Findings Of Fact On April 23, 1980, Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate in the areas of biology, chemistry, and general science. Petitioner had been certified by the State of Florida from August 20, 1974, through 1979 in these subjects. Petitioner allowed his prior certificate to lapse in 1979 as he was not sure he wanted to continue to be a teacher. At the time he allowed his certificate to lapse, he was involved in a drug problem, which drug problem resulted in the three arrests at issue herein. Petitioner was arrested in 1977, in 1978, and in 1979 for possession of controlled substances. Each of the arrests resulted in the withholding of adjudication. None of the arrests involved the sale of drugs, and Petitioner has never sold drugs. Petitioner has not used drugs since January of 1979, the date of his last arrest, and the drug used that date was a drug prescribed for him by a doctor. Prior to this application, Petitioner had reapplied for his teaching certificate. That application was denied since Petitioner was on probation from his arrests. Petitioner has completed all of his probationary periods. During the last year and a half, Petitioner has been teaching at the Miami Shores Preparatory School. He was hired to start a science department and has been teaching seventh and eighth grade life science, ninth and tenth grade biology, eleventh and twelfth grade honors biology, and eleventh and twelfth grade honors chemistry. He is also the swimming coach and serves as a counselor for seventh and eighth graders. Since he has been teaching at Miami Shores Preparatory School, a student has written an essay about him in describing the characteristics of an ideal teacher for a literary contest. The students at Miami Shores have dedicated the school yearbook to him. He has started a program at that school for students with drug problems by enlisting the aid of persons in the drug program which he himself successfully completed. Petitioner has had no difficulty in his present teaching position. However, in order for him to continue teaching at Miami Shores Preparatory School, a Florida teaching certificate is required. He is supported in his application for a teaching certificate by the principal of that school as well as by some of the other teachers, students, and parents of students at that school. Petitioner meets all requirements for issuance of a Florida teaching certificate, and the only basis for Respondent's denial of his application involves his three arrests.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered approving Petitioner's application for a Florida Teacher's Certificate, providing that Petitioner be issued a Teacher's Certificate on a probationary basis for a period of five years, and further providing that such certificate be automatically revoked if Petitioner be arrested for possession of any controlled substance during his five-year probationary period. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Roberts, Miller, Baggett, LaFace, Richard & Wiser Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 231.2615, Florida Statutes (2000), and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 711503, covering the areas of elementary education, varying exceptionalities, and pre-kindergarten handicapped. Respondent's certificate was valid at all times material to this proceeding. Respondent began teaching in 1995. There have been no complaints against Respondent prior to the allegations in this case. Over the years, Respondent has attempted to help students over and beyond her classroom duties. On at least two occasions, she temporarily has taken students into her home in time of need. Flagler County School Board employed Respondent as an exceptional student education (ESE) teacher at Flagler Palm Coast High School (FPC) in the Flagler County School District during the 2000-2001 school year. That school term was her first year on the faculty at FPC. J.E. was a 17 year-old male student who attended FPC during the 2000-2001 school year. J.E. was classified as an 11th-grade ESE student because he suffered from attention deficit disorder. J.E. also worked as a part-time firefighter with the Flagler Beach Fire Department. J.E.'s employment as a firefighter was sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America Explorer Program. At some point during the month of October 2000, J.E. transferred into Respondent's math class. Initially, J.E. was unable to make a passing grade in math due to his learning disability. J.E.'s academic problems were aggravated by several in-school and out-of-school disciplinary suspensions, which caused him to miss class. Toward the end of November or the beginning of December 2000, J.E. was arrested for fighting with his sister. He was in the custody of the juvenile authorities for several days before being placed on juvenile home detention. When J.E. returned to school, Respondent contacted J.E.'s mother, D.B. Respondent requested permission to tutor J.E. after school to help him make up missed assignments. After receiving the approval of the juvenile authority staff, D.B. agreed that Respondent could tutor J.E. Respondent and D.B. agreed that, after each tutoring session, Respondent would transport J.E. to the place where D.B. was employed. Respondent then informed the assistant principal that she would be assisting J.E. after school in her classroom. The tutoring sessions began on December 12, 2000, and lasted for almost two weeks. The sessions terminated when FPC recessed for the holidays. During the tutoring sessions, Respondent and J.E. spent time working on J.E.'s math assignments. However, as time passed, they progressively spent more time discussing personal issues. These conversations included discussions regarding J.E.'s problems and history of abuse, as well as the physical abuse that Respondent experienced during her marriage to her ex-husband. Respondent revealed that she had been molested as a child, a fact that Respondent had shared only with her long-term boyfriend, her sister, and her closest friends. Respondent told J.E. about her two children and her relationship with her boyfriend. At times, Respondent spoke negatively about her boyfriend, referring to him as an "asshole." Respondent and J.E.'s student-teacher relationship became more personal as they spent more time together. J.E. began visiting Respondent during her planning period, during which they would discuss personal issues. Occasionally, J.E. would visit Respondent during her science class even though he was scheduled to be in another class. The personal conversations continued during the time that J.E. waited in Respondent's car for his mother at the school bus compound, sometimes for 20 to 30 minutes. Prior to one tutoring session, Respondent allowed J.E. to ride with her to a fast-food restaurant. She then took J.E. by the fire station before returning to the school. Respondent did not have anyone's permission to transport J.E. off campus. Sometime before the holiday break, J.E. told Respondent that he liked the music of a certain rap artist. The last day of school before the holiday break, Respondent gave J.E. a gift bag containing a compact disk (CD) of the artist's music. The gift bags that Respondent presented to other students contained only cookies and trinkets. On the afternoon of December 27 or 28, 2000, J.E. invited Respondent to visit the fire station with her children, a 9-year-old son and an 11-year-old daughter. Respondent and her children spent approximately one hour at the station while J.E. showed them the facility and firefighting equipment. Next, J.E. told Assistant Fire Chief Shane Wood (Chief Wood), that he was going to a nearby park with Respondent and her children. He advised Chief Wood that he would return to the station if it received a call. J.E. rode to the park in Respondent's vehicle. Francis Abramczyk, another student firefighter and J.E.'s friend, rode a bike to the park at J.E.'s request. When the group arrived at the park, Respondent asked Mr. Abramczyk to watch her children so she and J.E. could talk in a nearby gazebo. About 45 minutes after Respondent and J.E. left to go to the park, Chief Wood got off from work. Chief Wood then rode his motorcycle to his parent's house near the park. Chief Wood visited his parents for 10-15 minutes before riding his motorcycle to the park where he spoke briefly to J.E. Respondent and J.E. were sitting in the gazebo when Chief Wood came by on his motorcycle Once in the gazebo, Respondent and J.E. spent at least 30 minutes talking about Respondent's recent trip to North Carolina, among other things. During this time, Respondent and J.E. sat side-by-side. At one point in time, Mr. Abramczyk saw Respondent's hand resting on J.E.'s hand, which was resting on his leg. Respondent jerked her hand back when she made eye contact with Mr. Abramczyk, who was retrieving a ball from the far side of the gazebo. While sitting in the gazebo, Respondent asked J.E. if he was willing to baby-sit for her that evening while she went out with a girlfriend. Respondent told J.E. that she would not be returning home until late and suggested that he spend the night at her residence. J.E. did not think his mother would approve of Respondent's suggestion. In the meantime, Mr. Abramczyk decided to walk to a nearby store to get some ice cream. Respondent's son tagged along with Mr. Abramczyk. When Mr. Abramczyk returned to the park, Respondent and J.E. were sitting in Respondent's vehicle. While J.E. was sitting in Respondent's vehicle, two or three girls came to the park in a car. One of the girls was J.E.'s former girlfriend. At first J.E. did not want the girls to see him, but eventually he got out of Respondent's vehicle and talked to Mr. Abramczyk and the girls. During this conversation, J.E. was teased about hanging out with his teacher. Mr. Abramczyk rode the bike back to the fire station after this conversation. At approximately 5:00 p.m., J.E., Respondent, and Respondent's children went back to the fire station. J.E. then called his mother to ask permission to baby-sit for Respondent. D.B. told him that he could baby-sit. In a later conversation between Respondent and D.B., Respondent stated that she would not be home that evening until approximately 2:00 a.m. Respondent asked D.B. if J.E. could spend the night at her residence. D.B. responded negatively, telling Respondent to take J.E. home or to the fire station where there was adult supervision at all times. After leaving the fire station, J.E. rode with Respondent and her children to a convenience store where Respondent purchased soft drinks and snacks for her children. She also purchased several wine coolers for herself. At approximately 6:00 p.m., Respondent, her children, and J.E. arrived at Respondent's residence. J.E. changed out of his work uniform before walking to a nearby beach with Respondent and her children. The children played on the beach and in the clubhouse area while Respondent talked to J.E. During this time, Respondent consumed one of her wine coolers. J.E., Respondent, and her children returned to Respondent's home after spending about an hour at the beach. Next, Respondent prepared dinner for J.E. and her children. She then got dressed to go out while J.E. played video games with the kids in the living room. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent walked out of her bedroom into the living room wearing only a skirt and bra during this time. Between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. Respondent left her residence to meet her girlfriend, taking her wine coolers with her. The girlfriend was not at home, so after waiting for a while, Respondent returned to her home between 9:30 and 10:30 p.m. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent was heavily intoxicated when she returned. Respondent's long-term boyfriend was spending time that evening with one of his male friends. The boyfriend usually stayed with Respondent but decided that evening to stay at his separate residence in St. Augustine, Florida, because he had consumed some beer and did not want to risk driving back to Respondent's residence. However, Respondent did not know that the boyfriend would not come to her house later that evening. When Respondent returned to her residence, her children were asleep and J.E. did not want to go home. Without checking with J.E.'s mother, Respondent decided to let J.E. stay. J.E. listened to music in Respondent's bedroom while she straightened up the house and did the laundry. Respondent took time to talk to J.E. and to listen to some music with him. Sometime during the evening, Respondent spoke to her boyfriend on the telephone. During this call, Respondent learned for the first time that her boyfriend probably would not be returning to her home that night. Respondent talked to her boyfriend a second time that night from her garage. When she went back into the house, J.E. pretended to be asleep but when Respondent approached him, he sat up and appeared to have been crying. Respondent assumed that J.E. was upset because he was jealous of her boyfriend. The evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent provided J.E. with alcohol or engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with him while he was in her home. However, Respondent admitted during the hearing that J.E. might have consumed beer kept in her refrigerator while she was gone because she found one beer can in her closet weeks later. At approximately 2:00 a.m., Respondent drove J.E. to the fire station. The lights were off in the station. After waiting a few minutes to see if any of the adult firemen were going to return to the fire station, Respondent drove J.E. home, arriving there between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m. On the way to J.E.'s house, Respondent made J.E. promise not to tell anyone that he baby-sat at her residence. She paid J.E. $20 for baby-sitting. When J.E. got home, his mother was asleep on the couch. D.B. woke up as J.E. entered the house. She did not smell any alcohol on him or see any signs of intoxication. Respondent went with her children to the fire station two days later on December 29, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to return one of J.E.'s CDs that he had left at her house. Respondent visited with J.E. for about 15 minutes. During the visit on December 29, 2000, J.E. appeared upset. He told Respondent that he was worried because a man from his past was about to be released from jail. He also stated that he had been fighting with his mother. J.E. told Respondent that he was afraid the fire chief would not like him having visitors. He wanted Respondent to leave, telling her that he would talk to her later. By the end of December, Respondent knew that the other students were teasing J.E. about their close relationship and that he was embarrassed about the situation. J.E. and Respondent had agreed that they would not continue with the after-school tutoring and that they would not socialize at school or at the fire station. Despite this agreement, Respondent returned to the fire station on December 31, 2000. The purpose of the visit was to give J.E. a six-page handwritten letter that included references to Respondent's personal experiences. Several of J.E.'s friends from FPC were at the fire station when Respondent arrived. When J.E.'s friends told him that Respondent was in the lobby area, he told them he did not want to see her and hid in a back room in an effort to avoid her. Two of J.E.'s friends then told Respondent that J.E. was not at the fire station. Respondent started to leave when she realized that her son, who had been waiting in the car, had probably gone into the fire station through the open bay doors. Respondent then went into the station through the bay doors to look for her son. Upon entering the bay, Respondent noticed that J.E. was at work. Instead of asking about her son, Respondent approached J.E. holding the letter. As Respondent walked toward J.E., his friends began to tease him again. J.E. was visibly upset and demanded to know what Respondent was doing at the station. Respondent knew or should have known that she was giving the other students reason to pick on J.E. J.E. was angry and embarrassed by Respondent's presence. He told Respondent to come back later just to hasten her departure. He shredded the letter as soon as she left the station. Notwithstanding J.E.'s extreme displeasure during Respondent's visit, Respondent returned to the fire station later that day about 5:00 p.m. J.E. was not there when Respondent arrived. At that time, Chief Wood told Respondent that J.E. was gone and that she needed to stop visiting him at the station because it did not look right for her to be there "hanging all over J.E." The relationship between J.E. and Respondent dropped off beginning in early January 2001. Shortly after the holidays, J.E. became angry with Respondent. He told her to go screw her boyfriend. Respondent just ignored this comment. On another day during the first week of January, J.E. attempted to leave Respondent's class on a pretext that he was required to go to the school attendance office. J.E. became angry when Respondent would not let him leave the classroom. A short time later, during the same class period, two of J.E.'s friends walked by and looked into the classroom through the window in the door. J.E. noticed his friends, went to the door to speak with them, and asked them to help get him out of class. Respondent again refused to let him leave, causing him to be even more angry. Respondent told J.E. that if he left the class without permission, she would write him up. He then said, "You're gonna write me up? Well, I could do something about that." The first semester ended on January 8, 2001. Although J.E. was failing math in early December, he received a grade of B in Respondent's class for the semester. He then transferred to another teacher's math class for the second semester. After the transfer, J.E.'s grades began to decline again. The other students continued to tease J.E. about Respondent. On or about January 19, 2001, a rumor surfaced that Respondent was pregnant with J.E.'s child. Respondent first learned about the rumor during her science class. The class discussion involved the harmful effect of fumes from spray bottles on the environment and humans. Someone in the class stated that fumes could harm a fetus like Respondent's fetus. Another student said, "Oh, I wonder who the father is." A third student responded, "Oh, it's J.E." The class then began laughing. Respondent made no effort to report the incident to FPC's administrators. Instead, on a day when Respondent was extremely depressed and disillusioned with her career, and when she was feeling "emotionally cheated" and/or "manipulated" by J.E., Respondent wrote J.E. an e-mail message that states as follows: Hi I hope your Term 2 classes are going well so far, and life in general. I heard you're in Mr. Krenichen's class for Algebra now. If you need any help or need a place to escape to you know where to go. I still have 3rd period planning, except for lunch duty 3rd lunch. Even if you still are or stay mad at me forever, I'm still rooting for you to make it. I hope you're staying out of trouble. Well, I just wanted to say hi. I was thinking about you and my kids have been asking about you too. They think you're so cool! Yeah, I guess you're all right most of the time. Ha Ha. I miss you. I miss you talking to me every day most of all. Well, see you around. K. p.s. I also wanted to thank you for keeping your word. Means a lot. Gives me a little bit of hope the whole thing wasn't a lie all along. That helps even if that's all I'll ever have. Well, there's other things I need to talk to you about but don't want to say in an e-mail, so will just let you go now. Bye. Respondent's statement in the e-mail that she hoped J.E. was not still mad at her referred to her refusal to let J.E. leave class. She thanked him for keeping his word about not dropping out of school, not telling anyone that he baby-sat at her home, and not revealing her personal confidences. The e-mail was not specifically romantic in nature but clearly and convincingly evidences an inappropriate personal relationship between Respondent and J.E. After receiving this e-mail, J.E. asked Chief Wood to help him draft a reply that would break off his relationship with Respondent. Chief Wood declined to help but told J.E. he would proofread the message after J.E. wrote it. After reading the e-mail, Chief Wood decided that J.E. had adequately communicated his message to Respondent and did not make any changes. On or about January 24, 2001, a fellow student told J.E. that Respondent had said she was pregnant with J.E.'s child. J.E. became frightened by the false rumor. That same day, J.E. lied to his mother, stating that Respondent had given him alcohol and that, while he was in an intoxicated state, Respondent had forced him to have sexual intercourse on the night that he visited her home. D.B. immediately contacted the sheriff's office. On January 26, 2001, the principal of FPC confronted Respondent with J.E.'s allegations regarding the alcohol and sexual misconduct. During this conversation, Respondent stated that she wished she had never had J.E. baby-sit in her home. She admitted that her relationship with J.E. was inappropriate. Respondent immediately drafted and submitted her resignation effective February 6, 2001, the day of the next scheduled school board meeting. Following Respondent's resignation, J.E. continued to endure severe teasing at the hands of his classmates. Some students referred to J.E. as a "teacher fucker." Understandably, such comments caused J.E. a great deal of stress. J.E. eventually dropped out of FPC and entered the adult education program, where he admitted to one student that he did not have sex with Respondent. He told the student that he wished he could take it all back. Respondent is now employed in a real estate office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That EPE enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificate for two years followed by five years of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Matthew K. Foster, Esquire Brooks, Leboef, Bennett & Foster, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent, a teacher and basketball coach, engaged in sexual misconduct, including lewd or lascivious molestation, with student athletes; if so, whether disciplinary action, up to and including permanent revocation, should be taken against his educator certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Javier Cuenca ("Cuenca") holds Florida Educator Certificate 958539, which covers the areas of educational leadership, mathematics, and physical education and is valid through June 30, 2022. During the time relevant to this case, Cuenca worked as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School District ("District"). For the 2011-2012 school year, Cuenca was employed by Mater Academy, a charter School in Hialeah Gardens, Florida, after which he took a yearlong leave of absence from the District to work for a private company as a tutor. Otherwise, Cuenca taught in traditional public schools. In addition to teaching, Cuenca served as a basketball coach at several schools, including Hialeah Gardens Middle School and Hialeah Gardens Senior High School. Cuenca continued coaching for these schools on a part-time basis even while on leave from his teaching position. Cuenca's employment with the District ended on November 7, 2013, simultaneously with the commencement of an investigation into allegations that he had engaged in sexual misconduct with male students on the basketball teams he coached. The facts giving rise to these allegations are relevant to some of the instant charges against Cuenca and will be addressed further below in this Recommended Order. Cuenca was arrested in 2014 and charged under three separate criminal informations with multiple felonies arising from allegations of lewd or lascivious child molestation. The alleged victims were Students D.N., D.F., and R.D., each of whom was a basketball player coached by Cuenca. Later, a fourth criminal information was filed, charging Cuenca with lewd or lascivious conduct against O.Q., another student athlete whom Cuenca had coached. On October 4, 2016, Cuenca accepted a deal under which he agreed to plead nolo contendere to the reduced charge of felony battery in the cases involving D.F. and O.Q., which would be consolidated in the process, in exchange for the dismissal of the cases involving D.N. and R.D. Accepting the plea that same day, the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami- Dade County, immediately entered a Finding of Guilt and Order of Withholding Adjudication/Special Conditions.2/ Cuenca was placed on probation for a period of two years. The upshot is that Cuenca has a criminal record comprising a pair of felony batteries committed, on separate occasions, against two student athletes. At the same time, however, Cuenca was not "found guilty" by a jury; was not adjudicated guilty by the court; and did not plead guilty to, or otherwise admit committing, these crimes. In short, strange as it might seem, Cuenca——who was sentenced and punished as a felon——is not a convicted felon. As we will see, moreover, although entering a plea of nolo contendere to a criminal charge is a disciplinable offense under current law, the statute in effect at the time Cuenca entered his plea did not authorize the Education Practices Commission ("EPC") to discipline a teacher for pleading no contest to a crime. If Cuenca has committed a disciplinable offense, it is because of his conduct leading to the criminal proceedings, not his criminal background per se. The evidence of underlying wrongdoing in this case concerns Cuenca's interactions with three players, O.Q., D.N., and D.F. The most serious allegations involve O.Q., a young man who, unlike D.N., D.F., and Cuenca himself, appeared at hearing to testify, rather than testifying via deposition as did the others. O.Q. testified credibly that, when he was between the ages of 15 and 16, his basketball coach, Cuenca, had "inappropriately touched" him on multiple occasions. O.Q. was unable to remember how many times. There was "one incident," however, which stands out in O.Q.'s mind as the "main incident" that will "stay with [him] for the rest of [his] life." O.Q. says that this incident is "constantly on the back of [his] mind," having left a "scar," which "haunts" him "[e]ven though it was years ago." For O.Q., it is "embarrassing even to mention or speak about" this incident. The incident happened at Cuenca's house, in "his room." According to O.Q., on this particular occasion, Cuenca grabbed and fondled O.Q.'s penis, for the purpose of masturbating O.Q., which he did.3/ The undersigned believes O.Q. and finds that this incident did, in fact, take place as O.Q. described it.4/ As a practical matter, this finding, alone, is dispositive because, obviously, a teacher found to have masturbated a 16-year-old student will be guilty of one or more disciplinable offenses sufficient to revoke his or her certificate. Here, the Commissioner has proved additional acts of misconduct involving D.N. and D.F., which should be addressed nonetheless, if for no other reason than to reinforce the inevitable outcome. Cuenca's modus operandi for exploiting his relationships with these players relied on his authority as a coach to pressure them into exposing themselves. He frequently asked them questions to determine whether they were sexually active, ostensibly to urge abstinence and warn against becoming involved in situations that might interfere with school work and athletics. To some extent, these conversations were unobjectionable. Coaches should not be discouraged from counseling student athletes about age-appropriate sexual behavior. Cuenca, however, overreached. Using the abstinence angle as a pretext, Cuenca pestered the players to show him their "virgin lines." There is, of course, no such thing as a "virgin line." Cuenca used this mumbo jumbo to trick his young players into believing that there is some sort of physical mark of virginity visible on the penis. Cuenca constantly demanded to see this "proof" of virginity to confirm that his players were not misbehaving. Another approach that Cuenca used was the offer of steroids, which athletes sometimes take illicitly to gain muscle mass and improve their performance. Cuenca told the boys that he needed to examine their genitals to ascertain their steroid readiness.5/ If they refused, Cuenca used the stick of retaliation, such as the threat of reduced playing time or expulsion from the team. Cuenca used these methods on D.N. and D.F. In February 2013, Cuenca succeeded in convincing D.N., then a junior in high school, to drop his shorts while the two were alone together in the weight room. Cuenca stared at D.N.'s penis and testicles, and declared that D.N. soon would be ready for steroids.6/ For D.F., the violation occurred in October 2012, when he was a 15-year-old freshman. Under the guise of inspecting D.F.'s "virgin line," and to gauge his readiness for steroids, Cuenca directed D.F. to sit on a table in an empty classroom for an examination. D.F. pulled down his pants, Cuenca took a look, and then he reached in to touch D.F.'s genitals. D.F. slapped Cuenca's hand, and Cuenca withdrew. In D.F.'s words, which the undersigned credits as truthful and telling, the incident left D.F. "in a dark place," "depressed," and "sad," and "nothing has been the same [for him] since" this happened. The Charges In the Amended Administrative Complaint against Cuenca, the Commissioner accused Cuenca of having committed six disciplinable offenses, namely those defined in subsections (1)(d), (1)(f), and (1)(g) of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes; and violations of subsections (2)(a)1., (2)(a)5., and (2)(a)8. of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081, which are part of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.7/ If proved by clear and convincing evidence, the alleged rule violations would be grounds for discipline under section 1012.795(1)(j). It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that Cuenca is guilty of gross immorality, which is an offense punishable under section 1012.795(1)(d); and that he exploited his relationships with O.Q., D.N., and D.F. for personal gain or advantage, namely sexual gratification, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)8., which is an offense punishable under section 1012.795(1)(j). It is further determined that Cuenca is not guilty of having been convicted or found guilty of, or of having pleaded guilty to, any criminal charge; such a criminal record, if established, would have constituted a disciplinable offense under section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2016). As for the remaining charges, to determine Cuenca's guilt or nonguilt would require the undersigned to explicate the meaning of statutory and rule provisions whose applicability to the facts at hand is not readily apparent. Because there are ample grounds for permanently revoking Cuenca's educator certificate without these additional legal conclusions, the undersigned makes no findings of ultimate fact regarding Cuenca's alleged violations of section 1012.795(1)(g) and rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 5. If the EPC determines that such findings are necessary, it may remand this case to the undersigned for the entry of a supplemental recommended order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking Cuenca's educator certificate and deeming him forever ineligible to apply for a new certificate in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s Petition for Relief should be dismissed for failure to allege facts sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the “FCHR”) under section 760.10, Florida Statutes.1 1 Citations shall be to Florida Statutes (2020) unless otherwise specified. Section 760.10 has been unchanged since 1992, save for a 2015 amendment adding pregnancy to the list of classifications protected from discriminatory employment practices. Ch. 2015-68, § 6, Laws of Fla.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). The Petition for Relief alleges the following ultimate facts, which are accepted as true for purposes of ruling on the Motion: I believe I have been discriminated against based on my race (Black), sex (male), and age (over 40). I also believe I am being retaliated against for filing a complaint with Florida Commission on Human Relations and in Federal Court. I have been working within the Gadsden County School system since January 2008 as a substitute teacher and have teaching experience. Around or on October 2020, I applied for a Social Studies position and was not offered an interview by the principal because DOE deliberately and maliciously held clearance letter to deny employment. Section 760.10 titled “Unlawful employment practices,” is the statute under which the FCHR exercises jurisdiction of the Petition for Relief. Section 760.10(1)(a) states that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual “with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.” The Motion states that Petitioner is not, and never has been, an employee of the Department. Respondent’s Chief of Human Resource Management, David Dawkins, conducted a system-wide search and verified that Petitioner has never been employed by the Department. Mr. Dawkins’s affidavit to that effect was attached to the Motion. Mr. Jones did not contest the contents of Mr. Dawkins’s affidavit. The Motion also references section 760.10(5) as a possible avenue under which Mr. Jones might seek relief against the Department. Section 760.10(5) provides: Whenever, in order to engage in a profession, occupation, or trade, it is required that a person receive a license, certification, or other credential, become a member or an associate of any club, association, or other organization, or pass any examination, it is an unlawful employment practice for any person to discriminate against any other person seeking such license, certification, or other credential, seeking to become a member or associate of such club, association, or other organization, or seeking to take or pass such examination, because of such other person’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. In theory, the Department’s alleged “deliberate and malicious” withholding of Mr. Jones’s “clearance letter,” i.e., a Temporary Certificate to teach, could constitute a violation of section 760.10(5). However, the Department pointed out that after Mr. Jones applied for a Florida Educator Certificate, the Department sent him an “Official Statement of Status of Eligibility” on October 12, 2017. A copy of the Department’s letter to Mr. Jones was attached to the Motion. The letter informed Mr. Jones that he was eligible for a Temporary Certificate covering Social Science (Grades 6-12), if he completed the following requirements and documented them to the Bureau of Educator Certification (“BOE”): verification of employment and request for issuance of certificate on the appropriate certification form from a Florida public, state supported, or nonpublic school which has an approved Professional Education Competence Program. results of your fingerprint processing from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the FBI. Your employer will assist you in completing the fingerprint process. If your application or fingerprint report reflects a criminal offense or suspension/revocation record, your file will be referred to Professional Practices Services for further review. Issuance of your certificate will be contingent upon the results of this review. The Motion states that Mr. Jones submitted only the results of his fingerprint processing to BOE. Therefore, BOE was legally precluded from issuing a Temporary Certificate to Petitioner. Attached to the Motion was the affidavit of Daniel Moore, Chief of BOE, attesting to the fact that a request for issuance from a Florida public, state supported, or nonpublic school which has an approved Professional Education Competence Program is required in order for BOE to issue a Temporary Certificate. Mr. Moore’s affidavit is confirmed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.004(1)(a)2., requiring verification of full-time employment by a Florida school district before a Temporary Certificate may be issued. Mr. Jones did not contest the contents of Mr. Moore’s affidavit. Based on the foregoing, the Motion requests entry of a summary recommended order of dismissal because Mr. Jones’s pleadings and admissions of fact, including those in his response to the Motion, are facially and conclusively insufficient to prove that he was ever an employee of the Department, or that the Department’s failure to issue a teaching certificate to Mr. Jones was based on anything more than the ministerial operation of the Department’s own rule. Mr. Jones’s response to the Motion does not address, and therefore appears to concede, the Department’s statement that he is not and has never been an employee of the Department. Mr. Jones did not allege that he has ever been an employee of, or an applicant for employment by, the Department. Mr. Jones’s response does not address the fact that the Department’s rule forbids it to issue a Temporary Certificate without verification of full- time employment. Rather, Mr. Jones pursues an argument alleging that the denial was somehow based on his criminal record and that denial on that basis is discriminatory because of the disproportionate percentage of African American and Latino citizens who have criminal records in comparison to Caucasians. Mr. Jones claims that the Department’s stated reason for denying him a Temporary Certificate was pretextual and that the actual reason was racial discrimination premised on his criminal record. In a related case, Mr. Jones has alleged that the Gadsden County School Board declined to hire him because of his criminal record, and that this declination was a pretext for discrimination based on race, age, and/or sex. The merits of Mr. Jones’s case against the local school board and its subsidiary institutions are not at issue here. The question in this case is whether the Department had anything to do with Mr. Jones’s failure to gain employment by the Gadsden County School Board. The undisputed facts establish that the Department’s role in this process was purely ministerial. Had Mr. Jones secured employment, the school that hired him would have requested the issuance of a Temporary Certificate by the Department. By operation of rule 6A-4.004(1)(a)2., the Department would have issued the Temporary Certificate. The Department had no role in the decisions of the local school officials to hire or not hire Mr. Jones. It is found that Mr. Jones has not alleged facts sufficient to state a case against the Department under section 760.10, and that he would not be able to prove at hearing that he was ever an employee of the Department, or that the failure to issue a Temporary Certificate to Mr. Jones was anything more than the Department’s following the requirements of its own rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Department of Education did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 13th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Dan Saunders Florida Department of Education Turlington Building, Room 101 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ronald David Jones 1821 McKelvy Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Paula Harrigan, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1544 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (e), or (i),2/ as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against holders of Florida Educator Certificates who are accused of violating section 1012.795 and related rules. At all times material to the allegations in this case Respondent held Florida Educator’s Certificate 1023593. The certificate covers the area of chemistry, and is valid through June 30, 2019. Respondent became a full-time high school teacher in the Seminole County School District (SCSD) during the 2006-2007 school year. At all times material to the allegations, Respondent was employed by the SCSD as a teacher at Seminole High School (High School). In or around October 2013, Respondent was asked if she would be interested in working with the Hospital Homebound program (HH).6/ The HH offered to compensate Respondent for the time she spent assisting students. Respondent agreed to be involved with the HH. Respondent was assigned to tutor C.P. During the 2013-2014 school year, C.P. attended the High School, and was a student in one of Respondent’s classes. C.P. candidly testified that he had scoliosis.7/ In late November 2013, C.P. had surgery to correct his spine. The surgery included placing rods in his back to straighten it. In early December 2013, Respondent went to C.P.’s home to begin the tutoring. On her initial visit to C.P.’s home, she brought C.P. a Slurpee, and found him resting in his bed. C.P. understood that Respondent was to help him keep current in all of his classes. C.P. did not show Respondent his back and did not tell Respondent that he had rods or wires in his back. C.P. did not discuss with Respondent a need for food or that he needed a new mattress. A short time later, Respondent left C.P.’s residence, and later returned with fried chicken, books, Cheez-it crackers, and a poinsettia flower. Respondent went to Principal Collins and expressed concerns about C.P.’s health and his family’s financial situation. Respondent opined that C.P.’s family was “poor.” Respondent told Principal Collins she had taken food and other items to the family. Respondent also told Principal Collins there were wires coming out of C.P.’s back and thought a better mattress would help C.P. Respondent wanted to know if the school could help the family. Principal Collins appreciated the concern Respondent had for C.P.’s circumstances, but it was not something the High School could provide. Ms. Guy works in the front office of the High School. Respondent told Ms. Guy there was no food in C.P.’s home. Ms. Guy did not inquire about C.P., and did not know why Respondent discussed private student information with her. D.D. was in Respondent’s sixth-period class at the High School during the 2013-2014 school year. D.D. credibly testified that Respondent spoke of a student whom she was tutoring. Respondent told the class that the student was ill, could not walk and did not have any food in the home, so she brought chicken to the family. D.D. heard that Respondent spent $40 on C.P.’s family. Respondent later stated C.P.’s name to the students. C.M. was in Respondent’s first-period class at the High School during the 2013-2014 school year. C.M. is not one of C.P.’s “immediate friends” and had no knowledge of C.P.’s surgery before Respondent spoke of it. C.M. credibly testified that Respondent told students that C.P. did not look well, and she could see wires on C.P.’s back. M.R. was in one of Respondent’s classes at the High School during the 2013-2014 school year. M.R. credibly testified that while other students were in the classroom, Respondent told the students that C.P.’s family did not have food, and he was too weak to get out of his bed. M.R. testified that she, E.B., C.P., Student J, and Student C were friends. M.R. also testified that C.P. shared with his friends about his upcoming back surgery. E.B. was in Respondent’s sixth-period class at the High School during the 2013-2014 school year. E.B. credibly testified that Respondent told the class about C.P.’s physical condition. E.B. acknowledged that he and C.P. were friends, almost like brothers. After Respondent made the statements in class concerning C.P., E.B. immediately texted C.P. regarding her comments. Following Respondent’s comments in class, E.B. had other students coming to him, inquiring about C.P.’s well- being. When C.P. heard what Respondent had said in her classes, C.P. was “saddened, a little bit angry and upset.” C.P. then texted his mother at work, who became upset upon hearing what information was shared about her son. Ms. C.P. is a single working mom. The family lives in a four-bedroom, two-bath, and two-living room house. Ms. C.P. has paid the mortgage on the house for over 20 years. Ms. C.P. took time off from work to go to the High School. Initially Ms. C.P. spoke with Ms. Guy and expressed her rage at the private information shared about her son. Ms. C.P. spoke with an assistant principal about what Respondent had said in her classes. Ms. C.P. and C.P. went to the High School after C.P. heard more of what Respondent had said about C.P. Prior to going to the High School, Ms. C.P. went to the bank, withdrew $40 and gave it to C.P., so he, in turn, could give the money to Respondent. While on the High School campus, C.P. went to Respondent’s classroom, and gave the $40 to Respondent. C.P. wanted to give Respondent the $40 as he did not want to be portrayed as poor. C.P. credibly testified that “I’m not poor in my eyes so I felt it was necessary to reimburse her [Respondent] for what she claimed that she spent in food for me.” As part of an investigation into the allegations made by Ms. C.P. and C.P., Principal Collins invited students from Respondent’s classes to provide statements regarding any comments made by Respondent about C.P. The statements, written by individual students who testified at the hearing, and which were ratified as true when written, demonstrated that Respondent had specifically referenced C.P., his medical condition, Respondent’s thoughts that C.P. was poor, and that Respondent had brought food and a flower to him. During the 2013-2014 school year, Mr. Bevan served as an Assistant Principal (AP) at the High School. Following reports of confidential student information being shared with other students, AP Bevan interviewed several students. He then attempted to provide Respondent with an opportunity to discuss the circumstances from her perspective. Respondent became somewhat distraught and AP Bevan offered to obtain coverage for her class. Respondent calmed down and declined the offer of coverage. Respondent left AP Bevan’s office and went to the media center where her class was to meet. Respondent did not stay with the class, but instead left the campus. Following the investigation, Principal Collins determined there were inappropriate confidential matters about C.P. shared with other students and staff. As a result, on December 18, 2013, Principal Collins issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent. The Superintendent recommended and the SCSB approved a two-day suspension as a result of Respondent’s conduct. Respondent was on medical leave beginning on January 7, 2014, through March 10, 2014. Respondent served the suspension on April 15 and April 22, 2014. Respondent’s disciplinary history also includes an October 25, 2013, letter of reprimand for using profanity with a student.
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 that Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), and rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), (e), and (i). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission place Respondent’s educator certificate on probation for two years. The Education Practices Commission shall establish the terms and conditions of Respondent’s suspension and probation, which may include the cost of monitoring the probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 13th day of May, 2016.
