The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for alleged violation of various provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B
Findings Of Fact Respondent Clayton McWilliams holds Florida teaching certificate number 653517, covering the area of substitute teaching, which is valid through June 30, 1994. He is 27 years of 1989, from Valdosta State College in Valdosta, Georgia. After a few brief months employment in retail sales in Tallahassee, Florida, Respondent returned to Madison, Florida, where he was born and lived prior to attending college. Respondent returned to Madison in August of 1989, after being contacted by the high school coach there regarding the possible employment of Respondent as an assistant coach at the high school from which Respondent graduated. He was employed in the 1989 County School Board. Subsequently, he was employed by the Board during the 1990 high school. Respondent served as an assistant coach during this period. While serving as a substitute teacher during the 1989 Respondent was responsible for a ninth grade science class. Female students M.B., R.B., J.D., and R.C., were in a group surrounding Respondent's desk, talking with Respondent. All the students in the group were curious about Respondent and asked him such questions as what are you going to coach, are you married, do you have a girl friend, and why did you come back to Madison? Respondent knew many of the students on a first name basis and, in the course of bantering with the group, responded at one point to the students' questions about his private life by asking the students about their social lives, if they kissed their boy friends with their mouths open, and if they used their tongues. There was general laughter from the students, although R.B. didn't think the question was "any of [Respondent's] business." This was the only question or comment that Respondent ever made that bothered R.B. R.B. regarded Respondent's conduct in the ensuing two years as "flirting" and "didn't ever think anything bad about it." The next year when R.B. was in the tenth grade (1990 photograph. Respondent later told R.B. that he stared at the photograph every night. When R.B. was in the eleventh grade and not a student in a class taught by Respondent, Respondent jokingly asked R.B. in the presence of D.C., her boyfriend at the time and an athlete with whom Respondent enjoyed a rapport, why she wanted to date such a "big, old dummy." There were other times that Respondent would see R.B., tell her that she looked nice, wink at her and blow her kisses. During the 1990 M.B., by asking her if she kissed with her mouth open, and would she teach Respondent how to do this. Respondent also told M.B. that she looked beautiful. M.B. was not a student in a class taught by Respondent. During the 1991-1992 school year, M.B. was a high school junior and a varsity cheerleader. Respondent continued to speak to M.B., although she was not his student, when he saw her on the school campus or at sporting events. He continued to ask M.B. about kissing with her mouth open, whether she would teach Respondent how to do this, and when could she teach him. M.B. declined to specify any time or place to meet with Respondent. M.B. did not disclose Respondent's behavior to anyone at this time. On one occasion, M.B. and other eleventh grade students, including her boyfriend, were in the high school library, ordering their class rings. Respondent became involved in conversation with the students and asked M.B. again about teaching him to kiss open would lose his job for M.B. Although he heard these comments, M.B.'s boyfriend considered Respondent to be joking. In the fall of the 1991 Wakulla County for a game which would determine whether the team could compete in the district championship playoff. Upon boarding the bus after the game for the trip home, Respondent was asked by M.B. if he was going to sit with her on the bus. He replied that he would if she saved him a seat. Respondent stored the athletic equipment which he was carrying, returned to the forward section of the bus and assumed the vacant seat beside M.B. Since the team had lost the game, most passengers on the bus were despondent. In the course of the trip, M.B. and Respondent leaned their heads against the back of the seat in front of them and Respondent talked about college and how being from a small high school had been difficult when he had attended the University of Florida before transferring to Valdosta State. Respondent had his hands between his knees as he talked and at one point placed it on M.B.'s knee or patted her knee. She, feeling discomfited by the gesture, brushed his hand away. This was the only time that Respondent touched a student where such touching was interpreted by a student to have sexual significance. Respondent testified that he patted M.B. because she acted as though "something had been bothering her" and characterized the pat as something he would give "football players or baseball players at school." Eventually, M.B. became sleepy and rested her head against the bus window. Respondent in a normal tone of voice offered to let her place her head on his shoulder, but M.B. declined. During the 1991 photographs. On the back of his photograph, Respondent wrote: M., I remember when I first saw you, you struck me as beautiful. I really think you are. You are truly special to me. Please know that I love you. Stay sweet and pretty. Love, Clayton. P.S., Please teach me sometime. Mary Rice, a teacher at the high school, began teaching there at approximately the same time as Respondent. Rice, like Respondent, was single. Rice, like Respondent, enjoyed informal relationships with some students, such as the cheerleaders for whom she served as staff sponsor. The cheerleaders, similar to many students who called Respondent by his first name, referred to Rice as "Mary". She became engaged in October of 1991 to Scott Alley, another teacher who occasionally substituted at the school. Rice and Respondent had a normal collegial relationship. Prior to Christmas of 1991, Rice and Respondent were in the school office discussing what they were getting their significant others for Christmas. Respondent told Rice that he would tell her what he was getting his girl friend for Christmas if Rice would have sex with him. Later in the day, Respondent got down on his knees in the hallway outside of Rice's classroom in the presence of students and asked Rice to "go with me before you get married". While Respondent meant that he wanted to have sex with Rice, he did not explicitly state such in the hallway. Later, Respondent sent Rice a note containing four blanks for letters. According to Rice, the note stated that Respondent would tell Rice what he was getting for his girlfriend for Christmas if Rice would " ". Rice assumed the four blanks to represent a sexually suggestive word. Rice stored the note in her desk drawer. She determined not to tell anyone about the note. In February of 1992, her fiancee, Scott Alley, discovered the note in the desk while he was substituting for Rice. He showed the note to Debra Wetherington, a school secretary, and later asked Rice about the note. Rice was startled that Alley had found the note and became upset. Later, in a telephone conversation initiated by Respondent, he discussed the note with Alley. Respondent apologized to Alley for any misunderstanding about the note, stating that he had written it merely to get a laugh from Rice. Respondent told Alley that he, Respondent, just flirted with everyone and that was "how I broke the ice with everyone." After Respondent's apology, the two men agreed to remain friends. Subsequently, the note was destroyed by Alley. Debra Wetherington, the secretary at the high school, frequently interacts with the teaching staff. Initially, Respondent and Wetherington enjoyed a good working relationship no different than those she shared with other teachers. She had known Respondent all of his life. Over a period of time, Respondent began to flirt with Wetherington, asking her about open mouth kissing. At these times, Wetherington ignored his remarks or laughed them off as a joke. When his behavior persisted, she told him that his conduct bothered her and that he should stop. She never told her husband or any one else about Respondent's attentions, hoping to resolve the matter without confrontation and embarrassment. On or about February 25, 1992, Respondent came into the school office and physically put his arms around Wetherington in a "bear" hug and, according to Wetherington, tried to put his tongue in her ear. Also present in the room were the school resource officer and another office worker. No eyewitness corroboration of Wetherington's allegation that Respondent attempted to put his tongue in her ear was offered at the final hearing and she had not reported this detail in an earlier affidavit regarding the incident. Respondent denies he attempted to put his tongue in her ear. Respondent's testimony is more credible on this point and it is not established that he attempted to put his tongue in Whetherington's ear. Wetherington later complained about Respondent's conduct to Lou Miller, the school principal. Miller called Respondent into her office, discussed the incident with him, and directed him to have no such contact with Wetherington in the future. Respondent apologized for his conduct, both to Miller and Wetherington. While Respondent and Wetherington had no further contact, Wetherington later asked another teacher, Tony Stukes, if Respondent was angry with her since she had not seen or heard from him lately. On or about March 24, 1992, Respondent saw M.B. in the hallway outside the door of his classroom while classes were changing. Respondent spoke to M.B. and told her that he had a dream about her. M.B. went to see Mary Rice, the cheerleading sponsor, who had earlier asked M.B. if she was having any problems with a teacher. Rice had taken this action following the discovery of Respondent's note in Rice's desk by Rice's fiancee. M.B. had confided in Rice about Respondent's previous flirtatious behavior toward her. Rice told her to write down future incidents. After relating to Rice the comment of Respondent about having a dream, M.B. was asked by Rice to go back to Respondent and find out more about the dream. M.B. went into Respondent's class where the students were working on a geography project. An overhead projector displayed the continent of South America on a board. Some students were tracing the projection on the board, preparatory to cutting the shape out of the board. Other groups were cutting out other continents. The lights in the room were turned on. Respondent was sitting at his desk, cutting out the Asian continent. M.B. went to a chair by Respondent's desk and sat down. M.B. was on her lunch break and was not a student in the class. However, in the context of the situation, her entry into the classroom was not that unusual. Respondent had on previous occasions entered an art class where M.B. was a student and had spoken with her or, on some of these occasions, had also spoken with the teacher in the class. After seating herself by his desk, M.B. asked Respondent to tell her about his dream. Respondent replied that he couldn't, but M.B. persisted. Finally, Respondent wrote on a piece of paper, "I had a dream about you and me." M.B. then wrote on the paper, "Well, what happened?" The rest of the written exchange is as follows: Respondent: "Well, all I remember is you were teaching me." M.B.: "Teaching you what?" Respondent: "Guess." M.B. "I don't know. Why don't you tell me what I was supposedly teaching you." Respondent: "How to kiss with my mouth open. I liked it, too. I woke up sweating and holding my pillow to my mouth." M.B. then took possession of the piece of paper on which she and Respondent had been writing, left the class and went back to see Mary Rice. M.B. discussed the matter with Rice. After this discussion, M.B.'s feelings about Respondent solidified and she determined that she detested Respondent. At Rice's suggestion, she then went to see Principal Miller. Miller and School Superintendent Eugene Stokes confronted Respondent with the note. Respondent stated he meant no harm by his conduct, recognized that he had a problem and needed help for his aberrant behavior. After a discussion of options, including suspension or resignation, Respondent thought about the matter overnight and submitted his resignation to Stokes on March 27, 1992. Respondent was told that the matter must be reported to the Professional Practices Commission. Respondent was, however, under the impression that his resignation would conclude the necessity for any further proceedings of a disciplinary nature. Until the time of his resignation, Respondent had received good evaluations. His contract was renewed annually. However, as expressed at final hearing by Miller and Stokes, they would not rehire Respondent in view of his past behaviors which now, in their opinion, would reduce his effectiveness as a teacher at Madison High School. Subsequently, Respondent was informed on May 28, 1992, that an investigation regarding alleged misconduct been instituted by the Professional Practices Commission. In August of 1992, Respondent sought and was appointed to a teaching position in Hawthorne, Florida, at the combined junior/senior high school in that city for the 1992 completion of course work for issuance of a five year teaching certificate from the State of Florida which he received in October of 1992. Dr. Lamar Simmons, the supervising principal at the school in Hawthorne, Florida, where Respondent is presently employed is acquainted with Miller. Simmons contacted Miller at the Madison High School, prior to employing Respondent. Miller informed Simmons that Respondent had been a satisfactory employee. Miller did not disclose Respondent's alleged misconduct to Simmons because she assumed Respondent was receiving professional help for his problem and that the issuance of Respondent's five year certificate indicated that further disciplinary proceedings by the Professional Practices Commission had been abandoned. Respondent later disclosed the instant disciplinary proceeding to Simmons. To date of the final hearing, Respondent continues to teach at the school in Hawthorne without apparent incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the third, fourth, and fifth count of the Administrative Complaint, and placing Respondent's teaching certificate on probation for a period not to exceed three years upon reasonable terms and conditions to be established by Petitioner, including the following requirements: That Respondent present himself for psychological evaluation by a qualified professional selected by Petitioner. That Respondent complete such course of psychotherapy as may be prescribed as a result of that evaluation. That Respondent assume the cost of such evaluation and subsequent therapy, if any. That Respondent enroll and complete a minimum of six hours of continuing education courses in the area of professional conduct for educators. That in the event that Respondent fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of probation, Respondent's teaching certificate shall be subjected to a period of suspension not to exceed two years, and that compliance with these conditions of probation serve as the prerequisite for any reinstatement of Respondent's teaching certificate in the event that suspension for noncompliance with these conditions occurs. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1993. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following constitutes my specific rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Petitioner's proposed findings 1.-12. Accepted. Rejected as to D.C.'s feelings, hearsay. Accepted. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 13.) Rejected as to "two or three times", accepted as to touching on the knee one time, on the basis of resolution of credibility on this point. (Note: this is the second finding numbered 14.) Accepted. Accepted in substance, not verbatim. 16.-18. Accepted. Rejected as to tickling reference since no sexual significance was ascribed by M.B. to this action, she did not supply a point in time when this occurred and inclusion would imply a significance not proven at the final hearing. Rejected, unnecessary. 21.-23. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer findings on this point. 24.-42. Accepted, but not verbatim. 43. Accepted as to bear hug, remainder rejected on basis of creditibility. 44.-57. Accepted, but not verbatim. Respondent's proposed findings 1.-20. Accepted, but not verbatim. 21. Rejected, unnecessary. 22.-23. Accepted, but not verbatim. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Thomas E. Stone, Esquire Post Office Box 292 Madison, Florida 32340 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practice Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sidney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly constituted school board charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools District pursuant to a professional services contract. In the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Homestead Middle School. In the 2012-2013 school year, until she was suspended pending the outcome of this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a math teacher at the Alternative Outreach Program, 5000 Role Models location.1/ At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by Florida law, Petitioner's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Events Giving Rise to these Proceedings The 2011-2012 School Year Respondent began teaching eighth grade science at Homestead Middle School ("HMS") in August 2011. The 2011-2012 school year for students began on August 22, 2011. The workday hours for teachers at HMS for the 2011-2012 school year were from 7:25 a.m. to 2:45 p.m., Monday through Friday. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent was informed of this schedule when she was interviewed for her teaching position, and again so informed during the first faculty meeting of the school year. Pursuant to the UTD contract, the teacher work hours per day in the Miami-Dade Public Schools consist of seven hours and 20 minutes, including a one-hour planning period. The UTD Contract provides that teachers may, with the approval of the work-site administrator (i.e., the principal) modify their workday schedule, such as adjusting the beginning time of the teacher's workday, provided that such modification does not interfere with the overall number of hours worked. This provision affords a principal the authority and discretion to modify a teacher's workday schedule. The student school day hours for HMS began at 7:35 a.m., when the first bell rang and students began entering their classrooms, and ended at 2:20 p.m. Students were to be in their classrooms by 7:40 a.m. for a homeroom period, immediately followed by the first instructional period consisting of a literacy block. The student school day schedule is set by the Miami-Dade County School Board and the school principal is not authorized to change it. Pursuant to HMS's established procedure, if a teacher was going to be absent, he or she must call the absence hotline at least 30 minutes prior to the start of the teacher workday. Shortly after the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent began being tardy to work. HMS Principal Rachelle Surrancy or one of the HMS assistant principals would note Respondent's arrival time, either by being in the front of the school when she arrived2/ or by having to open the door to her classroom to let her homeroom class students in if she arrived after the late bell had rung. Surrancy verbally reminded Respondent of the school's starting time, then held an informal meeting with her on or about September 7, 2011, to remind her of the same. Respondent's young son suffers from a range of significant health conditions, including asthma, gastrointestinal reflux, apnea, pneumonia, lactose intolerance, allergic rhinitis, and eczema. He requires extensive care for these conditions, and Respondent was required to administer breathing treatments and other care on a daily basis. During flare-ups of her son's conditions, Respondent needed to take medical leave to provide that care. On or about September 20, 2011, Respondent submitted to Surrancy an Intermittent Leave Request Medical Certification form under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") (hereafter "FMLA Form")3/ requesting approval for Respondent to periodically take leave due to the intermittent illness of her young son. The FMLA form was completed and signed by Respondent's son's physician. Based on the child's medical history, the physician estimated that Respondent would need to take FMLA leave every two to three months, for a period lasting two to three days. Notwithstanding Surrancy's admonitions, Respondent continued to be tardy to work. During the first 25 days of the school year, Respondent was tardy 16 of those days. Most of the tardies entailed an arrival time of between two and five minutes late, but some entailed arrival times as much as 25 to 35 minutes late. When Respondent arrived after 7:40 a.m. (15 minutes late), her colleagues in the science department were placed in the position of having to cover her class until she arrived. As a result of Respondent's continued tardiness, on September 28, 2011, Surrancy issued a Punctuality to Work Directive ("Directive") to Respondent regarding her punctuality and attendance.4/ The Directive reminded Respondent that punctuality and attendance were essential components of her teaching position, and that as a faculty member, she served as a role model to other employees and student. Respondent was apprised that she was to arrive at work on time and sign in daily by 7:25 a.m. If she was going to be tardy, she was to communicate that to an assistant principal or to Surrancy. Surrancy explained that compliance with these directives was necessary to prevent adverse impact to the students and their academic progress, to ensure continuity of the educational program, and to maintain effective worksite operations. The memo advised Respondent that she could obtain assistance to facilitate her punctuality. Respondent was notified that noncompliance with the directives would be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination. Respondent told Surrancy that the reason she was tardy was that she had to take her son to his daycare center. The daycare center did not open until 7:00 a.m., making it difficult for her to arrive at HMS by 7:25 a.m. due to the commute in morning traffic. On October 5, 2011, Surrancy evaluated Respondent's instructional performance for the 2011-2012 school year pursuant to the Instructional Performance Evaluation and Growth System ("IPEGS"), the system used in the Miami-Dade County Public School District to evaluate instructional personnel. Surrancy rated Respondent as "effective" for each IPEGS standard other than Performance Standard ("PS") 7, "Professionalism."5/ For that standard, she rated Respondent's performance as "unsatisfactory" on the basis that due to her tardies, Respondent violated the School Board's Code of Ethics and Standards of Ethical Conduct policies.6/ After the September 28 meeting, Respondent continued to be tardy, so on October 10, 2011, Surrancy again met with her. Respondent explained that each day, her son required a breathing treatment regimen that she had to administer and that she had to take her son to daycare. Respondent told Surrancy that she planned to enlist the assistance of a friend to take her son to daycare so that may assist her to arrive on time.7/ Surrancy offered to adjust Respondent's workday schedule to allow her to arrive five minutes later to accommodate her travel time from her son's daycare to HMS, contingent on Respondent arriving at work by 7:30 a.m. However, Respondent continued to be tardy, at times arriving later than 7:30 a.m. Surrancy held a follow-up meeting with Respondent on October 25, 2011, at which she notified Respondent that the adjusted workday schedule no longer was in effect and that she was again required to arrive at 7:25 a.m.8/ In the meantime, Respondent sought to transfer to a school having a workday schedule with which she could more easily comply, given her son's daycare start time and her travel time. She was offered, but declined, a position at Redland Middle School, which entailed a teaching assignment that was out of her field of certification. Respondent declined the position because it did not meet the condition of her loan forgiveness program that the assignment be in a critical subject area——such as science and math——and because she did not believe she would be as proficient a teacher in teaching out of her subject area. Following the October 25 meeting, Respondent continued to be tardy. Several of these tardies necessitated coverage for her homeroom class. On December 14, 2011, Surrancy held a Conference-for- the-Record ("CFR") with Respondent to address her continued tardiness. By that time, Respondent had been tardy 45 days since the beginning of the school year, and several of these tardies necessitated coverage of her homeroom class by her colleagues. Surrancy informed Respondent that her tardies had adversely affected the educational program and services provided to students. Respondent was again directed to be punctual and in regular attendance, to communicate any intent to be tardy before 7:00 a.m. by calling the assistant principals or her, and to provide physician documentation and/or recertification of her FMLA form as needed if she was going to use FMLA leave to cover her tardies. Respondent was provided copies of Petitioner's policies on Standards of Ethical Conduct, Code of Ethics, and Leaves of Absence; Department of Education rules 6B-1.001 and 6B- 1.006; another copy of the FMLA for recertification by her physician; and other documents to inform and assist Respondent in addressing her tardiness problem. Respondent was informed that noncompliance with the directives would constitute insubordination and compel district disciplinary action. Respondent continued to be tardy. Again, several of these tardies necessitated coverage of her homeroom class. On February 13, 2012, Surrancy conducted another CFR with Respondent. As of that date, Respondent had been tardy 69 days since the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. Surrancy issued Respondent the same directives previously given and again furnished Respondent copies of pertinent School Board policies, applicable Department of Education rules, and other informational documents. Surrancy informed Respondent that failure to comply with these directives would constitute gross insubordination and necessitate further disciplinary action. Respondent explained that her tardiness was due to a variety of factors, including having to perform breathing and other medical treatments on her son and taking him to daycare. She expressed concern at having to call in by 7:00 a.m. if she was going to be tardy because, for unforeseen reasons such as her son's daycare being late in opening, she may not know whether she was going to be tardy until after 7:00 a.m. Surrancy informed Respondent that under any circumstances, calling in did not excuse tardiness. Respondent requested that Surrancy assign her homeroom to another teacher and allow her to report at 7:45 a.m., when her science classes commenced. Surrancy refused. As a result of Respondent's continued tardies, Surrancy determined that her conduct constituted insubordination and noncompliance with applicable School Board policies. Surrancy issued a written Reprimand to Respondent on March 5, 2012. The Reprimand directed Respondent to adhere to school board policies, be punctual, and call Surrancy or an assistant principal before 7:00 a.m. if she were going to be tardy. Respondent nonetheless continued to be tardy, necessitating another CFR, which was held on March 29, 2012. By this time, Respondent had been tardy 86 days and absent 8.5 days in the 2011-2012 school year. During the CFR, Respondent provided two FMLA leave request forms completed by her son's treating physicians certifying the frequency and duration of her son's flare-ups that necessitated leave. One of these, dated March 6, 2012, stated that flare-ups occurred at a frequency of every one to two months for a duration of two to three days, while the other, dated February 20, 2012, stated that the flare-ups occurred approximately once a month and did not specify a duration. Under any circumstances, Respondent was tardy more frequently than the number of days of leave documented as necessary by either of these FMLA forms. Respondent again was given directives, which included those previously provided regarding punctuality and attendance, calling in by 7:00 a.m. if tardiness was anticipated, physician documentation for leave requests, performance of her teaching duties, comporting herself in a manner that reflected credit on herself and Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and adherence to School Board policies and applicable Department of Education rules. Respondent was again provided copies of the policies, rules, and other documents previously given to her. Respondent was offered the option of resigning her position but declined. Surrancy recommended that Respondent be suspended from her teaching position. However, Respondent was not suspended during the 2011-2012 school year.9/ Although Respondent's tardiness during the 2011-2012 school year required coverage of her homeroom class by colleagues on several occasions, she did not miss any classroom instructional time.10/ 2012-2013 School Year For the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent was hired as a math and science teacher in the Educational Alternative Outreach Program's ("EAO") credit recovery program. She was assigned to the EAO's 5000 Role Models location. In this assignment, Respondent taught between 12 and 15 students in grades six through eight. The 5000 Role Models facility was located between 35 and 40 miles from Respondent's home. She had a commute of between one hour ten minutes and two hours one way from her home to 5000 Role Models. The teacher workday hours for this location were 8:20 a.m. to 3:40 p.m. Respondent was informed of this schedule when she was interviewed by EAO Principal Claire Warren, and by letter from Warren regarding her projected teaching assignment for the 2012-2013 school year. Warren credibly testified that at the time she was interviewed, Respondent did not express any concerns regarding this schedule. The student school day at 5000 Role Models started at 9:00 a.m. Shortly after the school year commenced, Respondent began being tardy. During the first week of the students' school year, Respondent was tardy twice, approximately 20 minutes each time. On August 31, 2012, Warren issued Respondent a written memorandum reminding her of the directives that were issued the previous school year and directing her to be punctual and in regular attendance; call before 8:00 a.m. to notify either Warren or the assistant principal if she was going to be absent or tardy; provide physician documentation for absences and tardies due to illness; timely submit updated FMLA forms if anticipated illness or tardies covered under the FMLA are anticipated; adhere to all School Board policies; and perform her job responsibilities. Respondent was placed on notice that noncompliance with these directives would constitute gross insubordination and would necessitate notification of the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of discipline. Respondent continued to be tardy. As of October 1, 2012, Respondent had been tardy eight times11/ and absent three days.12/ On some of the days she was tardy, Respondent did not call to notify the administration, as she had been directed to do; on other days, she sent text messages but did not call. Warren conducted another conference with Respondent on October 1, 2012. She issued another memorandum documenting Respondent's tardies since the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, reiterating the directives previously issued on August 31, and notifying Respondent that failure to comply with the directives would constitute gross insubordination. Warren also provided a letter to Respondent regarding FMLA coverage of her tardies and absences. The letter informed Respondent that only absences, i.e., time away from the worksite, and not tardies were covered by the FMLA, and that it was her responsibility to notify the school if she were going to be absent pursuant to an FMLA-certified illness event. Attached to the letter was an FMLA Form to enable Respondent to update her FMLA-covered illness certification as necessary. Respondent's tardies continued. She was tardy on October 2, 5, 8, and 9——on some of these days as much as 45 to 70 minutes late. On the days when she was tardy by 40 or more minutes, she missed classroom instructional time and her students had to be placed in another teacher's classroom. On October 10, 2012, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay,13/ for gross insubordination and for violating School Board policies regarding the Code of Ethics (policy 3210), Standards of Ethical Conduct (policy 3210.01), and Leaves of Absence (policy 3430), and rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009.14/ Respondent served her suspension and returned to work on November 26, 2012. On that day, she was 11 minutes tardy; the following day, she was 40 minutes tardy. On November 29, 2012, Warren issued another memorandum to Respondent reiterating the directives previously given on August 31 and October 1. Respondent was informed that her failure to comply with the directives would constitute gross insubordination and would necessitate referral to the Office of Professional Standards for further discipline. Respondent continued to be tardy. In December 2012 and January 2013, Respondent was tardy 13 days, two of which required coverage of her class. Respondent did not call in to the school to notify them of her anticipated tardiness but she did notify the school by text message on some of these occasions. On February 1, 2013, Respondent was notified of a CFR scheduled for February 5, 2013. On February 4, 2013, Respondent notified Warren by electronic mail that she would not be at school that day or the following day. On February 6, 2013, Respondent notified Warren by electronic mail that she was taking a leave of absence "for at least the next few weeks." She also informed Warren that her absences the previous two days had been due to her own illness. Respondent did not submit a leave request form to Warren prior to taking sick leave. Respondent did submit a Leave of Absence Medical Documentation Form to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Retirement/Leave/Unemployment Compensation ("Leave Office") on February 5, 2013, containing her physician's certification that she was ill and recommending a leave of absence from February 4, 2013, to March 1, 2013. Because she was requesting approval of leave for less than 30 days' duration, under the UTD Contract, Respondent should have filed her leave request with Warren rather than with the Leave Office. UTD Contract Article XIV, section 2, paragraph A., governing notification in the event of teacher absence, states in pertinent part: When a teacher, for whom an emergency temporary instructor is employed, will be absent from work, due to illness or injury or due to personal reasons, he/she shall notify the supervising administrator (or designee), as soon as possible, but no later than one hour before the start of his/her scheduled workday, in order that an emergency temporary instructor can be employed or other arrangements made. If said absence/leave is for a specified period of time, no further notice is necessary. In the event of a change in this specified period of absence, the employee will proceed, pursuant to the stipulations herein. Where an absent teacher does not notify his/her supervising administrator, as stipulated herein, and where there are not extenuating circumstances, as determined by the supervising administrator, such teacher will have the option to utilize personal leave or leave without pay. However, such determination by the supervising administrator shall not be made arbitrarily. UTD Contract, art. XIV, § 2.A. (emphasis added). Article XIV, section 10, governs sick leave without pay for illness. Paragraph C. of that section states: "[e]mployees whose illness requires an absence of over 30 days must file an application for extended sick leave indicating the anticipated length of such absence and supported by a statement from competent medical authority." This leave request would be filed with the Leave Office. However, because Respondent did not request sick leave for a period exceeding 30 days, this provision was not applicable to her leave request. Notwithstanding, Respondent's leave request was reviewed by a medical consultant for Miami-Dade County Public Schools and ultimately was denied. Apparently, some time elapsed before the Leave Office forwarded Respondent's leave request and denial decision to Warren. Warren testified: "I didn't get the request until much afterwards, you know, after she had been out several days " Even after Warren received Respondent's leave request form and denial from the Leave Office, more time passed before she notified Respondent. It was not until March 1, 2013, that Warren sent Respondent a letter informing her that her leave request had been denied and that her absences for the entire month of February were unauthorized, thus warranting her dismissal on the basis of job abandonment. At approximately the same time Warren notified Respondent that her leave request was denied, Warren also notified Respondent, by separate email, that she had incorrectly submitted her leave request to the Leave Office, instead of submitting it to her (Warren). On the same day that Warren notified Respondent that her leave request had been denied, Respondent submitted another leave request form and a medical documentation form to Warren, retroactively requesting approval of her sick leave taken between February 4 to March 18, 2013, due to her own illness. Warren denied the request that same day, citing the medical consultant's determination as the basis for the denial. Warren's letter did not cite an independent basis for the denial. Petitioner did not present any competent evidence regarding the specific basis for the medical consultant's determination to deny the request. Respondent returned to work on March 4, 2013. She was tardy that day and the following day. On March 6, 2013, a CFR was held. The CFR originally had been scheduled for February 5, 2013, but when Respondent took leave, it was rescheduled. At the meeting, Respondent was apprised that her tardies and absences were excessive and that they, along with her failure to adhere to the other previously issued directives, constituted gross insubordination. On March 13, 2013, Petitioner took action to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher. Respondent's Criminal History Petitioner presented evidence that in August 2012, a records check for Respondent was generated after information was received from Petitioner's Fingerprinting Office indicating that Respondent had been arrested in January 2011 for violation of a protective injunction and in July 2011 for battery. However, this evidence consisted solely of hearsay. Petitioner did not present any non-hearsay evidence establishing that these arrests occurred. Respondent denied that she was arrested in January 2011. She acknowledged that she was arrested for battery in July 2011. She testified, credibly, that the arrest occurred over the July 4th holiday and that she timely reported this arrest by calling Petitioner's instructional staffing office. Respondent credibly testified that the charge was not prosecuted and ultimately was dismissed. Petitioner did not present any competent or credible evidence to refute Respondent's testimony on these points. Respondent's Defenses Respondent asserts that she was not tardy as frequently in the 2011-2012 school year as Petitioner asserts. She questions the accuracy of Surrancy's and others' recordkeeping regarding her tardiness. However, she did not present any specific evidence to show that Petitioner's records of her tardiness in the 2011-2012 were inaccurate; thus, her position on that point is essentially speculative. She also claims that Surrancy did not treat her fairly or equitably during the 2011-2012 school year. Specifically, she asserts that Surrancy had the authority and flexibility to adjust her workday schedule so that she did not have to cover a homeroom class, thus allowing her to arrive at work later, but that Surrancy unfairly chose not to do so. Respondent further asserts that Surrancy had provided such accommodation to another teacher in a previous school year. Thus, Respondent claims that Surrancy treated her unfairly.15/ However, Surrancy testified, persuasively, that she could not have relieved Respondent of having a homeroom in order to enable her to arrive later in the workday because instructional personnel, other than coaches and co-teachers, were assigned homeroom or other professional duties that required them to be at school during regular workday hours. Thus, there was no one else available to assume Respondent's homeroom class responsibilities.16/ Respondent also asserts that Surrancy treated her disparately and unfairly by singling her out for discipline for her tardies, while not disciplining others who also were often tardy. However, even if that were the case, it does not excuse Respondent's tardies or provide a basis for Surrancy to decline to enforce school policies with respect to Respondent. Respondent also asserts that she was not afforded the FMLA leave to which she was legally and contractually entitled. Specifically, she argues that she filed FMLA leave forms stating the need for intermittent leave to care for her son, so that for the days on which she was tardy, the number of minutes by which she was tardy should have been counted as leave under the FMLA. Respondent testified, credibly, that she did not purposely refuse to follow the directives given her by Surrancy, Warren, and the Office of Professional Standards, and that her tardies during both school years were the result of her having to provide medical care for her young son and take him to daycare, then commute in heavy traffic to the worksites. Moreover, to the extent Petitioner claimed that Respondent was insubordinate because she did not adhere to directives to call the school if she was going to be tardy, Respondent credibly countered that she often would call in, only to be put on hold for some time and then told that the administrator she was attempting to reach was not available; thus, she started sending text messages instead to ensure that her message was received. Regarding the arrest reporting issue, Respondent denied that she was arrested in January 2011, and testified that she timely reported her July 2011 arrest to the appropriate authority. Findings of Ultimate Fact In these consolidated proceedings, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment17/ as a teacher on the basis of just cause——specifically, gross insubordination and misconduct in office.18/ As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to show that Respondent committed the violations of section 1012.33 and rules 6A-5.056; and 6B-1.001 and 6A-10.080; and 6B-1.006 and 6A-10.081. Gross Insubordination Pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent's conduct in accruing an extensive number of tardies during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years constituted gross insubordination. Although Respondent did submit leave request forms estimating the frequency and duration of FMLA-covered leave she would need in order to care for her son, the evidence shows that she was tardy far more frequently than supported by any of the forms she submitted. In order to accommodate an employee's FMLA request, Petitioner must be able to rely on the information the employee provides on the FMLA leave form. If the information provided on the form is inaccurate, Petitioner is neither required nor authorized to consider undocumented time away from the work site as leave covered under the FMLA.19/ While it is admittedly difficult to precisely predict when illness will occur, under any circumstances, the forms Respondent submitted did not cover the frequency of her tardies incurred in the 2011- 2012 and 2012-2013 school years.20/ As addressed above, it appears that Respondent was the victim of a coalescence of unfortunate personal circumstances that interfered with her employment. Nonetheless, the fact remains that she was repeatedly put on notice by Surrancy, Warren, and the Office of Professional Standards that her continued tardiness would constitute gross insubordination. Any measures that Respondent purportedly took to rectify the circumstances, such as enlisting the help of a friend to take her son to daycare, apparently were unsuccessful. Respondent had the option in the 2011-2012 school year to transfer to another school to address the morning commute issues, but she chose not to. Although she had legitimate personal and professional reasons for choosing to remain at HMS, the fact remains that she elected not to pursue a course of action that may have addressed the problematic circumstances she found herself in. Under these circumstances, the undersigned concludes, albeit reluctantly, that Respondent's conduct——which took place over a period of two school years, after frequent admonitions, and after she had been placed on notice several times that her continued conduct would constitute gross insubordination——does, in fact, constitute gross insubordination. With respect to Respondent's absences in February 2013, the evidence indicates that Petitioner's Leave Office and Principal Warren unnecessarily delayed notifying Respondent that her leave request for February 2013 had been denied. The evidence gives rise to the inference that Respondent may have cut her leave short and returned to the work site had she been timely informed that her request had been denied. Moreover, Petitioner presented no competent evidence regarding the specific basis for the Leave Office's denial of Respondent's request, or for Warren's denial of Respondent's retroactive request on the same basis. Under these circumstances, the undersigned determines that Respondent's absences for the month of February 2013 should not be considered unexcused. However, even without considering these absences, Respondent's repeated tardiness over an extended period of time without proper leave documentation and after extensive prior notice of the consequences, is sufficient to establish gross insubordination. Misconduct in Office As more fully discussed below, Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent committed misconduct in office under both versions of rule 6A-5.056 in effect in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, respectively. Specifically, Respondent's frequent and repeated tardiness during the 2011-2012 school year violated the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession because her conduct caused her to lose the respect and confidence of her colleagues. In particular, Respondent's frequent tardiness substantially undermined Surrancy's confidence in her reliability, and, thus, impaired her effectiveness in the school system. Respondent's frequent and repeated tardiness over the course of the 2012-2013 school year also constituted misconduct in office. Again, she violated the Code of Ethics in the Education Profession by failing to maintain the respect and confidence of her colleagues. Respondent's frequent tardiness adversely affected Warren's confidence in her reliability. Additionally, on the days when Respondent's tardiness necessitated her students being moved to another teacher's classroom, her students' learning environment was disrupted, and her own ability and that of her colleagues to effectively perform their duties was reduced. As a result, Respondent's effectiveness in the school system was impaired. Petitioner also charged Respondent with violating Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, which provides that all employees are representatives of the Miami-Dade County School District and requires employees to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Respondent's frequent tardies over an extended period of time gave the appearance of disregard for school policies and did not reflect credit on her or on the school district. Moreover, Respondent did not protect her students from conditions harmful to learning on the days when they had to be moved to another teacher's classroom due to her tardiness.21/ Accordingly, Respondent violated Policy 3210. Respondent also violated Policy 3210.01, Petitioner's Code of Ethics. As found above, she did not protect her students from conditions harmful to learning on the days when she was so tardy that they had to be moved to another classroom. However, Respondent did not violate Policy 3430, Leaves of Absence. For the reasons discussed above, Respondent's absences in February 2013 should not have been determined unexcused; thus, she did not violate Policy 3430. Respondent also did not violate Policy 3121.01, Employment Standards and Fingerprinting of Employees. To the extent Petitioner argues that Respondent lacks good moral character based on having been arrested, Petitioner did not present any competent evidence regarding her arrests or failure to timely report them as required by school board policy. Respondent acknowledged that she had been arrested in July 2011 but testified that she had timely reported it, and that the charge ultimately was dismissed. Petitioner did not offer any competent evidence22/ to counter Respondent's testimony, which is deemed credible and persuasive. Factual Basis for Recommended Sanction The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not purposely set out to violate school policies and Department of Education rules, but that circumstances coalesced such that Respondent found herself in the extremely difficult position of having to care for her very ill son and take him to daycare, then undertake a lengthy commute in morning traffic, without enough time to accomplish both. As unfortunate and trying as those circumstances were, they do not excuse Respondent from complying with the crucial and reasonable requirement that employees arrive to work on time.23/ Nonetheless, the evidence establishes that Respondent is an innovative, proficient teacher in the critical subject areas of science and math, and that she cares about performing her job well——to the extent that she declined an out-of-field teaching assignment, in part due to concern that she would not perform effectively in that assignment. As such, it is reasonable to infer that under less demanding circumstances, such as having a shorter commute or a later workday starting time, Respondent would perform her teaching duties proficiently and professionally. The circumstances in this case warrant upholding Respondent's suspensions without pay commencing on October 11, 2012, and ending on November 26, 2012, and commencing on March 13, 2013, through the summer vacation following the 2013- 2014 school year, and denying back pay for the full period of her suspension. However, given the very trying circumstances Respondent faced in the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, and because the evidence indicates that under less oppressive circumstances Respondent likely would be an innovative, proficient, and professional teacher, the undersigned believes that terminating Respondent's employment would be excessively harsh and that Petitioner would lose a good teacher.
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 upholding Respondent's suspensions without pay commencing on October 11, 2012, and ending on November 26, 2012, and commencing on March 13, 2013, through the summer vacation following the 2013-2014 school year; denying back pay for the full period of her suspension; and reinstating Respondent's employment as a teacher at the start of the 2014- 2015 school year. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2014, 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 31st day of March, 2014
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is used in Section 23.167, Florida Statutes. By memo dated November 6, 1981, all principals in Pinellas County were advised by Seymour Brown, Director, Secondary Placement and Substitute Teachers, that Thomas A. Rateau, Petitioner, was eligible to substitute in their schools as a teacher in business education and mathematics for grades 7 through 12. That substitute teacher offer was conditioned upon Rateau passing the November 11, 1981, physical examination. Rateau passed this examination. The principal at Dunedin Senior High School needed a teacher in business education to complete the semester ending January 25, 1982. He reviewed the applications on file in the office of Dr. Seymour Brown, interviewed Petitioner, and selected Petitioner to fill the vacancy at his school. The principal notified Dr. Brown of his choice and Petitioner was offered a contract for a teaching position in the Pinellas County school system for the 1981-82 school year for a period of 32 duty days beginning November 30, 1981, and ending January 25, 1982, which Petitioner accepted (Exhibit 2). This offer and acceptance were conditioned upon acceptable certification by licensed medical practitioner on a medical information form provided by the Personnel Department (Exhibit 2). At his option Petitioner took the medical information form to his attending physician, Dr. Guiterrez, who, on November 24, 1981, conducted a complete physical examination. Dr. Guiterrez summarized Petitioner's condition as "physically healthy." Following this entry the box checked provided: "Has permanent physical limitations acceptable for this job. Re-examine before transfer to another position." Dr. Guiterrez also completed the School Board form (Exhibit 6) in which he wrote or checked the following: Diagnosis: Status Post-spinal Surgery Prognosis: Fair Medication Prescribed: Bufferin Dosage: Restrictions, If Any: No heavy lifting Eligible To Work: Yes Under My Care: Yes The physical examination conducted by Dr. Guiterrez was forwarded' to the School Board examining physician, Dr. Joseph A. Baird. Dr. Baird had Petitioner complete the medical information part of Exhibit 12. Therein Petitioner acknowledged that he had had back surgery, that he has a current medical problem with his back, that he has received worker's compensation, and that he has physical limitations. In describing his worker's compensation claim (Exhibit 12), Petitioner stated that while employed by the U.S. Postal Service an industrial accident caused by a failure of equipment exacerbated an unknown, pre-existing condition which was determined to be a tumor growing in his spinal column. Surgery subsequently removed that part of the tumor that had grown out of the bottom of his spine. He was terminated by the postal service because he could no longer perform the continually heavy lifting required by his postal service job. Dr. Baird questioned Petitioner about his back problems and learned that if the tumor again grows out of his spine Petitioner may need additional surgery. Dr. Baird observed the scar on Petitioner's back, had Petitioner bend at the waist and checked his knee-jerk reflexes. This examination took less than five minutes. Dr. Baird then contacted Patricia Diskey, Employment Coordinator for the School Board, and discussed with her Petitioner's condition and asked her to provide him with the physical requirements for a teacher of business education in a Pinellas County high school. Following this discussion, Dr. Baird submitted the form letter to the office of Dr. Brown stating simply that Petitioner did not meet the physical requirements necessary for employment in the Instructional Department of the Pinellas County School Board (Exhibit 11). At the hearing Patricia Diskey testified that the job requirements for a high school business education teacher included the ability to do frequent and heavy lifting of typewriters, computer components, and other office equipment used to teach business education; to be able to bend down to clearly see the data processing screen used by the students; to move numerous books from classroom to classroom; to transport equipment to the school's service center several blocks distant, take the equipment into the center for repairs and return with replacement equipment; and to stand for long periods of time. She also testified that business education teachers would be required to lift and move equipment around the classroom weighing up to 100 pounds. However, no evidence was presented that a demonstration of such physical ability was ever required of a business education teacher in the Pinellas County school system. Dr. Baird never includes a muscle-tone test in the examinations he conducts for teacher applicants. Petitioner was not requested to demonstrate his capability or inability to lift equipment used in the classroom. Physically, Petitioner is a well-developed white male. Exhibit 12 shows him 5 feet eleven and one-half inches in height and weight of 225 pounds. He is not obese and gives the appearance of one having greater than average strength normally found in men his age. Respondent presented evidence that it has employed disabled persons, and a list of those handicapped persons employed in Respondent's secondary schools was presented as Exhibit 9. It is noted that the majority of those handicapped employees listed have permanent type disabilities such as blind in one eye, deformed arm, legally blind, uses crutches, part of limb missing, speech impediment, hearing problems, limps, crippled leg, etc. Respondent also presented evidence that persons suffering back problems were hired by the School Board (Exhibit 10), one of whom was a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair, but produced no evidence that it had employed a teacher so handicapped.
The Issue The nature of the instant controversy is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ and whether Respondent's acts and/or omissions disqualify him from being employed in the Indian River County School District ("School District").
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Respondent was employed by the School Board as a classroom teacher. As a teacher, Respondent was required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, and all School Board policies. Testimony of William Fritz William Fritz, assistant superintendent for Human Resources and Risk Management, testified for the School Board. One of his primary duties is to conduct employee disciplinary investigations for the School Board. He is considered the "point person" for such matters. Fritz was informed by the fingerprint specialist in his office that Respondent had been arrested for felony DWLS. Subsequently, the same person informed him that Respondent had been convicted of the felony DWLS on October 6, 2015. The felony designation for Respondent's DWLS was based on this being his third or subsequent DWLS offense. The Judgment of Conviction dated October 6, 2015, designated the crime as "Driving While License Revoked-Permanently Revoked." Pet.'s Ex. F. After learning of Respondent's felony conviction, Fritz conducted an internal investigation. He had an informal discussion with Respondent to discuss the matter. This occurred in November 2015. When they met, Respondent told Fritz that he felt he did not need to self-report the conviction because the School District was automatically notified by the court.2/ Respondent explained to Fritz that there were some extenuating circumstances for the car trip that day involving a visit to a very ill friend. As a follow-up to the meeting, Fritz reviewed the School Board policies pertaining to discipline. He concluded that the situation likely warranted termination. He requested to meet with Respondent again, but his invitation was declined by Respondent. During the course of his investigation and review of Respondent's personnel file, Fritz concluded that Respondent had been put on employment probation by EPC in 2012 and that the probation was still active when the 2014 arrest and subsequent conviction in 2015 occurred. The EPC order proscribed certain conduct by Respondent during probation. The EPC order provided that Respondent "violate no law and shall fully comply with all District School Board policies, school rules, and State Board of Education rules." Fritz concluded that the DWLS conviction violated that provision of the EPC order, as well as certain School Board employee rules and policies. Notably, Fritz concluded that Respondent's 2015 felony DWLS conviction was a Category 3 violation of School Board Policy 3121.01. Convictions for Category 3 offenses, by definition, expressly prevented the hiring or retention of an employee "under any circumstances." Pet.'s Ex. K.3/ After reviewing all of the relevant documents and concluding his investigation, Fritz met with the School Board superintendent and recommended that Respondent be terminated. In arriving at that recommendation, Fritz took into account the mitigating factors explained by Respondent during their first meeting, namely needing to visit a sick friend. Fritz noted during his investigation that another final order of EPC had also been entered in 2007, disciplining Respondent for a conviction for driving under the influence ("DUI"). Fritz testified that there had been a termination of another teacher in the School District for a felony offense. The termination occurred in 2013 and was referred to DOAH, which recommended that termination was appropriate. There was no suggestion or testimony during the course of Fritz's testimony that the recommendation to terminate Respondent was related in any manner to problems with Respondent's job performance or other conduct on the job. Rather, the felony conviction violated School Board policy requiring termination and also constituted violations of the EPC order and resulting EPC probation. On cross-examination, Fritz acknowledged that the most recent felony conviction in October 2015 had not yet been addressed or ruled on by EPC insofar as Respondent's teaching certificate was concerned. Fritz further testified that a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") exists which governs the discipline of teachers, including Respondent. Article 5.1, section (A) of the CBA, states as follows: Discipline of an MBU shall be progressive. Progression shall be as follows: documented verbal warning presented in a conference with the MBU, a letter of reprimand, suspension, termination. Serious first offenses may result in an immediate, strong consequence up to and including termination. Resp.'s Ex. 18. Fritz testified that Respondent's felony conviction for DWLS was a "serious first offense," which gave the School District the discretion to move directly to termination under Article 5.1, section (A) of the CBA.4/ When questioned by Respondent as to whether or not a felony conviction for a worthless check offense, for instance, could also result in a termination, Fritz pointed out Petitioner's Exhibit K, which specifically designated worthless check convictions as a different and separate "Category 5" offense. Category 5 offenses, by express definition and unlike Category 3 offenses, afforded the School District considerable leeway on discipline, on a case-by-case basis. Conversely, Fritz testified that a felony conviction for DWLS fell under a different category, "Category 3," and was considered significant and serious enough to warrant termination of the employee. Testimony of Brian Krystoforski Respondent started teaching in 1984 and is in his 24th year of teaching in the state of Florida. Respondent testified, and emphasized throughout the proceeding, that the School District was aware of a prior criminal traffic conviction and EPC sanctions in 2012 but, nonetheless, permitted Respondent to continue to teach in the School District.5/ Respondent testified that the 2012 EPC final order related, as well, to a prior DWLS felony conviction. Respondent testified that, on the date he was arrested for the 2015 DWLS conviction, he was driving to visit a good friend who had serious medical issues and was very depressed. However, he acknowledges his trip was a "bad decision." He characterized his plea of no contest on October 6, 2015, as more of a plea of convenience believing that his explanation for driving that day would mitigate the effect of the criminal plea and conviction before the circuit court judge. The undersigned has considered the collection of exhibits offered by the parties and admitted into evidence. The undersigned has also reviewed the plea colloquy from October 2015 before the circuit court judge who took Respondent's felony plea to DWLS.6/ Respondent emphasized that his felony conviction for DWLS should be evaluated using several mitigating factors found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B–11.007, Disciplinary Guidelines.7/ Insofar as the severity of this conviction is concerned, Respondent felt that he was just guilty of using "bad judgment." Furthermore, Respondent argues that he is not a danger to the public under one of the mitigating factors outlined in the Florida Administrative Code. Another mitigating factor Respondent felt should be considered is that he has been an educator for a long period of time. He felt that his commitment and participation as the football defensive coordinator at Vero Beach High School should also be considered a mitigating factor. Respondent felt that there had been no actual damage, physical or otherwise, caused by his driving while license suspended. Furthermore, in 24 years of teaching, he has never been considered for termination for any other conduct or offenses. Finally, he argues that the effect of termination on his livelihood and ability to earn a living warrants consideration. On cross-examination, the evidence revealed that Respondent had a conviction for DUI in 1988, a conviction for DUI in 1990, and a conviction for a DUI in 2002. In 2004, adjudication was withheld for driving while intoxicated on a revoked license. Respondent also conceded that EPC warned him that a permanent revocation of his educator certificate could occur under certain circumstances, particularly if the educator's certificate had been sanctioned by EPC on two or more previous occasions. Respondent testified that he had, indeed, been sanctioned by EPC on two previous occasions prior to this 2015 conviction for DWLS. There is also evidence to show that Respondent has been characterized as a "highly effective" teacher during recent evaluations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board implement its preliminary decision to terminate the employment of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 May, 2016.
The Issue The main issues in this case are whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher has given the district just cause to terminate his employment contract for incompetency, and, alternatively, whether the teacher failed to correct performance deficiencies during a 90-day probationary period, which would constitute separate grounds for dismissal if proven true.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all relevant times, Respondent Christopher Marshall ("Marshall") was employed as a math teacher in the Broward County school district, a position which he had held for some 15 years before this proceeding began. During that period, Marshall taught at a few different schools, the latest being McArthur High, where he worked for several years up to and including the 2013-14 school year. Marshall's teaching career, sad to say, has been mediocre. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, at least as early as 2002, Marshall was identified by administrators and colleagues as a teacher of marginal ability. More than once over the years Marshall was placed on performance probation due to concerns about his unsatisfactory performance. Rather than terminate Marshall's employment, however, the district transferred Marshall from school to school, and somehow he managed to muddle through, doing enough to be rated "satisfactory" and avoid getting the sack. One of Marshall's defining characteristics has been the remarkably high percentages of Fs and Ds that his students consistently have earned, year in and year out. Frequently more than half of his students took home final grades lower than a C——and sometimes quite a bit more than 50 percent fell into this category. This was true across grade levels (Marshall taught grades nine through 12) and without regard to degrees of subject-matter difficulty (Marshall taught advanced as well as basic classes; he was not assigned only struggling students). It was not uncommon for Marshall to fail between one-quarter and one-third of his students. In the 2013-14 school year, for example, 31 percent of Marshall's Liberal Arts Math 2 students received a failing grade; 25 percent of his Math College Readiness students failed; and ten percent of his Algebra 2 students got Fs. This was consistent with a decade-long pattern. Needless to say, a teacher whose students in large numbers routinely get Ds or worse in his classes attracts attention from students, colleagues, parents, and administrators. In Marshall's case, students complained to other teachers——and to their parents. Parents, of course, complained to administrators and demanded that their children be placed in other classes. Often, to placate angry parents, Marshall's students were transferred, with the result that Marshall's classes were small, and other math teachers had to squeeze in additional students. Teachers complained about this. It must be acknowledged that poor grades are not necessarily a reflection of the teacher's ability or lack thereof. Certainly, as a general rule, each student bears substantial responsibility for his or her own grade, and no one should expect a teacher simply to hand out high marks that are unmerited and unearned. Sometimes, to be sure, an F or a D is as richly deserved as an A or a B. That said, the sheer persistence of Marshall's grade distribution under different conditions and through changing student populations implies that something other than resistance or indifference to learning, poor study habits, or lack of intellectual ability must be at work. The undersigned has combed the record for an explanation of his students' poor grades that might exonerate Marshall but can find none. There is no persuasive evidence, for example, that Marshall is a demanding teacher who sets the bar high for his students, administering tough but fair tests that are difficult for the unmotivated or unprepared to pass. To the contrary, Marshall had his students spend time on rote exercises, such as copying definitions and formulas from the textbook, which have little educational value. Nor did Marshall's students tend to excel in their next math classes. Rather, after being taught by Marshall, his students often had difficulty in their subsequent courses because they had not learned the prerequisite material. For years, administrators have tried to cajole or compel Marshall to reduce the number of students receiving Fs and Ds in his classes, not by the expedient of grade inflation, but by implementing different pedagogical techniques and strategies. Marshall, however, has ignored these importunings and directives, and nothing has changed. Marshall's apparent imperviousness to criticism has been an ongoing source of frustration to his colleagues and administrators. Marshall considers himself to be an "awesome" teacher, and therefore he concludes that anyone who has a different opinion——which unfortunately seems to be nearly everyone with whom he has worked——is either mistaken, lying, or treating him unfairly. This has led Marshall to file numerous grievances and complaints against his supervisors, none of which has been successful. He is not, however, confrontational, discourteous, or abusive in his workplace relationships. Rather, Marshall engages in passive-aggressive behavior. Faced with a demand or a directive, Marshall does not argue (although he might politely disagree); he simply does not comply. The greater weight of the evidence persuades the undersigned to find that the bad grades Marshall's students consistently have received are a symptom of Marshall's inability to teach. Although he knows his subject, Marshall lacks the skills necessary to impart his knowledge to his students, who consequently do not learn math in his classes. It is not that Marshall is deliberately trying not to succeed. He is not being insubordinate in this regard. He is simply not suited to the job of teaching high school math. In 2011, following a legislative directive then recently enacted, the school district adopted a teacher evaluation system known as the Broward Instructional Development and Growth Evaluation System ("BrIDGES"), which is based on Dr. Robert J. Marzano's strategies for educational effectiveness. When rating a teacher's classroom performance using BrIDGES, an evaluator inputs his or her observations into a database by filling out an electronic "iObservation" form. The iObservation tool contains 60 "elements," each of which represents a discrete strategy, action, or skill that a teacher might employ as appropriate: e.g., "Using Academic Games," "Identifying Critical Information," and "Displaying Objectivity and Control." The elements are organized under four separate "domains" as follows: Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors (Elements 1-41) Domain 2: Planning and Preparing (Elements 42-49) Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching (Elements 50-54) Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism (Elements 55-60). The 41 elements of Domain 1 are further subdivided into nine Design Questions, DQ1 through DQ9. On October 8, 2013, the school district and the Broward Teachers Union entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth their agreements regarding the use of BrIDGES to evaluate teachers for 2013-14. Pursuant to the MOU, each classroom teacher was to receive at least three observations, including one formal (30 or more minutes), one informal (15-25 minutes), and one snapshot or walkthrough (3-10 minutes) observation. During an observation, the subject teacher receives a "datamark" (prescribed number of points) for each element that the evaluator chooses to rate. For 2013-14, the datamarks were as follows: Innovating (Highly Effective), 4 points; Applying (Effective), 3 points; Developing (Effective), 2.5 points; Beginning (Needs Improvement), 2 points; and Not Using (Unsatisfactory), 1 point. Each teacher was to receive at least 45 datamarks, comprising at least 25 datamarks in Domain 1 and 10 within Domains 2, 3, and/or 4. A weighted average of the datamarks assigned to a teacher's performance as recorded on the iObservation forms became the teacher's Instructional Practice Score ("IPS"). The IPS was equal to 0.68X plus 0.32Y, where X was the average of the teacher's Domain 1 datamarks and Y was the average of the teacher's datamarks for Domains 2, 3, and 4 combined. The IPS was reported as a number having three decimal digits, to the thousandths place. This created a false precision, for the calculated result could not possibly have been more precise than the number having the least number of significant figures in the equation, which would always be a one-digit integer (unless the teacher happened to receive strait 2.5s——possible, but unlikely, and not the case here). In other words, the numbers to the right of the decimal point in the teacher's IPS were mathematically insignificant, spurious digits, because the original data could not support a measurement beyond the precision of one significant figure. The IPS should have been (but was not) rounded to a single-digit integer to avoid reporting insignificant digits. For 2013-14, the BrIDGES Overall Evaluation Score equaled the sum of the teacher's IPS (weighted as 49%), Deliberate Practice score (weighted as 1.0%), and Student Growth score (weighted as 50%). Teachers at McArthur High (including Marshall) for whom no individual student data were available automatically received a Student Growth score of 3.0 for that school year, and all teachers (including Marshall) who completed a self-assessment received a Deliberate Practice score of 3.0. The Overall Evaluation Scale for 2013-14 was Highly Effective (3.450-4.000), Effective (2.500-3.449), Needs Improvement (2.000-2.499), and Unsatisfactory (1.000-1.999). As of February 4, 2014, Marshall had received eight observations: three formals, three informals, and two walkthroughs. He had received 56 datamarks in Domain 1 and five datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4. His weighted IPS, to that date, was 2.145 (but this computed score was precise to no more than one significant figure and therefore should be understood as a 2 after rounding off the spurious digits), or Needs Improvement. Pursuant to the MOU, once a teacher receives an average IPS of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory among other conditions that Marshall had met as of February 4, 2014, a Performance Development Plan ("PDP") may be written for that teacher. Accordingly, in early February 2014, a PDP was written for Marshall. As well, on February 12, 2014, the principal of McArthur High placed Marshall on performance probation for 90 calendar days, delivering to Marshall a notice of "less than effective performance" ostensibly pursuant to section 1012.34(4), Florida Statutes. The statute, however, authorizes 90-day performance probation only for a teacher whose performance is unsatisfactory, and Marshall's performance was not unsatisfactory; it was Needs Improvement. Needs Improvement is, to be sure, less than Effective performance, but it is better than Unsatisfactory. Indeed, none of the levels of performance besides Unsatisfactory denotes unsatisfactory performance and thus, logically, all teachers rated Highly Effective, Effective, or Needs Improvement fall within the range of satisfactory performance. In any event, between February 28 and May 7, 2014, Marshall received 12 more observations, which added 75 datamarks to his total in Domain 1 (making 131 in all) and six additional datamarks in Domains 2, 3, and 4 (for a grand total of 11). The iObservation forms for Marshall's last six observations, incidentally, are not in evidence. As of May 7, 2014, Marshall's IPS was 1.963. This number, by itself, would be Unsatisfactory on the Overall Evaluation Scale. Given, however, that the initial numerical data was captured (mostly) in single-digit integers, together with a handful of 2.5s, the decimal places are spurious in this result; there is no meaningful distinction between "1.963" (which is a textbook example of false precision) and "2" (which is what 1.963 should be rounded up to, to avoid the fallacy of overprecision). Thus, if the insignificant figures are ignored, Marshall's IPS, by itself, is actually Needs Improvement. But more important, Marshall's IPS was not his Overall Evaluation Score, and therefore it is improper and unfair to deem his performance Unsatisfactory on the Overall Performance Scale based on an IPS of 1.963 as the School Board wants to do. Marshall's Overall Evaluation Score, as calculated by the School Board, was 2.492 — Needs Improvement.1/ Again, Needs Improvement is less than Effective and clearly not ideal, but it is not Unsatisfactory. To the contrary, Needs Improvement is one of the levels of satisfactory performance. Going a step farther, if Marshall's IPS were rounded to 2, as it should be to eliminate the false precision, and his Overall Evaluation Score recalculated absent the spurious decimals, then his final score would be 2.51, which in turn should be rounded to 3 to avoid overprecision, but which equals Effective performance regardless. The point is, based on a final score of 2.492, Marshall's overall performance can as correctly be deemed Effective as Needs Improvement, for there is no real difference between 2.492 and 3 based on the original data used to make these calculations.2/ (To repeat for emphasis, computations cannot make the original data more precise.3/) Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Marshall is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2).4/ The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Marshall is guilty of incompetency,5/ which is just cause for dismissal from employment. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that Marshall's performance as measured in accordance with the BrIDGES evaluation system was not Unsatisfactory during the 2013-14 school year. Therefore, the evidence does not support the termination of Marshall's employment contract pursuant to section 1012.34(4). The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated section 1012.53, apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal. The evidence does not support a determination that Marshall independently violated School Board Rule 4008(B), apart from his incompetency, which affords a sufficient basis (as "just cause") for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing Marshall from his employment as a teacher in the Broward County Public Schools for the just cause of incompetency as a result of inefficiency. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2016.
The Issue Whether Sharon V. Eaddy (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade County School Board (the School Board) on August 29, 2014, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a paraprofessional.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Campbell Drive Center is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, the School Board employed Respondent as a paraprofessional pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. The School Board assigned Respondent to a Pre-K special education classroom at Campbell Drive Center taught by Pascale Vilaire. Respondent has worked at Campbell Drive Center as a paraprofessional for 13 years. During the 2013-2014 school year, 14 special needs students were assigned to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. Those students were between three and five years of age. L.H., a four-year-old boy who was described as being high functioning on the autism spectrum, was one of Ms. Vilaire’s students. L.H. had frequent temper tantrums during the 2013-2014 school year. Prior to the conduct at issue in this matter, Respondent had had no difficulty managing L.H.’s behavior. There was a conflict in the evidence as to the date the conduct at issue occurred. The undersigned finds that the conduct occurred April 9, 2014, based on the Incident Information admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4, on the testimony of Yamile Aponte, and on the testimony of Grisel Gutierrez.1/ Ms. Aponte had a daughter in Ms. Vilaire’s class and often served as a parent-volunteer. Ms. Aponte was at Campbell Drive Center’s cafeteria on the morning of April 9, 2014. Present in the cafeteria were Ms. Vilaire, Respondent, some of Ms. Vilaire’s class (including L.H.) and students from other classes. When Ms. Aponte entered the cafeteria, L.H. was crying and hanging on to a trash bin. Ms. Vilaire was attending to another student. Respondent was trying to deal with L.H. to prevent him from tipping over the trash bin. Respondent led L.H. by the wrist back to a table where they sat together. Ms. Aponte approached them and offered L.H. a milk product referred to as a Pediasure. Because L.H. was allergic to milk, Respondent told Ms. Aponte that L.H. could not have the product. When Ms. Vilaire lined up her class to leave the cafeteria, L.H. threw a tantrum because he was still hungry. Ms. Aponte testified that Respondent grabbed L.H. by the wrist and pulled him up. Ms. Vilaire observed the entire interaction between L.H. and Respondent in the cafeteria. Ms. Vilaire did not witness anything she thought was inappropriate or caused her concern. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent became physically aggressive toward L.H. in the cafeteria by dragging him across the floor or otherwise grabbing him inappropriately. Paragraph nine of the Notice of Specific Charges contains the allegation that while in the cafeteria, “Respondent forcefully grabbed L.H. and dragged him across the floor.” Petitioner did not prove those alleged facts. After the class finished in the cafeteria, the students lined up to go back to the classroom. Ms. Vilaire was at the front of the line, and Respondent was ten to fifteen feet behind at the end of the line with L.H. Ms. Aponte was part of the group going from the cafeteria to the classroom. During the walk back to the classroom, Ms. Vilaire did not see or hear anything between Respondent and L.H. she thought was inappropriate. She did not hear anything that diverted her attention to Respondent and L.H. At the time of the conduct at issue, Barbara Jackson, an experienced teacher, taught first grade at Campbell Drive Center. While Ms. Vilaire’s class was walking from the cafeteria to the classroom, Ms. Jackson had a brief conversation with Respondent about getting food for her class from McDonald’s. Ms. Jackson did not hear or see anything inappropriate between Respondent and L.H. After stopping to talk with Ms. Jackson, Respondent resumed walking to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. L.H. continued to cry and attempted to pull away from Respondent. L.H. wanted to be the leader of the line, a position that is rotated among the class members. Ms. Vilaire led the other class members into the classroom while Ms. Aponte, Respondent, and L.H. were still outside. While still outside, they saw Grisel Gutierrez, a teacher at Campbell Drive Center. L.H. began to throw himself on the ground on top of his backpack. Ms. Aponte and Ms. Gutierrez saw Respondent grab L.H. forcefully by the arm and hit him on his shoulder with a slapping sound.2/ After Respondent returned L.H. to the classroom, L.H. tried to push over a bookcase containing books and toys. To prevent L.H. from pushing over the bookcase, Respondent grabbed L.H. by his hands and held them behind his back. Ms. Vilaire witnessed the interaction between Respondent and L.H. in the classroom and thought Respondent acted appropriately. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent acted inappropriately towards L.H. while in the classroom. Ms. Aponte reported what she had seen to the school principal the day of the incident. Respondent learned that Ms. Aponte had complained against her the day of the incident. After school the day of the incident, Respondent angrily confronted Ms. Aponte and asked her why she had lied. Rounett Green, a security guard at Campbell Drive Center, stepped in to end the confrontation between Respondent and Ms. Aponte. There was no evidence that Respondent attempted to threaten Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not use inappropriate language towards Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not make physical contact with Ms. Aponte. L.H.’s mother heard about the alleged interactions between Respondent and L.H. When L.H. returned home after school, the mother examined L.H. and found no bruises or other unusual marks on L.H.’s body. At its regularly scheduled meeting on June 18, 2014, the School Board suspended Respondent’s employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation The following recommendations are 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 adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate the employment of Sharon V. Eaddy. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 15th day of January, 2015.
The Issue Whether Patrick M. Hill, Respondent, is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office as more specifically alleged in letters of April 6, 1990 and May 18, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Patrick M. Hill held a professional services contract with the Polk County School Board as a remediation teacher at Lakeland High School. He also served as wrestling coach and cross country coach at Lakeland High School. During the spring break of the 1989-90 school year, Respondent told some students they could earn some extra money if they helped him paint his house. Erik Greatens, an 18 1/2 year old senior, agreed to help, and he, with a 25 year old man, John, and Respondent, worked all day painting. Around noon that day when all were hot and thirsty, Respondent told them there was beer in his refrigerator. Both Erik and John accepted the offer. Erik had one beer. When they stopped painting around 5 p.m., Respondent told them he would order pizza if they wanted to return later. Erik accepted and went home to shower and change clothes. He returned around 6:30 p.m. and shared pizza with Respondent. Erik testified that he had only the one beer that day at Respondent's home and that his father permitted him to drink an occasional glass of wine at home. He did not drink beer or any other alcoholic beverage while at Respondent's home that evening. Around 8:30 p.m., Erik left Respondent's residence and went to the Publix parking lot to meet some friends. At the parking lot that evening with his friends, Erik consumed 11 or 12 cans of beer before driving the four or five blocks to his home. When he arrived, his mother was up and considered her son was inebriated and that he had received the beer at Respondent's home. At the time, Erik told her he had only the one beer at Respondent's home, but, from his condition, the mother was sure he had drunk more than one beer. The following day, Mrs. Greatens called the Superintendent's office to complain about Respondent providing Erik with beer. Based upon that complaint, Respondent was suspended from his position as teacher at Lakeland High School. The professional Practices Council of the State Department of Education was notified of the charge so they could institute an investigation to determine if Respondent's state certificate should be disciplined. To date, no charges have been brought by the Department of Education. Subsequently, Petitioner learned that Respondent had pleaded guilty in New Jersey to a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 1973. A copy of this court record was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. In 1973, Respondent was a tenured teacher in the school district of the Township of Pemberton, Burlington County, New Jersey. Charges were preferred against Respondent by the Board of Education, and an administrative hearing was held to determine if the charges and circumstances surrounding the charges warranted dismissal of Respondent from his position as a tenured teacher. Following that hearing, the hearing examiner submitted a report recommending the charge and evidence insufficient to warrant a dismissal or reduction in salary. The Commissioner of Education adopted the finding and recommendation of the hearing examiner. In the instant proceedings, Respondent testified to the facts regarding the 1973 incident. That testimony is essentially the same as found by the hearing examiner in 1973 reported in Exhibit 4 as follows: The testimony offered by the Superintendent of Schools and respondent's building principal was that respondent is a good teacher, as evidenced by his past evaluations, and his record has been unblemished since his employ- ment by the Board. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Commissioner solely because of an incident which occurred on March 8, 1972, and that incident alone is the basis for the Board's action. On the evening of March 8, 1972, respondent was returning to his home after working late at his school on some extra curricular project. The record shows that Respondent was very active in the school community, and that he coached sports activities, served on the executive board of the local P.T.A., and served as President of the Pemberton Township Police Athletic League, in addition to his regular teaching duties. Respondent testified that it was a rainy night. On his way home, he picked up a hitchhiker who told him that he had a job in north Jersey and was on his way to visit his father in the Tuckerton area (approxi- mately thirty miles away). Because of the late hour and the poor weather conditions, Respondent offered the hitchhiker a place to spend the night in his home and told him he would drop him off at the inter- section of Routes #9 and #37 the next morning on his way to school. The hitchhiker accepted the offer and spent the night in respondent's home. Respondent testified that he also offered the use of his telephone so the hitchhiker could call his father, but that he refused saying that he was not expected anyway. He testified fur- ther that nothing untoward happened that night and that he dropped the hitchhiker off at the named intersection the follow- ing morning on his way to school. Respon- dent did not know that the hitchhiker was a minor; neither his appearance, nor his conversation about holding a job in north Jersey, nor having a drink and avoiding the police, lead (sic.)Respondent to conclude that the hitchhiker was a minor. (Tr. 19-22) None of this testimony is refuted by the Board, nor were any witnesses pre- sented by the Board to give any other version about what allegedly occurred on the evening of March 8, 1972. The Board, however, grounds its action against Respondent on his subsequent arrest by the police and his later indictment by the Grand Jury of Ocean County. A change of plea to that indictment reads in pertinent part as follows: (P-1) The State moved under Rule 3:74 to amend the third count of the indictment to read `did contribute to the delinquency of a minor by permitting him to remain overnight without parental consent'. The Court so ordered. Patrick Hill sworn. (sic.) As a result of plea bargaining, the Defendant retracted his former plea of Not Guilty and entered a plea of Guilty to the amended third (3rd) count of [the Indictment). * * * In the hearing examiner's judgment, it would be wrong to speculate why Patrick Hill made the plea (P-1) rather than pursue some other defense of the original charges made against him. He testified that he made the change of plea because he did allow the youth to stay in his home overnight. Suffice it to say that he was represented by counsel and the record must now speak for itself. Respondent entered a plea of guilty (P-1) which the Commissioner must con- sider in making his determination. N.J.S.A. 2A:96-4 reads as follows: A parent, legal guardian or person having the legal custody or control of a child, who by any continued negligence or willful act, encourages, causes or con- tributes to the child's delinquency, or any other person who by any wilful act encourages, causes or contributes to a child's delinquency, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The hearing examiner found that the unrefuted testimony of respondent, and the absence of any proof of conduct unbecoming a teacher by the Board, leads to the conclusion that the only fact before the Commissioner is that respondent knowingly permitted a minor to remain in his home overnight without the consent of the minor's parents. Respondent testified without contradiction that he was told by his attorney that the conviction would be expunged and he could forget it. Accordingly, Respondent concluded, albeit erroneously, that he never would need to reveal this record. Respondent moved to Florida and was employed as a junior high school teacher at St. Joseph's School, Lakeland, Florida, from 1979 to 1986 when he was employed by the Polk County School Board to teach at Lakeland High School. While at St. Joseph's, Respondent continued his extracurricular activities similar to those in New Jersey coaching children in wrestling and track, and he was involved in national and statewide wrestling programs for children. When he started teaching at Lakeland High School, Respondent continued his coaching activities and his work with children. He has been involved with helping troubled adolescents at the Polk Correctional Institute, served on the Governor's Council on Health, Physical Education and sports, was awarded man of the year honors for the AAU Wrestling Division, took a group of young wrestlers to Germany two years ago (1988) in a cultural exchange program and coordinated a return visit of German youth wrestlers to Florida in 1989. Respondent has excellent rapport with his students and with the student's parents. The letters admitted into evidence in Exhibit 5 extolling the virtues of Respondent as a teacher, coach and individual are not the pro forma, perfunctory letters of recommendation usually presented, but clearly indicate heartfelt esteem, appreciation and admiration. Respondent has had no prior disciplinary actions brought against him while teaching in Florida schools.
Recommendation Considering the reputation of Respondent, his rapport with students and peers, the time he has devoted to developing children into responsible adults and the conclusions that the acts complained of do not constitute immorality but are minor infractions coming under the definition of misconduct in office, it is recommended that Patrick M. Hill be found guilty of misconduct in office and suspended without pay for four months. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 20th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire Post Office Box 2958 Lakeland, FL 33806 John A. Stewart Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
