Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is the public agency authorized by Florida law to administer the Pinellas County School District. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was employed as a continuing contract teacher by the School Board. Respondent began his employment with the School Board on August 25, 1980. During the period August, 1980 through 1985, Respondent was assigned to Lealman E1ementary School where he taught physical education. While at Lealman, the Respondent received several complaints related to his treatment of students. Administrators made Respondent aware of the complaints which alleged Respondent had inappropriately touched the young children and, in some instances, left bruises. Respondent did not agree that he had intentionally injured the students, but he did acknowledge that he had touched the children and that they did have bruises. As a result of the complaints, Respondent agreed to transfer to a school with older students. Consequently, Respondent was assigned to Osceola Middle School where he was again directed to teach physical education. Respondent was counseled regarding the inappropriate touching of students and was directed to refrain from physical contact of a punitive or aggressive nature. Respondent remained at Osceola from 1985 until 1990. Additionally, Respondent was given several verbal and written directives regarding the touching of students. In 1985, Respondent received a formal letter of reprimand from the superintendent for touching students aggressively or too roughly. In 1989, Respondent became involved in a physical confrontation with a student named Dwight Firby. The Firby child was a disruptive student who had an explosive temper. On one occasion, Respondent confronted Firby in the locker room with regard to an accusation that Firby had stolen another student's tennis shoes. Firby denied the allegations but became verbally abusive to the Respondent. One word led to another and Firby grabbed Respondent by the shirt in a combative manner. At that point, Respondent seized the student's arms and, when he refused to let go of Respondent's shirt, Respondent forced Firby's head downward to the bench. When Firby let go of the Respondent's shirt (he could no longer hold on given the position in which Respondent had him restrained), Respondent led the student into the office and physically detained him there. The incident described in paragraph 9 was reported to the school administrators and investigated by appropriate authorities. As a result, Respondent was given, and accepted without formal protest, a three day suspension. Respondent was again specifically directed that he should not touch students in an inappropriate manner. Moreover, Respondent was advised that he was not to administer punitive touching of any type. When Respondent returned from his suspension, he asserted at a faculty meeting that his conduct in the Firby incident had been appropriate and that given the same circumstances, he would repeat his actions. Respondent was again advised that such conduct would not be acceptable and would be deemed contrary to school policy. On or about June 5, 1990, a second incident with Respondent and a student occurred. The student, Jason Wright, was in Respondent's office and, contrary to Respondent's instruction, took a basketball and passed it to another student outside in the adjacent gym area. Respondent attempted to intercept the pass but instead shoved the student in the back causing him to exit the office abruptly. Wright then mumbled something disrespectful and voiced that he did not want Respondent to touch him again. Respondent followed Wright out into the gym and confronted him regarding what he had said. Wright repeated that he did not want Respondent to touch him and the situation escalated when Respondent placed his hands on Wright. The student shoved Respondent's hands away and the discussion became an exchange of profanities with both individuals making improper comments. During the course of this verbal exchange Respondent mimicked Wright's manner of speech and made a derogatory comment regarding Wright's mother. Both of these comments incensed Wright and provoked additional action from the student. At one point, Wright shoved the Respondent aggressively. Following physical contact from Wright, Respondent wrapped his arms around Wright, picked him up, carried him approximately twenty feet to the office, and was in the process of putting him in the office when he tripped over the threshold and fell headlong onto Wright. Fortunately, Respondent was able to break his fall so that the majority of his weight did not rest on the student. As a result of the foregoing, Wright sustained only slight scratches. More important, however, was the fact that the foregoing incident was witnessed by many students. Wright was embarrassed first by the Respondent's mimicking of his speech (which is slightly impaired) and then secondly by being carried across the gym floor as described. Respondent's conduct in connection with Jason Wright was not justified given the circumstances of the situation. Respondent did not need to pick the student up and certainly should not have carried him anywhere. Why he chose to act as he did cannot be justified by the situation. Another touching incident between Respondent and a student, Bill Alleman, also occurred on June 5, 1990. In this case, Respondent grabbed Alleman by his ear, earring, hair, and jacket and forced the student to walk with him to another area of the gym. Once at that location, Respondent ordered Alleman to pick up a piece of paper on the floor. Alleman did not know why Respondent required him to pick up the paper, did not understand why Respondent had grabbed him as described to force him to perform the task, and as a result of the touching was embarrassed and apprehensive. While Alleman did not suffer an injury from the touching, his ear was tender from the act. More important, Alleman was distressed by Respondent's act since he had not provoked the incident and did not understand Respondent's use of force. Respondent's actions with Allemen were not justified given the circumstances of the situation. At all times material to this case, the School Board had policies which defined standards for physical contact between teachers and students. Except for corporal punishment, teachers were prohibited from touching students in a punitive or otherwise inappropriate fashion. Teachers may use reasonable force against a student in situations where the teacher must protect himself, protect another, or protect property but only when other alternatives are either exhausted or unavailable. In this case, Respondent had other alternatives available to him in connection with the students Alleman and Wright. Neither of those incidents required the touching which Respondent chose to exhibit. Prior to June 5, 1990, Respondent was counseled about inappropriate touching and was aware of the School Board policy described above. The School Board utilizes a progressive discipline policy. The Respondent has been frequently reminded about the policy of not touching students, has received verbal and written warnings regarding past conduct, and has had a suspension for similar conduct. As a teacher, Respondent is expected to conduct himself in accordance with school policies and is required to set the example for his students. The effectiveness of a teacher is impaired when he repeatedly fails to abide by policies and exposes students to inappropriate behaviors. Because he has failed to follow reasonable directives and has subjected students to inappropriate touchings and embarrassment, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher with the Pinellas County School District has been significantly impaired.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida, enter a final order dismissing Respondent from his employment with the public school district. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-4714 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraph 1 is accepted. With regard to Respondent's status as a continuing contract teacher, no issues have been raised as to whether, procedurally, Petitioner has complied with all statutory or contractual obligations regarding tiie ter~nination of Respondent's employment; consequently, such issues have not been addressed by the hearing officer. Paragraph 2 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraphs 3 through 9 are accepted. Paragraph 10 is rejected as repetitive or unnecessary. Paragraph 11 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 12 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 13 is accepted. The remainder of that paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. The fact that Respondent was counseled and placed on notice of the types of touchings which would be deemed inappropriate has been established; no conclusion as to whether Respondent actually committed offenses at Lealman is made--the perception was that such acts had occurred and Respondent accepted that he had an obligation to refrain from future improper touchings. Paragraphs 14 and 15 are accepted. With the deletion of the final phrase "and such conduct can and has increased the school district's exposure to civil liability" which is rejected as irrelevant, paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraph 18 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 19, it is accepted that Respondent acted inappropriately with regard to the incidents involving Firby, Alleman, and Wright, otherwise rejected as repetitive or irrelevant. Paragraphs 20 and 21 are accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 24, it is accepted that Respondent has acknowledged that others have perceived that his actions resulted in harm; however, Respondent has not, and this record does not establish, an admission on Respondent's part of such conduct. In fact, Respondent's unwillingness to accept criticism and alter his behavior has been instrumental in his continued refusal to abide by school policy. Paragraphs 25 through 28 are rejected as irrelevant or repetitive. With regard to paragraphs 29 through 44, to the extent the proposed findings are addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 12 through 17 they are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, repetitive, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. With regard to paragraphs 45 through 51, to the extent the proposed findings are addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 18 through 20 they are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, repetitive, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraphs 52, 53, 57, 58, 60, 64, and 65 are accepted. Paragraphs 54, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, and 66 are rejected as irrelevant, speculative, unsupported by the weight of the evidence, repetitive, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. With regard to the Firby incident, it is sufficient for the purposes of this case that Respondent inappropriately touched the student, was reprimanded for that act, and has showed little interest in refraining from similar types of conduct. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: Respondent filed a post-hearing brief which has been reviewed but which was not in a form to allow specific rulings on proposed facts, consequently, none are addressed here. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee KELLY & McKEE, P.A. 1724 East Seventh Avenue P.O. Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Robert G. Walker, Jr. 250 N. Belcher Road, Suite 101 Clearwater, Florida 34625 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Superintendent of Pinellas County School District P.O. Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518
The Issue The first issue in this case is whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher abused, mistreated, or otherwise behaved inappropriately towards one of his special-needs students; if the allegations of wrongdoing are proved to be true, then it will be necessary to decide whether the school board has just cause to terminate the teacher's employment.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Edouard Jean ("Jean") was employed as an Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher in the Broward County public schools, a position which he had held for the preceding 16 years. During that period, Jean taught students with disabilities, who typically receive specially designed instruction and related services pursuant to individual educational plans. Ahead of the 2013-14 school year, Jean was transferred to Crystal Lake Middle School, where he had not previously worked. He was placed in an "SVE" class and assigned to teach ESE students having "varying exceptionalities." Jean's class contained a mix of high- and low-functioning students, about nine in number. Jean's colleague, Ray Montalbano, taught a similar SVE class in a nearby room. At the beginning of the school year, the two ESE teachers agreed to share responsibility for their respective students under an arrangement that separated the higher functioning students from the lower functioning students. Jean and Mr. Montalbano took turns teaching the two groups, exchanging one for the other at midday. In this way, each teacher spent roughly equal time with the respective sets of students. For the last hour of the day, they combined the two groups and jointly instructed the approximately 18 students in Mr. Montalbano's classroom, which was larger. There were two paraprofessionals, or teacher's assistants, working in Jean and Mr. Montalbano's SVE classes. One, named Lisa Phillips, was assigned to both teachers; she alternated between their classrooms during the day. The other, Donna Rollins, was assigned to Mr. Montalbano's class, where Jean spent an hour each afternoon. In view of the cooperative arrangement between Jean and Mr. Montalbano, both of the teacher's assistants regularly worked in the same classroom as Jean and assisted with the provision of instruction and services to the 18 students for whom Jean and Mr. Montalbano were responsible. On October 15, 2013, Jean was removed from his classroom and informed that he was the target of a criminal investigation arising from allegations that he recently had abused one of his pupils, a 13-year-old boy with Down Syndrome named Z.P., who was among the lower functioning students. Jean's accuser was an occupational therapist named Lisa Taormina, who at all relevant times worked as an independent contractor for the School Board, providing services to students at various public schools in Broward County. Jean consistently has denied Ms. Taormina's allegations, which shocked and surprised him. Ms. Taormina, who that year was seeing students at Crystal Lake Middle School once per week each Friday, reported having observed Jean mistreat Z.P. on October 4, 2013, and again on October 11, 2013. Ms. Taormina claimed that the alleged events of October 4 took place in Jean's classroom with Ms. Phillips in attendance. The alleged events of October 11, in contrast, purportedly took place in Mr. Montalbano's classroom during the hour when the two SVE classes were combined. Thus, the alleged abuse supposedly occurred in the presence of Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and a substitute teacher named Shirley Ashcroft who happened to be there that day. Ms. Taormina's allegations were investigated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office and the Broward District Schools Police Department. During these investigations, neither Z.P. nor any of the other students were interviewed, because most of them (including Z.P.) are either nonverbal or too intellectually limited to be reliable witnesses.1/ All of the adults were questioned, however, and none of them corroborated Ms. Taormina's allegations. Unsurprisingly, therefore, no criminal charges were brought against Jean. On the strength of Ms. Taormina's allegations, the School Board nevertheless determined that Jean had abused Z.P. and thus should be fired. As it happens, Ms. Taormina's final hearing testimony is the only direct evidence against Jean, whose colleagues Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and Ms. Ashcroft, to a person, credibly denied under oath having ever seen him mistreat Z.P. or any other student. The outcome of this case, therefore, depends on whether Ms. Taormina's testimony is believed likely to be an accurate account of the relevant historical events. In assessing Ms. Taormina's credibility, the undersigned finds it especially significant that Jean's co- workers, who were able to observe him for extended periods of time on a daily basis in the classroom, never witnessed him engage in any troubling or suspicious behavior during the roughly seven weeks he taught at Crystal Lake Middle School; to the contrary, everyone who testified (except Ms. Taormina) who had seen Jean in the classroom praised his performance generally, and his relationship with Z.P. in particular. The undersigned credits the consistent, mutually corroborative, and overwhelmingly favorable testimony about Jean's exemplary conduct. Because an isolated incident, however out of character, can be squared with evidence of otherwise superlative performance, the fact that Jean was well regarded by the employees with whom he closely worked does not exclude the possibility that Jean abused Z.P., but it does diminish the likelihood that he could have abused Z.P. on multiple occasions. For that reason, if Ms. Taormina claimed only to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P. once, her testimony likely would have been more believable. Ms. Taormina claims, however, to have seen Jean abuse Z.P. on two separate days——on consecutive weekly visits to the school, no less. If Ms. Taormina is to be believed, Jean's alleged abuse of Z.P. was not an isolated incident but was rather, if not necessarily part of a pattern of behavior, at least something Jean was capable of repeating. Here it bears emphasizing that Ms. Taormina saw Jean, at most, once per week for relatively brief periods of less than 30 minutes apiece. Within the context of this limited contact, Ms. Taormina (if she is believed) happened to witness Jean abuse Z.P. on back-to-back visits, while Jean's colleagues, who saw him every workday, never noticed anything amiss. Logically, there are, broadly speaking, two possible explanations for this anomalous situation. First, Jean might have abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was present in the classroom, which would explain why no one else ever saw him mistreat the student, so long as the failure of the four other adults in the room on October 11 to witness the alleged misconduct——a lack of attentiveness that defies reasonable expectations——is overlooked. Given that Ms. Taormina's brief weekly visits comprised such a tiny percentage of Jean's total time with the students, however, to abuse Z.P. only in her presence probably would have required Jean to act according to a plan, which beggars belief;2/ otherwise, Ms. Taormina's presence at the very moments that all such abuse occurred was a most remarkable coincidence. At any rate, while the probability that Jean abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was around to witness his misdeeds is perhaps greater than zero percent, the undersigned regards this explanation as far too implausible to be considered likely. Alternatively, and likelier, Jean might have abused Z.P. not only in Ms. Taormina's presence, but also in her absence. Because Ms. Taormina is the only person who has ever claimed to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P., however, to accept this explanation requires believing that Jean's co-workers never saw him abusing Z.P., or that everyone who witnessed such abuse except Ms. Taormina resolved not to report it.3/ Yet both situations are unworthy of belief. More likely than not, if Jean were abusing Z.P. at times when Ms. Taormina was not in the room, which was most of the time, then at some point over the course of seven weeks Mr. Montalbano or one of the paraprofessionals would have noticed something wrong4/——and none of them did, as found above. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine——and impossible reasonably to infer in the absence of any supporting evidence——that another teacher or paraprofessional, or some combination of these employees, would fail to report suspected child abuse and lie under oath to protect Jean. In any event, the undersigned has found that Jean's fellow employees never saw Jean abuse Z.P., which means that, in all likelihood, Jean did not abuse Z.P. when Ms. Taormina was not in the room. In sum, it is unlikely that Jean repeatedly abused Z.P. only in Ms. Taormina's presence; and yet, it is unlikely that Jean ever abused Z.P. during the vast majority of the time when Ms. Taormina was not in the room (but another adult or adults typically were). Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Jean likely never abused Z.P. at all, contrary to Ms. Taormina's allegations. The foregoing reasons are sufficient for the undersigned to reject Ms. Taormina's testimony as ultimately unpersuasive and to find that the School Board has failed to prove its allegations against Jean. Nevertheless, Ms. Taormina was a good witness in many respects. Her story has been consistent, her recollection seemingly clear, her testimony vivid and detailed. Ms. Taormina is articulate and her demeanor at hearing suggested sincerity. She had barely known Jean before the events at issue and was not shown to have had grounds to dislike him or any other motive for damaging him with false allegations of misconduct. Thus, while not necessary to the disposition, it is desirable to examine Ms. Taormina's specific accusations in greater detail. Ms. Taormina claims that on October 4, 2013, while Z.P. was lying on his back on the floor, Jean spun Z.P. around, using the student's legs as a handle for twirling the boy's body. Then, she says, Jean tapped Z.P. with a ruler to prod him into getting up from the floor. Z.P. refused to rise, and Jean resumed spinning the student. Ms. Taormina recognized that Jean and Z.P. were "playing around" and concluded nothing "abusive" had occurred, but she deemed Jean's conduct "inappropriate." As mentioned, Z.P. is cognitively limited in consequence of Down syndrome. He was also, at the time of the events at issue, aggressive, sometimes mean and abusive towards teachers, including Jean, and known to bite, scratch, kick, and spit on others. Z.P., who was a big boy, could be difficult to redirect. By October 2013, however, Jean had established a rapport with Z.P. The student liked his teacher, and Jean and Z.P. would play with each other. One activity that they enjoyed entailed Jean spinning Z.P. around——which is what Ms. Taormina observed. Except for Ms. Taormina, no one who witnessed Jean playfully spinning Z.P.——which Jean admits doing——considered this activity to be inappropriate. There is no persuasive evidence in the record establishing an objective standard of conduct that Jean might have violated when he played with Z.P. in this manner. Striking Z.P. with a ruler would be another matter, of course. Jean denies ever having done that, however, and no one but Ms. Taormina claims to have observed Jean misbehave in such fashion. The undersigned finds, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean did not hit Z.P. with a ruler on October 4, 2013, as alleged, but rather tapped the floor with it, as he testified. According to Ms. Taormina, Jean's conduct the following week, on October 11, was worse. She testified that, upon arriving in the classroom, she noticed that Jean's fingers were resting on the back of Z.P.'s neck as he (Jean) moved the student around. To Ms. Taormina, "it looked . . . like [Jean] was searching for, like, a pressure point or tender point . . . ." In fact, Jean was not searching for a pressure point, and he did not dig his fingers into a tender spot on Z.P.'s neck, which explains why no one (including Ms. Taormina) saw or heard the student cry out or grimace in pain. The undersigned credits Jean's testimony that he touched Z.P.'s back and shoulders to guide or comfort him, not to hurt him. Ms. Taormina asserted that after putting his fingers on the back of Z.P.'s neck, Jean gave Z.P. a "violent shaking" which caused Z.P.'s head to rock up and down ("just flapping back and forth") so fast that Z.P.'s features were an unrecognizable blur, but only for "just a few seconds." Somewhat incongruously, however, she characterized this "mockery" as being "more, like, playing" and noted that Jean, who was smiling, did not appear to be acting out of anger. The behavior that Ms. Taormina recounted is indeed disturbing. Yet some of the details seem a bit off. For example, although no expert testimony was presented, the undersigned's rudimentary understanding of simple biomechanics makes him think that violently shaking a passive or helpless person so hard that his features become blurry (assuming this could be accomplished in just a few seconds' time) would cause the victim's dangling head, not to flap up and down (rapidly nodding), as Ms. Taormina described, but to rotate uncontrollably. The undersigned finds it difficult, too, to imagine that such abuse could ever look "like playing." Moreover, it seems peculiar, given the number of adults in the room, that Ms. Taormina did not immediately intervene or speak up to protect Z.P., if Jean were harming the student as she has stated. More important, it is likely that a vigorous physical battery such as the attack on Z.P. that Ms. Taormina recalls would have caused a considerable commotion. And yet, even though there were four other adults in the room besides Jean and Ms. Taormina, no one but the occupational therapist noticed Jean inflicting this alleged abuse. The undersigned cannot find, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean violently shook Z.P. as alleged. This incident, therefore, was not proved. After Jean allegedly shook Z.P., according to Ms. Taormina, the student climbed up on a table, where he proceeded to eat a banana. Ms. Taormina testified that all of the students and adults in the room (except her) laughed at Z.P. when someone exclaimed that he looked like a monkey. She said that Jean then led Z.P. to a garbage can and made him spit out the piece of banana in his mouth. When Z.P. got down on the floor afterwards, said Ms. Taormina, Jean hit the student with a broom to compel him to stand and, having no success with that, lifted Z.P. by his shirt and pants and shook him a few times before standing the boy upright. Once on his feet, Z.P. wet his pants, Ms. Taormina stated. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the undersigned finds that Z.P. did, in fact, eat a banana while standing on a table. Further, Jean did hustle Z.P. to the garbage can to spit out the banana in his mouth because the boy was gagging on the fruit. The evidence does not support a finding that the adults laughed at Z.P., although one student did call him a monkey, which prompted Jean to reprimand the offender. The evidence does not support a finding that Jean struck Z.P. with a broom, an act of abuse which Jean credibly denied, or that Jean picked up Z.P. and shook him, a feat which likely could not be accomplished, given the student's size and weight, and which Jean credibly denied. Z.P. did urinate on himself, as Ms. Taormina reported, but the greater weight of the evidence establishes that this was not a response to stress, fright, or abuse, but a common occurrence. In sum, the evidence does not support a determination that Jean likely mistreated Z.P. as alleged. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of immorality as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(1).5/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(2).6/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of incompetency, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(3).7/ It is undisputed that Jean was never charged with, much less found guilty of, any crime as a result of the events which gave rise to this proceeding. Therefore, the School Board does not have just cause to terminate his employment pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for "being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order exonerating Jean of all charges brought against him in this proceeding, reinstating him as an ESE teacher, and awarding him back salary as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2014.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Ms. Claudine Etienne, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Ms. Etienne holds Florida Educator's Certificate 845026, covering the areas of English and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Etienne was employed as an English teacher at Miami Springs High School in the Miami-Dade County School District. On or about January 20, 2012, an unknown student ignited a smoke bomb or large firecracker in a locker in Ms. Etienne's classroom. Ms. Etienne was unsure what the device was or how it was ignited. Smoke was generated from the device, and it filtered into the classroom. One or more students requested to leave the room because of the smoke. In her deposition, Ms. Etienne indicated that at the time of the incident, she was aware that one of the students assigned to her class, C.E., had asthma because she had a conversation with C.E.'s mother in December about it. Ms. Etienne testified that she did not recall C.E. asking her to leave the room on the day of the incident, however, and in fact did not remember if C.E. was even in class that day. Ms. Etienne did not believe the smoke was sufficiently serious to require her to allow the students to leave the room. She was uncertain how to proceed until administrators who had been called arrived in the classroom. Ms. Etienne instructed the students to stay in the room until an administrator arrived. One student subsequently required medical attention as a result of the smoke inhalation. In her written statement, C.E. stated that paramedics came to the school to assist her because she could not breathe after her exposure to the smoke in the classroom.2/ Ms. Etienne later received a verbal reprimand from the school district.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Ms. Claudine Etienne in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through her violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issuing her a letter of reprimand, and assessing a fine against her in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2017, 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 7th day of February, 2017.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Kim Littrell, committed the acts complained of and should be terminated from her employment with the School District.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board, is the entity charged pursuant to Florida law to operate, govern and administer school personnel employed by the St. Lucie County School District (Petitioner or School District). At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Petitioner employed the Respondent to serve as a teacher at Westwood High School. The Respondent has been a teacher with the School District for 16 years. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent held a professional services contract with the Petitioner. The Respondent’s seventh-period class on March 5, 2004, was composed of ninth-grade students. The class was designated as a creative writing course. The purpose of the class was to assist students with the Florida assessment known in this record as the “FCAT.” Students in the class were encouraged to develop “critical thinking” skills. Presumably such skills enhance performance on the FCAT examination. The Respondent was responsible for developing the curriculum for the class but was assisted by aides and instructive materials available through the school, the School District, as well as state resources. Although Respondent did not have a textbook for the “critical thinking” component of the class, appropriate resources were available from which appropriate educational materials could be prepared. For the subject lesson (seventh-period class, March 5, 2004), the Respondent elected to offer an assignment that she hoped would encourage “critical thinking.” In substance, the Respondent asked a series of questions and the students were asked to formulate an answer. The title of the subject lesson, “Is Your Mind Clean?” sought to elicit answers that were not profane or “dirty.” Respondent thought the subject lesson would be challenging and “fun.” The Respondent advised the students that none of the answers required the students to answer with profanity or improper language. The students were not supposed to verbally respond to the questions but were to write their answers on a sheet of paper. Although perhaps not verbatim, it is found that Respondent posed the following questions, in substantially this form, to her class during the “Is Your Mind Clean?” assignment: What is a four-letter word that ends in “k” and means the same as intercourse? What is it that a cow has four of and a woman has only two of? What can you find in a man’s pants that is about six inches long, has a head on it, and that women love so much that they often blow it? What word starts with “F” and ends with “u- c-k”? Name five words that are each four letters long, end in “u-n-t” one of which is a word for a woman? What does a dog do that you can step into? What four-letter word begins with “F” and ends with “k,” and if you can’t get one you can use your hands? What is hard, six inches long, has two nuts, and can make a girl fat? What four-letter word ends in “i-t” and is found on the bottom of birdcages? What is it that all men have one of; it’s longer on some men than on others; the pope doesn’t use his; and a man gives it to his wife after they’re married? Inappropriate responses were verbalized during the administration of the assignment. In many instances the most apparent answer to the question posed could be considered profane. The Respondent should have foreseen that students would react inappropriately to the questions. The students thought the assignment was unusual. The assignment made the students feel uncomfortable. Some students were unable to come up with any non-profane response. Some students were fearful their responses would get them in trouble. One student yelled out an inappropriate answer. Some students thought the answers to the assignment were the profane words. Teachers are required to get prior approval from school administrators if they want to use any teaching material that might be considered “controversial.” The Respondent was aware of the procedure to obtain such approval. The Respondent did not get prior approval before delivering the “Is Your Mind Clean?” assignment. When students responded with inappropriate answers, the Respondent laughed. The parent of one of the students complained to the principal regarding the “Is Your Mind Clean?” assignment. The complaint was the first notice the school administrators had regarding the subject lesson. The use of inappropriate words in the Respondent’s class was not permitted. Nevertheless, on more than one occasion the Respondent elected to explain the origins of certain words. For example, the Respondent lectured on the origin of the word “fuck.” Respondent claimed the word was an acronym for “fornication under command of the king” or “for unlawful carnal knowledge.” The Respondent believed that setting the record straight on the origin of the word would take the amusement value out of using the word such that usage would be deterred. Similarly, the Respondent instructed the class regarding the origin of the word “shit.” According to Respondent, historically, it was important that manure be “shipped high in transport.” Manure left in the lower cargo holds created problems. The origins of inappropriate words were not part of the Respondent’s curriculum. Moreover, the Respondent did not have approval to discuss the origins of such words with her class. When the school administration began to investigate the “Is Your Mind Clean?” assignment complaint, the Respondent confronted a student and claimed another student (the first student’s friend whose parent had made the complaint) was trying to get her in trouble. This encounter made the confronted student uncomfortable. The Respondent did not understand that the use of inappropriate words could and did make some students uncomfortable. Additionally, the Respondent did not comprehend that challenging the student about the complaint would also intimidate a student. The Respondent was disciplined in the past regarding her failure to create a learning environment that does not embarrass or disparage students. The Respondent knew or should have known that embarrassing students is not acceptable professional conduct. The Respondent knew or should have known that efforts to intimidate a student are not appropriate. In fact, reprimands issued to Respondent during 2000 cited unprofessional conduct directed toward students. In connection with prior conduct, the Respondent was required to complete a course on professionalism or ethics. The Respondent had a responsibility to protect students from conditions that would be harmful to learning. The Respondent had a responsibility to refrain from exposing students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. After being fully apprised of the facts of this case, the Superintendent recommended that the Petitioner take action to suspend the Respondent from her employment without pay. In fact, the Petitioner approved that recommendation and initiated the instant action to terminate Respondent’s employment. The Respondent timely responded to the action and requested an administrative hearing to challenge the proposed action. The Respondent maintained that the “Is Your Mind Clean?” assignment was a reasonable effort to teach “creative thinking” and that none of the students were unduly embarrassed, disparaged, or humiliated by the assignment. Such assertion is contrary to the persuasive weight of the evidence presented in this matter.
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 sustaining the termination of Respondent’s employment. S DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 1st day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Lannon, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 4204 Okeechobee Road Fort Pierce, Florida 34947-0000 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. 215 West Verne Street, Suite D Tampa, Florida 33606 David Miklas, Esquire J. David Richeson & Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948
The Issue Whether Respondent committed any of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 2014, and, if so, what is the appropriate disciplinary penalty?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who hold a Florida Educational Certificate when they are appropriately alleged to have committed a violation as provided in section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and related rules. See § 1012.796, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Shadrick Fields, a male and, at the time of the events pertinent to this case, a middle school teacher employed by the Broward County School District (the District), holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 977090. Valid through June 30, 2017, the certificate covers the areas of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education. Respondent was employed as a coach and Social Science teacher at Pompano Beach Middle School during the school years 2007-2010. In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was also employed as an assistant coach (but not as a teacher) at Coconut Creek High School. Pompano Beach Middle School and Coconut Creek High School are within and part of the District. On or about April 26, 2010, Respondent resigned his teaching position in lieu of termination of his position. The District accepted the resignation and placed Respondent’s identification in its records under “non-hire” status. The personnel action was taken because of allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Respondent and a female student. An Inappropriate Relationship Develops J.D. is a female. Born in 1992, she attended Pompano Beach Middle School in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. She met Respondent at Pompano Beach Middle School although he was not her teacher or her coach. The events that led to Respondent’s resignation occurred principally in the 2009-2010 school year when J.D. was 17 years of age (her 18th birthday was in March 2010) and a student at Coconut Creek High School. The events had their origin, however, in 2006 when J.D. was a middle school child. J.D. met Respondent as a seventh grader when Respondent was “doing security [for the school] at the time.” Hr’g Tr. 81. Later, J.D. had contact with Respondent in Respondent’s capacity as coach of the middle school football team. On the last day of J.D.’s eighth grade school year (in 2006), Respondent gave J.D. a letter written from him to her. The letter was not produced at the hearing. Respondent asked for it back, and J.D. returned it to him. When asked about the letter at the hearing, the following colloquy took place between and counsel for Petitioner: I have to go in detail about the letter? Q. Well . . . just tell us in general, what was the nature of the letter? A. He liked me. I liked him. Hr’g Tr. 83. J.D. did not see or communicate with Respondent over the summer between her eighth and ninth grade. J.D. resumed contact with Respondent during her freshman year at Coconut Creek High School where she was a student and he was one of the coaches for the wrestling team. Respondent was not J.D.’s coach nor was he one of her teachers; he continued to teach at Pompano Beach Middle School. Nonetheless, they talked on the phone. On Valentine’s Day, Respondent gave J.D. a card. The card opens with the statement, “Falling in love with you was something I hadn’t expected but being in love with you is something I wouldn’t stop, even if I tried.” Pet’r’s Ex. 6. It closes with the statements, “I already have my Valentine’s Day Gift and it’s you! I love you.” Id. J.D. claimed at the hearing that she and Respondent engaged in sexual relations once during her freshman year at Coconut Creek. She said they took place in Respondent’s truck, an arrangement they agreed to both by speaking about it and writing about it. The letters related to their rendezvous in the truck were not produced at the hearing because J.D. disposed of them in a trash receptacle. J.D. claimed that she engaged in sexual intercourse with Respondent only one other time: during her senior year, again in Respondent’s truck. The time that elapsed between the two sexual events, according to J.D., was due to an agreement between Respondent and J.D.: they agreed to cease further sexual involvement until she graduated from high school (albeit, as J.D. testified, the agreement failed in February of her senior year). During the time between the two incidents of sexual relations to which J.D. testified, J.D. and Respondent frequently communicated through writings, cards, and letters. When Respondent wrote to J.D. he delivered the communications through one of two methods: he handed them to her directly or he placed them in an open tube affixed to the wall of a hallway outside the wrestling locker room. When the latter method was followed, Respondent would send a text to J.D. to alert her to the presence of a letter in the tube. The purpose of using the tube was to prevent suspicion by others should Respondent be observed handing written communication to J.D. The letters produced at the hearing that J.D. received are emotionally intimate. The third of the four letters that make up Petitioner’s Exhibit 7 is highly charged and sexually graphic. It refers, for example, in detail to love-making in which Respondent and J.D. had engaged. Respondent’s letters refer to himself as “King” and are signed “M.N.U.A.I.A.,” which stands for “Me and You Against It All.” See Pet’r’s Ex. 7. During J.D.’s senior year in high school, J.D. and Respondent had increased opportunities to interact on school days. J.D. played on a school flag football team and became the assistant manager of the wrestling team for which Respondent was the coach. Family members picked J.D. up after flag football practice or when she stayed after school in her capacity as the wrestling team assistant manager. But Respondent also provided her transportation home in his truck. He gave J.D. a ride home after these extra-curricular events whenever she asked. The question was asked at the hearing, “Generally, who gave you a ride home?” J.D. testified, “Mr. Fields.” Hr’g Tr. 98. Respondent also gave J.D. cards and gifts, including a Teddy Bear that was delivered with a card. The card ends with “I’m your Teddy Bear baby, M.N.U.A.I.A. I Love You.” The card makes reference to the silence of Teddy Bears and that “they will never breath [sic] a word of secrets you may tell.” Pet’r’s Ex. 8. In December and January of the 2009-2010 school year (J.D.’s senior year), Respondent had significant contact with J.D. by cell phone. Pet’r’s Ex. 9. For the month of December 2009, phone calls between J.D.’s cell phone and Respondent’s cell phone averaged more than one per day. Following more than 40 phone calls in January of 2010, the phone contact continued into February. In the middle of the month of February 2010, Respondent handed a Valentine card to J.D. (He did not place it in the tube because “[i]t wouldn’t fit in there.”). Hr’g Tr. 96. The card states, “You know that I would give anything to be in your arms, touching your face, staring into your eyes and tasting your lips. I can’t but I can depend on our love to see me through.” The card addresses J.D. as “Lil Solja” and is signed: Happy Valentine’s Day #1 M.N.U.A.I.A. Love & “Sincerely Yours”, Solja Pet’r’s Ex. 9. Over the late 2009 and early 2010 time period, some of the many phone calls between J.D. and Respondent were for extended periods of time or were at odd hours. One set of calls was both. On February 19, 2010, a call was placed from Respondent’s cell phone to J.D.’s cell phone that is shown by phone records to have lasted for 186 minutes (until 2:50 in the morning of February 20, 2010). The same records show that one minute later, at 2:51 a.m., February 20, 2010, a phone call was placed from J.D.’s cell phone to Respondent’s cell phone. This second “middle of the night” phone call lasted another 76 minutes. The two calls total more than four hours. The lengthy “middle of the night” phone calls in mid-February of 2010 occurred roughly one week before events that precipitated the discovery of J.D.’s relationship with Respondent. The events took place on February 26 and 27, 2010, the weekend before J.D.’s 18th birthday. Discovered February 26, 2010, was a Friday. J.D. worked that evening at Steinmart as a merchandiser. She had worked at Steinmart her entire senior year with a schedule of roughly 20 hours per week. The following are questions and answers from the transcript of the hearing about what occurred the evening of February 26, 2010, when J.D. was at work: Q. Did Mr. Fields come to your work that day? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what happened. A. I went to work, took a break right before the store closed, around eight-something. I had been talking to him throughout the day. He came to my job. We had sex. I got off work and went home. * * * Q. . . . Mr. Fields came to your work, correct? A. Came to my job on my break. Q. And how long of a break did you have? A. Thirty minutes. Q. Thirty minutes. And what did you do on that break? A. I got in the truck with him, we talked, we had sex and I went back to work. Q. When you say you had sex, you had sexual intercourse? A. Yes. Q. And this occurred in Mr. Fields’ truck? A. Yes. Q. Where at in the truck? A. In the back seat. Hr’g Tr. 101. When asked by counsel for Petitioner how she felt about having sex with Respondent in his truck, she testified as if it were nothing unusual: “I really didn’t feel no way.” Hr’g Tr. 102. When asked immediately after, “You felt what?” J.D. reiterated her testimony, “I really didn’t feel any type of way, you know.” Id. During the interlude in the truck, J.D. and Respondent developed plans for the next night, Saturday, February 27. J.D. did not have to work that Saturday, but she “planned to lie to [her] mom” and tell her she did so she could, in her words, “spend the time with him before my birthday.” Hr’g Tr. 103. Hewing to the plan, J.D. told her mother that she was needed at Steinmart on Saturday to help her manager with inventory. J.D.’s mother, accordingly, drove her to work and dropped her off in the middle of the day. Later in the day, J.D.’s mother returned to Steinmart to purchase a shirt for her husband using a family discount by virtue of J.D.’s employment. She asked for J.D. in the store because J.D. had to sign a form to make the discount effective. When it turned out that J.D. was not at work and had not been at work, J.D.’s mother became extremely concerned. She called J.D. and texted her. When the calls and texts to J.D. went unanswered she enlisted other family members to assist in contacting and locating J.D. She lodged a missing person’s report with local law enforcement, and she began her own investigation. J.D.’s cell phone was under her mother’s account. When her mother checked the phone log she saw a number “that had been calling back and forth.” Hr’g Tr. 40. The phone number was Respondent’s: 954-691-6468. J.D.’s mother did not recognize the phone number, but discovered later that it belonged to Respondent. When asked about a voice message she left on Respondent’s phone, J.D.’s mother testified, “I don’t want to say under oath what I said but I was upset once I realized whose phone it was.” Hr’g Tr. 41. After testifying that the pattern and consistency of the phone calls between her daughter and an older male made her distraught, she was asked to explain by counsel. She answered, “Because I just felt like that communication shouldn’t have been going on, as many times as I’d seen it in the call log.” Id. Between being transported to her work place and the frantic activity of her mother, J.D. had talked to Respondent on the phone. He picked her up at Steinmart and drove her across the county to a movie theater in the western part of the county about 35 minutes away by car. After watching a movie, “The Crazies,” the two had something to eat at “TGI Friday’s,” hearing transcript 105, a restaurant in the same plaza as the movie theater. J.D. noticed that she had received phone calls from her mother, but she was “scared,” id., to call her back. While the two were still inside the restaurant, Respondent noticed that he had received telephone calls from J.D.’s mother as well. J.D. told Respondent not to return the call, and he did not. Respondent drove J.D. back to Steinmart and dropped her off at roughly 9 p.m., the time J.D. should have been getting off work had she worked that day. Respondent did not return J.D.’s mother’s call before he left J.D. at Steinmart. J.D.’s brother picked her up at Steinmart and drove J.D. home where she was met by Deputy Matthews, who had responded on behalf of local law enforcement to the missing person’s report. Deputy Matthews’ report indicated that J.D. was questioned about sexual activity with Respondent and that she denied sexual activity. Text Messages On Sunday (February 28, 2010), Respondent texted J.D.: Does she still want to talk to me? I’ll take da day off in effort to make things right by sitting down with her. A million more apologizes from da heart. Pet’r’s Ex. 5, at P010/011 [marked in hand-writing as “83”]. On March 1, 2010, the next Monday, Respondent sent text messages to J.D. At 3:17 in the morning, his text reads, I hope I haven’t tarnished or messed your life first and everyone else that looks up to me. I’ve let so many down . . . mainly you. I pray for ur fams forgiveness. Pet’r’s Ex. 5, P0087/011 [marked in hand-writing as “81”]. Another text follows at 3:45 in the morning: I never lied to you. Everything I said I meant from the heart but I should have never told you. Every day forward free is a blessing & will be cherished. Id. Later in the day, at 3:36 in the afternoon, Respondent texted “I’m going to turn myself in. Its all in your hands, my life.” Pet’r’s Ex. 5, P0097/011 [marked in hand-writing as “82”]. Over several days, J.D. and her mother engaged in a number of emotion-laden conversations. J.D.’s mother reached the point of “yelling” and “crying.” Hr’g Tr. 56. At some point in the midst of the emotional interchanges between J.D. and her mother, J.D.’s mother told her that she intended to take J.D. to a gynecologist for an examination for sexual activity. J.D. did not want her mother to know that she was not a virgin. But she was not concerned for herself alone. She did not want to tell anyone that she had engaged in sexual activity with Respondent because she wanted to protect him. The gynecological examination of J.D. revealed that she had been sexually active. Despite misgivings both for herself and because of the potential impact to Respondent, J.D. told her mother she had engaged in sex with Respondent. J.D.’s mother’s impression was that J.D. had not been sexually active even though she had a boyfriend (who was not Respondent). When J.D. revealed the sexual nature of her relationship with Respondent after the examination, J.D.’s mother called local law enforcement to report it. As a result of the call, a case was opened, and it was assigned to Deputy Julie Bower of the Broward County’s Sheriff’s Office of Sex Crimes. Deputy Bower questioned J.D. and reviewed the phone records, as well as the cards and letters that have been admitted into evidence in this proceeding. Deputy Bower confirmed that J.D. was 17 years’ old, a minor, when Respondent took her to the movies and that Respondent was over the age of 24 at the time. Their ages led Deputy Bower to conduct an investigation into whether Respondent had committed the crime of “Unlawful Sex with Certain Minors.” March 5 Statement to the Sex Crimes Unit On March 5, 2010, Officer Bower took a statement from J.D. In the statement J.D. admitted that she and Respondent had engaged in sexual activity on February 26, 2010. As the interview for the statement progressed, Deputy Bower took J.D. through the history of the relationship. J.D. stated that Respondent seemed to take an interest in her more than the other girls at school (Pet’r’s Ex. 2, p. 4 of 24). She also related that she received the first letter from him at the end of the eighth grade, but that she was not interested in him until her senior year in high school when Respondent started writing her and giving her gifts: “clothes, shoes, . . . cards, letters” id., page 7 of 24, and a bracelet of white gold. In the meantime, during her ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades, J.D. claimed in the statement that their relationship was “nothing . . . just a hi and bye.” Pet’r’s Ex. 2, p. 6 of 24. She related that in December of 2009, however, her relationship with Respondent started changing after “he made the move” (Id., p. 8 of 24), at which time she decided she wanted to start dating. They discussed having sex, and Respondent told J.D. that he loved her. J.D. stated to Deputy Bower that she was a virgin until the encounter with Respondent in his truck on her break from work on Friday, February 26, 2010, at which time she claimed they engaged in sexual intercourse. Deputy Bower was unable to verify J.D.’s claim of sexual intercourse with Respondent through any source other than J.D.’s statement. Nonetheless, Respondent was prosecuted criminally. Acquittal Respondent was charged with the crime of Unlawful Sexual Activity. He was tried by jury in the circuit court in and for Broward County and was found not guilty. See Respondent’s Ex. 1, Circuit Court Disposition Order in and for Broward County, Florida, rendered October 31, 2011, and an attached “Felony Order of Acquittal.” The Administrative Complaint and the Amended Administrative Complaint An Administrative Complaint seeking appropriate disciplinary sanction of Respondent’s educator’s certificate was issued by Dr. Tony Bennett, as Commissioner of Education, on July 8, 2013, 20 months or so after the acquittal. The complaint contains three counts of statutory violations and two of rule violations all based on facts alleged in a section entitled “Material Allegations.” The gist of the material allegations are contained in the section’s first sentence, “During the 2009/2010 school year, Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with J.D., a 17-year-old, female student.” Administrative Complaint. The statutory violations are of section 1012.795(1)(d), Florida Statutes, for “gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education;” section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, for “personal conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as employee of the school board;” and, of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, for violation of “the Principles of Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by the State Board of Education rules.” Administrative Complaint, p. 2 of 3. The rule violations are of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), “in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental health and/or physical health and/or safety,” and of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(e), “in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.” On March 24, 2014, Petitioner executed an Amended Administrative Complaint deemed filed as of that date by an Order Granting Leave to Amend. The amended complaint adds two new paragraphs to the material allegations. The new paragraphs expand the time frame for the basis of the statutory and rule violations outside the 2009-2010 school year to prior years back to 2006. The second of the two paragraphs of material allegations alleges: In subsequent years [post-2006], including 2010, Respondent wrote type [sic] letters . . . to J.D., along with cards and music CD’s. Some of the letters contained sexually graphic language . . . Amended Administrative Complaint, para. 3 and 4. The amended complaints also add two new rule violations, one of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(f) that Respondent intentionally violated or denied a student’s legal rights; and, the second of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(h) that Respondent exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. Amended Administrative Complaint, Counts 6 and 7. Respondent’s Defense to the Factual Allegations The following statement appears in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties: “Respondent admitted his text messages and phone calls to J.D. but denied any sexual activity or involvement with the notes and letters.” In addition to Respondent’s testimony under oath that he did not engage in sexual activity with J.D., he points to a number of facts that support his argument for why J.D.’s testimony that it occurred should not be credited: a. her denials to law enforcement the night of February 27, 2014; b. her denials to her mother at first; c. her claim to her mother that she had sex with Respondent only after the pressure of emotional conversations and the gynecological examination that showed her to have been sexually active; d. the inconsistency between her statement under oath to Deputy Bower that the first sexual encounter with Respondent was in her senior year and the statement under oath that her first sexual encounter with Respondent was when she was in the ninth grade; and e. the testimony of Dwanaill Sutton. Mr. Sutton was a year behind J.D. in high school and a member of the wrestling team. He met J.D. when he was in the ninth grade through his best friend at the time, another male member of the wrestling team. The coaches of the wrestling team were “Coach Carradine and Shadrick Fields [Respondent].” Hr’g Tr. 279. Respondent also coached Mr. Sutton on the football team, again as an assistant coach. Eventually, Mr. Sutton and J.D. became “best friends.” Id. They remained so into Mr. Sutton’s junior year (J.D.’s senior year). They do not see each other much anymore but they communicate “[v]ia social media.” Hr’g Tr. 280. Mr. Sutton has no ill feeling about J.D.’s allegations against Respondent. While J.D. and Mr. Sutton were still under the status “best friends,” Mr. Sutton was interviewed at school one day before lunch by a detective who asked him questions about J.D. and Respondent. At lunch, Mr. Sutton asked J.D. what she knew about the detective. J.D. replied that she had given Mr. Sutton’s name to the detective. Mr. Sutton followed up by asking J.D. “what was going on with her and Coach Fields because those were the only two names that the detective mentioned.” Hr’g Tr. 284. J.D. replied “‘nothing happened.’” Id. When asked by counsel if Mr. Sutton asked J.D. “did you guys do something?” id., Mr. Sutton replied that J.D. said “‘We didn’t do anything.’” Hr’g Tr. 285. With regard to the written communication J.D. claims to have received from Respondent, he argues J.D.’s testimony should not be credited because: Respondent denies sending any such items [and did so under oath]. [citation omitted] Respondent testified that he does not write in the fashion the card and letters were written and that it seems as if someone with less than a college education prepared them. [citation omitted] He denies giving J.D. any cards, stuffed bear or bracelet. [citation omitted] Petitioner failed to produce any evidence to support the conclusion that the handwriting on the various cards and letters was that of Respondent. No handwriting expert testimony was adduced and no lay testimony was presented that the writings were that of Respondent. Respondent’s Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6 of 11, para. 16. Respondent claims that the purpose of his relationship with J.D., and the many phone calls and communications with her, was to lift her spirits in the face of personal problems at home, particularly with her step-father and not being able to live with her biological father, and ensuing academic problems and problems at school. But he admits the relationship was inappropriate: [A]s far as lifting her spirits . . . [w]hat I should have did is had a female teacher or mentor be that person for her. I shouldn’t have been there like that. That was inappropriate for me to be there. Hr’g Tr. 228.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be permanently revoked and that he be barred from re-application. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 5th day of December, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny L. McCray, Jr., Esquire Law Office of Johnny L. McCray, Jr., P.A. 400 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 (eServed) Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street, Suite E Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed) Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Lois S. Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against the Respondent on the basis of alleged misconduct which is set forth in an Administrative Complaint. The misconduct alleged consists primarily of allegations that the Respondent engaged in inappropriate physical touching of a female student.
Findings Of Fact M. A. is a thirteen year old student at West Miami Middle School. At the time of the alleged incident, she was twelve years of age, was approximately five feet, three inches, tall, and weighed about one hundred sixty pounds. She had gained about twenty or thirty pounds more as of the time of the formal hearing in this case. The School Trust Counselor, Diana De Cardenas, had been seeing M. A. and M. A.'s sister for eating disorder problems because both girls were somewhat overweight. The counsellor had seen M. A. on several occasions because of allegations that M. A.'s mother and M. A.'s brother were hitting her at home. Her brother did not want her to eat and when he saw her eating he would beat her. M. A. saw the counsellor because of these facts and was often upset and crying. The Respondent, Millard Lightburn, is forty-two years old and has been a teacher for over fifteen years. The Respondent is Hispanic. He previously taught school in Nicaragua and speaks both English and Spanish. The accusing child, M. A., is also Hispanic. The Respondent taught a computer application course and from time to time he would use students to help file papers and keep records. Shortly before the time of the alleged incident, the Respondent asked two students, M. A. and a male student named L. D., to help him file papers and perform other similar paperwork tasks. The student named L. D. did not come to help the Respondent on the day in question because L. D. was asked by another teacher to help with a problem in the cafeteria. On the day in question, the Respondent was having lunch while working in his classroom. M. A. was in the class alone with him helping him file papers and perform other similar paperwork tasks. This was the second day that M. A. had assisted the Respondent with the paperwork. As the work was finished, the Respondent said to M. A., "Thank you very much; thank you for your help." He put his hand on her shoulder and put his cheek next to hers and gave her a peck on the cheek in a manner that is customary and traditional among Hispanics in Dade County, Florida. The Respondent demonstrated this gesture at the hearing. This same gesture was also demonstrated by two other witnesses, Shirley B. Johnson and Assistant Principal Eldon Padgett. West Miami Middle School is about 93 percent or 94 percent Hispanic. In that school and in the Hispanic community served by the school, it is customary for people to hug and to touch one another on the cheek or to give one another a peck on the cheek. Such conduct is common at all Hispanic schools in Dade County, Florida. The gesture demonstrated by the Respondent and by two other witnesses is a customary Hispanic gesture in Dade County, Florida, and is not considered to be offensive or inappropriate by other members of the Hispanic community. The Respondent, Millard E. Lightburn, did not at any time touch the student, M. A., in an inappropriate or offensive way.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 11th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-06174 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, but with the additional findings to the effect that another student had been invited to be present at the same time as the student, M. A. Paragraph 7: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details, or as irrelevant. Paragraph 9: Rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary details and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraph 13: First line rejected for reasons stated immediately above. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. The student, M. A., and the Respondent testified to two very different versions of events on the day in question. Considering all of the evidence in context, the Hearing Officer has found the Respondent's version to be more credible than the version described by M. A. Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 26: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 32: The first three full lines and the first four words of the fourth line are accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 33: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details and as also irrelevant. Paragraph 12: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Patrick M. Hill, Respondent, is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office as more specifically alleged in letters of April 6, 1990 and May 18, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Patrick M. Hill held a professional services contract with the Polk County School Board as a remediation teacher at Lakeland High School. He also served as wrestling coach and cross country coach at Lakeland High School. During the spring break of the 1989-90 school year, Respondent told some students they could earn some extra money if they helped him paint his house. Erik Greatens, an 18 1/2 year old senior, agreed to help, and he, with a 25 year old man, John, and Respondent, worked all day painting. Around noon that day when all were hot and thirsty, Respondent told them there was beer in his refrigerator. Both Erik and John accepted the offer. Erik had one beer. When they stopped painting around 5 p.m., Respondent told them he would order pizza if they wanted to return later. Erik accepted and went home to shower and change clothes. He returned around 6:30 p.m. and shared pizza with Respondent. Erik testified that he had only the one beer that day at Respondent's home and that his father permitted him to drink an occasional glass of wine at home. He did not drink beer or any other alcoholic beverage while at Respondent's home that evening. Around 8:30 p.m., Erik left Respondent's residence and went to the Publix parking lot to meet some friends. At the parking lot that evening with his friends, Erik consumed 11 or 12 cans of beer before driving the four or five blocks to his home. When he arrived, his mother was up and considered her son was inebriated and that he had received the beer at Respondent's home. At the time, Erik told her he had only the one beer at Respondent's home, but, from his condition, the mother was sure he had drunk more than one beer. The following day, Mrs. Greatens called the Superintendent's office to complain about Respondent providing Erik with beer. Based upon that complaint, Respondent was suspended from his position as teacher at Lakeland High School. The professional Practices Council of the State Department of Education was notified of the charge so they could institute an investigation to determine if Respondent's state certificate should be disciplined. To date, no charges have been brought by the Department of Education. Subsequently, Petitioner learned that Respondent had pleaded guilty in New Jersey to a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in 1973. A copy of this court record was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. In 1973, Respondent was a tenured teacher in the school district of the Township of Pemberton, Burlington County, New Jersey. Charges were preferred against Respondent by the Board of Education, and an administrative hearing was held to determine if the charges and circumstances surrounding the charges warranted dismissal of Respondent from his position as a tenured teacher. Following that hearing, the hearing examiner submitted a report recommending the charge and evidence insufficient to warrant a dismissal or reduction in salary. The Commissioner of Education adopted the finding and recommendation of the hearing examiner. In the instant proceedings, Respondent testified to the facts regarding the 1973 incident. That testimony is essentially the same as found by the hearing examiner in 1973 reported in Exhibit 4 as follows: The testimony offered by the Superintendent of Schools and respondent's building principal was that respondent is a good teacher, as evidenced by his past evaluations, and his record has been unblemished since his employ- ment by the Board. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Commissioner solely because of an incident which occurred on March 8, 1972, and that incident alone is the basis for the Board's action. On the evening of March 8, 1972, respondent was returning to his home after working late at his school on some extra curricular project. The record shows that Respondent was very active in the school community, and that he coached sports activities, served on the executive board of the local P.T.A., and served as President of the Pemberton Township Police Athletic League, in addition to his regular teaching duties. Respondent testified that it was a rainy night. On his way home, he picked up a hitchhiker who told him that he had a job in north Jersey and was on his way to visit his father in the Tuckerton area (approxi- mately thirty miles away). Because of the late hour and the poor weather conditions, Respondent offered the hitchhiker a place to spend the night in his home and told him he would drop him off at the inter- section of Routes #9 and #37 the next morning on his way to school. The hitchhiker accepted the offer and spent the night in respondent's home. Respondent testified that he also offered the use of his telephone so the hitchhiker could call his father, but that he refused saying that he was not expected anyway. He testified fur- ther that nothing untoward happened that night and that he dropped the hitchhiker off at the named intersection the follow- ing morning on his way to school. Respon- dent did not know that the hitchhiker was a minor; neither his appearance, nor his conversation about holding a job in north Jersey, nor having a drink and avoiding the police, lead (sic.)Respondent to conclude that the hitchhiker was a minor. (Tr. 19-22) None of this testimony is refuted by the Board, nor were any witnesses pre- sented by the Board to give any other version about what allegedly occurred on the evening of March 8, 1972. The Board, however, grounds its action against Respondent on his subsequent arrest by the police and his later indictment by the Grand Jury of Ocean County. A change of plea to that indictment reads in pertinent part as follows: (P-1) The State moved under Rule 3:74 to amend the third count of the indictment to read `did contribute to the delinquency of a minor by permitting him to remain overnight without parental consent'. The Court so ordered. Patrick Hill sworn. (sic.) As a result of plea bargaining, the Defendant retracted his former plea of Not Guilty and entered a plea of Guilty to the amended third (3rd) count of [the Indictment). * * * In the hearing examiner's judgment, it would be wrong to speculate why Patrick Hill made the plea (P-1) rather than pursue some other defense of the original charges made against him. He testified that he made the change of plea because he did allow the youth to stay in his home overnight. Suffice it to say that he was represented by counsel and the record must now speak for itself. Respondent entered a plea of guilty (P-1) which the Commissioner must con- sider in making his determination. N.J.S.A. 2A:96-4 reads as follows: A parent, legal guardian or person having the legal custody or control of a child, who by any continued negligence or willful act, encourages, causes or con- tributes to the child's delinquency, or any other person who by any wilful act encourages, causes or contributes to a child's delinquency, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The hearing examiner found that the unrefuted testimony of respondent, and the absence of any proof of conduct unbecoming a teacher by the Board, leads to the conclusion that the only fact before the Commissioner is that respondent knowingly permitted a minor to remain in his home overnight without the consent of the minor's parents. Respondent testified without contradiction that he was told by his attorney that the conviction would be expunged and he could forget it. Accordingly, Respondent concluded, albeit erroneously, that he never would need to reveal this record. Respondent moved to Florida and was employed as a junior high school teacher at St. Joseph's School, Lakeland, Florida, from 1979 to 1986 when he was employed by the Polk County School Board to teach at Lakeland High School. While at St. Joseph's, Respondent continued his extracurricular activities similar to those in New Jersey coaching children in wrestling and track, and he was involved in national and statewide wrestling programs for children. When he started teaching at Lakeland High School, Respondent continued his coaching activities and his work with children. He has been involved with helping troubled adolescents at the Polk Correctional Institute, served on the Governor's Council on Health, Physical Education and sports, was awarded man of the year honors for the AAU Wrestling Division, took a group of young wrestlers to Germany two years ago (1988) in a cultural exchange program and coordinated a return visit of German youth wrestlers to Florida in 1989. Respondent has excellent rapport with his students and with the student's parents. The letters admitted into evidence in Exhibit 5 extolling the virtues of Respondent as a teacher, coach and individual are not the pro forma, perfunctory letters of recommendation usually presented, but clearly indicate heartfelt esteem, appreciation and admiration. Respondent has had no prior disciplinary actions brought against him while teaching in Florida schools.
Recommendation Considering the reputation of Respondent, his rapport with students and peers, the time he has devoted to developing children into responsible adults and the conclusions that the acts complained of do not constitute immorality but are minor infractions coming under the definition of misconduct in office, it is recommended that Patrick M. Hill be found guilty of misconduct in office and suspended without pay for four months. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Arthur C. Fulmer, Esquire Post Office Box 2958 Lakeland, FL 33806 John A. Stewart Superintendent of Schools Post Office Box 391 Bartow, FL 33830 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
