The Issue The issue is whether the Seminole County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment or to otherwise discipline him based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Seminole County, Florida. Respondent is a 48-year-old male. He has been employed as an educational support employee of the School Board for approximately five years. During the 2001-02 school year, Respondent worked at Seminole High School (SHS) as a computer specialist. Collective Bargaining Agreement and SHS Handbook Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Seminole Educational Clerical Association, Inc., and the School Board (SECA Agreement). Article VII, Section 5 of the SECA Agreement provides in pertinent part: Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years . . . shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended, or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: Violation of School Board Policy. Violation of work rules. * * * Article VIII, Section 1 of the SECA Agreement provides in relevant part that "[e]mployees may be immediately disciplined including termination for serious violation of the following: misconduct; " Respondent's employment is also governed by the SHS Faculty Handbook (SHS Handbook). The SHS Handbook is provided to SHS employees at an orientation session prior to the beginning of each school year. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the SHS Handbook prior to the 2001-02 school year. The SHS Handbook includes a sexual harassment policy which states that the School Board "will not tolerate sexual/racial harassment activity by any of its employees." As it relates to the circumstances of this case, the policy defines sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate verbal, nonverbal, graphic, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: * * * (c) such conduct substantially interferes with . . . [a] student’s academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive . . . school environment. Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following: verbal, nonverbal, graphic, and written harassment or abuse; * * * (c) repeated remarks to a person with sexual or demeaning implications; * * * In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual[] harassment, the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred will be investigated. . . . . The sexual harassment policy in the SHS Handbook is virtually identical to the School Board's district-wide sexual harassment policy. Thus, a violation of the policy in the SHS Handbook is a violation of School Board policy. Alleged Inappropriate Comments/Conduct by Respondent During the 2001-02 School Year Respondent had four "peer counselors" assigned to him during the 2001-02 school year, including eleventh-grader Nichole Combee. A peer counselor is a student who assists a teacher or other school staff member with designated tasks, such as filing or running errands on campus. The student provides that assistance for one class period per day. Nichole had approached Respondent at some point during the first semester of the 2001-02 school year and asked whether she could be a peer counselor for him. The record does not reflect the process by which that request was processed or approved by the administration at SHS, or even whether such approval is required. Nichole started as a peer counselor for Respondent in January 2002, which is the beginning of the second semester of the 2001-02 school year. Nichole continued in that position through May 23, 2002, when the regular school year ended. Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor during seventh period, which is the last period of the school day. Nichole's primary duty as Respondent's peer counselor was filing computer permission slips. During the time that Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor, she discussed her family troubles and school attendance problems with Respondent and his assistant, Mark Williams. Respondent tried to help Nichole with those problems. On several occasions, he talked to Nichole's mother on the phone in an attempt to help work things out between Nichole and her mother with respect to the "trouble" created at home by Nichole's academic and attendance problems. Nichole also discussed problems that she was having with male students and some male teachers at SHS looking at her large breasts rather than her eyes when they were speaking to her. She told Respondent at the time that he and Mr. Williams always looked her in the eye, and she reaffirmed that statement in her testimony at the hearing. Nichole discussed matters related to her breasts with Respondent on other occasions as well. On at least one occasion, she told Respondent that her breasts caused her back to hurt because of their size. On subsequent occasions when Nichole complained about her back hurting, Respondent replied by saying, "Well, you know why." That comment was intended by Respondent and understood by Nichole to be a reference to Nichole's prior comments that her large breasts were the cause of her back pain. Respondent never told Nichole that she should not discuss her breasts or other personal matters with him. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that it would have been inappropriate for him to initiate a conversation with Nichole about her breasts (as a source of her back pain or otherwise), but that he did not see anything wrong with the discussions that he had with Nichole on that subject because she brought it up and because there was nothing sexual being implied. After classes had ended on the last day of the 2001-02 school year, a number of students engaged in a "water fight" using water balloons and "water bazookas." This conduct is apparently a "tradition" at SHS. The SHS administration had directed the school staff to try to prevent this conduct and/or to get the students off campus and onto their busses as quickly as possible. Respondent observed a group of students involved in a water fight near his office in the media center, and he went outside to break up the students. The group included Nichole and her friend Natalie Cotto-Caraballo, who was a tenth-grader at SHS. Nichole and Natalie were wearing white tank-top shirts that they had made for the last day of school. The shirts had gotten wet during the water fight and, as a result, the girls' bras were visible through the shirts. Respondent commented to Nichole and Natalie that he could see their bras through their shirts and that they needed to cover themselves up. He then directed the girls and the other students in the group to their buses. Nichole testified that the comment made her feel somewhat uncomfortable because "it's our bras and, you know, even though people see them, usually they don't say anything, you know." Respondent's comment regarding his ability to see the girls' bras was not inappropriate under the circumstances; it was a statement of fact and justified Respondent's direction to the girls to cover themselves up. Nichole did not immediately report the bra comment, either to her parent(s) or the SHS administration. Indeed, the comment did not even come to light until Nichole's second interview with the School Board's investigator in August 2002. Respondent gave Nichole a hug as she was leaving for her bus on the last day of school and told her to have a nice summer. Despite its close proximity in time to the bra comment, Nichole testified that the hug did not make her uncomfortable. She just considered it to be friendly "good bye" hug, which was all that was intended by Respondent. Nichole did not complain about Respondent to her parent(s) or anyone in the SHS administration during the time that she was his peer counselor. Lunch Invitations During Summer School Nichole attended the first session of summer school, which began on June 3, 2002, less than two weeks after the end of the regular school year. The only class that Nichole took during summer school was an English class taught by "Ms. Morris." Nichole was not Respondent's peer counselor during summer school, nor was she working on any school-related project with Respondent during that time. On June 3, 2002, while Respondent and Mr. Williams were in Ms. Morris' class fixing a computer, Respondent asked Nichole if she wanted to go to lunch with him off-campus. Nichole declined the invitation because she was "grounded" and had to pick up her brother from school. Respondent was again in Ms. Morris' class on June 5, 2002, and he again invited Nichole to lunch. Nichole again declined. Respondent did not have permission from Nichole's parent(s) or the SHS administration to take Nichole off-campus. The reason that Respondent invited Nichole to lunch was to thank her for doing a good job as his peer counselor and to congratulate her on deciding to stay in school and attend summer school, which Respondent and Mr. Williams had both counseled her to do. Respondent had taken a former male student off-campus to lunch for the same reasons in the past. Respondent and Nichole were not alone at the time of either invitation. Both invitations occurred in Ms. Morris' classroom, and Ms. Morris and other students were "milling around" in the classroom at the time. At the hearing, Nichole testified that she didn't think anything of the lunch invitations at first since she considered Respondent a "friend." However, she also testified that it "it was a little uncomfortable because he is a teacher." Nichole did not report the lunch invitations to Ms. Morris or to anyone in the SHS administration. Nichole did, however, tell her mother about Respondent's lunch invitations because "she thought she should know." On June 5, 2003, Nichole's mother called the SHS principal, Karen Coleman, and complained about the lunch invitations. Ms. Coleman told Nichole’s mother that she would look into the matter, which she did. The resulting investigation led to this proceeding. Investigation and Preliminary Disciplinary Recommendation Ms. Coleman began the investigation by speaking to Nichole on June 5, 2002. That discussion focused only on the lunch invitations. Nichole provided Ms. Colemen an unsworn written statement regarding the lunch invitations on June 5, 2002. That statement did not include any reference to the "lingerie incident" discussed below or the incidents described above involving the bra comment or the hug that Respondent gave to Nichole on the last day of school. Nichole provided Ms. Coleman another unsworn written statement on June 6, 2002. That statement referenced Respondent's comments about the source of Nichole's back pain, but it did not mention the lingerie incident or the other incidents described above. After speaking with Nichole, Ms. Coleman spoke with Respondent. Respondent admitted that he had invited Nichole to lunch off-campus. He further admitted that he did not have permission from Nichole’s parent(s) to take her off-campus and that he did not obtain permission from the SHS administration. Respondent told Ms. Coleman that he did not realize that such permission was necessary. Respondent had taken a male peer counselor to lunch off-campus in the past without receiving approval from the student's parents or the SHS. After Ms. Coleman's conversations with Nichole and Respondent, she contacted John Reichert, the School Board's director of human resources. Mr. Reichert directed John Byerly, the School Board’s internal affairs investigator, to conduct a formal investigation. Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole on June 10, 2002, at SHS. Nichole did not mention the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug to Mr. Byerly during that interview. Mr. Byerly also interviewed Respondent and Mr. Williams as part of his investigation. The results of Mr. Byerly's investigation were presented to the Executive Professional Standards Review Committee (Review Committee) on June 27, 2002. Among other functions, the Review Committee is used to make disciplinary recommendations to Mr. Reichert. The Review Committee’s recommendation was characterized at the hearing as "preliminary," and it is apparently not binding on Mr. Reichert when he formulates his recommendations to the Superintendent regarding employee disciplinary actions. The Review Committee recommended that Respondent be suspended for three days and/or be reassigned or transferred to another school. That recommendation was based only upon Respondent’s lunch invitations to Nichole and comments regarding the source of her back pain; it did not take into account the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug because those incidents had not been disclosed by Nichole or Natalie at that point. Mr. Reichert and/or the Superintendent apparently did not accept the Review Committee’s recommendation because the Superintendent's July 26, 2002, letter recommended termination of Respondent's employment. At the hearing, Mr. Reichert testified that the reason for the change in the recommended discipline was the subsequent discovery of the lingerie incident, which he characterized as the "major driving factor" behind the termination recommendation. However, the preponderance of the credible evidence demonstrates that the lingerie incident was not disclosed to School Board staff until after the July 26, 2002, letter. Alleged Gift of Lingerie The lingerie incident was first disclosed by Natalie on August 2, 2002, when she was interviewed by Mr. Byerly.1 Natalie had given an unsworn written statement to Ms. Coleman on that same date, but that statement did not mention the lingerie incident. Based upon the "new information" from Natalie, Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole again on August 15, 2002. The interview occurred at Lyman High School (LHS), where Nichole had transferred for her senior year.2 After the interview, Mr. Byerly had Nichole prepare a sworn written statement. The statement included the following account of the lingerie incident, which was consistent with Nichole's testimony at the hearing: When I was a peer counselor for Mr. Reeder, I had walked into class on[e] afternoon in 7th period and we were talking and he said ["]oh here I got something for you.["] He handed me a white plastic bag and through the bag I could see a black thing and I knew it was the langera [sic]. I then just put it on the floor and went on with my work. When the bell rang I picked up my belongings including the white plastic bag. When I got on the bus I showed Natalie it. It was a black see[-]through spagatie [sic] strap shirt and black thongs. When I got off the bus I walked home and through [sic] it away. That was the last time anything was ever said about it. Mr. Byerly interviewed Natalie again on August 16, 2002. Natalie's told Mr. Byerly that the lingerie incident occurred "a couple months before the end of the regular school year" and that Nichole showed her the lingerie on the bus. However, the sworn written statement she prepared after the interview indicated that the incident occurred "[a]bout the day before school was over" and that she learned of it "on the bus/car." Nichole told Natalie that the lingerie was from Respondent. Natalie had no independent personal knowledge that it was from him. There were some inconsistencies in Natalie's and Nichole's descriptions of the lingerie, but those inconsistencies were not material. They consistently described the lingerie as having a black see-through top and black panties. Nichole did not report the incident to the SHS administration around the time that it allegedly occurred. Nor did she tell her mother about the incident, even though she considered the lingerie gift to be more inappropriate than the lunch invitations which she did immediately tell her mother about. Nichole testified that she was somewhat embarrassed by the gift and she did not want her mother to think she "led into it." Respondent unequivocally denied that he gave Nichole any lingerie or other clothing, and Nichole's and Natalie's testimony relating to the lingerie incident was not credible. Thus, the School Board failed to prove that Respondent gave Nichole the lingerie. It is undisputed that Respondent never engaged in any type of sexual contact (e.g., kissing, inappropriate touching) with Nichole. Nichole made that point clear in both of her interviews with Mr. Byerly and in her testimony at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board issue a final order which dismisses the Petition for Termination and provides Respondent the remedial relief that he is entitled under the collective bargaining agreement. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 17th day of July, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Respondent in this proceeding is Lloyd Wright. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, he was a social studies teacher employed by the St. Lucie County School District on a professional contract status and assigned to Westwood High School. He holds Florida Teaching Certificate No. 395537. On February 17, 1987, Respondent was suspended from his duties as a teacher for the school district. After an administrative hearing on issues relative to his employment, final order dismissing Respondent from his employment was issued by the school district on September 8, 1987. James Andrews is the principal of Westwood High School. Andrews has known Respondent as a friend, and as a member of the teaching staff at the school, for many years. On February 4, 1987, Andrews was at home with his ill son. His secretary telephoned him regarding allegations being voiced against Respondent by a female student. That student's allegations, and statements of other students alleged to be witnesses, were reduced to writing at Andrews' instruction and reviewed by him upon his return to the office on February 5, 1987. That evening he met with the complaining student, Tenecia Poitier, and her father. He assured them that the matter would be taken up with his superiors. On the morning of February 11, 1987, Andrews brought the allegations to the attention of the school district's Director of Secondary Education during a visit by the director to the Westwood Campus. That afternoon, the director telephoned Andrews and requested that additional statements be obtained from the students. Pursuant to those instructions, Andrews met with the students who had given the previous statements and instructed them to provide the additional statements to him. He forwarded these statements to the district school board office. Andrews has been the principal at Westwood High School for seven and a half years. He holds a master's degree in guidance and counseling and has completed course work in the areas of administration and supervision in excess of 30 academic credit hours. He has served in the educational system for approximately 35 years. Service in the positions of classroom teacher, guidance counselor, assistant principal and principal are included in the scope of his experience. Andrews regularly instructed the staff at the school to refrain from using slang in the classroom, becoming familiar with students or putting their hands on students unless necessary to prevent injury to a student or others. This admonishment by the principal was applicable to all students without regard to race or sex. He does not think it appropriate for a teacher to use the word "fuck" or the phrase "I am going to fuck your brains out" in the classroom. Andrews also finds the use of the phrases "Girl, I want that thing" and "Girl, I'm going to take you to the bushes" inappropriate for a male teacher to use in conversation with a female student. He would not want a male teacher who touched female students intentionally on the buttocks or thighs, or used such words or phrases in the classroom, on his teaching staff. Tenecia Poitier graduated from Westwood High School in 1988. In the 1986-87 school year, she was a student in Respondent's World History class. On one occasion, Respondent pushed Poitier against the wall of the classroom with other students present and told her "One of these days, I'm going to fuck your brains out." Once, when she was going to the school cafeteria, Respondent told her "Girl, I want that thing." Respondent touched Poitier on the leg and buttocks on other occasions and made suggestive statements to her. In response, Poitier rejected Respondent's advances by cursing him and, on one occasion, striking him. Another incident occurred when Respondent seated himself in front of Poitier's desk and propped his feet on her desk in a crossed fashion. The result of Respondent adopting this seating posture meant that Poitier had to look between Respondent's legs when she looked up from her desk work. Poitier got out of her desk, struck Respondent with her notebook, cursed him and told him to get his legs off her desk. Poitier did not observe Respondent engage in this seating conduct with other students. JoAnna McGee was a ninth grade student when she had Respondent as her teacher for World History. Respondent saw McGee walking down the street one day. He sounded his automobile horn at her. Later, when he saw her in the classroom, he told her that if he saw her walking on the street again he would take her "in the bushes." Respondent hugged McGee and other female students on occasion. Tony Lee was a student in Respondent's World History class, along with Poitier. Lee was aware of Respondent's joking and bantering with students. Female students would congregate around Respondent's desk when these sessions occurred. On one of these occasions, female students laughingly said they needed some candy to suck, and Lee heard Respondent reply "I've got something to suck on right here." Lee also heard Respondent make the statement "fuck your brains out" during an exchange with students. Lee overheard Respondent using the phrase "pull your clothes down" in a conversation with Poitier. Lisa Frazier was also a classmate of Poitier during the World History class taught by Respondent. She observed Poitier curse Respondent and strike him with her notebook. Frazier also testified that Poitier had a reputation for disruptive behavior and that Respondent used slang language with students. Respondent admitted using slang expressions, including the phrases "take you to the bushes" and "take you to the woods," in classroom settings with female students. Respondent admitted to a practice of hugging male and female students. Respondent also testified that he never told Poitier that he wanted to "F--- her brains out." When confronted with his sworn testimony from a previous proceeding that he did not recall making the statement, Respondent explained that his previous answer was made upon advice of his counsel at that time. Respondent's denial in this proceeding that he never made such a statement to Poitier, along with his testimony that hugging of students was an unintentional result of previous coaching experience, is not credited in view of his demeanor while testifying. Further, his testimony that his use of the phrases "take you to the bushes" or "take you to the woods" resulted from a film observed in the class and were meaningless slang terms devoid of sexual innuendo, is not credible. Also, the testimony of students Lee and McGee corroborates Poitier's version of Respondent's behavior and further discredits Respondent's testimony, including his explanation that Poitier's complaint against him resulted from Respondent writing up Poitier for academic and disciplinary reasons. Other students were also written up as often as Poitier.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed Findings 1.-2. Addressed. Unnecessary to result reached. 4.-12. Addressed. 13. Unnecessary to result. 14.-15. Adopted in substance. 16. Unnecessary to result reached. 17.-21. Addressed. 22.-24. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to result. Unnecessary to result reached. 27.-28. Addressed. 29.-30. Adopted in substance. 31. Unnecessary to result reached. 32.-33. Addressed. 34.-35. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Addressed. 3.-6. Unnecessary to result reached. 7.-8. Cumulative, subordinate and unnecessary to result. 9.-13. Unnecessary to result reached. 14. Addressed. 15.-17. Unnecessary to result reached. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected, contrary to weight of the evidence. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Unnecessary to result reached. Addressed in substance. 24.-25. Unnecessary to result reached. 26.-27. Addressed in substance. 28. Unnecessary to result. 29.-30. Addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Steffens, Esquire Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire 208 West Pensacola St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire. General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated subsections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes1/, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B- 1.006(3)(a),(e),(h) and (5)(a), and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 940141, covering the area of Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, which was valid through June 30, 2013. At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint in this case, Respondent was employed as a Mathematics Teacher at Citrus High School (“CHS”) in the Citrus County School District ("District"). Respondent worked as a teacher at CHS from approximately 2005 until his resignation in 2009. The allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint revolve around Respondent's relationship with Jillian Messer ("Ms. Messer”), who graduated from CHS in June 2009. Respondent was Ms. Messer’s math teacher in her freshman year, but did not teach her in any subsequent years. Ms. Messer turned 18 years old on April 17, 2009, approximately six weeks prior to her graduation. Beginning in March 2009, Respondent, who has custody of his two young sons, needed an occasional babysitter to accommodate his out-of-town football coaching duties. He sought a recommendation from a co-worker, Shannon Justice ("Ms. Justice"), a guidance clerk at CHS at the time, about a babysitter he might use. Ms. Justice, who used Ms. Messer as a babysitter for her daughter, checked with Ms. Messer to see if she would be amenable to sitting for Respondent’s children from time to time. Ms. Messer informed Ms. Justice that Respondent could contact her to set up sitting arrangements. Between March, 2009 and May, 2009, Ms. Messer babysat Respondent’s two boys on approximately five occasions. Ms. Messer continued to provide babysitting services to Ms. Justice during the spring of 2009 as well. Ms. Messer’s last day of testing as a CHS senior was on Friday, May 29, 2009, and her last day of classes was June 1, 2009. However, notwithstanding the completion of exams and classes, Ms. Messer remained a CHS student until she received her diploma from the District superintendent of schools and was declared a graduate on the evening of June 2, 2009. Genesis of the Complaint Tammy Everhart ("Ms. Everhart") was a guidance office colleague of Ms. Justice’s during the 2008-2009 school year. The two women were cordial in the workplace, but were not close friends. Ms. Justice became wary of Ms. Everhart during the 2008-2009 school year because she often found her too interested in the personal lives of her colleagues. In May, 2009, a week before the CHS graduation ceremony, Ms. Justice allegedly told Ms. Everhart that Respondent and Ms. Messer were “seeing each other” and “dating outside the county.” According to Ms. Everhart, Ms. Justice also told her that the relationship between Respondent and Ms. Messer was "O.K." because Ms. Messer was 18 years old and “she (Ms. Messer) planned on remaining a virgin.” Ms. Everhart asked Ms. Justice to report this information to the school administration. There is no indication that Ms. Justice did so. About two weeks later, Ms. Everhart told her husband about her conversation with Ms. Justice regarding Respondent and Ms. Messer. Ms. Everhart’s husband is a District school administrator and was aware that any inappropriate relationship between a teacher and a student must be reported to a school district administrator. On the following school day, Ms. Everhart reported her concerns to Assistant Principal Linda Connors, who then reported it to the school principal, Leigh Ann Bradshaw. Principal Bradshaw contacted the District office and an investigation was then initiated by the Superintendent. At hearing, Ms. Justice denied having spoken to Ms. Everhart about Respondent’s dating or planning to date Ms. Messer. Ms. Justice and Respondent had spoken at times during the spring of 2009 about his dating relationship with a woman from the Clearwater area, and it is possible Ms. Everhart overheard some parts of those conversations and mistakenly assumed it was Ms. Messer whom Respondent was dating away from Inverness. The District's Investigation At a preliminary interview conducted in the early afternoon of June 17, 2009, Respondent was questioned by the District’s Director of Human Resources, David Roland, and Policy Compliance Officer, Teresa Royal. The interview concerned whether or not Respondent was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. Messer, and whether he had communicated with others about such a relationship. There was no record of the precise questions asked during the interview, or of Respondent’s precise answers. During this interview, Respondent told the investigators that he had spoken with Ms. Messer five or six times, and that those conversations related to Ms. Messer babysitting his children. During the course of this interview Respondent acknowledged that Ms. Justice had sent him some pictures of her daughter's birthday party, and that Ms. Messer may have been in one of the pictures. He added that the pictures were of kids in the pool and other group pictures. Toward the end of the June 17th interview, Respondent confirmed the existence of e-mails between him and Ms. Justice that included references to the possibility of Respondent developing a dating relationship with Ms. Messer after she graduated. Respondent was not presented or confronted with those e-mails during the June 17th meeting. Although there is some evidence that Respondent did not initially acknowledge the existence of the e-mails when asked about them, it does not appear that he attempted to hide the existence of the e-mails between him and Ms. Justice. During the initial interview of June 17, 2009, and again in written form during a second interview held later that same afternoon, Mr. Roland and/or Ms. Royal cautioned Respondent against communicating with others about the subject matter of the investigation; however, he was not prohibited from speaking with Ms. Messer or Ms. Justice about unrelated matters. The "Notice of Investigation" memorandum Respondent signed during the second interview that afternoon specifically prohibits only discussions “regarding the matter under investigation.” Ms. Royal also interviewed Ms. Messer on June 17, 2009. During that interview Ms. Messer denied that there was an inappropriate relationship with Respondent. The Pool Party and Photograph of Messer On Sunday, May 31, 2009, Ms. Justice invited 45-50 people to her home for a pool party to celebrate her daughter’s birthday. Respondent, his children, several other children, Ms. Messer, and many adult friends and CHS work colleagues attended this afternoon party. Ms. Messer was invited both because Ms. Justice’s daughter adored her babysitter, and to assist Ms. Justice before and after the party. Ms. Messer arrived at, and left, the party alone. Most of the guests wore swimsuits during the pool party and Ms. Justice took pictures of children, including Respondent’s sons, and some of the adult guests, including Ms. Messer, who was wearing a bikini. On June 2, 2009, Ms. Justice forwarded several party pictures, mostly of his sons, to Respondent’s school e-mail address as attachments to an e-mail with the subject line “Pictures from Party.” One of these photographs was of Ms. Messer in the bikini she wore during the pool party. Although Ms. Messer is clad in a bikini, the photograph itself is unremarkable, and portrays a young female appropriately attired for a pool party. Other children are visible in the background of the photo. The E-Mails between Respondent and Justice Between June 1, 2009, and June 5, 2009, Respondent and Ms. Justice exchanged a series of e-mails that included subject matter related to the possibility that he and Ms. Messer might consider starting a dating relationship in the future. In an e- mail dated June 2, 2009, Ms. Justice specifically noted that Respondent and Ms. Messer had not yet had enough time to spend together to have discussed the possibility of future dating: Sent= Tues. 6/2/09 @ 1:00pm To: Randall Worley From: Shannon Justice Ok. I am back you sound so negative about yourself. I know that we are always so hard on ourselves but you are not destined for singlehood you will find someone someday and don't think JM is out of the question you haven't ever had enough time to be with her or even discuss dating. Two days later, on June 4, 2009, a series of e-mails between Respondent and Ms. Justice indicate that Respondent and Ms. Messer had recently discussed the possibility of a future dating relationship. This is the first time Respondent mentioned to Ms. Justice having spoken to Ms. Messer at all about dating, and the first time Respondent and Ms. Messer discussed the possibility of dating in the future. The full text of those June 4, 2009, e-mails follows: Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 8:44 am To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley So yeah I have been talking to JM lately. She is not sure what parents would say. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 8:48 am To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice Have you been texting or talking. So she is definitely interested??? I don’t think her parents would actually mind I think maybe you all should date a while then find out where that leads before talking about parents. That is just from experience. We dated almost 4 months before my parents ever knew. Then they never met Kevin’s parents till our rehearsal dinner. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 8:55 am To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley As far as she goes, yes she is interested. But I don’t think she wants to not tell them. It would be hard for us to date without them knowing wouldn’t it? And funny story, I apparently had her mom in my car graduation night and didn’t know it. Well yesterday her mom was talking to the family about how this nice sweet guy was her driver and that I was pretty cute. So she was like that’s coach Worley. That’s funny. And we have been doing both texting and talking. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 9:26 am To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice As far as JM my opinion is go for it. You guys have similar thing in common and plenty to talk about with regards to her parents you can play it off. It isn’t that hard you guys can really do it if you want. That is funny about her mom thinking you were cute buy (but?) cuteness only goes so far right??? * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 9:32 am To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley Ain’t that the truth. And yes we never have enough to talk about. We are always talking and laughing and all that. We have fun together. I talked to my mom and uncle about it last night. They were totally cool with it too. I think JM just need some reassurance about it. That where maybe you come into play right. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 9:43 am To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice Of course I have always talked good about you to her. I will keep it up. I think she may babysit sometime next week she is suppose to call me tonight about watching sissy next week. I will help the most I can so do you still have her on your mind all the time? * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 9:46 am To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley As a matter of fact I do. It is crazy. It has been 2 years since I have been with anyone and even the few girls that I have dated I didn’t think about like this. I don’t know if this is good or not?? * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 10:44 am To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice Well maybe she is special to you and you may have feelings for her that you didn’t know you did. It may be a really great thing for the both of you. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 10:51 am To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley Seriously. I can’t get her out of my head. I don’t think that I have really felt like this in a very very very very long time. It is scary because of the feeling itself but also because of the circumstance. I don’t really know if I should feel this way? * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 11:49 am To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice You are crazy for her. That is good. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 2:26 pm To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley No kidding. This is soooooooo not good. I don’t like this feeling at all. * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 2:29 pm To = Randall Worley From = Shannon Justice Have you talked to her today? * * * Sent = Thurs. 6/4/09 @ 2:43 pm To = Shannon Justice From = Randall Worley Yes I have. We should probably talk when you get a chance. So call me sometime.When you leaving work? Telephone Records of Calls between Respondent and Messer Telephone records received in evidence (over the hearsay objection of Respondent)2/ indicate that there were 89 telephonic communications between Respondent and Ms. Messer between March 3, 2009 and June 18, 2009. The records also reflect that phone conversations did take place between Respondent and Ms. Messer on June 17, 2009. However, there is no evidence as to the subject matter of those communications, nor credible evidence that they spoke about anything related to the investigation. Another interview with Respondent was conducted by Ms. Royal on July 8, 2009. At that time Respondent again acknowledged having received the e-mailed photograph of Ms. Messer in a bikini. Publicity Regarding the Investigation The only area newspaper article written about the allegations against Respondent appeared on August 19, 2009, in the Citrus County Chronicle. The impetus for the article appears to be the filing of the formal complaint against Respondent, and his subsequent resignation. The article did not name Ms. Messer as an involved party, but included her anonymous statement to the effect that nothing unprofessional happened between her and Respondent, and quoted District officials to the effect that there was no evidence of sexual harassment or of Respondent expressing his feelings to the student. At hearing, Superintendent Himmel testified about the generic impact of negative teacher articles upon some in the community. On cross- examination, Ms. Himmel did not rule out re-hiring Respondent as a teacher if he is cleared of wrongdoing in this matter. Lack of Direct Evidence of a Relationship During the District’s interviews with him, to the extent Respondent’s recollection of the number, duration, and subject matter of every phone conversation he had with Ms. Messer between March and June 2009, was limited or inaccurate, such limitations reasonably appear to be the result of the passage of time, and not purposeful deception. There is no evidence that Respondent and Ms. Messer ever discussed dating, or any inappropriate subject, during any telephone, text, or in-person communications between them while she was a student. Although Respondent and Ms. Messer spoke on the phone from time to time about babysitting concerns and logistics, and apparently on other occasions about Ms. Messer’s college aspirations, scholarship opportunities, college selection, and related matters, there is no direct evidence of what they specifically spoke about. At hearing, no witness testified to having personal knowledge of such conversations, and both Respondent and Ms. Messer denied to District officials that they ever engaged in any discussions about dating or about any inappropriate matters prior to her June 2, 2009, graduation date. Although Ms. Messer and Respondent occasionally saw each other outside the school setting through babysitting- related interactions, the record lacks any credible evidence that they ever dated or engaged in any inappropriate physical contact. Further, Respondent, Ms. Messer, and Shannon Justice, all have specifically and consistently denied that there was any physical, romantic, dating, or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Messer at any time. Although the telephone records introduced by Petitioner establish that Respondent and Ms. Messer spoke frequently, there is insufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that the subject matter of the conversations was inappropriate, or that the two were involved in a prohibited teacher/student relationship prior to Ms. Messer's graduation on June 2, 2009.3/ By letter dated July 28, 2009, Respondent was informed of his suspension from employment with the District, and that his termination would be recommended to the school board. Respondent resigned his teaching position with the District effective August 11, 2009.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for ten days without pay for putting hand sanitizer in a student’s mouth.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the District. Pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes, the District has the authority to discipline employees pursuant to section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent began her employment with the District in 2007. In October 2019, she was teaching at PPMS as a science teacher. Prior to the incident involved in this case, Respondent received no discipline from the Board. Respondent is an experienced teacher who has been trained on the proper method of interacting with students, exercising best professional judgment, and following policies, rules, and directives. Respondent received training concerning ethics relative to her position with the District as a teacher. Respondent has been through the orientation process for new employees of the District three times. The Incident Giving Rise to Discipline On October 14, 2019, Respondent was teaching a science class of approximately 30 sixth and seventh grade students. In this class was sixth grade student X.S., who was being verbally disruptive. Although X.S. was not cussing, Respondent told him that he needed to have his “mouth washed out with soap.” Respondent reached behind herself to grab a bottle on her desk which was either hand soap or hand sanitizer. X.S. and Respondent walked towards each other. X.S. challenged Respondent to “Do it!” Respondent raised the bottle to X.S.’s mouth and pumped in a substance from the bottle. X.S. bent over and spit on the floor. Respondent asked X.S. what he was doing, and he stated that he got hand sanitizer in his mouth. As X.S. stood up, X.S. was observed wiping his mouth and Respondent told him not to spit on the floor. X.S. left the classroom to go to the bathroom and rinse his mouth. His fellow students immediately began talking about the incident while Respondent returned to her desk. The Investigation X.S. did not immediately report the incident because he did not want to anger his foster mother. However, on the day after the incident, October 15, 2019, three students approached PPMS Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels and reported that Respondent had squirted hand sanitizer into X.S.’s mouth. Officer Michaels spoke to the students and X.S. individually and asked them to provide written statements regarding what they observed.1 Principal Aronson and Officer Michaels questioned Respondent regarding the incident. When approached by Officer Michaels, Respondent asked, “What is this about?” He responded that, “this is about squirting hand sanitizer into a student’s mouth.” Respondent said, “It wasn’t hand sanitizer. It was soap.” Respondent did not deny squirting something into X.S.’s mouth to either Principal Aronson or Officer Michaels. Principal Aronson asked Respondent to leave campus. He accompanied her to her classroom and observed a bottle of hand sanitizer on her desk. Principal Aronson also contacted Human Resources to report the incident and spoke to Human Resources Manager Jose Fred who handled overseeing the investigation from that point forward. 1 These written statements, Exhibits 11 through 16, were admitted over Respondent’s objection that they contain impermissible hearsay and are unduly prejudicial because these students refused to attend their scheduled depositions or appear for final hearing. However, their general descriptions of the incident were corroborated by the deposition of student J.C., as well as in part by Respondent. As discussed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(3), hearsay evidence may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless the evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rule as found in sections 90.801-.805, Florida Statutes. On October 15, 2019, Respondent was issued the one-day stay at home letter from Mr. Aronson titled “Assignment to Your Residence with Pay for October 15, 2019.” On October 15, 2019, Respondent was also issued a letter advising her that she was assigned to her residence for October 16 and October 17, 2019. Mr. Fred, under the supervision of Vicki Evans-Paré, Director of Employee and Labor Relations, compiled written statement of six students, took a written statement of Respondent on October 17, 2019, and drafted an Investigative Report dated October 18, 2019, which substantiated violations of applicable rules and Board policies. In her statement to Mr. Perez, Respondent claims it was X.S. who put his hand on hers and pulled the bottle to his own mouth and that she did not squirt anything. However, the remainder of her statement is consistent with the students’ reports of the incident.2 Post-Investigation Due Process On October 30, 2019, Respondent was provided with a Notice of Pre- Determination Meeting, which provided her with the allegations of misconduct. Respondent was provided with a copy of the entire investigative file and time to review it with the representative of her choice. Respondent attended a Pre-Determination Meeting on November 9, 2019, to give her the opportunity to provide any additional information, dispute, and explain or elaborate on any information contained in the Investigative Report. The Employee and Labor Relations (“ELR”) Department enlists the Employee Investigatory Committee (“EIC”) which reviews all of ELR’s case 2 At final hearing, Respondent testified that the bottle was never near the student’s mouth. This is wholly inconsistent with her prior written statement to Mr. Perez, her deposition testimony, and the statements of the students. This conflict negatively impacted Respondent’s credibility. files, inclusive of all documents maintained by ELR, of anything that might lead to suspension or termination, to make a suggestion to the Superintendent, if the allegations are substantiated. Once the EIC decides that the allegations are substantiated and recommends discipline, Ms. Evans-Paré takes the entire employee investigative file, inclusive of the EIC’s recommendations, to the Superintendent who then makes the ultimate recommendation for employee discipline. On November 22, 2019, Respondent was provided with supplemental information to the investigative file and provided an opportunity to respond to the documents by December 6, 2019. On December 9, 2019, Respondent requested that her response be placed in her file. She wrote “in response to the copies of the information from the District that is being used as evidence against me …” after reviewing the case file, complained that only six of 22 students were interviewed or provided statements and it was not an ethical, random sample of the class. Respondent also alleged that the documents had been altered; however, she did not provide any evidence of such during the final hearing or within the response. On December 6, 2019, Respondent again provided a response to the student witness statements to ELR wherein she stated “I have 22 students in my class, only 6 students filled out statements? You have 3 black children submitted in reporting, of which one is not accurate. Yet, they are the minority in this class, of which, 2 out of the 6 statements were from Hispanic students. It is surprising that not a single white student in my class noticed the incident.” On January 24, 2020, Respondent was notified that the Superintendent would recommend her a ten-day suspension without pay to the Board at its February 19, 2020, meeting. On February 19, 2020, the School Board adopted the Superintendent’s recommendations to suspend Respondent without pay for ten days. Respondent’s Post-Suspension Status Respondent’s suspension by the Board was picked up by the Associated Press and reported across social media and traditional media platforms locally and nationwide. Ms. Evans-Paré testified that typically, when a teacher is alleged to have done something inappropriate with students, the District cannot have the teacher in a classroom around students, so the teacher is reassigned to another location. Respondent was reassigned to adult and community education, so she was in a no-student contact position. Respondent was then moved into Human Resources Funding 9920 status due to the press and comments from the parents received by Principal Aronson and her inability to be returned to PPMS. This allowed Principal Aronson to hire another teacher to take her place. Respondent has not been back in the classroom as a teacher for the District since October 15, 2019.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board uphold the ten-day suspension without pay and return Respondent to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2021. V. Danielle Williams, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Nicholas Anthony Caggia, Esquire Johnson and Caggia Law Group 867 West Bloomingdale Avenue, Suite 6325 Brandon, Florida 33508 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-331 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D. Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-316 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Jean- Baptiste Guerrier, made inappropriate comments to, or engaged in inappropriate conduct with, female students, or inappropriately discussed the topic of sex with his class, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanction is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals holding Florida educator's certificates. Mr. Guerrier held Florida Educator's Certificate 596926, covering the areas of English and middle grades, which was valid through June 30, 2015. At all times pertinent hereto, Mr. Guerrier was employed as a vocational education teacher at D.A. Dorsey Education Center School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Guerrier primarily taught English to students who had dropped out of school earlier and were returning for vocational education. Some of his students were adults, and some were still minors. On August 2, 2012, Ms. Ana Sanchez, an investigator for the Miami-Dade County School Board, received a case alleging that Mr. Guerrier had made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to his students and had inappropriately touched female students. Ms. Sanchez interviewed students and prepared an investigative report detailing what each student told her regarding Mr. Guerrier's conduct in class. She did not personally observe Mr. Guerrier's conduct in the classroom. On September 6, 2012, Mr. Guerrier wrote a letter to Ms. Anne-Marie DuBoulay, the district director of the Office of Professional Standards. In the letter, Mr. Guerrier indicated that he had read the allegations and that he denied them. On or about October 5, 2012, the Miami-Dade County School District notified Mr. Guerrier that he would be recommended for suspension without pay and dismissal. On or about October 8, 2012, Mr. Guerrier submitted his resignation from his position at the Miami-Dade County School District. On October 10, 2012, Ms. DuBoulay prepared a memorandum for the file indicating that Mr. Guerrier had resigned and that the investigative information had been transmitted to Professional Practices Services of the Florida Department of Education. On August 12, 2013, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Mr. Guerrier by the Commissioner. It was subsequently sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At hearing, Ms. Sanchez testified that she interviewed several students from Mr. Guerrier's classes. She testified that some students told her that Mr. Guerrier often made inappropriate comments about sex and female anatomy to his students. She testified that students told her that he inappropriately touched students. She testified that students told her that he had asked female students, "What would you do for a grade?" She testified that Elijah Del'Valle, a 21-year-old student, told her that he saw Mr. Guerrier pulling a female student's G-string, confirming the female student's statement to her. The investigative report prepared by Ms. Sanchez indicated that D.W., a 25-year-old female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier would make sexual comments to his female students on a daily basis. The report indicates that D.W. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier asked her in class if he could see her private parts and asked "what she would do for the grade." The report indicates that K.L., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier rubbed her stomach and asked her to kiss him. The report indicates that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told a story in class about a student who had reported him and that he told his class that the student was mad because he would not have sexual relations with her. The report indicates that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told K.L. that her boyfriend "could not handle her." The report says that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that she witnessed Mr. Guerrier pull G.C.'s underwear in class. The report indicates that J.S., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier always used inappropriate slang terms for female anatomy in class and that she heard Mr. Guerrier ask K.L. to show him her private parts. The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that she saw Mr. Guerrier touching K.L.'s stomach. The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told one female student, "What if I turn off the lights and tell you to undress?" The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that she did not recall which student Mr. Guerrier made this comment to. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle, an adult male student, told Ms. Sanchez that he observed Mr. Guerrier flirting with female students and making sexual remarks in class. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier would ask his female students what they would do for a grade. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that he saw Mr. Guerrier pull a student's pants from behind during class and then ask the young lady where she was going. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier was always looking at the female students when they walked by and would rub his shoulder and arm against them. The report indicates that G.C., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that she saw Mr. Guerrier rub K.L.'s belly area and say, "let me lick that belly ring of yours." The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier is always brushing himself up against the female students. The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told a story in class about a student who had reported him and that that student was mad because he had not had sexual relations with her. The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that she once asked Mr. Guerrier for help with a lesson and that he pulled her G-string when she was getting up from the chair and pulled her back down. Mr. Guerrier testified at hearing that he did not do any of the things he was accused of. Mr. Guerrier said that his accusers had a motive to fabricate their stories because they were very poor students. He said that some of them slept in class, others texted throughout class, and others did not show up at all. He stated that some of them had no grades in his grading book and that he had no basis to give them a grade. He stated the students went to a counselor and fabricated the stories.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Jean-Baptiste Guerrier. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of immorality and unprofessional conduct as is more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 25, 1991.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered permanently revoking the Florida teaching certificate of Robert M. Dodd, Jr. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 14th day of October, 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Robert M. Dodd 38124 Townview Avenue #106 Zephyrhills, Florida 33540 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent had good cause to reject the Escambia County School Superintendent's nomination of Petitioner to be principal of Woodham High School, and, if not, what relief should be granted to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Pensacola High School (PHS) is located in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. It is an inner city school of approximately 2000 students with a diverse population. Petitioner was appointed principal at PHS for the 1994- 1995 school year by Dr. Bill Malloy, the former Superintendent of Escambia County Schools. Petitioner served in that capacity until Superintendent Malloy transferred him in March of 1996 to the position of Director of Student Transfers. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent had a policy requiring principals to report incidents of suspected child abuse immediately to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS)(currently the Department of Children and Families.) Another policy required principals to immediately report bomb threats to the district office and to proceed with the evacuation of the school property as instructed. Before school began in the fall of 1995, Petitioner assigned Kevin Sanders to be the teacher in charge of the In School Suspension (ISS) class. Petitioner made this assignment because Mr. Sanders previously had developed and successfully operated a similar class at PHS. The school district approved the plan at PHS for an ISS unit as designed by Mr. Sanders. Mr. Sanders also served as a weight training coach at PHS. He was not the only teacher/coach to run an ISS program for Respondent during the 1995-1996 school year. At least three other schools had coaches running their respective ISS programs in the fall of 1995. There is no persuasive evidence that the assignment of a coach to be in charge of an ISS class was in direct contravention of the Superintendent's instructions. No one ever told Petitioner that the Superintendent did not want a coach-like person in charge of the ISS class. Mr. Sanders wanted to work in the weight room at the stadium during the last period of the school day. Petitioner told Mr. Sanders that he could work in the weight room, provided he found someone to supervise his ISS class during that period. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Sanders had permission from Petitioner to take his ISS students to the stadium and leave them unattended in the bleachers. On October 16, 1995, a fifteen-year-old female student skipped school. The police returned the female student to PHS. As a consequence of her actions, the female student was temporarily assigned to the ISS class taught by Mr. Sanders. Normally, the female student attended a class for special students in the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) program. She functioned academically on a third or fourth grade level. On October 17, 1995, Ms. Sanders took his ISS class to the stadium and told them to sit in the bleachers. He then went to the weight room leaving the class unsupervised. The female student went into one of the restrooms in the stadium. She performed fellatio on a number of male students, primarily football players, in the presence of many other students. In the fall of 1995, PHS had several deans who served the general student population. Richard Sousa was the dean of students for ESE participants. He also served as the crisis teacher for the total student population at PHS. On October 18, 1995, Mr. Sousa saw a group of students outside the dean's office. When he investigated, Mr. Sousa found the female student sitting in a chair with her hands on her head. After Mr. Sousa closed the door to the deans' office, the female student stated that other students were falsely accusing her of performing oral sex with some boys. Mr. Sousa then took the female student to an ESE self-contained classroom so that she would not be harassed. Next, Mr. Sousa called the female student's mother and reported the facts as he understood them. The mother told Mr. Sousa that her daughter was not sexually active. Mr. Sousa asked the mother to pick up her daughter from school because the child was visibly upset. Later that day, Mr. Sousa reported to Petitioner that he had heard a rumor about sexual activity occurring in the stadium, on the fifty-yard line, or on the practice field. Mr. Sousa told Petitioner that other students were teasing the female student who denied being involved in any sexual behavior. After receiving this report, Petitioner directed Assistant Principal Leo Carvalis to contact Coach David Wilson, the head football coach. Petitioner instructed Coach Wilson and Mr. Sousa to investigate the rumor regarding the sexual activity. Coach Wilson talked to the football team that afternoon. The team assured him that they knew nothing of any sexual incident in the stadium, the football field, or the practice field. Coach Wilson and Petitioner discussed the situation again later that day. Petitioner told Coach Wilson to continue to listen to what was going on among the students, to ask questions, and to make his findings known. Petitioner gave other members of his staff and faculty the same instructions. Petitioner wanted to determine whether there was any truth to the rumor about the sexual incident. He wanted to discipline any students involved, including football players. However, Petitioner did not want to accuse any student, including the alleged victim, of inappropriate behavior until he had more facts. At the end of the day on October 18, 1995, Mr. Sousa did not believe that the sexual incident had occurred. He knew that special education students are often harassed, ostracized and picked on. Mr. Sousa thought the teasing would blow over and the female student could be returned to her regular classroom. Mr. Sousa expressed this opinion to Petitioner. For the rest of the week, Mr. Sousa took lunch to the female student in the ESE self-contained classroom because other students teased and pointed fingers at her. Mr. Sousa had to walk to the bus with the female student for the same reason. Nevertheless, Mr. Sousa continued to believe the rumor was false. His disbelief was based in part on the female student's persistent denials. Additionally, it was not uncommon for a rumor such as the one at issue here to prove to be unfounded. The next week, the female student requested that she be permitted to return to her regular ESE classes because she believed the teasing was over. Mr. Sousa granted the female student's request; however, after a couple of class periods, Mr. Sousa returned her to the self-contained classroom because even the special education students were saying things about her. Amanda Williams and Naomi Ferguson were guidance counselors at PHS during the fall of 1995. On October 26, 1995, Ms. Ferguson indicated to PHS Assistant Principal Sarah Armstrong that Petitioner knew about the sexual incident involving some of the football players. According to Ms. Ferguson, Petitioner was trying to cover up the situation because the football team was doing well. Later that day, Petitioner held a meeting in his office with Ms. Ferguson, Ms. Williams, Mr. Sousa, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Carvalis. During the meeting, Ms. Armstrong advised Petitioner that Ms. Williams had information from a male student (an informant) confirming the sexual incident but would not reveal her source because of confidentiality concerns. Petitioner asked Ms. Williams to speak with him in private. During their private conversation Ms. Williams revealed that an informant had given her information about a second male student who was involved in the sexual incident at the stadium. Ms. Williams gave Petitioner the names of both students. When he and Ms. Williams returned to the meeting, Petitioner stated, "I believe something must have happened. This is a credible witness." He also stated, "To hell with the football team. If these players can get away with this now, what will they think they can get away with in the future?" For the first time, Petitioner began to suspect that the sexual incident was factual and not an unfounded rumor. Ms. Ferguson revealed additional information about the female student at the meeting on October 26, 1995. Ms. Ferguson stated that the female student's mother intended to send her daughter to live with an uncle in Tampa, Florida. The female student did not want to make this move. The female student told Ms. Ferguson that the uncle had sexually molested her in the past. Ms. Armstrong stated that someone needed to call HRS to report the suspected sexual abuse by a family member. The group decided that HRS should also look into the allegations of sexual activity at the school. Petitioner instructed Ms. Ferguson to call HRS. He asked her to wait just long enough for someone to advise the female student's mother that an investigation was pending. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner ever intended to cover up the sexual incident. Likewise, he did not unreasonably delay his staff from reporting their suspicions to HRS. On October 26, 1995, Petitioner mistakenly understood that cases of suspected child abuse had to be reported to HRS within 24 hours instead of immediately. The last instructions he gave in the meeting on October 26, 1995, was to remind Ms. Ferguson to call HRS. She made that call on October 27, 1995. The female student was isolated from the general student population in the self-contained ESE classroom at PHS. Therefore, Mr. Sousa recommended at the meeting on October 26, 1995, that the school conduct an Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting to review the female student's placement. He believed that the female student should be transferred to another school so that she could attend classes with the general population. After receiving Petitioner's authorization, Mr. Sousa contacted the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) district staff to arrange for an IEP meeting. Mr. Sousa also called the female student's mother on October 27, 1995, to advise her of his recommendation. On October 27, 1995, Petitioner talked to the male student who, according to Ms. Williams' informant, participated in the sexual incident at the stadium. The male student confirmed that the sexual incident occurred in the stadium. However, there is no evidence that the student admitted his personal involvement in the sexual activity to Petitioner at that time. The police investigation later revealed that the male student was one of the students who had participated in the sexual incident. At the IEP meeting on October 31, 1995, the entire IEP team, including ESE teachers from PHS and Woodham High School (WHS), ESE district staff, and the female student and her mother, discussed the reasons for changing the student's placement to WHS. Everyone on the IEP team, except the female student, believed that she should be transferred to a new school environment with peers who did not know her. The female student begged her mother not to permit the transfer. However, the parent agreed that the transfer was in her daughter's best interest and offered to provide transportation. On November 1, 1995 or November 2, 1995, the female student was supposed to enroll at WHS. Instead, she returned to PHS. Mr. Sousa called the mother to pick up her daughter and take her to WHS. On November 3, 1995, Mr. Sousa called the female student's mother. She stated that everything was all right with her daughter at WHS. On Monday, November 6, 1995, the female student's mother called Mr. Sousa because her daughter had run away from home. The mother wanted Mr. Sousa to be on the lookout for her daughter. During the conversation, the mother stated for the first time that the rumors about the sexual incident might be true because, despite her daughter's denials, it had been confirmed by one of her daughter's friends. Mr. Sousa informed Petitioner about the suspicions of the female student's mother. Petitioner then directed Coach Wilson to talk with the football team again. No one on the team would admit their involvement in the sexual incident. Petitioner also told the deans and the assistant principals to see if they could determine what had happened and who was involved. The efforts of the faculty and staff to verify the rumors were unsuccessful. On November 9, 1995, Petitioner received a letter from Ms. Ferguson suggesting that he was responsible for trying to cover up the sexual incident. He also received a call from Special Assistant to the School Superintendent Jerry Watson, stating that he had heard "bad things" were going on at PHS. Petitioner called a meeting with the appropriate PHS staff to discuss information about the alleged sexual incident. They reviewed information furnished by the male students and the female student's mother. During this meeting, Petitioner expressed his concern that someone in the group was acting unprofessionally by leaking confidential information about students to persons outside of PHS. Petitioner advised the group that he would try to transfer anyone who breached the students' confidentially. Petitioner did not make these comments to threaten or intimidate his staff and faculty or to cover up the sexual episode. After the meeting on November 9, 1995, Petitioner took Ms. Ferguson's letter to the district office where he met with Sherman Robinson, Deputy School Superintendent. Petitioner told Mr. Robinson about the facts leading up to the receipt of the letter. Mr. Robinson told Petitioner to contact Joe Hammons, the Superintendent's attorney, for advice as to the appropriate action. Petitioner then made an appointment with Mr. Hammons for Monday, November 13, 1995, because Friday, November 10, 1995, was a holiday. On November 13, 1995, Mr. Hammons met with Petitioner. At this meeting, Petitioner told Mr. Hammons what he knew concerning the sexual incident. Mr. Hammons then scheduled a meeting for November 14, 1995, with Petitioner, Mr. Robinson, and two members from the school district's risk management department. At the meeting on November 14, 1995, the group determined that information available from the male students and the female student's mother, justified contacting the Pensacola Police Department. Upon leaving that meeting, Petitioner contacted Sergeant Potts at the police department. The deans at PHS generally handled all disciplinary problems until they determined that a crime had been or might have been committed. At that point, the staff involved the school resource officer. In this case Petitioner relied on his staff to investigate the rumors of the sexual incident and did not involve the school resource officer. Until November 1995, Petitioner was not aware that, if the rumors of the sexual incident proved true, a crime had been committed. Shortly thereafter, Dusty Cutler of the Pensacola Police Department was assigned to investigate the sexual incident at PHS. On November 15, 1995, Officer Cutler talked to the female student who continued to deny all allegations. The female student did not admit to being involved in the sexual incident for several weeks after Officer Cutler began her investigation. Pursuant to Petitioner's suggestion, Officer Cutler also talked to the male student identified by Ms. Williams' informant as one of the participants in the sexual incident. The female student's mother told Officer Cutler that she did not want a police investigation. The mother became upset with the way Officer Cutler was talking to her. Petitioner complained to Lieutenant Knowles of the Pensacola Police Department about Officer Cutler's "abusive" behavior to the mother of the female student. From that time forward, Officer Cutler never spoke to Petitioner even though she spent six months investigating the sexual incident on a daily basis. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner interfered with Officer Cutler's investigation or failed to cooperate with her in any way. Officer Cutler reported the sexual incident to HRS. The agency gave her the same response they had given Ms. Ferguson, i.e., HRS would not investigate or follow the case because the sexual activity was not a rape and a family member was not involved. After Officer Cutler was assigned to the case, Petitioner was instructed by the school district to do nothing further until the police investigation was concluded. The Grand Jury released its Amended Report on Pensacola High School on April 15, 1996. The report indicted several male students involved in the sexual incident. Petitioner did not have an opportunity to discipline the students because he was not working at PHS at that time. In the spring of 1996, a number of middle school and high schools in the Pensacola area received bomb threats over the telephone. PHS received bomb threats on at least three occasions. The school evacuated to the adjoining football stadium on one occasion, to the fairgrounds on another occasion, and to Pensacola Junior College on a third occasion. On March 29, 1996, about 7:00 a.m., a school secretary, received a bomb threat call at PHS. Mr. Sousa received a second bomb threat call at PHS around 7:15 or 7:30. On both occasions the caller's voice was a raspy, young man's voice. The school secretary and Mr. Sousa recognized the voice of the caller as a young man in one of the self-contained classrooms. The student had created problems in the past. Each time he behaved improperly, the student would use his raspy voice. Mr. Sousa reported the first bomb threat to Mr. Carvalis. Mr. Carvalis called Petitioner at his home. Petitioner was not at school because he was not feeling well because he had been at the emergency room much of the night before. Petitioner instructed Mr. Carvalis to initiate a search. The search included a sweep of the stadium in case the school had to evacuate to that area. Petitioner advised Mr. Carvalis that he was on his way to the school. When Petitioner arrived at PHS, Mr. Carvalis informed him of the second threatening call. The staff again assured Petitioner that they knew the caller's identity, and that both calls had been made by the same student. The student was not at school. Therefore, Petitioner directed Mr. Sousa and the resource officer, Max Cramer, to go to the student's home and request the student's parent to bring the student to school. In the meantime, a third call was received from the same caller. Next, Petitioner phoned Deputy Superintendent Sherman Robinson. Petitioner explained to Mr. Robinson about the bomb threat and the school's discovery of the identity of the caller. Jones believed from his discussion with Mr. Robinson that his handling of the situation and his decision not to evacuate the school had the tacit approval, if not the explicit permission, of the district office. Petitioner believed Mr. Robinson concurred in his decision not to evacuate. The student with the raspy voice and his parent subsequently arrived at the school. After questioning the student, Petitioner believed the student was the caller. Petitioner decided to continue the search of the school without evacuating it. Petitioner directed Mr. Carvalis and the maintenance men to divide into teams and sweep the campus using the techniques taught by a handler of a bomb sniffing dog after previous threats. On one occasion a bomb sniffing dog and his handler came to PHS from Eglin Air Force Base in Ft. Walton. The PHS campus was so large that the dog got tired and refused to work about half way through the search. On that occasion, the search continued in the same manner employed by Petitioner on March 29, 1996. During the search on March 29, 1996, seven different groups looked for anything that was out of place. All of the deans had assigned areas where they searched trash bins, open lockers, and open classrooms. Later in the school day, Mr. Carvalis reported that the entire campus, including the portables, had been swept and nothing found. Petitioner does not dispute that he did not follow the Superintendent's policy regarding bomb threats on the day in question. Petitioner believed that he knew the identity of the caller. He also was concerned about the disruption that the bomb threats were causing to the academic programs at PHS. The students in the gifted program were preparing to take their advanced placement tests. The students in the International Baccalaureate program were studying for their exams. Additionally, March 29, 1996 was the last chance for some students to take the high school competency test before graduation. Superintendent Malloy was particularly concerned that Petitioner failed to evacuate the school. The previous day he had reiterated his policy of evacuation to all principals. However, Petitioner did not attend the meeting; one of Petitioner's assistant principals attended that meeting in his absence. On March 30, 1996, Superintendent Malloy placed Petitioner on administrative leave with pay, pending an investigation of his failure to evacuate PHS after a bomb threat. Superintendent Malloy subsequently assigned Petitioner to his current position as Director of Student Transfers. On June 3, 1996, Superintendent Malloy issued a letter reprimanding Petitioner for the following reasons: (1) failing to ensure that the ISS class had appropriate supervision; (2) failing to follow up on information regarding sexual activity in the stadium in a timely manner; and (3) failing to evacuate the school after receiving a bomb threat. In November of 1996, Jim May was elected Escambia County School Superintendent. On or about June 10, 1997, the Commissioner of Education, Frank T. Brogan, filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner in Education Practices Commission (EPC) Case Number 956-1609-B. This complaint alleged that Petitioner failed in his responsibilities to ensure that all students under his charge were properly supervised. The complaint also alleged that Petitioner failed to evacuate the school after receiving a bomb threat. On June 24, 1997, Superintendent May nominated Petitioner to be principal of WHS. At the time of the nomination, Superintendent May was aware of the relevant facts concerning the PHS sex incident and bomb threat incident. Additionally, he had been in contact with counsel for the Florida Department of Education regarding EPC Case Number 956-1609-B. Respondent rejected Petitioner's nomination to be principal of WHS. On a 3 to 2 vote, Respondent found good cause to reject the nomination based on the following: Among the reasons articulated by the three Board Members who voted against the nomination were, in addition to the reasons presented by the other speakers, Mr. Jones' unsatisfactory past performance of his duties when he served as Principal of Pensacola High School (which events were the subject of a grand jury report and are the subject of an administrative complaint by the Commissioner of Education now pending before the Education Practice Commission proceeding, . . . his lack of subsequent training to improve his skills in the areas in which his poor performance resulted in his 1996 removal as Principal of Pensacola High School, and his apparent violation of certain of the principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, in addition to gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty in connection with the Pensacola High School incidents. In sum the three Board Members who voted against the nomination felt that Mr. Jones is presently unqualified to be a Principal. After Respondent rejected his nomination, Petitioner told Superintendent May that it was unfair to the students of WHS to make them wait for a principal. On July 22, 1997, Superintendent May nominated another person to be principal at WHS. On or about November 6, 1997, the Florida Department of Education decided that it would withdraw its probable cause determination against Petitioner and enter into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with him. The department requested the Education Practices Commission to close EPC Case Number 956-1609-B. On or about March 9, 1998, Superintendent May advised the Florida Department of Education that Petitioner had performed his assigned duties and responsibilities in a professional manner during the period of January 10, 1997 and March 1, 1997. Petitioner had fully complied with all district and state rules and regulations. On or about March 26, 1998, Education Commissioner Brogan determined that there was no probable cause to suspend or revoke Petitioner's teacher's certificate. Petitioner was released from his Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the department. Petitioner holds the proper state certification for a high school principal. Except for the two incidents in question, Petitioner's performance at PHS was exemplary. Under his leadership, the school population was stable and well under control. Petitioner created an atmosphere at PHS where high quality performance on the part of a number of students was recognized, encouraged, and supported by the faculty and staff. Petitioner had an excellent relationship with students, teachers, and the PHS Advisory Council. Petitioner genuinely cared for the health, safety and welfare of the students at PHS. He was concerned more about the feelings and self-esteem of the students than with winning academic and athletic competitions, and he did not make accusatory judgments about his students until he had the necessary facts and proof to support those accusations.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order finding that there is no good cause to reject Superintendent May's nomination of Petitioner to be principal at WHS, promoting him to that position, and awarding him any back pay to which he may be entitled. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1998.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in computer programming and networking at the College. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1983. Since the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent has worked under a continuing contract of employment. A continuing contract is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent has received at least above-average evaluations of his job performance both from the institution and from his students during his tenure at the College. Respondent has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings of any kind prior to or since the incidents giving rise to this proceeding. Kimberly Zemola, a married woman in her late twenties, was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II and Session III of the 1994-95 academic year. In January 1995, while she was a student in Respondent’s class, Ms. Zemola wrote an anonymous note to Respondent suggesting that they commence a relationship and that Respondent should indicate his interest by wearing a certain sweater to class on a certain day. Respondent wore the sweater as suggested in the note. Respondent testified that his purpose in doing so was not to initiate a relationship, but to identify the author of the note, discover her problem, and direct her into obtaining assistance. Respondent and Ms. Zemola met. Their testimony was consistent in describing that they were both involved in troubled marriages, spent a great deal of time discussing their problems with each other, and, over a period of weeks, became close friends and confidants. During the period of January through May 1995, the relationship was not sexual, though there was some holding of hands and kissing during their meetings. During the summer session of 1995, while Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent's class, Respondent and Ms. Zemola engaged in consensual sex. Both Respondent and Ms. Zemola testified that this occurred on only one occasion, in June 1995. Respondent and Ms. Zemola continued their relationship until December 1995, at which point Ms. Zemola ended it. Ms. Zemola testified that in January 1996, after she ended the relationship with Respondent, she was diagnosed as clinically depressed. She testified that she believed Respondent took advantage of her depressed condition in pursuing a relationship with her. Respondent testified that Ms. Zemola mentioned suicidal thoughts on one occasion in late 1995, and that she revealed to him that she had been addicted to drugs and was a victim of child abuse. Nonetheless, Respondent testified that he had no knowledge Ms. Zemola was fighting depression during the period of their relationship. In January 1996, John Zemola, the husband of Kimberly Zemola, phoned Myrtle Williams, Associate Provost of the Gibbs Campus, to complain that Respondent had an affair with his wife. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated, so she invited him to her office to discuss the matter. Mr. Zemola met in person with Ms. Williams, and a little later in the day had a second meeting with both Ms. Williams and Charles Roberts, the Provost of the Gibbs Campus. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated and upset, expressing a great deal of anger toward Respondent. Mr. Zemola repeatedly demanded to know what the College was going to do about the situation. Shortly after his meeting with Mr. Zemola, Dr. Roberts called Respondent and asked him to come over to his office. Dr. Roberts testified that his main concern in calling Respondent was to warn him of Mr. Zemola’s angry and agitated state. Dr. Roberts also alerted campus security of the situation. At this meeting with Dr. Roberts, Respondent openly and voluntarily acknowledged his relationship with Ms. Zemola, including the romantic aspects thereof. The only discrepancy was that Respondent recalled the sexual encounter as having occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in his class, whereas Ms. Zemola recalled that it occurred when she was a student in Respondent’s class. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts investigated the matter further, attempting to set up a meeting with Ms. Zemola herself. It took them roughly ten days to two weeks to set up this meeting, which finally occurred in Dr. Roberts’ office. Present at the meeting were Dr. Roberts, Ms. Williams, and the Zemolas. At this meeting, Ms. Zemola acknowledged the relationship with Respondent, and acknowledged that it was she who initiated it. Both of the Zemolas were adamant that Respondent should not be permitted to continue teaching at the College. \ 18. Mr. Zemola in particular seemed intent on seeing Respondent punished. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola telephoned her “all the time talking about what are we going to do about Mr. Brooks.” Mr. Zemola’s threatening demeanor led Ms. Williams to move Ms. Zemola’s classes to a different campus, so that Respondent and Ms. Zemola would not be in each other’s presence. Ms. Williams testified that this precaution was taken, not because of Respondent or Ms. Zemola, but because of John Zemola. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever attempted to contact Ms. Zemola after she ended the relationship. In January 1996, Ms. Williams began attempting to get Ms. Zemola to sign an affidavit stating the facts of the situation. Ms. Zemola initially declined to do so, her stated reason being that she feared Respondent’s influence in the local market could jeopardize her academic future. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever took any action to adversely affect Ms. Zemola’s academic standing or career, either within or outside of the College setting. In a memorandum to Respondent, dated February 8, 1996, Dr. Roberts recounted the details of the charges leveled by the Zemolas, as well as Respondent’s admissions regarding his relationship with Ms. Zemola. The memorandum recited portions of the College’s “Sexual Harassment Policy and Definitions” (the “Policy”). Under the Policy, “sexual harassment” is defined as: An employee’s or a student’s unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, sexually related jokes, display of pornographic material in the workplace or an academic or student setting (An academic or student setting includes all settings on campus, off-campus clinical programs, off- campus courses, and off-campus college- sponsored events), when submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or an individual’s treatment as a student; submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or the treatment of a student affecting such individual; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or a student’s academic performance or creating a sexually intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment. The definition quoted above does not apply to the conduct alleged against Respondent, though a later section of the Policy, labeled “Instructor-Student Relationships,” appears to broaden the definition, as indicated in the relevant portion quoted below: This rule applies to instructor-student relationships. In the instructor-student context, the term sexual harassment has a broader impact. The fundamental element of such behavior is the inappropriate personal attention, including romantic and sexual relationships with a student by an instructor or staff member who is in a position to determine a student’s grade or otherwise affects the student’s academic advancement. Because the instructor-student relationship is one of professional and client, the above inappropriate behavior is unacceptable in a college; it is a form of unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic setting. Both President Kuttler and Dr. Roberts testified that, in their opinion, the language quoted in the preceding paragraph broadened the definition of “sexual harassment” as applied to the instructor-student relationship, such that any form of romantic or sexual relationship between an instructor and a student constitutes sexual harassment, at least when the instructor is in a position to determine the student’s grade or otherwise affect the student’s academic advancement. The Policy also forbids retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint or complained about sexual harassment. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent took any retaliatory action against Ms. Zemola. The Policy states that discipline for violation of its provisions “will depend on the nature of the incident,” but that the range of such discipline is from admonishment to dismissal. The February 8, 1996, memorandum goes on to state that, because of the seriousness of the alleged violations and because a violation of the Policy could lead to a recommendation of suspension or dismissal, Dr. Roberts was scheduling a meeting on February 13 with Ms. Williams, Martha Adkins, who was the Assistant Director of Business Technologies, and Nevis Herrington, Vice President of Human Resources, for the purpose of permitting Respondent to tell his side of the story in full. Ms. Williams was the only witness who testified as to the February 13 meeting, but her recollection was unclear as to the details of this meeting as distinguished from others involving Dr. Roberts, Respondent, and her. She recalled generally that Respondent was made aware of the Policy and potential penalties for violation thereof. Some delay ensued in the disciplinary process, because Dr. Roberts and Ms. Williams were waiting for the affidavit from Ms. Zemola, which was not forthcoming as spring turned into summer of 1996. At length, Dr. Roberts issued a memorandum to Respondent, dated August 13, 1996, and titled “Reprimand.” In the memorandum of reprimand, Dr. Roberts found that the facts to which Respondent had already admitted, characterized by Dr. Roberts as “a romantic relationship, including sexual relations, following the time that the student was a student in your class,” were sufficient to warrant a written admonishment. The memorandum stated that there were certain mitigating factors that caused Dr. Roberts not to recommend suspension or dismissal: that the student’s initiating the contact led to the relationship; that, according to Respondent, no romantic relationship or sexual relationship occurred while Ms. Zemola was Respondent’s student; and that Ms. Zemola had thus far refused or failed to provide her version of the facts in writing. However, Dr. Roberts’ memorandum went on to state: On the other hand, if the student had confirmed in an Affidavit what she originally advised us took place, I do not believe that I would have any choice but to consider recommending dismissal since such conduct would be a gross and direct violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy. Such conduct would not only be in violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Rule and Procedure but it would be unprofessional, immoral and constitute misconduct in office. Should confirming or additional information come forward to support the verbal statements we were given by the student and her husband, further consideration of an additional discipline including up to dismissal will be necessary. (Emphasis added.) The August 13, 1996, memorandum placed dispositive emphasis on the timing of the romantic and/or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Zemola. As of August 13, Dr. Roberts accepted Respondent’s version of the facts, i.e., that the romantic and sexual aspects of the relationship occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent’s class. Dr. Roberts found that this version, while contrary to the spirit of the Policy, and constituting misconduct in office and immorality, merited only a written admonishment. Dr. Roberts testified that “the power relationship is there whether the student is a student in that individual’s class or not,” somewhat contradicting the distinction he drew in his memorandum regarding the timing of the affair and its impact on the proposed discipline. Dr. Roberts testified that the admonishment was based on his judgment that Respondent’s relationship with the student violated the Policy “in terms of creating a threatening or offensive or intimidating environment.” He testified that Ms. Zemola had clearly complained that she felt intimidated and reluctant to take classes. Dr. Roberts’ conclusion in this regard was based on Ms. Zemola’s subjective apprehensions. No evidence was produced, at any point in these proceedings, that Respondent engaged in any behavior that could have caused Ms. Zemola to feel “intimidated” or “reluctant to take classes.” Ms. Zemola testified that she heard students at other campuses discussing the incident, and that an instructor in one of her classes talked about the case in front of the class. She believed that Respondent was the source of these persons’ knowledge of the situation. Ms. Zemola offered nothing more than her suspicions in this regard, and Respondent resolutely and credibly denied having discussed the affair with students or fellow instructors. In fact, the weight of the credible evidence leads to the finding that John Zemola was the likely source of any campus gossip regarding the incident. On at least one occasion, Mr. Zemola disrupted a College class by writing accusations against Respondent on the blackboard. Dr. Roberts’ August 13 reprimand memorandum left open the possibility that further disciplinary measures might be taken, should Ms. Zemola come forward with a sworn affidavit confirming her version of the timing of the romantic and sexual aspects, i.e., that they occurred while she was a student in Respondent’s class. In a sworn affidavit dated October 24, 1996, Ms. Zemola attested that, while she was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II, 1994-95, they had an affair which consisted of “a great amount of time talking, and some time kissing, hugging, and holding hands.” She attested that during Session III, 1994- 95, while she was still a student in Respondent’s class, Respondent told her that “if our affair did not go any further, then it had to end.” She attested that at this time she was constantly fighting suicidal thoughts, and believed that if she lost Respondent, the only person she could talk to, she might no longer be able to fight those thoughts. Therefore, during Session III, 1994-95, she engaged in a single sexual encounter with Respondent. By memorandum dated December 11, 1996, Dr. Roberts informed Respondent that the affidavit has been filed and offered Respondent an opportunity to meet with Dr. Roberts and two other officials “to respond to the allegations and share your side of the story.” There is no record evidence that this meeting ever took place. On May 8, 1997, the College filed the Petition. The essential allegation was framed as follows: The faculty member entertained romantic and sexual relations with a student while that student was in the faculty member’s class. This relationship continued after the student was no longer in the faculty member’s class for a period of several months while the student continued her course of education at the College. Such conduct therefore occurred during a time when the faculty member could influence and affect the student’s academic advancement. In addition to the allegations regarding Respondent’s romantic and/or sexual relationship with Ms. Zemola, the Petition alleged: The faculty member thereafter encouraged students of his to pressure the woman with whom he had had the romantic relationship to refrain from stating charges against him in order that it not jeopardize the faculty member’s career. Petitioner offered no evidence to support this allegation, and it is thus assumed that it has been dismissed. The remaining factual allegations contained in the Petition are for the most part conclusions alleged to arise from Respondent’s conduct: Said conduct seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the student/instructor relationship, and further is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace the faculty member’s profession and impair the faculty member’s service to the community and to students. The faculty member’s conduct had serious adverse consequences upon the student, the student’s relationship with her husband, as well as adverse impact on other students, faculty, staff, and upon members of the community, impairing his effectiveness. The effect of the faculty member’s aforesaid conduct was the creation of an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others. No evidence was presented of any “adverse consequences” to other students, faculty, staff, or members of the community, caused by Respondent’s actions. None of the College administrators who testified could recall receiving any complaints regarding Respondent. Dr. Roberts recalled an inquiry from the campus newspaper, but testified that no article ever ran in that or any other newspaper regarding this situation. Ms. Zemola testified that she heard some gossip around the campus, though none of it mentioned the parties by name. Such talk naturally affected Ms. Zemola, but could not be said to have had any other adverse impact. Ms. Zemola’s relationship with her husband was plainly affected by this incident. However, testimony from both Respondent and Ms. Zemola indicated that neither of their marriages was happy at the outset of their relationship. In fact, their testimony indicated that mutual unhappiness in their marriages was one of the main reasons they were drawn together in the first place. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Zemola’s grades or academic advancement were in any way compromised by her affair with Respondent. Ms. Zemola received grades of “A” in both classes she took from Respondent. Both Ms. Zemola and Respondent testified that these grades were earned by Ms. Zemola based entirely on her work in those classes. Respondent has continued to work as an instructor at the College since the affair and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. His work has been performed competently and completely without incident. The episodes of disruption and/or diminished effectiveness cited by the College’s administrators were in fact caused by John Zemola, not by Respondent. When asked for evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished as a result of the relationship, President Kuttler related an incident in which John Zemola disrupted a class to inform the students about Respondent’s situation, and another incident in which John Zemola harassed Respondent at his home, telling Respondent’s neighbors about the incident. President Kuttler concluded that Respondent’s effectiveness was diminished by the fact that it became known on the campus that there was a teacher/student sexual relationship. However, all the credible record evidence indicates no one involved in the incident or the subsequent disciplinary proceedings other than John Zemola ever publicly disclosed the relationship. Respondent cannot fairly be blamed for the actions of Mr. Zemola in publicizing the incident. Several of Respondent’s colleagues testified to attest to Respondent’s outstanding ability in the classroom. All opined, based on their experience as instructors at the College and their knowledge of Respondent’s character and abilities, that Respondent could continue to perform as an effective instructor at the College. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent’s actions created “an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others.” Respondent acknowledged the impropriety of his actions, and the impact they have had on his personal life, but testified that it has had no impact on his professional life.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the “Instructor-Student Relationships” portion of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy, and suspending Respondent from his position at the College for a period not to exceed one Session. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Shannon Bream, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Tampa, Florida 34684 Charles L. Roberts, Provost St. Petersburg Junior College St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus Office of the Provost St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 District Board of Trustees St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Carl M. Kuttler, Jr., President St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent Ivory Scott, held Teaching Certificate Number 460227, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. The Respondent was employed with the School Board of Lee County Florida, and was assigned to Mariner High School. In addition to his duties as a health teacher and drivers' education instructor during the 1987-1988 school year, the Respondent coached the boy's varsity basketball team. M. C., a fifteen-year old female minor student at Mariner High School, participated in after school sports activities as the head statistician for the boy's varsity basketball team and as a player for the girl's basketball team. The Respondent first became acquainted with M.C. when she attended his health class during the first semester of the school year. Before the basketball season began, the student approached the Respondent and told him that she kept statistics for the boy's basketball team at her former high school the year before. The student volunteered to be one of the statisticians for the Respondent's team. She was interviewed by Respondent regarding her recordkeeping abilities and knowledge of the game. Based upon the interview and the student's display of knowledge, she was made the team's head statistician. Prior to granting permission to allow M.C. to participate in the boy's basketball program as a student athletic assistant, her mother voiced concern to the Respondent about transportation problems which could occur when a family member was occasionally unable to meet the student at the school after a game. The Respondent solved this problem with an offer to provide the student with a ride home whenever the family was unable to pick up the student. This potential solution to the problem was accepted by the mother, and the Respondent did give the student a ride home after a few games during the basketball season. On February 9, 1988, the student M.C. wanted to go home before she played in a basketball game at school at 4:00 p.m. The student asked the Respondent for a ride, and he agreed to give her a ride after school ended at 2:20 p.m. When the Respondent left the school grounds with the student, no one else was in the vehicle. The Respondent drove in a direction away from the student's home. Once an isolated area was located, the Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with M.C. The Respondent then drove M.C. home, and told her not to tell anyone about the incident. During the following week, but before February 19, 1988, the Respondent again left the school grounds alone with the student M.C. They traveled to another isolated area and the Respondent again had sexual intercourse with the student. When the student was driven home, she was instructed not to tell anyone about the incident. On February 19, 1988, the student M.C. was crying in an hysterical manner in the courtyard area of the school grounds. The child's schoolfriend, A.F., tried to comfort the child, but was unable to calm her. The assistant principal who observed the scene, took the girls to the guidance area so that they could deal with M.C.'s loss of control in a more private area. A female guidance counselor was asked to keep an eye on the students because of M.C.'s unusual behavior. In an attempt to assist the student, the guidance counselor asked M.C. if she would like to go to the counselor's private office. The student accepted the offer, but did not discuss why she was upset. On Monday, February 22, 1988, M.C. returned to the guidance counselor's office. She implied that her problem was of a sexual nature, but was unwilling to discuss the matter further. A few days later, the counselor gave the student the Abuse Counseling Center telephone number. On Friday, February 26, 1988, the child M.C. contacted the guidance counselor and revealed that she had seen the man involved in her problems the evening before. The police officer on campus was contacted. The student revealed to the counselor and the officer that she was in a relationship with a man who was twenty-five years old, married, and the father of a child. Although the Respondent was married and had a child, he was older than twenty-five years of age. The evening before the limited revelations to the counselor and officer occurred, M.C. had attended the school district's boy's basketball tournament. The Respondent was present at the tournament. The following week, the counselor and the police officer urged M.C. to tell her parents about her relationship with the man. When the student did not tell her parents, the police officer called the student's mother and told her what the student had told him. The student was taken for a medical examination by her mother on March 3, 1988, and it was determined that her hymen was no longer intact. The student would not tell her mother the name of the man involved, but she agreed to tell the guidance counselor on Friday, March 4, 1988. On the appointed date, the student told the counselor the man involved was the Respondent, Ivory Scott. The guidance counselor informed the assistant principal who brought the student into the guidance office on February 19, 1988, about the allegations. The assistant principal advised the principal. When the principal was informed of the student's accusations, he sent for the Respondent immediately to prevent him from hearing the news from less reliable sources. After the principal notified the Respondent of the student's accusations, the Respondent admitted to having the student M.C. alone with him in his vehicle on several occasions. The Respondent denied that any sexual activity took place during these times, and he was unable to speculate why the child might be motivated to make the accusations against him. During the hearing, the Respondent denied that the student M.C. had ever been alone in his vehicle with him, or that the events testified to by the student regarding sexual intercourse had ever occurred. It was his testimony that M.C. had once confided to him that her stepbrother had intercourse with her. The Respondent did not report this purported confidence to the authorities, and there was no evidence in the record to substantiate that the student had a stepbrother. A number of students from the high school testified at hearing. Members of the basketball team and a student athletic assistant testified that on Thursday, February 25, 1988, M.C. was behaving in a flirtatious, sexually aggressive manner with a member of the boy's basketball team in the back of the bus. The basketball player and his mother testified as to M.C.'s persistent need to seek attention from the player. A former boyfriend of M.C.'s testified that, contrary to her statements that she had not kissed with boys prior to the sexual incidents with Respondent, he had engaged in kissing activity with her. The former boyfriend also testified that M.C. told him that nothing has happened between her and the Respondent. She told him this after a newspaper article related her accusations and the Respondent's arrest. The former boyfriend had telephoned her to discuss the matter after his grandparents mentioned that they read about the accusations in the newspaper. Diane Goldberg, a licensed clinical social worker who was accepted as an expert in the area of child sexual abuse counseling, opined that M.C.'s behavior after the alleged incidents of sexual intercourse with the Respondent was congruent, and consistent with behavioral indicators which reflect that sexual molestation has occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's Florida teaching certificate be revoked for violating Section 231.28(1)(c) and (h), Florida Statutes and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, of the State Board of Education. That the allegation that Respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4544 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Rejected as to the finding that the student relied on Respondent for rides home after her basketball practices prior to the alleged incidents. Accept that she occasionally relied on Respondent for rides home after games. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Reject as to two week time period. See HO #7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #11. Accepted. See HO #15. Accepted. See HO #16. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #17. Rejected. Witness incompetent to render legal conclusion. Rejected. Improper summary, Accepted. See HO #21. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Accepted. See HO #2. 2. Accepted. See HO #8-#10, #11, #13 and #15. Reject the first sentence. Contrary to fact. M.C. referred only to rides home, not rides home after games. See HO #6 and #7. Reject the second sentence as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The rest of paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. Accept first sentence. See HO #6. All but the last sentence in the first paragraph are accepted as facts presented. Although probative, these facts were not determinative. See Conclusions of Law. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to fact. See HO #6 and #7. The first two sentences in the second paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 4 is accepted. See HO #6 and #7. The third sentence is accepted as testimony. The finding of fact based on the evidence is found in HO #7. The last paragraph in proposed finding of fact number 4 is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed factual finding. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected. Improper summary. See HO #19 and Conclusions of Law. Accept the first paragraph of proposed finding of fact number 6. See HO #14 and #15. The second paragraph is rejected as it is argument as opposed to a proposed finding of fact. See Conclusions of Law. Accept the first sentence. See HO #13 and #15. The rest of proposed finding of fact number 7 is rejected as irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Dr. Seitz's testimony was not filed in Case NO. 88-4544. COPIES FURNISHED: Wilbur C. Smith, III, Esquire Post Office Drawer 8 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0008 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 315 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
