The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a music teacher at Manatee Academy K-8 School (“Manatee”), pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent’s employment with the School Board as a teacher began in 2006. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law and the School Board’s policies. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent was not the subject of any discipline. She had received overall ratings of “Exceptional” or “Above Expectation” on her teaching evaluation forms. The incidents giving rise to this proceeding occurred on October 18 and 19, 2012, during the 2012-2013 school year. October 18 and 19 Respondent awoke around 6:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 18, 2012, and reported to work at Manatee. That afternoon, Respondent finished her work day at Manatee and left the school sometime after 3:15 p.m. After running some errands, Respondent arrived at her single-family residential home in Fort Pierce, sometime after 5:00 p.m. Respondent shared the home with her long-time boyfriend and fiancé, Dominic Madison (“Madison”). Madison was also a teacher employed by the School Board. At that time, Madison was a band director at a local high school. By the time Respondent got home, Madison had not yet returned home from his work day at the high school. Shortly after arriving home, Respondent sat down at her personal laptop computer to check e-mails and do some work. The computer was connected to the home’s wi-fi network. While working on the computer, Respondent discovered an unfamiliar icon and link to a file on the home network. The icon peaked Respondent’s interest. Upon clicking on the icon, a video opened with Madison’s face. Respondent then observed Madison and a white female engaged in sexual activity in a room inside their home.1/ While Respondent was unsure, it appeared that the female might be a former student of Madison’s who might also be a minor. As she continued watching the video, Respondent recognized the female as one of Madison’s 17-year-old students, K.M. After watching the video, Respondent was devastated, upset, angry, and unable to process what she saw. She called Madison at 6:36 p.m., to confront him about the video and confirm her suspicions that he, in fact, engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. They spoke for approximately 36 minutes. During the call, they argued, and Madison neither admitted nor denied engaging in sexual activity with K.M. By this point, Respondent was in tears and so upset and completely devastated that she experienced chest pains. After getting off the phone with Madison and while still at home, Respondent called her pastor, Theodore Sanders, for guidance. They spoke around 7:13 p.m., for approximately 14 minutes. Pastor Sanders knew Madison because his children had been members of the band at Madison’s high school. Pastor Sanders was shocked by Respondent’s allegation that Madison had engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. Due to the ramifications of such a “huge allegation,” Pastor Sanders was cautious and wanted to make sure that Respondent was certain about what she saw on the video. It is understandable that Respondent needed some period of time in which to process the situation, given that Madison was her fiancé; they had a long relationship together; and she observed Madison on her personal computer engaging in sexual activity with a minor student in their home. Sometime after 7:30 p.m., Respondent left the home. At 7:26 p.m., Respondent and Madison spoke again on the phone for approximately 38 minutes. Respondent and Pastor Sanders spoke again on the phone at 8:03 p.m. and 8:45 p.m., with such calls lasting one minute and 10 minutes, respectively. In the interim, Respondent spoke again on the phone with Madison for 43 minutes starting at 8:03 p.m. As a teacher, Respondent is a mandatory reporter of child abuse under sections 39.201(2)(a) and 1006.061(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent clearly understood that she had a mandatory obligation to report the sexual activity she saw on the video between Madison and K.M.2/ Respondent and Pastor Sanders discussed the need to report what Respondent saw. There was never any doubt that the abuse needed to be reported. Because of Respondent’s distraught emotional state at the time, they agreed that Pastor Sanders would make the call. Pastor Sanders told Respondent to get off the road and go home. Pastor Sanders then called “911” at some point after they got off the phone at 8:55 p.m., to report the abuse. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that there was almost a four-hour gap from when she first saw the video until the time that Pastor Sanders stated he was going to report the abuse. Respondent further acknowledged that prior to 8:55 p.m., she had never made a phone call to report the abuse to 911, DCF, or her principal. However, given that Respondent had just recently seen a video on her personal computer of her fiancé engaged in sexual activity with a minor female student in their home, it was understandable that Respondent needed time to process the situation. A less than four-hour delay from when Respondent first saw the video to Pastor Sanders’ call to 911 was immediate, and not an unreasonable delay given the unique facts of this case. Sometime before 10:00 p.m., Respondent returned to her residence. She saw Madison’s vehicle and assumed he was inside the home. According to Respondent, she knew the police were on their way. Respondent nevertheless entered the home, but she did not approach Madison in any manner. At approximately 10:00 p.m., two St. Lucie County Sheriff’s deputies arrived at the home and rang the doorbell at the front door. Madison answered the door, and was told by one of the deputies that they were there to talk to Respondent. The officer asked Respondent to step outside to speak with them and Madison was directed to step back. Madison then went back inside the home and closed the door behind him. One of the deputies remained at the front porch area while Respondent and the other deputy began to discuss what Respondent had seen on the video. At this point, one of the deputies requested to see the video so Respondent and the deputies proceeded to attempt to go back inside the front door. However, they discovered that Madison had locked the door behind him when he re-entered the home. By this point, no law enforcement officer had explored the perimeter of the home to determine whether there were any other entrances or exists from the home. Nor was Respondent asked by either deputy if there were any other entrances or exits from the home. Respondent began ringing the doorbell and knocking on the front door. In the midst of Respondent ringing the doorbell, knocking on the door, and receiving no response from Madison, the deputies asked Respondent, for the first time, if there were any guns in the home and any other entrances and exits. Respondent advised the deputies that there was a back door. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison had snuck out the back door of the home to elude law enforcement. Respondent gave the deputies permission to enter and search the home. They entered through the open back door. Once the house was cleared by the officers, Respondent and the officers went inside the home. Respondent was cooperative during the search of the home and she consented to allowing the officers to look at the computer. Respondent attempted to show one of the deputies what she saw on the computer, but nothing would come up. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison took the evidence with him when he fled the home. When officers went into the front office and wanted to collect some items belonging to Madison, Respondent told the officers that she would prefer if they got a search warrant. The officers obtained a search warrant and stayed all night searching the home until approximately 5:00 a.m. Respondent did not sleep or eat while the officers were at the home and she was visibly “shaken-up” and crying at times during the evening and early morning hours of October 19. Detective Wentz was at the home and spoke with Respondent throughout the night and early morning of October 19. At some point, Detective Wentz “flat out asked” Respondent if she knew where Madison was located. Respondent responded, indicating she did not know where he fled to. Detective Wentz made it clear to Respondent on multiple occasions during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 that if she knew Madison’s whereabouts, she should let him know. Before he left the home on the morning of October 19, Detective Wentz reiterated to Respondent that she needed to contact law enforcement immediately if she had any information about Madison’s whereabouts. Respondent clearly understood this directive. At no time during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 did Respondent ever volunteer information as to where she thought Madison might be. On the other hand, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not know of Madison’s whereabouts at any time during the evening of October 18 and early hours of October 19 after he fled the home. However, by 11:45 a.m., on October 19, Respondent discovered that Madison might be staying at the local Holiday Inn Express, based on information she received from Madison’s father. Respondent called the front desk of the hotel at 11:47 a.m. and 12:01 p.m., in an effort to confirm that Madison was indeed at the Holiday Inn. Respondent and Madison spoke at 12:09 p.m., at which time Respondent knew Madison was still at the hotel, about to check-out of the hotel. At no time between 11:47 a.m. and 1:39 p.m., did Respondent make any calls to law enforcement to let them know that Madison might be at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz was at Respondent’s home before 1:39 p.m. However, Respondent failed to inform Master Deputy Horowitz that Madison was at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz specifically asked Respondent if she knew where Madison was. Respondent responded, stating that she “did not know where his whereabouts were at the time.” Respondent spoke with Master Deputy Horowitz by telephone on two or three occasions later that afternoon. Respondent’s testimony that she told Master Deputy during one of these telephone conversations that Madison had been at the Holiday Inn is not credited and is rejected as unpersuasive. Later that afternoon, Respondent was transported to the Sheriff’s Office for an interview. During the interview, Respondent admitted she failed to inform law enforcement that Respondent had been staying at the Holiday Inn: DETECTIVE NORMAN: I know you’ve talked to several detectives throughout yesterday evening, last night, this morning, this afternoon. Probably seen more faces that you want to see. Here’s--here’s what we’re trying to figure out, where your fiancé is. Do you know where he is? MISS THOMAS: And I understand that. And like I told the officers that came to the home, it was information that was left out. And it truly was not intentional. I know the way it looked, intentionally, it made me look bad, but I honestly do not know where he is. At the time when I did speak to him, he told me that’s where he was, that he was leaving that location so I haven’t a clue. He hasn’t contacted me since the last time I spoke with him today. * * * And I mean, I’m disappointed because I made a mistake. I did. I omitted something that I didn’t realize at the time and I don’t know if it was, you know, just, you know, just did it just because I guess deep down I was maybe trying--you know, I don’t know why I didn’t say, “Oh yea, by the way this.” I don’t know why. That was so stupid. Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, pp. 5-7. Following the interview, Respondent was placed under arrest and charged with one felony count of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, Florida Statutes, and one felony count of being an accessory after the fact, in violation of section 777.03(1)(c), Florida Statutes. After Respondent was arrested, she was placed on temporary duty assignment at home with pay. On Monday, October 22, Respondent self-reported her arrest and the abuse of K.M. by Madison to her principal and the District. Subsequently, the State Attorney charged Respondent in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for the felony charges of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, and for the felony charge of being an accessory after the fact in violation of section 777.03(1)(c). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not call Madison while he was at the Holiday Inn Express to warn him so that he could elude arrest. Nevertheless, Respondent knew Madison was at the Holiday Inn at least by 12:09 p.m. on October 19, when she spoke to Madison on the telephone. Respondent failed to inform law enforcement that he was at the Holiday Inn, or that he had been at the Holiday Inn, until her interview at the Sheriff’s office later that afternoon just prior to her arrest. After a 23-hour manhunt, law enforcement officers found and arrested Madison at the Holiday Inn Express around 7:00 p.m. Respondent’s delay in informing law enforcement of Madison’s whereabouts or that he had been at the Holiday Inn Express delayed his arrest by at most, approximately seven hours. Notably, the video was discovered by Respondent, reported by Respondent to law enforcement, and Madison was arrested, within the span of approximately 25 or 26 hours. Ultimately, it was Respondent who identified the victims of Madison’s crimes. It was Respondent’s discovery of the video, her immediate reporting of the abuse, and her later identification of the victims, which led to Madison’s arrest and his conviction on all charges. The State Attorney charged Madison in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit with 40 counts of criminal activity: 34 felony charges of sexual activity with a minor; five felony charges of sexual battery on a child in custodial relationship; and one felony charge of using a child in a sexual performance. On April 1, 2016, Madison was adjudicated guilty on five counts of sexual activity with a minor. Madison was sentenced to 15 years, consecutive, for each count. On August 7, 2013, Respondent pled no contest to both charges. On the plea form, Respondent checked section 25, which states: “I specifically believe the plea is in my best interest even though I am innocent of the charge, charges, or violations, or may have defenses to them.” After Madison was adjudicated guilty, all criminal charges against Respondent were Nolle Prossed. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 5.056(2)(d) or (e). The evidence does not establish that Respondent engaged in behavior that disrupted a student’s learning environment or reduced her ability or his or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health. Indeed, Respondent protected students from any further abuse by Madison. Respondent is responsible for Madison’s abuse of K.M. being brought to the attention of law enforcement immediately after she observed the video on her personal computer. Within about four hours after observing her fiancé engaging in sexual activity with a minor on her personal computer and processing the situation and speaking with her pastor, the matter was reported to 911, and law enforcement arrived at Respondent’s home. Madison was at the home when the deputies arrived. Notably, the deputies who arrived at Respondent’s home did not ask to speak with Madison first. Instead, they asked to speak with Respondent, and Respondent was asked to step outside the home. Madison, the alleged perpetrator of the sexual abuse, was ordered by one of the deputies to go back inside the home. Knowing full well that the suspect, Madison, went back inside the home through the front door, neither deputy undertook any efforts to determine whether Madison might have an escape route through another door. A perimeter was not established until after law enforcement officers discovered that Madison had fled the home. Respondent cooperated with law enforcement while they were at her home. She cooperated fully in the prosecution of Madison and she was instrumental in securing Madison’s criminal conviction for the abuse. Given the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s failure to inform law enforcement during the afternoon of October 19 of Madison’s whereabouts at the Holiday Inn, which delayed the arrest of Madison by seven hours, at most, does not rise to the level of conduct sufficient to support a finding of guilt in violation of rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated rule 6B-1.006(3)(n). Respondent reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when Pastor Sanders called 911. She also reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when deputies arrived at her home. Respondent also self-reported the incident to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of immorality in violation of rule 6A-5.056(1). Insufficient credible and persuasive evidence was adduced at hearing to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and that the conduct was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace or bring disrespect to Respondent or the teaching profession and impair Respondent’s service in the community. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 5.37(8)(a). Respondent “directly” reported her knowledge of Madison’s abuse of K.M. as required by the policy when Pastor Sanders called 911 within four hours of Respondent’s view of the video. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b). As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(viii), Respondent did not engage in immoral conduct, nor was it shown that Respondent’s conduct was “indecent.” As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx), the School Board failed to prove that Respondent engaged in off-duty conduct that does not promote the good will and favorable attitude of the public toward the School District, its programs, and policies. In reaching this conclusion, it is notable that the School Board did not call any members of the public or any administrators, teachers, or other personnel as witnesses to support this claim. Moreover, the School Board does not argue in its proposed recommended order that it proved that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). Paragraphs 71 through 73 refer to another specific subdivision within Policy 6.301(3)(b), 6.301(3)(b)(viii). However, there is no specific argument that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.94(2)(a). As detailed above, Respondent reported the abuse when Pastor Sanders called 911. Respondent also reported the incident to the deputies when they arrived at her home shortly after Pastor Sanders called 911, and when she self-reported the abuse to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order rescinding Respondent’s suspension without pay and termination, and reinstate her with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2017.
The Issue The central issue in case no. 92-3138 is whether or not Respondent should be dismissed from his continuing contract as a teacher employed by the Orange County school district. The central issue in case no. 92-6637 is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate no. 427416, covering the areas of driver's education and physical education. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1997. At all times material to this case, Respondent has been employed as a teacher for the Orange County School District. He has been so employed since approximately 1978. In the fall of 1987, Respondent was assigned to Carver where he taught physical education. He remained at Carver until he was relieved of duty on March 26, 1992. Prior to being assigned to Carver, Respondent was employed at Chickasaw Elementary School where he received satisfactory evaluations and did not have any problems with student discipline. After accepting the job at Carver, Respondent became one of four physical education teachers employed there. Respondent faced discipline problems at Carver he had not experienced during his elementary school tenure. Examples of the problems Respondent faced were: students showing disrespect; students teasing (such as name calling); or students being aggressive and argumentative. On March 7, 1989, Respondent received a written reprimand from the Assistant Principal at Carver, Fred Townsend, for inappropriately disciplining a student. The incident cited in the reprimand was directly related to Respondent's class management and the discipline of students. Mr. Townsend's letter instructed the Respondent to adequately supervise students and to use appropriate disciplinary techniques. Mr. Townsend verbally counselled the Respondent concerning appropriate disciplinary techniques. On April 7, 1989, Respondent was involved in an incident with one of the Carver students which resulted in Mr. Townsend issuing Respondent a written directive to refrain from shoving students, and to follow procedures outlined in the Carver Faculty Handbook and the "assertive discipline strategies" when disciplining students. The procedures for disciplining students as outlined in the Carver Faculty Handbook did not permit a teacher to push, shove, or physically discipline a student. Teachers are permitted to use force to intervene to protect students who may be fighting or to protect themselves if attacked. On October 24, 1989, Respondent was directed, in writing and verbally, by a senior manager of employee relations, John Hawco, not to take physical or disciplinary action against students but to follow school and Board rules pertaining to student discipline and control. The directive followed an incident where Respondent allegedly shoved or pushed a student. On or about March 1, 1990, Board staff gave Respondent a letter outlining sources of assistance available through the school system regarding appropriate means to control and discipline students. On March 2, 1990, Respondent received an oral and written directive together with a written letter of reprimand from Mr. Hawco. This written directive was issued after Respondent allegedly used physical force against two students. Such conduct would have been contrary to Mr. Hawco's earlier directive. The March 2, 1990, directive again advised Respondent not to use force or take physical disciplinary action against students. Mr. Hawco's letter urged Respondent to seek assistance and warned Respondent that if he failed to follow the directive, he could be recommended for dismissal. Respondent was also verbally advised at the time he received the March 2, 1990, directive that should similar incidents occur in the future a recommendation could be made for his dismissal. Despite the prior warnings and counselings, during the 1990-1991 school year, John Hawco was called to Carver to investigate several allegations against the Respondent. Such allegations involved inappropriate student discipline. One of the incidents involved a minor male student who allegedly hit the Respondent. In the Respondent's referral to the office, the Respondent stated that the student "hit me in the nose with his fist, so I hit him back". Although the incident caused Mr. Hawco to have concerns about the Respondent, after investigation, the Board took no formal action against the Respondent for this alleged incident. On or about March 13, 1992, the Respondent received a written directive from the Senior Manager of Employee Relations, Alice Tisdell. This directive advised Respondent not to take physical or disciplinary action against students, to exercise appropriate classroom management skills and to follow proper procedures for disciplining students. Ms. Tisdell issued this directive after she was called to investigate allegations that the Respondent continued to physically intervene with students contrary to prior directives to discontinue this type of discipline. On or about March 10, 1992, Ms. Tisdell advised Respondent, verbally and in writing, that should he continue to fail to comply with the directives, appropriate disciplinary action could be taken. Respondent was advised that such disciplinary action could include his dismissal. During the period from 1989 until he was recommended for dismissal in 1992, Respondent was verbally directed by the Carver principal, assistant principals, and Board management, to use appropriate classroom management techniques and to refrain from pushing, shoving, or using force when dealing with students. Despite the oral and written directives, on March 20, 1992, Respondent shoved a student, Johnny Wyatt, into a locker causing minor physical injury to that student. Such act occurred in connection with the discipline of the student, was contrary to the prior directives issued to Respondent, and resulted because Respondent had failed to maintain control of his assigned area. Wyatt is a minor male student at Carver who, at the time of hearing, was in the seventh grade. During the 1991/1992 school year, he was enrolled in Ms. Carry's sixth grade physical education class. The male students in Ms. Carry's class dressed out in the boy's locker room supervised by the Respondent and another male physical education teacher, Dennis Goldsmith. On March 20, 1992, Mr. Goldsmith was absent and Raymond Martin, a permanent substitute employed at Carver, was assigned to cover the locker room with Respondent. When sixth period began, students assembled at their assigned bench seats in order to dress out. Some students began to misbehave by shouting, running around, and engaging in horseplay. On two occasions, the light switches were turned off and on for several seconds. Wyatt came to the sixth period class and sat down after dressing out. With Mr. Martin's permission, he went to the restroom and returned to his seat. The Respondent accused Wyatt of talking. When the student protested that he had not misbehaved, the Respondent grabbed Wyatt by the arm and began to lead him to the locker room office. Wyatt continued to verbally protest while Respondent held his arm. When they reached a row of lockers, the Respondent pushed Wyatt causing his back to strike the lockers. This incident was witnessed from several different vantage points by other students who were in the locker room that day. When the Respondent pushed the student, Wyatt's back struck a metal clasp on the locker and an injury resulted. Contact with the metal clasp caused a one to two inch scrape located just slightly to the right of the student's spine. Approximately eleven months after the incident, a faint scar is still visible. Immediately following the incident, the Respondent ushered Wyatt to the locker room office and Assistant Principal, Richard Vail, was summoned to deal with the students. Mr. Vail arrived five to ten minutes after the beginning of sixth period. Mr. Vail spoke to the students about their misconduct, and sent them on to their respective class groups. Wyatt approached Mr. Vail, showed him the injury to his back, and told him that the Respondent had pushed him into a locker. Mr. Vail asked the student if he wanted to go to the clinic. When Wyatt declined, Mr. Vail sent him on to join his class. When Wyatt arrived at Ms. Carry's class she observed the injury and sent him to the office. Wyatt was subsequently sent to the clinic by Principal Ernest Bradley. When Wyatt went home after school, his parents learned of the incident. The student's father brought him back to school that same day and spoke to Mr. Bradley and the Respondent. Wyatt's parents were upset about the injury. The Respondent denies the incident entirely. He claims that he did not push or shove Wyatt in any way on March 20, 1992, and that he did not learn of the alleged incident until the end of the school day. The credible proof in this case is to the contrary. The Respondent had difficulties controlling the students in his physical education class. Students in his class frequently acted disrespectfully and failed to follow his instructions. Such students challenged Respondent's authority and were disruptive. Because of class rotation, the other physical education teachers had the same students at different times of the year. The other physical education teachers did not experience the difficulties with the frequency or the severity that the Respondent experienced. As a general rule, the students behaved themselves for Mr. Goldsmith, Ms. Pendergrast, and Ms. Carry. Of the four, only Respondent allowed the students to get out of control. Mr. Townsend formally evaluated Respondent during the 1987-88 school year. Mr. Townsend specifically recommended that the Respondent seek help in the areas of student relations and discipline, and that he enroll in workshops for help with management of student conduct. Mr. Townsend formally evaluated the Respondent during the 1988-1989 school year. Mr. Townsend's evaluation rated the Respondent "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the area of Classroom Management and Discipline. Respondent was again advised to enroll in training programs for management and discipline. Mr. Vail observed and evaluated the Respondent during the 1989-1990 school year. Mr. Vail observed the Respondent having difficulties in maintaining control of his class and supervising activities. Mr. Vail suggested methods of improving the structure of the class. He also suggested a different roll-taking method. Mr. Vail's 1989-90 evaluation rated the Respondent as "Needing Improvement" in the area of classroom management and discipline. The Respondent received a "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the areas of subject matter knowledge, planning and student relations. Mr. Vail also gave the Respondent verbal directives to exercise appropriate classroom management. Mr. Vail evaluated the Respondent for the 1991-1992 school year. He observed the Respondent on March 9, 1992, and found several deficiencies with the Respondent's performance. Mr. Vail rated the Respondent as "Needs Improvement" in the areas of classroom management and discipline, planning and delivering instruction, student relations, and professional responsibilities and ethics. Mr. Vail categorized the Respondent as "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the areas of subject matter knowledge, evaluation of instructional needs, and methods and techniques. Throughout his tenure at Carver, the Respondent has been counseled concerning appropriate discipline techniques and given several opportunities to improve. The Respondent's ability to effectively manage the students did not improve. In short, he was unable to keep good order in his classroom. Respondent has received two reprimands and several directives regarding proper discipline of students. Respondent is required to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession of Florida. Further, teachers are expected to adhere to reasonable directives issued to them by their supervisors. The Respondent received numerous verbal and written directives concerning the appropriate discipline and management of student conduct. These directives were reasonable and were within the scope of the school's authority. Despite the directives, the opportunities to improve, and the offers of assistance, the Respondent did not improve in the areas of classroom management and student discipline. The Respondent was warned of the impropriety of physical contact with students, yet subsequently pushed and injured a student. The incident involving Wyatt was in violation of the prior directives, and constituted insubordination and misconduct. The Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Board has been substantially reduced. Despite several attempts to provide Respondent with assistance, he continued to use inappropriate discipline with students. Understandably, school personnel have lost confidence in Respondent's ability to manage a class, to the point where Respondent cannot return to the classroom. Although the Respondent did not intentionally injure Wyatt, his indifference to the situation placed the student in danger. Respondent failed to protect the student from an avoidable injury. Respondent's use of force was unwarranted as the student did not present a harm to others or to the Respondent. Assuming Wyatt was one of the misbehaving students (which the evidence in this case does not support), force would not have been necessary to discipline a talkative student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: As to case no. 92-3138, that the School Board of Orange County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from his employment with the district. As to case no. 92-6637, that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order placing the Respondent on probation for a period of not less than three years, requiring Respondent to successfully complete some remedial course of instruction related to class management and discipline of students, and to receive a letter of reprimand for the conduct established by this record. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish 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 27th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3138 and 92-6637 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Orange County School Board: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1 through 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18 through 33, 36 through 43, 45, 46, and 48. Paragraph 8 is accepted with the deletion of the last sentence which is not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that Respondent received the directive noted otherwise rejected and not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. With regard to paragraph 11, it is accepted Respondent was adequately apprised of the consequences should his conduct continue; it is not accepted that such warning was in the form of a formal reprimand. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of the last sentence which is rejected as irrelevant, paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 47 is rejected as vague or argument. Paragraphs 49 through 52 are rejected as argument or irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner, Betty Castor: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1, 3 through 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23 through 32, 34 through 38, 41 through 45, and 47. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 11 is not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of the last sentence of the paragraph which is rejected as irrelevant, paragraph 19 is accepted. With the deletion of the word "severely" which is rejected as vague or argumentative or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 40 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or vague. Paragraphs 48 through 51 are rejected as argument or irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 17, 21 and 22. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Respondent voluntarily accepted the position at Carver and was expected to fulfill his teaching responsibilities at that school. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence especially as to allegations that he "rarely reacted physically". The last sentence is accepted as accurate. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant; the discipline options available to Respondent did not include using force. Paragraph 9 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that Respondent was offered courses to improve and that he may have attended same, he just didn't comply with the directives or improve his skills either through indifference or otherwise. With regard to paragraph 11, it is accepted Respondent received a reprimand on the date in question for inappropriate discipline techniques; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 12, it is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. With the deletion of the last sentence which is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is rejected as repetitive, argumentative, or irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 18 to the extent that it suggests Respondent's action was in self-defense is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and otherwise rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as unnecessary comment. Paragraph 20 is rejected contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, argumentative, or irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Wyatt's account of the incident at the hearing has been deemed credible and wholly accurate as to the incident that transpired in the locker room that date. Respondent's account, on the other hand, was not. Paragraph 25 is rejected argumentative and contrary to the weight of credible evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 26 is accepted; the remainder rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 27 is rejected as speculative, irrelevant, or argumentative. With regard to paragraph 28, it is accepted that Respondent did not use inappropriate language; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. With the clarification that Wyatt did scrape his back on the locker and the rejection of the "allegedly" comment which is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 29 is accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argumentative and irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 32 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted to the extent is identifies Wyatt as the student injured by Respondent on March 20, 1992; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe Lev, Esq. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802-2231 Roseanna J. Lee, Esq. Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esq. HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN 390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801 Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esq. Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde, Exec. Dir. 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald Shaw, Superintendent Orange County Shool Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
The Issue Whether the Petitioner demonstrated just cause for the dismissal of the Respondent from employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact In a Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed to the following facts: At all times material hereto, Respondent, Marlon J. Pearce was employed by Petitioner as a school teacher within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, assigned to Lawton Chiles Middle School. Respondent was employed by Petitioner pursuant to the Contract between the Miami- Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, and subject to the rules and regulations of the State Board of Education and of the School Board in accordance with § 1012.33(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to § 4(b) of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida and § 1001.32(2), Fla. Stat. (2002). On November 5, 2000, a conference-for- record (CFR) was held with the Respondent by the principal at North Glade Elementary School. On March 7, 2001, another CFR was held with the Respondent by the principal at North Glade Elementary School. On March 15, 2002, a CFR was held with the Respondent at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. On May 28, 2002, a meeting was held with the Respondent at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. At its regularly scheduled meeting of June 19, 2002, the School Board took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against the Respondent. John Schoeck is currently and for the last two years has been the Principal of North Hialeah Elementary School. For the preceding five years, he was the Principal at North Glade Elementary School. While at North Glade, Mr. Schoeck hired the Respondent, Mr. Pearce, to teach physical education. (Tr. 13) After a November 5, 2000, conference-for-record (CFR) with Mr. Pearce, Mr. Schoeck issued certain directives to Mr. Pearce. Among those directives were the requirement for professional conduct with parents, students and staff, and prohibitions on using profanity, on making verbal or physical threats to parents, students or staff members, and on having verbal or physical confrontations with coworkers. (Tr. 18, 208- 209, P-6) Mr. Schoeck also referred Mr. Pearce to the Employee Assistance Program based on interpersonal behavior observed on the job. (Tr. 9, P-5) An allegation that the Respondent hit a student in the back with his fist was unsubstantiated, in March 2001. The Respondent testified that the student was loud, easily influenced and had an attitude. (Tr. 185) Another student at North Glade Elementary School became involved in a rock-throwing incident with the Respondent. The Respondent described the student as defiant. He testified that after the student threw a rock and hit him, he grabbed her arm to make eye contact, but after she "started going wild and shaking," he let her go and she fell to the ground. There was testimony that her shirt was torn when she reached the principal's office, but the Respondent denied that it was ripped when she left him. (Tr. 186-188, 212-213) On March 7, 2001, Mr. Schoeck held another CFR with Mr. Pearce, as a result of certain allegations by a student and his mother that Mr. Pearce called the student a "punk." Mr. Schoeck found Mr. Pearce insubordinate and reiterated the directives issued after the November conference. (Tr. 24-25, 209-210, 215-216, P-9) The Miami-Dade Schools Police Department ("the school's police") investigated several students' complaints alleging that Respondent had subjected them to corporal punishment. The police found the complaints to be unsubstantiated. Each time there was an incident, the Respondent was reminded of the School Board's policy prohibiting corporal punishment. (Tr. 32-33) Late in the 2000-2001 school year, the Respondent was reassigned to the region office and, subsequently, for the 2001- 2002 school year to Lawton Chiles Middle School (Tr. 33 and Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation) On November 7, 2001, a charge of verbal abuse, for calling a student "stupid," was substantiated against the Respondent. (Tr. 219, P-17) The Respondent testified that what he said was "stop acting stupid" because the student was loud and saying she knew why he had been fired from his other job and was quoting the Bible. (Tr. 197-198) He also said that, in the heat of the moment, he also called her stupid. (Tr. 200) On November 8, 2001, the Respondent violated the School Board policy against "unseemly conduct, or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace," by using the word "nigga." (Tr. 60-67 and P-16) The Respondent testified that the racial slur was made "under his breath" and not intended to be heard by students. He testified that what he said was "you're going to drive a nigga crazy," and that the comment was directed to himself, not the student. (Tr. 195) The Respondent testified that he told a student "If I was your dad, I would ring your neck," because the student was disruptive, defiant and not following directions. (Tr. 195-196, 218-219) In December 2001, a student was playing with a toilet valve and water was squirting out on the floor in the boys' locker room. After the student left the stall and walked over towards him, the Respondent grabbed him by the neck and shoved him. After an investigation by the school's police, the charge was found to be substantiated. (Tr. 69-88, 113-117 and P-18) The Respondent testified that he grabbed the student's shoulder but did not push him. (Tr. 201-202) Although the student had stopped spraying water at the time he confronted him, the Respondent considered his intervention appropriate because the wet floor created a safety concern. (Tr. 205, 214-215, 217-218) At the same time, other students began slamming locker doors in the locker room. The Respondent called the students involved "a bunch of assholes," and said "If you do this one more time, I could lose my job for hurting you." (Tr. 69-88, 113-117 and P-18) About the same time, the Assistant Principal at Lawton Chiles Middle School, Alberto Iber, received a complaint from the parents of another student. While he was playing with an injured student's aluminum walker, the Respondent grabbed him to try to retrieve the walker and pushed him to the ground. He also said to the student "fuck you." Charges of corporal punishment and the use of profanity were substantiated. (Tr. 93-112 and P-19) The Respondent admitted that he pulled the student down after saying "This is going to be the final time I ask you to sit down." (Tr. 204) He said he used the "f" word under his voice. (Tr. 205) When the Respondent was first assigned to Lawton Chiles Middle School, the Principal, Karen Robinson met with him to discuss the previous incidents at North Glade Elementary School and to discuss expectations that he would abide by the School Board's rules. Each time there was an incident involving the Respondent, Ms. Robinson called the District's Professional Standards Office which referred the matters to the school's police to conduct the personnel investigations. (Tr. 119-133, 219-220) After the fourth personnel investigation at Lawton Chiles Middle School, Ms. Robinson contacted the personnel director for the region. She was concerned that the incidents involving the Respondent were escalating from inappropriate verbal to more serious physical interactions with students. As a result, she recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. (Tr. 135-136 and P-21) Barbara Moss, the District Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, agreed with Ms. Robinson's and the region personnel director's recommendations to terminate the Respondent's employment. (Tr. 164-165, P-22 and 23) Ms. Moss, in turn, recommended that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment. She met with Respondent to notify him of the proposed action. (Tr. 165-166) The Superintendent of Schools also recommended that the School Board take action to terminate Respondent's employment and notified the Respondent of that recommendation. (P-24 and 25) The Superintendent also notified the Respondent when the School Board, at its meeting on June 19, 2002, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against him for misconduct in office, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4.108, on Violence in the Workplace; 6Gx13-4A-1.21, on Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment - Prohibited. Notice of the availability of an administrative hearing to contest the action was also included. (P-24 through 26)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay on June 19, 2002, terminating Respondent's employment, and denying the Respondent back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 2nd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merritt R. Stierhelm, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Luis M. Garcia, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade - Law Department 2200 Biscayne Boulevard, 5th Floor Miami, Florida 33137
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, whether those offenses constitute just cause to terminate his employment with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The School Board employed Respondent as a BIA during portions of the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 school years. Respondent is not a member of a collective bargaining unit, and the terms of his employment are not subject to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Respondent was an educational support employee within the meaning of Section 231.3605(1)(a), Florida Statutes. 1/ Respondent attended the School Board's new employee orientation on October 12, 1999. As part of the orientation, a film was presented and a discussion held on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. The School Board's sexual harassment policy and its import were discussed at the orientation session. The School Board's Policy 3.19 deals in part with sexual harassment on the job. The policy includes a definition of sexual harassment, prohibits employees from engaging in sexual harassment, and provides that employees found to have engaged in sexual harassment would be disciplined and could lose his or her job. The School Board's Policy 3.19 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Sexual harassment is strictly prohibited. Sexual harassment has been defined as "unwelcome" sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, written conduct of a sexual nature when: * * * c. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the individual's work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Examples of sexual harassment may include but are not limited to the following: Gestures, letters, notes, invitations, comments, slurs, jokes, or epithets that are suggestive, derogatory, or obscene. * * * d. Continuing to express sexual interest after being informed that the interest is unwelcome. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Respondent was aware of the School Board's policy prohibiting sexual harassment. Respondent's first job assignment as a BIA was at Indian Ridge Center School (Indian Ridge) in the fall of the school year 1999-2000. At Indian Ridge, Respondent worked with teachers to diffuse crises resulting from student misbehavior and worked with students to improve their social skills. Shortly after arriving at the school, Respondent made lewd comments of a sexual nature to Kathy Petrillo, a middle school teacher. He made comments about her body and asked her to go out with and have sex with him. Ms. Petrillo repeatedly told Respondent that she was not interested in him. Despite her efforts to rebuff Respondent, he continued to make inappropriate comments and gestures with sexual overtones to Ms. Petrillo. Ms. Petrillo complained to William Basil, the Assistant Principal of Indian Ridge, about Respondent's inappropriate interaction with her and with other female members of the school staff. During the fall of 1999, Respondent also made inappropriate comments and gestures with sexual overtones to Marlow Belkin, a female teacher at Indian Ridge. Ms. Belkin told Respondent that she had a boyfriend and was not interested in him, but he persisted with inappropriate and unwelcome comments. Respondent's conduct made Ms. Belkin feel very uncomfortable. Ms. Belkin was informed by students that Respondent had a "crush" on her. When she passed Respondent in the hallway, he stared at her. Ms. Belkin complained to Mr. Basil about Respondent's conduct. Ms. Belkin made it clear to Mr. Basil and to Respondent that she wanted no involvement with Respondent. After her complaint to Mr. Basil, Respondent's inappropriate conduct towards her stopped for a while. However, on Valentine's Day, in February of 2000, Respondent sent to Ms. Belkin a vase of carnations. Ms. Belkin refused the flowers after she learned that Respondent had sent them and wrote Respondent a letter, with a copy to Mr. Basil, advising Respondent she wanted no further personal advances from him. While there were no further personal advances from Respondent, he would leer at Ms. Belkin whenever he saw her. Derrilyn Cerbone-Kreling, a female physical education teacher at Indian Ridge, met Respondent for the first time when he began working at her school. Shortly after his arrival, Respondent asked Ms. Cerbone-Kreling if she would like to kiss him, touch him, feel his biceps, and have sex with him. Additionally, when Respondent went to the school's gym to interact with the kids, Respondent displayed his body, lifted up his shirt, and asked Ms. Cerbone-Kreling to be physical with him. Respondent's behavior was consistent towards Ms. Cerbone- Kreling throughout the fall of 1999. Ms. Cerbone-Kreling complained to Mr. Basil about Respondent's conduct. In response to complaints about Respondent's conduct, Mr. Basil advised Respondent in November 1999 that he had to be professional while working at all times and that he must stop making passes towards female co-workers. Mr. Basil received another complaint concerning Respondent's conduct towards female employees in December of 1999. Mr. Basil spoke to Respondent about the allegations and advised him the situation needed to be taken very seriously. He also gave Respondent a written memorandum dated December 21, 1999. In the memorandum, Mr. Basil advised Respondent of the most recent allegations of sexual harassment and also referenced the earlier conversation they had in November concerning the same issue. Mr. Basil specifically referenced the new employee orientation attended by Respondent and the need to maintain a safe and nondiscriminatory working environment. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the memorandum, but provided no other response. On or about May 4, 2000, a professional standards investigation was initiated concerning Respondent, based in part on allegations he had made inappropriate comments towards female employees at Indian Ridge earlier in the school year. Raymond T. Miller, a personnel compliance administrator with professional standards, conducted an investigation of the allegations. On May 18, 2000, Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay and assigned to his home. After Mr. Miller completed his investigation, a committee of senior administrators reviewed the record of the investigation, including written statements from various witnesses. The committee determined that probable cause existed to sustain the allegations and recommended to the School Board that Respondent's employment be suspended for ten days without pay. The School Board rejected the recommendation as being too lenient. The committee ultimately recommended a 15-day suspension, which the School Board accepted. Respondent served the 15-day suspension, beginning in September 2000, without filing a grievance or any other appeal. Subsequent to serving the 15-day suspension, Respondent was transferred to Seminole Trails Elementary School (Seminole Trails). He began working there as a BIA in October 2000. Shortly after arriving at Seminole Trails, Respondent met Tabitha Lindor, a female School Board employee who worked as a Creole Language Facilitator. Respondent, who had not previously met Ms. Lindor, approached her in the teachers' dining room and made inappropriate comments and gestures about her body. Ms. Lindor was offended by Respondent's comments and gestures and immediately complained to the Assistant Principal and Principal. Respondent's inappropriate comments and gestures towards Ms. Lindor constituted sexual harassment. Madeline Vega also worked at Seminole Trails in October of 2000. She was employed as an attendance clerk, and met Respondent soon after he was transferred there. Respondent made passes at Ms. Vega including asking her to go out with him. Respondent made inappropriate comments about her body and made inappropriate gestures to her. Ms. Vega did not welcome or encourage Respondent's comments and gestures, and she repeatedly told Respondent she would not go out with him. Despite those rebuffs, Respondent's inappropriate conduct towards Ms. Vega continued. Respondent's inappropriate comments and gestures towards Ms. Vega constituted sexual harassment. Following an investigation and recommendation from the management committee that reviewed the investigative report, Superintendent Benjamin Marlin recommended to the School Board at its meeting of December 6, 2000, that Respondent's employment be suspended and terminated, subject to Respondent's right to request a formal administrative hearing. Superintendent Marlin, on behalf of the School Board, filed the Administrative Complaint that underpins this proceeding on December 22, 2000. The School Board's Policy 3.27 pertains to the procedures to be followed in the suspension and dismissal of employees. Those procedures were followed in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2001.
