The Issue Whether the Respondent, Arthur Williams, committed the violations alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, whether such violations are just cause for his suspension without pay for thirty days.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Arthur Williams, was an employee of School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional service contract and was assigned to teach beginning band at Norland Middle School. The sole incident complained of in this case occurred on or about January 24, 2006, in the Respondent’s sixth period band class. The Respondent’s band class was located in a large classroom with three riser sections formed into a semi-circle. Students assigned seats in the higher section would step up the risers using the railed “hallways” leading to the upper sections. On or about January 24, 2006, C. M. was a student in the Respondent’s sixth period class. C. M. had an assigned seat in an upper riser section. For reasons known only to C. M., the student left his seat and walked down the riser hallway to pick up a piece of paper and throw it into a trash can located on or near the floor. Presumably, the trash can was at the lowest section (compared to the student’s seat). When the Respondent observed the student, C. M., out of his seat, he approached the student, put his hands on the student’s shoulders, turned him around (to then face his seat), and told him to return to his seat. In connection with the verbal direction to return to his seat, the Respondent gave the student a slight shove to direct him in the proper direction. The student, C. M., was out of his seat without permission, was unprepared for class, and was not responsible for throwing trash away (presumably an act he felt justified his behavior). The slight shove was so imperceptible that it did not offend any student who observed the action. C. M. did not show any sign of injury at the time of the incident described above. None of the students alleged that the Respondent had acted in anger in redirecting the student to his seat. None of the students perceived the act of redirecting the student as an act of corporal punishment or physical aggression against the student. Some six days after the incident complained of, the mother of the alleged victim took the student to the hospital. The mother claimed the student was diagnosed with a sprained ankle. There is no evidence to support a finding that the Respondent caused the alleged victim’s alleged sprained ankle. None of the other student witnesses verified that C. M. was injured or seen limping on or about the date of the incident. The Respondent continued teaching at the school through the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. The Respondent did not endanger the student, C. M., at any time. After the incident complained of herein, the student’s mother decided to move the student from the Respondent’s class. When the Respondent went to a conference with the office of professional standards there was no allegation that the Respondent had failed to comply with the corporal punishment guidelines. The act of redirecting the student to his seat was not an attempt at corporal punishment. The Respondent did not make physical contact with the student, C. M., to maintain discipline. It is undisputed that the Respondent was merely attempting to get the student to return to his seat. The Respondent’s conduct did not disparage the student. The Respondent’s conduct did not embarrass the student. The Respondent did not push C. M. down. On or near the date of the incident, the Respondent called C. M.’s parent to address the student’s poor class performance. The incident complained of herein was not addressed during the call. In fact, prior to the call, C. M. had not complained regarding the incident described above. When faced with an allegation of poor class performance, C. M. told his parent about the incident described above and claimed he had been injured in the process. The alleged injury prompted the removal of the student from the Respondent’s class. Thereafter, the parent contacted the Petitioner’s region office to file a complaint against the Respondent. That complaint resulted in the instant action. Ms. Pritchett maintained that the Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been adversely impaired as a result of the parent’s complaint regarding the incident. The record lacks any information regarding the Respondent’s past school performance. No prior disciplinary issues or actions were noted.
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 concluding the Respondent’s behavior does not warrant a 30-day suspension. S DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ana I. Segura, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carol Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for Petitioner, the St. Lucie County School Board, to terminate the employment of Respondent, Josephine Knight.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of St. Lucie County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"). Respondent, Josephine Knight, is employed by the School Board pursuant to a professional services contract. Ms. Knight has been employed as a teacher for approximately 15 years. At all times relevant to this matter, Ms. Knight was assigned to work at St. Lucie Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as the "Elementary School"). At all times relevant to this matter, the principal of the Elementary School was Dr. Jayne Hartman. Prior to the 1997/1998 school year, Dr. Hartman interviewed Ms. Knight for a position at the Elementary School and subsequently recommended her for a position. Ms. Knight was assigned as a temporary fourth grade teacher during the 1997/1998 school year. Ms. Knight was assigned as a third grade teacher for the 1998/1999 school year. Ms. Knight had been assigned to fourth grade class while employed by the School Board until this year. Ms. Knight was disappointed with her new assignment. During her first two years of assignment to the Elementary School, Dr. Hartman observed Ms. Knight and made suggestions for improvement. Rather than accepting Dr. Hartman's efforts to constructively criticize her, Ms. Knight grew resentful and defensive. Although the evidence failed to support Ms. Knight's characterization of her treatment during the 1997/1998 and 1998/1999 school years, Ms. Knight felt that she was being subjected to "unremitting harassment from her principal." Ms. Knight responded to Dr. Hartman's criticism by attempting to transfer from the Elementary School to another school within the School Board's district. Ms. Knight was unsuccessful in finding another school that would accept her. Dr. Hartman recommended Ms. Knight's reappointment at the Elementary School for the 1999/2000 school year. Prior to the commencement of the 1999/2000 school year Dr. Hartman directed all staff, including Ms. Knight, to attend a staff breakfast on August 16, 1999. The breakfast was to be followed by a meeting of all teachers in the media center of the Elementary School. Dr. Hartman had arranged for teachers assigned to teach the same grade to sit together during the meeting and had prepared handouts for each teacher. Those handouts were placed at each teacher's assigned seat. Ms. Knight failed to attend the breakfast on August 16, 1999. She did attend the teachers' meeting, but arrived late and refused to sit at the table with the other third grade teachers. On August 18, 1999, Ms. Knight again arrived late for a staff meeting. Later in the morning of August 18, 1999, Ms. Knight wrote a note to Dr. Hartman informing her that she intended to use comp time during lunch. Rather than follow school policy, Ms. Knight left during lunch without first determining whether her use of comp time had been authorized. On August 19, 1999, Dr. Hartman spoke to Ms. Knight in the morning and told her that she needed to speak with her. Ms. Knight went to see Dr. Hartman later that same day. Dr. Hartman verbally counseled Ms. Knight. Dr. Hartman spoke to Ms. Knight about her lateness in arriving at staff meetings, her use of comp time prior to getting approval, and her refusal to sit with other third grade teachers as she had been directed. Dr. Hartman asked Ms. Knight to explain her actions, but Ms. Knight took notes and refused to answer Dr. Hartman. Due to Ms. Knight's misconception that she was being harassed by Dr. Hartman and in anticipation of the August 19, 1999, counseling session, she had prepared a letter of resignation the night before the August 19th meeting with Dr. Hartman. During the August 19th meeting, Ms. Knight gave Dr. Hartman the letter (hereinafter referred to as the "Resignation Letter"). In pertinent part, Ms. Knight wrote the following in the Resignation Letter: The intended purpose of this letter is to inform you of my resignation from my present position as a third grade teacher so soon after starting my fifteenth year in the system. After considering my remaining options, I decided to depart from this position because of YOU and the lack of professionalism displayed on your behalf. I have been subjective [sic] to an extraordinary amount of harassment every [sic] since I've been under you supervision. This included lack if [sic] administrative support, extreme and undue stress, your trifling and vindictive ways, and last but not least, your prejudice and racist attitude towards students, minorities, and me. These are conditions in which no one should be subjective [sic] to in the workplace. In fact, it seems to almost define going postal. You and I know the countless times I have tried to relocate to another school unsuccessfully. Which means as [sic] September 2, 1999 I will be resigning. [Emphases added]. The accusations Ms. Knight made in the Resignation Letter concerning Dr. Hartman, to include the allegations that she knew of Ms. Knight's unsuccessful efforts to transfer, are incorrect. Those accusations were the result of Ms. Knight's inability to deal with constructive criticism. After fully considering the Resignation Letter and Ms. Knight's negative attitude toward her, Dr. Hartman reasonably concluded that Ms. Knight had threatened her and she reasonably became concerned for her personal safety. On the evening of August 19, 1999, Dr. Hartman contacted Russell Anderson, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, and reported the incident to him. Dr. Hartman also contacted Jane Grinstead, her immediate supervisor, and read the Resignation Letter to her. Finally, Dr. Hartman contacted Dave Morris, the Coordinator of Safety/Security for the School Board, and advised him of Ms. Knight's reference to "going postal." The morning of August 20, 1999, School Resource Officer McGee met with Dr. Hartman. Officer McGee was assigned to stay with Dr. Hartman the entire day because of the threat contained in the Resignation Letter. Mr. Russell, Dr. Hartman, and Officer McGee met with Ms. Knight and a union representative on August 20, 1999, to discuss the Resignation Letter. When asked about her reference to "going postal," Ms. Knight admitted that she understood that it meant to "kill or shoot your boss," or words to that effect. Following the meeting of August 20, 1999, a Friday, Ms. Knight was informed that she would be placed on temporary duty assignment from Monday, August 23, 1999, until the effective date of her resignation, September 1, 1999. On Monday, August 23, 1999, Ms. Knight withdrew her resignation. Because it had not been approved by the School Board, the resignation was considered rescinded. In light of the threat of violence contained in the Resignation Letter, the School Board informed Ms. Knight on August 24, 1999, that she was suspended without pay pending a review and final resolution of the matter. Based upon a review of Ms. Knight's personnel file, Mr. Russell concluded that Ms. Knight should be terminated from employment with the School Board. In addition to the Resignation Letter, Mr. Russell considered certain incidents described in paragraph 7 of a Statement of Charges to Terminate Respondent Josephine Knight's Employment with Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Statement of Charges"). Mr. Russell conferred with Dr. William Vogel, the Superintendent of Schools, concerning the matter. Mr. Russell recommended that Ms. Knight should be terminated from employment with the School Board. By letter dated October 6, 1999, Dr. Vogel informed Ms. Knight that he would be recommending her termination from employment to the School Board due to her "violation of School Board Policies." Ms. Knight timely requested a formal administrative hearing to contest Dr. Vogel's decision. The Statement of Charges further defines the basis for the School Board's action in this case: That the foregoing acts as set forth in this statement and attached exhibits, constitutes just cause under Fla. Stat. s 231.36(1)(a) to terminate Josephine Knight's employment with the St. Lucie County School Board. See Fla. Stat. s 231.36 and School Board policy 3.57 attached as Exhibit O. School Board policy 3.57 provides, in pertinent part, the following anti-violence in the workplace policy: All employees will refrain from any speech, conduct, activity, or behavior of any type that is reasonable interpreted as abusive, profane, intolerant, menacing or intimidating. No speech, behavior, activity or other conduct shall occur or be made by any employee where it is reasonably interpreted that the primary motivating intent is to intimidate, threaten or abuse any person in the workplace. The School Board has zero tolerance for violations of this policy. Any person employed by the School Board who communicates a threat of violence to any other School Board employee is subject to termination. The particular incidents which the School Board considered in concluding that there was just cause for Ms. Knight's termination and that the foregoing policy had been violated by Ms. Knight included the comment about "going postal" in the Resignation Letter and the incidents described in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Charges. While the incidents described in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Charges may indicate a lack of judgment, unacceptable treatment of students, and a hot temper on Ms. Knight's part, they are not relevant in considering whether Ms. Knight displayed conduct contrary to School Board policy 3.57 or just cause. Ms. Knight's Resignation Letter, however, does support the School Board's decision. Based upon the events of August 16 and 18, 1999, Dr. Hartman reasonably concluded that Ms. Knight's comment about "going postal" in the Resignation Letter was primarily motivated by an intent to "intimidate, threaten or abuse" her. The day after the Resignation Letter was provided to Dr. Hartman, Ms. Knight admitted to Dr. Hartman and Mr. Russell that she knew what the terms meant and no other reasonable explanation has been offered by Ms. Knight to explain why she made the comment. Ms. Knight's suggestion at hearing that she was merely trying to get the School Board's attention so that she would be transferred to another school was not convincing and, even if true, would not diminish the reasonableness of Dr. Hartman's reaction to the threat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the St. Lucie County School Board finding just cause for the termination from employment by the School Board of Josephine Knight. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Coke, Esquire J. David Richeson & Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire Florida Education Association 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 5675 Tampa, Florida 33675 Dr. William Vogel, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 2909 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34947 Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether the Seminole County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment or to otherwise discipline him based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Seminole County, Florida. Respondent is a 48-year-old male. He has been employed as an educational support employee of the School Board for approximately five years. During the 2001-02 school year, Respondent worked at Seminole High School (SHS) as a computer specialist. Collective Bargaining Agreement and SHS Handbook Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Seminole Educational Clerical Association, Inc., and the School Board (SECA Agreement). Article VII, Section 5 of the SECA Agreement provides in pertinent part: Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years . . . shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended, or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: Violation of School Board Policy. Violation of work rules. * * * Article VIII, Section 1 of the SECA Agreement provides in relevant part that "[e]mployees may be immediately disciplined including termination for serious violation of the following: misconduct; " Respondent's employment is also governed by the SHS Faculty Handbook (SHS Handbook). The SHS Handbook is provided to SHS employees at an orientation session prior to the beginning of each school year. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the SHS Handbook prior to the 2001-02 school year. The SHS Handbook includes a sexual harassment policy which states that the School Board "will not tolerate sexual/racial harassment activity by any of its employees." As it relates to the circumstances of this case, the policy defines sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate verbal, nonverbal, graphic, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: * * * (c) such conduct substantially interferes with . . . [a] student’s academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive . . . school environment. Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following: verbal, nonverbal, graphic, and written harassment or abuse; * * * (c) repeated remarks to a person with sexual or demeaning implications; * * * In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual[] harassment, the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred will be investigated. . . . . The sexual harassment policy in the SHS Handbook is virtually identical to the School Board's district-wide sexual harassment policy. Thus, a violation of the policy in the SHS Handbook is a violation of School Board policy. Alleged Inappropriate Comments/Conduct by Respondent During the 2001-02 School Year Respondent had four "peer counselors" assigned to him during the 2001-02 school year, including eleventh-grader Nichole Combee. A peer counselor is a student who assists a teacher or other school staff member with designated tasks, such as filing or running errands on campus. The student provides that assistance for one class period per day. Nichole had approached Respondent at some point during the first semester of the 2001-02 school year and asked whether she could be a peer counselor for him. The record does not reflect the process by which that request was processed or approved by the administration at SHS, or even whether such approval is required. Nichole started as a peer counselor for Respondent in January 2002, which is the beginning of the second semester of the 2001-02 school year. Nichole continued in that position through May 23, 2002, when the regular school year ended. Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor during seventh period, which is the last period of the school day. Nichole's primary duty as Respondent's peer counselor was filing computer permission slips. During the time that Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor, she discussed her family troubles and school attendance problems with Respondent and his assistant, Mark Williams. Respondent tried to help Nichole with those problems. On several occasions, he talked to Nichole's mother on the phone in an attempt to help work things out between Nichole and her mother with respect to the "trouble" created at home by Nichole's academic and attendance problems. Nichole also discussed problems that she was having with male students and some male teachers at SHS looking at her large breasts rather than her eyes when they were speaking to her. She told Respondent at the time that he and Mr. Williams always looked her in the eye, and she reaffirmed that statement in her testimony at the hearing. Nichole discussed matters related to her breasts with Respondent on other occasions as well. On at least one occasion, she told Respondent that her breasts caused her back to hurt because of their size. On subsequent occasions when Nichole complained about her back hurting, Respondent replied by saying, "Well, you know why." That comment was intended by Respondent and understood by Nichole to be a reference to Nichole's prior comments that her large breasts were the cause of her back pain. Respondent never told Nichole that she should not discuss her breasts or other personal matters with him. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that it would have been inappropriate for him to initiate a conversation with Nichole about her breasts (as a source of her back pain or otherwise), but that he did not see anything wrong with the discussions that he had with Nichole on that subject because she brought it up and because there was nothing sexual being implied. After classes had ended on the last day of the 2001-02 school year, a number of students engaged in a "water fight" using water balloons and "water bazookas." This conduct is apparently a "tradition" at SHS. The SHS administration had directed the school staff to try to prevent this conduct and/or to get the students off campus and onto their busses as quickly as possible. Respondent observed a group of students involved in a water fight near his office in the media center, and he went outside to break up the students. The group included Nichole and her friend Natalie Cotto-Caraballo, who was a tenth-grader at SHS. Nichole and Natalie were wearing white tank-top shirts that they had made for the last day of school. The shirts had gotten wet during the water fight and, as a result, the girls' bras were visible through the shirts. Respondent commented to Nichole and Natalie that he could see their bras through their shirts and that they needed to cover themselves up. He then directed the girls and the other students in the group to their buses. Nichole testified that the comment made her feel somewhat uncomfortable because "it's our bras and, you know, even though people see them, usually they don't say anything, you know." Respondent's comment regarding his ability to see the girls' bras was not inappropriate under the circumstances; it was a statement of fact and justified Respondent's direction to the girls to cover themselves up. Nichole did not immediately report the bra comment, either to her parent(s) or the SHS administration. Indeed, the comment did not even come to light until Nichole's second interview with the School Board's investigator in August 2002. Respondent gave Nichole a hug as she was leaving for her bus on the last day of school and told her to have a nice summer. Despite its close proximity in time to the bra comment, Nichole testified that the hug did not make her uncomfortable. She just considered it to be friendly "good bye" hug, which was all that was intended by Respondent. Nichole did not complain about Respondent to her parent(s) or anyone in the SHS administration during the time that she was his peer counselor. Lunch Invitations During Summer School Nichole attended the first session of summer school, which began on June 3, 2002, less than two weeks after the end of the regular school year. The only class that Nichole took during summer school was an English class taught by "Ms. Morris." Nichole was not Respondent's peer counselor during summer school, nor was she working on any school-related project with Respondent during that time. On June 3, 2002, while Respondent and Mr. Williams were in Ms. Morris' class fixing a computer, Respondent asked Nichole if she wanted to go to lunch with him off-campus. Nichole declined the invitation because she was "grounded" and had to pick up her brother from school. Respondent was again in Ms. Morris' class on June 5, 2002, and he again invited Nichole to lunch. Nichole again declined. Respondent did not have permission from Nichole's parent(s) or the SHS administration to take Nichole off-campus. The reason that Respondent invited Nichole to lunch was to thank her for doing a good job as his peer counselor and to congratulate her on deciding to stay in school and attend summer school, which Respondent and Mr. Williams had both counseled her to do. Respondent had taken a former male student off-campus to lunch for the same reasons in the past. Respondent and Nichole were not alone at the time of either invitation. Both invitations occurred in Ms. Morris' classroom, and Ms. Morris and other students were "milling around" in the classroom at the time. At the hearing, Nichole testified that she didn't think anything of the lunch invitations at first since she considered Respondent a "friend." However, she also testified that it "it was a little uncomfortable because he is a teacher." Nichole did not report the lunch invitations to Ms. Morris or to anyone in the SHS administration. Nichole did, however, tell her mother about Respondent's lunch invitations because "she thought she should know." On June 5, 2003, Nichole's mother called the SHS principal, Karen Coleman, and complained about the lunch invitations. Ms. Coleman told Nichole’s mother that she would look into the matter, which she did. The resulting investigation led to this proceeding. Investigation and Preliminary Disciplinary Recommendation Ms. Coleman began the investigation by speaking to Nichole on June 5, 2002. That discussion focused only on the lunch invitations. Nichole provided Ms. Colemen an unsworn written statement regarding the lunch invitations on June 5, 2002. That statement did not include any reference to the "lingerie incident" discussed below or the incidents described above involving the bra comment or the hug that Respondent gave to Nichole on the last day of school. Nichole provided Ms. Coleman another unsworn written statement on June 6, 2002. That statement referenced Respondent's comments about the source of Nichole's back pain, but it did not mention the lingerie incident or the other incidents described above. After speaking with Nichole, Ms. Coleman spoke with Respondent. Respondent admitted that he had invited Nichole to lunch off-campus. He further admitted that he did not have permission from Nichole’s parent(s) to take her off-campus and that he did not obtain permission from the SHS administration. Respondent told Ms. Coleman that he did not realize that such permission was necessary. Respondent had taken a male peer counselor to lunch off-campus in the past without receiving approval from the student's parents or the SHS. After Ms. Coleman's conversations with Nichole and Respondent, she contacted John Reichert, the School Board's director of human resources. Mr. Reichert directed John Byerly, the School Board’s internal affairs investigator, to conduct a formal investigation. Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole on June 10, 2002, at SHS. Nichole did not mention the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug to Mr. Byerly during that interview. Mr. Byerly also interviewed Respondent and Mr. Williams as part of his investigation. The results of Mr. Byerly's investigation were presented to the Executive Professional Standards Review Committee (Review Committee) on June 27, 2002. Among other functions, the Review Committee is used to make disciplinary recommendations to Mr. Reichert. The Review Committee’s recommendation was characterized at the hearing as "preliminary," and it is apparently not binding on Mr. Reichert when he formulates his recommendations to the Superintendent regarding employee disciplinary actions. The Review Committee recommended that Respondent be suspended for three days and/or be reassigned or transferred to another school. That recommendation was based only upon Respondent’s lunch invitations to Nichole and comments regarding the source of her back pain; it did not take into account the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug because those incidents had not been disclosed by Nichole or Natalie at that point. Mr. Reichert and/or the Superintendent apparently did not accept the Review Committee’s recommendation because the Superintendent's July 26, 2002, letter recommended termination of Respondent's employment. At the hearing, Mr. Reichert testified that the reason for the change in the recommended discipline was the subsequent discovery of the lingerie incident, which he characterized as the "major driving factor" behind the termination recommendation. However, the preponderance of the credible evidence demonstrates that the lingerie incident was not disclosed to School Board staff until after the July 26, 2002, letter. Alleged Gift of Lingerie The lingerie incident was first disclosed by Natalie on August 2, 2002, when she was interviewed by Mr. Byerly.1 Natalie had given an unsworn written statement to Ms. Coleman on that same date, but that statement did not mention the lingerie incident. Based upon the "new information" from Natalie, Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole again on August 15, 2002. The interview occurred at Lyman High School (LHS), where Nichole had transferred for her senior year.2 After the interview, Mr. Byerly had Nichole prepare a sworn written statement. The statement included the following account of the lingerie incident, which was consistent with Nichole's testimony at the hearing: When I was a peer counselor for Mr. Reeder, I had walked into class on[e] afternoon in 7th period and we were talking and he said ["]oh here I got something for you.["] He handed me a white plastic bag and through the bag I could see a black thing and I knew it was the langera [sic]. I then just put it on the floor and went on with my work. When the bell rang I picked up my belongings including the white plastic bag. When I got on the bus I showed Natalie it. It was a black see[-]through spagatie [sic] strap shirt and black thongs. When I got off the bus I walked home and through [sic] it away. That was the last time anything was ever said about it. Mr. Byerly interviewed Natalie again on August 16, 2002. Natalie's told Mr. Byerly that the lingerie incident occurred "a couple months before the end of the regular school year" and that Nichole showed her the lingerie on the bus. However, the sworn written statement she prepared after the interview indicated that the incident occurred "[a]bout the day before school was over" and that she learned of it "on the bus/car." Nichole told Natalie that the lingerie was from Respondent. Natalie had no independent personal knowledge that it was from him. There were some inconsistencies in Natalie's and Nichole's descriptions of the lingerie, but those inconsistencies were not material. They consistently described the lingerie as having a black see-through top and black panties. Nichole did not report the incident to the SHS administration around the time that it allegedly occurred. Nor did she tell her mother about the incident, even though she considered the lingerie gift to be more inappropriate than the lunch invitations which she did immediately tell her mother about. Nichole testified that she was somewhat embarrassed by the gift and she did not want her mother to think she "led into it." Respondent unequivocally denied that he gave Nichole any lingerie or other clothing, and Nichole's and Natalie's testimony relating to the lingerie incident was not credible. Thus, the School Board failed to prove that Respondent gave Nichole the lingerie. It is undisputed that Respondent never engaged in any type of sexual contact (e.g., kissing, inappropriate touching) with Nichole. Nichole made that point clear in both of her interviews with Mr. Byerly and in her testimony at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board issue a final order which dismisses the Petition for Termination and provides Respondent the remedial relief that he is entitled under the collective bargaining agreement. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2003.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 1012.795(1)(c), (f) and (i), Florida Statutes (2007)1/, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate, numbered 1003139, covering the area of athletics coaching. The certificate was valid through June 30, 2008. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the certification and regulation of teachers, pursuant to Chapter 1012, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as an in-school suspension teacher and a track coach at Hernando High School in the Hernando County School District. The allegations in this proceeding involve events that occurred during the 2007-2008 school year, and deal with three separate incidents: Respondent's conduct in connection to the prom; his actions toward M.G.; and his actions toward A.H. The Prom The prom for Hernando High School was held on or about April 5, 2008, at the Glen Lakes Country Club in Hernando County. Joy Nagy was a coordinator for the prom, and Vicelia Azzarelli was the administrator on duty. Teachers who desired to chaperone the prom signed up in advance. They were given specific responsibilities, including a schedule for monitoring students' behavior. Volunteers' duties did not include dancing with the students. Those teachers who were not volunteering but wanted to stop by and see the students dressed up in their prom attire were also expected to get prior authorization. According to Joy Nagy, Respondent neither signed up to volunteer nor sought permission to attend the prom. Respondent came to the prom with Mr. Mobley, a long-time substitute teacher. Both men were present for a short time, approximately twenty minutes. During their appearance at the prom, they were seen on the dance floor dancing with the students. Assistant Principal Azzarelli observed Respondent while he was at the prom, and he appeared to her to be under the influence of alcohol. He had the smell of alcohol on his person and on his breath, his eyes were dilated and his gait was unsteady. She and another administrator requested that Respondent and Mr. Mobley leave the dance, and they did so. After the prom, a group of students chose to continue celebrating, and rented rooms at a hotel in Clearwater Beach. Respondent and Mr. Mobley went to the hotel where the students were staying, and socialized with the students. The students were drinking alcohol at the hotel, and the presence of alcoholic beverages was evident. The next week, some students came forward asserting that Respondent and Mr. Mobley were partying with students in Clearwater Beach following the prom. During a subsequent investigation into the partying, Respondent admitted to Ms. Azzarelli that he went to Clearwater Beach after the prom, and had a couple of drinks at a club there. He also admitted that he went to the hotel room of some of the students. As a result of the investigation into the events surrounding the prom, school officials also received information regarding possible conduct by Respondent with respect to two female students at Hernando High School. M.G. M.G. is currently a student at Valencia Community College. At the time of the events in this case, she was a senior at Hernando High School, and was, along with a few other students, a manager for the track team. At some point during the 2007-2008 school year, M.G. was sent to the in-room suspension room for a dress code violation, because she was wearing a skirt that was too short. She was the last student to leave the room. As she was leaving the classroom, Respondent came up behind her and reached around, putting his hand underneath her skirt, over her underpants. M.G. immediately left the room. She did not report the incident to anyone initially, because there were no witnesses to the conduct and she did not think anyone would believe her. She thought that by staying out of in-school suspension and working with the other track managers, she would not be in a position where the situation could be repeated. However, there was a subsequent occasion where M.G. was taking inventory of the uniforms for the track team. She was again alone with Respondent, and he again came up behind her and touched her in the crotch area, over her clothes. On this occasion, M.G. was wearing capris pants. She left the room and, as before, did not tell anyone because she did not want to be in a position where she reported the behavior and no one believed her. She only came forward after hearing about another incident involving Respondent's alleged conduct with a female student.3/ A.H. A.H. was also a student at Hernando High School at the time of the events in question. She graduated in 2009, and is now a student at Pasco-Hernando Community College. There was an occasion during the 2007-2008 school year when A.H. was alone with Respondent in the portable where he taught. Respondent kissed her, and she tried to walk out. He grabbed her arm, pulled her back to him and kissed her again. Respondent also sent A.H. inappropriate text messages. For example, he would text her that he did not want to have sex with her because he knew she was a virgin, but that "I'll go down on you and show you a good time." Like M.G., A.H. did not want to tell anyone about the incident with Respondent because she did not want anyone to know about it. When questioned initially by school officials, she denied it for the same reason. Both girls were interviewed by Detective Morrell of the Hernando County Sheriff's Office during her investigation stemming from the conduct related to prom. The information given during the investigation by Detective Morrell and the information provided during the hearing was consistent. Unfortunately for both girls, after the conduct was investigated, there was significant publicity regarding the incidents. Information was published in both the print and electronic media. Consistent with her fears, M.G. was subjected to ridicule and the publicity related to the investigation made it difficult for her to finish her senior year. Neither girl wanted to press charges as a result of Respondent's conduct, because they did not want to have to deal with the publicity associated with criminal charges. Neither girl wanted to testify in this proceeding. However, both girls were candid and credible, despite their obvious reluctance to appear. On or about May 5, 2008, Respondent resigned in lieu of termination from his position with the school district.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), and permanently revoking his teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of the alleged misconduct and, if so, whether such misconduct constitutes just cause for Respondent's termination, pursuant to section 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent has been teaching for 30 years. At all material times, she has held a professional service contract, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. For the past 13 years, Respondent has taught at Northport K-8 School. She taught at this school until she was suspended without pay, pending termination, for the incidents of March 20, 2013, which are the subject of this case. During second period on March 20, 2013, Respondent was teaching a seventh-grade class. One of the students, R. W., misbehaved. Respondent cautioned him to sit down and be quiet. Instead of doing so, R. W. asked her, "How do you know that I'm the only one talking?" Respondent again instructed him to be quiet, to which the student replied, "I wish I could cuss a teacher out right now." Respondent did not reply. Several nearby students heard this exchange and nothing more of significance. After the bell rang, R. W. proceeded to his next class, which was taught by Sandra Tyndale-Harvey, whose classroom is in the same hallway as Respondent's classroom. During the three-or four-minute interval between second and third periods, Respondent visited another teacher, Kalyn Nova, whose classroom is between the classrooms of Respondent and Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. "Inappropriate Language" and Three Alleged Failures to Act Respondent told Ms. Nova about the incident involving R. W. during the previous period. Although she was speaking in a whisper, she was upset and was overheard by D. S., an eighth-grade student in Ms. Nova's third-period class. According to D. S., he overheard Respondent tell Ms. Nova that R. W. had said to her: "If you don't shut the 'F' up, I'm going to beat the shit out of you," or words very close to that effect, including the abbreviated swear word, the unabbreviated swear word, and the threat of violence. Ms. Nova and Respondent recalled the statement differently from D. S., but similar to each other. Ms. Nova testified that Respondent stated that R. W. had said, "If you don't stop talking to me, I'm going to beat the shit out of you." Respondent testified that R. W. had said, "If you say my name one more time, I'm going to slap the shit out of you," implying that this was what Respondent told Ms. Nova that R. W. had said. The differences in language among all three statements are immaterial. All three versions capture a threat to physically beat Respondent and a hair-trigger precondition to the beating: failing to stop speaking or saying R. W.'s name one more time. All three versions also use the word, "shit." Respondent's use of this vulgarity was not inappropriate for three reasons. First, Respondent was merely recounting what she understood that R. W. had said to her. Based on this record, Respondent was wrong; R. W. never said anything like this to her. But Respondent is not charged with fabricating this statement. Although R. W. did not say it, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent intentionally misquoted the statement, such that her use of "shit" in Ms. Nova's classroom might have been inappropriate. It is at least as likely that Respondent misunderstood R. W. to have threatened Respondent using the word, "shit." Second, Respondent was visibly upset when she recounted what she had thought R. W. had said to her. And third, despite the fact that she was upset, Respondent took a reasonable precaution--i.e., whispering--to avoid being overheard by other students, even though she was unsuccessful in this effort. Perhaps because she was upset, Respondent's speech was loud enough for a nearby student to overhear it. After recounting R. W.'s statement to Ms. Nova, Respondent walked over to D. S. and M. B., who were seated next to D. S. D. S. knew Respondent because he had taken a class from her the previous school year. Respondent asked D. S. if he would talk to R. W. because he and R. W. were friends and see what was going on with him. The incident during second period was not the sole reason that Respondent might have wondered what was going on with R. W., whose behavior and academic performance had been deteriorating recently. By this time, the bell had rung, and Respondent was walking toward the classroom door to return to her classroom. D. S. and M. B. asked Ms. Nova if they could go to the restroom. Ms. Nova said that they could, so D. S. and M. B. exited the classroom directly behind Respondent, who held open the classroom door for them. Hallway camcorders recorded much of what followed. The camcorders of main interest are identified in the video as Cameras 5 and 6. Located in close proximity to each other, these cameras display opposite ends of the same hallway. Thus, a person walking toward one camera will eventually walk off the bottom of the frame, only to appear at the bottom of the frame of the other camera. A small portion of the hallway, directly beneath both cameras, is not covered by either camera, so a person would not instantly appear in the frame of the other camera as soon as she left the frame of the first camera. The video is timestamped to thousandths of a second, and, at least at the level of seconds, the times for the two cameras are closely synchronized. If the cameras are out of sync at all, it is by no more than a couple of seconds. The video from Camera 6 reveals that Respondent held open the door for D. S., who passed through the door immediately ahead of Respondent. Respondent released the door, but, before it had swung closed, M. B. passed through the door a few steps behind D. S. Both boys walked in the direction of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Rather than proceed in the opposite direction, toward her occupied classroom, Respondent stopped in the middle of the hallway and then followed the two boys for about six seconds, as they approached and stopped at the door of Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Both boys looked directly at Respondent, who, for two to three seconds, might have talked to the boys, but it is impossible to know for sure because her back was to the camera. Respondent suggests that she counseled the boys not to run in the hallway, but clearly they were not running. Also, considering that third period had already begun, it is unlikely that, even if two eighth-grade boys were running down the hall, Respondent would so diligently supervise them, even to the extent of following them down the hall for six seconds in the opposite direction of her classroom, and completely ignore the needs of the classroom of her students awaiting her arrival. It appears, then, that Respondent said something to the boys, and it had nothing to do with not running in the hallway. Just before the boys entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, Respondent turned around and started to walk up the hall toward her classroom. Seven seconds after entering Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, D. S. and M. B. reentered the hallway with R. W. By this time, Respondent was out of range of Camera 6, but she was within range of Camera 5. The video from Camera 5 reveals that Respondent did not immediately enter her classroom. Instead, for about ten seconds, Respondent stared down the hall in the direction of Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom. Based on the timestamps on the two videos, Respondent saw D. S. and M. B. leave the classroom with R. W., and she saw the boys walk R. W. across the hall, where one of the eighth-grade boys opened the door of another classroom, which was occupied at the time. At this point, Respondent entered her classroom, so she did not see what followed in the hallway. The circumstances under which R. W. left Ms. Tyndale- Harvey's classroom are difficult to establish. D. S. testified that he asked to talk to R. W., but he did not say whom he asked. R. W. testified that two boys--D. S. and A. S.--entered Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom and asked the teacher if they could take R. W. because Respondent needed to talk to him. An especially reliable student witness, S. W., testified that she heard the boys tell R. W. that Respondent needed him, and he thus left the classroom with them. Ms. Tyndale-Harvey testified that, by the time that she took attendance toward the beginning of third period, R. W. was not in her classroom. When she asked if anyone knew where he was, several of the students said that he was talking to Respondent. The hallway was clear when the boys and R. W. left Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom, so third period had started, but it is possible that the teacher had not yet taken attendance by the time that R. W. had left. Given the statements of the other students and presence of D. S. and M. B. in the classroom for a total of only seven seconds, it is more likely than not that they persuaded R. W. to join them in the hall without informing or asking Ms. Tyndale-Harvey. The video from Camera 6 reveals that no one left the second classroom to join D. S., M. B., and R. W. in the hall. The three boys went down the hall, still within range of Camera 6, but no longer being observed by Respondent. D. S. or M. B. ducked into a third classroom, from which, in short order, four students joined them in the hall. Up to this point, R. W. was being escorted, but did not appear restrained. While standing in the hall at the door of the third classroom, R. W. stood by himself, only two or three steps from his classroom, but making no attempt to reenter his classroom. However, almost immediately after the four boys joined D. W. and M. B. in the hallway, several of the boys physically confronted R. W., who tried to escape up the hall. One of the boys grabbed him after only a couple of steps and R. W. stumbled. Now surrounded by five or six boys, R. W. kneeled on the floor as the boys grabbed at and pushed him. One of the boys removed his cloth belt and swatted at R. W.'s lower torso seven times, as three of the other boys held R. W. against the wall. The evidentiary record does not establish that R. W. suffered any physical injuries as a result of this incident, whose intensity is impossible to describe. The boys are relatively far from Camera 6, and any views of R. W. are intermittent due to the movement of him and the other boys during the incident. Clearly, though, whatever level of intensity that the incident attained, tapered off considerably after about 30 seconds. About one minute after the start of the incident, the media specialist, who has worked at the school in her present position and as a teacher for 28 years, entered the hallway and walked right by the boys. She gave them a look, but noted nothing out of order--besides, one hopes, the presence of six students loitering in the hall in the middle of third period. The media specialist continued walking up the hall. The students followed her five or six steps behind. At this point, two students were holding R. W., possibly by his backpack, which had remained in place during the hallway incident. As these three boys approach Camera 6--and thus were clearly depicted right in front of the lens--the boys' grasp of R. W. is light, and R. W. is smiling. The other four boys are trailing the first three and are talking in pairs, paying no attention to R. W. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner proved that Respondent was aware that D. S. and M. B. left Ms. Nova's classroom and headed toward R. W.'s classroom, departed Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom with R. W., and walked across the hall with R. W. and opened the door of another, occupied classroom. Petitioner also proved, of course, that Respondent never intervened with the boys during these actions. Petitioner proved that Respondent had just asked one of the boys to talk to R. W. before he left the classroom to visit Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom. Even in a preponderance case, it is impossible to infer that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that D. S.'s walking to and into Ms. Tyndale-Harvey's classroom meant that he was going to act on her request. But this is a reasonable inference as soon as D. S. emerged from the classroom with R. W., especially given the proximity in time between Respondent's request and D. S.'s action in retrieving R. W. from class. Seeing D. S. and M. B. walking R. W. across the hall and open the door of another occupied classroom establishes the inference that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that the boys were not merely going to talk to R. W. about what might be wrong. D. S. and M. B., as well as all of the other eighth-grade boys, were much larger than R. W., so D. S. and M. B. did not need allies in order to talk to R. W. safely. More likely, the presence of allies was at least for intimidation, or worse. The Petition alleges a duty to act based on Respondent's having just heard one or both of the students ask if they could confront R. W. The evidentiary record does not establish such a request. However, Petitioner's opening statement predicates the duty to act on Respondent's instruction to one of the boys to talk to R. W. (Tr. 15) As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the point here is that Respondent has established a specific basis for notice and a heightened duty to act on Respondent's part, and basis alleged in the Petition--D. S.'s asking Respondent if he may confront R. W.--is close in time and content to the proved basis-- asking D. S. to talk to R. W. Interlude The media specialist who had passed the boys in the hall was headed to Respondent's classroom to schedule an author visit. The media specialist entered the classroom and, four or five seconds later, so did the six students and R. W. The media specialist remained in Respondent's classroom for a little over one minute. About 20 seconds after she left the room, so did the six students and R. W. The boys urged R. W. to apologize to Respondent. He did so once, but laughingly. Urged by the boys to apologize again, R. W. did so, the second time more sincerely. Respondent thanked R. W. for the apology, but said that she was still going to have to write a referral. Respondent said nothing else to R. W. The boys escorted R. W. down the hall, past his classroom, and into an adjoining hall, where they walked him into a restroom. From the video, it appears that one of the boys locked the door behind them. The boys remained in the restroom for less than one minute. R. W. then walked out of the restroom. About 15 minutes after the boys had left Respondent's classroom, the Dean's clerk went by the classroom and informed Respondent that R. W. had told her that he had been "jumped in the boys' bathroom" by six boys. The clerk added that R. W. had told her that the boys had attacked him on Respondent's instruction. The clerk told Respondent that she was taking R. W. to the front office so he could tell administrators what had happened. Three Alleged Instances of Student Witness Tampering Within three minutes after the clerk and Respondent parted, the six eighth-grade students involved in the hallway incident (plus another student who does not appear to have been involved) entered Respondent's classroom. They met with Respondent in a separate planning room that was in the back of the classroom. Respondent testified that she asked what had happened, and the boys told her about the incident in the hall--with one boy saying that he had removed his belt, but he had hit the floor with it. Respondent testified that they would have to tell the Dean what they had done. About five minutes after entering Respondent's classroom, the six students left it. On this record, it is impossible to find that that Respondent said anything more to the boys. It is thus impossible to find that Respondent tried to influence or interfere with these students in terms of what they would tell school investigators. The second alleged instance of interfering with student witnesses involves Respondent's third-period class, which witnessed the eighth-grade students' production of R. W. before Respondent. One student from this class, D. D., testified that, after Respondent had finished meeting with the boys in the planning room, she asked the class what would R. W. have looked like if he had been beaten up, and the class responded with suggestions. Although this student testified that R. W. did not look as if he had been beaten up, he did not testify that Respondent ever followed up with the obvious question of whether W. looked as if he had been beaten up to the students. Another student from this class, M. C., testified, but was not asked what Respondent had said to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. The only other student from this class called as a witness, V. S., was also not asked about any comments that Respondent made to the class after talking to the boys in the planning room. It appears that, at hearing, Petitioner decided not to press the second alleged instance of interference with student witnesses. Any implication by Respondent that R. W. did not look beaten up while he was in her classroom was no more an attempt to influence the students than a statement asking them to remember when R. W. was in the classroom: both statements were true. Petitioner thus failed to prove any attempt by Respondent to influence student witnesses on these first two alleged occasions. However, at lunch on the day of the incident, Respondent visited some of her second-period students in the cafeteria. Five students concerning this incident were called as witnesses: W., C. T., K. H., L. J., and J. R. All of them were in R. W.'s second- and third-period classes. S. W. was an especially impressive witness. She also appeared to be quite fond of Respondent. S. W. testified that Respondent approached her and some friends while they were eating and asked if R. W. had said that he had been hurt, and S. W. replied that he had not. Respondent also asked if S. W. or her friends had heard R. W. say during second period, "If she opens her mouth one more time, I'm going to beat the shit out of her." Neither S. W. nor her friends could recall that; S. W. recalled that R. W. had said only, "Sometimes I wish I could curse out a teacher." C. T. was at lunch when Respondent approached him and asked if he and his friends remembered when R. W. had said, "If this bitch won't shut up, I'm going to knock her on the floor." Neither C. T. nor his friends recalled this statement. C. T. testified that R. W. said in second period, "I wish I could cuss out a teacher right now." K. H. testified that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he had heard R. W. say that "he wished he could knock that bitch the fuck out." K. H. replied that he not heard any such statement. K. H. testified that R. W. said that he had wished he could cuss out teachers, or words to that effect. L. J. testified that he did not recall anything, except that Respondent approached him during lunch and asked if R. W. had said "anything about he was going to beat the shit out of me." J. R. testified only that Respondent approached him at lunch and asked if he recalled that R. W. had used a curse word at her in class. Petitioner has proved that Respondent asked leading questions to each of these five students. Although the leading questions framed what Respondent apparently had understood R. W. to have said, not a single witness recalled any such statement from R. W. Under the circumstances, including the fact that Respondent had no role in conducting an investigation of her acts and omissions, the leading questions constituted improper influencing of student witnesses. Despite what Respondent understood R. W. to have said, the leading questions suggested to these student witnesses that R. W.'s statement was physically threatening, when it was not, and used one or more swear words, when it did not.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the above-cited violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct and School Board policy and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 February, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner and Wilensky, LLC Suite 103 1300 Corporate Center Way Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 Leslie Jennings Beuttell, Esquire Richeson and Coke, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Dena Foman, Esquire McLaughlin and Stern, LLP Suite 1530 525 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael Lannon, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 4204 Okeechobee Road Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947-5414
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to dismiss a teacher for just cause based principally upon the allegation that he failed to prevent or stop two students from engaging in oral sex in his classroom.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Ismael Delgado ("Delgado") had been employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for approximately 12 years. At all times relevant to this case, Williams was assigned to Booker T. Washington Senior High School, where he taught students with disabilities. The alleged events giving rise to this case allegedly occurred on December 6, 2004. The School Board alleges that on that date, during Delgado's fourth-period class, a female student named R. B. fellated a male student named D. B., while Delgado busied himself on the computer, paying no attention to the brazen carnality on display in his presence. The School Board charges that at about 11:15 a.m., a young man named K. M.——who was not a student of Delgado's——chanced to enter Delgado's locked classroom (somehow without attracting Delgado's attention) to check up on R. B. at precisely the moment she happened to be orally stimulating D. B.'s penis. K. M. was purportedly shocked to see this behavior——too shocked, evidently, to mention anything about it to Delgado, who allegedly remained glued to his computer, oblivious. K. M. later reported the alleged incident to another teacher, investigations ensued, and Delgado ended up being accused effectively of causing the students' sexual misconduct, for which the School Board now wants to fire him. Delgado consistently has maintained——and testified at hearing——that nothing extraordinary occurred in his classroom on December 6, 2004. He claims that he neither saw nor heard R. B. and D. B. engage in any sexual activity; indeed, Delgado insists that such behavior could not possibly have taken place in his presence. The undersigned fact-finder believes Delgado's testimony in this regard, which is more credible and persuasive than the evidence to the contrary, and finds, on the record as a whole, that the evidence is insufficient to establish that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's presence, as charged. Because Delgado witnessed nothing of the sort alleged, it is difficult to make affirmative findings concerning what, if anything unusual, occurred in Delgado's classroom on December 6, 2004. Compounding this difficulty, the students who testified were poor witnesses. The School Board called four purported eyewitnesses to the alleged sexual act: R. B. and D. B., the alleged participants; K. M., the student who serendipitously caught the two flagrante delicto; and A. S., another student in Delgado's class. Each one individually came across as an unreliable witness. None seemed to possess (or was able to articulate) a clear and precise memory of the remarkable alleged events, yet each recounted details that struck the undersigned as being implausible at best. Moreover, taken together, their stories are inconsistent and, in material respects, irreconcilable. In support of these general observations, the undersigned will add the following particular findings, to underscore the care with which the evidence has been weighed. As mentioned, the students who testified gave conflicting accounts about what occurred. The points in conflict are not mere minor details, as the School Board argues, but rather involve material facts, such as when the alleged sexual act took place and what Delgado was doing at that time. The details are critical because it is not enough for the School Board to prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex on December 6, 2004. In addition, the School Board alleged and must prove that the sex act took place in Delgado's classroom, while he was present; that Delgado knew or should have known what was going on; and that Delgado failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or stop the students from having oral sex. The following table presents a summary of the eyewitness testimony regarding six basic questions raised at hearing: R. B. D. B. A. S. K. M. When did act occur? In the morning, right before, and continuing after, the bell rang. In the middle of class. It was at the end of class, when the bell rings. Class was over. Before lunch; the bell rang at 11:50 a.m., so between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., but witness is unsure. Before the bell rang. Between 11 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. Before 12:15 p.m. K. M. came after the class was over. Where did At R. B.'s desk, in the At the front of At the At a desk. act occur? front of the class. the room. teacher's desk in the back. (A. S. had to turn around to see.) Where was Delgado? Before the bell rang, at his desk, in the back of the room. After the bell, he was in hallway. At the board, on one side of the classroom, facing away from the students. At the board. Behind the computer. What was Delgado doing? Before the bell, looking at "perfume" on the computer; he didn't see the act. After the bell, Delgado was in the hallway, watching students. Writing on the board with a marker; he didn't know that students were having sex. Not looking at the computer. Writing a science problem (or something) on the board. He didn't see what was happening. Busy looking at the computer. He didn't see any sexual activities. R. B. D. B. A. S. K. M. What did other students do? No one said anything. Students were standing up to shield R. B. and D. B., so Delgado couldn't see the act. Students were not standing up to block Delgado's view. They were playing cards or something. Were other Yes, K. W. & S. J. Yes. T. H. did Doesn't Didn't see that. students Their pants were down something remember; having sex at their ankles. They (unclear). didn't see too? stood by the wall, Also, K. W. that. having regular sex. "jacked" S. J. Students told hem to while they were stop. Delgado couldn’t sitting down at see the couple, but one of the heard the students and teacher's desks. told S. to get off K. No one said They ignored Delgado and continued. anything. Although many discrepancies are obvious, focus on the question of Delgado's whereabouts. Two students placed Delgado behind his computer at the relevant moment. Two others recalled that he was writing on the board. The School Board insists that Delgado was engrossed in his computer; it became invested in this theory during the investigative phase when an examination of the cookies on the hard drive of Delgado's classroom computer turned up electronic evidence that the Yahoo website might have been opened at 11:37 a.m.2 If Delgado were at the computer, however, then both D. B. and A. S. gave unreliable testimony on this significant point.3 Conversely, if D. B. and A. S. were believed, then the reliability of the accounts of R. B. and K. M. would be brought into question. The inconsistencies ultimately undermine the credibility of each of the student witnesses. Apart from the testimonial inconsistencies, none of the students, considered individually, impressed the undersigned as being a trustworthy witness. R. B.'s testimony was vague and childlike, offering little on which the fact-finder could get any traction. Her story, in a nutshell, is that D. B. and some other students goaded her into performing oral sex on D. B., to which she reluctantly consented in the vain hope that compliance would put an end to persistent prodding. R. B. also testified that while she was sucking on D. B.'s penis, two other students (S. J. and K. W., a male and female) were standing by the wall, their pants down at their ankles, having regular sex. This latter is beyond belief and suggests to the undersigned that R. B. has difficulty distinguishing fantasy from fact. That being the case, the undersigned considers her testimony unreliable and has discounted it accordingly. D. B.'s version of the alleged event differs from R. B.'s in one immediately apparent respect: as D. B. tells it, he was practically the victim, R. B. the aggressor who pulled down his pants and commenced sucking on his penis against his wishes. This is unlikely——almost absurd, the undersigned thinks——but D. B.'s testimony in this regard is notable insofar as it exposes a desire (also evident, incidentally, in R. B.'s testimony) to shift the blame——for whatever happened——to someone else. Like R. B., D. B. testified that other students also engaged in sexual activity that morning in Delgado's classroom. In particular, D. B. asserted that K. W. had "jacked" S. J. (i.e. masturbated his penis) while the couple had been sitting down at one of the teacher's desks. The undersigned believes that D. B.'s testimony about K. W. and S. J. is most likely a fabrication.4 Having given testimony that is probably untrue, D. B.'s credibility is suspect and his testimony as a whole must be discounted. A. S. testified that on the morning in question, he turned around and saw R. B. and D. B. at the teacher's desk in the back of room, R. B.'s mouth on D. B.'s penis. Apparently witnessing two classmates openly engaging in a sexual act was not a remarkable event for A. S., for he claims to have looked away and said nothing to the teacher (who was, according to A. S., writing a problem on the board at the time). The undersigned considers this to be implausible. He can scarcely believe that a student in A. S.'s supposed position would react in the blasé manner that A. S. described. The testimony as a whole is not credible. K. M.'s testimony is full of improbabilities. To begin, the undersigned is skeptical that K. M. just happened to be running an errand for his teacher in the middle of fourth period, allowing him to detour to Delgado's classroom to check up on R. B.——whom, he said, he treated "like a sister"——at the very moment she was performing fellatio on D. B. This is too contrived to be believable. Second, the undersigned does not believe that K. M. could have entered Delgado's classroom—— which, it is undisputed, was locked while class was in session—— without Delgado knowing about it, which is what K. M. claims occurred. Third, the undersigned rejects as incredible K. M.'s testimony that he stood watching R. B. suck on D. B.'s penis for a considerable period of time (several minutes), unobserved by Delgado, without saying anything to the teacher. Fourth, the undersigned disbelieves K. M.'s testimony that he slipped out of the secure classroom unnoticed by Delgado. Finally, K. M. testified at hearing with some certainty that he had reported the incident the next day, after carefully considering whether to do so. Yet, the contemporaneous written record reflects that he reported the matter within hours after its alleged occurrence. Standing alone, this latter would be a relatively minor discrepancy. But viewed in the light of other facially improbable details, this discrepancy is more troubling. All things considered, the undersigned harbors genuine doubt regarding K. M.'s reliability as a witness. The School Board offered the unsworn written statements of eight students, including the four who testified at hearing. These are hearsay and hence can be used, if at all, only to supplement or explain other admissible evidence.5 To give a flavor of the nature and quality of the evidence presented in support of the charges against Delgado, the undersigned will reproduce the statements of the non-testifying students below.6 S. J.7 gave a statement dated December 8, 2004, wherein he recounted:8 it happen when [R. B.] was siting between [D. B.] legs and when I went to get my paper from the printer and I turn around I seen [R. B.] sucking [D. B.] penis I was not the only one seen them [K. M.] seen them also this happen 2 minutes before the bell rang that how the other person which is [K. M.] seen them when he walk into the room and seen them thats how everything started. I was not involved with them. J. signed another statement, dated December 14, 2004, in which he wrote: When the problem happen the teacher was right in front of them but he told her to stop but she wouldnt. He told her plenty of times to go down stairs to see Ms. Thomas but she wouldnt. but when they were doing it in the corner in he see them crowed around he gets up to see what's going on thats the only time he gets up to see. the problem doesn't occur now scense she not in the class anymore. K. W.'s9 December 7, 2004, statement provides as follows: when she came in she started to play with [nickname deleted] and he said to leave him and still cap playing with and he got up side on the other side of the classroom and teacher her to stop she cap on playing with him and I when to sleep after that I does not know that they had sex or not. T. H. gave two written statements. The first, dated December 7, 2004, states: I was seating down on the char in I sha [D. B.] in [R. B.] [R. B.] was sukin [D. B.] penis two times. H.'s second statement is dated December 10, 2004. Therein he wrote: Mr. Dilgado trys to stop hus from having six bet we keep on going in he call ower house bet we cap on going. N. H. provided two statements, neither of which is dated. In one he wrote: [D. B.] in [R. B.] was having sex in the classroom. I was go to the computer lab. In the other, N. H. added: I feel I Mr. Delgado did not see [R. B.] in [D. B.] have sex in the class. These written statements do not explain or supplement the admissible evidence; to the contrary, if accepted they would create additional inconsistencies. Thus, the undersigned has not based any findings of fact on their contents. The undersigned has taken note, however, that out of 15-17 students in Delgado's fourth-period class, fewer than half (seven, to be exact) testified at hearing and/or signed a written statement about the alleged incident that was produced at hearing. This causes the undersigned to wonder what, if anything, the other 8- 10 students in the class witnessed on December 6, 2004. Given the paucity of persuasive evidence, the undersigned is better able to find what was not proved to have happened, than to find what likely happened in Delgado's classroom on December 6, 2004, if anything out of the ordinary. To repeat the key finding above, the School Board failed to prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's classroom while he was present. While these students probably did not engage in oral sex, the undersigned believes that there is a slightly better than even chance, and thus he finds, that D. B. briefly exposed his penis in Delgado's classroom after the bell had rung and class had been dismissed, when Delgado was outside of the room monitoring the hallway, which is what he was supposed to be doing at the time.10 The undersigned thinks, based on the evidence presented, that it is reasonably possible (the probability being between, roughly, 25 percent and 35 percent) that R. B. might have placed her mouth on D. B.'s penis, but he cannot make this finding because he is not persuaded that this likely occurred. What is likely, and what the undersigned finds, is that D. B.'s exhibition was a type of taunting, teasing, or sexually harassing behavior directed at R. B. It is found that K. M. likely did enter Delgado's classroom, not during the class period as K. M. claimed, but after fourth period had ended, when Delgado was properly in the hallway and the door to his room was unlocked. It is found that, more likely than not, K. M. then learned about D. B.'s harassment of R. B. It is possible that the incident was already being exaggerated in discussions about what had happened. At any rate, by the time K. M. reported the incident, the facts had become distorted. There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado saw or knew about, or reasonably should have seen or known about, D. B.'s misbehavior, which occurred while Delgado was properly monitoring the hallway between classes. There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado reasonably should have foreseen D. B.'s misconduct or that he reasonably could have stopped or prevented it.11 There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado was in any way the cause of, or responsible for, D. B.'s bad behavior. In sum, the undersigned determines as a matter of ultimate fact that, to the extent anything unusual occurred on December 6, 2004, in Delgado's classroom, it was student misbehavior that took place outside the teacher's presence and beyond the reach of his senses. Delgado neither knew nor should have known that anything untoward was occurring. The student or students who engaged in the misbehavior should have been punished, not the teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Delgado of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Delgado be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Delgado back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Davis began working with the Board on September 16, 1974, as a custodian in the maintenance department. In 1980 Davis was transferred to the Stewart Street Elementary School as a custodian. In 1988 Davis was transferred to the Carter-Parramore Middle School as a custodian. On March 23, 1992, Davis was suspended by the Superintendent with pay. On March 25, 1992, Davis was recommended for termination and was suspended without pay by the Board. The suspension and recommended termination were the result of accusations made by Tomeka Mitchell and Tiesha Parker that Davis had made sexually explicit comments to them and had inappropriately touched them. Tomeka and Tiesha both testified regarding their versions of what occurred on January 28, 1992. Two other students, Cheryl Denise Roberts and Lashea Alexander also testified. Based on the demeanor of these witnesses and on the pervasive conflicts in their versions of the events, it is determined that their testimony is not credible or worthy of belief. Tomeka testified that on January 22 or 23, 1992, she and "Sherry" were going to meet Tiesha near the gym and that Davis stopped them, put his arms around Tomeka and Tiesha and said "This is what he wanted" and opened her button. She said nothing else happened. However, she apparently reported to HRS that Davis had touched her breast and unbuttoned her blouse. HRS determined that there was no evidence to verify these allegations. [See Finding of Fact #14] Tiesha said she was going to meet Tomeka, who was already talking to Davis, and when she and Tomeka began to walk away, Davis asked where they were going, called them over to where he was standing, and told them he "wanted some." When they asked what he "wanted," she said Davis pulled their heads together, tried to open her blouse which was buttoned, and then he "did it to Tomeka and looked down her shirt." Tiesha said that Cheryl Roberts and Lashea Alexander were standing next to them and all four discussed what happened and decided to go to the office and report it. On cross-examination, Tiesha acknowledged that Tomeka's blouse was unbuttoned before Davis called them over. Cheryl testified that she saw Davis look down Tomeka's blouse and that she (not Tiesha) was with Tomeka when Davis said he "wanted some." However, when Cheryl talked to Mr. Pace, the principal, on January 28, 1992, she said she had not seen anything, but was reporting what she had been told by Tomeka and Tiesha. Additionally, the information given by Cheryl at the time of the incident, the testimony she gave in her deposition on May 14, 1992, and her testimony at the hearing were inconsistent. Finally, Cheryl never mentioned that Davis had allegedly tried to look into Tiesha's blouse. Lashea's testimony was also contrary to that of Tomeka and Tiesha. According to Lashea's version, Tomeka and Tiesha had told her that Tomeka was afraid to go to class because Davis might say something to her, so Tiesha walked Tomeka part way to class. Lashea was near the gym with Cheryl and she saw Davis try to look into Tomeka's blouse. Lashea and Cheryl discussed what they had seen and Tomeka and Tiesha came back to the gym. Lashea told Tomeka that Davis had tried to look into her blouse and Tomeka said "Yeah, he tried to, but I didn't let him." Lashea denied that Davis tried to look in Tiesha's blouse. However, Mr. Pace recorded that on January 28, 1992, Lashea had not seen anything and had only told him what she was told by Tomeka and Tiesha. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the demeanor of these girls and from the differences in their stories is that no sexually explicit statements were made by Davis and that he did not he touch them in an inappropriate manner. The version of the incident given by Davis is credible and worthy of belief. On January 28, 1992, Davis saw Tomeka and Tiesha in the open corridor near the gym after the final bell for sixth period had rung. They were heading away from the gym. Davis asked them what class they were supposed to be in, and by their responses he thought they were supposed to be in gym. Tomeka's blouse was open and the top few buttons were undone. Davis told her to button her shirt up and he said he was sure that her parents wouldn't want her going around campus "looking like a 10 whore." Davis then told them they should be in class and he put his hand on the upper arm of each girl to guide them in the direction of the class. When it appeared they were going in the correct direction, Davis left them. Davis is a credible witness and his statements at all times between January 28, 1992, and the hearing have been consistent and forthright. According to Mr. Pace, the principal, and Lt. Morris, the school resource officer, Davis is a man of his word who is known to be honest and trustworthy. Further, Davis' reputation in the community is one of honesty and truthfulness. John D. Mathers, a Child Protective Investigator for HRS, sent a letter to Bryant dated March 18, 1992, and therein stated "The victim's statements of language addressed them by Dr. Davis [sic] meets departmental guidelines to verify the allegation of sexual exploitation, i.e. indecent solicitation of a child or explicit verbal enticement, and closing of report with classification of proposed confirmed." While this sentence is so poorly written as to render it unintelligible, Bryant interpreted it as saying that HRS had found that Davis had made inappropriate and explicit sexual comments and that these allegations of sexual exploitation were verified. In fact, the letter from Mr. Mather doesn't quite say that. Additionally, Mather said in his letter that Tomeka Mitchell told him that Davis had touched her left breast and had unbuttoned her blouse, but that no other witness verified Tomeka's allegations, and that those allegations of sexual maltreatment were not classified as proposed confirmed. The letter to Davis from Bryant dated March 23, 1992, advised Davis that the reason for the suspension and recommended termination was Davis' violation of Gadsden County Board Rule 5.112 which provides in pertinent part: Any member of the non-instructional staff may be dismissed by the School Board during his term of appointment, when a recommendation for dismissal is made by the Superintendent, giving good and sufficient reason therefor. Good and sufficient reason shall include but not be limited to: * * * (h) Violation of law, State Board of Education Rules, or School Board Rules. Upon investigation, it has been determined that on January 22, 1992 and January 28, 1992, you made inappropriate and explicit sexual comments to several female students at Carter- Parramore Middle School. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has also completed its investigation and has advised me that based on its investigation and interviews with the victims, their statements regarding your comments verify the allegations of sexual exploitation. Such behavior is violative of Gadsden County School Board rules. This determination by Bryant was based on the "information" he was given in the "final report" prepared by Pace and on the HRS letter. Bryant was unable to articulate the bases for his determination, but that is not surprising when the origin and nature of the "information" he considered is examined. The three men who gathered the information were Cecil Morris, the school resource officer employed by the Gadsden County Sheriff's Office; Rocky Pace, the principal at Carter-Parramore; and James W. Brown, Jr., the assistant superintendent for administrative services. According to Bryant, he was given a "final report" from Pace in a letter dated February 7, 1992, (Exhibit 4) with attachments: Pace's letter to Brown dated January 28, 1992, (Exhibit 5); a case report filed by Lt. Morris (Exhibits 9a and 9b); and a letter of reprimand to Davis from Pace (Exhibit 3). In that letter Pace advised that he had a tape of the interviews of Tomeka, Tiesha, a girl named Aquiana Delapierre, and Davis, however, Pace did not give Bryant the tape until sometime in March, 1992, when Bryant asked for it. Bryant never listened to the tape, but instead read written statements from the girls. No one was able to establish where these written statements came from or how they came to be in Bryant's possession. They first appeared in Lt. Morris' case file when he opened it to prepare for a deposition on July 2, 1992. He doesn't know where they came from or who took them. Pace knew nothing about the statements and did not give them to Bryant. Brown also had no knowledge of the statements. Ironically, there was no written statement from Davis. Bryant says he made his determination based on these written statements which he assumed contained the same information as the tape which he never heard. Bryant did not identify any information which he reviewed that set forth Davis' version of the event. The case report prepared by Lt. Morris contained a brief summary of the accusations made by Tomeka and Tiesha, but Morris apparently never even talked to Davis. In fact, from the testimony of Pace, Morris, and Brown, it cannot even be determined whether any investigation was ever done. Morris talked to Tomeka and Tiesha briefly and then took them to Pace. Pace taped statements from Tomeka and Tiesha and Davis. Morris was in and out of the room during the taping of statements from Tomeka and Tiesha, but he did not hear much of what they said. Brown then came to the school and again talked briefly to Cheryl Roberts because he knew her parents and to some other girls, but he doesn't remember their names. Morris had no investigatory responsibilities in the matter. Pace did no further investigation after he took the taped statements because Brown came to the school and Pace was informed that Bryant had put Brown in charge of the investigation. Brown says he was not in charge of the investigation, but had told Pace to do a thorough investigation and then report his findings to Bryant. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that none of these men did any investigation beyond the interviews conducted on January 28 and 29, 1992. The letter from Pace to Bryant (Exhibit 4), which Bryant calls the "final report," clearly states that Pace thought the investigation was still on going and that action beyond the letter of reprimand (Exhibit 3) may have been warranted at a later date. However the only continuing action involved that of HRS in its abuse investigation, which resulted in a letter which advised that no touching or unbuttoning had occurred. Bryant's accusations against Davis were limited to allegations of explicit and inappropriate sexual comments. These reasons given for the suspension and recommended termination must have been based almost entirely on the letter from Mather at HRS since there was so little competent and probative information considered by Bryant. However, the statements made by Mather in his letter are insufficient to show whether HRS actually took any action against Davis in this matter and no evidence was presented to show whether any such action was taken. Since Bryant never reviewed any statement by Davis regarding his version of the events, Bryant never knew that Davis' words and actions in trying to get the girls to go to their class and to get Tomeka to straighten and button her clothes were routine for Davis. From the time Davis was assigned to Carter-Parramore in 1988 until March 18, 1991, a Mr. White had been the principal at that school. White had asked Davis to assist in keeping order at the school and had authorized Davis to open the gym on cold mornings at around 7:15 a.m. so that early-arriving students could be warm. At times, Davis was the only Board employee on campus and he was to remain in the gym to keep order until other adults arrived. White also used Davis' assistance to break up fights and control campus access by non- students during the school day. With White's knowledge and consent, Davis also directed students to go to class when they were not where they were supposed to be, to straighten up their attire or behavior, and to stay in school and not skip class. Mr. White died unexpectedly in March, 1991, and Pace became the acting principal and ultimately the principal. Pace knew of all these activities by Davis and never told him to restrict himself to duties directly related to his job as head custodian. Pace acknowledges that Davis was friendly and interacted with students and pitched in wherever he was needed. It was entirely consistent with these acknowledged activities of Davis that he would stop two students who were outside after the sixth period bell had rung, would direct them to go to class and would insist that one of them straighten her clothing which was unbuttoned and allowed her breasts to be seen. Finally, the alleged matter involving Aquiana Delapierre must be examined. Aquiana made an allegation against Davis that he said he "wanted some" from her also. Aquiana was subpoenaed to testify at the hearing but she failed to appear. All other documentation of these allegations constitutes hearsay and absent her live testimony, that hearsay cannot form the basis for any findings of fact. Exhibit 9a is the report prepared by Lt. Morris regarding Aquiana's allegations. It is insufficient to support a finding about the alleged incident. Davis was employed pursuant to an annual contract. His contract had been renewed yearly for the preceding eighteen years. Davis had always received satisfactory job ratings. Because of the recommended termination and Davis' suspension in March, 1992, no recommendation or action was taken to renew his annual contract for the 1992-93 school year. Davis' contract for the 1991-92 school year expired on June 30, 1992. Davis has no statutory entitlement to renewal of his contract, but no evidence was presented to show any reason why his annual contract would not have been renewed but for this case. Further, Davis' position has not been filled by another employee. The clear fact is that Davis' contract would have been renewed but for these wrongful allegations and this action which followed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Gadsden County enter a Final Order and therein: Award to Charlie C. Davis back pay for the period from March 25, 1992, until the expiration of his annual contract. Reinstate Charlie C. Davis to his position as head custodian at Carter- Parramore Middle School and renew his annual contract for that position for the entire 1992-1993 school year. Award to Davis back pay for the period covered by the annual contract for 1992-1993 during which has not been working or being paid. Deny the request for Davis' attorney's fees and costs necessitated for his defense against the suspension and termination on March 25, 1992. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2375 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Gadsden County School Board 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-7, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29-35, and 38-41 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 2. Proposed findings of fact 18, 20, 26 and 37 are irrelevant to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Charlie C. Davis Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-5. Proposed findings of fact 6-18 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 15, 23, 28, and 36 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert H. Bryant, Superintendent Gadsden County School Board Post Office Box 818 Quincy, FL 32351 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Deborah J. Stephens Attorney at Law The Ausley Law Firm 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32302 David Brooks Kundin Attorney at Law Dobson & Kundin, P.A. Post Office Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, William Doran, committed the acts alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Ten-Day Suspension Without Pay, and, if so, the discipline to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at SMS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately eight years. Respondent most recently provided individualized instruction and assistance to students with individualized education plans. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie Classroom Teachers’ Association. Lydia Martin, principal of SMS, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year On November 8, 2010, Respondent was counseled by Principal Martin for discourteous and disparaging remarks to students causing them to feel unnecessary embarrassment. Students and parents reported that Respondent made comments in the classroom including “the Bible is crap and we should not believe it,” told students they could not work in groups because they “would just bullshit,” called a student “stupid,” and referred to a group of African-American students as the “black coffee group.” Parents also expressed concern that Respondent discussed prostitution and told students that, in some countries the younger the girls are, the better it is considered because they have not lost their virginity. Respondent denied saying that the Bible is “crap” but admitted telling students that he did not believe in it. Respondent denied calling a student stupid but admitted that he told a student certain choices may be what a “not so smart” person would do. Respondent admitted to referring to a group of black students as a “coffee klatch,” but denied any reference to race or ethnicity. Respondent admitted discussing prostitution in the context of human rights and his personal observations of sex trafficking while serving in the military in East Germany. Principal Martin provided Respondent with a written Summary of Conference that stated, “In the future, do not make comments to students that may cause them embarrassment or that are unprofessional. My expectation is that you will treat students with respect and follow the district guidelines under 6.302 Employee Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics for Educators.” On May 2, 2011, Principal Martin gave Respondent a Letter of Concern for making comments to a student that caused embarrassment to the student when Respondent stated that, “somebody cried about not getting their stupid PTO FCAT Goodie bag” and that “they were filled with cheap candy.” The daughter of the PTO president was in the class. The 2011-2012 School Year During the fall of 2011, Respondent was accused of inappropriately touching students.1/ As a result, on December 5, 2011, Respondent was removed from the classroom at SMS and placed on Temporary Duty Assignment at the School Board district office pending an investigation into the allegations. In a letter from Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, dated December 14, 2011, Respondent was directed not to engage witnesses, their parents, or potential witnesses during the open investigation. While he was working at the district office, two co- workers of Respondent overheard Respondent contact the parents of one of the student witnesses involved in the investigation by telephone to discuss the investigation. Also, during the investigation, it was discovered that Respondent had taken pictures of students when they were misbehaving in his class as a means of disciplining those students. On February 13, 2012, Principal Martin provided Respondent a Letter of Reprimand for the violation of the administrative directive (not to contact witnesses and parents during a pending investigation) and inappropriately disciplining students. This Letter of Reprimand reminded Respondent of his previous counseling and Letter of Concern and notified Respondent that his failure to follow the prior directives or violation of any other School Board policy would result in more severe disciplinary action being taken against him. In May 2012, Respondent received a three-day suspension without pay for embarrassing students. Respondent is alleged to have announced a student’s name in class and stated that he (Respondent) was “just wasting red ink” by grading the student’s paper. Respondent does not deny the statement, but claims he muttered it under his breath, and it was overheard by several students. Respondent embarrassed another student by sharing personal information about her family with the class. A student’s mother had privately discussed with Respondent the fact that her daughter might act out in class due to the distress she was experiencing as a result of her parents’ divorce. During a classroom discussion about families, this student made a comment that she had a “normal” family. Respondent said to the student, in front of the class, “If you’re so normal, where is your father?” Respondent admits this was inappropriate behavior on his part. The 2012-2013 School Year On May 3, 2013, Respondent was in the classroom of another teacher for the purpose of providing additional teaching assistance for several students. On this date, the usual classroom teacher was absent, and a substitute teacher was present. While walking around the classroom, Respondent observed two students, M.M. and A.L., engaged in a game of “slaps,” in which both students tried to hit each other’s hands. Respondent directed M.M. to stop and asked why he was doing the game during class time. M.M. responded that he was trying to cheer up A.L., it felt good, and they liked playing the game. At this time, Respondent was approximately eight to ten feet away from M.M. who was sitting at a desk. Respondent told M.M. that he didn’t care if it felt good for M.M. to “jump off a bridge,” it was not to go on in the classroom and to get back to work. M.M. asked Respondent what he meant and the two began to argue. Respondent approached M.M. and bent over him while M.M. remained seated at his desk. Respondent testified that he closed the gap between him and M.M. when he felt M.M. told him to shut up by saying “get out of my face.” Respondent stated, “At that point I decided I wasn’t going to let him push me around and I decided to engage him.” The credible testimony from several of the student witnesses was that Respondent approached M.M. and stood over him and that M.M. repeatedly asked Respondent to “please, get out of my face” and to leave him alone. M.M. also cursed and used a racial slur directed at Respondent.2/ Respondent told M.M. to get up and get out of the classroom. When Respondent did not move away from looming over M.M., M.M. said something to the effect of “I don’t want to do any of this.” M.M. stood up, and he and Respondent were face to face, only a few inches apart. M.M. told Respondent that he was a grown man and that he was “acting like a bitch.” Respondent repeatedly mocked M.M., yelling in his face, “Come on big man-- What are you going to do about it, hit me?” and told M.M. to hit him because it would “make my day.” Respondent called M.M. a coward several times when M.M. refused to hit Respondent and backed away. While this was going on, the other students in the classroom believed that Respondent and M.M. were going to have a physical fight, and they stood up, pushed the desks and chairs back, and got out their cell phones to take photos and video. Several of the students began screaming and yelling.3/ M.M. left the classroom and continued to curse at Respondent as Respondent followed him to the Dean’s office. During this altercation, the substitute teacher did not intervene or attempt to help or contact the SMS office. Respondent admits that, once M.M. told Respondent to “get out of his face,” Respondent did nothing to de-escalate the situation. To the contrary, Respondent intentionally escalated the altercation. According to Respondent, “He [M.M.] needed to be shown you can’t tell an adult to shut up.” Respondent testified that he believed that he was teaching M.M. a “life lesson”-–that “you can’t engage an adult and expect to get away with it.” SMS has a protocol for handling belligerent students in the classroom. Teachers receive training at the beginning of each school year regarding the difference between classroom managed behaviors and office managed behaviors. Teachers are trained not to engage a belligerent student but rather to use the buzzer which is tied to the intercom or telephone, available in every classroom, to notify the main office of the situation. In response, someone from the trained management team will come to the classroom to retrieve the student and bring them back to the Dean’s office. As explained by Principal Martin, the purpose of sending an adult from out of the classroom to retrieve a disruptive student is to minimize the possibility of harm to either the student, teacher, or other students, and to allow a “cooling off period” while the misbehaving student is escorted to the Dean’s office. During the altercation with M.M., Respondent made no effort to use the buzzer or the telephone or ask anyone else to notify the office of the escalating situation. Respondent was aware of the protocol but chose to ignore it. According to Respondent, “[M.M.] wanted to intimidate me and he failed and I let him know about it.” Respondent was purposely confrontational and testified that he wanted to show M.M. that Respondent “was not going to back down.” Respondent disregarded the protocol because he believed it would be ineffective and he wanted to teach M.M. a “humility lesson.” Respondent’s explanation, that he thought using the buzzer or telephone would be ineffective because sometimes the buzzer does not work or he was blocked from reaching the buzzer by M.M., was not supported by credible evidence. Further it was directly contradicted by Respondent’s explanation that he didn’t contact the office because M.M.’s behavior problems likely started in elementary school and that at this point, M.M. was not responsive to “conventional means of disciplining students.” While the undersigned is sensitive to the difficulty faced by teachers when dealing with confrontational and unruly students, no rational justification was provided for Respondent’s extreme and outrageous act of attempting to engage M.M. in a fight and labeling him a coward in front of his peers. Respondent’s actions were an unwarranted attempt to bully and belittle a middle school student. In May 2013, Respondent received a letter from then Superintendent Michael Lannon advising Respondent that he was recommending him to the School Board for a ten-day suspension without pay. During the School Board’s investigation and at the final hearing of this matter, Respondent expressed no remorse regarding his actions towards M.M. and testified that, despite knowing his actions constitute a violation of School Board policies, he would do the same thing again. Respondent received all the necessary steps of progressive discipline required by the collective bargaining agreement between the parties prior to receipt of the recommendation for the ten-day suspension without pay. As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding William Doran guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of ten school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 19th day of August, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Lontay Finney's employment with Palm Beach County School Board based upon the allegations made in its Petition.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Palm Beach County, Florida. Article IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Finney started his employment with the School Board on December 19, 2005. He was employed pursuant to an annual contract. Finney taught at Glades Central High School ("Glades Central") from 2010 through 2015. He was last employed as both a science teacher and assistant athletic director. Finney's annual evaluations were acceptable and effective during each year of his employment at Glades Central. As a teacher, Finney was expected to comply with the Code of Ethics. On June 1, 2010, he signed an acknowledgment that he received training, read, and would abide by School Board Policy 3.02, Code of Ethics. Reniqua Morgan ("Morgan") was a female student at Glades Central from 2011 to 2015. She was a cheerleader athlete but never had Finney as a teacher. Finney knew of Morgan as one of the daughters of his teacher colleague, Renee Johnson Atkins ("Atkins") and from seeing Morgan around school. Morgan and Finney also knew who each other were because they had a niece in common and lived in the small town of Belle Glade. However, Finney and Morgan did not associate with one another directly before March 2015. On or about March 22, 2015, Finney initiated contact, reaching out to Morgan by poking her on Facebook. Morgan poked him back and then Finney followed up by inboxing her next. Morgan was surprised that Finney was conversing with her. They continued to chat for several weeks not on an open feed of Facebook but messaging each other's inbox privately. Between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 12, 2015, Finney initiated a conversation with Morgan and they chatted on Facebook. Finney suggested that the two of them get together and asked Morgan, do you want to "chill?" Morgan agreed and said "I don't mind." They then decided to meet up. Finney did not offer to pick Morgan up at her house. Finney instructed her to meet him at the stop sign, around the corner and down the street from where she lived.1/ Morgan, unbeknownst to her mother, met Finney by the stop sign. At the stop sign, Morgan got in Finney's mother's truck with Finney. When Finney first made contact with Morgan that night, he gave her a hug. He then drove her to his home. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Morgan was a 17-year-old minor. Finney did not have permission from Morgan's parents to either pick her up or take her to his house. His inappropriate actions were outside of school and not in connection with any school-related activity in any way. At approximately 12:24 a.m. on Monday, April 13, 2015, Morgan's mother, Atkins, was at her residence and went to use the restroom and she then discovered that Morgan was not at home. Morgan had left home without her permission. Atkins was worried about Morgan being out that early in the morning because it was "unsafe because [of] the neighborhood that [she] live[d] in, there [were] some people in that neighborhood that [were] unsafe."2/ While at Finney's house, Finney and Morgan remained in the parked truck alongside of the house alone together for approximately an hour and a half to two hours and spent some of the time talking and scrolling through Netflix on Finney's phone. Neither Morgan nor Finney can recall the name of any of the movies they watched on Netflix. Morgan's mother was looking for Morgan and found out from Bethanie Woodson ("Woodson"), Morgan's friend, that her daughter was with Finney. Atkins took Woodson with her and drove to Finney's house looking for Morgan. While in the truck with Finney, Morgan's friend contacted her and let her know that her mother was looking for her. Morgan told Finney she needed to go home. Atkins also learned while at Finney's house that Morgan was on the way home, so she got back in her vehicle and returned home. Morgan told Finney to drop her off near the railroad track, which is not the same place he picked her up. He then dropped her off where she suggested near Avenue A, a neighborhood on the opposite side of the railroad tracks from where Morgan lived, and several blocks away from her home. After Finney dropped Morgan off in the early school day morning while it was dark outside, Morgan had to walk down the street, come through the neighborhood and then walk across the bushy railroad tracks to get to her residence. The foot path Morgan took was also unlit, grassy, and rocky near the train tracks. No streetlights were near the tracks.3/ When Morgan got home, her mother, sister, and Woodson were waiting for her. Morgan's mother was irate that Morgan had been with Finney and drove Morgan back to Finney's home to address his actions with her daughter. Finney lived with his parents. When Atkins knocked on the door, Finney's father came to the door and Atkins requested to see Finney. Atkins confronted him angrily and berated him for being a teacher, picking up Morgan, and taking her to his house at that hour of the night. Atkins also informed Finney's mother what occurred while she was at their house. Morgan and Finney have had no contact since the incident. Morgan's mother reported the incident to Glades Central. As a result, the principal assigned Finney to his residence by letter, with pay, starting April 13, 2015, pending the investigation or notification of a change in assignment in writing. On April 15, 2015, Finney was assigned to temporary duty at Transportation Services pending investigation. An investigation by the school police found no violation of a criminal law by Finney, and the case was referred to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards, which is charged with conducting investigations into alleged violations of School Board policy. On or about May 11, 2015, the Office of Professional Standards opened an administrative investigation. Dianna Weinbaum ("Weinbaum"), now director of Office of Professional Standards and former human resources manager, was assigned to investigate the matter. Around the time the investigation was being conducted, Finney deactivated his Facebook page due to the mostly negative comments and statuses, as well as rumors surrounding the incident of him picking up Morgan and taking her to his house. Finney was able to finish the school year working back at Glades Central between investigations. Weinbaum performed a thorough and complete investigation regarding the allegations against Respondent. She interviewed all the witnesses and obtained statements, as well as visited the locations where Finney picked up and dropped off Morgan. On August 4, 2015, consistent with District policy, Respondent was removed from the classroom and reassigned from his teaching position back to a temporary duty location again. On October 8, 2015, a pre-determination meeting was held with the director of the Office of Professional Standards and Finney, who was represented by counsel regarding the interactions between Finney and Morgan. Finney was provided a copy of the investigative file. At the end of the investigation, it was determined that Finney's actions were both an inappropriate relationship with Morgan and posed a clear threat to Morgan's health, safety and welfare. Weinbaum recommended discipline for Finney consistent with discipline received by other employees based on the superintendent and School Board's position that employees who engage in inappropriate relationships with students and who endanger the health, welfare and safety of a child will be terminated. On November 19, 2015, Petitioner notified Finney of the superintendent's recommendation for termination of his employment at the School Board Meeting set for December 9, 2015. The School Board accepted the superintendent's recommendation and voted to suspend Finney for 15 days and thereafter terminate his employment. Finney timely requested a hearing to contest the superintendent's recommendation. Finney's disciplinary history does not include any discipline for actions similar to these for which suspension and termination are recommended. Petitioner charged Finney by Petition with soliciting an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare. The Petition charged Finney with the following violations: School Board Policies 0.01(2)(c),(2)(f) Commitment to the Student Principle 1; 3.02(4)(a)(b)(d)(e),(g); 3.02 5(a),(a)(iii),(a)(v),(a)(vii); Code of Ethics; 1.013(1) and (4), Responsibilities of School district Personnel and Staff; School Board Policies 1.013 and 3.27, Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal, and Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; the Collective Bargaining Agreement Article II, Section M; and (C) Rule 6A-5.056 (2)(a),(b) and (4) F.A.C., Criteria for Suspension and Dismissal; 6A-10.081 (3)(a) and (3)(e), F.A.C.; 6A-10.080(1),(2) and (3) F.A.C. Code of Ethics for the Education Profession of Florida; and 6A-10.081(3)(a) and (3)(h) F.A.C. Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. During the final hearing in this matter, Finney testified that his decision to drive Morgan to his house "was a lapse in judgment and it was just a bad decision that I made." At hearing, the testimony and exhibits established that Finney initiated contact with Morgan and solicited an inappropriate relationship with a student that jeopardized her health, safety and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, enter a final order: dismissing charges of violations of policies 0.01(2)6., 3.02(4)(a), (d), (e), and (g); 5(a), (a)(iii), (a)(v), and (a)(viii); 1.013(4); and rule 6A-10.081(3)(e) and (h); finding Respondent in violation of rules 6A-10.080(2) and (3), 6A-5.056(2), 6A-10.081(3)(a), policies 0.01(2)3., 1.013(1), 3.02(4)(b), and 3.02(5)(a)(vii), as charged; and upholding Respondent's suspension without pay and termination for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2017, 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 4th day of January, 2017.
