The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges? If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County, Florida, with just or proper cause to take disciplinary action against him? If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence received at the formal hearing, the factual stipulations of the parties, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Dade County, Florida. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was an annual contract employee of the School Board occupying a paraprofessional position. He currently is under suspension as a result of the incident described in the Notice of Specific Charges. Respondent's employment with the School Board began on October 2, 1987, when he was hired as a part-time custodian and assigned to Hialeah Middle School (HMS). He remained a part-time custodian at HMS until 1989, when he became a teacher aide at the school. He was a teacher aide at HMS from 1989 to 1992. In 1992, he filled a teacher assistant position at the school. He stayed in that position until he was administratively reassigned in April of 1994, following the incident which led to the initiation of the instant disciplinary proceeding. As a teacher assistant at HMS during the 1993-94 school year, Respondent was a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD, effective July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1994 (UTD Contract). 2/ Article IV of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employer rights." Section 1 of Article IV provided, in part, that the School Board had the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss or terminate employees "for just cause." Article XIX of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of "employee rights and due process." Section 2 of Article XIX provided, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)." Article VII of the UTD Contract addressed the subject of a "safe learning environment." Section 1, paragraph A, of Article VII provided as follows: A safe and orderly learning environment is a major priority of the parties. Such an environment requires that disruptive b havior be dealt with safely, fairly, consis- tently and in a manner which incorporates progressive disciplinary measures specified in the Code of Student Conduct. Section 1, paragraph B, of Article VII provided, as follows: Rules governing discipline are set forth in the Code of Student Conduct, School Board Rules, and Procedures for Promoting and Main- taining a Safe Learning Environment and, by reference, are made a part of this Contract. Guideline No. 4 of the School Board's Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment (School Board's Procedures), which were incorporated by reference in Section 1, paragraph B, of Article VII of the UTD Contract, addresses the subject of "child abuse" and provides, in part, as follows: CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE Section 415.504, Florida Statutes, requires mandatory reporting of all cases of child abuse. This statute applies to suspected or confirmed reports against any person, regard- less of occupation, who is alleged to be involved or any person who is alleged to have committed any act of child abuse. School personnel are not exempted from mandatory reporting of child abuse even when a fellow employee is suspected or confirmed as the abuser. WHEN IN DOUBT, REPORT ... CHILD ABUSE Child abuse is defined to include harm or threatened harm to a child's health or wel- fare and/or willful or negligent acts which result in: neglect; malnutrition; sexual abuse; physical injury; mental injury; or failure to provide sustenance, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Any person, including, but not limited to, physician, nurse, teacher, social worker, or employee of a public or private facility serving children, who has reason to believe that a child has been a subject of child abuse, shall report this information as indicated in the procedures outlined in this guideline. Knowing and willful failure to report sus- pected or confirmed abuse, and knowing and willful prevention of another from making such a report, is a crime punishable by up to two months in jail and up to a $500 fine, Sections 775.082 and 775.083, Florida Statutes, and may be subject to disciplinary action of Dade County Public Schools. It is suggested that once a report is made, the principal or appropriate school administrator be notified. PROCEDURES . . . SCHOOL RELATED CHILD ABUSE REPORTING . . . Anyone aware of suspected or confirmed child abuse committed by School Board employees acting in their official capacity, shall immediately make a report to the principal or designee who shall immediately make a report to the Dade County Public Schools Police and the Region Office. Reasonable Force and Child Abuse. In some instances, a need may exist to differentiate between reasonable force and child abuse. Florida Statute 232.27 provides that: Subject to law and to the rules of the district school board, each teacher or other member of the staff of any school shall have such authority for the control and discipline of students as may be assigned by the princi- pal or designee and shall keep good order in the classroom and in other places in which the teacher or other staff member is assigned to be in charge of students... Florida Statute 232.275 provides that: ...Except in the case of excessive force or cruel and unusual punishment, a teacher or other staff member, a principal or designee, or a bus driver shall not be civilly or criminally liable for any action carried out in conformity with the state board and district school board rules regarding the control, discipline, suspension, and expulsion of students... An administrator must report to Dade County Public Schools Police and the Region Office all cases involving Board Employees where: excessive physical force or physical contact that was used was greater than necessary use of unauthorized physical action results in injury to a student corporal punishment is administered to a student Guideline No. 5 of the School Board's Procedures addresses the subject of "illnesses and injuries to students" and provides, in part, as follows: CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE All employees responsible for supervision of students and student activities are to take precautions to protect the life, health, and safety of every student in an effort to reduce or eliminate accidents, injuries, and illnesses. . . . Guideline No. 9 of the School Board's Procedures addresses the subject of "corporal punishment" and provides as follows: CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE Corporal punishment is prohibited in the Dade County Public Schools. This prohibition extends to parents or guardians on school grounds. Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), Florida Statutes, defines corporal punishment as: ... the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rules. However, the term "corporal punishment" does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to protect himself or other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331 (Special Programs and Procedures and . . . . the Contract Between the Dade County Public Schools and United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to March 10, 1994, Respondent was aware of the School Board's rules prohibiting the use of corporal punishment and requiring employees to report cases of suspected or actual child abuse. Section 1, paragraph D, of Article VII of the UTD Contract provided, in part, as follows: The parties recognize the potential for difficult circumstances and problems related to the use of corporal punishment. Accordingly, the parties agree that such punishment shall be prohibited as a disciplinary option, and further agree to act affirmatively in continuing to identify and implement more effective alter- natives for dealing with student behavior. "Physical restraint" was the subject of Section 3 of Article VII of the UTD Contract, which provided as follows: There are instances where exceptional students exhibit behaviors that are disruptive to the learning environment and pose a threat to the safety of persons or property. Exceptional students enrolled in pro- grams for the emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed, and autistic, because of the nature of their disability, may on occasion experience impaired impulse control of such severity that use of physical restraint is necessary to prevent such students from inflicting harm to self and/or others, or from causing damage to property. Students enrolled in other exceptional student education programs may also display behaviors that require the use of restraint. The purpose of physical restraint is to prevent injury to persons or destruction of property. It is not to be used to "teach the child a lesson" or as punishment. Subject to available funding, teachers or paraprofess- ionals shall, upon request, be afforded an opportunity to learn physical restraint techniques. Strategies for the prevention of aggressive behavior shall be utilized on an ongoing basis. However, when a explosive event occurs without warning and is of such degree that there is imminent risk to persons or property, the use of physical restraint techniques is authorized for such circumstances. Physical restraint refers to the use of physical intervention techniques designed to restrict the movement of a student in an effort to de-escalate aggressive behavior. In order to promote a safe learning environment, the district has authorized for implementation specific physical restraint procedures to be used in programs for the emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed, and autistic. These specific procedures may also be used with other exceptional students when it is indicated on the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). These procedures include, but are not limited to, holding and escape techniques which, when implemented, prevent injury to students and staff or prevent serious damage to property. Specific physical restraint procedures may also be approved for use with other specific student populations upon mutual agreement of the parties and would be reviewed on an annual basis. The Board shall provide for the training of instructional and support staff in physical restraint techniques as well as strategies for prevention of aggressive behavior. Training manuals developed for this purpose are, by reference, incorporated and made a part of this agreement. Physical restraint techniques provided in training programs approved by the Board are authorized and, when utilized in accor- dance with the training provided and these guidelines, shall not constitute grounds for disciplinary action. If a teacher is not trained in the use of approved physical restraint procedures and is faced with an emergency, the teacher is authorized to employ the moderate use of physical force or physical contact as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07 and 1.08. The appropriate use of these procedures shall not constitute a violation of the corporal punishment policy (Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07). The use of physical restraint techniques shall be discussed as part of the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) review development process. The Local Education Agency (LEA) representative, at the initial IEP meeting and/or annual review, shall provide notifica- tion to parents of physical restraint proced- ures. When parents or surrogates are not present at the meeting, written notification to them regarding the use of physical restraint will be provided. For an exceptional student enrolled in a program other than for the emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed or autistic, a recommendation for the use of board-approved physical restraint procedures must be made by the multi-disciplinary team (M-Team) and be documented on the student's IEP form before the use of such procedures may be authorized. The use of physical restraint must be documented as a part of the Student Case Management (SCM) System. Instructional or support staff who utilize physical restraint techniques shall complete the SCM Student Services Form to record student case information regarding each incident. Direct- ions shall be provided to instructional and support staff to assist them in completing the appropriate form. In accordance with Section 3 of Article VII of the UTD Contract, the School Board offered (and continues to offer) a Safe Physical Management Crisis Intervention Training Program (SPM Training Program) for its instructional and non-instructional staff assigned to work with emotionally handicapped, severely emotionally disturbed, and autistic students in order to train these employees in the use of School Board-authorized and approved physical restraint techniques and strategies. Participants in the School Board's SPM Training Program are given training manuals to review and study. According to one of these training manuals, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, the philosophy of SPM is as follows: Utilizing Safe Physical Management tech- niques in the classroom requires that non- physical intervention be used whenever possible to manage behavior. It is also expected that an on-going behavior management system is in place in the classroom to rein- force appropriate behaviors and control inappropriate ones. Physical management techniques may be used when the student is endangering himself, others, or property. They are not used to "punish" the child for misbehavior. Additionally, the philosophy of SPM includes the following major concepts. Emphasis on Safety- Techniques utilized in SPM consider the safety of the client and staff first. In a school setting, techniques that ensure physical safety of students and staff are important. Realize that Students can be Aggressive- SPM accepts the fact that some students need to be physically managed. The techniques used are based on the premise that students will at times eventually force physical inter- vention. That is, the student will do some- thing that you cannot ignore or manage using non-physical interventions. Least-Restrictive- SPM techniques move from least restrictive (providing minimal physical control) to more restrictive (providing maximum control). At all times, the least-restrictive technique that can control the student is used. Limitations- SPM techniques have limit- ations. They cannot handle every explosive situation. There are times when the best situation is not to intervene physically. There are times when SPM Techniques are neither appropriate or feasible. Assistance- SPM techniques advocate the use of assistance. Most techniques work best with two or more people and often, the best decision initially is to get help from other staff members. 3/ Professionalism- The focus of SPM techniques is to assist in the maintenance of a safe learning environment. SPM provides the district approved terminology for the documentation of physical intervention by the professional staff. This training manual also contains, among other things, the following information and instructions concerning the management of an "explosive event:" To effectively manage explosive (out-of- control) situations it is important to conceptualize them as: Angry/Aggressive- No matter how the incident begins, it is an expression of anger on the part of the student. Time-Limited/Temporary- Explosive incid- ents are angry, with the most dominant charact- eristics being a loss of physical control by the student. They are time-limited and even though they seem endless, the student will eventually calm down. Behaviorally Sequential- The behaviors exhibited by the student follow a pattern with behaviors typical each period (see Appendix B). Physical management techniques are not designed to end the explosive episode abruptly. Rather they are designed to safely manage the situation from beginning to end. As a result, the student may cont- inue to engage in aggressive acts, but managed appropriately, the risk of injury to persons or equipment is minimized. During the incident, only the amount of force necessary to prevent injury is utilized, and as the child exhibits more control a less restrictive hold may be used. Planning for explosive incidents is an important part of their prevention. Assessing the student, the environment and available staff is critical before physical intervention occurs. During the event, professional staff must be aware of both the verbal and non-verbal messages they give to students. It is important to indicate concern, expectation for change, and your interest in solving the problem. It is not the time to list sanctions, discuss potential punishments, or respond to personally abusive comments. After the incident ends, the staff involved should allow the student to withdraw and provide calm, brief verbal statements. Now is the time to communicate understanding, and to help the student identify ways this sequence of events can be prevented in the future. Another of the training manuals given to participants in the School Board's SPM Training Program, Petitioner's Exhibit 4, states the following regarding the importance of the child's safety in dealing with "explosive behavior:" Youth service workers and teachers are charged with a caretaking responsibility. As such they assume the natural role of adults to protect or safeguard the young. The Safe Physical Management Crisis Intervention Training Program has as its fundamental pur- pose the safe resolution of explosive behavior. This safety premise holds the adult responsible for insuring the safety of the youth. While the charge of guaranteeing youth safety during a crisis may appear in some way to jeopardize the safety of the intervening adult, in reality it keeps the adult from stepping into harm's way. Entering an explosive situation with a cognitive and physical focus of client safety allows for the management of the behavior and avoids the traps that attempting to eliminate the behavior present. When the purpose of the intervening staff is controlled by self preservation, their reaction to the acting out youth can easily become antagonistic. Such reactions promote escalation and a greater potential for harm. By keeping the youth safe, we provide a higher degree of safety for ourselves. . . . Intervention methods must be safe for both youth and adults; client/student safety however, is primary. At a minimum we shall do no harm. Physical intervention must be safe and, ideally, present minimal risk of accidental injury. . . . The intervention design of the safe physical management program is based upon the principle of social policy known as the "least restric- tive alternative." In many areas this principle has been reduced to the regulatory phrase, "passive restraint." In action, passive restraint refers to an intervention that utilizes the least amount of force necessary to safely control the situation. Student/youth safety is paramount. The SPM intervention philosophy requires that inter- vention personnel hold the safety of the student before their own. This premise, while sometimes raising the eyebrows of staff in training, ironically keeps the intervening staff safer than would an approach which holds staff well-being as primary. This training manual also contains, among other things, the following list of the "physical principles" of SPM: Proximity- safety is enhanced if physical space is understood as both a prompt and/or a deterrence to be used in the management of misbehavior. Location/positioning- safety is enhanced if intervention staff understand that the "face to face" position during intervention is considered the "attack/danger" zone. Evasion/deflection- safety is enhanced by evading or deflecting force rather than by opposing it. Balance- Safety is enhanced if intervention staff understand the principle of homeostasis- the nature of organisms to remain in a state of balance. Neutralization- Safety is enhanced if inter- vention staff understand the principle of managing an explosive event, rather than eliminating explosive behavior. In addition, this training manual describes and illustrates various physical positions and techniques used in SPM, including the "pivot and parry," an "evasion/deflection" technique which is described in the manual as follows: This combination of upper and lower body movement allows the staff to effectively evade and deflect any force that is directed at him/her. The pivot (usually 1/4 turn of one foot) is accomplished by leaving the weight on the foot which is on the side on which the blow or punch is delivered and moving the other foot toward the rear. The ending posture or stance should be the leading/trailing foot position previously described. This movement allows the blow or punch to go by the indivi- dual. This is the bull fighter move that allows the charging bull to pass on the side. Here, we are evading force rather than opposing it. The parry is a deflection of the force- i.e., the blow or punch. While both arms are used the primary parry is employed using the arm that is on the same side as the blow or punch. This arm is raised in an "L" configuration with the forearm vertical and upper arm on a horizontal pla[ne]. As the blow or punch is delivered the forearm is moved across to deflect the incoming force. This is not a blocking motion but, rather, a motion which simply redirects the force away from its target. The second arm is also used by making a similar "L" configuration with the hand being placed a approximately chin level. Again, the purpose is deflection. When the pivot and parry is employed correctly it places the staff in a position to move in and control the attacker, or to escape the danger by fleeing the situation. School Board staff receiving SPM training are also taught that, if during an "explosive event" they find themselves lying on the floor on their back being kicked by a student, they may raise a leg or arm to create a barrier to protect other, more sensitive, parts of their body. It is imperative that staff, in applying SPM principles, techniques, and strategies, exercise sound professional judgment. In determining how to deal with an "explosive event," which often begins abruptly, staff must consider the particular circumstances with which they are confronted. If they have had prior dealings with the student involved in the incident, they should draw upon these prior dealings and attempt to anticipate the student's actions. Respondent successfully completed a SPM training course offered by the School Board prior to March 10, 1994. 4/ Through its exceptional student education department, HMS offers special programs of instruction for various types of exceptional students, including those who are autistic. 5/ It is not uncommon for autistic students to engage in "acting out behavior" (such as screaming, yelling, punching, kicking and throwing objects). To enable its employees who work with autistic students to better understand these students and to deal with them more effectively, the School Board provides these employees with various written materials, including the Autism Orientation Manual, Petitioner's Exhibit 7, which contains the following statement regarding SPM: These procedures should conform to methods approved by the Dade County Public Schools which are described and demonstrated in struc- tured training sessions required for teachers and paraprofessionals working with autistic students. When using physical restraint, it is important to document what is being done. Written permission from parents or guardians is required. Physical restraint should not be used unless positive reinforcement methods have been utilized and the student is presenting potential harm to self and/or others. Evelyn Diaz Loper is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, an assistant principal at HMS responsible for the overall operation of the school's exceptional student education department, including the supervision of those School Board employees assigned to the department. On March 10, 1994, Respondent and Morgan Tharpe were among the employees under Loper's supervision. Tharpe was a teacher (with continuing contract status) who taught a class of autistic students at HMS. There were less than ten students in his class. M.A. was one of these students. M.A. was one month shy of his fourteenth birthday. He was quite strong for his age and had a history of engaging in "acting out behavior" in school. Respondent worked on a "one-to-one" basis with F.T., another student in Tharpe's class. During the second period on March 10, 1994, M.A., F.T. and the other students in Tharpe's class were in shop teacher Gerald Merkerson's classroom. They were supposed to be working on their woodworking projects. In addition to Tharpe's students and Merkerson, Respondent and two other School Board employees occupying paraprofessional positions (Eli Velazquez and Clara Smith), along with L.E., an HMS student in the school's regular education program, were in Merkerson's classroom. M.A. wanted to watch television in the classroom and not work on his project. Merkerson, however, refused to allow M.A. to watch television. M.A. thereupon began to engage in "acting out behavior." Among other things, he threw a metal file and wood in Merkerson's direction. (Merkerson was not hit by any of these thrown objects.) Merkerson and Velazquez took action to restrain M.A. Merkerson grabbed M.A.'s left arm, while Velazquez grabbed M.A.'s right arm. 6/ The two then attempted to lead M.A. away from the area of the classroom where M.A. was positioned. M.A. resisted their efforts. Unlike Respondent, Velazquez had not yet been trained in SPM. Moreover, he was not supposed to be in Merkerson's classroom. Accordingly, Velazquez let go of M.A.'s arm and Respondent attempted to take over for him. M.A., however, bit Respondent on the arm. The bite broke Respondent's skin. Velazquez came to Respondent's assistance and helped Respondent remove himself from the fray. After tending to his wound, Respondent rejoined Velazquez and assisted him in attempting to restrain M.A. Merkerson was no longer holding on to M.A. He had let go after a cut on his hand had reopened and started to bleed. M.A. was on his knees on the floor being restrained by Respondent and Velazquez when Tharpe walked into classroom. Tharpe instructed Respondent and Velazquez to let go of M.A. Respondent and Velazquez followed Tharpe's instructions, notwithstanding that M.A. had not yet calmed down and was still engaging in "acting out behavior." Tharpe walked toward M.A. When Tharpe was approximately two feet away from M.A., M.A. kicked Tharpe in the area of his groin. Tharpe screamed out in pain. M.A.'s actions prompted Velazquez to again attempt to restrain M.A. He grabbed both of M.A.'s arms, but was not able to hold on securely because both he and M.A. were dripping with sweat. M.A. struggled with Velazquez and tried to scratch and bite him. As Velazquez and M.A. were on their knees, face-to-face face, struggling with one another, Tharpe approached M.A. from behind and struck M.A. in the area of the upper back with a relatively thin, rectangular-shaped piece of wood approximately one foot to two meters long and two to three inches wide. 7/ Velazquez released M.A. after Tharpe delivered this blow. M.A. then started crawling towards Tharpe and tried to scratch and bite him. In an effort to ward off M.A.'s attack, Tharpe, who at 235 pounds was substantially larger than M.A., hit M.A. on the back at least two more times with the piece of wood he was holding in his hand. These additional blows were not delivered with full force. The three or more blows that Tharpe delivered produced bruises on M.A.'s back. The marks remained visible for approximately seven to ten days. In delivering these blows, Tharpe used more force than was reasonably necessary to effectively and safely deal with M.A.'s "acting out behavior" and he acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the SPM training he had received. Respondent had witnessed Tharpe's actions and recognized that Tharpe had acted improperly. Nonetheless, contrary to the requirements of Guideline No. 4 of the School Board's Procedures (of which Respondent was aware), Respondent did not report the incident to Loper (who was at school that day) or any other School Board administrator within a reasonable period of time following the incident. Neither did any of the other HMS staff members who had been in the classroom at the time of the incident advise Loper, on March 10, 1994, of what had happened. Although Tharpe's actions were inappropriate, they were effective. After Tharpe delivered his final blow, M.A. stopped crawling toward him. M.A. continued to scream, however, and, after a while, he started to crawl toward Respondent. In an effort to prevent M.A. from coming any closer, Respondent swung his foot in M.A.'s direction and made contact with M.A. 8/ Respondent kicked M.A. approximately five or six times, but M.A. continued coming at him. When Respondent started to become visibly upset with M.A., Velazquez intervened by positioning himself between Respondent and M.A. and pushing Respondent out of the way. Respondent did not kick M.A. as hard as he could have. 9/ Nonetheless, in kicking M.A., he used more force than was reasonably necessary to effectively and safely deal with M.A.'s "acting out behavior" and he acted in a physically aggressive manner that was inconsistent with the SPM training he had received. 10/ M.A. eventually calmed down and returned to Tharpe's classroom. Tharpe telephoned M.A.'s mother, L.A.H., that day (March 10, 1994), but he did not mention to her during their conversation anything about what had happened in Merkerson's classroom during second period. He simply told L.A.H. that she needed to supply him with more medication for M.A. Following the conclusion of the school day, M.A. went home by school bus. L.A.H. met him at the bus stop and greeted him with a hug. She was unaware, at the time, that anything unusual or out of the ordinary had occurred in school that day. M.A. pulled away from his mother when she hugged him and said, "Mom, boo-boo." 11/ L.A.H. then pulled up M.A.'s shirt and saw four bruises about "three fingers wide" on M.A.'s back that had not been there that morning when she had helped M.A. get dressed for school. M.A. also had a scratch on his forehead that L.A.H. had never seen before and a bump on his head. The following morning (March 11, 1994), L.A.H., accompanied by M.A. and M.A.'s father (L.A.H.'s former husband), met with Loper and William Jones, the principal of HMS. L.A.H. showed Loper and Jones the bruises on M.A.'s back and the scratch on his forehead and expressed her belief that M.A. had sustained these injuries at school the previous day. Loper thereupon contacted Merkerson and asked him if anything had occurred in his classroom the day before that may have resulted in injury to M.A. In view of Merkerson's response to her inquiry, Loper asked him to fill out a Student Case Management Referral Form (SCM Form). A SCM Form must be filled out whenever a student has been physically restrained. Loper had not previously received a completed SCM Form indicating that physical force had been used against M.A. in Merkerson's classroom the day before. On the SCM Form that he filled out at Loper's request, Merkerson stated the following: [M.A.] became irate and upset because he was not allowed to watch Barney on television. He became combatant and began to throw stools and wooden objects at the teachers and paraprofessionals. Upon being subdued to reduce the danger that he posed to myself and others he bit Juan Alejo on his right forearm, kicked Mr. Tharpe in the groin area and hit his right arm with his balsa wood project. The student poses a serious safety hazard in the technology education shop class. [M.A.] was also self destructive and scratched himself on the left temple. Although Merkerson did not mention in his written report that, in subduing M.A., Tharpe had hit M.A. with a piece of wood and Respondent had kicked M.A., the School Board ultimately found out about Tharpe's and Respondent's unseemly and inappropriate behavior during the incident. On November 2, 1994, a conference for the record was held concerning Respondent's involvement in the incident. At the conference, Respondent admitted that he had kicked M.A. during the incident. By letter dated November 3, 1994, the principal of HMS recommended to Frank de Varona, the Regional Superintendent (for Region I Operations) "the termination of [Respondent] from all employment in Dade County Public Schools." By letter dated January 13, 1995, the School Board's Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that he was recommending that the School Board suspend Respondent and initiate a dismissal proceeding against him. The School Board took such recommended action at its January 25, 1995, meeting. Respondent thereafter requested a formal hearing on the matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of April, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 25th day of April, 1996.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with the Miami-Dade County School District.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is charged by Florida law with the operation, control, management, and supervision of all public schools within the Dade County School District. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Maurice Cherry, was employed by Petitioner as a security monitor at Thomas Jefferson Middle School (TJMS). Sergeant Buck is a seventeen-year veteran police officer employed by the Metro-Dade Police Department. During the month of November 1996, Officer Buck was deployed in an undercover assignment related to activities and complaints at several adult bookstores. These complaints alleged lewd and lascivious acts were occurring on the premises of several named bookstores. While in his undercover capacity at or near one of the adult bookstores, Officer Buck met the Respondent. During this initial conversation with the Respondent, Officer Buck noted that the Respondent wore what appeared to be a school security jacket. Because Respondent made several suggestive sexual comments and verbal advances, Officer Buck determined to investigate the Respondent further as he was concerned that Respondent might be pursuing improper sexual conduct on school property with minors. In furtherance of his investigation, Officer Buck discovered that Respondent did, in fact, provide security monitor services at TJMS. The officer went to the school property and was attempting to verify that the security monitor employed at TJMS was the individual he had previously encountered at the adult bookstore site. While not expecting to run into Respondent, Officer Buck did make contact with the suspect in the school hallway. On this occasion Respondent ushered the police officer into a locked, second-story classroom (for which Respondent had the key) and engaged in conversation of a sexual nature. During the course of this brief encounter, Respondent grabbed Officer Buck in the groin area, and, as the police sergeant interpreted it, attempted to touch the officer's penis. Officer Buck resisted the sexual advance and, after making an excuse to Respondent, left the school premises. At no time during this episode did Respondent say or indicate to Officer Buck that students or minors were involved in any sexual activities with the Respondent. After several months of reassignment on another police project, Officer Buck returned to TJMS in April 1997 to resume his investigation of the Respondent. Again, his primary focus was to assure that the security monitor was not engaged in any sexual activities with minors. In this connection, Officer Buck approached the Respondent and engaged in conversation to determine if the Respondent would divulge any information related to minors. Respondent did not. It did not appear that Respondent was interested in minors. On the other hand, Respondent again attempted to make sexual contact with Officer Buck. Although during school hours and with students present on campus, Respondent ushered the undercover officer into a locked room, asked him to show him his penis, grabbed Officer Buck in the groin area as if to attempt to remove his penis from his pants, and exposed his own penis to Officer Buck. All of this occurred within a matter of moments. Since Officer Buck had sounded a verbal signal to officers who were waiting outside, police backups were making their way to the classroom where the officer and Respondent were located. Within a short time, Respondent was in police custody and was charged with criminal offenses stemming from the lewd behavior. This event made the evening television news. It was also covered by at least one prominent Miami-area newspaper. As a result of the publicity generated by Respondent's arrest, the principal at TJMS did not want the security monitor back at her school. Parents expressed concerns regarding Respondent and his presence at the school. The allegations related to Respondent's arrest resulted in a disturbance at the school such that to permit him to return would have caused additional turmoil and disruption. Such turmoil would result in the school system being brought into further disgrace and disrespect because of the unacceptable conduct Respondent exhibited. Respondent's effectiveness as a school security monitor has been greatly diminished as a result of his conduct and the resulting criminal charges. That the case was not criminally prosecuted does not mitigate the damage done to Respondent's effectiveness because, while he was not prosecuted, the lewd acts were committed on school property during the school day.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from his employment with the school district. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos E. Mustelier, Jr., Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is sufficient "just cause" to warrant termination of Respondent's annual contract of employment with the Monroe County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Based on the Findings of Fact and Burke's prior disciplinary record, the undersigned concludes that Burke's chronic misconduct and series of continuing disciplinary problems on February 23, 2015 ( para. 9o.); May 7, 2015 ( para. 9q.); and May 12, 2015 ( para. 9r.), as well as Burke's performance evaluation from April 9, 2015 ( para. 9t.), permitted the School Board to dispense with the progressive discipline steps under the CBA since immediate and\or stronger action was reasonably necessary under Article V, Section 1B. of the CBA, and "just cause" existed for her termination. Burke's unabated misbehavior, even after several sit- downs and fair and repeated warnings, constituted sufficient legal grounds to permit the School Board to omit or skip steps in the progressive discipline process. See, generally, Quiller v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 171 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (concurring opinion, Osterhaus, J.) (The employee's repeated use of profanity and derogatory language, her discipline history, and her failure to modify her conduct warranted skipping steps of the progressive discipline policy.). Quiller was decided the summer of 2015 and provides an analogous set of circumstances. Relevant portions of Judge Osterhaus's concurring opinion are instructive and worth repeating here: By highlighting Ms. Quiller's rhetorical and disciplinary history, the Final Order disputes the Recommended Order's conclusion that "[t]here is no proof that the behavior at issue constitutes [5] 'severe acts of misconduct.'" Though the definition of "more severe acts" in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was left undefined, the School Board's human resource officer testified at the hearing that the School Board determines appropriate discipline based on how many times an incident has occurred, who the witnesses are, the severity of the incident, the amount of time that has occurred between incidents, and the employee's willingness to modify his or her behavior. Her testimony continued that "some of the most severe conduct" includes instances when an employee has failed to modify his or her more serious behavior after having been warned. In turn, the School Board's conclusion in this case was that Ms. Quiller's repeated use of profanity and derogatory language, her discipline history, and her failure to modify her conduct warranted skipping step three of the progressive discipline policy. So there wasn't "no proof" that Ms. Quiller's behavior constituted "more severe acts of misconduct" for purposes of the CBA, even if the ALJ thought that her acts weren't particularly severe. Deference is due to the School Board's decision with respect to its personnel decisions. Courts [6] have little room to define what constitutes "more severe acts of misconduct" as against those responsible for running the county's schools. See, e.g., Dep't of Prof. Regulation v. Bernal, 531 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 1988) (giving great discretion to boards to determine discipline). Courts will not substitute their judgment "if valid reasons for the board's order exist in the record and reference is made thereto." Id. at 968. To that end, the School Board's identification of Ms. Quiller's bad language, discipline, and failure to modify her behavior probably supports the departure it took from the ALJ's recommended penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Monroe County School Board accept and implement the superintendent's recommendation to terminate Respondent, Sue Burke. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 12th day of November, 2015.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to sustain Respondent’s dismissal from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted district school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const. In 2010, Whitley started working for the School Board as a school security monitor. During the 2016-2017 school year, Whitley was assigned to Thomas Jefferson Middle School (“Thomas Jefferson”) as a security monitor. He remains employed in that role at Thomas Jefferson presently. Whitley’s job duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, maintaining the safety of the children, ensuring the children make it to class on time, assisting with any problems that may be going on in the school, and monitoring the security cameras. At all times relevant to the proceeding, Respondent has been employed by the School Board pursuant to a continuing contract. The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on February 6, 2017. On February 6, 2017, Whitley was patrolling his assigned hall and noticed that M.G., a 13-year-old sixth grader, was out of class and sitting at Respondent’s desk in the hallway. Whitley requested that M.G. get out of the chair, and M.G. refused to get out of the desk. According to M.G., after M.G. refused, Whitley flipped the desk while he was seated, which caused M.G. to fall and hit his head on the floor. There is conflicting evidence as to what happened when Whitley approached the desk (“incident”). At hearing, M.G. credibly testified that he reported the incident to Principal Robin Atkins the same day and that he also got an ice pack for his head. Almost a month later, the Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation regarding the incident. Afterward, Respondent was notified that M.G. accused him of flipping the desk that he was sitting in and causing him to hit his head as a result. In 2017, law enforcement interviewed Respondent. The matter was ultimately turned over to the School Board's General Investigative Unit (“GIU”). The investigation took approximately two years to conclude. Even though Thomas Jefferson maintained security footage and recorded videos of the hallway where the incident occurred, no video footage existed for anyone to review regarding the incident. Based on its investigation, on or about May 30, 2019, GIU determined that there was probable cause to support the allegation that Respondent had violated School Board Policy 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare. Respondent learned about the determination soon thereafter. After summer break, when Respondent returned to work, on or about August 27, 2019, Carlos Diaz, the district director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted a conference-for-the-record (“CFR”) meeting to discuss the pending allegations from the GIU case. Respondent was present at the CFR with his union representative. Following the CFR, the Disciplinary Review Team (“DRT”) met. DRT considered Respondent’s repeated and similar conduct for inappropriate contact with students and Respondent’s prior directives in its decision to discipline Respondent. DRT recommended that Respondent be terminated. The recommendation was adopted by the School Board. Prior Disciplinary History During his employment with the School Board, Whitley has been disciplined twice regarding inappropriate touching of students prior to the incident. The School Board kept a record of Respondent’s discipline in Whitley’s personnel file. On or about April 16, 2013, Whitley received a written reprimand after an investigation concluded that he shoved and touched a student’s shoulder repeatedly. Whitley’s reprimand directed Respondent to “[r]efrain from any physical touching of students.” In November 2013, Whitley was suspended for 12 workdays without pay after an investigation concluded that Respondent inappropriately picked up and dropped a student to the ground. The CFR memorandum regarding Respondent’s November 2013 occurrence directed Whitley to: “adhere to School Board Policies 4210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; 4210.01, Code of Ethics; and 4213, Student Supervision and Welfare”; “refrain from inappropriate communications with students”; and “refrain from inappropriate physical contact with students.” Hearing At the final hearing, M.G. provided persuasive credible testimony regarding the incident. He testified that he was sitting in Whitley’s chair in the hall. M.G. also admitted that he refused to move and told Respondent “no” when told to move. Whitley testified that M.G. “jumped” out of the chair. The undersigned does not credit Whitley’s testimony based on his contradictory statements about the incident, which diminish the trustworthiness of his testimony.1 Findings of Ultimate Fact Accordingly, the undersigned finds that M.G.’s credible testimony established that Whitley initiated contact with M.G., grabbed the desk to lean in, and flipped M.G., who was seated, out of the desk. As a result of Whitley’s actions, M.G. landed in a manner where his “hand hit the ground,” head hit the concrete floor, and, by doing so, jeopardized M.G.’s health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-5.056(2) and (4), 6A-10.081, and School Board Policies 4210, 4210.01, and 4213 as charged; and upholding Respondent's termination from employment for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 29th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Branden M. Vicari, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to terminate the employment of the Respondent, who is a continuing contract teacher, on several grounds alleged in a three-count Notice of Specific Charges. The Respondent is charged in Count I with incompetency; in Count II with gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty; and in Count III with misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Section 4(b) of Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a teacher-on-special-assignment and a Language Arts (English) teacher within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, assigned to Miami Beach Senior High School, Lake Stevens Middle School, and other work sites within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent was employed by Petitioner pursuant to a continuing contract of employment and subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board. During the 1992/93 school year Respondent exhibited erratic behavior, mood changes, engaged in altercations with staff, was excessively absent, and chronically arrived late to the Chapter I Office, her assigned work site at that time. On November 6, 1992, a meeting was held with Respondent to notify Respondent that, due to her excessive absenteeism, repeated tardiness, mood swings, and altercations with other staff members, Respondent was being referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (hereinafter "EAP"). At the November 6, 1992 meeting, Respondent became verbally aggressive and combative in her demeanor and stated that, since there was nothing wrong with her, she did not need to go to the EAP. On November 10, 1992, Respondent's then immediate supervisor requested a medical fitness evaluation due to, among other things, Respondent's excessive absenteeism, inability to accept directives, confrontations with staff members, lack of respect for authority, and because of Respondent's refusal to comply with the supervisory referral to EAP. On November 17, 1992, Respondent was directed to report for a Conference-for-the-Record (hereinafter "CFR") at Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (hereinafter "OPS"). On December 14, 1992, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's medical fitness to perform assigned duties, as well as her excessive tardiness, excessive absenteeism, and non-compliance with administrative directives. At the December 14, 1992, CFR, it was decided that, because Respondent's duties at the Chapter I office were unclear, Respondent would be given a chance to return to her duties as a teacher-on-special-assignment at the Chapter I Office. At the conclusion of the December 14, 1992, CFR, Respondent agreed to strive to maintain a professional work environment. On January 19, 1993, Respondent's EAP case was closed after Respondent failed to appear at the scheduled EAP conference and after Respondent refused to participate in the program. During the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach an English for Speakers of Other Languages ("ESOL") class at Miami Beach Senior High School. During the first week of school in August of 1993, Respondent became involved in a verbal altercation in front of students after she was told that her classroom had been changed. During the altercation described in paragraph 14 above, Respondent, in front of the students in the classroom, became so upset over being notified of the room change that she screamed and yelled at her Department chairperson and pushed 15 to 20 books off a table. On September 1, 1994, several students in Respondent's ESOL class accused Respondent of directing disparaging statements to them, belittling them, and threatening to have her nephews harm them, if they reported her actions to the school principal. On September 2, 1994, as a result of Respondent's persistent erratic behavior and inappropriate conduct, including, but not limited to, calling students "bastards," and demeaning, accosting, and harassing other teachers in the hallways, the principal at Miami Beach Senior High School requested that Respondent undergo a medical fitness evaluation. On September 14, 1994, Respondent was involved in a verbal confrontation with another teacher at her school in the presence of students. Because of Respondent's agitated and irrational behavior, the other teacher was afraid that Respondent might hit her. Due to Respondent's expressed desire to transfer to a middle school, and because of her continuing behavioral problems, Respondent was transferred to Lake Stevens Middle School with the assistance of the principal at Miami Beach Senior High. Prior to Respondent's transfer to Lake Stevens Middle School, the principal at Lake Stevens Middle school was not informed of Respondent's history of behavioral problems until Respondent was involved in several incidents with other staff members at her new school. On December 4, 1995, a conference was held with Respondent and the school clerk at Lake Stevens Middle School in an attempt to resolve a dispute between the two employees. The conference was held after Respondent had been involved in an altercation with the school clerk. At the December 4, 1995, conference, Respondent was directed to avoid contact or communications with the school clerk unless initiated through a school administrator. On May 4, 1995, during a parent-teacher conference, the conference had to be terminated after Respondent became enraged and started yelling and screaming at the parent, the student, and an assistant principal. Respondent continued screaming even after the parent and student had left and persisted in shouting and yelling at the assistant principal while Respondent followed her around the main office. On February 8, 1996, another conference was held with the Respondent at Lake Stevens Middle School by the assistant principal to address a complaint filed by Respondent against a school secretary. As the conference was about to be concluded, Respondent started shouting and making disparaging remarks against the school secretary, and was generally "out-of-control." On May 2, 1996, Respondent was cited with insubordination after she entered the main office area and started yelling at the assistant principal and refused to cease her tirade after twice being directed by the assistant principal to stop shouting and explain her problem. On May 15, 1996, a formal observation of the Respondent's classroom performance was not conducted because Respondent was unable to provide her lesson plans and grade book to the administrator who was to observe her. Rather than place Respondent on prescription, the principal decided to give Respondent another opportunity to get her documentation in order for another observation. Prior to the May 15, 1996 voided observation, the assistant principal at Lake Stevens Middle School had noted that Respondent did not have her roll book, lesson plans, or student folders during the first thirty days after she had been transferred to Lake Stevens Middle School. During the beginning of the summer school session, on July 8, 1996, Respondent again became involved in a verbal altercation with the school clerk at Lake Stevens Middle School. This second altercation with the school clerk commenced when the school clerk, who was now the principal's secretary, told the Respondent that the Respondent could not walk into the principal's office without first contacting the principal's secretary. When an assistant principal intervened to resolve this altercation, Respondent became irate and refused to leave the assistant principal's office and instead told him to "push" her out. At the end of the school day on July 8, 1996, Respondent again became involved in an altercation with the principal's secretary after the Respondent purposefully pushed the secretary with her briefcase in the main office and thus provoked a verbal altercation, which required the intervention of school administrators. After the school buses had left, on July 8, 1996, the interim principal at Lake Stevens Middle School met with the Respondent to discuss the physical confrontation that had occurred earlier that day and verbally reprimanded the Respondent, advising her that the school administration would not tolerate another incident of this nature. As a result of the July 8, 1996, incident, a personnel investigation was conducted by the Division of School Police, which determined that the charge that Respondent had committed a battery was substantiated. On August 28, 1996, a temporary restraining order was issued against Respondent after Respondent allegedly threatened to kill her former boyfriend, who is also employed on an hourly basis by Petitioner. On October 7, 1996, a CFR was held with Respondent to address numerous incidents involving inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, the personnel investigation on the charge that Respondent had committed a battery, and Respondent's classroom performance and attendance. At that CFR, Respondent was directed to avoid any further altercations (verbal or physical) with other staff members. Respondent was also advised that her failure to comply with previous directives regarding altercations with staff members was considered insubordination and was in violation of School Board rules on employee conduct and violence in the workplace. Respondent was also advised that any further incidents would be considered gross insubordination. At the CFR held on October 7, 1996, Respondent was assigned to her home as an alternate assignment due to her repeated involvement in altercations at the school sites and her unprofessional conduct. Due to Respondent's continued involvement in altercations with other employees--even after being repeatedly directed to avoid same--and because of Respondent's history of erratic behavior at her work site, Respondent was further required to undergo a medical fitness evaluation. On October 8 through 11, 1996, a psychological evaluation was conducted by Dr. Michael Hendrickson, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist. Dr. Hendrickson recommended that Respondent become involved in psychotherapy through the EAP, and that Respondent be required to undergo a neurological evaluation to rule out a neurological basis for Respondent's reported behavioral problems. He also recommended that Respondent be required to undergo psychotherapy once a week for a full year. On October 15, 1996, Respondent was allowed to return to Lake Stevens Middle School. On October 22, 1996, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom and was found to be unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, and in assessment techniques in accordance with the Teacher Assessment and Development System. Respondent was prescribed activities to assist her in overcoming her deficiencies. On the day of the formal observation described immediately above, the administrator who conducted the classroom observation noted, among other things, that Respondent's lesson plans were incomplete; that Respondent's grade book did not contain grades for at least two of her classes; that there was no evidence of tests or quizzes given to the students; that students' work was piled on the teacher's desk, table, and cabinets; and that students' folders were incomplete. By November 5, 1996, Respondent had yet to complete the prescriptive activities that had been assigned to her as a result of the formal classroom observation conducted on October 22, 1996. At the and of the school day on December 12, 1996, Respondent approached the school principal, in the presence of students who were just getting into their school busses, and accused the principal of taking part in a plot to fire her and stated that she wanted to be assigned to the region office rather than work at Lake Stevens Middle School. The principal advised Respondent that this was not the appropriate place to hold such a discussion and that she should meet with him later in his office. On December 12, 1996, upon entering the principal's office, Respondent began to cry, used profanity, started shouting and screaming at the school principal, refused to leave the office, and, ultimately, had to be escorted out of principal's office into the main office, where Respondent continued to scream and shout in the presence of parents, students, and staff. While in the main office area on December 12, 1996, Respondent had to be restrained by other staff members after she started directing her verbal attack--in a threatening manner--at a school counselor. Respondent was finally escorted out of the school. On December 17, 1996, a follow-up CFR was held with Respondent to review the results of the psychological evaluation of Respondent and her continued inappropriate and unprofessional conduct as evidenced by her involvement in the December 12, 1996, incident in the main office of Lake Stevens Middle School, and her continuing acts of insubordination. At the December 17, 1996, follow-up CFR, Respondent was directed to attend psychotherapy once a week, for one (1) year, to undergo a neurological evaluation, and to immediately report to the EAP. Because of the school district's concern that Respondent had a propensity for violence, as evidenced by her numerous altercations with other employees, Respondent was also directed to remain on alternate assignment at her home. On January 31, 1997, Respondent was notified that her failure to comply with the administrative directives issued at the follow-up CFR held on December 17, 1996, constituted gross insubordination. Respondent was again directed to comply with the directives listed immediately above, within five (5) work days or face further disciplinary action. On March 6, 1997, Respondent underwent a follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson, the psychologist that had conducted the initial psychological evaluation. The follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson was necessitated by Respondent's continued involvement in altercations with other employees at her work site after she had completed her psychological evaluation on October 11, 1996. After the follow- up consultation, Dr. Hendrickson recommended that Respondent be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to assess the cause of her various conflicts and aggressive outbursts. On March 27, 1997, a CFR was held with Respondent to address Respondent's follow-up consultation with Dr. Hendrickson. At this CFR, Respondent was directed to undergo a psychiatric evaluation as a condition of Respondent's continued employment with Petitioner and to report the results of that evaluation within five (5) work days. On or about April 29, 1997, Respondent was directed to report on May 1, 1997, to OPS for a CFR, to discuss, among other things, Respondent's failure to comply with administrative directives regarding her medical fitness to perform assigned duties, specifically Respondent's failure to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and Respondent's failure to adhere to previously issued administrative directives relative to her unprofessional conduct, and her unacceptable and disruptive behavior. On or about May 1, 1997, Respondent failed to attend the CFR scheduled for that day. The May 1, 1997, CFR was rescheduled to May 2, 1997, after Respondent indicated that she would not attend unless escorted by a police officer because she feared for her personal safety. On May 2, 1997, Respondent was notified that her failure to attend the CFR scheduled for that day would constitute gross insubordination. Due to Respondent's failure to attend the May 2, 1997, CFR, on May 9, 1997, Respondent was directed to attend a CFR scheduled for May 13, 1997, at OPS. Respondent was also advised that her failure to attend the May 13, 1997, CFR would be considered gross insubordination and that Respondent would be subject to dismissal from further employment with Petitioner. Respondent failed to attend the CFR scheduled for May 13, 1997. At its regularly scheduled meeting of May 21, 1997, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent on the grounds of incompetency, misconduct in office, gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida ordering that: Respondent be found to be guilty of incompetency, gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office, as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges; Respondent's suspension without pay from employment on May 21, 1997, be sustained and that she receive no back pay for the period of her suspension; and that Respondent be dismissed from all employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1998.
The Issue Whether there was “just cause” for the termination of Respondent’s employment, as that term is referred to in section of the Policies and Procedures Manual of the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, by: Respondent’s using school district property for personal gain, by working on tasks related to a student-based educational European trip through Education First (EF) during her district duty hours in the spring of 2009. Respondent’s consuming excessive alcoholic beverages in the presence of students and parents of Buffalo Creek Middle School (BCMS) during an EF trip in the summer of 2009. Respondent’s reporting to BCMS on August 14, 2009, in order to collect her personal belongings, and appearing to be inebriated Respondent’s contacting witnesses to the investigation to discuss details of the investigation. Respondent’s coming on school grounds on December 7, 2009, while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Manatee County, Florida, is the duly-authorized entity responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Respondent, Tammy M. Johnson, has been employed with the School District of Manatee County since February 8, 2000. She was most recently employed as the senior secretary at BCMS. As the senior secretary to the principal of BCMS, Respondent served as the point person for the principal of the school, working hand-in-hand with the principal. Her duties included screening the principal’s mail and phone calls, handling substitute teachers, performing payroll duties, handling leave forms, coordinating clerical office staff, and handling emergency situations as they arose within the school. Respondent was exposed to confidential school information on a regular basis, such as complaints regarding faculty and staff and policy changes being considered within the district. Respondent was employed on an annual contract basis, which was renewed from year to year. Her employment contract was for a term of 11 months and lasted typically from early August to June of the following year. While employed full-time as the senior secretary, in the fall of 2008 and the spring of 2009, Respondent organized a trip to Europe through the student-based educational travel company EF. Respondent sought to recruit BCMS students and their family members to sign up for the trip by placing fliers on campus, posting a sign-up board at the incoming students’ open house, and placing a notice about the trip in the school newsletter. Respondent routinely included a signature line in her school-assigned email address that identified her not only as a Senior Secretary but as an EF tour guide in every email that she sent from her school account. Announcements about informational meetings related to the EF trip were made over the school intercom and these meetings occurred on school property in the evenings. Respondent made fliers at BCMS advertising the EF trip on at least two occasions using school equipment. On one occasion, she made 750 fliers using school paper. During the time Respondent was conducting these activities, her principal was Scott Cooper. Cooper knew of Respondent’s activities in promoting the trip, and that she was using school resources to accomplish it. He did not object or tell Respondent to stop doing so; in fact, he encouraged such trips. Respondent ultimately recruited 10 student participants for the EF trip, all of whom were students at BCMS. The trip also included 15 adult participants, all of whom were family members of BCMS students. In exchange for her work organizing, promoting and chaperoning the EF European trip, Respondent was to receive, and did receive a free spot on the trip to Europe. Respondent served as the group leader for the EF group of BCMS students and parents. Three other BCMS teachers became involved in the EF trip as chaperones: Joseph Baker, Malissa Baker and Jessica Vieira. They also used school resources to promote the trip. The EF trip to Europe took place from June 22, 2009, to July 1, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS) received a complaint that Respondent was misusing school resources for personal gain. OPS opened an investigation into these allegations. Shortly before Respondent left for Europe, Scott Cooper was replaced as principal. The newly-appointed BCMS Principal Matt Gruhl, met with Respondent to discuss his concern that she included an EF tagline in the signature block of all of her school emails. Gruhl asked Respondent to remove the EF tagline from her email, take the EF poster off of her door, make any necessary copies at a non-school location, and pay standard rates in the future for any advertising done in the school newsletter. Respondent complied with the directive. On June 22, 2009, the flight for the EF trip left from Tampa. Prior to the flight’s departure, Respondent purchased several small bottles of vodka in the airport duty-free shop. Several students observed Respondent doing so. Respondent drank two vodka-and-cranberry drinks on the flight to Europe in the presence of BCMS students and parents. Upon arrival in London, Respondent went with several other parents to a pub across the street from the hotel. While there, Respondent had too much to drink that evening and became intoxicated. Several BCMS students said that Respondent was speaking so loudly that they were able to hear her all the way across the street and up to the fifth story of the hotel. These students were upset by Respondent’s behavior. Respondent was very loud when she returned from the pub. BCMS parents had to help Respondent into the lobby, as she was falling over and laughing loudly. The adults tried to persuade Respondent to go to bed, but she insisted on ordering another drink in the lobby. Respondent was finally coaxed to go upstairs to bed, and she began banging on all the doors to the hotel rooms in the hallway. Respondent had to be physically restrained from banging on the doors. On more than four occasions Respondent was observed mixing vodka-and-cranberry juice drinks in a Styrofoam to-go cup before leaving the hotel with students for the day. The BCMS students on the EF trip commented on multiple occasions about Respondent’s drinking on the trip. The students did not want to go off alone with Respondent because they did not feel safe with her. The students also made observations that Respondent was drunk and stumbling around. On the return plane ride from Europe to Tampa, Respondent again was drinking alcoholic beverages to excess and exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior. While Respondent was in Europe with the EF trip, she had received a text message notifying her that she may be under an OPS investigation. Shortly after Respondent returned, she approached Gruhl and asked him whether there was an investigation concerning her being conducted by OPS. When Gruhl declined to comment on any pending OPS investigations, Respondent then called Debra Horne, specialist in the Office of Professional Standards, and asked whether there was an investigation being conducted. Horne confirmed that there was an open investigation and told Respondent that it might not be resolved until after school started because it involved students and parents. After speaking to Horne, on or about July 20, 2009, and being made aware that she was involved in an open investigation, Respondent called Vieira and told her that they needed to get their stories straight. Respondent also left messages for Joe and Malissa Baker stating that she heard that there was an OPS investigation and wanted to know if they had any information or had heard anything about the investigation. Respondent was only partially aware of a School Board rule which prohibited contacting potential witnesses during an investigation, although she was aware that she was expected to abide by all School Board rules. Gruhl spoke to Horne and reported Vieira and Malissa Baker’s concerns. Horne expanded her open investigation to include the allegations about Respondent’s behavior on the trip. Effective August 3, 2009, Respondent was removed from her position and placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation of her conduct by the Petitioner’s Office of Professional Standards. During the time of paid leave she was required to report daily to her principal and could not travel outside the country without permission. After Respondent was placed on paid administrative leave, she came to the BCMS campus on August 14, 2009, to pick up her belongings from her office. She met Gruhl and Assistant Principal Nancy Breiding at the school. Gruhl observed that Respondent smelled strongly of alcohol. She had difficulty keeping her balance and ran into walls, ran into doorways and almost fell when she tried to adjust her flip-flop. Respondent also had great difficulty following the line of conversation when she was speaking with Gruhl and repeated herself numerous times. Concerned, Gruhl permitted Respondent to leave campus after observing that her husband was driving her. He did not seek to send her for drug or alcohol testing, as provided in school board rules. Respondent testified that she had “just one” vodka and grapefruit drink at lunch earlier that day. She denied that Gruhl’s observations were accurate, but also alleged that she was on a prescription medication, Cymbalta, and stated that it caused her to be increasingly emotional and somewhat dizzy. However, she testified that she was completely unaware that combining the medication with alcoholic beverages would have an adverse effect on her. Respondent’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Gruhl’s observations of Respondent’s behavior on August 14, 2009, were incorporated into the OPS investigation. Horne interviewed Respondent on August 20, 2009, regarding the allegations made prior to the trip and the allegations made concerning her behavior on the EF trip. On September 1, 2009, the results of the OPS investigation was presented within the chain-of-command, who recommended to Superintendant Tim McGonegal that Respondent’s employment be terminated. The Superintendant concurred with their recommendation, and on September 21, 2009, the Superintendant notified Respondent that he intended to seek termination of her employment, or, should she request an administrative hearing, suspension without pay pending the outcome of that hearing. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. At their meeting on October 13, 2009, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay. While on unpaid suspension, Respondent had no duties, was not required to report to anyone, and was not limited in her ability to travel. However, she was still a School District employee. On December 7, 2009, while on suspension without pay, Respondent returned by car to the BCMS campus while school was in session to check her son out early for a doctor’s appointment. Aware that she was under investigation for excessive drinking, Respondent admitted that she nonetheless had a drink at lunchtime before going to pick up her son from school around 2 p.m. While on campus, Respondent’s eyes were glassy, she smelled of alcohol, and she was unkempt, which was out of keeping with her usual appearance. When Gruhl learned of the incident on December 7, 2009, he recommended to the Superintendant that Johnson not be permitted to return to the BCMS campus On December 7, 2009, the OPS opened an addendum investigatory file on Respondent concerning the events of December 7, 2009. The addendum OPS investigation alleged that, on December 7, 2009, Johnson entered the BCMS campus while under the influence of alcohol. The testimony of Horne, Keefer, Vieira, Hosier and Gruhl is credible. Respondent’s testimony is found to be unreliable.
The Issue Whether Arthurine Brown (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade School Board (the School Board) on July 3, 2013, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent's employment as a paraprofessional.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. NMSHS is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2012-2013 school year, the School Board employed Respondent as a paraprofessional pursuant to a professional service contract. The School Board assigned Respondent to a self-contained, special education classroom at NMSHS taught by Dorothy Roberts. Respondent has worked at NMSHS as a paraprofessional since 2004. During the 2012-2013 school year, paraprofessionals Frantzso Brice and Larry Eason were also assigned to Ms. Roberts' classroom. Ms. Roberts' class consisted of 13 special needs children with varying exceptionalities. The vast majority of Ms. Roberts' class was of Haitian descent. Ms. Roberts' students included P.P.C. (the Student), a non-verbal child on the autism spectrum. The Student is a 14-year-old male who functions at the level of a two or three-year-old child. On January 17, 2013, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Brice, and Respondent were in the process of escorting children into the classroom for the beginning of the school day when an incident involving Respondent and the Student occurred. Ms. Roberts, Mr. Brice, and Respondent were in the classroom when the incident occurred. Mr. Eason was not in the classroom when the incident occurred. After the Student entered the classroom at approximately 7:15 a.m., he picked up Respondent's purse from a table and went towards a window. What happened next is in dispute. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent cornered the Student, grabbed him by the throat with her left hand, and slapped him in the face using the palm of her right hand. Ms. Roberts heard the sound of the slap. Ms. Roberts and Mr. Brice described the slap as being very hard. Ms. Roberts heard Respondent warn against "touching her fucking shit." Mr. Brice heard Respondent warn against "touching her fucking stuff." 1/ Immediately after the incident, the Student had tears in his eyes, but his face had no observable bruising or swelling. Ms. Roberts immediately reported her version of the incident to Michael Lewis, the principal of NMSHS. After talking to Ms. Roberts, Mr. Lewis interviewed Respondent in Ms. Roberts' classroom, without Ms. Roberts being present. Mr. Lewis removed Respondent from the classroom, and instigated an investigation that culminated in this proceeding. Respondent had no justification for striking the Student. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent repeatedly used profanity in front of students and co-workers. Ms. Roberts repeatedly told Respondent to stop using profanity, but Respondent did not heed that instruction. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent repeatedly made derogatory remarks about Haitians. Respondent stated that she was tired of working with "fucking" Haitians and declared that Haitians were dumb, stupid, and should go home. Mr. Brice, who is Haitian, felt disrespected by Respondent's disparaging statements. At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 8, 2013, the School Board suspended Respondent's employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law: It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the final order uphold the suspension without pay of employment of Arthurine Brown and terminates that employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 30th day of September, 2013.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Kenneth Ingber has been employed by Petitioner and assigned under a continuing contract to West Little River Elementary School. During Respondent's 23 years of employment by Petitioner, he resigned/retired twice. He was rehired by Petitioner after each resignation, the last rehiring taking place for the 1985/86 school year. His then-principal, Glenda Harris, hired him with the knowledge that he was an admitted recovering alcoholic. He told her that he was under control. She told him that she would give him a chance but that he would have to meet the expectations that all teachers have to meet. From the 1985/86 school year through the 1990/91 school year, Harris rated Respondent acceptable on his annual evaluations; however, during the 1989/90 school year, Respondent had an attendance problem when he began drinking again. Harris tried to get Respondent to obtain help, but he felt he could do it on his own. He deteriorated during that year but improved during the 1990/91 school year. During the time that Harris supervised Respondent, she had a problem with his not having lesson plans. He felt that he did not need them. For the 1991/92 school year, Respondent came under the supervision of Principal Lillian Coplin. Coplin was never advised of Respondent's alcoholism. On January 29, 1992, Respondent left school early without permission. He also failed to attend a Global Awareness Workshop scheduled for that day. Coplin discussed these failures with him on January 30, 1992. On January 31, 1992, Respondent arrived at work late and left early. The official working hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 3:20 p.m., but Respondent only worked from 9:47 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. On February 7, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to observe the working hours set by the collective bargaining agreement between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (Labor Contract). On February 27 and March 2, 1992, Respondent failed to have lesson plans. On February 27, 1992, Assistant Principal Edith Norniella observed Respondent smoking outside of his classroom, but within view of his students. Prior to that date, Norniella had observed him smoking on school grounds on August 30, 1991, November 14, 1991 and February 18, 1992. On each of these occasions, she told him not to smoke on school grounds. Coplin had also told him several times not to smoke on school grounds. On March 3, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to adhere to Petitioner's non-smoking rule. Norniella saw him smoking on school grounds at least two more times after that. On March 3, 1992, Coplin also directed Respondent to develop lesson plans according to the Labor Contract. On March 27, 1992, all teachers were given a site directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules before leaving for spring-break on April 3, 1992. On April 3, 1992, Respondent reported to work at 9:25 a.m. in spite of the directive given on February 7, 1992. On that same date, Respondent also failed to comply with the directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules. Moreover, by April 22, 1992, he still had not complied with that directive. On April 22, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to discuss his attendance problems and other failures to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and administrative directives. During the conference, he stated that he lost the gradebook but that the principal would not like it anyway. He also admitted that he did not maintain a parent log. Respondent was warned that any further violation of directives would be considered gross insubordination. He was also issued a written reprimand and directed to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and site directives. He was advised of the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a program which offers assistance to employees in overcoming personal problems that may be affecting their work. Respondent declined the assistance and treated the matter as a joke by posting the EAP referral on his classroom door. On May 27, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have lesson plans, student work folders with tests, or a gradebook. It was impossible to assess his students' progress. Respondent was given a prescription to help him correct his deficiencies. Prescriptions are activities which the employee is directed to complete. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was to prepare two teacher-made tests and submit those to Norniella for review. He was also to complete some activities concerning assessment techniques from the TADS prescription manual. His prescription deadline was June 16, 1992. On June 2, 1992, Respondent was wearing a "pocket-knife" on his belt. Both Coplin and Norniella considered the pocket-knife to be a weapon in violation of the School Board rule because, although Respondent did not physically threaten anyone with the knife, the wearing of such a knife was intimidating to students and to Coplin. The matter had come to Coplin's attention through a complaint from the parent of a student. In addition, both administrators believed that wearing a knife set a bad example for the students and did not reflect credit upon Respondent and the school system. On June 3, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address the knife incident. Respondent was issued a written reprimand and directed to cease and desist from bringing the pocket-knife to school. He was further advised that any re-occurrence of that infraction would result in additional disciplinary action. On June 5, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address Respondent's performance and his future employment status. During the conference, he admitted to not having had a written lesson plan during the May 27 observation. He was told of the Labor Contract provision which requires weekly lesson plans reflecting objectives, activities, homework, and a way of monitoring students' progress. He was also warned that if he did not complete the prescription from that observation, he would be placed on prescription for professional responsibilities and given an unacceptable annual evaluation. On June 19, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent. He had failed to correct his deficiencies and had failed to complete his prescription. Moreover, he still had not turned in his gradebook, parent log, and daily schedule, as directed on March 3, 1992. He was given an unacceptable annual evaluation because of his deficiencies in professional responsibility. Respondent verbally disagreed with that decision stating that the unacceptable evaluation was for simple paper-pushing requirements. The prescription for professional responsibilities required Respondent to review from the faculty handbook School Board policy on grading criteria, to submit his gradebook on a weekly basis to Coplin, to maintain a gradebook and a log of parent conferences, to maintain daily attendance, to submit student assessment records to Coplin for review prior to submission of the nine-week grade report, and to complete the prescription from the May 27 observation by September 15, 1992. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1991/92 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in the category of professional responsibility. On September 20, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent because he was still wearing a "pocket-knife" in spite of the prior directive. He was directed not to wear the knife or the knife case. Respondent stated that he would not do as directed. On October 9, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have a lesson plan, student work folders, tests, or a gradebook. It would not be possible to evaluate the students' strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, if an administrator were called upon to explain to a parent why a student got a particular grade, the administrator would not have been able to do so. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual dealing with lesson planning and assessment techniques and to prepare two teacher-made tests and to submit all to Coplin for review. The prescription was to be completed by October 30, 1992. By November 13, 1992, Respondent was exhibiting a pattern of excessive and unauthorized absences. The absences were unauthorized because he failed to call the school prior to his absences as required by directives contained in the faculty handbook. He was advised that his absences were adversely impacting the continuity of instruction for his students and the work environment. He was given directives to report his absences directly to the principal, document absences upon return to the worksite, and provide lesson plans and materials for use by the substitute teacher when he was absent. On November 13, 1992, it was noted that Respondent had not met the prescription deadline of October 30, 1992. Coplin gave Respondent a new prescription deadline of November 30, 1992. In addition, she made a supervisory referral to the EAP because of Respondent's excessive absences, unauthorized disappearance from work, poor judgment, and failures to carry out assignments. By the end of November, 1992, Respondent had accumulated 21 absences. While he was absent, there were no gradebook, lesson plans or student folders for the substitute teacher. The substitute teacher was told to create a gradebook, lesson plans, and student work folders. All was in order when Respondent returned to work. On December 11, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, in techniques of instruction, and in assessment techniques. Because his techniques of instruction were also rated unacceptable, Respondent recognized for the first time that his teaching performance was being criticized. He had dismissed the prior criticisms as simply problems with creating a "paper-work trail". Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because he did not have a lesson plan. Norniella gave him a chance to turn in the lesson plans the following Monday, but he failed to do so. Respondent was unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he used the same materials and methods for all students regardless of their individual needs. Respondent failed to establish background knowledge before beginning the lesson. The sequence of the lesson was confusing to Norniella. Respondent covered three different subjects (vocabulary, science, and math), all within a period set aside for language arts. Respondent was given a prescription to help correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella on Fridays. He was to observe a reading/language arts lesson by another sixth- grade teacher. He was directed to maintain at least two grades per week in each subject for each student. He was also directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual relating to preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. He was directed to complete the prescription by January 15, 1993. He failed to complete any of the prescription activities. On January 4, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his performance and future employment. His absences and reporting procedures were also discussed as was his failure to comply with his prescription and prior directives. During the conference, Respondent was rude, agitated, and disrespectful. He yelled at the principal. His behavior did not reflect credit upon himself and the school system. He treated the conference as a joke. As of January 20, 1993, Respondent still had no gradebook. On January 25, 1993, he was notified that upon his return to the school site, there would be a conference-for-the-record to deal with his noncompliance with the directives to maintain a gradebook and to complete his prescription activities. A conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on March 3, 1993. It was noted that because of his absences, he had failed to meet the prescription deadline on January 15, 1993. Coplin gave him a new deadline of March 11, 1993. Respondent failed to meet the March 11, 1993, prescription deadline. Moreover, he still had not completed his prior prescription for professional responsibility. Because of these failures, Coplin extended the 1992 professional responsibility prescription through June 1993. On March 26, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. While Respondent had some lesson plans, he did not have one for each subject taught during the day. The student folders contained no tests. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans and to submit them on Wednesdays for the principal to review. He was also to complete an assessment techniques activity from the TADS prescription manual and was to submit the activity to Coplin for review. His prescription was to be completed by April 23, 1993. On April 1, 1993, Respondent was placed on prescription for professional responsibilities for failure to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and school site policies and directives concerning lesson plans, student assessment, record keeping, and maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans for each subject taught and to submit those to the principal for review. He was directed to read Article X of the Labor Contract and to submit a summary to the principal for review. He was directed to review the section of the faculty handbook concerning maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to maintain an updated gradebook with at least two grades per week per subject and to label the grades. He was directed to maintain a parental conference log in the gradebook. He was directed to submit his gradebook to the principal for weekly review. On May 12, 1993, Coplin advised Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) that Respondent had failed to comply with the directive of November 13, 1992, concerning procedures for reporting absences. He had been absent on April 13, 16, 23, 27, and May 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11, 1993, without calling the principal in advance. Respondent claims that he called the school secretary at her home before 7:00 a.m. every time he was absent, except for one time. Although the secretary told him he would have to speak directly to the principal, he chose not to call the school when Coplin was there. Calling the secretary does not absolve him from his responsibility to comply with the principal's directive to speak to her personally. On May 19, 1993, Respondent was sent a letter directing him to schedule a conference at OPS. Respondent did not do so. On that same day, Coplin was advised by EAP that EAP was closing Respondent's case due to his noncompliance with the program. Respondent was absent without authorized leave from April 23 - June 17, 1993. Moreover, he had 106 absences for the school year. Nine of these were paid sick leave, and 97 were leave without pay. The school year has 180 student contact days. Because of Respondent's absences and failure to follow leave procedures, Coplin was not able to secure a permanent substitute teacher. Respondent's students were subjected to frequent changes in substitute teachers and a lack of continuity in their education. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1992/93 school year was overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Because of Respondent's absences, the usual conference-for-the-record could not be conducted, and Respondent's annual evaluation was sent to him by mail. Respondent failed to complete all prescriptions given him by Coplin and by Norniella. By letter dated June 15, 1992, OPS notified Respondent that he was willfully absent from duty without leave. He was given an opportunity to provide a written response and was advised that failure to do so would result in the termination of his employment. On July 6, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was conducted by Dr. Joyce Annunziata at OPS. The conference was held to discuss the pending dismissal action to be taken by Petitioner at its meeting of July 7, 1993. During the meeting, Respondent was extremely disoriented, turned his back on Annunziata, did not take the meeting seriously, made irrelevant comments, carried a stuffed purple animal which he talked to and through, and had watery, bloodshot eyes. He also wore his "pocket-knife" to the conference. Petitioner suspended Respondent and took action to initiate dismissal proceedings against him on July 7, 1993.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 12th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-3963 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3-27, and 29-56 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 28 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 and 7-9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 14-16 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10-13 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne, Esquire Du Fresne & Bradley 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 The Honorable Doug Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
