Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 310395 covering the areas of biology and science. During the 1985-1986 school year, he taught ecology and science courses at Winter Park High School in the Orange County School District until he was relieved from duty on March 13, 1986, as a result of an investigation into the incidents and behavior described below. During the school day, Respondent repeatedly harassed the female students with sexual remarks, attempts at sexual humor, and requests for sexual favors and intimacies. The sexual harassment so permeated the classroom that Respondent was completely unable to discharge his professional teaching responsibilities. Faye Zentner was a senior at Winter Park High School during the 1985- 1986 school year. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent knew that she was a student, he repeatedly asked her to go with him on a date, followed by dinner and bed. Unsolicited, he gave her his home telephone number and told her to call him. He frequently remarked on her clothing, advising her that she should not wear such nice clothes. He often communicated by notes that he would show her and then tear up. Ruth Evans was a senior at Winter Park High School during the 1985-1986 school year. She was in Respondent's science class. Respondent repeatedly complimented her on her dress. He would intentionally drop a pencil and watch her while she picked it up. At different times, Respondent told her that he "wanted her body" and thought that she had a "nice ass." He also told her that he wanted to "get between her legs." He asked her to go out with him and then to his place. One afternoon when Ms. Evans asked to leave class 10 minutes early for a school-sponsored softball game, Respondent's response was, "If you're not going to do anything for me, why should I do anything for you?" Kristen Fischer was a senior at Winter Park High school during the 1985-1986 school year. She was in Respondent's ecology class. Looking at her breasts and body while speaking, Respondent would frequently tell Ms. Fischer that he liked what he saw, including her tight jeans. As with the other female students, Respondent asked Ms. Fischer to go out with him and have a drink. The testimony of the remaining female students reiterated the above testimony and established a pattern of sexual harassment on the part of Respondent. Respondent summoned Juliana Gomes from the classroom and, in the hall, commented on her appearance and asked her out on dates. Ms. Gomes finally began reporting to school late in order to avoid her first-period class with Respondent. Respondent told jokes involving female body parts, such as the vagina, to Laurie Kreitner, another student. When she would not listen to these jokes privately at his desk, Respondent would tell them publicly to the entire class. Respondent regularly asked Sheila Buchanan, another of his students, what she was doing on that Friday night and where she would be. At spring break, he found out where she and her girlfriends would be staying at the beach and gave them his hotel room and telephone numbers with an invitation to call him. During the entire term in ecology, Respondent administered only one test and a couple of quizzes. Otherwise, the students and Respondent sat around and talked about movies and matters unrelated to the subject of the class. On more than one occasion, Respondent admitted that his grades were a reflection of whom he liked and whom he did not like. Respondent even allowed Ms. Buchanan to grade half of the finals, and she gave good grades to her friends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 COPIES FURNISHED: Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. David Holder, Esquire Rigsby & Holder Suite 200 1408 North Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Reginald Crooms 617 South Delaney Avenue, No. 19 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent committed certain alleged acts of improper conduct in the form of inappropriate statements to female students and whether he committed acts of inappropriate touching of a female student and therefore, whether the Petitioner has just cause to terminate him as a contract teacher (Physical Education teacher and basketball coach).
Findings Of Fact Wilfred Brown is a black male who was employed under an annual contract by the Jackson County School Board. He was employed in the position of a physical education teacher and as the boys' basketball head coach at Sneads High School. Sneads High School actually enrolls both middle and high school students. Wilfred Brown was generally called "Coach Brown" at school. When he assumed the head coach position, he was permitted to select an assistant basketball coach to assist him. James Taylor had previously been an assistant basketball coach, but was not selected to be an assistant basketball coach by Coach Brown. Charlsie Maphis was a white female student at Sneads High School. She was a junior during the 2000-2001 school term. She dated a black male basketball player named Jason Brown. Her father did not approve of inter-racial dating and therefore, she was unable to openly date Jason Brown. Because of this Charlsie Maphis would come to the Sneads High School gym in order to spend time with Jason Brown. On a number of occasions Jason Brown and Charlsie Maphis would demonstrate inappropriate displays of affection, in terms of the Student Conduct Code, while they were in the gym. They would, for instance, sit between each others legs, lay their heads in each others' laps and otherwise engage in close physical contact, none of which was considered appropriate student behavior. When Coach Brown observed this behavior he would make them stop. Charlsie Maphis explained to Coach Brown that due to their racial differences she could not date Jason outside of school and also stated that the gym was the only place that they could spend any time together. Coach Brown did not accept this explanation and did not respond in a sympathetic way. Instead, he continued to enforce the Student Conduct Code. He would thus not allow Charlsie Maphis and Jason Brown to "hang-out" in the gym and demonstrate inappropriate conduct. Charlsie Maphis opined that Coach Brown was a racist and treated her and Jason Brown more harshly or unjustly because of their inter-racial dating. She did not feel that Coach Brown treated other students the same way. The evidence demonstrated, however, that Coach Brown enforced the rules of conduct on other student couples as well. Other students, however, did not exhibit the anger or attitude that Charlsie Maphis exhibited against Coach Brown because he so enforced the rules of conduct. Coach Brown, at some point, told Charlsie Maphis that she was a distraction to Jason Brown and because of that and her conduct, Jason Brown was not giving the basketball program his best effort. Coach Brown eventually removed Jason Brown from the basketball team during his senior year because Jason did not cooperate with the Coach and did not "have his heart in the game." Coach Brown also removed two other black male basketball players from the team. They were Lamar Colston and Lynn Colston. Lamar and Lynn Colston were considered talented basketball players but did not get along with Coach Brown. Their step-father was James Taylor who had once served as assistant basketball coach at Sneads High School before Coach Brown became the head coach. Coach Brown selected another person to replace James Taylor as assistant basketball coach. This appeared to cause ill-feeling between James Taylor and Coach Brown as well as his step-sons, Lamar and Lynn Colston. In this regard, Charlsie Maphis claimed that she did not really know James Taylor. However, James Taylor and his step-sons lived in the same neighborhood as Charlsie Maphis and James Taylor was sometimes the umpire for the softball team on which Charlsie Maphis served as catcher and third baseperson. Charlsie Maphis' friend, Sarranda Hall, testified that she saw Charlsie Maphis talking to James Taylor after a ballgame. Kerri Maphis, the younger sister of Charlsie Maphis, also testified that their mother was a long-time friend of James Taylor. Charlsie Maphis also admitted, on cross-examination, that she gave "shoulder-rubs" to Lamar Colston and the evidence demonstrates that she must have been fairly close friends with Lamar Colston and at least to some extent with his step-father James Taylor. In consideration of the above facts and the fact that James Taylor had been the assistant basketball coach at Sneads High School, Charlsie Maphis' statement that she did not really know James Taylor is not deemed credible. Moreover, her failure to readily admit her knowledge of and acquaintanceship with James Taylor casts doubt upon her testimony concerning her motivation to conceal or testify with a lack of candor. In any event, after Coach Brown removed the Colston brothers from the basketball team, James Taylor started a campaign to get Coach Brown fired. Mr. Taylor met with the principal, administrators, the superintendent and the School Board itself in an unsuccessful attempt to have Coach Brown terminated from his position. Charlsie Maphis's father learned that she was dating Jason Brown and ordered her to stop sometime during the 2000- 2001 school year. Therefore, Charlsie Maphis was supposed to have stopped dating Jason Brown and she testified that when Jason Brown graduated in May 2001, they were no longer dating. Jason Brown, however, testified that they did not end their relationship until much later in the year 2001. When school resumed for the 2001-2002 school year, Charlsie Maphis was no longer in Coach Brown's class. Generally she would only see him in passing on the school campus or when she specifically made a trip to the gym. Nonetheless, according to Charlsie Maphis, even after Jason Brown had graduated, when Coach Brown would see her at school he would still "get in her business" by asking her if she and Jason Brown were still together and how was Jason getting along. It became clear during that 2000-2001 school year and the 2001-2002 school year that Charlsie Maphis did not like Coach Brown, based upon her own testimony and that of other students who were aware that she did not like Coach Brown based upon things they heard her say or the way she acted when she was in his presence. Charlsie Maphis' alleges that around the month of December 2001, she went to the gym and asked Coach Brown to let her use the phone in his office to call her mother. She testified that after she came into his office she "slumped down in a chair" resulting in her abdominal area and waist being exposed to his view because her undershirt slid up when she slumped down in the chair, according to her testimony. She contends that after Coach Brown saw her stomach and waistline he made inappropriate comments about her, such as that she had a "sexy waistline" and purportedly touched her inappropriately around her abdominal area and licked her exposed stomach area and placed his hand on the waistline of her pants. Coach Brown denied each allegation by Charlsie Maphis that he made inappropriate statements to her or engaged in inappropriate physical conduct or touching toward her. In this regard Charlsie Maphis made a written statement, dated February 20, 2002, setting forth her allegations against Coach Brown, testifying in a similar manner at hearing concerning her allegations. In her written statement, Charlsie Maphis states that it was nothing out of the ordinary for her to go to Coach Brown's office. However, under the facts and circumstances of their strained relationship, as revealed by the testimony at hearing, it is apparent that she did not like Coach Brown and was not in his class that year and therefore, it is very unlikely that she would regularly go to his office for any reason. Most of her time in school she avoided being around Coach Brown and tried to avoid even speaking to him, according to her own testimony. When he spoke to her, she, by her own admission, forced herself to be cordial or publicly respectful. It thus appears very unusual for her to go to Coach Brown's office, particularly on a regular basis, as she contends. In essence, Charlsie Maphis claims that the incident in the office occurred after part of her body was exposed when her undershirt slid up because she sat slumped in a chair. However, when Charlsie Maphis first reported her allegations to Ms. Dixon, the assistant principal, she claimed that she sat on a table, not in a chair, in Coach Brown's office on the occasion in question. This is established by Ms. Dixon's testimony, which is credited. Although Coach Brown is alleged to have made inappropriate statements and acted inappropriately after Charlsie sat slumped in the chair, Ms. Maphis' bare abdominal area and waistline were not seen and could not be seen beneath her over-shirt when she demonstrated, during the hearing, dressed in the same clothing, sitting with the same posture and holding her hands in the same position as she allegedly was in on the occasion of the incident. Contrary to her allegations that Coach Brown licked her on the stomach, Ms. Maphis told two of her friends that Coach Brown had licked her ear and offered her money to lick her ear, not her stomach or waistline. These parts of the body are so far apart and different that her statements to two different people to the effect that it was her ear and not her stomach involved in the incident cannot be regarded as an inadvertent mis-statement. Under the circumstances, its probative value reflects negatively on the credibility of Charlsie Maphis. Ms. Maphis claimed to be so surprised by Coach Brown's statements and actions that she was unable to move when he allegedly touched and licked her inappropriately and she claimed that she had to find an excuse to leave the room after she told him to "back-up." Her statements are not credible because, based upon her demeanor, she is obviously an assertive person who was not and is not afraid of Coach Brown. Additionally, it is found, based upon her testimony that Coach Brown talked on the phone several times at his desk while she was allegedly sitting in the chair in his office, that she would have had ample opportunity to move or leave the office without the necessity of searching for an excuse to leave. Moreover, at the time of the alleged incident, Coach Brown had a class waiting for him outside of his office door in the gym, and his students, players and assistants were constantly coming in and out of the office. Having observed the candor and demeanor of Charlsie Maphis in testifying to these incidents and occurrences, and also observing the candor and demeanor and apparent credibility of the witnesses opposed to her testimony, it is found that the incident did not occur as alleged by Charlsie Maphis and her testimony is not credited. Ms. Maphis also alleged that Coach Brown discussed meeting her one weekend to exchange massages at his parents' home were he lived when his parents would be away. This allegation is not credible because the evidence shows that, contrary to Ms. Maphis' claim, Coach Brown's parents had a strict rule that no child of theirs, including Coach Brown, could entertain any female in their home while they were not present. Coach Brown lived in their home. They were not away for any weekend which would have allowed such an occurrence to happen during the time period in question, and it is not established that Coach Brown had any such intention. Ms. Maphis' testimony in this regard is not credited. There may have been a financial motive for the allegations by Ms. Maphis. After the allegations became public she told one of her friends that she was going to get some money out of Coach Brown and admitted consulting an attorney about a civil lawsuit against Coach Brown. In fact, Ms. Maphis told the School Resource Police Officer, Brian Stagner, that "she felt she could get some money out of this." Although Ms. Maphis claims that Coach Brown had engaged in inappropriate conduct with other students or former students, each one of these students or former students denied that any such conduct had ever occurred. In fact, each of them testified that Coach Brown was completely professional in his conduct toward them at all times. Ms. Maphis may also have been motivated out of dislike for Coach Brown. She told Office Brian Stagner, that ". . . she was going to do everything she could to fuck him up." She told Officer Stagner that "if she could not go after him criminally that she would go after him civilly" and that she felt she "could get some money out of this." This conversation took place during a school day at Sneads High School where Officer Stagner was the Police Department's School Resource Officer. In any event, after observing Charlsie Maphis and her testimony at the hearing and listening to the testimony of Officer Stagner, other witnesses, and considering all the other evidence, it is concluded that Charlsie Maphis' testimony may be motivated by some malicious intent toward Coach Brown. Due to her general lack of credibility, I also do not credit her allegations that Coach Brown asked her to meet him one weekend; that he called her into his office and offered her $75.00 to let him "lick her again"; or that he asked her to come to his home one weekend to exchange massages. Holly Roberts claims that around the month of December 2001, she went to Coach Brown's office to use the telephone and when she arrived Coach Brown asked her to input some student absentees into his computer. While she was doing this and while he was having a telephone conversation, she observed a vacation brochure on his desk related to Hawaii. Holly Roberts admits asking Coach Brown if she could go with him to Hawaii. She then alleges that he told her that he would buy her a ticket to go with him to Hawaii. It is apparent from the totality of the testimony and circumstances that she asked him if she could go to Hawaii more or less in jest or in a joking manner. Coach Brown denies that he offered to buy her a ticket to Hawaii. Holly Roberts also maintains that Coach Brown asked her to come to his home while his parents were out of town for the weekend to give him a massage. Coach Brown admits that Holly Roberts asked him if she could go to Hawaii, but denies offering to buy the ticket and moreover testified that he jokingly told Holly Roberts that she could go to Hawaii with him if she would pay $9,000.00 or $10,000.00 for tickets and costs for everybody in his party to go. He denies ever talking to her concerning her coming to his parents' home during their absence or giving him massages or shoulder rubs. The preponderant evidence establishes that Holly Roberts is not a credible witness in this regard. The totality of the evidence and circumstances related to her and to witness Montario Garrett establishes that she was dating, or in a close personal relationship with Montario Garrett. She did not tell the truth about the nature of the letter that she wrote to Montario Garrett. She maintained that she wrote it to help him break up with Lauren Faircloth, a fellow student. Montario Garrett testified contrarily, however, that it was a "love letter" and that they were in a dating relationship. The plain language of the letter clearly supports his version of its nature. It appears likely that she misrepresented the nature of their relationship due to her fear of her parents or her father's disapproval of her inter-racial dating relationship with Montario Garrett since Holly Roberts is white and Montario Garrett is black. She falsely accused Montario Garrett and Michael Reed of telling her that Coach Brown had inquired if she would date "black boys." She also falsely testified that she was afraid of Coach Brown because Montario Garrett had told her that Coach Brown had a history of "messing with other young girls." Montario Garrett categorically denied that he ever told her that story. Moreover, Holly Roberts minimizes her acquaintanship with Charlsie Maphis. However, there were numerous opportunities for Holly Roberts and Charlsie Maphis to be together and to communicate during their tenure at Sneads High School. They were both in the same DCT class for two semesters in the 2001-2002 school year. They were on the softball team together in February of 2002 when these allegations were made public. Holly Roberts rode to school everyday with one of the best friends of Charlsie Maphis' younger sister. Before the allegations against the Respondent became public the younger sister Kerri Maphis, Nicole Rabon and their other friend Samantha Wilkerson, had been discussing rumors about alleged inappropriate conduct by Coach Brown including the rumors of his alleged misconduct towards Charlsie Maphis, Kerri's older sister. During the first and second semester of the 2001-2002 school year, Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts were in Mr. Stoutamires' Career Development class. Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts testified that Mr. Stoutamire did not require students enrolled in this class to attend class everyday. Instead, students were on their own and could go and come to work or even go home, according to their testimony. Both Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts had an unexcused absence from two of their classes on February 20, 2002, and apparently left the campus together. During the first and second semester of the 2001-2002 school year, Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts played softball together, beginning in February 2002. Charlsie Maphis was the catcher and James Taylor, who also had a history of enmity towards the Respondent, was an umpire at some of those softball games. Moreover, it is significant that the most serious conduct alleged against Coach Brown is alleged to have occurred months before it was ever reported. The initial reports were not even made by the alleged victims. The manner and timing in which the allegations of Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts became public appears to have been planned. Kerri Maphis, Charlsie's younger sister, and Nicole Rabon, who rode to school daily with Holly Roberts and their friend Samantha Wilkerson, went to the office of Ms. Dixon, the assistant principal, together to report to Ms. Dixon the rumors concerning Coach Brown. Within a short time after they spoke with Ms. Dixon, both Charlsie Maphis and Holly Roberts voluntarily reported their allegations to the School Resource Officer, Brian Stagner. Moreover, the unrefuted testimony of Coach April Goodwin reveals that Holly Roberts did not have the best reputation in her school community for truth and veracity. Consequently, Holly Roberts' testimony regarding the facts and the nature of the interaction she had with Coach Brown, concerning which she made her complaints, is not credited. It is apparent that whatever occurred in this interaction with Coach Brown in his office concerning a trip to Hawaii was, at most, simply a joking or jesting reference to their going to Hawaii on a vacation trip. It is determined, based upon the testimony of Coach Brown and of his parents, as well as the numerous witnesses who described Coach Brown as being an instructional employee and coach who never exhibited any unprofessional or inappropriate conduct or behavior, that the incident concerning his purported invitation to Holly Roberts to come to his home on the weekend, when his parents were purportedly to be absent, simply did not occur. Wilfred Brown grew up in Jackson County and attended Jackson County public schools. His parents are respected and respectable citizens who retired from employment with the state. Wilfred Brown and his brothers participated in high school sports, and after graduating from high school, Wilfred Brown attended college. Upon graduating from college he returned home to Jackson County and ultimately was hired as the head coach of the Sneads boys basketball team. Respondent Brown primarily resided with his mother and father at times pertinent hereto. His mother and father do not allow him or his brothers to bring female companions to their home when the parents are not at home and do not allow their sons' female friends to stay overnight in their residence. Coach Brown is a Deacon in his church and a Sunday school teacher. He also works with the youth in his church and community. He provides free basketball camps for youth athletes during the summer. He has an outstanding reputation in his community for truth and veracity. He has a reputation among students at school for requiring them to abide by the rules of good conduct and of being professional and an exhibitor of good conduct himself. There is no evidence that Coach Brown has ever been previously accused or found guilty of any inappropriate, unprofessional statements or behavior towards students or young females at any time or location. Upon observing and considering the demeanor of Wilfred Brown and his testimony, carefully weighing and comparing his testimony to that of the complaining witnesses, and in consideration of the numerous witnesses as to Coach Brown's reputation in his community for truth and veracity as well as, more specifically, the testimony concerning his failure to ever exhibit any inappropriate, unprofessional conduct toward female students or others, it is determined that Coach Brown is credible as a witness. His testimony is credited over that of Holly Roberts and Charlsie Maphis. The testimony of the numerous witnesses as to his competent performance as a teacher and coach and his good personal conduct and character, including towards female students, along with and the lack of any testimony, other than that of the discredited complaining witnesses, concerning any unprofessional, inappropriate behavior on his part has been carefully considered. It is determined that preponderant evidence has been adduced which establishes that Coach Brown has not lost his effectiveness as a teacher and a coach in the Jackson County School community nor in Sneads High School in particular.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Jackson County finding that the allegations made against the Respondent Wilfred Brown are not established and that he be re-instated to his position as teacher and basketball coach with back pay and with renewal of his annual contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Marva A. Davis, Esquire 121 South Madison Street Post Office Drawer 551 Quincy, Florida 32353-0551 H. Matthew Fuqua, Esquire Bondurant and Fuqua, P.A. Post Office Box 1508 Marianna, Florida 32447 Daniel Sims, Superintendent Jackson County School Board Post Office Box 5958 Marianna, Florida 32447 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Teaching Certificate number 541001, covering the areas of Physical Education and Driver's Education. Respondent was employed by the Dixie County School District at Dixie County High School in Cross City, Florida, from the spring of 1983 through late November, 1985. During the period of time Respondent was employed by the Dixie County School Board (Board), he was married to Tina Bailey, with whom he had two children. He was divorced from Tina Bailey in July, 1986. Respondent was employed in the positions of athletic director, head football coach, and also had some duties teaching physical education. During the fall semester of 1985, respondent spent his mornings at Anderson Elementary School and was on the high school campus at Dixie County High School from 11:15 a.m. through the remainder of the day. During the Respondent's fifth hour he taught physical education, and during his sixth period he was involved in being the varsity coach for boys' football. Dixie County High School, which is located in Cross City, is the only public high school in the County. The population of Cross City is 3,000. The position of head football coach at Dixie County High School is a "spotlight figure," a visible position with a great deal of influence or contact with young people. A valid teaching certificate is necessary to hold the position of football coach at a public high school. During the late summer of 1985, Respondent attempted to use his influence as head football coach to intercede and possibly prevent an impasse in the contract negotiation between the teachers and the Board. Respondent's action resulted in members of the football team, and possibly some of their parents, putting pressure on the Superintendent of Schools to call a Board meeting. The student aides assigned to the Physical Education Department for fifth period of the 1985-1986 school year were Mary Cravey and Trina Fletcher. Trina was a senior during the 1985-1986 school year and head cheerleader. She had been a cheerleader since the seventh grade. Due to Trina's head cheerleading responsibilities and being a teacher's aide in the same period Respondent taught physical education, she had more contact than usual with the head football coach in her senior year. During the fall semester of 1985, toward the end of October, School Principal Kenneth Baumer was advised by Cynthia Wells, an English teacher, that Trina was romantically involved with Respondent. Upon Baumer questioning the Respondent and Trina, both denied any improper conduct and there was insufficient evidence to show any improper conduct prior to this date. However, in effort to quiet any rumors, Baumer transferred Trina across campus under the supervisor of her aunt, Cherie Norton. Sometime after Trina was placed under the supervision of her aunt, Trina became attracted to Respondent, and Respondent later became attracted to Trina, and they began to discuss their personal problems with each other. Later on, subsequent to the discussion with Baumer but before Respondent resigned his position, their relationship became more personal and progressed to the point of physical contact such as hugging and kissing on possibly one or two occasions off campus and out of Dixie County. After Respondent resigned in late November, 1985, his relationship with Trina continued, but it was not until after her eighteenth birthday that the relationship progressed to the point of being physical and sexual. Also, they dated more openly after Trina's eighteenth birthday. It was not until Respondent resigned that Trina's parents became fully aware of the relationship. Trina's parents were bitterly opposed to Trina dating or seeing Respondent and, as a result, on her 18th birthday, January 23, 1986, Trina moved in with her Aunt, Cherie Norton. After moving out of her parents' home, Trina received very little financial support from her parents. The relationship between Trina and her parents was very poor during the spring of 1986. Trina did not go to the senior prom, although she did go for pictures, nor did she go on the senior trip. Trina decided against going to these events because she was dating Respondent. There was no evidence that Respondent encouraged Trina not to attend these events. Trina was a straight "A" student which did not change as a result of her relationship with Respondent. Trina had a standing academic scholarship to attend Lake City Junior College. Trina did not attend college, although she was encouraged by Respondent to attend college, and, in fact, offered financial assistance through his uncle. In a small community such as Cross City, rumors, whether true or untrue, affect an individual's reputation and could damage the effectiveness of teachers in a classroom. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's effectiveness as a classroom teacher was adversely affected by any rumors before or after he had resigned. Respondent was aware after the discussion with Baumer that getting involved with a female student, particularly while employed by the Board, was inappropriate. There was insufficient evidence that Trina suffered any damaging consequences as a result of her relationship with Respondent, particularly prior to his resignation. Trina was a "loner"; her friends were limited and she did not mix well with her peers. This was true before and after she became involved with Respondent, and there is insufficient evidence to show that Trina was treated any differently by her peers or the public at large in Dixie County after she became involved with Respondent, particularly before his resignation. Although, as a rule, high school students may be sensitive to what is said about them by their classmates, there was insufficient evidence to show that any derogatory remarks were made to or about Trina, directly or "behind her back," concerning her relationship with Respondent that resulted in Trina being embarrassed or hurt, being isolated from, or treated differently by her peers or suffering any damaging consequences. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's relationship adversely affected or seriously reduced his effectiveness as a teacher and an employee of the Board, notwithstanding the testimony of Principal Baumer and Superintendent Hardin in this regard, particularly their concern about the political implication of any Board member's thinking or theories in recommending Respondent for re-employment as a teacher in Dixie County, Florida. It is clear that there was a strong mutual affection between Respondent and Trina, in spite of the age difference, that lasted for a period approximately 1 1/2 years, long after Respondent had resigned and Trina had graduated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practice Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes, for conduct constituting "gross immorality" and suspending Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of (1) year, subject to reinstatement in accordance with Section 231.28(4)(6), Florida Statutes. It is further Recommended that Petitioner's Final Order dismiss all other charges relating to a violation of Section 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6D-1.006(3)(e) and (h) and Rule 6B-1.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4782 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-12, respectfully. The first sentence is immaterial. The second sentence is adopted in Finding of Fact 14. The first sentence is immaterial. The second sentence is adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 16.-17. Adopted Findings of Fact 15 and 16, respectively. 18.-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 17, respectively. 24.-26. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 20 and 22, respectively. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 15 and 16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 16. Rejected as being argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as being argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Steffens, Esquire Nabors, Giblin, Steffens & Nickerson, P.A. 106 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Bailey, Pro Se Post Office Box 1482 Cross City, Florida 32628 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4.; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who testified, the evidence admitted in the record at the final hearing, and the documents officially recognized, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the agency head of the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is responsible for filing an administrative complaint, and prosecuting the case in an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, if the educator disputes the allegations. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 878903, covering the areas of Athletic Coaching and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2025. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as the athletic director at Evans High School (Evans) in the Orange County School District (District). Respondent was first employed by the District from 2004 to 2008, when he worked at Evans as a basketball coach and physical education teacher. He was re-employed by the District from 2014 until late in the 2017-2018 school year. He worked at Freedom High School (Freedom) as a physical education teacher and assistant athletic director through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. He then was employed at Evans as athletic director for most of the 2017-2018 school year. He resigned on April 5, 2018, pursuant to a settlement agreement with the School Board of Orange County (School Board), which is the District's governing body. Rolando Bailey was the assistant principal at Evans when Respondent was first employed there, and Mr. Bailey was the principal at Freedom when Respondent worked there through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. Mr. Bailey acknowledged "situations" during Respondent's earlier time at Evans and while at Freedom that involved "conflict" and "communications" issues with Respondent and required administrative intervention, but these problems were handled without involving the Employee Relations office (now called the Employee Standards office) to impose discipline. Mr. Bailey left Freedom to become principal at Evans beginning in the 2017-2018 school year. He thought Respondent would be a good candidate for the athletic director position at Evans, because Respondent was familiar with the community and Mr. Bailey thought he would be good at program building, which is what Mr. Bailey thought the athletic department needed. When Mr. Bailey made the move from Freedom to Evans, he brought not only Respondent with him, but also, at least 15 other administrators and teachers. This set a bit of an "us against them" tone between the existing faculty and staff at Evans and the Freedom transplants. Respondent and Mr. Bailey had a close working relationship. The perception among Evans personnel, based on observed interactions between Respondent and Mr. Bailey, was that they were also close personal friends. At the hearing, Mr. Bailey and Respondent both denied being close personal friends, but they were alumni of the same college, members of the same fraternity, and would frequently meet after regular school working hours. Mr. Bailey acknowledged these frequent meetings, although he said that they were work-related: "The role itself gave us the opportunity to talk outside of hours." (Tr. 200-01). These meetings did nothing to dispel the perception among Evans personnel that Mr. Bailey and Respondent were close personal friends. Evans presented challenges for Mr. Bailey as incoming principal. The school had not been performing well academically, with a "D" rating by the state, and he was intent on improving that performance. As for the athletic department, Mr. Bailey saw the need for "program building," noting that facilities were in disrepair and resources such as uniforms and equipment were scarce, resulting in a lack of school pride. Respondent's objective was to turn the Evans sports teams into winning programs. Respondent's charge was to "lead and direct" the athletic department and allow Mr. Bailey to focus on academics. However, Mr. Bailey made a commitment to the Evans coaches who were already in place when Mr. Bailey came over from Freedom. Mr. Bailey told the Evans coaches that the 2017- 2018 school year would be an evaluative year, and there would not be any changes made until after the end of the year. Mr. Bailey committed to personally participating in each coach's evaluation at year-end, along with Respondent, and Mr. Bailey would make the decision then regarding whether changes were needed to move in a different direction. Mr. Bailey was of the view that certain changes would be needed after the evaluative year. For example, he noted that several coaches held more than one head coaching position, which he generally disagreed with except for certain "related" sports, such as cross-country and track, which had separate seasons so one individual could be head coach of both. Mr. Bailey also was of the view that an individual should probably not serve as both a head coach and an administrative dean, although exceptions could be allowed and Mr. Bailey was willing to wait and see if individuals at Evans were handling it well.2 For the 2017-2018 "evaluative" school year, Mr. Bailey was willing— and had committed—to not make changes to conform the staffing to his views, and instead, to await year-end evaluations to make these decisions. Respondent expressed a different view, stating that if it had been up to him, he would have terminated all existing coaches when he started at Evans and he would have made them all reapply. But it was not up to Respondent, and Mr. Bailey's commitment stood. Respondent started working at Evans during the last few days of July 2017. He immediately implemented some changes in how the athletic 2 For example, Mr. Thompson was an administrative dean and head football coach at Evans for years before Mr. Bailey became principal and he remained in both positions after Mr. Bailey became principal. department was run. One change involved employing Ms. Woodard, who came over from Freedom with Mr. Bailey and the others, as assistant athletic director with the responsibility for inputting team roster information, including documenting compliant physicals and grade point averages (GPAs) for the students on the roster. This apparently had the effect of revealing students who were disqualified because they did not meet the minimum requirement of a 2.0 GPA. Previously, coaches were responsible for inputting their own team rosters. The claim asserted at hearing was that coaches were "padding" their rosters with disqualified students3 or inactive students.4 The motive suggested for "padding" a roster would be that for "minor" sports like cross-country, track, swimming, golf, and others, higher roster numbers could result in supplements being authorized for assistant coaching positions. A reduction in roster numbers could mean a reduction or loss of supplements, which could mean that assistant coaches would have to coach on a volunteer basis, or a head coach might have to do without, or without as many, assistant coaches. There was no competent credible evidence proving specific instances of wrongful or inappropriate roster padding.5 3 Respondent explained how students without qualifying GPAs might have been mistakenly listed on rosters showing qualifying GPAs. He acknowledged that coaches did not have access to detailed GPA data, and instead, might input a student's cumulative GPA as shown on the prior year's report card. However, that GPA might include grades for classes that were not eligible for purposes of meeting the minimum GPA required to participate in sports. 4 Ms. Bellamy, the girls' basketball head coach, said she discouraged "her" girls from going out for cross-country, because they "probably" would not be allowed to compete in meets. Her comments were more suggestive of a turf war than credible evidence of roster padding. 5 Several witnesses who were not at Evans until 2017-2018 offered their belief that roster padding occurred before the 2017-2018 school year. The credible testimony established only that when rosters were prepared or updated under Respondent's system beginning in August 2017, inputting updated GPAs resulted in some students being disqualified. Ms. Woodard, who implemented the new system, admitted she was not sure how many supplements were lost or in which sport. She thought cross-country may have lost supplements, but then said the sport previously had four or six supplements and that it had four supplements after she updated the rosters. Whitney Poole claimed that rosters had been padded the previous year, but she did not explain how she could have known that, since she was not at Evans before August 2017, and then was only a math teacher. She did not have any position in the athletic department before January 2018 when she became an assistant coach. In general, Ms. Poole was not a credible witness, and with one exception, her testimony was not credited. Sheree Carter Sheree Carter was a coach and administrative dean at Evans in 2017- 2018, when Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and others came to Evans from Freedom. She had been employed at Evans since 2012. She remains employed at Evans to this day. During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Carter held the following positions at Evans: administrative dean over attendance; head coach of girls' cross-country and girls' track; and assistant coach for girls' weightlifting. Ms. Carter was slated for those same positions headed into the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Carter took comfort from Mr. Bailey's assurance that no changes would be made until he made the decisions after personally participating in the year-end evaluations. Ms. Carter testified that she met Respondent at the end of July, during the two-week pre-planning period before classes started. Within a week or two after they met, Respondent started saying things to let her know that he was interested in her. He made her uncomfortable, and she rebuffed his advances. But rather than discouraging his comments, the intensity and frequency of Respondent's advances escalated. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent would walk by her office, which was at the back of the front office, and he would poke his head in to see if anyone else was with her. Respondent never came into her office if someone else was with her; he waited until she was alone, and then he would come in. His conversation opener was that he was recently divorced and was trying to get his feet wet getting back into the dating game. She responded by saying okay, cool, good luck with that. Respondent then started coming by Ms. Carter's office to ask if she wanted to grab lunch together or come eat lunch in his office. She declined each time he asked. After the rebuffed lunch offers, Respondent started asking Ms. Carter if she wanted to go to the movies with him or grab drinks after work. Again, she turned him down each time. Respondent's next approach was to let Ms. Carter know that he had a sofa in his office, followed by repeated invitations to Ms. Carter to hang out and chill with him on the sofa in his office. These invitations were conveyed with a personal, intimate air. Ms. Carter always turned down these advances and let Respondent know she was uncomfortable with what he was asking. Respondent approached Ms. Carter with these advances not only when she was alone in her office, but also, on the practice fields and in the hallways or courtyard, if she was alone. Respondent only approached Ms. Carter to make these advances when no one else was around.6 Ms. Carter described it as "creepy," like "in a stalking type of way. Like he would just wait for that right moment to approach you when you're by yourself and then throw these advances at me." (Tr. 74). Respondent's stalking-type behavior and frequent approaches affected Ms. Carter's ability to do her job. She delayed or avoided communicating with Respondent about coaching matters, despite needing to communicate with the athletic director. She would check hallways before freely moving around to make sure Respondent was not present, and she took to closing her office door to give the impression she was not there. Ms. Carter's testimony was credible and clear. Her demeanor was earnest and believable. In contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the advances claimed by Ms. Carter lacked credibility. Respondent was evasive. He frequently avoiding a direct answer to the question, as illustrated by the following: Q: And did you invite her to your office to chill? A: I was hardly ever in the office. I mean, so, it's very hard to chill in there. I was very, very on the go. I was very, very on the go. You know, Mr. Bailey was big on the look and appearance. So there was stuff always that needed to be done with the field and 6 Mr. Bailey testified that he never observed Respondent engage in sexual harassment, but conceded that sexual harassment is not normally something that he sees people doing out in the open. with the cosmetics. So I was hardly ever in the office. The only time I was in the office if I had to be [sic]. But I was hardly ever in the office, so I definitely couldn't be there just to chill because it was just too much work to do. (Tr. 324). * * * Q: Did you ever invite her to eat lunch in your office? A: I never ate lunch. It's hard for me to eat lunch because I had lunch duty and we had three lunches. So, when am I going to eat lunch when I'm constantly being fussed at by Mr. Bailey about not answering e-mails. Because I was never in my office so my e-mails were forwarded to Ms. Woodard so I didn't have to hear from him about why I don't answer e-mails. So I never ate lunch during the day. (Tr. 327). Respondent avoided answering the questions posed—whether he ever invited Ms. Carter to chill or eat lunch in his office. Respondent danced around the subject, never denying or refuting Ms. Carter's clear testimony that he had, in fact, invited her multiple times to eat lunch in his office and to chill on the sofa in his office, but she turned him down each time. Respondent did deny that he had asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies7 or out for drinks with him, but he offered weak explanations, which were not persuasive, for why he would not have extended these invitations. When asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies with him, he responded: "No. I was too busy to be trying to go to the movies and live in a whole different county and try to work. You know, Evans was an hour and 20 minutes away. Freedom was 38. So there's no time to go to the movies. Especially with a person you don't know, you know." (Tr. 325-26). And when 7 Ms. Poole, a witness for Respondent who generally went out of her way attempting to testify favorably for Respondent, said that she had been friendly with Ms. Carter at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Poole admitted that during this time, Ms. Carter told Ms. Poole that Respondent had asked her out to the movies. To that extent, Ms. Poole's testimony was credible, and it corroborated Ms. Carter's testimony. asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter out for a drink, he said: "No, because I don't drink. … I just never had a drink, never smoked. So I don't drink. And because I don't drink, I'm not going to invite somebody out to watch them drink. So." (Tr. 326-27). Respondent's testimony on these points was less credible than Ms. Carter's testimony, and her testimony is credited. Ms. Carter testified that her discomfort with Respondent's advances came to a head at a soccer game, when he approached her and once again asked her out for drinks, and she got upset. She said that she blew up, emphatically reiterating (punctuated with curse words) that she had told him before she was not interested and expressing her frustration that he had not yet accepted the message that she wanted him to stop making advances at her. This was on a weeknight during the week of December 4, 2017. On Friday, December 8, 2017, Respondent went to Ms. Carter's office and told her: (1) that she was immediately removed, mid-season, from the assistant coach position for weightlifting, though she could keep the supplement; (2) that they would be moving in a different direction and she would no longer be head coach for girls' cross-country (which had ended its season one month earlier); and (3) that they would evaluate her position as head coach for girl's track after the spring. Respondent told Ms. Carter that he and Mr. Bailey had made these decisions because Mr. Bailey did not want her coaching and serving as an administrative dean at the same time.8 Ms. Carter was very upset because she loves coaching. She broke down crying and was so distraught, she was unable to perform her job duties to supervise during either lunch periods that day. Ms. Carter believed that 8 Respondent admitted to delivering this news to Ms. Carter, although he said it was in a routine meeting in his office that he had scheduled to give Ms. Carter her end-of-season evaluation for coaching girls' cross-country (conflicting with Mr. Bailey's clear testimony that he always participated in evaluations, which were done at the end of the year). Curiously, Respondent testified that his evaluation had no meaning, and its only purpose was to give coaches something for possible future employers wanting to see evaluations. Respondent failed to explain, if the meeting was only to address a meaningless end-of-season evaluation for one sport, why he used the occasion to deliver meaningful consequences or why he addressed more than that one sport. Respondent took this action to retaliate against her because she had rebuffed his advances, particularly after her strong rebuke of him earlier that week. Up to this point, Ms. Carter had confided in two different colleagues regarding Respondent's advances and her discomfort with them, but she had not lodged a formal complaint against Respondent with Mr. Bailey. She was concerned that Mr. Bailey would take Respondent's side in a dispute because of their longstanding relationship and apparent close personal friendship. Previously, when she had confided in Mr. Thompson, he had told her she should talk to Respondent regarding her discomfort, but she had tried that repeatedly. When she confided again in Mr. Thompson upon being reduced to tears on December 8, 2017, this time he told her she should not be talking with colleagues rather than going through proper channels, and he urged her to file a complaint. Ms. Carter followed that advice, submitting a complaint in an email to Mr. Bailey, which she sent to him just after midnight, very early on Monday morning, December 11, 2017. She asked if she could meet with Mr. Bailey to discuss what Respondent had told her regarding her coaching responsibilities and her concern that Respondent had taken this action because she had turned down his advances. Directly contradicting Respondent's claim, Mr. Bailey testified that he did not make the decision to remove Ms. Carter from her coaching duties during the 2017-2018 school year, nor did he direct Respondent to tell Ms. Carter in December—in the middle of the "evaluative year"—that she could not remain as coach and administrative dean.9 Instead, as he had committed to do at the beginning of the year, Mr. Bailey waited until the end of the school year to have the conversation with Ms. Carter about changes going forward. At that time, he informed her that he did not want her to continue in the dual roles of coaching and administrative dean in the 2018- 9 When Mr. Bailey found out that Respondent had that conversation with Ms. Carter on December 8, 2017, he had a meeting with Respondent to find out why he did that. 2019 school year. Ms. Carter wanted to remain in coaching to continue building her programs. With Mr. Bailey's agreement, she gave up the administrative dean position and returned to classroom teaching the next school year so she could continue coaching. Mr. Bailey was a witness for Respondent and he attempted to be supportive of Respondent in his testimony. However, Mr. Bailey clearly and directly contradicted Respondent's claim that he had instructed Respondent to remove Ms. Carter from coaching on December 8, 2017. Mr. Bailey was surprised by Ms. Carter's email reporting that Respondent had done so and had attributed the decision to Mr. Bailey. After meeting with Ms. Carter, Mr. Bailey reported Ms. Carter's complaint to the Employee Relations office for investigation.10 In contrast to the "situations" involving Respondent when he was first at Evans and again while at Freedom, which were handled by administrative interventions without involving Employee Relations, this time Mr. Bailey found it necessary to involve Employee Relations. Jamila Mitchell Jamila Mitchell, Ph.D., also provided testimony regarding inappropriate statements and conduct by Respondent that made her feel very uncomfortable and that interfered with her doing her job. Dr. Mitchell has been working at Evans since 2014. Her doctorate degree is in computer science. She has been the computer science instructor at Evans and the sports media sponsor. She held those two positions during the 2017-2018 school year. She was not a coach or assistant coach. As sports media sponsor, Dr. Mitchell is involved in all sports-related media, including film, photography, social media, and the school's website. 10 Two separate investigations were initiated: the first addressed alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by Respondent, pursuant to the District's responsibilities under civil rights laws as Ms. Carter's employer not to commit unlawful employment practices. When that investigation was completed with a finding of probable cause to believe there was sexual harassment, Mr. Ganio, then-manager of the District's Employee Relations office, completed an investigation into whether Respondent had engaged in misconduct, which would provide just cause for the School Board to take action against him as a District employee. Her responsibilities include managing sports-related website content and ensuring information is disseminated for all sports-related events. She must keep up with schedules, rosters, college recruiting activities, and events such as college scholarship signing days and awards banquets. Frequent communications with the Evans athletic director are essential to her job duties, at least by the time sports activities are in full swing after the first couple of weeks of each school year. Dr. Mitchell testified that beginning in September 2017, when her job required her to be in frequent communications with Respondent, he started saying and doing things that made Dr. Mitchell uncomfortable. On several occasions, Respondent referred to Dr. Mitchell as his "little Mexican." Dr. Mitchell is not Mexican. Respondent would say this when passing her in the hallway, if they were both at a game or event, or when he came to her classroom. Sometimes she was alone when he said this, but sometimes other people overheard what Respondent said. She was offended by Respondent's words, and also, uncomfortable having to explain to others who heard Respondent call her his little Mexican that she was not Mexican, but was biracial. Despite taking offense, she tried to ignore it or laugh it off. Respondent frequently came by Dr. Mitchell's classroom during her planning period when she was the only one there. At least initially, they would discuss sports media matters. But then the conversations would turn to Respondent telling Dr. Mitchell that he "liked the way her butt looked" in the pants she was wearing that day, or how whatever she was wearing accentuated some part of her body. She tried to change the subject back to work, but his comments made her feel weird and "creeped out." Respondent's frequent comments about her clothing and body impeded communications regarding sports media issues. Respondent's comments also caused Dr. Mitchell to stop wearing form-fitting clothing, pants that were a little bit tight, or shirts cut a little bit low.11 She began wearing loose clothing and when Respondent came by her classroom, she stayed seated behind her desk so he would not comment on "how her butt looked." Her discomfort and worries distracted from needed communications and interfered with getting the job done. It got to the point where Dr. Mitchell avoided communicating in person with Respondent, resorting to communicating by text or phone call. Dr. Mitchell described the "tipping point" for her was when she was walking through a courtyard to go to the front office and Respondent was coming out of the front office. Dr. Mitchell was wearing her hair down (loose), which she rarely did. When they passed in the courtyard, Respondent commented that he liked it when she wore her hair down because it gave him something to grab onto. There were other people in the courtyard—teachers and students—and Dr. Mitchell testified that she just prayed that nobody heard what Respondent said to her. She was highly embarrassed by what she reasonably interpreted as a sexual reference. Dr. Mitchell did not immediately complain about Respondent's inappropriate conduct, in part because she was embarrassed, but also, because she did not know to whom she could complain. She had seen how Mr. Bailey interacted with Respondent, and observed that they seemed to have a very friendly, personal relationship. She was concerned that if she said anything, it would be her job on the line. But when she was contacted by an investigator looking into Sheree Carter's complaint, who had been told that Respondent may have also harassed Dr. Mitchell, she spoke with the 11 Respondent suggested in his PRO that Dr. Mitchell should be faulted for her choice of attire in a school "full of hormonal high school students that most likely has a dress code, stated or implied, for teachers." (Resp. PRO at 28). No credible evidence supports a finding that Dr. Mitchell's attire was provocative, inappropriate, or contrary to any dress code, and none was cited. Respondent's argument is, in effect, that Dr. Mitchell "asked for it"—a classic means to deflect blame and excuse inappropriate sexual conduct, which is, or should be, a relic of the past. Respondent's veiled hint that Dr. Mitchell asked for it is tantamount to a concession that "it" occurred, necessitating an excuse for his behavior. There is no excuse. investigator and provided the same information about Respondent's offensive conduct to which she testified at the hearing. Dr. Mitchell was very credible and genuinely distraught as she described these uncomfortable encounters with Respondent. As with Ms. Carter's specific complaints, Respondent denied (or gave evasive, less-than-clear answers) that he said or did the things described by Dr. Mitchell.12 Respondent's testimony was not as credible as Dr. Mitchell's testimony. Dr. Mitchell's testimony is credited. Jessica Kendrick Jessica Kendrick was the head swim coach at Evans, coaching both the boys' and girls' swim teams, from 2013 through the 2018-2019 school year. Her testimony was fairly narrow in scope, but clear and to the point: when Respondent was the head of the athletics department in the 2017-2018 school year, he made her uncomfortable by standing very close whenever they talked with no one else nearby—that is, when there were no witnesses. Ms. Kendrick is five feet, eight inches in height. Respondent is six feet, one inch tall. He used his height advantage to intimidate Ms. Kendrick, making her feel like he was towering over her when he stood very close and looked down at her. Ms. Kendrick's vivid description was that Respondent would be standing so close to her that she could tell what he had for lunch. Ms. Kendrick's reaction to these close encounters was to back up to create space between Respondent and herself. But Respondent would quickly move forward to close the space she had created. She would inch back again; he would inch toward her to close the gap again. Respondent made Ms. Kendrick feel very uncomfortable. 12 In contrast, the investigative summary of the District's investigation into Ms. Carter's sexual harassment complaint reported that Respondent stated he "does not recall if he made inappropriate comments to [Dr.] Mitchell." (Pet. Ex. 14, Bates p. 35). Although statements of non-party witnesses reported in the investigative summary are hearsay, and thereby limited in use to supplementing or explaining competent evidence, Respondent's statements reported in the investigative summary that was offered against him are party admissions, excepted from hearsay, and admissible for all purposes. See § 90.803(18)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Kendrick had been the head swim head coach at Evans for four years before Respondent became athletic director. He made her so uncomfortable when they spoke in person that she went out of her way to avoid him. She told the two assistant swim coaches, Mr. Rivers and Mr. Ross, about her discomfort with Respondent. She asked her assistants to take her place for in-person meetings or discussions with Respondent so she could avoid any more uncomfortable close encounters with Respondent. It affected her job; communications with the athletic director were necessary for her to function effectively as head coach. Ms. Kendrick testified that rather than having to interact with Respondent, if Respondent had continued on as athletic director at Evans, she would have given up the head coaching position. Instead, Respondent resigned, and Ms. Kendrick decided to remain head swim coach at Evans for the 2018-2019 school year. Respondent testified that he had no idea what Ms. Kendrick was talking about. Ms. Kendrick's testimony was more credible than Respondent's and is credited. At the hearing, Respondent made the blanket statement that all the witnesses testifying against him were lying. He claimed that Ms. Carter and Ms. Kendrick were lying to get back at him for changing the procedures to prevent roster padding and costing them coaching supplements.13 He claimed that their colleagues, in whom they had confided and who corroborated their testimony, were also lying. Respondent's attempted attacks on the credibility 13 Ironically, the suggestion that Ms. Carter was mad because she lost supplements as a result of the changed roster procedures was contradicted by Respondent's own testimony. As for her head coaching positions, Respondent testified that head coaches receive supplemental pay irrespective of roster numbers. Ms. Carter might have lost those supplements as a result of Respondent's unauthorized attempt to remove Ms. Carter from cross-country head coach and to threaten removal from track, had those actions stood, but they were reversed by Mr. Bailey. As for the supplement Ms. Carter received as assistant weightlifting coach, Respondent admitted that when he told Ms. Carter she was relieved of her assistant coaching duties mid-season, he told her she could retain the supplement. Respondent's actions had nothing to do with supplements or rosters; Respondent acted to retaliate against Ms. Carter for rebuffing his repeated advances. of the witnesses testifying against him were not persuasive and did not undermine their clear, credible testimony. Most notably, although Respondent claimed some witnesses had a motive to lie to get back at him because of lost coaching supplements, no such motive was or could be attributed to Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell was not a coach or an assistant coach. Respondent offered no cogent theory to explain why Dr. Mitchell would fabricate her testimony. Respondent's accusation that Dr. Mitchell's testimony was invented does not square with her display of emotions at the hearing. She was visibly shaken and crying when she described her embarrassment with Respondent's sexual innuendos, and when she explained why she did not complain about Respondent at the time. Ulunda Frazier The pattern of behavior evident from the complaints of Ms. Carter, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Kendrick is further buttressed, at least generally, by court records regarding Ulunda Frazier and Respondent. Ms. Frazier is a teacher. At the time pertinent to this case, she taught at Oak Ridge High School (Oak Ridge), within the District. At the hearing, Respondent described Ms. Frazier as a longtime personal friend he has known for 15 or 16 years. He said Ms. Frazier used to babysit for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant and toddler. Respondent admitted that his personal relationship with Ms. Frazier had turned "toxic." He did not offer any details to explain in what way the relationship turned toxic. Instead, alluding to a close intimate relationship gone bad, he said only that his relationship with Ms. Frazier "had become toxic and out of control that was actually birthed out of both of our pains. We -- she was going through an ugly divorce and I was going through my treatments and stuff. And so the relationship had just got toxic and it had -- it was no longer a friendly environment." (Tr. 351). Court records in Frazier v. Crawford, Case No. 48-2018-DR-000923-O, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, were officially recognized. The records reflect that on January 24, 2018, Ms. Frazier filed a Petition for Injunction Against Stalking under section 784.0485, Florida Statutes, seeking to enjoin Respondent from stalking her. That same day, the court issued a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Stalking. On January 25, 2018, the Polk County Sheriff's Office served the Temporary Injunction, Ms. Frazier's Petition, and a Notice of Hearing on Respondent at his residence. The hearing was scheduled for February 6, 2018, and was held as noticed. Both Ms. Frazier and Respondent attended. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking (Stalking Injunction). Respondent received a copy by hand delivery in open court, as acknowledged by his signature on the Stalking Injunction. He is therefore "deemed to have knowledge of and to be bound by all matters occurring at the hearing and on the face of" the Stalking Injunction. (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 51-52). The Stalking Injunction contains the following finding: "After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consent of Respondent, the Court finds, based on the specific facts of this case, that Petitioner is a victim of stalking."14 (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 47). On that basis, the Stalking Injunction ordered as follows: "Respondent shall not commit, or cause any other person to commit, any acts of stalking against Petitioner, including stalking, cyberstalking, aggravated stalking, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death. Respondent shall not commit any other violation of the injunction through an intentional unlawful threat, word or act to do violence to Petitioner." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 50). The Stalking Injunction is in effect until February 26, 2021. 14 "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree[.]" § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). Section 784.0485 creates a cause of action for a person who is a victim of stalking to obtain an injunction for protection against stalking. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Stalking Injunction "reduced Respondent's effectiveness as an athletic director because it limited his ability to travel to that school and perform his duties." The terms of the Stalking Injunction do not support this allegation. While the Stalking Injunction generally and broadly prohibited Respondent from having any contact with Ms. Frazier, including at Oak Ridge where she worked and at her residence (both of which were in Orlando), there is an express exception to the no-contact prohibition, as follows: "The Respondent may go to Oakridge [sic] High School only for a valid business reason. If any contact occurs, it shall be non-hostile contact." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 49). In several respects, however, the Stalking Injunction contradicts Respondent's testimony. Respondent denied that he would have made advances on Ms. Carter because he was married and had been married to the same woman since 2010. Yet his close personal relationship with Ms. Frazier predated his marriage by five or six years. Respondent testified that Ms. Frazier babysat for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant. The fact that Respondent got married to someone else five years later did not prevent Respondent from engaging in a first "friendly" and then "toxic" close relationship with Ms. Frazier, or from stalking Ms. Frazier before the Stalking Injunction was issued against him on February 6, 2018. Whatever the details may be regarding Respondent's stalking of Ms. Frazier, it is noteworthy that she lived and worked in Orlando. This belies Respondent's claim that he could not have harassed Ms. Carter with the repeated advances she described, because he would not have had time to go to the movies or out for drinks near where he worked in Orange County. He attempted to paint the picture that he spent every moment in Orange County working or commuting to and from his home in distant Polk County. The Stalking Injunction stands as evidence that, contrary to Respondent's claim, in addition to working at Evans and commuting to and from Polk County, Respondent found time to have a first friendly, then toxic relationship with Ms. Frazier and to stalk Ms. Frazier where she lived and worked in Orange County. Respondent's Separation from the District The investigation into Ms. Carter's complaint identified individuals who were potential witnesses with relevant information or possible victims. After conducting interviews, the District held a pre-determination meeting on March 7, 2018, to share with Respondent the information learned during the investigation and give him an opportunity to respond. Respondent appeared with a union representative, who instructed him not to respond. On March 27, 2018, Respondent was suspended from work with pay while the District completed its investigation. This "Relief of Duty" status is employed when warranted by the seriousness of the allegations. "Relief of Duty" included an immediate suspension of network access, including email. During the process of completing the investigation, the District discovered a new allegation of inappropriate conduct by Respondent. The District learned of Ms. Frazier's Petition and the resulting Stalking Injunction. It held a second pre-determination meeting on April 3, 2018, to inform Respondent that it had learned about the Stalking Injunction. Again, Respondent was given the chance to respond, but again, he refused to say anything on advice of his union representative. On the same day as the second pre-determination meeting, Barbara Jenkins, the District Superintendent, issued a memorandum to the School Board, transmitting a complaint charging Respondent with misconduct in office and conduct unbecoming a public employee, and recommending that Respondent be terminated from employment for the charged violations. Immediately after the complaint and recommendation for termination were released, Respondent negotiated and finalized a Settlement Agreement and General Release (Agreement) with the School Board. The Agreement expressly stated that it was not to be construed as an admission by Respondent or the District of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent was required to resign as of April 5, 2018, and to tender a written letter of resignation. Pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent agreed "he will not reapply for or accept employment [at a District school] at any time in the future." Respondent also acknowledged that the District would be submitting its investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct to the Department of Education Professional Practices Commission, as required by section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes. In form and substance, the Agreement is a common vehicle utilized for resignation of an employee in lieu of the employee having to answer to charges and face the prospect of termination. Respondent attempted to suggest that his resignation was purely voluntary, based on his decision that he did not want to work in a place where people would lie about him. His claim was not credible. Respondent fully understood when he took the position at Evans, along with at least 15 others brought over from Freedom by Mr. Bailey, that there would be an "us against them" air that he would have to overcome. Mr. Bailey attempted to set the stage for developing good relationships with existing Evans coaches and other staff, by deeming the first year an "evaluative year" in which there would not be any position changes until the evaluative year was discussed with Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and the coach at the end of the year. Respondent knew that Evans had challenging problems to overcome, with scarce resources in terms of facilities, equipment, and uniforms, and that he was expected to build winning programs and instill school pride. He knew he was expected to put in place the systems, policies, and procedures that would allow for program building, and he was well aware that his changes would be unpopular with some. It defies logic and credibility for Respondent to suggest that he chose to walk away from his commitment before completing one school year only because existing Evans coaches and assistant coaches were lying about him. Mr. Bailey acknowledged that, as principal, he was compelled to let the investigation process be carried out. As he put it: "[W]hat I performed is my role as a principal. That when there's conduct that's unbecoming of an employee, or an employee feeling as if they have been, in this case, harassed, I'm going to follow the guidance that has been presented to me in my role as the leader of the school." (Tr. 209). He acknowledged that at the culmination of that process, when it was reported to him, he followed the guidance that he was supposed to follow, and as a result, Respondent was no longer at his school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) through a violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., and imposing the following as penalties: suspension of Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of three years from the date of the final order; probation for a period of three years after the suspension, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission, which should include a requirement that Respondent take two college level courses, one in professional ethics for educators and one related to women's rights in the workplace; and payment of a $750.00 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2021. Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue is whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Dade County School Board and in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Commissioner of Education, and, if so, the appropriate penalties.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The respondent currently holds Florida Teaching Certificate 409549, issued by the Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Teacher Certification, covering the areas of physical education and middle grades general sciences. This certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. The respondent has been employed by the School Board since 1974 and has been assigned to American High School since 1976. Until April 23, 1993, when he was placed on alternate assignment at the Dade County school system's Region I office, he taught at American High School and coached the girls' basketball team. 2/ Teacher/student sexual relationship. While he was a teacher at American High School, the respondent engaged in a sexual relationship with A. C., a student, which began when the student was under 16 years of age, and he fathered a child born to the student on January 13, 1987. A. C. attended the 9th through 11th grades at American High School, from 1983 through 1986. She was at the school one night when the respondent approached her and asked if she would consider having a sexual relationship with him. She agreed, and they entered into a relationship which lasted approximately one and one-half years. A. C. and the respondent would meet at school during school hours, toward the end of the school day, and he would drive her to his apartment, where they would engage in sexual intercourse. In June 1986, A. C. learned she was pregnant. She believed that her pregnancy was the result of her relationship with the respondent, and she told the respondent that he was the father of her child. She also told her mother about the relationship and about her pregnancy, and her uncle notified the school authorities. An investigation was conducted by school authorities, but no action was taken against the respondent. A. C. gave birth to a daughter on January 13, 1987. A paternity blood test, including a Human Leukocyte Antigen test, was performed in the context of the paternity action brought by A. C. against the respondent in November 1987. The results of this blood test demonstrated a 99.19 percent probability that the respondent is the father of A. C.'s child. 3/ On May 1, 1989, a Final Judgment of Paternity was entered determining that the respondent was the father of the child born to A. C. on January 13, 1987. The judgment directed the Bureau of Vital Statistics to amend the child's birth certificate to reflect that the respondent was the child's father. The court also ordered the respondent to pay child support and found that, as of October, 1989, the respondent owed $8,500 in retroactive child support. On March 16, 1994, an article was published in the Miami Herald newspaper regarding the adjudication of paternity and the action taken by the School Board on March, 9, 1994, suspending the respondent. Sexual advances and improper touching of a student. E. T. was a student at American High School, and a member of the American High School girls' basketball team during her sophomore and junior years, from September 1991 to June 1993. She graduated from Dade Christian in June 1994 and has attended the University of Florida since that time. Between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon in the fall or early winter of the 1992-1993 school year, the respondent telephoned E. T.'s home. 4/ Her father answered, and, because E. T. was not yet home from church, he took a message from the respondent reminding her about her appointment that afternoon for a back treatment. Mr. T. gave his daughter the message as soon as she arrived home, and she immediately changed clothes and left the house. E. T. drove to the school and parked in the back. After the respondent arrived, they went into the gym, and the respondent went into the boys' locker room to call security to let them know he was in the building. They walked upstairs to the training room, where the whirlpool was located. The respondent told E. T. she needed to spend thirty minutes in the whirlpool, and she got into the whirlpool wearing boxer shorts and her basketball shirt. When E. T. got out of the whirlpool, the respondent offered to help her dry off; she told him that would not be necessary. The respondent then told E. T. she needed a back massage. Although she initially refused, she eventually acquiesced and lay on the table. The respondent persuaded her to remove her shorts so he could massage her lower back. The respondent massaged E. T.'s thighs and buttocks in addition to her lower back. When he told her to turn over, she hesitated but then did as he said. He proceeded to massage her legs and thighs, then moved to her inner thighs. When he touched her genitalia, she jumped up, grabbed her things, and ran out of the training room into the girls' locker room. The lights were not on in the locker room, and she ran into lockers and chairs until she finally found her way outside. During this episode, she felt helpless and afraid, embarrassed and violated. She drove home and immediately took a shower. 5/ E. T. did not tell anyone about this incident for some time. When her parents learned of the incident some months later, in March or early April 1993, T. and her parents went to school and told one of the school administrators, Mike Dupree, about the incident. Mr. Dupree passed the information on to Robert Snyder, American High School's principal, who requested that the School Board police initiate an investigation. As a result of the complaint, the respondent was placed on alternate assignment at the Region I office. Financial irresponsibility. The coaches at American High School, including the respondent, were reminded at the beginning of each school year of the requirement that pre- approved purchase orders be obtained for all orders for athletic equipment for the school teams. Vendors doing business with American High School were advised of the purchase order requirement and were advised that American High School would not be liable for any purchases made without a purchase order number and that the individual coach would be responsible for payment. On or about December 8, 1989, respondent ordered twenty-four pairs of athletic shoes from Midway Sporting Goods at a cost of $1,257. The invoice bears the name of the 'American High School Girls Basketball Varsity and J.V.,' but it does not contain a purchase order number. The respondent knew at the time he placed the order that a purchase order number was required in order for the bill to be paid out of the internal account of American High School girls' basketball team. 6/ The respondent also knew at the time he placed the order that he had no alternate source of payment for the shoes. 7/ The respondent received the shoes, and they were used by the American High School girls' basketball team. The respondent did not, however, pay for the purchase even though he knew he was required to do so under school policy. The bill for this order was not paid until November, 1992, when Mr. Snyder authorized payment from the internal account of the American High School girls' basketball team at the urging of the School Board's attorney and in response to a letter dated February 2, 1991, from Midway Sporting Goods' attorneys threatening to sue the school and the School Board unless the invoice was paid. Mr. Johnson has not repaid the school the $1,257. American High School also received copies of two other invoices, one from Miami Lakes Sports Shop for $839.40, dated December 4, 1991, and one from Matty's Sports for $392.83, dated November 28, 1992, both showing that sports equipment, primarily shoes, was 'Sold to' American High School, to be shipped to the respondent. Neither invoice contains an approved purchase order number. Respondent placed these orders knowing that a purchase order number was required in order for the bill to be paid out of the internal account of American High School girls' basketball team. The respondent also knew at the time he placed the order that he had no alternate source of payment for the shoes. He received the equipment he ordered, and it was used by the American High School girls' basketball team, but the respondent has not paid the amounts owed for the purchases. The vendors have asked American High School for assistance in collecting the monies owed. The respondent asked that American High School pay for the purchases, but Mr. Snyder refused. On May 4, 1992, American High School received a letter from a representative of Florida International University requesting assistance in collecting $450 from the respondent. The letter charged that the respondent wrote a personal check in this amount to pay the fee for students from American High School to participate in a basketball camp during the summer of 1991, that the check was returned for insufficient funds, and that attempts to collect the $450 had not been successful. On July 22, 1993, the respondent wrote a check for $495 payable to SOYSA (South Orlando Youth Sports Association), and, on July 23, 1993, he wrote another check payable to SOYSA for $100. The checks were written on the 'American Basketball Booster Club' account, and the address stated on the face of the checks is the same address as that of American High School. The respondent knew at the time he wrote the checks that there were not sufficient funds in the account to cover them. In September, 1993, Robert Snyder, American High School's principal, was asked by the Association for assistance in collecting the funds. In July, 1993, when the respondent and members of the American High School girls' basketball team were in Orlando, Florida, at a basketball tournament, the respondent telephoned a fellow teacher and asked if he would send $500 to help pay expenses. The respondent promised to pay the money back. The teacher, Kevin Van Duser, sent an American Express MoneyGram. The respondent received the money, either in Orlando or, on his return, in Miami. He has not repaid Mr. Van Duser. The import of the respondent's conduct. The respondent's behavior in engaging in a sexual relationship with a fifteen-year-old student and in making sexual advances to another student is, of itself, sufficiently outrageous to constitute gross immorality and misconduct in office and to impair irretrievably his effectiveness as an employee of the Dade County school system. The respondent breached the special relationship of trust existing between a teacher and a coach and his students; he fostered conditions likely to be harmful to the mental and physical health and safety of A.C. and E.T.; he caused E. T. extreme embarrassment and distress; and he exploited his position as teacher and a coach for his own personal advantage. The respondent's financial irresponsibility constitutes misconduct in office because it is in contravention of a teacher's obligation to the profession to be honest in all professional dealings. The repeated acts of financial irresponsibility committed by the respondent reveal a course of conduct so serious that it impairs the respondent's effectiveness in the school system and as an employee of the school board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, in Case No. 94-1467, the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order concluding that Frank Johnson is guilty of immorality and misconduct in office and terminating his employment with the School Board of Dade County, sustaining his suspension of March 9, 1994, and denying back pay for the period of suspension. RECOMMENDED that, in Case No. 94-3575, the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order concluding that Frank Johnson is guilty of gross immorality, personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board, and violation of rules of the State Board of Education which carry a penalty of revocation and revoking permanently his teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 9th day of August 1995.
The Issue The issues in this case concern an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent under authority set forth in Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 6B, Florida Administrative Code. In the course of that complaint, Respondent is accused of making derogatory racial remarks directed to black students in his class, denying privileges to students within his class based upon race, and the exclusion of a black student from a position in extracurricular activities. He is also accused of physically striking a student on the leg with a stick and grabbing that student and restraining the student against the student's will.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the inquiry Respondent, a white male, was licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Education as a teacher. The teaching certificate issued for that purpose is number 447593. That certificate covers the subject area of math. During the relevant period under examination by the administrative complaint Respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher and a soccer coach at J.E.B. Stuart Junior High School in Duval County, Florida. While teaching one of his math classes in the school year 1988-1989, he made certain remarks which were racial in nature and demeaning to black students in his class. Tekina Watson, a class member in this junior high class, who is black, recalls the Respondent saying something to the effect that, "Black people should stay in their place and stop trying to be white like us." This made her feel uncomfortable or as she describes it made her feel like "dirt." She also heard the Respondent use the term "niggers." Tekina Watson complained about the racial remarks and withdrew from Respondent's math class as a result of those comments. Respondent in the face of those events told Tekina Watson that she should not come out for soccer anymore to serve in her capacity as manager for the boys soccer team. As a result, notwithstanding the attempts of other adults in the school to encourage her to rejoin the team as manager she resigned her position. Shawnae Latrice Worthy was also a student in the math class in which Tekina Watson was a student Ms. Worthy is black. Her recollection of Respondent's remark was to the effect that, "you need to start acting like black and stop trying to be like us", taken to mean that black people should act like black people and not attempt to act like white people. This upset Ms. Worthy. As a consequence of his remarks she was removed from his class as a student. Ronald Alexander Dubois was also a student in the mathematics class previously described. He remembers the Respondent saying something to the effect that, "blacks should act like blacks." Mr. Dubois is black. After the remark he was withdrawn from the math class. The impression this remark left on him was that he simply wanted to get out of the class and avoid any racism. Mr. Dubois also testified about concerns he had that a white female student in the class was allowed to be able to either sharpen a pencil or throw a piece of paper in the trash can and when Tekina Watson attempted to do so she was not allowed that opportunity. It is unclear from the record whether there was justification to allow the unnamed white female to sharpen a pencil or throw a piece of paper in the trash can and deny that opportunity to Tekina Watson. The three students who have been identified by name gave statements to school officials concerning the racial remarks by the Respondent. In January, 1989, while serving as a soccer coach, Respondent became upset with Thomas Earl Cravey, II, concerning Mr. Cravey's effort on the soccer field. In response to what Respondent considered to be inadequate attention to responsibilities as a player, Respondent told Mr. Cravey that he should stop "playing around." Respondent then went to a tree and cut a small branch and took that branch and switched Cravey on the legs leaving two marks. Respondent then escorted the student to the sidelines off the soccer field and in the course of these events grabbed the student by the ear. Words were exchanged between the Respondent and Mr. Cravey, none of which would justify the physical actions that have been described and are attributable to Respondent in dealing with Mr. Cravey. This exchange was seen by another soccer coach James Albert Calise. Based upon this circumstance the incident was investigated by the school and upset Mr. Cravey and his mother. When Respondent took the stand he tried to explain the statements that he had made in his classroom which are recalled by Tekina Watson, Shawnae Latrice Worthy and Ronald Alexander Dubois. It went something to the effect that he was trying to explain to the black students that they should be encouraged by their differences, be proud of those differences and at the same time have respect for themselves and be proud of themselves in that they could be outstanding in mathematics no matter what differences they might have. This explanation that Respondent attempted is not accepted as excusing his remarks, which remarks as reported have derogatory racial overtones. Likewise the attempt to explain away the incident related to the soccer player Thomas Earl Cravey, II, is not accepted. To the extent that this was an effort at providing discipline to Mr. Cravey it was inappropriate discipline. John Emory Trawick who was the principal at J.E.B. Stuart Junior High during the time of the incidents that have been described testified at hearing. On the topic of whether the racial remarks and the conduct directed to the soccer player would constitute actions which cause the Respondent to lose his effectiveness as an employee of the Duval County School Board, Mr. Trawick said that the type of statements made in the presence of students if they continued would cause loss of effectiveness as would any future striking of a student. He stopped short in his opinion of indicating that the Respondent had lost his effectiveness because of the incidents. The proof on balance does not show that the Respondent because of these incidents has lost effectiveness as a teacher. This takes into account the fact that 5 to 7 students withdrew from his mathematics class as a result of the racial remarks.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts of fact made and the conclusions of law reached, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which suspends the Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of 60 days. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 31st day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3939 Petitioner's Facts The proposed facts of the Petitioner are discussed as follows: Paragraphs 1-7 are subordinate to the facts found with the exception of the reference to the idea that Respondent had referred to black students as "jerks". This is heresay information which may not be used for fact finding. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Paragraph 8 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 9 suggestion that parents requested that students be taken out of the Respondent's mathematics class is rejected. Again, for reasons that those suggested facts are hearsay and may not be used for fact finding. See Section 120.58(1), Florida Statutes. In this connection, the students desire to leave the class based upon the remarks of Respondent are not sufficient standing alone to say that the Respondent has lost his effectiveness. Paragraphs 10-13 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 14's suggestion that the Respondent was removed as a soccer coach is true, but is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute. Paragraph 15 is not necessary to the resolution of this dispute. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are contrary to the testimony of Mr. Trawick and are rejected. Paragraph 18 is contrary to the testimony of the Respondent, in that he did not acknowledge whether his swings at the student Mr. Cravey contacted the legs of that student. Nonetheless, it is found as a fact that he did strike the student. Paragraph 19 is an accurate depiction of the testimony but is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Rex D. Ware, Esquire Huey, Guilday, Kuersteiner and Tucker, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 510 Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, FL 32302 John F. Shuler 1253 Ribault River Drive Jacksonville, FL 32233 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's educator's certificate should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint filed on November 7, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Richard T. Vaughn, Jr., is licensed as a teacher having been issued Florida Educator's Certificate 678116 by the Department of Education. The certificate covers the area of sociology and was valid through June 30, 1995. When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at the Marion Regional Juvenile Detention Center (MRJDC) and The Phoenix Center in the Marion County School District. Based on conduct which occurred during school year 1993-94, on May 19, 1994, respondent was suspended from his teaching position by the Marion County School Board (Board). After an administrative hearing was held in December 1994, a final order was entered by the Board on March 31, 1995, terminating respondent for misconduct in office, incompetency, and willful neglect of duty. After learning of the Board's action, and conducting a further inquiry, petitioner, Frank T. Brogan, as Commissioner of Education, issued an administrative complaint on November 7, 1995, alleging that respondent's conduct also constituted a sufficient ground to discipline his teacher's certificate. The charges stem from incidents which allegedly occurred while respondent taught at MRJDC from September 1993 until April 7, 1994, and at The Phoenix Center from April 8, 1994, until May 17, 1994. In his request for a hearing, respondent has denied all material allegations. During most of school year 1993-94, respondent taught at MRJDC, which is a detention facility for students who are awaiting trial on criminal charges. As might be expected, the students at MRJDC "are very difficult to work with." At hearing, respondent's supervisor established that respondent had "difficulty" with his work, he was "uncooperative" with other faculty and staff, and he had "problems" with his peers. His behavior was generally described by all witnesses as being "bizarre" and "irresponsible." On some occasions, he would become angry with his students and "storm" out of his classroom leaving the students unsupervised. While respondent was teaching at MRJDC, it was necessary for the principal of the school's education center to meet with respondent because he would not speak to any of his colleagues. Respondent took the position that speaking with his peers was not in his job description, and thus it was unnecessary for him to do so. Although admonished by the principal to communicate with his peers, respondent continued to be abrupt and uncommunicative. During his tenure at MRJDC, respondent exhibited irrational and explosive behavior while teaching his classes. For example, he frequently engaged in screaming tirades against students who failed to meet his disciplinary expectations. In addition, it was not unusual for respondent to be confrontational with his students, and if threatened by one, he would challenge the student to carry out the threat, or to meet him outside the classroom to resolve the matter. Respondent's pattern of explosive behavior at MRJDC culminated on April 7, 1994, when the MRJDC superintendent was called to respondent's classroom to resolve an "emergency" situation. As it turned out, a student had thrown some pencil lead, hitting respondent in his glasses. Respondent began yelling at the student and challenging him to come outside the classroom and "take him on" to settle the score. When the superintendent arrived, she asked respondent to leave campus for the remainder of the day. However, respondent became abrupt and confrontational with the superintendent, initially refused to leave, and continued yelling at the student for another five minutes. Because of respondent's pattern of irrational and explosive behavior throughout the school year, and his loss of effectiveness as a teacher at MRJDC with both his colleagues and his students, a decision was made to transfer respondent to The Phoenix Center, an alternative education school, in order to give him one final opportunity. Effective April 8, 1994, respondent was reassigned to The Phoenix Center as an exceptional student education teacher. His class consisted of no more than four or five students. Despite the small number of students, respondent continually called the dean of students to resolve disciplinary problems which arose in his classroom. It can be reasonably inferred that respondent lacked the necessary demeanor and temperament to effectively manage and control his classroom. On May 3, 1994, respondent was described as being "incoherent" and "in a rage" while engaged in an altercation with a student who had threatened him. While the student was being led from the classroom to the principal's office by the dean of students, respondent became "agitated" and followed the student down the hallway continuing to challenge him to carry out his threat. Although ordered by the dean to return to the classroom, respondent initially refused to do so. Respondent's explanation for his conduct was that he was trying to prove a point with the student. For at least the second time that school year, respondent was instructed by the principal not to challenge students who had made threats. By engaging in the conduct described in the previous finding of fact, and that described in findings of fact 6 and 7, respondent intentionally exposed his students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. On May 6, 1994, while coaching a school softball team, respondent became outraged over a call by the umpire and left the campus without permission. During his absence, the students were unsupervised. On May 17, 1994, respondent was returning to campus in his automobile when he approached a group of students in the roadway. One female student ignored her teacher's request to move and intentionally remained in the middle of the road. As he approached the student, respondent gunned his engine and drove straight for the student but hit his brakes stopping just short of her. Respondent later explained that he was merely trying to prove the point that if a student remained in the road with a car approaching, she would "be in trouble." By engaging in this conduct, respondent failed to make a reasonable effort to protect a student's physical safety. By virtue of his personal conduct over the school year at both MRJDC and The Phoenix Center, respondent's effectiveness as a classroom teacher has been seriously reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding respondent guilty of violating Sections 231.28(1)(f) and (i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code, revoking his certificate for one year, allowing him to reapply for an educator's certificate only upon certification by a mental health professional that he is competent and capable of performing his duties as an educator, and upon reemployment, placing him on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 224-B Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carl J. Zahner, II, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Richard T. Vaughn, Jr. 1731 26th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent has committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent, Seneka Rachel Arrington, holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1012300, which is valid through June 2009. Respondent was employed as a Language Arts Teacher at Matanzas High School in the Flagler County School District during the 2006/2007 year. On or about October 9, 2006, Respondent was terminated from her teaching position with the school district. On or about April 3, 2007, Respondent removed merchandise from a retail establishment without paying for it and with the intention of converting it to her own use. Respondent was arrested and charged with one count of retail theft. On or about May 29, 2007, Respondent entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the state attorney's office with regard to the charge of retail theft. Findings of Fact Based Upon Evidence Presented at Hearing Dr. Hugh Christopher Pryor is the principal at Matanzas High School (Matanzas). Dr. Pryor hired Respondent in May 2006 for a position as an English teacher, to begin work in August 2006. During her employment at Matanzas, Respondent also worked as an assistant cheerleading coach. K.M. was a freshman at Matanzas during the 2006-2007 school year. She was on the cheerleading squad and knew Respondent as one of her coaches. She was not a student in any of Respondent's classes. M.H., K.M.'s boyfriend at all times material to the allegations in this case, was a 14-year-old freshman on the Matanzas football team and a student in one of Respondent's classes. C.J. was another freshman member of the football team and a friend of M.H.'s. He was not a student in any of Respondent's classes. Respondent was well-liked by students at the high school. Although K.M. testified that she was authoritative and strict with the girls on the cheerleading squad, she got along with all of the girls and "kind of was like us." K.M. regarded her more as a friend than as a teacher. On occasion, K.M. used Respondent's cell phone. On October 6 or 7, 2006, Donald Apperson Jr., the school's resource officer, was approached by a friend at a social outing who suggested he check into whether "the black cheerleading coach" at Matanzas was having a sexual relationship with some of the football players. Respondent was the only teacher who could fit this description. On Monday, October 9, 2006, Mr. Apperson reported this information to Ken Seybold, who was an assistant principal and the athletic director at Matanzas. The principal was notified and an investigation was initiated. Respondent was notified of the allegations, which she denied, and was sent home pending completion of the investigation. The investigation consisted of speaking with several members of the football team and was completed in a single day. At the end of the day, the principal determined that Respondent's employment would be terminated because she was still under a 97- day probationary period wherein she could be terminated without cause. Respondent was notified of the decision to terminate her employment the next day, October 10, 2006. Because she was terminated within the statutory probationary period for the initial contract for employment, no cause was listed. While Dr. Pryor testified that he was generally dissatisfied with her performance, his testimony regarding why was sketchy at best, and there was nothing in her personnel file to indicate that she was counseled in any way with respect to her performance. Teachers in the Flagler County School District are generally admonished not to transport students in a teacher's personal vehicle. Transporting students is only condoned where the student's parent has been notified and permission granted, and where an administrator has been notified of the need to transport the student. This procedure is apparently covered during orientation for new employees. However, no written policy regarding the transport of students was produced or cited, and Dr. Pryor indicated that Respondent was late to the orientation session prior to the beginning of the school year. It cannot be determined from the record in this case whether Respondent was aware of this policy. Respondent transported students in her personal vehicle on two occasions. On the first occasion, Respondent took K.M. and one other cheerleader to the Volusia Mall in order to look for dresses for a dance at school. K.M. testified that her mother had given permission for K.M. to go with Respondent on this outing. Respondent and the two girls were accompanied on this outing by Respondent's mother and sister. The second outing also involved shopping for clothes for the school dance. On this trip, Respondent took K.M. as well as M.H. and C.J. in her car after football and cheerleading practice. The four went first to the St. Augustine outlet mall and then to the Volusia Mall to shop for clothes. K.M. testified that her mother had given her permission to go with Respondent, but probably would not have given permission if she had known the boys would also be going. Neither M.H. nor C.J. had permission from a parent to ride in Respondent's car. The boys testified that they both drove Respondent's car while on this trip, although the testimony is inconsistent as to who drove when, and is not credible. Neither boy had a learner's permit to drive. No evidence was presented regarding the dates of these two shopping trips, other than they both occurred prior to September 29, 2006, which was the date identified for the dance. This same date is identified as the date for a football game in Cairo, Georgia, discussed below. After the conclusion of the second shopping trip, Respondent dropped K.M. off at her home. At this point, the boys testified, and stated as part of the district's investigation, that Respondent offered to take them back to her apartment to spend the night. According to M.H. and C.J., they went with Respondent back to her apartment where they ate fast food and watched television. They claimed that Respondent told them they could sleep in her bed while she slept on the couch. At some time during the night, Respondent allegedly crawled in the bed between the two boys, ground her hips against M.H.'s crotch, and took his hand and placed it outside her shorts against her vaginal area. M.H. claimed this made him uncomfortable and he moved to the floor, while Respondent continued to sleep in the bed with C.J. In the morning, the boys claim that Respondent woke them up and drove them to school. M.H. testified that he was in Respondent's English class and that she treated him differently than the other students. He, along with other boys at school, fantasized about the "fine, black English teacher." He thought it was cool to spend extra time with her and led others to believe he was having sex with her until one of his friends questioned the propriety of doing so. He testified that he "freaked out" while on a bus going to an out-of-state football game September 29, 2006, because Respondent kept calling him on his cell phone and he did not want to talk to her. Juxtaposed against the testimony of C.J. and M.H. is the testimony of Monica Arrington and Karastan Saunders. Monica Arrington, Respondent's younger sister, testified that during the period of time Respondent was employed at Matanzas, she shared Respondent's apartment and sometimes helped her out with the cheerleaders. Monica was a freshman at Bethune Cookman College and did not like living on campus, so instead lived with her sister. Ms. Arrington did not have her own transportation and relied on her sister to drop her off at school each day. Ms. Arrington confirmed that she went with Respondent, her mother and two female students to Volusia Mall to shop for clothes on one occasion, but did not identify any other time where students were at Respondent's apartment. Karastan Saunders also testified that during the fall of 2006, he lived at Respondent's apartment in exchange for paying a portion of the utilities. Mr. Saunders testified that he spent every night at the apartment because he did not have the funds to go elsewhere, and that he did not recall anyone coming over to the apartment other than family and mutual friends. After considering all of the evidence presented, the more credible evidence is that while Respondent took students shopping on at least one occasion, the testimony of M.H. and C.J. that they spent the night at Respondent's apartment is not credible. M.H. admitted that he has lied to his dad "because everybody lies to their dad sometimes." He claimed he lied to Respondent to avoid going to Orlando with her and about having a learner's permit to drive, and that he lied to his father about where he was the night he claims to have been at Respondent's apartment. M.H. also insinuated to his friends that he had a sexual relationship with Respondent, and that all of the boys thought she was the prettiest teacher at the school. However, he did not want Respondent to be arrested and would not cooperate with authorities. Even during the course of the hearing, his testimony was inconsistent regarding whom he told about his relationship with Respondent and what he told them. Significantly, C.J.'s testimony did not corroborate the alleged inappropriate touching M.H. claimed. C.J. did not witness any inappropriate touching or M.H. and Respondent having sex. While M.H. claimed that Respondent kept calling him while on the bus to Georgia for a football game, no phone records were produced and no one else's testimony was presented to support the claim. K.M. admitted that M.H. has lied to her on occasion and that he has had some issues with drugs and alcohol.1/ C.J.'s testimony is also not very credible. Like M.H., C.J. lied to his father about his whereabouts on the night in question. While he testified that he sometimes drove his dad's car to school without permission, his father testified that he only has one car and uses it every day to get to work. While M.H. claimed C.J. told him that Respondent and C.J. had sex the night they were allegedly at the apartment, C.J. denied it. He also stated that he was suspended for five days for bringing a laser to school during the timeframe related to this case, a suspension that his father knew nothing about. Likewise, C.J.'s claim that he went with Respondent on some unspecified weekend to Orlando while she got her cheerleading certification is not credible. By contrast, both Monica Arrington and Karastan Saunders were candid, consistent, calm and forthright while testifying. While both C.J. and M.H. were not where they were supposed to be on the night in question, they were not at Respondent's apartment. After Respondent was terminated from her employment, the allegations that she engaged in an appropriate relationship with a student were reported by local media. The publicity was extensive. Because the allegations involved alleged sexual conduct with a minor that would have occurred in Volusia County as opposed to Flagler County, the matter was referred to authorities in Volusia County. However, no criminal charges were ever brought against Respondent because neither M.H. nor his father wished to cooperate with authorities.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 1, and dismissing Counts 2-7 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Commission reprimand Respondent, impose a $500 fine and place her on one year of probation in the event that she works as a teacher in a public school setting. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 24th day of March, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate 237129, covering the areas of social studies and work experience coordinator. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was employed as a social studies instructor at Columbia High School in the Columbia County School District. Respondent has been a school teacher since January, 1967 and has taught school in the Columbia County School District since 1968, excluding two (2) years for military service. Respondent has a good record as a teacher in the Columbia County School District and has never been accused of any professional misconduct in the past. Adrianne Lewis (Lewis) was a sixteen (16) year old student at Columbia High School in the first semester of the 1985/86 school year and became acquainted with the Respondent when she was a student in his third and sixth period classes. Lewis did not start in Respondent's sixth period class until two (2) weeks after the beginning of school in August, 1985 and was required to make up work missed during the first two (2) weeks. Respondent has a consistent policy with regard to make-up work which requires all students to make up work either before or after school and not during class. During the first six (6) weeks of school, Lewis made up several tests that she had missed both before and after becoming a student of Respondent. The complaining witness, Adrianne Lewis, testified that on two (2) separate occasions, most probably in September, 1985, the first time during a school pep rally and the second time while she was taking a make-up test after school, the Respondent, among other things, kissed her on the mouth and neck, fondled her breasts, rubbed and fondled her derriere, attempted to put a balloon under her shirt and asked why she was afraid of him and sex. However, the more credible evidence is that: (a) On September 13, 1985, Lewis went to Respondent's classroom during a school pep rally to take a make-up test, arriving around 2:50 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (b) After Lewis turned in the test, Respondent spent approximately ten (10) minutes with Lewis discussing a problem she was having; (c) During the time Lewis was in the Respondent's classroom and office, Ken Stark was in an adjoining classroom with connecting windows which had only a portion of the view blocked; (d) Later in September, 1985, Lewis stayed after school to take another make-up test, arriving around 3:30 p.m. She was given a copy of the test by Respondent and took the test in Respondent's classroom; (e) During the time Lewis was in Respondent's office turning in the test, Respondent's elder son, John D. Evans, III was present and observed no misconduct on Respondent's part in regard to Lewis and; (f) Respondent, at no time during these two (2) occasions or any other occasion, improperly touched Lewis or engaged in any misconduct with respect to Lewis. During the second six (6) weeks of school, Lewis began missing class regularly. Due to a School Board policy concerning unexcused absences, Respondent consulted with Tom Grubb, Guidance Counselor, and was instructed to contact Lewis' parents. Respondent was unable to contact Lewis' parents or her grandmother, with whom she lived, but did contact her aunt, Denise Lewis. Respondent informed Denise Lewis of Lewis' absences and the need for Lewis to makeup her work or risk failing. Respondent's conversation with Denise Lewis occurred during the week of October 28, 1985 and about one (1) week later Denise Lewis conveyed the message to Lewis. Lewis did not mention the alleged improper touching by Respondent to Denise Lewis at this time but did say that Respondent did not like her and was going to fail her anyway. When Denise Lewis informed Lewis' grandmother of her absences, Lewis became upset because her grandmother had not previously known about Lewis' absences. On or about October 31, 1985, Lewis reported to Sergeant James Rutledge that she had been improperly touched and fondled by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. During the week of November 6, 1985, Lewis again reported to Sergeant Rutledge that she had been improperly touched by a teacher but did not disclose the teacher's name. Rutledge went with Lewis and her girlfriend to the dean's office and notified the dean that Lewis was outside and needed to talk to him. On or about November 6, 1985, Lewis became upset with Respondent about calling her aunt and angrily told him not to call her aunt again. Lewis told Respondent that she was going to inform the administration of his alleged misconduct. Thereafter, the matter was reported and investigated by the administrator. As a result of the alleged misconduct, the Respondent was arrested and charged with battery. Subsequent to the arrest, the State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida filed a No Information and the cause was dismissed. There was no evidence to prove that Respondent's conduct had reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. There was no evidence that Respondent had exploited the teacher/student relationship with the minor female student for his own personal gain, exposing her to harm and unnecessary embarrassment. There was no evidence that Respondent had: (a) accepted or offered any gratuity, gift, or favor to, or from, anyone; (b) used institutional privileges for personal gain or advantage; (c) intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement or; (d) failed to make reasonable effort to protect student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or to safety.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3994 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but clarified. Rejected that portion of the finding of fact concerning Lewis requesting Respondent to sign, and Respondent signing, a balloon as immaterial and irrelevant. The balance of the finding of fact is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. The fact that Lewis skipped classes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis took a second test before December, 1985, is adopted in Finding of Fact 9 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 11.-12. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis reported the alleged incidents is adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Lewis told the Respondent that she had reported the alleged sexual contact to the administration is adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but the balance of the finding is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The first sentence is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The fact that a No Information was filed and the case dismissed is adopted in Finding of Fact 16 but that the State Attorney dismissed because the contact was consensual is rejected as hearsay that does not supplement or explain any other evidence in the record. 19-21. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. In these findings, the Petitioner relies mainly on the testimony of Lewis, testimony which I did not find credible. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 7.-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 16.-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 20.-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 13 and 14, respectively. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practice Commission Room 418, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carolyn Thompson LeBoeuf, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf and LeBoeuf 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas W. Brooks Meyer, Brooks, and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
