The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend and terminate the Respondent's employment on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a Notice of Specific Charges. The allegations of misconduct charge the Respondent with immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Chico J. Arenas, was employed as a teacher by the Dade County Public Schools pursuant to a professional services contract. At the time of the hearing in this case, K. F. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is a former student of the Respondent. At the time of the hearing, E. W. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is also a former student of the Respondent. Both K. F. and E. W. are females. Shortly after Halloween in 1990, one day when the Respondent and K. F. were alone in a classroom, the Respondent asked K. F. whether a male student named M. was "getting action." At that time M. was a close friend of K. F. The term "getting action" was a reference to sexual intercourse. When K. F. answered the question in the negative, the Respondent repeated the question and also made statements to the effect of, "M. is lucky," that he had "heard Jamaicans are wicked in bed," and that "older guys will show you more." The Respondent also told K. F. that she made him "excited." K. F. construed these statements as being sexual in nature. As a result of these statements by the Respondent, K. F. lost the trust she had in her teacher and never went back to his class. The incident involving K. F. resulted in the Respondent being made formally aware of the School Board's policies with regard to inappropriate statements to female students containing expressed or implied sexual references and the Respondent was specifically directed to avoid sexual harassment of female students. Beginning in February of 1992, on three separate Saturdays, at approximately 11:00 a.m. on each of those days, the Respondent telephoned E. W. at her home. At that time E. W. was one of the Respondent's students. On each of those occasions the Respondent's statements to E. W. were of a personal nature and had nothing to do with the fulfillment of Respondent's duties as a teacher. On the first of the three telephone calls to E. W., the Respondent identified himself, but there was very little other conversation. Shortly after the Respondent identified himself to her, E. W. told him that she was doing something and asked if he could call back later. During the course of the second telephone call, the Respondent made statements to E. W. to the effect that he "liked" her and that he had "feelings" for her. The Respondent also told E. W. that she was "a beautiful young lady" and that she "had a nice shape." After just a few such statements, E. W. told the Respondent to call back later and she hung up. The Respondent's statements during the second telephone conversation led E. W. to believe that the Respondent had a romantic or sexual interest in her. During the course of his third Saturday telephone call to E. W., the Respondent repeated statements to the effect that he liked her, that she had a beautiful shape, and that she was a beautiful young lady. He went on to also tell her such things as that "he wanted to wrap his hands around [her] and hold [her] tight," that "he wanted to give [her] things," that her boyfriend "didn't have to know what was going on," and he also told her "not to tell her mamma [she] was talking to him on the phone." The Respondent also asked E. W. to meet him in the library near her home and to otherwise skip school so that she could be with him. The Respondent also made comments to the effect that he could do more for E. W. than her boyfriend could and that she was "a beautiful young lady, and [she] deserved beautiful things." As a result of the statements during the third Saturday telephone call, E. W. became convinced that the Respondent wanted to have a sexual relationship with her and she began taking steps to avoid the Respondent. As a student, E. W. was doing well in the Respondent's class. If she had had any personal problems that came to the attention of the Respondent, it would have been his responsibility to have referred her to one of the school counsellors. The Respondent is not certified as a counselor or as a psychologist. At the time of the telephone calls to E. W. described above, the Respondent did not have any school related business which required him to call E. W. at home, nor was he trying to reach E. W.'s mother. When the events described above were reported to school officials, the Respondent was removed from a school based employment site and reassigned to work elsewhere. The reassignment and the reasons for it became known to a number of administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The disclosure of information about the matter resulted in part from statements the Respondent made to others. The Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired as a result of his conduct with E. W. and his prior principal would be reluctant to rehire him as a teacher. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes misconduct in office and is a breach of his professional relationship of trust with students because it exposed a student to embarrassment and disparagement. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes immorality.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, on the basis of those conclusions, terminating the Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January 1994. APPENDIX The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted in substance with some details modified in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 4: Rejected as irrelevant because the conduct described here was not charged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, the unnumbered paragraphs following 7, 8, and 9: Accepted in substance with some details modified in he interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraphs 10 and 11: The essence of these paragraphs has been accepted, but most details have been omitted as unnecessary. Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent: By way of clarification, it is noted that the Respondent submitted two post-hearing documents in support of his positions on the issues: one titled RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSED ORDER RECOMMENDING REINSTATEMENT, and the other titled RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. The first of these two documents includes an extensive summary of the testimony, which summary has been carefully reviewed by the Hearing Officer. However, because those summaries do not constitute proposed findings of fact, they are not specifically addressed below. Here, as in the usual course of events, it would serve no useful purpose to recite at length the extent to which the summaries are or are not accurate and to do so would add to this Recommended Order voluminous subordinate and unnecessary details; details which have been carefully considered during the fact-finding in this case. Specifically addressed below are the paragraphs contained in the "Findings of Fact" portion of the RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (This disposition of the proposed findings is, in any event, irrelevant in view of the Hearing Officer's disposition of the immorality charge). Paragraph 4: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The evidence is sufficient to prove the acts alleged by a preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph 5: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as constituting a proposed conclusion of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. (On the basis of Johnson v. School Board of Dade County, 578 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the Hearing Officer has reached a conclusion different from the one proposed here.) COPIES FURNISHED: David Rothman, Esquire Thornton, Rothman and Emas, P.A. 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 James C. Bovell, Esquire 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director Office of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33122 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with Florida A & M University, as proposed in a termination letter dated August 19, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: In this employee termination case, Petitioner, Florida A & M University (FAMU), seeks to terminate the employment of Respondent, Calvin C. Miles, Jr., on the ground that he sexually harassed three female students and retaliated against two students in violation of Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Because FAMU is a part of the State University System, the Board of Regents was also identified as a Petitioner. Respondent has denied all allegations. FAMU has a non-discrimination policy and harassment complaint procedure codified in Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Paragraph (6)(b) of the rule prohibits sexual harassment while paragraph (11)(a) prohibits retaliation. Respondent was subject to this policy and procedure, and on August 26, 1998, he signed a paper indicating that he had read and understood the same. On August 22, 1997, Respondent was hired as General Manager of WAMF, a radio station owned and operated by FAMU and which employed a number of FAMU students. Whether he was considered a non-instructional or instructional employee is not clear. In any event, the station had been without a full-time manager "for a while," and Respondent was told to come in and "put in place some policies and format . . . and move the station in the direction that [FAMU] thought it should go." He was also told that the station should be operated as a teaching facility. FAMU agrees that some of Respondent's decisions in implementing these directives "caused some people to bristle." Respondent's immediate supervisor was Dr. Hawkins, Director of FAMU's Division of Journalism. As such, Dr. Hawkins was required to prepare Respondent's annual evaluations. The first evaluation was prepared on September 29, 1998, and was transmitted to Respondent with a letter of the same date. In his letter, Dr. Hawkins concluded that Respondent's "first year here has been a mixed bag." While he acknowledged that Respondent had "turned up the level of professionalism at the station substantially and in rather quick fashion," he noted other matters of concern. Among these was a concern that at least three female students said that you had made inappropriate remarks to them. While none of these students have filed a complaint, I believe I have a responsibility to mention them now. In addition to the comments of these students, other female students have said that they just plan to stay away from the station so they do not have to be bothered. This is not the climate we want. This letter placed him on official notice that some female students perceived his conduct towards them as offensive and having an improper sexual connotation. In response to his evaluation, Respondent wrote Dr. Bryant a lengthy letter dated October 22, 1998. As to the allegations of sexual misconduct, Respondent "strongly suggest[ed] that the University conduct a thorough investigation of all complaints of this nature." During his tenure with FAMU, Respondent had two or three meetings with the Dean of the School of Journalism, Media, and Graphic Arts, Dean Ruggles, and his immediate supervisor, Dr. Bryant, regarding the foregoing complaints of sexual misconduct. Respondent was urged to use "extreme caution," to reassess his behavior with female students, and warned that "if these allegations were taken to the complaint stage" by a student and found to be substantiated, there would be severe consequences. In addition, on at least one occasion, Respondent met with the Director of FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs regarding a complaint by another student. Therefore, it is fair to infer that Respondent was well aware of on-going accusations being made against him, and that he should be extremely cautious in his behavior around female students. After formal complaints of sexual harassment were filed by three female students in February 1999, FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs conducted an investigation. On May 11, 1999, the President of FAMU notified Respondent that the findings of the investigation revealed that Respondent had violated Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code, and that FAMU intended to terminate his employment. Respondent then availed himself of the right to have an "investigatory interview" by a University Personnel Committee on July 13, 1999. When the committee determined that no new facts had been presented, Respondent was dismissed from employment effective August 26, 1999. This appeal ensued. Although the termination letter does not identify the specific allegations which form the basis for the termination, in a Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, FAMU has alleged that Respondent "engaged in conduct and actions toward[s] [Symphony] Parson, [Deanna] McKinley[,] and [Jackeline] Pou that rose to the level of sexual harassment in violation of Rule 6C3- 10.103(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code." FAMU further alleged that Respondent "exhibited behavior towards Ms. Parson and Ms. Maria Williams, a witness in this matter, that rose to the level of retaliation as set forth in [Rule] 6C3-10.103(11)(a), F.A.C." However, there was no evidence regarding retaliation against Maria Williams, who was not a witness in this case, and that portion of the charges has been disregarded. Parson, McKinley, and Pou testified at the final hearing, and although Respondent disputed the accuracy of their allegations, their testimony has been accepted as being the most persuasive on these issues. Findings with respect to those allegations are set forth below. Deanna McKinley Deanna McKinley (McKinley) enrolled at FAMU in the fall of 1996 and was a senior at the time of hearing. On September 1, 1998, McKinley began working at WAMF and hosted an Inspirational Gospel Morning Show using the on-air name of "Deanna Devine." Respondent was her supervisor. Throughout her employment at the radio station, McKinley felt "uncomfortable" around Respondent. This was because he would stare at her breasts, always place his hands on her shoulders when speaking to her, squeeze her shoulders, touch her hand in the Disc Jockey (DJ) booth, and stand extremely close to her while the two spoke. She was especially uncomfortable "being in the same studio with him, because the studio was in a different part of the building, it was locked, it was dark, [and] usually [she] was the only one there." Although she disliked Respondent's conduct and on occasion had told him that she disapproved of it, McKinley was under the impression that unless she tolerated Respondent's actions, she would not be allowed to continue as a DJ or "make progress" at the station. Besides the foregoing conduct, Respondent made personal remarks of a sexual nature to McKinley. For example, when she would bend over, he would say something like "Don't bend over like that, you will get someone excited." He also made a comment about how "adorable" and "kissable" she was, and that if he were her man, he "would just kiss [her] all the time." Once, when McKinley remarked ". . . little old me?", Respondent stared at her breasts and replied "Nothing on you is little, Deanna. But that's all right. It's all good." In January 1999, McKinley accidentally dropped something on the floor in the studio and bent over to pick it up. Respondent again stated "You should not bend over like that, Deanna, you may get someone excited." This latest incident triggered a decision by McKinley to leave the radio station. It is fair to infer from the evidence that McKinley perceived the radio station to have a hostile working environment, and that Respondent's conduct unreasonably interfered with her educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 1, 1999, McKinley submitted her letter of resignation to the radio station. On February 11, 1999, she filed a complaint with FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. Symphony Parson Symphony Parson enrolled at FAMU in the fall of 1997 with a major in broadcast journalism. She began working at WAMF that same year as a music director and on-air personality. Respondent was her supervisor. In April 1998, and while on duty at the station, Parson was taking a telephone message for the station secretary late one afternoon when Respondent came up behind her and began rubbing her shoulders and then moved his hand onto her breast. She told him to stop, "cursed him," and then left the station. In November 1998, Parson was in the station "writing on the file cabinet" when Respondent came up behind her and "brushed up against her" rubbing his shoulders against her. She again "cursed him out." A month later, he repeated the same conduct. According to Parson, she felt "violated" and "horrible" whenever this conduct occurred. Respondent also engaged in inappropriate conversations with Parson when she was on duty at the station. For example, he asked her if she was having sex with her boyfriend, and he told her how "cute" and "sexy" she was. These conversations made her feel extremely uncomfortable and led Parson to try to avoid Respondent whenever possible. At the same time, however, Parson felt that she had to tolerate this conduct to keep her position at the station. It is fair to infer from the evidence that Parson found the station to have a hostile working environment, and that Respondent's conduct unreasonably interfered with her educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 8, 1999, Parson filed a charge of sexual harassment against Respondent with the Equal Opportunity Office. A few days later, Respondent was placed on administrative leave. When he returned to his office to clean out his personal items, he passed by Parson and said "You're dead." Parson reported this to the police, was forced to get a cell phone out of fear for her personal being, and asked her parents to temporarily move into her apartment. Jackeline Pou Jackeline Pou (Pou) enrolled in FAMU's journalism program in August 1996. She began working at WANF in September 1997. Respondent was her supervisor. While working at the station, Respondent would sometimes brush his body against Pou or touch her shoulders, which made her feel uncomfortable. Almost on a daily basis, he would make comments about how pretty she was or make comments about her "eyes". When he spoke to her, he would stare at her breasts. Once, she observed him staring at her "behind when [she] was walking away." In the summer of 1998, and just after Pou finished speaking on the telephone with a friend, Respondent asked who she was speaking with. When Pou responded "It's none of your business," Respondent said, "It couldn't have been a guy or the seat would have been wet." Respondent's conduct made Pou feel intimidated and uncomfortable, and she disliked being alone in the radio station with Respondent during the evening hours. Besides creating a hostile work environment, such conduct also unreasonably interfered with Pou's educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 11, 1999, Pou filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Respondent with FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. Respondent's contentions Respondent has steadfastly denied all allegations of sexual misconduct since they first surfaced in 1997 or 1998. At hearing, Respondent contended that he was an unpopular figure among the students due to his strong disciplinary measures. While this may be true, it does not justify his actions towards McKinley, Parson, and Pou. He suggested that McKinley's complaint was motivated by her displeasure with his disciplinary measures and failure to obtain her a parking pass. Respondent further suggested that Parson bore him ill-will after he demoted her to a different position at the station. He also contended that out of revenge, the three women met and conspired to file false complaints in an effort to have him removed from the station. Finally, Respondent suggested that each of the complainant's testimony was full of inconsistencies and lacked specificity as to certain dates and times. These contentions have been considered by the undersigned and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida A & M University enter a final order confirming the dismissal of Respondent as an employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 29th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bishop C. Holifield, General Counsel Florida A & M University Suite 300, Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Avery D. McKnight, Jr., Esquire Ruth N. Selfridge, Esquire Florida A & M University Suite 300, Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Calvin C. Miles, Jr. 501 Blairstone Road, Apartment 123 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to have disciplinary action taken against Respondent on the basis of alleged misconduct which is set forth in a three count Administrative Complaint. The misconduct alleged consists primarily of assertions that the Respondent used various forms of corporal punishment on her students and that she also engaged in verbal abuse of her students.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent currently holds Florida teaching certificate number 151121, covering the area of elementary education. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. During the 1990-1991 school year and during the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Charles R. Drew Elementary School in the Dade County School District. In January of 1992, the Respondent threw a wooden ruler at A. S., who was a minor male student in her class. The ruler hit A. S. in the face and left a scratch on his face. This incident took place in class in the presence of other students in the class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent pinched A. S., a minor male student, on the ear in front of the other students in the class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck L. W., a minor female student, with a ruler on her hands and on her legs. The ruler left marks on L. W.'s hands. Student L. W. cried as a result of being struck with the ruler and she felt sad. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent on several occasions used offensive and indecent language in the classroom, sometimes directing such language towards her students. The offensive and indecent language included such words as "fuck," "damn," "bitch," and "ass." During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape to restrain M. S., a minor male student. Specifically, the Respondent taped student M. S.'s mouth closed, taped his arms to the arm rests of his chair, and taped his feet to the legs of his chair. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, P. B., to keep his mouth closed. Student P. B. was taped up in front of the class, which caused him to feel sad. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, A. S., to keep his mouth closed. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent used tape on minor male student, T. L., to keep his mouth closed and to prevent him from talking. The Respondent also used tape to restrain T. L. Specifically, the Respondent taped T. L. to his chair. On several occasions during the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent threw a wooden ruler, and other similar objects, at students in her class. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor male student, M. S., with a wooden ruler. This incident was observed by the other students in the class and made M. S. feel sad and embarrassed. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor male student, P. B., on the buttocks with a wooden ruler. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent struck minor female student, D. H., on the buttocks with a counter in class. This incident embarrassed the student. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent stuck minor male student, T. L., on his left arm with a counter in class. This incident embarrassed the student. During the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent pinched the ear of minor male student, T. L. in class. On numerous occasions prior to the 1991-1992 school year, the Respondent, and all other teachers at Charles R. Drew Elementary School, had been made aware of the policies of the Dade County School District prohibiting corporal punishment. The Respondent had also been made aware of what was encompassed by the term "corporal punishment." In a memorandum dated February 12, 1991, concerning the use of corporal punishment, the Respondent was specifically instructed not to throw rulers at students.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case revoking the Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years and providing that any recertification of the Respondent shall be pursuant to Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of September 1993. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6896 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance, although the language used is more accurately described as indecent or offensive than as profanity. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13: Accepted in substance, with some repetitious information omitted. Paragraph 14: Admitted Paragraph 15: Rejected because not charged in the Administrative Complaint. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 25: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details, many of which are also irrelevant. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5: These paragraphs are accurate summaries of a portion of the allegations and of a portion of the evidence, but there was other evidence which supports a finding that Audric Sands was struck on the chin by a ruler thrown at him by the Respondent. Paragraph 6: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20: These paragraphs are all essentially correct summaries of the testimony described in each paragraph. Although there are differences in the details reported by the several child-witnesses, such differences are not unusual when several young children describe an event. There was a great deal of consistency on several relevant matters. Paragraphs 21 and 22: These paragraphs are essentially accurate summaries of the testimony of the witness referred to. Although the witness Mr. Jim Smith testified he never heard or saw any misconduct by the Respondent, I still find the testimony of the child-witnesses to be persuasive. The child-witnesses were with the Respondent on many occasions when Mr. Smith was not present. Also, Mr. Smith worked as an aide to the Respondent only from some time in November or December until sometime in late January. Paragraphs 23, 24 and 25: These paragraphs are essentially accurate summaries of the Respondent's testimony. To the extent the testimony summarized here conflicts with the testimony of the child-witnesses, I have generally accepted as more persuasive the testimony of the child-witnesses. Paragraphs 26 and 27: I have resolved the conflicts in the evidence other than as suggested here. I have found most of the child-witnesses' testimony to be credible. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Chaires, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 William du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 South West Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Ms. Claudine Etienne, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and implementing administrative rules, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates. Ms. Etienne holds Florida Educator's Certificate 845026, covering the areas of English and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2018. At all times relevant to the complaint, Ms. Etienne was employed as an English teacher at Miami Springs High School in the Miami-Dade County School District. On or about January 20, 2012, an unknown student ignited a smoke bomb or large firecracker in a locker in Ms. Etienne's classroom. Ms. Etienne was unsure what the device was or how it was ignited. Smoke was generated from the device, and it filtered into the classroom. One or more students requested to leave the room because of the smoke. In her deposition, Ms. Etienne indicated that at the time of the incident, she was aware that one of the students assigned to her class, C.E., had asthma because she had a conversation with C.E.'s mother in December about it. Ms. Etienne testified that she did not recall C.E. asking her to leave the room on the day of the incident, however, and in fact did not remember if C.E. was even in class that day. Ms. Etienne did not believe the smoke was sufficiently serious to require her to allow the students to leave the room. She was uncertain how to proceed until administrators who had been called arrived in the classroom. Ms. Etienne instructed the students to stay in the room until an administrator arrived. One student subsequently required medical attention as a result of the smoke inhalation. In her written statement, C.E. stated that paramedics came to the school to assist her because she could not breathe after her exposure to the smoke in the classroom.2/ Ms. Etienne later received a verbal reprimand from the school district.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Ms. Claudine Etienne in violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, through her violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), issuing her a letter of reprimand, and assessing a fine against her in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of immorality and unprofessional conduct as is more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 25, 1991.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered permanently revoking the Florida teaching certificate of Robert M. Dodd, Jr. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1991. Copies furnished: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Robert M. Dodd 38124 Townview Avenue #106 Zephyrhills, Florida 33540 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0400
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, specifically sex discrimination in the form of sexual harassment due to Petitioner's gender in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner, a Caucasian female, from sometime in December of 2003 until termination of her employment on June 21, 2004. Petitioner worked in Respondent’s warehouse facility from December, 2003 until sometime in February, 2004, when she was transferred to one of Respondent’s retail stores, the Ocala store, where she worked until she was transferred back to the warehouse at the end of May or beginning of June, 2004. Petitioner conceded at hearing that she was terminated after she argued with her supervisor and called her a bitch. Petitioner does not believe that she was terminated on the basis of her sex. During the course of her employment, Petitioner alleges that Respondent’s president, Barry Lay, made inappropriate comments to her of a sexual nature and touched her in an inappropriate way twice. All alleged sexually inappropriate conduct occurred from December of 2003 through February of 2004, during the period of time Petitioner worked in Respondent's warehouse facility. Petitioner testified that Barry Lay engaged in the following inappropriate conduct: At the end of her initial employment interview when she was hired, and out of the presence of other witnesses, Barry Lay allegedly said to her, “If we were to fuck that’s nobody’s business but ours.” In her charge of discrimination, Petitioner alleged that this statement was “said in front of witnesses.” Due to Petitioner's inconsistencies in testifying, her demeanor while testifying and Barry Lay's candid testimony of denial with regard to making such statements to Petitioner at any time, Petitioner's allegation is not credited. Petitioner testified that, right before Christmas of 2003, Barry Lay told her, "if I would let him eat me out just one time I wouldn't think about any other man." (T. 23). Petitioner testified that other witnesses, including her mother, were sitting nearby at a processing table when this comment was made. No witnesses corroborated Petitioner's testimony on this allegation and, coupled with Barry Lay's denial testimony, Petitioner's allegation is not credited. Petitioner testified that Barry Lay grabbed her face and tried to kiss her about the same time as he allegedly made the comment discussed above. Again, Petitioner alleges that witnesses were present, but all witnesses testifying in the matter, including Barry Lay, denied that such an incident occurred. Petitioner's testimony on this point is not credited. Petitioner also testified that Barry Lay grabbed her hips and tried to pull her from behind when she was bent over at a refrigerator. The allegation was denied by Lay and no corroborating testimony was presented. Petitioner's allegation is not credited. On one occasion, Barry Lay overheard conversation between Petitioner and her mother regarding their breast size and that they could form the “little titty committee.” Lay commented to the duo that both of them could be president of the committee. Barry Lay never attempted to initiate a romantic relationship with Petitioner and never threatened her with job transfer or termination if she failed to provide sexual favors. On one occasion during the course of Petitioner's employment, when employees were discussing a rumor that Barry Lay was having an affair with several people at one time, he overheard the discussion, became irritated, and addressed the employees as a group saying, “It doesn’t matter if I’m fucking you, you, you, or you, it’s none of your business.” Petitioner was transferred to the Ocala Store during the course of her employment to assist her in getting her children to day care on time. Additionally, the store hours were more suitable to her schedule at the time. Petitioner made sexual remarks, participated in discussions of a sexual nature, or participated in sexual horseplay in the workplace during the course of her employment with Respondent. Petitioner was heard and observed to smack or slap Barry Lay’s bottom and say, “I want a piece of that.” Barry Lay did not do anything to provoke Petitioner’s conduct, but responded by saying, “if you did, you’d never go back to your boyfriend.” While at work Petitioner discussed having oral sex with her boyfriend and the length and frequency of those encounters. During Petitioner's assignment to the Ocala store, she developed problems with absenteeism from the job. She quit calling in when she unable to work and demonstrated a poor attitude when she was at work. As a consequence, Petitioner was transferred back to Respondent's warehouse, where any absenteeism by the Petitioner would result in less of a hardship to operations. The transfer occurred at the end of May or beginning of June, 2004. After Petitioner was transferred back to the warehouse, she continued to exhibit a poor attitude and unacceptable conduct while at work. In June of 2004, just before she was terminated, Petitioner screamed at her supervisor that she was not going to perform a requested task due to medical restrictions. The supervisor informed Petitioner that she was not being asked to perform the task by herself, but simply to assist. Petitioner began using abusive language to the supervisor, calling her a “bitch.” Petitioner was asked to leave, but replied that she would not unless and until the supervisor “fucking” fired her. Petitioner pushed the supervisor and call her a “fucking whore” and “bitch.” Eventually, after using further epithets, Petitioner left the premises. Barry Lay did not witness the argument between Petitioner and the supervisor, but when he was later informed he instructed the supervisor to tell Petitioner that her employment was being terminated. The decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment was communicated to her the next day. Petitioner's stated response to the supervisor, before walking away, was “get fucked.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 4th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Hesser, Esquire Seven East Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 300 Ocala, Florida 34470 Gary R. Wheeler, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod Pope and Weaver, P.A. Post Office Box 550770 Jacksonville, Florida 32255-0770 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in computer programming and networking at the College. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1983. Since the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent has worked under a continuing contract of employment. A continuing contract is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent has received at least above-average evaluations of his job performance both from the institution and from his students during his tenure at the College. Respondent has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings of any kind prior to or since the incidents giving rise to this proceeding. Kimberly Zemola, a married woman in her late twenties, was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II and Session III of the 1994-95 academic year. In January 1995, while she was a student in Respondent’s class, Ms. Zemola wrote an anonymous note to Respondent suggesting that they commence a relationship and that Respondent should indicate his interest by wearing a certain sweater to class on a certain day. Respondent wore the sweater as suggested in the note. Respondent testified that his purpose in doing so was not to initiate a relationship, but to identify the author of the note, discover her problem, and direct her into obtaining assistance. Respondent and Ms. Zemola met. Their testimony was consistent in describing that they were both involved in troubled marriages, spent a great deal of time discussing their problems with each other, and, over a period of weeks, became close friends and confidants. During the period of January through May 1995, the relationship was not sexual, though there was some holding of hands and kissing during their meetings. During the summer session of 1995, while Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent's class, Respondent and Ms. Zemola engaged in consensual sex. Both Respondent and Ms. Zemola testified that this occurred on only one occasion, in June 1995. Respondent and Ms. Zemola continued their relationship until December 1995, at which point Ms. Zemola ended it. Ms. Zemola testified that in January 1996, after she ended the relationship with Respondent, she was diagnosed as clinically depressed. She testified that she believed Respondent took advantage of her depressed condition in pursuing a relationship with her. Respondent testified that Ms. Zemola mentioned suicidal thoughts on one occasion in late 1995, and that she revealed to him that she had been addicted to drugs and was a victim of child abuse. Nonetheless, Respondent testified that he had no knowledge Ms. Zemola was fighting depression during the period of their relationship. In January 1996, John Zemola, the husband of Kimberly Zemola, phoned Myrtle Williams, Associate Provost of the Gibbs Campus, to complain that Respondent had an affair with his wife. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated, so she invited him to her office to discuss the matter. Mr. Zemola met in person with Ms. Williams, and a little later in the day had a second meeting with both Ms. Williams and Charles Roberts, the Provost of the Gibbs Campus. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated and upset, expressing a great deal of anger toward Respondent. Mr. Zemola repeatedly demanded to know what the College was going to do about the situation. Shortly after his meeting with Mr. Zemola, Dr. Roberts called Respondent and asked him to come over to his office. Dr. Roberts testified that his main concern in calling Respondent was to warn him of Mr. Zemola’s angry and agitated state. Dr. Roberts also alerted campus security of the situation. At this meeting with Dr. Roberts, Respondent openly and voluntarily acknowledged his relationship with Ms. Zemola, including the romantic aspects thereof. The only discrepancy was that Respondent recalled the sexual encounter as having occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in his class, whereas Ms. Zemola recalled that it occurred when she was a student in Respondent’s class. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts investigated the matter further, attempting to set up a meeting with Ms. Zemola herself. It took them roughly ten days to two weeks to set up this meeting, which finally occurred in Dr. Roberts’ office. Present at the meeting were Dr. Roberts, Ms. Williams, and the Zemolas. At this meeting, Ms. Zemola acknowledged the relationship with Respondent, and acknowledged that it was she who initiated it. Both of the Zemolas were adamant that Respondent should not be permitted to continue teaching at the College. \ 18. Mr. Zemola in particular seemed intent on seeing Respondent punished. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola telephoned her “all the time talking about what are we going to do about Mr. Brooks.” Mr. Zemola’s threatening demeanor led Ms. Williams to move Ms. Zemola’s classes to a different campus, so that Respondent and Ms. Zemola would not be in each other’s presence. Ms. Williams testified that this precaution was taken, not because of Respondent or Ms. Zemola, but because of John Zemola. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever attempted to contact Ms. Zemola after she ended the relationship. In January 1996, Ms. Williams began attempting to get Ms. Zemola to sign an affidavit stating the facts of the situation. Ms. Zemola initially declined to do so, her stated reason being that she feared Respondent’s influence in the local market could jeopardize her academic future. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever took any action to adversely affect Ms. Zemola’s academic standing or career, either within or outside of the College setting. In a memorandum to Respondent, dated February 8, 1996, Dr. Roberts recounted the details of the charges leveled by the Zemolas, as well as Respondent’s admissions regarding his relationship with Ms. Zemola. The memorandum recited portions of the College’s “Sexual Harassment Policy and Definitions” (the “Policy”). Under the Policy, “sexual harassment” is defined as: An employee’s or a student’s unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, sexually related jokes, display of pornographic material in the workplace or an academic or student setting (An academic or student setting includes all settings on campus, off-campus clinical programs, off- campus courses, and off-campus college- sponsored events), when submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or an individual’s treatment as a student; submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or the treatment of a student affecting such individual; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or a student’s academic performance or creating a sexually intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment. The definition quoted above does not apply to the conduct alleged against Respondent, though a later section of the Policy, labeled “Instructor-Student Relationships,” appears to broaden the definition, as indicated in the relevant portion quoted below: This rule applies to instructor-student relationships. In the instructor-student context, the term sexual harassment has a broader impact. The fundamental element of such behavior is the inappropriate personal attention, including romantic and sexual relationships with a student by an instructor or staff member who is in a position to determine a student’s grade or otherwise affects the student’s academic advancement. Because the instructor-student relationship is one of professional and client, the above inappropriate behavior is unacceptable in a college; it is a form of unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic setting. Both President Kuttler and Dr. Roberts testified that, in their opinion, the language quoted in the preceding paragraph broadened the definition of “sexual harassment” as applied to the instructor-student relationship, such that any form of romantic or sexual relationship between an instructor and a student constitutes sexual harassment, at least when the instructor is in a position to determine the student’s grade or otherwise affect the student’s academic advancement. The Policy also forbids retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint or complained about sexual harassment. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent took any retaliatory action against Ms. Zemola. The Policy states that discipline for violation of its provisions “will depend on the nature of the incident,” but that the range of such discipline is from admonishment to dismissal. The February 8, 1996, memorandum goes on to state that, because of the seriousness of the alleged violations and because a violation of the Policy could lead to a recommendation of suspension or dismissal, Dr. Roberts was scheduling a meeting on February 13 with Ms. Williams, Martha Adkins, who was the Assistant Director of Business Technologies, and Nevis Herrington, Vice President of Human Resources, for the purpose of permitting Respondent to tell his side of the story in full. Ms. Williams was the only witness who testified as to the February 13 meeting, but her recollection was unclear as to the details of this meeting as distinguished from others involving Dr. Roberts, Respondent, and her. She recalled generally that Respondent was made aware of the Policy and potential penalties for violation thereof. Some delay ensued in the disciplinary process, because Dr. Roberts and Ms. Williams were waiting for the affidavit from Ms. Zemola, which was not forthcoming as spring turned into summer of 1996. At length, Dr. Roberts issued a memorandum to Respondent, dated August 13, 1996, and titled “Reprimand.” In the memorandum of reprimand, Dr. Roberts found that the facts to which Respondent had already admitted, characterized by Dr. Roberts as “a romantic relationship, including sexual relations, following the time that the student was a student in your class,” were sufficient to warrant a written admonishment. The memorandum stated that there were certain mitigating factors that caused Dr. Roberts not to recommend suspension or dismissal: that the student’s initiating the contact led to the relationship; that, according to Respondent, no romantic relationship or sexual relationship occurred while Ms. Zemola was Respondent’s student; and that Ms. Zemola had thus far refused or failed to provide her version of the facts in writing. However, Dr. Roberts’ memorandum went on to state: On the other hand, if the student had confirmed in an Affidavit what she originally advised us took place, I do not believe that I would have any choice but to consider recommending dismissal since such conduct would be a gross and direct violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy. Such conduct would not only be in violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Rule and Procedure but it would be unprofessional, immoral and constitute misconduct in office. Should confirming or additional information come forward to support the verbal statements we were given by the student and her husband, further consideration of an additional discipline including up to dismissal will be necessary. (Emphasis added.) The August 13, 1996, memorandum placed dispositive emphasis on the timing of the romantic and/or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Zemola. As of August 13, Dr. Roberts accepted Respondent’s version of the facts, i.e., that the romantic and sexual aspects of the relationship occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent’s class. Dr. Roberts found that this version, while contrary to the spirit of the Policy, and constituting misconduct in office and immorality, merited only a written admonishment. Dr. Roberts testified that “the power relationship is there whether the student is a student in that individual’s class or not,” somewhat contradicting the distinction he drew in his memorandum regarding the timing of the affair and its impact on the proposed discipline. Dr. Roberts testified that the admonishment was based on his judgment that Respondent’s relationship with the student violated the Policy “in terms of creating a threatening or offensive or intimidating environment.” He testified that Ms. Zemola had clearly complained that she felt intimidated and reluctant to take classes. Dr. Roberts’ conclusion in this regard was based on Ms. Zemola’s subjective apprehensions. No evidence was produced, at any point in these proceedings, that Respondent engaged in any behavior that could have caused Ms. Zemola to feel “intimidated” or “reluctant to take classes.” Ms. Zemola testified that she heard students at other campuses discussing the incident, and that an instructor in one of her classes talked about the case in front of the class. She believed that Respondent was the source of these persons’ knowledge of the situation. Ms. Zemola offered nothing more than her suspicions in this regard, and Respondent resolutely and credibly denied having discussed the affair with students or fellow instructors. In fact, the weight of the credible evidence leads to the finding that John Zemola was the likely source of any campus gossip regarding the incident. On at least one occasion, Mr. Zemola disrupted a College class by writing accusations against Respondent on the blackboard. Dr. Roberts’ August 13 reprimand memorandum left open the possibility that further disciplinary measures might be taken, should Ms. Zemola come forward with a sworn affidavit confirming her version of the timing of the romantic and sexual aspects, i.e., that they occurred while she was a student in Respondent’s class. In a sworn affidavit dated October 24, 1996, Ms. Zemola attested that, while she was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II, 1994-95, they had an affair which consisted of “a great amount of time talking, and some time kissing, hugging, and holding hands.” She attested that during Session III, 1994- 95, while she was still a student in Respondent’s class, Respondent told her that “if our affair did not go any further, then it had to end.” She attested that at this time she was constantly fighting suicidal thoughts, and believed that if she lost Respondent, the only person she could talk to, she might no longer be able to fight those thoughts. Therefore, during Session III, 1994-95, she engaged in a single sexual encounter with Respondent. By memorandum dated December 11, 1996, Dr. Roberts informed Respondent that the affidavit has been filed and offered Respondent an opportunity to meet with Dr. Roberts and two other officials “to respond to the allegations and share your side of the story.” There is no record evidence that this meeting ever took place. On May 8, 1997, the College filed the Petition. The essential allegation was framed as follows: The faculty member entertained romantic and sexual relations with a student while that student was in the faculty member’s class. This relationship continued after the student was no longer in the faculty member’s class for a period of several months while the student continued her course of education at the College. Such conduct therefore occurred during a time when the faculty member could influence and affect the student’s academic advancement. In addition to the allegations regarding Respondent’s romantic and/or sexual relationship with Ms. Zemola, the Petition alleged: The faculty member thereafter encouraged students of his to pressure the woman with whom he had had the romantic relationship to refrain from stating charges against him in order that it not jeopardize the faculty member’s career. Petitioner offered no evidence to support this allegation, and it is thus assumed that it has been dismissed. The remaining factual allegations contained in the Petition are for the most part conclusions alleged to arise from Respondent’s conduct: Said conduct seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the student/instructor relationship, and further is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace the faculty member’s profession and impair the faculty member’s service to the community and to students. The faculty member’s conduct had serious adverse consequences upon the student, the student’s relationship with her husband, as well as adverse impact on other students, faculty, staff, and upon members of the community, impairing his effectiveness. The effect of the faculty member’s aforesaid conduct was the creation of an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others. No evidence was presented of any “adverse consequences” to other students, faculty, staff, or members of the community, caused by Respondent’s actions. None of the College administrators who testified could recall receiving any complaints regarding Respondent. Dr. Roberts recalled an inquiry from the campus newspaper, but testified that no article ever ran in that or any other newspaper regarding this situation. Ms. Zemola testified that she heard some gossip around the campus, though none of it mentioned the parties by name. Such talk naturally affected Ms. Zemola, but could not be said to have had any other adverse impact. Ms. Zemola’s relationship with her husband was plainly affected by this incident. However, testimony from both Respondent and Ms. Zemola indicated that neither of their marriages was happy at the outset of their relationship. In fact, their testimony indicated that mutual unhappiness in their marriages was one of the main reasons they were drawn together in the first place. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Zemola’s grades or academic advancement were in any way compromised by her affair with Respondent. Ms. Zemola received grades of “A” in both classes she took from Respondent. Both Ms. Zemola and Respondent testified that these grades were earned by Ms. Zemola based entirely on her work in those classes. Respondent has continued to work as an instructor at the College since the affair and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. His work has been performed competently and completely without incident. The episodes of disruption and/or diminished effectiveness cited by the College’s administrators were in fact caused by John Zemola, not by Respondent. When asked for evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished as a result of the relationship, President Kuttler related an incident in which John Zemola disrupted a class to inform the students about Respondent’s situation, and another incident in which John Zemola harassed Respondent at his home, telling Respondent’s neighbors about the incident. President Kuttler concluded that Respondent’s effectiveness was diminished by the fact that it became known on the campus that there was a teacher/student sexual relationship. However, all the credible record evidence indicates no one involved in the incident or the subsequent disciplinary proceedings other than John Zemola ever publicly disclosed the relationship. Respondent cannot fairly be blamed for the actions of Mr. Zemola in publicizing the incident. Several of Respondent’s colleagues testified to attest to Respondent’s outstanding ability in the classroom. All opined, based on their experience as instructors at the College and their knowledge of Respondent’s character and abilities, that Respondent could continue to perform as an effective instructor at the College. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent’s actions created “an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others.” Respondent acknowledged the impropriety of his actions, and the impact they have had on his personal life, but testified that it has had no impact on his professional life.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the “Instructor-Student Relationships” portion of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy, and suspending Respondent from his position at the College for a period not to exceed one Session. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Shannon Bream, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Tampa, Florida 34684 Charles L. Roberts, Provost St. Petersburg Junior College St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus Office of the Provost St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 District Board of Trustees St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Carl M. Kuttler, Jr., President St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner terminated Respondent's annual contract as a teacher for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner hired Respondent, an inexperienced teacher who had recently graduated from college, and assigned him to teach and serve as an assistant basketball coach at Dixie Hollins High School during the 2000-01 school year. For the 2001-02 school year, Petitioner reassigned Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School, where Respondent assumed the duties of head basketball coach. During both school years, Respondent was on annual contract. Initially, an administrator at Tarpon Springs High School informed Respondent that he would teach American history and economics, which are the subjects that he had taught at Dixie Hollins High School. When Respondent reported for duty at Tarpon Springs High School, administrators did not give him a schedule until a couple of days before classes started. At that time, Respondent learned that, during the first quarter, he was to teach counseling and personal fitness, neither of which he had taught before. He also learned that, the following quarter, he was to teach Freshman Experience, which was a relatively new course, and personal fitness. In the third quarter, he was due to teach earth-space science in place of personal fitness. At least for the first two quarters, Respondent was assigned students in the GOALS program, which is designed for students who have not made substantial academic progress due to social problems. In this program, the students take only four classes per quarter. Each class runs one hour and forty-five minutes, five days weekly. Respondent had difficulties assembling materials for the peer counseling course. Teachers who had previously taught the course were not available. Extensive renovations at the school made it difficult to locate materials for this and other courses. Respondent finally visited a teacher at another school and obtained books, guides, and tests for peer counseling. These materials advised Respondent to help the students learn to settle their disputes peaceably without adult intervention and suggested that the teacher supplement the book with relevant movies dealing with peer pressures, conflict, and social issues. Respondent experienced similar difficulties with the personal fitness course, for which he had books, but no teacher edition or worksheets. However, Respondent's background in athletics presumably prepared him to teach this course. Although Respondent voiced similar complaints about Freshman Experience, he had a quarter to try to obtain materials. Also, no one else at the school had any experience with this course, which the District had abruptly required the high schools to teach. Similar to peer counseling, Freshman Experience is a motivational course that also covers personal and academic issues, as revealed by the titles of the required books, Chicken Soup for the Soul and Ten Steps for How To Manage Time. The seven charges listed in the Preliminary Statement fall into four groups. Charges 1 and 2 are the most serious; they allege that Respondent kissed two students and touched the vaginal area of one of these students. Charges 3 and 4 are also sexual in nature; they allege that Respondent made inappropriate comments to female students about their appearance and inappropriate sexual comments to or in front of students. Charges 5 and 6 pertain to classroom management; they allege that Respondent allowed students to come to his classroom for no legitimate purpose and encouraged students to leave campus to get him food. Charges 7-9 pertain to curriculum, administration, and instruction; they allege that Respondent used noncurriculum-related materials (such as videos), lacked appropriate recordkeeping, and lacked appropriate classroom instruction. Petitioner wisely dropped Charges 6, 8, and 9. No evidence in the record supported these allegations prior to Petitioner's announcement that it was not pursuing these allegations. Charges 5 and 7 require little more analysis. The evidence supports neither of these allegations. Concerning Charge 5, unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom included basketball players. While Respondent remained the basketball coach, these players briefly visited the room from time to time to discuss something about the basketball program. Petitioner did not show the extent of these visits or that they were illegitimate. Unenrolled students who were not participating in the basketball program infrequently visited Respondent's classroom. Although the principal testified that one of his assistant principals told him that there was a problem with unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom, he added that she rejected his offer to talk to Respondent and said she would handle it. After that conversation between the principal and assistant principal, the principal said the problem was eliminated. Interestingly, though, neither the assistant principal nor anyone else ever talked to Respondent about this issue, which appears not to have loomed large at the time. Concerning Charge 7, Petitioner never proved the rating of any of the films mentioned during the hearing as shown in Petitioner's classroom. Films mentioned during the hearing as shown in one of Respondent's classes include With Honors, Rudy (shown repeatedly), Finding Forrestor, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurricane, [The Mask of] Zorro, and assorted basketball videotapes. The record reflects disagreement among Petitioner's administrators as to the policy concerning the application of the District policy regarding R-rated films. According to the representative of the Office of Professional Standards, The Patriot (apparently an R-rated film) "could" violate this policy, but, according to the principal, who is now handling workforce development in the District office, The Patriot "probably" would not be a problem. Even if The Patriot were a problem, as an R-rated film, it would be so only if Respondent had not obtained permission slips from parents to show this and perhaps other R- rated films. Respondent testified that he did so. Notwithstanding the testimony of one student to the contrary, Petitioner never proved that Respondent failed to obtain permission slips. The issue of the relationship, if any, between the films and the courses fails because Petitioner failed to prove the contents of the films or to prove adequately the prescribed content of the courses, so as to permit a finding that the films were irrelevant to the courses. The broad outlines of peer counseling in particular, at least as established in this record, would appear to accommodate a vast array of films. A sufficient number of students testified in sufficient detail to a broad array of bookwork, class discussion, and other instructional and assessment methods in both peer counseling and Freshman Counseling to overcome whatever proof that Petitioner offered in support of Charge 7. The crux of this case lies in the charges involving sexual improprieties, as alleged in Charges 1-4. The quality of proof was considerably different between Charges 1 and 2, on the one hand, and Charges 3 and 4, on the other hand. Analyzing Charges 3 and 4 first may help explain the findings as to Charges 1 and 2. Concerning Charges 3 and 4, Petitioner proved that Respondent made numerous inappropriate comments to female students, of a sexual nature, that understandably made the students feel uncomfortable. Respondent directed three of these comments and one behavior to T. R., a junior. While walking around the track during the personal fitness class that T. R. was taking from Respondent, he asked her what she thought of a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. T. R. was either 18 years old or Respondent implied that the dating would await her 18th birthday; either way, T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant her. Although actually 29 or 30 years old at the time, Respondent typically told his students that he was only 26 years old, so T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant him. T. R. was so uncomfortable with this question that she mentioned it to a female teacher at the school, Cheryl Marks- Satinoff. Thoughtfully considering the matter, Ms. Marks- Satinoff found that the question was "odd," but not "extremely inappropriate" and "on the fence." Ms. Marks-Satinoff's characterization of the question, in isolation, is fair. In the context of other comments to T. R. and other female students during the relatively short period of two school quarters--little else, if any, of which was Ms. Marks-Satinoff was then aware--the comment acquires its proper characterization. To T. R., Respondent also said, "If I were still in high school, I'd be climbing in your window at night." T. R. was "shocked" by this comment, but her mother or stepmother, when told by T. R. about the comment--again, in isolation--did not attach much importance to it. On another occasion, when a female student asked why T. R.'s grade was better than D. P.'s grade, Respondent replied, "T. R. and I have an agreement." While taking Respondent for personal fitness, T. R. found Respondent staring at her repeatedly. Accordingly, T. R. switched from stretch pants to baggies. T. R.'s testimony is credible. She spoke with adults about two of the comments roughly at the time that they were made. Also, T. R. bore no grudge against Respondent. She said that she did not think twice about the dating comment, although she obviously gave it enough thought to raise it with Ms. Marks- Satinoff. T. R. freely admitted that Respondent made the comment about crawling into her window in a joking manner. She discredited D. P., who is the alleged victim of the most serious sexual incident, discussed below, as a person who always lies, convincingly. T. R. added that D. P. told her once that Respondent "tried" to kiss her and put his hand up her skirt and did not understand why D. P. confided in her initially. T. R. testified that she never heard Respondent do or say anything inappropriate in the personal fitness class that she took with D. P. T. R. testified that Respondent made her and her friends leave if they disturbed his class the few times they got out of their assigned class to visit his office and watch movies. T. R. described another female student, B. H., who testified to several inappropriate comments made by Respondent, as someone who "likes to stir the pot." To A. T., an 18-year-old who graduated from Tarpon Springs High School in June 2002, Respondent alluded to the size of her breasts, in front of the class, and used his hands to frame them. Although done in connection with a warning that A. T. was violating the school dress code due to the revealing nature of her shirt, Respondent delivered this warning in a sexual manner that was obviously unnecessary for the purpose of reminding the student to conform to the dress code. A. T. testified that she liked Respondent as a teacher, but he made her uncomfortable, and he should be more a teacher than a friend. Like T. R., A. T. seemed not to bear any negative feelings toward Respondent, but instead merely seemed to be describing an insensitive incident as it happened. To N. S., a junior at the time, Respondent said, upon learning that she had surgically implanted rods in her back, that he wanted to have sex with her. N. S. testified that she was not bothered by the remark. N. S.'s testimony is credited. She was friendly toward Respondent and had long dated Respondent's teacher assistant. To A. M., Respondent said that she looked pretty and could get any guy she wanted. A. M.'s testimony is credited. She did not have much interaction with Respondent and was not part of any group interested in causing him trouble. She seems simply to have truthfully reported an ill-advised comment that Respondent made to her, although she did not describe her reaction to the comment. To L. D., Respondent said that he had a bracelet of hers that she had lent him and that, whenever he looked at it, it reminded him of her. L. D. felt uncomfortable about this remark. L. D. also testified that Respondent sometimes tried to get the boys to treat the girls with respect, and her testimony is credited. Other witnesses, especially D. P. and B. H., described other comments, but their credibility is poor, and their testimony cannot be credited. The demeanor of two witnesses favorable to Respondent revealed something bordering on exasperation with him, even as they testified that he never said anything sexually inappropriate in class. The demeanor of each witness was consistent with someone who believed that Respondent was only joking around in class, when making sexually charged comments, and had suffered more than enough due to the consequences of lies told by two female students, as described below. In isolation, the comment about having sex with a student with orthopedic rods in her back is sexually offensive, as is the sexual comment and gesture framing a female student's breasts is sexually offensive. The comments about the agreement between T. R. and Respondent, the bracelet reminding Respondent of L. D., and A. M. being able to sufficiently pretty to get any boy are not sexually offensive, in isolation, but, even in isolation, betray a tendency by Respondent to regard certain of his female students as females more than students. With the exception of the comment to A. M., all of the comments, gesture, and behavior, in the aggregate during a relatively short period of time, depict a transformation by Respondent of the relationship between a teacher and several of his students to a more ambiguous relationship, at times resembling the relationship that might exist between these girls and the boys with whom they attended high school. Nearly all of these incidents embarrassed the female students; all of them, except perhaps A. M., reasonably should have been embarrassed by them. Several of these incidents suggest that Respondent regarded these female students as available for him in some role other than that of student--for instance, as females with whom to flirt. Petitioner has proved that Respondent exploited these female students, with the possible exception of A. M., for personal gain. This characterization of these comments, gesture, and behavior is confirmed by Respondent's implausible assertion that all of these students, except N. S., are lying. If confident that the comments, gesture, and behavior were innocuous or at least not improper, Respondent could have gained credibility by admitting these incidents and explaining their innocence. With one exception, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent sexually harassed or discriminated against his female students or these students in particular. The record does not suggest any quid pro quo in the sexual incidents, although the agreement with T. R. approaches the type of proof required. Nor does the record suggest that the sexual commentary, gesturing, or behavior were so pervasive as to create a hostile environment. Two students, N. S., A. M., and L. D., were each the subject of a single comment. One student, A. T., was the subject of a single incident, which consisted of a comment and gesture. On this record, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's treatment of these students rose to harassment or discrimination of them or of his female students in general. However, Respondent's treatment of T. R. rose to harassment and sexual discrimination because he made three sexually inappropriate comments and engaged in one sexually inappropriate behavior that caused her to alter her mode of dress. Respondent implicitly asked her to think about dating him--now or later--with the comment about a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. Respondent implicitly identified the possibility of their having sex with the comment about climbing in her window. Respondent alluded to the possibility of sex between T. R., a student, and himself, a teacher with the power of the grade, with the comment about her grade resulting from an agreement. And Respondent leered at T. R. sufficiently to cause her to change her workout clothes. In partial mitigation of the sexual comments, gesture, and behavior, but not the harassment or discrimination, no one seems to have provided Respondent with any timely feedback on this manner of interacting with certain female students. The only reports to adults seem to have been of isolated comments. In addition to the two reports noted above, a male student reported inappropriate comments, midway through the first quarter, to the teacher who was head of GOALS. Although the teacher did not describe the inappropriate comments, she said that she talked only to the two female students involved and evidently decided that the matter was not sufficiently important to discuss with Respondent or the administration. As noted above, Ms. Marks-Satinoff learned from T. R. of a borderline inappropriate comment. Sometime later, in January, she spoke briefly with Respondent and advised him to watch inappropriate comments. This marks the only feedback, and it was too late to alter the course of events. However, for the same reason that this lack of feedback does not mitigate at all the harassment and discrimination involving T. R., the value of this mitigation is largely undermined by the fact that the knowledge of the need to refrain from improper personal references to students is not granted only to the most experienced teachers or administrators. Perhaps Respondent was not fully aware that his comments, gesture, and behavior were sexually charged and did not realize the effects of these comments, gesture, and behavior on his students, as some teachers may not be fully aware of their sarcasm and its effect on their students. However, Respondent, as a teacher, remains responsible for determining the effect of his interaction upon his students and ultimately must bear the consequences if he fails to identify the problem. D. P. is the complainant in Charge 1. She was born in September 1984 and was a senior during the 2001-02 school year. Respondent taught her peer counseling during the first quarter and personal fitness during the second quarter. D. P. testified that on Monday, January 14, 2002, she approached Respondent to ask if she could exempt a final exam. She testified that he said to return after lunch. When she did, she testified that they met in his office where he kissed her and moved his hand up her leg until he digitally penetrated her vagina. D. P.'s testimony is unbelievable for several reasons. First, two different students testified that they heard her say that she would get Respondent into trouble. One of the students testified that he heard her say this immediately after an argument D. P. had with Respondent over absences and tardies. D. P. was upset with Respondent because her numerous absences and tardies prevented him from exempting her from the final examination in his class. D. P. did not tell anyone of the alleged incident until immediately after she found that she could not obtain an exam exemption from Respondent. Second, D. P.'s testimony is unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. Some inconsistencies are not fatal to credibility, but the number and importance of inconsistencies in her testimony and statements preclude a finding of credibility. Numerous material discrepancies exist between D. P.'s testimony at the hearing and her testimony in a prehearing deposition. Other discrepancies exist between her testimony at the hearing and earlier statements given to law- enforcement officers or made to others. These discrepancies include differences of two hours as to when during the day the incident occurred and one day as to which day on which it occurred. D. P.'s implausible implication is often that the persons taking down her version of events made a mistake. Third, D. P.'s testimony is improbable. First, Respondent was aware of the investigation into his dealings with female students by the morning of January 14. The investigation was already underway by the end of the prior week. For instance, D. P. had given her first statement on January 11. It is unlikely that Respondent would engage in such egregious sexual abuse of a student while he knew that he was under investigation. Second, Respondent's teacher assistant testified that he was in the office during the entire time that the incident supposedly would have taken place, and he never saw D. P. Fourth, D. P. has a poor reputation for honesty among her peers who know her well. D. P. testified that she told several persons about the sexual abuse, but they all denied such conversations. At one point during her testimony, she stated that everyone at school had his or her own opinion concerning rumors as to with which student Respondent was accused of having an improper relationship. As she testified, D. P. seemed clearly to have relished the attention that she had gained by making the charge. S. Y. is the complainant in Charge 2. S. Y. was born in April 1987 and was a sophomore during the 2001-02 school year. She was a student of Respondent. She testified that Respondent taught her Freshman Experience during the third quarter, although she was not a freshman and Respondent did not teach very long into the third quarter before he was terminated, as described below. S. Y. testified that Respondent kissed her one day while they were alone in his office. A number of reasons exist that undermine the credibility of this assertion. First, S. Y.'s testimony is also unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. At different times, she has attested that the kiss occurred between Thanksgiving and Christmas, before Thanksgiving, and in January. Second, S. Y.'s timing in reporting the kiss is suspect. First, three times she told investigators nothing about a kiss. Second, she reported the kiss only after she knew that D. P. had accused Respondent of sexual improprieties. S. Y. admitted that emotions were running "sky high" at the time. Unlike D. P., who did not like Respondent, S. Y. liked him, at one time even having a crush on him. S. Y. appeared capable of jealousy regarding her feelings about Respondent, as evidenced by the following facts. Third, S. Y. reported the kiss immediately after he referred her to the office for abruptly interrupting his class and loudly demanding that he tell her who else he was "fucking." Although she denied knowledge that Respondent was having sexual intercourse with any students, including herself, S. Y. admitted that the referral prompted her to report the kiss to an investigator. Fourth, S. Y. engaged in embellishment concerning her relationship with Respondent, as would be consistent with a fantasy attachment to him. Although S. Y. implausibly denied it, she told Ms. Marks-Satinoff that she had been to Respondent's home, which was in a poor section of Clearwater. Respondent's home is not in a poor section of Clearwater. S. Y. also has said that Respondent proposed that she and another girl perform in a porn movie that he would make. The reality is either that she proposed it to Respondent, who told her never to suggest such a thing again, or that a former boyfriend proposed the porn movie--without Respondent's involvement. For the reasons listed above, it is impossible to credit the testimony of D. P. or S. Y. that Respondent sexually abused them. Although the presence of multiple accusations of this type may sometimes be indicative of their reliability, they are more likely due to Respondent's sexual banter and flirtation and repeated failure to maintain appropriate boundaries between the professional and the personal. Both D. P. and S. Y. were doubtlessly aware of Respondent's tendencies in this regard, and, from this sexually charged atmosphere, which Respondent himself had helped create, they struck back at Respondent by making sexual allegations. D. P. chose to strike out at Respondent for not granting her an exemption to which she was not entitled, and S. Y. chose to strike out at Respondent for referring her to the office and not meeting the unrealistic expectations that she and her infatuation on Respondent had generated. Shortly after D. P. and possibly S. Y.'s charges emerged, law enforcement officers arrested Respondent, who remained in jail for nine days. In June 2002, the state attorney's office dropped the charges, although D. P. testified at the hearing that she intended to sue Respondent and Petitioner. Petitioner then terminated Respondent's employment six weeks prior to the end of the term of his annual contract. A proper penalty must reflect the nature of the offense and its impact on the students. Some students who were the subject of improper comments, gesture, and behavior denied embarrassment. Of those admitting to embarrassment, it does not seem to have been traumatizing or even especially painful. Not entirely without reason, some of the students implied that Respondent had already suffered enough, having been fired and served nine days in jail on accusations that were not established on this record. Also, the mitigation discussed above, as to the failure of authority figures to provide Respondent with timely feedback as to the improper comments, gesture, and behavior, but not harassment and discrimination, plays a role in setting the penalty. Petitioner's representative from the Office of Professional Standards testified that Charges 3 and 4 would suffice to warrant dismissal, depending on the frequency of the improper comments. The improper comments warrant, at most, an unpaid suspension of three days, but the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. warrant a more serious penalty. In the absence of the other sexually inappropriate comments and gesture, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. probably would warrant a long suspension. However, two facts warrant termination. First, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. are accompanied by the sexually inappropriate comments and gesture involving the other students. Second, still not grasping the requirements of a professional's proper relationship toward his students, Respondent has continued, implausibly, to deny all of the sexually inappropriate comments, except for an admission of a vague version of the comment about the orthopedic rod in N. S.'s back. By branding these students liars when he himself is lying, Respondent makes the case for Petitioner that termination is the proper remedy.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jacqueline M. Spoto, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Jean- Baptiste Guerrier, made inappropriate comments to, or engaged in inappropriate conduct with, female students, or inappropriately discussed the topic of sex with his class, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanction is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals holding Florida educator's certificates. Mr. Guerrier held Florida Educator's Certificate 596926, covering the areas of English and middle grades, which was valid through June 30, 2015. At all times pertinent hereto, Mr. Guerrier was employed as a vocational education teacher at D.A. Dorsey Education Center School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Guerrier primarily taught English to students who had dropped out of school earlier and were returning for vocational education. Some of his students were adults, and some were still minors. On August 2, 2012, Ms. Ana Sanchez, an investigator for the Miami-Dade County School Board, received a case alleging that Mr. Guerrier had made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to his students and had inappropriately touched female students. Ms. Sanchez interviewed students and prepared an investigative report detailing what each student told her regarding Mr. Guerrier's conduct in class. She did not personally observe Mr. Guerrier's conduct in the classroom. On September 6, 2012, Mr. Guerrier wrote a letter to Ms. Anne-Marie DuBoulay, the district director of the Office of Professional Standards. In the letter, Mr. Guerrier indicated that he had read the allegations and that he denied them. On or about October 5, 2012, the Miami-Dade County School District notified Mr. Guerrier that he would be recommended for suspension without pay and dismissal. On or about October 8, 2012, Mr. Guerrier submitted his resignation from his position at the Miami-Dade County School District. On October 10, 2012, Ms. DuBoulay prepared a memorandum for the file indicating that Mr. Guerrier had resigned and that the investigative information had been transmitted to Professional Practices Services of the Florida Department of Education. On August 12, 2013, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Mr. Guerrier by the Commissioner. It was subsequently sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At hearing, Ms. Sanchez testified that she interviewed several students from Mr. Guerrier's classes. She testified that some students told her that Mr. Guerrier often made inappropriate comments about sex and female anatomy to his students. She testified that students told her that he inappropriately touched students. She testified that students told her that he had asked female students, "What would you do for a grade?" She testified that Elijah Del'Valle, a 21-year-old student, told her that he saw Mr. Guerrier pulling a female student's G-string, confirming the female student's statement to her. The investigative report prepared by Ms. Sanchez indicated that D.W., a 25-year-old female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier would make sexual comments to his female students on a daily basis. The report indicates that D.W. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier asked her in class if he could see her private parts and asked "what she would do for the grade." The report indicates that K.L., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier rubbed her stomach and asked her to kiss him. The report indicates that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told a story in class about a student who had reported him and that he told his class that the student was mad because he would not have sexual relations with her. The report indicates that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told K.L. that her boyfriend "could not handle her." The report says that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that she witnessed Mr. Guerrier pull G.C.'s underwear in class. The report indicates that J.S., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier always used inappropriate slang terms for female anatomy in class and that she heard Mr. Guerrier ask K.L. to show him her private parts. The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that she saw Mr. Guerrier touching K.L.'s stomach. The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told one female student, "What if I turn off the lights and tell you to undress?" The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that she did not recall which student Mr. Guerrier made this comment to. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle, an adult male student, told Ms. Sanchez that he observed Mr. Guerrier flirting with female students and making sexual remarks in class. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier would ask his female students what they would do for a grade. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that he saw Mr. Guerrier pull a student's pants from behind during class and then ask the young lady where she was going. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier was always looking at the female students when they walked by and would rub his shoulder and arm against them. The report indicates that G.C., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that she saw Mr. Guerrier rub K.L.'s belly area and say, "let me lick that belly ring of yours." The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier is always brushing himself up against the female students. The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told a story in class about a student who had reported him and that that student was mad because he had not had sexual relations with her. The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that she once asked Mr. Guerrier for help with a lesson and that he pulled her G-string when she was getting up from the chair and pulled her back down. Mr. Guerrier testified at hearing that he did not do any of the things he was accused of. Mr. Guerrier said that his accusers had a motive to fabricate their stories because they were very poor students. He said that some of them slept in class, others texted throughout class, and others did not show up at all. He stated that some of them had no grades in his grading book and that he had no basis to give them a grade. He stated the students went to a counselor and fabricated the stories.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Jean-Baptiste Guerrier. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates the Best Western Admiral’s Inn and Conference Center in Winter Haven. Petitioner worked as a waitress in the hotel’s first floor restaurant from March 8, 2005, through March 18, 2006. Petitioner testified that she was sexually harassed “for months” by Marcus Owens, a cook who worked with her in the restaurant. According to Petitioner, Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually-explicit comments to her on a number of occasions while they were working together. Petitioner could not recall precisely when the harassment started, but she estimated that it started approximately two weeks after Mr. Owens started working at the restaurant. Mr. Owens started working in the restaurant on July 28, 2005, which means that the harassment would have started in mid- August 2005. Petitioner did not complain about the harassment until November 9, 2005, when she reported it to her supervisor, Cory Meeks. This was the first notice that Respondent had about the alleged harassment. Petitioner’s testimony that she complained to the hotel’s general manager, Jeffrey Vandiver, about the harassment several weeks prior to her complaint to Mr. Meeks was not persuasive. Petitioner and Mr. Meeks met with the hotel’s human resources manager, Lin Whitaker, on the same day that the complaint was made, November 9, 2005. Ms. Whitaker told Petitioner that she needed to put her complaint in writing for the hotel to take formal action. Petitioner refused to do so because she was scared of retribution by Mr. Owens, even though Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whittaker assured her that she would be protected from Mr. Owens. Petitioner asked Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker to address the situation with Mr. Owens without using her name, which they did. Mr. Owens denied sexually harassing anyone when confronted by Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker. On December 2, 2005, Petitioner again complained to Mr. Meeks about Mr. Owens. She told Mr. Meeks that the harassment had not stopped and that it had gotten worse through even more vulgar comments. Petitioner again did not want a formal investigation into the allegations, but Ms. Whitaker told her that an investigation was required by company policy since this was the second complaint. Mr. Owens was immediately suspended without pay pending the completion of the investigation. The investigation was conducted by Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Whitaker on December 7, 2005. They first met with Petitioner to get her side of the story. Then, they met separately with Mr. Owens to get his side of the story. Finally, they interviewed all of the employees who worked with Petitioner and Mr. Owens. This was the first time that Petitioner went into detail about what Mr. Owens had said and done. She stated that, among other things, Mr. Owens asked her whether she had “ever had a black man” and whether her boyfriend “is able to get it up or does he require Viagra.” She also stated that there were no witnesses to the harassment because Mr. Owens was "discreet" about making the comments to her when no one else was around. Mr. Owens again denied sexually harassing anyone. He acknowledged asking Petitioner whether she had ever dated a black man, but he stated that the question was in response to Petitioner asking him whether he had ever dated a white woman. (Mr. Owens is black, and Petitioner is white.) The other employees who were interviewed as part of the investigation stated that they had not witnessed any sexual harassment or overheard any sexually explicit conversations in the restaurant. Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Owens concluded based upon their investigation that “there is not enough evidence of sexual harassment to terminate Marcus Owens.” They decided to let Mr. Owens continue working at the hotel, provided that he agreed to be moved to the hotel’s second floor restaurant and that he agreed to attend a sexual harassment training program. On December 8, 2005, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed the results of their investigation and their proposed solution to Petitioner. She was “fine” with the decision to move Mr. Owens to the second floor restaurant where she would not have contact with him. On that same day, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed their proposed solution to Mr. Owens. He too was “fine” with the decision, and he agreed that he would not go near Petitioner. Mr. Owens came back to work the following day, on December 9, 2005. On December 14, 2005, Mr. Owens was involved in an altercation with Stephen Zulinski, a dishwasher at the hotel and a close friend of Petitioner’s. The altercation occurred at the hotel during working hours. Mr. Zulinski testified that the incident started when Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually explicit comments and gestures about Mr. Zulinski’s relationship with Petitioner. Mr. Zulinski was offended and angered by the comments, and he cursed and yelled at Mr. Owens. Mr. Zulinski denied pushing Mr. Owens (as reflected on Mr. Zulinski’s Notice of Termination), but he admitted to putting his finger on Mr. Owens’ shoulder during the altercation. Mr. Owens and Mr. Zulinski were immediately fired as a result of the altercation. Petitioner continued to work as a waitress at the hotel’s first floor restaurant after Mr. Owens was fired. Petitioner received awards from Respondent for having the most positive customer comment cards for the months of October and November 2005, even though according to her testimony she was being sexually harassed by Mr. Owens during those months. She testified that her problems with Mr. Owens affected her job performance only to a “very small degree.” Petitioner had no major problems with her job performance prior to December 2005, notwithstanding the sexual harassment by Mr. Owens that had been occurring “for months” according to Petitioner’s testimony. Petitioner was “written up” on a number of occasions between December 2005 and February 2006 because of problems with her job performance. The problems included Petitioner being rude to the on-duty manager in front of hotel guests; taking too many breaks and not having the restaurant ready for service when her shift started; failing to check the messages left for room service orders; and generating a guest complaint to the hotel’s corporate headquarters. Petitioner was fired after an incident on March 11, 2006, when she left the restaurant unattended on several occasions and the manager-on-duty received complaints from several hotel guests about the quality of service that they received from Petitioner that night. Petitioner ended up being sent home from work that night because, according to her supervisor, “she was in a crying state,” unable to work, and running off the restaurant’s business. Petitioner’s employment with Respondent was formally terminated on March 18, 2006. The stated reason for the termination was “unsatisfactory work performance” and “too many customer complaints.” None of the supervisors who wrote up Petitioner were aware of her sexual harassment complaints against Mr. Owens. Petitioner claimed that the allegations of customer complaints and poor job performance detailed in the write-ups were “ludicrous,” “insane,” “almost a complete fabrication,” and “a joke.” The evidence does not support Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner admitted to having “severe” bi-polar disorder, and she acknowledged at the hearing and to her supervisor that she was having trouble with her medications over the period that she was having problems with her job performance. For example, the comment written by Petitioner on the January 27, 2006, write-up stated that she was “at a loss” to explain her job performance and that she “hope[d] to have [her] mental stability restored to what everyone else but [her] seems normalcy.” Petitioner worked 25 to 30 hours per week while employed by Respondent. She was paid $5.15 per hour, plus tips, and she testified that her biweekly take-home pay was between $200 and $250. Petitioner applied for unemployment compensation after she was fired. Respondent did not dispute the claim, and Petitioner was awarded unemployment compensation of $106 per week, which she received for a period of six months ending in September 2006. Petitioner has not worked since she was fired by Respondent in March 2006. She has not even attempted to find another job since that time. Petitioner does not believe that she is capable of working because of her bi-polar disorder. She applied for Social Security disability benefits based upon that condition, but her application was denied. Petitioner’s appeal of the denial is pending. Petitioner testified that one of the reasons that she has not looked for another job is her concern that doing so would undermine her efforts to obtain Social Security disability benefits. Respondent has a general “non-harassment” policy, which prohibits “harassment of one employee by another employee . . . for any reason.” Respondent also has a specific sexual harassment policy, which states that “sexual harassment of any kind will not be tolerated.” The policy defines sexual harassment to include verbal sexual conduct that “has the purpose or effect of interfering with the individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” The general non-harassment policy and the specific sexual harassment policy require the employee to immediately report the harassment to his or her supervisor or a member of the management staff. The Standards of Conduct and the Work Rules adopted by Respondent authorize immediate dismissal of an employee who is disrespectful or discourteous to guests of the hotel. The Standards of Conduct also authorize discipline ranging from a written reprimand to dismissal for an employee’s “[f]ailure to perform work or job assignments satisfactorily and efficiently.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald T. Ryce, Esquire 908 Coquina Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Nora E. Bartolone 119 Alachua Drive Southeast Winter Haven, Florida 33884
