pay was given to an instructor who cursed at students in the stairwell of the school. A teacher who became upset over the change in her own son's schedule at the school simply left the campus, saying that she was sick of the place. She was charged with abandoning her classes and leaving the students without supervision. The teacher was docked pay for the time she was absent without leave and also suspended without pay for three days. A teacher who cursed at a school administrator in front of other staff members was disciplined with two days' suspension without pay. In the case of Respondent, it is clear that her actions are deserving of some form of discipline. Each witness who testified, including Respondent, agreed that some sort of discipline was warranted because Respondent's actions were wrong. At the time of the incident in question, Respondent's supervisor was Assistant Principal Cornelius Pratt. Respondent was considered by Pratt to be an exceptional teacher; he often used Respondent as a "lead" teacher, i.e., an experienced teacher, who could help new or struggling teachers succeed. Pratt considers Respondent's teaching style and skills to be first rate. Pratt, as Respondent's supervisor, was not asked to make a recommendation to the School Board as to what degree of discipline should be imposed on Respondent for this incident. Pratt believes termination is too severe a discipline based on Respondent's history, skills, and the fact that other teachers have been disciplined far less for similar violations. Respondent's behavior toward J.P. is contrary to her normal interaction with students. There is no evidence that Respondent ever acted in such a fashion prior to this incident. Respondent has been seen by a licensed mental health counselor, Dr. Trim. It is the opinion of Dr. Trim that Respondent would be able to safely return to the classroom and that, in the short term without any intervention, there is little likelihood of Respondent repeating her unprofessional behavior. (This is due to the amount of trauma experienced by Respondent as a result of her actions.) Dr. Trim further opined that Respondent could benefit from anger management counseling in order to ensure no further outbursts in the long term. The director of Human Resources for the School Board testified that in his experience, there was no other incident as severe as the one at issue in this proceeding. He recommended termination as the appropriate penalty. However, the director was not aware of the relationship between Respondent and J.P., he was not aware of the situation in Respondent's classroom as to the use of assistants (or lack thereof), and he had not talked to J.P. or J.P.'s parents. His recommendation, while reasonable based on his experience, lacks weight due to his unfamiliarity with other salient facts about the matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Seminole County School Board: (1) finding Respondent's behavior to be inappropriate; (2) upholding the suspension without pay to-date; (3) reinstating Respondent as a classroom teacher; and (4) placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 2nd day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Bill Vogel Superintendent of Schools Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Dr. Eric Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ned N. Julian, Jr., Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Tobe M. Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated specified Miami- Dade County School Board rules, giving Petitioner just cause to suspend Respondent for five work days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes.1/ Respondent is a 27-year teacher employed by the Miami- Dade County Public Schools ("M-DCPS"). For the first 24 years of his career, Respondent taught adult vocational classes. For the past three years, Respondent has taught at Miami Lakes Educational Center ("Miami Lakes"). He is a television production teacher, teaching students entry-level television production skills to prepare them for careers in the television industry. Background of this Proceeding At all times material, Respondent's employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between M-DCPS and the United Teachers of Dade, Petitioner's rules and policies, and Florida law. This matter had its genesis in late 2010, when two or three female students complained to Miami Lakes Assistant Principal Michael Tandlich that they felt uncomfortable in Respondent's classroom, specifically because Respondent touched them. In response to the complaints, Mr. Tandlich took written statements from approximately ten students in Respondent's class.2/ He took the statements to the Miami Lakes principal. As a result, the school initiated an investigation of Respondent's actions regarding the students in his class. Once the investigation was complete, the matter was referred to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") for a comprehensive review of all information related to the matter. On March 1, 2011, Milagros Hernandez, District Director for OPS, sent Respondent a letter stating that as a result of the investigation, "[t]he initial investigative findings indicate that Probable Cause has been established for the allegation of violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4.109, Employee Student Relationships. Probable cause is defined as '[b]ased upon an evaluation of the evidence, it is more likely than not the alleged act occurred.'" On March 8, 2011, OPS conducted a Conference-for-the- Record ("CFR"). Respondent and Ms. Hernandez were among the attendees. The CFR is a fact-finding conference held to discuss the incident and to afford the subject of the investigation the opportunity to tell his or her side of the story. Following the CFR, OPS sent a letter to Respondent, dated May 4, 2011, advising him that OPS recommended that he "be suspended without pay for 5 workdays for violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics " On May 11, 2011, Petitioner suspended Respondent for five work days without pay for alleged violation of the above- stated rules.3/ Incidents Giving Rise to Alleged Violations A.S. is a female student in Respondent's television production class. She is in her junior year of high school at Miami Lakes. A.S. testified that Respondent touched her on the shoulders on more than one occasion, the touching made her feel uncomfortable, and she told him to stop. On one occasion when Respondent touched her on the shoulders, A.S. yelled at Respondent, "Stop touching me, you pedophile!" or something to that effect. She testified that Respondent did not touch her on any part of her body other than her shoulders, and has stopped touching her. Testimony was elicited from A.S. and another student, J.G., establishing that A.S. is overly-dramatic, blows things out of proportion, and acts out in class in order to be the center of attention. The evidence also established that A.S. may have some animus toward Respondent because he is much stricter and has set much higher academic and behavioral standards than did his predecessor, and does not tolerate A.S's disruptive behavior in class. J.C. is a female student in Respondent's class, and is A.S.'s friend. She is in her junior year of high school at Miami Lakes. J.C. testified that Respondent sometimes touched her on the shoulders, and that once, Respondent touched her dress at about mid-thigh level. The touching made her uncomfortable, but she never asked him to stop. Respondent did not touch her on any other part of her body. She acknowledged that Respondent's conduct likely was meant as complimentary and encouraging. J.C. testified that Respondent had made the class much more demanding than had his predecessor, and that her classmates and friends had discussed their unhappiness with the change. She acknowledged that around that time, some students went to the assistant principal and complained that Respondent was touching students and making them feel uncomfortable. J.G. is a male student in Respondent's class. J.G. testified that Respondent is a very strict teacher and that his class is very demanding "in a good way." J.G. testified that Respondent is very respectful of his students and encourages them during class, verbally and by patting them on the back or touching them on the shoulders. He treats male and female students the same in that regard. J.G. has never seen Respondent touch any of his students, male or female, in an inappropriate manner. J.G. stated that Respondent is a very professional teacher. Respondent also presented the testimony of Dr. Angela Thomas Dupree, Vice Principal at Lindsay Hopkins Technical Education Center. Before assuming her current position, Dr. Dupree served at Miami Lakes for 12 years as an assistant principal and a vice principal. For approximately ten of her 12 years at Miami Lakes, she worked with Respondent as his direct supervisor and observed Respondent interacting with his students. She testified that he was very knowledgeable and always engaged in the classroom, and that he treated students with respect and dignity. She never observed, and was not aware of, any instances in which Respondent did not honor the integrity and retain the respect of his students. During her time in working with Respondent, he always conducted himself in a manner that reflected credit on him and on the school system. Respondent testified on his own behalf. Respondent's goal in teaching the television production class is to prepare his students to enter the workforce in the television production industry. His classes are structured according to the grade level of the students in the class. For his higher level classes (i.e., junior and senior classes), students are given assignments for the day, then move into different areas to work on their specific assignments. Respondent supervises the students by walking back and forth between the work areas to make sure everyone is on task. One studio is very small, so it is not unusual for Respondent to walk up behind students when they are working and to touch them as he is showing them how to perform a task or use the computer. Respondent also encourages his students, verbally, by patting them on the back or touching their shoulders, and by giving them "high five." Respondent testified that in one of his college communication courses, there was discussion about the importance of "breaking the shield" that each person has, in order to enhance interpersonal communication. Respondent noted that is often why people shake hands. Respondent testified that he tries to "break the shield" with his students, in part by touching them, in order to more effectively communicate with them. Touching always has been a part of the way Respondent teaches and conducts his class, until this incident. Respondent testified that he did touch A.S. on her shoulders. On the day on which A.S. called Respondent a "pedophile," A.S. had been doing her homework for another class while in Respondent's class, and Respondent had asked her to stop. She ignored Respondent's request. Respondent was lecturing and walking around the studio, and the students' chairs and desks were arranged in the middle of the studio. As Respondent was walking around the studio, he observed A.S. continuing to do her homework despite being asked to stop. He walked up behind her and put his hands on her shoulders to get her to stop. A.S. jumped up and yelled at him. Respondent testified that he touched A.S. on her shoulders, and, on another occasion, may have touched her hair, but that he did not touch her on any other part of her body. Respondent recalled touching J.C.'s dress. On the day in question, the students were wearing professional clothing, rather than their usual uniforms, as part of a "dressing for success" program being conducted at the school. Respondent was sitting down and J.C. was standing next to him. He touched the skirt of her dress and complimented her on her appearance. Respondent testified that he only meant to compliment her, and that she did not appear to be uncomfortable. Respondent testified that he never has inappropriately touched students, and that when he has touched students, it has never been with intent to do anything wrong. He acknowledged that he understands the difference between touching adult students and minor students while encouraging them in their class work. Assistant Principal Michael Tandlich testified that Petitioner's policy is to prohibit the touching of students in any way; however, Mr. Tandlich was unable to identify any such policy or provision in Petitioner's rules. He also testified that he and the teachers at Miami Lakes routinely touch students——which he acknowledged would constitute widespread violation of such a policy, if one existed. Finally, he testified that he considers touching of students other than a handshake to be inappropriate——contradicting his previous testimony that there is an absolute prohibition on touching students. Mr. Tandlich testified that teachers are informed, in the first meeting with school administration personnel at the beginning of the school year, regarding Petitioner's policies. However, Respondent credibly testified that he never was told that all touching of students is prohibited.4/ IV. Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Petitioner's rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, "Responsibilities and Duties," provides in pertinent part: I. Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a matter that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited. Petitioner's rule 6Gx-4A-1.213, "Code of Ethics," provides in pertinent part:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order rescinding the suspension of Respondent from his employment for five days without pay, and paying Respondent’s back salary for the five-day period for which he was suspended. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 28th day of November, 2011.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Duval County School Board, had just cause to suspend Respondent without pay for seven days for the reasons specified in the agency action letter.
Findings Of Fact Jurisdiction Petitioner, Duval County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Duval County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Sawdy was employed as a teacher at Lake Shore in Duval County, Florida, from 2011 through June 2018. During the 2016-2017 school year, Mr. Sawdy taught civics to seventh grade students. During the time he was a teacher at Lake Shore, Mr. Sawdy received an effective or highly effective rating on his performance evaluations. Mr. Sawdy has never received discipline during his tenure as a teacher. Specifically, during the time that he had worked at Lake Shore, he was never disciplined for failure to adequately supervise students. After the 2017-2018 school year, Mr. Sawdy relocated to North Carolina and is serving as a teacher there. Background The incident that served as the basis for this proceeding occurred on May 2, 2017. Mr. Sawdy’s classroom was located in a portable unit with windows at Lake Shore. Generally, Mr. Sawdy would have a structured lesson for the class period. However, on this day the students in the class returned from a field trip in the middle of the third period at approximately 1:30 p.m. The students were instructed to go to their designated class and remain there until the fourth class period. The field trip was to the Diamond D Ranch, a farm in Jacksonville, Florida. There were approximately 20 students who went to Mr. Sawdy’s classroom after the field trip. As was the typical case when students returned from a field trip, the students were described as rowdy. As a result, Mr. Sawdy permitted the students to work on note cards and listen to music. The music was from Hamilton, the musical, which was used to teach the students about the historical figure, Alexander Hamilton. Although music was playing, the students could hear each other. The lights were off, but you could see in the room because the windows allowed sufficient ambient light. The School Board alleged that Mr. Sawdy allowed a group of students in his class to participate in an inappropriate game. One of the students from the group included R.G. The group was located at the back of the classroom. The testimony from various witnesses about what happened in the classroom on May 2, 2017, varied in several areas. Student Testimony Student C.A. C.A. testified that when the class returned to the classroom, Mr. Sawdy did not have a specific lesson. He played music and allowed students to move freely. According to the diagram of the room, C.A. was sitting near R.G., with one chair between them, in the group. C.A. testified that he witnessed R.G. lift her shirt, exposing her breasts. C.A. described the event as “flashing” that happened quickly. C.A. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk at the front of the room when R.G. lifted her shirt, which was farther away from R.G. than was C.A. C.A. credibly testified that Mr. Sawdy was strict regarding discipline for inappropriate behavior. If Mr. Sawdy had seen R.G.’s conduct, he would have called her parents or referred her to the principal. C.A. testified that he did not see anyone kissing or touching private parts. At some point during the class, C.A. slapped D.B. on the back of her thigh. C.A. testified that Mr. Sawdy took him outside the classroom to discipline him for hitting D.B., which redirected his behavior. Student D.B. D.B. testified that Mr. Sawdy’s class is usually laid back and there is even less structure after a field trip. After the field trip, Mr. Sawdy instructed students to work on note cards. While music was playing, they could hear each other. While the lights were off, they could see each other because of the lights from the windows. Turning off the lights was a common practice of other teachers at Lake Shore as well. D.B. was sitting at a desk on the opposite side of the group from R.G. D.B. recalled that Mr. Sawdy was at his desk working on his computer. There were students sitting between R.G. and Mr. Sawdy. D.B. testified that she saw K.2/ lick R.G.’s breast, which happened within two seconds. D.B. credibly testified that she did not see anyone else expose their breasts or kiss anyone. Student H.P. H.P. was sitting near the group. She testified that although music was playing, it was not so loud that she could not hear. She testified that she was aware that a game was taking place. However, she did not see anyone kiss anyone, or engage in any inappropriate activity. H.P. testified that Mr. Sawdy was doing paperwork, and she did not see him walk around during class. However, H.P. credibly testified that Respondent would discipline students if he aware that they misbehaved. Student K.M. K.M. was sitting at the same table as H.P., near the group. In fact, she was sitting closer to R.G. than H.P. K.M. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk working on his laptop. However, she saw him walk around the classroom “one or two times.” K.M. testified that Mr. Sawdy instructed students that it would be a free day because they had returned from the field trip. During the class, Mr. Sawdy turned on music from Hamilton. K.M. stated that she witnessed C.A. slap D.B.’s thigh and saw Mr. Sawdy remove C.A. from the classroom to discipline him for his actions. Despite her close proximity to the group, K.M. did not see anyone kiss anyone, lift their shirt, or lick anyone. K.M. traveled to Europe for a field trip chaperoned by Mr. Sawdy in June 2018. She testified that he did well as a chaperone. Student C.W. C.W. testified that Mr. Sawdy permitted students to listen to music and hang out after the field trip. C.W. was sitting near the windows, near the corner of the class, but closer to the group than Mr. Sawdy. She characterized the group as “troublemakers.” She stated that Mr. Sawdy warned the group to settle down several times. Despite her criticism of the group, C.W. did not see anyone kiss or lick anyone, or otherwise engage in inappropriate activity. Student J.B. J.B. testified that after the field trip, Mr. Sawdy turned on a video of Bill Nye, “the science guy,” on the television. Since students were not watching the video, Mr. Sawdy turned on music. At some point, Mr. Sawdy told the group of students to quiet down because they were being loud. J.B. testified that Mr. Sawdy would discipline students who misbehaved by talking to them or issuing a referral to the principal’s office. J.B. stated that he was not aware of a game of truth or dare being played at the time. He also credibly testified that he did not see anyone kiss anyone, lift up his or her shirt, or see anyone do anything inappropriate. Student F.G. When F.G. and the other students returned to class, Mr. Sawdy instructed them to watch the Bill Nye video and work on note cards. Music from the musical Hamilton was playing toward the end of class, but it was not too loud. F.G. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk during class, but he walked around a few times. Although F.G. was sitting close to the group, she did not know that any inappropriate activity occurred until a few weeks later. F.G. credibly testified that she did not see anyone dancing, kissing, or engaging in inappropriate touching. F.G. also confirmed the testimony of C.A. and D.B. that Mr. Sawdy would discipline students who misbehaved, beginning with a warning outside the classroom, followed by a phone call to their parents and then, a referral to the principal. None of the students who testified stated that they had concerns for their safety or the safety of other students in the class. Although subpoenaed, the complaining student, K.A.M. did not appear at the final hearing.3/ Mr. Sawdy’s Testimony Mr. Sawdy also testified at the final hearing. He stated that he chaperoned a group of students on a field trip to Diamond D Ranch. When the students returned from the trip, they were instructed to go to his classroom. No other teachers or teaching professionals were in the classroom at that time. Mr. Sawdy testified that students are usually more relaxed after field trips and would benefit from a less restrictive teaching class period. As a result, Mr. Sawdy played music from Hamilton and instructed the students to work on note cards. The lights were off, but you could see because of ambient light. Mr. Sawdy credibly testified that he had no knowledge of any inappropriate conduct in his classroom on May 2, 2017, until Mr. Gottberg told him about the complaint regarding inappropriate activity in his classroom. If he had seen anything inappropriate, he would have addressed the actors accordingly. He described the instance where he counseled C.A. Mr. Sawdy’s testimony was consistent with that of C.A. and D.B., when he testified that he heard a slap, turned in the direction that he heard it and saw C.A. looking strange. He took C.A. outside the classroom and counseled him for hitting D.B. Subsequent to May 2, 2017, Mr. Sawdy planned and chaperoned a field trip to Europe with 10 middle school students, which took place in June 2018. The principal of each student’s school approved the trip to Europe without objection. Furthermore, there were no parents that objected to Mr. Sawdy chaperoning the students on the trip. Specifically, students M.W. (who did not testify at hearing) and K.M. were in the class on the date in question and still attended the trip to Europe without objection from their parents. There is no reason to believe or evidence to support that Mr. Sawdy would not have disciplined the students engaging in the activity alleged if he had knowledge of their conduct. Moreover, based on his experience with the class, there was no indication to Mr. Sawdy that the students would have the propensity to engage in the alleged conduct. The evidence demonstrates that the incident was, at most, a matter of two students surreptitiously engaging in unexpected inappropriate activity. There was no evidence offered to demonstrate that the alleged student conduct harmed the health or safety of the students in the class. Even if it is determined that the allegations on their face would demonstrate actual harm, rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect students from such harm. Gerald Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. v. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, RO at 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2102; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Investigation Mr. Gottberg was the principal at Lake Shore during the 2016-2017 school year. He testified that there was an expectation that teachers would maintain a safe environment for students through classroom management and disciplinary action when necessary. There was also an expectation, but not a requirement, that classroom instruction would take place from beginning of class until the end of class (bell-to-bell instruction). On May 3, 2017, Mr. Gottberg’s assistant informed him that there was a parent and student that had a complaint about inappropriate student activity in Mr. Sawdy’s classroom that had occurred on May 2, 2017. Mr. Gottberg briefly interviewed the student and ultimately, referred the complaint to the Office of Professional Standards. The student resource officer, Mary Alice Knouse, interviewed three of the 22 students who were in the class on May 2, 2017. Based on her interview of the students, she determined that other than K.A.M. and K.M., no students witnessed any inappropriate conduct. The investigator assigned to investigate the complaint, James Gregory, also interviewed students. He interviewed students involved in the alleged conduct events and randomly selected other students. He did not interview all the students in the classroom on May 2, 2017. Mr. Gottberg was instructed to prepare a report regarding the complaint, and he complied. At the direction of the Office or Professional Standards, but before the student interviews were completed, he recommended that Mr. Sawdy receive Step III or Step IV progressive disciplinary action. Mr. Gottberg described Mr. Sawdy as one of the best teachers at Lake Shore. While Mr. Gottberg was principal, he even approved the 10-day field trip to Europe, which was scheduled to take place after the incident on May 2, 2017. Allegations Not Pled in Notice The School Board made much of the lights being turned off in the room and the music playing. These allegations were not pled in the charges and, thus, may not be relied upon as a basis for the School Board’s action. Even if the School Board had pled allegations regarding the lights and music, the School Board failed to prove that these factors proved that Mr. Sawdy inadequately supervised the students in his classroom. At least five witnesses testified that although the lights were off, there was sufficient light from the windows to see in the classroom. Mr. Gottberg sent an email to the Lake Shore teachers the day following the incident directing them to keep the lights on in the classrooms. However, no witness testified that there was a rule or policy regarding keeping the lights on during classroom instruction prior to the incident. In addition, teachers and students testified that it was a common practice for the lights to be off in the classrooms because sufficient light was available by window. Several witnesses also testified that the music was not so loud that you could not hear. Mr. Sawdy’s Reputation Respondent has a good reputation with other educators and is known to be an effective teacher. Several of those teachers testified at hearing about their experience working with Mr. Sawdy. Zandra Bryant worked on the same team with Mr. Sawdy at Lake Shore for approximately four years. She testified that she had worked at Lake Shore for eight years. She described Mr. Sawdy as “wonderful teacher” who was very organized and attentive. She was also a chaperone for the field trip to Diamond D Ranch and characterized the students as being rowdy when they returned from the field trip. She confirmed Mr. Sawdy’s testimony that it would not be a good time to begin a structured lesson. Mallory Layton also worked with Mr. Sawdy. She described him as role model, attentive to students, including administering discipline when necessary. Similar to Ms. Bryant, she also testified that after a field trip, it is good practice to engage the students in a relaxed activity. Melissa Cash and Kasey Winter testified that Mr. Sawdy was a good teacher who had a respectful relationship with students. Ultimate Findings of Fact There is no question that the allegations were of a sensitive nature. The testimony varied in material aspects, and was not of such weight (preponderance of evidence) that it produced a firm belief that Mr. Sawdy failed to reasonably protect the safety of the students in his classroom. The allegations that students engaged in exposure and licking of private body parts was supported by a preponderance of evidence. However, even though the evidence supports a finding, by a slim margin, that students engaged in inappropriate conduct, it must also be determined whether Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect students from harm. The testimony varied regarding where Mr. Sawdy was located when the student conduct occurred. The testimony was clear and consistent that Mr. Sawdy was in the classroom. D.B., J.B., and H.P. testified that Mr. Sawdy was sitting at his desk doing work. F.G. testified that Mr. Sawdy was at his desk during the class, but walked around a few times. K.M. testified that Mr. Sawdy walked around the room one to two times. The totality of the evidence supports a finding that Mr. Sawdy was at his desk at the front of the room during the class period, but he left his desk and walked around a few times. At the final hearing, six witnesses credibly testified that they never saw anyone kiss, lick, or otherwise engage in inappropriate conduct in Mr. Sawdy’s classroom on May 2, 2017. The evidence also supports that these students were sitting closer to the group and arguably, were in a better position to see the group’s activity. There is no dispute that Mr. Sawdy was not aware that a group of students had engaged in inappropriate conduct in his classroom on May 2, 2017. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Sawdy inadequately supervised students in his classroom on May 2, 2017. Mr. Sawdy walked around the classroom and interacted with students. He had control of students to the extent that he even disciplined a student for playfully hitting another student. The evidence reflects that the alleged student conduct was an isolated event that happened, at most, within one to two seconds. The conduct was quite unusual and could not be reasonably anticipated. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Mr. Sawdy failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the students from harm. There was no evidence offered to support a finding by a preponderance of evidence that the student conduct was harmful to any student’s learning, or that the events adversely affected any student’s mental or physical health, or safety. Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that there is just cause to suspend Mr. Sawdy without pay for seven days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Duval County School Board: dismiss the charges against Respondent; dismiss the notice of recommendation of issuing a reprimand and suspension without pay for seven days; and to the extent there is a statute, rule, employment contract, or the Collective Bargaining Agreement authorize back pay as a remedy for Respondent’s wrongful suspension without pay; Respondent should be awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 310395 covering the areas of biology and science. During the 1985-1986 school year, he taught ecology and science courses at Winter Park High School in the Orange County School District until he was relieved from duty on March 13, 1986, as a result of an investigation into the incidents and behavior described below. During the school day, Respondent repeatedly harassed the female students with sexual remarks, attempts at sexual humor, and requests for sexual favors and intimacies. The sexual harassment so permeated the classroom that Respondent was completely unable to discharge his professional teaching responsibilities. Faye Zentner was a senior at Winter Park High School during the 1985- 1986 school year. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent knew that she was a student, he repeatedly asked her to go with him on a date, followed by dinner and bed. Unsolicited, he gave her his home telephone number and told her to call him. He frequently remarked on her clothing, advising her that she should not wear such nice clothes. He often communicated by notes that he would show her and then tear up. Ruth Evans was a senior at Winter Park High School during the 1985-1986 school year. She was in Respondent's science class. Respondent repeatedly complimented her on her dress. He would intentionally drop a pencil and watch her while she picked it up. At different times, Respondent told her that he "wanted her body" and thought that she had a "nice ass." He also told her that he wanted to "get between her legs." He asked her to go out with him and then to his place. One afternoon when Ms. Evans asked to leave class 10 minutes early for a school-sponsored softball game, Respondent's response was, "If you're not going to do anything for me, why should I do anything for you?" Kristen Fischer was a senior at Winter Park High school during the 1985-1986 school year. She was in Respondent's ecology class. Looking at her breasts and body while speaking, Respondent would frequently tell Ms. Fischer that he liked what he saw, including her tight jeans. As with the other female students, Respondent asked Ms. Fischer to go out with him and have a drink. The testimony of the remaining female students reiterated the above testimony and established a pattern of sexual harassment on the part of Respondent. Respondent summoned Juliana Gomes from the classroom and, in the hall, commented on her appearance and asked her out on dates. Ms. Gomes finally began reporting to school late in order to avoid her first-period class with Respondent. Respondent told jokes involving female body parts, such as the vagina, to Laurie Kreitner, another student. When she would not listen to these jokes privately at his desk, Respondent would tell them publicly to the entire class. Respondent regularly asked Sheila Buchanan, another of his students, what she was doing on that Friday night and where she would be. At spring break, he found out where she and her girlfriends would be staying at the beach and gave them his hotel room and telephone numbers with an invitation to call him. During the entire term in ecology, Respondent administered only one test and a couple of quizzes. Otherwise, the students and Respondent sat around and talked about movies and matters unrelated to the subject of the class. On more than one occasion, Respondent admitted that his grades were a reflection of whom he liked and whom he did not like. Respondent even allowed Ms. Buchanan to grade half of the finals, and she gave good grades to her friends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 COPIES FURNISHED: Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. David Holder, Esquire Rigsby & Holder Suite 200 1408 North Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Reginald Crooms 617 South Delaney Avenue, No. 19 Orlando, Florida 32801
