The Issue Whether the District has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was just cause to dismiss Thomas Brown, consistent with the provisions of the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941), as amended, and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas Brown, was a teacher of instructional music in the Duval County School District (District). As part of the instructional personnel with the District, Brown was subject to be evaluated on an annual basis pursuant to the teacher assessment system. The purpose for evaluating teachers is to make certain that instruction is occurring in the classroom and that students are learning the required subject matter. The evaluation process also makes certain that student safety in the classroom is taken into consideration by the instructional personnel (teachers). The District uses the teacher assessment system to evaluate all of its teachers regardless of the subject matter they instruct. From the 1999-2000 and the 2000-2001 academic school years, Brown was a teacher at Andrew Jackson High School where Jack Shanklin (Shanklin) is principal. Shanklin has evaluated teachers annually since he became a principal 22 years ago. He uses the classroom observation instrument within the teacher assessment system to evaluate all of his teachers. At the beginning of the 2000-2001 academic year, Shanklin; Ms. Pierce, assistant principal; Dennis Hester, professional development cadre member; and Mr. Dudley took part in creating a success plan for Brown. A success plan is a course of action designed to prevent an at-risk teacher from getting an unsatisfactory annual evaluation by engendering professional improvement. Shanklin discussed the success plan with Brown before it was implemented. Brown did not have any objections to the plan. Shanklin evaluated Brown for the 2000-2001 academic school year during March of 2001. He based his evaluation results on the observations and written reprimands that he had issued to Brown throughout the 2000-2001 year. During the year, Shanklin observed Brown's classes. In preparation for a classroom visit, he reviewed Brown's lesson plans for October 18, 2000. Lesson plans describe the daily plan for instruction of the students on a particular day. Shanklin had previously directed Brown to turn in his lesson plans on a weekly basis in order to monitor Brown's progress because of his departure from planned lessons. Shanklin attempted to observe Brown in his classroom on October 18, 2000; however, neither the class nor the teacher was present in Brown's classroom. Shanklin later found Brown and the class with the choral class in the auditorium; but Brown had failed to amend his lesson plans to include the choral visit, although he had adequate time to do. He had presented none of the lesson plan that had he filed. Shanklin returned on October 19, 2000, to observe Brown's classroom ten minutes after class has begun. As he entered the classroom, two students ran out the back door. When questioned, Brown had no knowledge of their identity. Shanklin witnessed students harassing other students without correction from Brown while he was addressing the needs of only five of his 35 students. While Brown spoke with the small group, the other students were doing whatever they wanted. There were no class assignments being conducted by the other students. Shanklin later identified one of the students who had been harassing other students as John Fields. Shanklin removed Fields from class because his behavior was so menacing. Brown should have prohibited and corrected the student misconduct, which he failed to do. Shanklin gave Brown a written reprimand by letter dated October 30, 2000. Shanklin also observed Brown on December 4, 2000, during a previously announced observation. Brown did not begin class with an appropriate review of recent material or outline of the day's lesson. Student misconduct again was uncorrected by Brown. Students were moving around and talking during instruction by Brown without correction. This class was not a band class, but a music appreciation class, and there was no need for student movement during instruction. After this observation, Shanklin reviewed his observations with Brown in January of 2001. Following the January discussion, Shanklin observed Brown again later that month, at a previously announced observation. He also discussed that visit with Brown. Shanklin also had Dennis Hester, a professional cadre member, observe Brown's classroom instruction. As part of Hester's responsibilities to improve "less than satisfactory" teachers, Hester reviewed and approved the success plan developed for Brown. Pursuant to that plan, Hester assisted Brown with both formal and informal observations and conferences through 2000 and 2001. After multiple informal conferences in January, Hester began formal observations in February. Hester utilized a number of tools to accurately document the classroom instruction by Brown. Domain One Instrument is a tool in the Florida Performance Measurement System which identifies a teacher's ability to plan lessons. The Domain Two Instrument is a classroom management tool used in the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS) to assess how a classroom is run. Hester was trained to evaluate teachers by using both tools and has done so with over 30 teachers in Duval County. Hester also used a conference planning guide which is a list of behaviors observed indicating areas to be worked on, and the Clinical Educator Training (CET) anecdotal instrument to clarify the events of a classroom observation in detail. Hester observed Brown's class on February 1, 2001, and saw a number of students off-tasks, and one child sleeping. Hester observed Brown tell the sleeping child to "wake up, no slobbering on the desk . . ." Brown should have taken positive steps to keep the student awake, and should not have accused him of "slobbering on the desk." Hester discussed these deficiencies with Brown towards the end of February. Hester was due to have all of his evaluations completed on March 15, 2001. Although the Domain One, on planning lessons, was due from Brown to Hester on January 18, 2001 for a February 27, 2001, class observation, Hester did not receive it until March 7, 2001. Thereafter, Hester faxed his commentary of the Domain One to the school for Brown to review as the remaining time permitted. Although Hester did not specifically provide Shanklin with his observation notes for review, the principal reviewed the cadre's notes which outlined the similar misconduct and classroom mismanagement Shanklin witnessed himself. Shanklin's evaluation was also made with the consideration of an incident at the May graduation of 1999/2000 academic school year. Brown's band refused to perform after Brown instructed them to do so. It was later discovered that those students who refused to perform were academically ineligible to be in the class. In prior years, Brown had allowed ineligible students to perform in the school band against the school's rules and regulations, and had been told to stop permitting this. On March 15, 2001, Shanklin gave Brown an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. In evaluating Brown as unsatisfactory for Competency No. 1, Shanklin considered his own observations of Brown's failing to follow his established lesson plans. Brown's failure to manage his classroom and correct student misbehavior supports Shanklin' unsatisfactory evaluation under Competency No. 3. Because of a lack of academic climate due to classroom mismanagement and unorganized instruction, Shanklin deemed Brown to have been unsatisfactory in Competency No. 4. In addition, regarding Competency No. 4, Brown allowed students to eat in his classroom which was critiqued by Shanklin in a letter to Brown dated December 6, 2000. In evaluating Brown unsatisfactory under Competency No. 5, Shanklin considered Brown's failure to provide sufficient evidence that any real grades could be disseminated to Brown's students as there were no rubrics or student work visible for assessments. Finally, Shanklin gave Brown an unsatisfactory evaluation on Competency No. 9 because Brown never demonstrated any type of diversified lesson designed to maintain the attention of the students; which was needed as evidenced by the repeated observation of students sleeping in his class. Following the 1999/2001 academic school year, Brown was transferred to Jefferson Davis Middle School where Bob Powell was principal. Powell created an initial success plan for Brown when he first arrived in the beginning of the year. After formally observing Brown, Powell created a second success plan dated October 29, 2001, which was discussed and agreed to by Brown. The plan was designed for Brown to implement the components for his own benefit. Throughout the year, Powell observed Brown's classroom instruction. On November 20, 2001, Powell formally observed Brown's instruction. Thereafter, Powell also observed Brown on two more occasions on January 10 and 18 of 2002. During his observations, Powell witnessed students talking during "warm-ups," whose attention Brown failed to get. Powell observed that Brown failed to provide praise to his successful students which is needed at the middle school age. Powell noted problems Brown had with communicating with band parents. Powell was concerned that a band parent reported that Brown had threatened to fail and throw her child out of band practice which Brown had no authority to do. In addition, band parents also complained that Brown placed their names as chaperones on a field trip, without their permission. When this was revealed, the trip had to be cancelled. Following the formal conferences with Brown, Powell discussed his observations with Brown. Brown admitted to Powell that other District personnel were telling him the same things Powell was mentioning. Notwithstanding the counseling, Brown was unable to constructively adapt. Powell also requested Patricia Ann Butterboldt to observe Brown during his instruction at Jefferson Davis Middle School. Butterboldt is responsible for supervising and overseeing the curriculum of music teachers throughout the District. During the 2001/2002 academic school year, Butterboldt observed Brown with an intermediate class on two occasions. On November 1, 2001, Butterboldt observed that Brown failed to follow his own instructional classroom schedule. In addition, Brown utilized students to instruct other students in complex musical exercises for which students had no ability to adequately conduct the drill. Butterboldt also witnessed Brown's students consistently off task. On January 23, 2002, observation, Butterboldt again observed inappropriate classroom instruction and management, to include Brown's failure to correct the class for ridiculing a student. Butterboldt noted that even if students forget their instruments, the teacher is responsible to provide instruction to that student. Following both Butterboldt's observations, Powell was provided copies of her observation's reports. Sue Martin, professional cadre member, was requested by Powell to provide feedback on Brown's instruction. Her report was introduced as Exhibit 29. During the same academic school year, Mrs. Saffer, vice-principal observed Brown pursuant to Powell's request. Saffer also utilized the classroom observation instrument during her observation of Brown. Saffer observed that Brown failed to properly correct the behavior of non-responsive students. Although critical, Saffer also complemented Brown on his positive action; however, after reviewing Brown's grade book for the day of her observation, Saffer was surprised that the students were awarded grades without any means of evaluation Saffer could decipher. Afterwards, Saffer met with Brown weekly regarding his grade book. In addition to the grade book, Saffer also discussed with Brown her observations (formal and informal) of his instructional conduct throughout the school year. Although Saffer did not evaluate Brown, she did provide her observations to Powell for his evaluation. In addition to school assistance and counsel, Powell provided Brown with many opportunities for professional training. Brown attended at least two training sessions to Powell's knowledge. However, Powell learned that Brown rejected a training conference in Jacksonville offered to him by Butterboldt because he said the presenters of the conference were "racists." On January 30, 2002, Powell provided Brown with a notice warning him of an unsatisfactory annual evaluation. Powell based his notice of a possible unsatisfactory evaluation on all of the observations and notations he made and had been provided to him. Thereafter, Powell observed another instruction by Brown in February of 2002. However, Powell never witnessed Brown perform pursuant to the schedule attached to a letter drafted by Brown which allegedly addressed Powell's concerns. Powell eventually prepared Brown's annual evaluation for the year which reflected Powell's assessment of Brown's unsatisfactory performance demonstrated throughout the academic year. John Williams is the director of professional standards for the District who was responsible for generating the termination letter once he received the second unsatisfactory evaluation. After reviewing all of the notices and evaluations, Williams not only determined that the manner in which both principals utilized the teacher assessment system was appropriate, but that Brown's performance required that the District initiate Brown's termination from employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Thomas Brown, be dismissed from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 11th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Derrel Q. Chatmon, Esquire Duval County School Board 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 John C. Fryer, Jr., Superintendent Duval County Schools 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8182
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a high school teacher assigned to Miami Norland Senior High School. Respondent holds a continuing contract. Respondent began teaching for the Dade County Public Schools during the 1968-69 school year. During that school year, the annual evaluation form utilized by Petitioner provided that a score of below 3.5 indicated unsatisfactory work. During that, his first year of teaching, Respondent received a score of 3.2 on his annual evaluation. For the next 15 years thereafter, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluations for each and every year. During the 1984 summer session, an incident occurred between Respondent and one of his students. As a result of Petitioner's investigation into the allegation that Respondent had committed a battery on that student, conferences were held between Respondent and administrative personnel. Respondent requested a leave of absence for the 1984-85 school year due to personal reasons, and his request for leave of absence was granted. Respondent was required, however, to undergo a psychological evaluation prior to returning to his duties as a classroom teacher. During that school year while Respondent was on leave of absence, he was evaluated by Dr. Gail D. Wainger, a psychiatrist to whom he was referred by Petitioner. Respondent thereafter saw Dr. Albert C. Jaslow, a private psychiatrist, on two occasions. Dr. Jaslow submitted two reports which contained, inter alia, a recommendation that Respondent be transferred to a different school. Dr. Wainger reviewed Dr. Jaslow's reports and her own earlier report and, on May 21, 1985, submitted a report to Petitioner stating, inter alia, that there was no barrier to Respondent's being reinstated into active teaching. Based upon that evaluation, Petitioner permitted Respondent to return to the same teaching position previously held by him for the 1985-86 school year. At the conclusion of that school year, Respondent was rated as being acceptable on his annual evaluation. Respondent again received acceptable annual evaluations for the following two years, i.e., the 1986-87 and the 1987- 88 school years. On his annual evaluation for the 1988-89 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the area of classroom management, one of the six categories of classroom performance. Pursuant to the rules governing the TADS evaluation system, a rating of unacceptable in any of the categories covered by the annual evaluation instrument requires an overall rating of unacceptable. On his annual evaluation for the 1989-90 school year Respondent was rated as being acceptable in all six categories of classroom performance, including the area of classroom management. It was specifically noted on his annual evaluation form that Respondent had performed satisfactorily during both of the official observations made of his classroom performance. However, Respondent was rated as unacceptable in the non-classroom category entitled professional responsibility. That rating of unacceptable in that one category required that Respondent's overall rating be unacceptable. The basis for the unacceptable rating in the area of professional responsibility involved the determination that Respondent had been disrespectful to students on two separate occasions. On April 16, 1990, one of Respondent's students called another of his students who had an unusual skin pigmentation condition "two-toned." Respondent immediately told the offending student, "do not call the girl two-toned." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent on April 30, 1990, and Respondent was given a supervisory referral to the Employee Assistance Program. During the week of May 7, 1990, one of Respondent's students was being verbally abusive to the other students, and Respondent told him to stop. That student thereupon began being verbally abusive toward Respondent and using profanity. Respondent then said to that student, "you should talk. You look like Mr. Spock from Star Trek." A conference for the record was conducted with Respondent, and he was issued a formal reprimand. The summary of the conference for the record dated June 1, 1990, prepared by the principal of Miami Norland Senior High School states that the student involved has physically-deformed ears. On his annual evaluation for the 1990-91 school year Respondent was rated as being unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction, and professional responsibility. Accordingly, he received an overall evaluation of unacceptable. During the 1990-91 school year there were no reported incidents of Respondent allegedly making disrespectful remarks to students. That basis for being rated unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility during the prior academic year was cured. The rating of unacceptable in the area of classroom management was based upon a number of observations of Respondent during the school year wherein the observers noted a lack of control in the classroom, Respondent's failure or inability to re-direct students who were off-task, Respondent's failure or inability to enforce classroom rules, and Respondent's failure or inability to deal with students who were tardy in coming to his class. As to his techniques of instruction, observers during that school year noted that Respondent was teaching from sub-standard books (without noting whether that was a matter within Respondent's control), that the students were confused by Respondent's directions on several occasions, that the students did not understand the lessons being taught, and that on several occasions Respondent made errors in math when writing examples on the board. Some of the observers also noted that Respondent spent too much time on some of the lessons that he was teaching. Numerous prescriptions were given to Respondent during that school year to improve his instruction and to manage his classroom, such as reading sections of the TADS manual and observing other teachers. Respondent complied with each and every prescription given to him. As to being unacceptable in the area of professional responsibility, Respondent failed to properly maintain student folders reflecting their work to justify grades being given to the students, and there were errors in Respondent's gradebook. It also became apparent that Respondent was not making parental contact for students that were performing unsatisfactorily. By March of the 1990-91 school year Respondent was directed in writing to make parental contact as required by Dade County Public School policy. By memorandum dated June 3, 1991, Respondent was notified that he was required to produce within 48 hours a complete up-to-date gradebook, a parent contact log substantiating parent contacts for the entire school year, and all student folders substantiating Respondent's gradebook. He was advised that if he did not do so, he would receive an unsatisfactory rating in the area of professional responsibility. The principal and assistant principal understood the directive to mean that Respondent must produce those documents by noon on June 6, and Respondent understood the directive to mean that he was to produce the documents on June 6. At noon, the principal was not available to Respondent. Respondent did produce many of the documents later that day. There was, of course, no parental log for the entire year since one did not exist. At the end of the 1990-91 school year a recommendation for dismissal was made. Based upon that recommendation, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, suspended Respondent from his employment effective at the close of the workday on July 25, 1991, for incompetency and gross insubordination. In 1984 Respondent filed a grievance against Assistant Principal Wessel and Principal Fowler at Miami Norland Senior High School. The subject of the grievance was that Assistant Principal Wessel had in a loud voice and in a demeaning manner criticized Respondent's lesson plans in front of other teachers, staff and students. The grievance was also filed against Principal Fowler to enlist his assistance in making Wessel refrain from repeated conduct of that nature. The Union considered the grievance to be valid and processed it through the grievance procedures. Thereafter, Respondent was advised by Fowler and Wessel that he had made a big mistake and he would be sorry for having filed that grievance. Respondent began to believe that he had lost the support of the administration and that his job was in jeopardy. When Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year he was moved to a classroom directly across from the main office. Respondent considered that action to be demeaning. He still achieved acceptable evaluations for that year and the following year. During the next school year, in the middle of February, the administration moved Respondent to an old metal shop room and gave his classroom to a new teacher. He still achieved an acceptable annual evaluation that year. For the following school year the administrators assigned Respondent to teach five low-level math classes using five different classrooms. For the last three years of his teaching career, the ones during which he received unacceptable ratings in different categories, Respondent was required to teach all low-level math classes. Although administrative personnel testified that some teachers like low-level classes, Respondent repeatedly made it clear that he did not want that assignment. Further, there is a specific contract provision between the Dade County Schools and the teachers' union prohibiting teachers from being locked into low-level classes year after year, as Respondent was. During the last several years while Respondent was achieving unsatisfactory ratings in some categories, while he was being switched from classroom to classroom, and while he was being required to teach only low-level classes year after year, the administrative staff actively undermined Respondent's authority and demeaned him in front of students and other teachers. They told teachers and students that they were trying to get rid of Respondent and that Respondent was a bad teacher. When Respondent referred disruptive students to the office, the administrative staff laughed or simply refused to take any follow-up action. On one occasion when Respondent referred a student to the office for throwing an eraser at another student, an assistant principal told the misbehaving student that he should have thrown the eraser at Respondent instead. Respondent "lost face" around the school. It became known that the students could misbehave in Respondent's classes with impunity. Even the students understood that Respondent was assigned only the most difficult of students. Although there was a new principal at Miami Norland Senior High School during Respondent's last year of teaching, the new principal, coincidentally, had been the principal for the 1984 summer session at Parkway Junior High School where Respondent had been involved in an incident with a student prior to taking his year's leave of absence from teaching. Under the new principal's administration, Respondent was retained in his assignment of five low-level math classes and was moved to the classroom directly across from the office. No evidence was offered that the new principal understood that efforts had been made to keep Respondent's authority undermined and to make him quit. It is clear, however, that no steps were taken to stop or reverse the damage to Respondent's reputation and ability to teach. In response to Respondent's referral to the Employee Assistance Program, Respondent did make the contact required of him. In fact, there were numerous contacts between Respondent and the personnel involved in that program. Additionally, Respondent was seen by Dr. Goldin, a mental health professional, on four occasions between April and June of 1990. Between June and September of 1990, he also saw an associate of Dr. Goldin eight times in individual sessions and four times in joint sessions with his wife. Respondent repeatedly requested transfers from his teaching assignment at Miami Norland Senior High School. Some of the requests were made to his principals and some of them were sent to the Office of Professional Standards. From the time that Respondent returned to his teaching duties after his leave of absence during the 1984-85 school year, he requested transfers each and every year. He requested a transfer at least twice during his last year of teaching. Some of the requests for transfer were hardship requests and others were normal requests. Additionally, both Dr. Jaslow in 1985 and Dr. Goldin in 1990 recommended to the Office of Professional Standards that Respondent be transferred to a different school. All requests for transfer were ignored. During the last years of Respondent's teaching career, in addition to the stress placed upon him by the administrative staff's efforts to undermine and ridicule him, he experienced additional stress as a result of his wife's serious illness. He told a number of the administrative staff about the problem at home. The difficulty under which that placed him was part of the reason for the referral to the Employee Assistance Program. During those last years, during conferences with administrative staff regarding his performance, Respondent exhibited anxiety and showed signs of stress. He accused the administration of undermining him and of treating him unfairly. He even attributed some of the problems he was experiencing in the classroom to the administrators. Their reaction to Respondent's accusations was to accuse Respondent of being paranoid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered suspending Respondent without pay for the 1990-91 school year and reinstating him as a full-time classroom teacher thereafter at a school other than Miami Norland Senior High School. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-4936 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 33, 35-37, 65, 67, 68, 72, and 74 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 8, 11, 19, 32, 38, 58, 71, 75, and 77 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5-7, 9, 10, 12-18, 20-31, 39-57, 59-64, 66, 69, 70, 73, and 76 have been rejected as being unnecessary in determining the issues involved in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 34 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4-11, 13, and 14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 12, and 15 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Copies furnished: Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 N.E. Second Avenue, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne and Bradley, P.A. 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been subjected to discrimination within the meaning of the relevant provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, based upon alleged sexual harassment in the course of her employment and retaliation for her complaints concerning the alleged sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent at times pertinent hereto. It is undisputed that that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and that timeliness and jurisdictional requirements have been met. The Respondent obtained a contract with the United States Navy for a project to be performed at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. It became the contractor for the project in approximately December of 1991. The contract, in pertinent part, provided that the Respondent would provide local cartage trucking services for the Navy on and in the environs of the Pensacola Naval Air Station. The project involved loading and transportation of aircraft parts and related supplies and equipment. The Petitioner was hired as a truck driver, delivering aircraft parts for the naval aviation depot (NADEP). During the course of that employment, there came a time when the Petitioner contended that she had been discriminated against because of her gender. The Petitioner contends that in a meeting in December of 1991, she was told by Terry Meyers, an employee of the Respondent and the Petitioner's supervisor, that she "didn't look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to look for another job. The meeting in which the statements were allegedly made was a meeting called by the Petitioner's supervisor and the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis, to address certain deficiencies in the Petitioner's performance. Another employee, Mr. Braughton, was also counseled at the meeting concerning his performance as a truck driver. His was the same type of employment position as that occupied by the Petitioner. Mr. Braughton is a white male. The Petitioner maintains that she informed a white male employee, Mike Morris, of the statements allegedly made at the meeting and that he immediately made a telephone call to Mr. Frank Moody, the president of the corporation, to put the president and the corporation on notice of sexual discrimination against the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, was not present when Mr. Morris made that telephone call to Mr. Moody. Even had he made reference to alleged sexual discrimination in his telephone call to Mr. Moody, Mr. Morris only learned of the purported sexually-discriminatory statements from the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintained that Mr. Morris informed her that he had heard the statements made while standing at the door of the room in which the meeting occurred and that Mr. Morris initiated the telephone call on his own volition to Mr. Moody, based upon hearing those statements. Mr. Morris, however, testified to the contrary, stating that the Petitioner approached him and claimed that she was on probation and was fearful of being laid off from employment and that the Petitioner told him of the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements and that he did not hear them himself. He further testified that the Petitioner instructed him to contact Mr. Moody concerning her fears about her job and the alleged discriminatory statements or she would contact "HRO and EEO and have the contract shut down". Mr. Morris, indeed, called Mr. Moody but never mentioned the statements alleged by the Petitioner to have been made to her by Mr. Meyers during the performance evaluation meeting. In fact, it has been demonstrated by Mr. Morris' testimony, which the Hearing Officer accepts as more credible, that the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Morris about a sexually-discriminatory statement or purported sexual discrimination. Mr. Morris, instead, spoke to Mr. Moody about problems he saw occurring in the operation in Pensacola which he attributed to the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis. He told Mr. Moody that Mr. Francis was allowing employees to leave work early without Mr.. Moody's knowledge and still crediting them with working a full day on such occasions which, in effect, cost the corporation additional salary monies which were unearned. The meeting in which the Petitioner was allegedly confronted with the statement that she did not look like a truck driver and had three weeks to look for another job was called and conducted by Mr. Francis and Mr. Meyers was present. It is undisputed that Mr. Moody terminated Mr. Francis shortly after the telephone conversation with Mr. Morris. He replaced Mr. Francis with the current project manager, John Jacobs. Mr. Moody testified that in a telephone conversation with the Petitioner that she never mentioned to him the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements referenced above. Instead, he was told by both Mr. Morris and the Petitioner that she was concerned that she might lose her job because of the results of the meeting with Mr. Francis, in which he told her that she needed to improve her job performance. In fact, the management of the Respondent perceived a genuine job performance problem involving the Petitioner's conduct of her job duties. This was disclosed in the testimony of both Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Morris, where it was revealed that the Petitioner had had a continuing problem performing her job correctly and that Mr. Morris and the management personnel had worked with her constantly during the course of her employment term with the Respondent, taking more time and personal attention with her than with other employees. This was done in order to repetitively explain her job duties and give her additional chances to improve her work performance, in comparison to the lesser degree of attention and remedial help that they accorded other employees. Prior to February 3, 1993, the Petitioner had been employed with the Respondent for over a year. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs established, however, that even though her probationary period had long since elapsed, he still considered the Petitioner to be, in effect, an employee in training because she was deficient in correctly accomplishing all of the duties of her job. She was slow in performing her job duties, including preventive maintenance inspections of her vehicle and in making the "pickups and deliveries" of freight she was required to transport on her truck in the performance of her duties. The counseling session concerning her work performance occurring in December of 1991, referenced above, was during her probationary period. The white male employee, Mr. Rick Braughton, who was also counseled about deficient work performance on that occasion, was informed that he might not remain employed past his probationary period unless his performance improved. The Respondent had a regular practice and procedure, as part of its truck safety and preventive maintenance program, that employees, who were drivers, were required to give a preventive maintenance and safety inspection of their vehicles each day prior to leaving the company facility or terminal to transport aviation parts or other freight. This was regarded as crucial to proper job performance by the employer because of the concern about safety of the drivers and avoidance of damage, and liability for damage, to the expensive equipment and parts which the Respondent was required by its contract to transport, such as expensive military aircraft parts and related equipment. Among these preventive maintenance inspection duties that driver/employees, such as the Petitioner, were required to perform daily was the requirement to check the air in the truck tires and "top off" the tires with the required air pressure, if necessary. 10 Mr. Jacobs established that there came a time when the Petitioner was noted to have failed on multiple occasions, in the same week, to check and air her tires. Finally, upon this deficiency coming to his attention again on February 3, 1993, Mr. Jacobs suspended the Petitioner for a day without pay, for failing to check and air her tires. The Petitioner claims that she was the only employee singled out for this treatment concerning failure to inspect and air her tires. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs is deemed more credible, having observed the candor and demeanor of all of the witnesses, and it is determined that the employer had a good-faith belief that the Petitioner was deficient in this regard and that the reprimand, consisting of the one-day suspension, was justified. It was not demonstrated that, even if the Petitioner's version of events is true and that other driver/employees were not disciplined for failure to air their tires, that such a circumstance occurred as a result of the employer's knowledge of other driver/employees failing to air their tires and arbitrarily choosing not to discipline them. In fact, it was not demonstrated by preponderant, non-self-serving evidence that other employees had not been disciplined for failure to air their tires. In fact, it was not shown, other than by the self-serving testimony of the Petitioner, that other employees had failed to air their tires when required. The other drivers are mostly male, but one is a female. There was no showing that she was treated any differently than the male drivers. In summary, it has been established that the employer accorded the reprimand to the Petitioner because of a good-faith belief that her performance had been deficient, on repeated occasions, in this respect. It is undisputed that prior to the date the Petitioner received the reprimand, consisting of one-day suspension without pay, that the Petitioner had a generally good attitude about her job insofar as management was able to observe. Even though management had had some concerns about her performance and the slow manner in which she was learning certain aspects of her job, with resulting deficient effects upon her performance, management forbore from using these concerns to reduce her performance rating. She received good evaluations of her performance, insofar as her personnel record is concerned, prior to the time she was suspended for one day on February 3, 1993. After the Petitioner received the suspension she developed a "bad attitude" insofar as her perception of management was concerned. She began to complain frequently about vehicle safety or purported concerns she had about the condition of her vehicle related to safety, particularly the truck brakes. Prior to her suspension, she had never complained in this regard. Management also perceived that she appeared to show down her work performance and management came to believe that it was an intentional delay of her work performance on an ongoing basis. Prior to receiving the reprimand, she was never known to complain to management concerning discrimination on account of her gender. She had never informed the project manager or any other supervisory personnel concerning her purported belief that employee Meyers was "following her". Only after she received the reprimand on February 3, 1993 did she elect to file a sexual discrimination charge with the Commission. Mr. Meyers had some supervisory authority over the Petitioner. His job duties also required that he drive his truck around the Naval Air Station and the immediate vicinity in the normal performance of his duties. This circumstance resulted in his being in close proximity to the Petitioner during the course of their respective work days. He contends that he was not purposely following her for the purpose of harassing her. The overall evidence of record reveals, however, that he, indeed, did follow or stop in her vicinity on a number of occasions to observe her work performance. This was not shown to be out of the ordinary scope of his supervisory duties, especially because of management's concern that the Petitioner was not progressing in the learning and performance of her job duties as well as other employees, including the other female driver. The project manager, Mr. Jacobs, felt that the Petitioner's attitude continued to decline after the February 3, 1993 reprimand. He felt that her attitude and performance reached its lowest level on the date she was observed to be loading "unauthorized equipment" (apparently a portion of a helicopter assembly weighing approximately 4,000 pounds) on the flatbed trailer of her assigned work truck. She was not authorized to load that equipment and apparently, according to her testimony, she did so in order to provide a substantial amount of weight on her trailer for the purpose of having her brakes inspected by the quality assurance official for the project. She went to an unauthorized area for approximately one hour to have this inspection performed without the approval of the Respondent's management. Further, it was not necessary, in order to evaluate the brakes on the vehicle for proper function and safety, to have the weight of the unauthorized load placed on the trailer. If, indeed, the brakes had been defective, it would have been entirely possible that the expensive aircraft parts she had placed on the trailer without authorization could have been substantially damaged, the truck or other property could have been damaged, and, indeed, the Petitioner or other persons could have been injured. Additionally, the Petitioner misrepresented the reason she was in the unauthorized area where she had her brakes inspected by Mr. Lett, the quality assurance officer. In this connection, because she had begun to complain repeatedly about the condition of her brakes and her vehicle (after her reprimand), the project manager, Mr. Jacobs, had had certain other employees come in on several occasions at approximately 6:00 a.m., before normal working hours, and before the Petitioner arrived on the job site, to inspect the Petitioner's truck for safety and appropriate preventive maintenance purposes. These employees were not informed that it was the Petitioner's truck they were inspecting at the time they were told to do the inspections. The Respondent was attempting to ascertain the true condition of the Petitioner's truck and determine whether her reports concerning safety problems, particularly with her brakes, were accurate or not. In fact, on the morning of the day when the unauthorized load was placed on the truck and the Petitioner had Mr. Lett perform the inspection of her brakes at the unauthorized area, one of the Petitioner's co-employees had inspected her brakes before she arrived to take custody of her truck that morning. He had determined that the brakes were operating properly. The Petitioner and Mr. Lett apparently felt that the brakes were deficient when they were inspected early in the afternoon of that day. The record does not reveal whether the brakes were deficient when Mr. Lett inspected them or that some change in the adjustment of the brakes or other problem had arisen since the employee inspected them early that morning and found them to be in proper operating order. Be that as it may, management was of the belief on that day and prior thereto that the Petitioner, although reporting brake deficiency problems, did not truly experience such brake deficiency problems with her truck. This belief was based upon management perceptions concerning the Petitioner's attitude after her reprimand and upon the independent, confidential inspections management had other employees do on the Petitioner's truck. Accordingly, whether its belief was accurate or not, management was of the good-faith belief, on the date she was observed loading unauthorized, expensive equipment onto the flatbed truck, in an unnecessary fashion, for the purpose of having her brakes inspected, while being absent from her work assignment for one hour in an unauthorized area, that it had performance-related reasons to terminate her, which it did. This decision was made against the background of the increasingly poor attitude displayed by the Petitioner since her reprimand and because of the continuing problems management had experienced with the Petitioner's job performance since her initial employment one and one- half years previously. Although the Petitioner testified that as early as December of 1991, the management of the Respondent had spoken with her regarding her work performance and she interpreted that meeting as an attack on her gender and not upon her poor work habits, this contention was not verified by any other testimony. Having observed the candor and demeanor of the Petitioner versus that of the other witnesses, it is determined that her testimony is less creditable because of its self-serving nature. Although the Petitioner testified that a comment was made that "she did not look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to find another job, this was not verified through testimony of any other witness. To the extent that any other witnesses testified concerning these statements being made in a belief that discrimination had been exhibited toward the Petitioner, the evidence reveals that this information only came to these people through self-serving reports by the Petitioner herself. Meyers directly contradicts that these statements were made to the Petitioner and he states that he never heard anyone tell her that she had three weeks to look for a job or that she "didn't look like a truck driver". The petitioner provided no testimony or evidence which could show how these alleged statements constituted "sexual discrimination" or how the statements related to her sexual discrimination claim. It was not shown that any member of management, with employment-decision authority, made or condoned such statements even if it had been established that they evidenced gender-based discrimination, which was not done. The Petitioner did not complain of sexual discrimination per se until after she had received a reprimand from management. Likewise, she began to repetitively claim that her equipment was unsafe after the reprimand. The Petitioner may have been overly sensitive to management's concern for safety inspections of her truck because of being reprimanded for safety violations and was afraid she would "get into trouble" with management if she did not constantly report feared safety problems. The fact was established, however, that management had a genuine, good-faith belief that it was being harassed by these repetitive, unsafe equipment reports by the Petitioner, given the then- prevailing atmosphere surrounding the Petitioner's employment, characterized by her less than satisfactory attitude, as perceived by management, and the fact that management's confidential inspections of her equipment did not reveal any safety problems of the type reported by the Petitioner. Finally, it is especially noteworthy that during this period of time when the Petitioner made the claim of sexual discrimination and retaliation based upon her claim, that the Respondent had in its employ, in an identical job position, a female truck driver who had had no unsatisfactory experience by management with her performance, was not subjected to investigative or disciplinary measures, and who is still satisfactorily employed with the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the petition herein in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1459 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact which are not in separately-numbered, discrete paragraphs. The paragraphs contain some proposed findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and some which are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the same subject matter. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are intertwined with argument and discussions of the weight of the evidence or testimony. Because the paragraphs in the proposed findings of fact contain both findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and which the Hearing Officer rejects, discrete, specific rulings thereon are not practicable. It suffices to say that all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are subordinate to, but have been considered and addressed in the findings of fact portion of this Recommended Order and have been in that fashion completely ruled upon. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The same considerations are true of the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Some portions of the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent consist of merely discussions and argument concerning the weight of the evidence and some are acceptable to the Hearing Officer based upon the Hearing Officer's determination of the weight and credibility of the testimony and evidence. Some are rejected as being unnecessary or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact made on the same subject matter. Here, again, this Recommended Order completely and adequately addresses the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, and the Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted to the extent they are not inconsistent with those made by the Hearing Officer and to the extent they are inconsistent therewith, they are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence or as being immaterial, unnecessary, or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry W. McCleary, Esquire 3 West Garden Street Suite 380 Pensacola, FL 32501 Donna Gardner, Esquire 213 South Alcaniz Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f)1, 1012.795(1)(i), and 1012.795(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2002-2005),2 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(g), and 6B-1.006(3)(i), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. West holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 666407, which covers the area of physical education and is valid through June 30, 2012. She began her teaching career in 1990. At all times pertinent to this case, Ms. West was employed as a physical education teacher at Azalea Middle School in the Pinellas County School District. By Final Order dated February 20, 2004, the Education Practices Commission found Ms. West guilty of violating Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e), by, among other things, making derogatory remarks to students and disclosing students’ grades without their permission. The Education Practices Commission suspended Ms. West’s educator certificate for the summer session for 2004 and placed her on probation for two years, effective February 20, 2004. The violations for which Ms. West was disciplined occurred while Ms. West was a teacher at Gibbs High School. In an effort to give Ms. West a fresh start, she was administratively transferred from Gibbs High School to Azalea Middle School beginning August 2001. Ms. West was assigned to teach seventh-grade physical education. Connie Kolosey was the seventh-grade assistant principal at Azalea Middle School who was responsible for supervising everything having to do with the seventh grade, including the seventh-grade teachers. The principal at Azalea Middle School received an anonymous letter early in the 2001- 2002 school year complaining that Ms. West was using offensive language and making derogatory remarks to students. About the same time as the arrival of the anonymous letter, Ms. Kolosey became aware that Ms. West was using her cell phone in class to call parents to talk about students’ behavior. Ms. Kolosey met with Ms. West on September 7, 2001, to discuss these issues. Ms. West felt that the anonymous letter came from individuals who were involved in Ms. West’s problems at Gibbs High School. The use of the cell phone was discussed during the conference. Ms. West stated that when she was at Bay Pointe Middle School she had used the cell phone to call parents during class and found it to be an effective way to curb student misbehavior. Ms. West indicated that she would leave the gymnasium and make the cell phone calls in the hallway. Ms. Kolosey explained to Ms. West that the use of cell phones to call parents during class was not appropriate. Students could be embarrassed by having Ms. West discuss their discipline issues in front of the class or in the hallways. Additionally, it was not a safe practice to leave the students in the gymnasium while she went into the hall to make telephone calls. On February 8, 2002, Ms. Kolosey had another conference with Ms. West to discuss accusations which had been made by several students that Ms. West had been making derogatory remarks to them about their physical appearance. Ms. West denied making the comments. During the spring of 2002, the parents of one of Ms. West’s students demanded that their child be removed from Ms. West’s class for comments which Ms. West allegedly made to their child, S.B. Ms. Kolosey investigated the matter and could find no one to corroborate the allegations made by S.B. and her parents. Thus, Ms. Kolosey refused to remove the student from Ms. West’s class. The parents of S.B. continued to request that their child be removed from Ms. West’s class because S.B. had skipped Ms. West’s class, and they felt it was a result of the child having been traumatized by Ms. West’s actions. Ms. Kolosey discussed the issues concerning S.B. She specifically told Ms. West not to bring the issues up to S.B. in a negative way but to attempt to mend her relationship with S.B. On March 12, 2002, Ms. Kolosey received a telephone call from S.B.’s mother again demanding that S.B. be removed from Ms. West’s class. Ms. West had told S.B. in front of S.B.’s classmates that S.B. could not run to Ms. Kolosey about things that were said in private because she was saying it in front of the whole class. Ms. West admitted to Ms. Kolosey that she had made the remarks to S.B. Ms. Kolosey agreed to remove S.B. from Ms. West’s class. On May 16, 2002, Ms. Kolosey; Ms. West; Ms. Andrews, the principal at Azalea Middle School; and Mr. McNeil, a union representative, had a conference to discuss more allegations that Ms. West had made belittling remarks to some of her students. It was suggested to Ms. West that if she needed to discuss a student’s performance or behavior that she take the student aside rather than do it in front of other students. Ms. West was warned that her attitude needed to change and that she could not always say the first thing that came to her mind. During the last semester of the 2001-2002 school year, Ms. West’s daughter was seriously ill, and Ms. West missed a great deal of work because of her parenting responsibilities. The first semester of the 2002-2003 school year, Ms. West was absent most of the time because of her daughter’s illness. Ms. West returned to teach at Azalea Middle School in January 2003. After Ms. West’s return, complaints began to be made to the administration about inappropriate comments that Ms. West was alleged to have made during class. Ms. West denied making the comments. Again, Ms. West was cautioned to think about what she says to the students before she says it. Ms. West was under a great deal of stress during the early part of the second semester of the 2002-2003 school year because of her daughter’s illness. Her daughter passed away in March 2003. In March 2003, Ms. West received a written reprimand from the principal at Azalea Middle School for “failing to interact appropriately with students and making inappropriate remarks to students, and for insubordination in failing to follow a previous directive to refrain from such remarks.” Again, Ms. West was directed to refrain from making inappropriate remarks to students. Ms. Kolosey evaluated Ms. West for the 2002-2003 school year. Ms. West was rated ineffective for her instructional and non-instructional performance. It was noted that Ms. West’s judgment was a serious concern and that the numerous complaints which had been received regarding Ms. West’s negative interactions with students overshadowed an otherwise knowledgeable and organized classroom presentation. Ms. West appealed the evaluation, but the evaluation was upheld. Ms. West felt that Ms. Kolosey was being unfair to her and that she was taking the word of students over Ms. West’s denials. Ms. West felt that because Ms. Kolosey believed the allegations of some of the students, the students somehow felt they were empowered and made even more accusations. In order to give Ms. West another fresh start, Ms. West was transferred to sixth-grade classes for the 2003- 2004 school year. Dan Stevens was assigned as her supervisor, and Ms. Kolosey had no further dealings with complaints regarding Ms. West. Because of the evaluation which Ms. West received at the end of the 2002-2003 school year, she was given a performance improvement plan on August 12, 2003. Among other things, the plan called for Ms. West to “[a]void use of inappropriate comments to students that they may find humiliating or demeaning in nature.” Ms. West was told to “[u]se wait time before responding to students[’] inappropriate behavior” and to “[r]emember to always praise student publicly and to correct them privately.” On August 25, 2003, Mr. Stevens received an email from the Azalea Middle School sixth-grade guidance counselor, advising him that there had been a complaint by a student that Ms. West had disclosed his grade in class without his permission and that the parent of another student, E.M., had called to complain that her daughter’s grade had been revealed to the other students. E.M.’s mother also wrote a letter to Mr. Stevens regarding her allegations that Ms. West was disclosing her daughter’s grades to the class. Because E.M.’s mother felt that Ms. West was acting inappropriately, she refused to allow E.M. to attend Ms. West’s class. On October 7, 2003, a conference was held with Ms. West to discuss the allegations made by E.M.’s mother. Ms. West denied disclosing E.M.’s grade. E.M. was transferred from Ms. West’s class to another class. In late August 2005, J.T., a sixth-grader at Azalea Middle School, was transferred to Ms. West’s health class. On September 2, 2005, J.T. called his stepmother during class and handed the telephone to Ms. West so that she could talk to his stepmother. Ms. West discussed with the stepmother that J.T. had failed a test and that he had not returned the test to her with a signature of one of his parents. This conversation was held during class time and in a manner that the other students could hear Ms. West. Ms. West called L.D. about her son, T.D., during class hours to complain that T.D. was making a failing grade. L.D. could hear students in the background. Ms. West made remarks to students which were disparaging and embarrassing. One remark made by Ms. West to T.J. was, “You must have studied in the dark.” Ms. West had been talking to T.J. about his low grade on a test. T.J. said that he had studied for the test, and Ms. West responded that he must have studied in the dark. Ms. West has also made this comment to other students who had made low grades on tests. Ms. West also told T.J. in front of other classmates to “Take your grow-up pill.” T.J. is small in stature and sensitive about his size. Ms. West denied that she was making a reference to his small size and contends that she was just trying to tell him that he was acting immaturely. Although Ms. West did not intend to make fun of T.J.’s small size, she should have known that such comments could embarrass him. Ms. West made the comment, “Dumb boys make dumb babies” during her health class in the fall of 2005. She contends that she was trying to make the students aware that they should think about the consequences of the decisions that they make in life. Although Ms. West was trying to convey an appropriate message, she chose an inappropriate means to do so. At the final hearing, Ms. West stated that she had made the remark to two girls, who were discussing a particular student. In essence, she referred to the young man as being dumb, which was not appropriate. Based on the numerous complaints that the administration received about Ms. West’s behavior, the Pinellas County School Board made investigations and terminated Ms. West’s employment with the Pinellas County School Board. Both administrators and parents found that Ms. West was an ineffective teacher. Based on the numerous complaints from parents and the necessity to transfer students from Ms. West’s classes to other classes, Ms. West was an ineffective teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Ms. West guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(f), 1012.795(1)(i), and 1012.795(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(g), and 6B-1.006(3)(i) and suspending Ms. West’s educator’s certificate for three years, followed by a two-year probationary period under terms and conditions set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 22nd day of October, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her sex and/or in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's business provides consulting and technical-services management on a contract basis. Specifically, the business involves performing environmental consulting, engineering, remediation/construction, and information technology services to both private and public entities throughout the country. Petitioner began working for Respondent in February 1998 as a receptionist and administrative assistant in Respondent's Jacksonville, Florida, office. Her duties included answering the phones, processing mail, filing, creating, and revising reports. Petitioner's job description also included providing administrative support to the engineers, scientists, project managers, and geologists in the office. Initially, Petitioner worked under the direction of Sam Patterson, Respondent's division director. After Mr. Patterson resigned, Sam Pratt became Respondent's manager and Petitioner's supervisor in the Jacksonville office. On or about March 24, 1998, Respondent evaluated Petitioner's work performance. The evaluation indicates that Petitioner was outstanding in the following expected behavior and performance areas: (a) knowledge; (b) initiative/problem solving; and (c) relations with others. Petitioner received an excellent rating in all other performance areas, including the following: (a) communication/marketing ability; (b) quality of work; (c) dependability; and (d) adaptability/professional development. Respondent paid for Petitioner to attend computer courses. Petitioner completed the following courses on the following dates: (a) April 29, 1998, Beginning Power Point; (b) September 19, 1998, Beginning Excel; (c) January 7, 1999, Beginning Word; (d) March 25, 1999, Intermediate Excel; (e) April 9, 1999, Intermediate Word 97; and (f) April 27, 1999, Advanced Excel. Mr. Pratt evaluated Petitioner's job performance on March 11, 1999. He found that Petitioner met the expected behavior and performance requirements in all areas. Mr. Pratt listed her strengths as follows: (a) has good relationship with clients; (b) works long hours to meet deadlines; (c) has excellent knowledge of company resources and corporate information; and (d) has detailed filing system that allows for tracking data. Mr. Pratt listed her weaknesses as follows: (a) has failed to contact office when unavailable to work due to family illness; (b) lacks computer skills necessary for a project assistant; (c) fails to perform a complete review of her own work; and (d) takes constructive criticism too personally. There were no areas in which Petitioner failed or exceeded her job requirements. In July 1999, Gregg Roof became Respondent's manager and Petitioner's supervisor in the Jacksonville office. Mr. Roof experienced problems with Petitioner's job performance, finding that she had difficulty completing simple tasks, such as copying, without making errors. Merve Dale was a geologist who worked for Respondent. Mr. Dale worked part-time in the field and part-time in Respondent's Jacksonville office. Petitioner found Mr. Dale's behavior offensive on several occasions. In June 1999, Mr. Dale told Petitioner that he could not smell the toxic odor in the warehouse but he could smell her perfume, which made him want to jump her. Petitioner ignored Mr. Dale and did not immediately report this statement to Mr. Roof. Mr. Dale sent Petitioner an e-mail from his home on August 19, 1999. The message stated, "I have sent myself a test message and I thought of you, so here is another test to see if my e-mail works from home. Have a wonderful day." Petitioner responded electronically that she had received the message. Petitioner then called Richard May, Respondent's senior regional manager in the Tallahassee, Florida, office. Petitioner told Mr. May that she was not happy about the content of the e-mail message or the fact that it was sent from Mr. Dale's home at 6:00 a.m. She also informed Mr. May about Mr. Dale's prior comment about smelling her perfume. However, Petitioner did not want Mr. May to take any action against Mr. Dale. She specifically stated that she did not want to file a formal complaint pursuant to Respondent's anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policy. She wanted to deal with the situation herself. Later that same day, Mr. Dale called the office from the field to ask Petitioner to have lunch with him. Petitioner declined the offer, stating that she usually worked through the lunch hour. Petitioner did not report this incident to Mr. Roof or Mr. May immediately. In the afternoon, Mr. Dale asked Petitioner what he was going to get in return for giving her charge numbers for her timecard. Petitioner responded that the question was what he would not get, which was a hard time. When Mr. Dale indicated that it was not a fair exchange, Petitioner replied, "That's the way it is." Mr. Dale then gave Petitioner the information she needed for her timecard. Petitioner did not immediately report this incident to Mr. Roof or Mr. May. On August 20, 1999, Mr. Dale was with Petitioner when another geologist asked her if she was wearing a new outfit because she really looked sharp. Petitioner laughed and responded negatively, stating that she was finally losing weight and able to wear some old clothes. At that point, Mr. Dale stated, "I told her she was really looking hot and she better watch out." Mr. Dale then reached out with a roll of drawings, five feet in length, and slapped Petitioner on her backside. Petitioner immediately told Mr. Dale to behave himself. In a letter to Mr. Dale dated August 24, 1999, Petitioner recounted the above-referenced incidents and demanded an apology. The letter specifically informed Mr. Dale that his actions were unwanted and offensive. Petitioner furnished Mr. Roof with a copy of the letter. Mr. Roof and Petitioner also shared her concerns with Mr. May. Mr. Roof subsequently counseled with Mr. Dale and Petitioner. During the meeting with Mr. Roof on August 25, 2000, Petitioner rejected Mr. Dale's apology. Mr. Roof then proceeded to admonish Mr. Dale, warning him that his behavior towards Petitioner was inappropriate. Petitioner did not request Mr. Roof or Mr. May to take any further action against Mr. Dale even though she knew she could have filed a formal complaint pursuant to Respondent's policies and procedures. On February 18, 2000, Petitioner happened to be alone in the office with Mr. Dale. She was helping him label samples for shipment to a laboratory when Mr. Dale handed Petitioner a doctor's business card. Mr. Dale stated that he found the card on the sidewalk in front of the office entrance and wondered if it might belong to Petitioner. Other than giving Petitioner the business card, Mr. Dale did not say or do anything to Petitioner. Petitioner concedes that it was customary for staff to give found items to her as the office receptionist. However, the business card made Petitioner feel uncomfortable because it listed the name of a gynecologist who specialized in reproductive endocrinology, infertility, pelvic reconstructive surgery, and gynecology. Petitioner kept the business card and faxed a copy of it to Mr. May in Tallahassee. When she called Mr. May, he said he would talk to Mr. Dale. Mr. May was extremely supportive of Petitioner and took her complaints regarding the card seriously. Petitioner requested Mr. May to report the incident to Faye Thompson, Respondent's director of Human Resources. This was the first time that Petitioner had made such a request. During the telephone conversation, Mr. May asked Petitioner if she wanted to transfer to the Tallahassee office so that he could protect her. Mr. May and Petitioner had previously discussed such a transfer because some of her duties were regional in nature. Petitioner responded that she would think about it. In an e-mail dated February 22, 2000, Mr. May asked Petitioner to plan a luncheon for Ms. Thompson and other employees who would attend a project manager's seminar at the Jacksonville office. Petitioner responded that she would be happy to prepare the meal and other refreshments for the seminar. On February 23, 2000, in anticipation of the seminar, Petitioner asked Mr. Roof if he was going to have the warehouse cleaned over the weekend. He responded negatively because the staff had already worked long hours. Petitioner then stated that she would work on the weekend to organize the files and certain areas of the warehouse. Mr. Roof again responded negatively, explaining that he did not want to pay overtime. When Petitioner continued to insist on cleaning the office for the dignitaries, she and Mr. Roof had a verbal exchange in front of other staff. Petitioner followed Mr. Roof into his office. She then asked him what she should do with the extra electronic equipment stored in the cubicles. When Mr. Roof told her to throw it in the dumpster, Petitioner refused and began to question him about the company's policy for disposing of excess equipment. Next, Mr. Roof closed his office door and began to explain that he was tired of having to tell Petitioner things multiple times and that he did not want her to clean the office. Although Mr. Roof inappropriately raised his voice in talking to Petitioner, there is no persuasive evidence that he blocked her exit from the office after Petitioner requested him to move. Mr. Roof lost his temper with Petitioner, but he was not retaliating against her because she accused Mr. Dale of sexual harassment. Instead, Mr. Roof was frustrated because Petitioner would not follow his directions. Before the day was over, Mr. Roof and Petitioner had a civil discussion about the incident. Petitioner was upset about Mr. Roof's behavior. She subsequently expressed her feelings to Mr. May in a telephone call. On February 29, 2000, Ms. Thompson was in the Jacksonville office for the project manager's meeting. After the meeting, Ms. Thompson spoke to Petitioner about her sexual discrimination claim. During the conversation, Petitioner gave Ms. Thompson a copy of the August 24, 1999, letter to Mr. Dale and a copy of the business card. On or about March 1, 2000, Mr. May met with Mr. Roof and Petitioner to complete Petitioner's work evaluation. During the meeting, Mr. May counseled Petitioner and Mr. Roof. Mr. Roof again apologized to Petitioner for his losing his temper on February 23, 2000. The written evaluation indicates that Petitioner did not meet her job requirements in the following areas: (a) decision making; (b) reliability; and (c) quality and quantity of work. According to the evaluation, Petitioner met her job requirements in the following areas: (a) knowledge of job; (b) interpersonal and communication skills; and (c) professional development. The only area that Petitioner exceeded job requirements was in safety. The performance evaluation correctly reflected several areas in which Petitioner had a positive influence in the office. Some examples of her contributions include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Petitioner successfully coordinated health and safety training for Respondent's offices in Florida; (b) Petitioner was an excellent person to represent Respondent when performing telephone reception duties; (c) Petitioner performed successfully as the regional human resources representative; and (d) Petitioner successfully coordinated partner meetings, including making hotel reservations and arranging for meeting rooms. The evaluation also correctly reflected Petitioner's job performance skills that required improvement. These skills included the following: (a) Petitioner had a poor attitude toward her supervisor as indicated by her failure to follow directions and her failure to understand office hierarchy; Petitioner had difficulty prioritizing her work; Petitioner often seemed overwhelmed by a minimal amount of work resulting in a disorganized desk and poorly maintained files; (d) Petitioner spent too much time in personal telephone conversations; (e) Petitioner rarely made an effort to determine when assigned work was due so that it could be completed in a timely fashion; and (f) Petitioner's word processing and spreadsheet manipulation skills were below standards required for a person in her position. Mr. May wanted all administrative personnel to work more as "project assistants," helping the professionals with the administrative tasks of particular projects. Petitioner assured Mr. Roof and Mr. May that she would make an effort to improve her performance. Soon thereafter, Ms. Thompson called to thank Petitioner for the luncheon and snacks during the project manager's meeting. Ms. Thompson also inquired whether Petitioner had thought more about transferring to the Tallahassee office. Petitioner said she would make the move if the company paid her expenses. Some time after the March 2000 evaluation, Petitioner informed Mr. May that she did not believe she could sufficiently demonstrate her skills to receive the promotion and pay raise she wanted while she worked in the Jacksonville office. Mr. May again offered Petitioner an opportunity for a fresh start in the Tallahassee office working directly for him. However, Mr. May cautioned Petitioner that her work performance had to improve if she were going to accept the offer. Mr. May agreed that Respondent would reimburse Petitioner for her relocation expenses. Petitioner moved to Tallahassee, Florida, and began working in the Tallahassee on or about May 1, 2000. In her new position, Petitioner worked as receptionist and administrative assistant. Once again her duties included providing administrative support to the professionals in the office. At all times material here, Petitioner enjoyed working for Mr. May. She does not attribute any discriminatory or harassing behavior to him. However, immediately after her transfer, Petitioner again demonstrated deficiencies in her job performance. Mr. May had hoped that Petitioner would become a "resource" for him. Instead, the opposite was true despite the additional training provided to Petitioner. Petitioner often went to Mr. May with questions regarding simple tasks that were part of her regular job duties. It did not take Mr. May long to confirm Mr. Pratt's and Mr. Roof's earlier complaints regarding deficiencies in Petitioner's performance. Mr. May began to document his observations about Petitioner's job performance. On May 8, 2000, Petitioner did not get to work until 9:00 a.m. Additionally, another employee had to take the regular FedEx to the kiosk because Petitioner did not get it out on time. On May 9, 2000, Petitioner again failed to get the regular FedEx out on time. This failure was more serious because the package contained checks in the amount of $32,000. On May 10, 2000, Petitioner did not get to work until after 9:00 a.m. Other staff members had to interrupt their work to sign for deliveries. Later that day, Mr. May told Petitioner that she did not have to put cover sheets on all her work. Petitioner then complained that she had to do "regional stuff" all the time. On May 19, 2000, Petitioner did not get the FedEx delivery out on time. The package had several checks in it, as well as an important communication regarding an offer of employment for a new employee. On May 22, 2000, Petitioner was not in the office by 9:15 a.m. In the meantime, Petitioner began to experience interpersonal relationship problems with members of the staff. For example, problems with Karen Harnett, Respondent's systems administrator, began soon after Petitioner made the move. The evidence indicates that Ms. Harnett was a bully who routinely picked on people. Ms. Harnett's attitude caused one employee to quit her job and caused another employee to seek help from Respondent's employee assistance program. However, there is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever condoned Ms. Harnett's behavior in retaliation for Petitioner's filing of the sexual harassment complaint. In June 2000, Ms. Harnett and two other staff members found it amusing to harass an employee who worked for VALIC, an investment firm located in Respondent's office building. The harassment resulted in a feud over parking spaces in the building's parking lot. Petitioner was aware of Ms. Harnett's inappropriate actions but did not participate in the harassment. Petitioner did not know that it was customary for Respondent's receptionist to accept deliveries for VALIC when its office was closed. One day, Petitioner refused to accept a delivery of a UPS or FedEx package for VALIC. Later, the VALIC employee stormed into Respondent's office demanding to know why Petitioner had refused the delivery. Howard Engle, one of Respondent's project managers, heard the encounter between the VALIC employee and Petitioner. He went to the front of the office to see what was going on. Jimmy Hatcher, the building's owner, later complained to Mr. May about Petitioner's refusal to accept the package. Mr. May was not in the office with the VALIC incident took place. When he returned to the office, he heard several versions about the dispute. He concluded that Petitioner's poor decision-making and reaction to the angry VALIC employee had contributed, at least in part, to undermine Respondent's positive working relationship with Respondent's neighbor. On or about June 14, 2000, Mr. May discussed the VALIC incident with Petitioner. During that conversation, Mr. May also counseled Petitioner regarding her working relationship with other employees. He advised her to pay more attention to details and to improve her technical skills. Mr. May explained to Petitioner that several of the professionals in the office avoided giving her work because they lacked confidence in her work. He encouraged her to work more cooperatively with the professionals in the office. During the conversation on June 14, 2000, Petitioner admitted that she needed to improve her computer skills. She felt that everyone was against her and that Mr. May's only option was to go ahead and fire her. Mr. May later sent Ms. Thompson a summary of his conversation with Petitioner. On June 16, 2000, Mr. Engle sent Mr. May an e-mail complaining about Petitioner's substandard performance. The message stated that Mr. Engle had resorted to doing his own copying because he could not depend on Petitioner. Additionally, she had misplaced an important laboratory report, which would not have been delivered in a timely manner if another employee had not discovered Petitioner's error. Mr. Engle also complained that Petitioner had misfiled and never shown him a time-sensitive letter from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regarding Respondent's re-certification to perform work in the state. This error could have had a calamitous impact on Respondent's business interests. In a written correspondence dated June 29, 2000, Mr. May gave Petitioner a written warning that she would be terminated if her job performance did not improve. The communication outlined specific job performance areas that required immediate and sustained improvement. As of June 29, 2000, Petitioner had misdirected incoming facsimile transmissions, failed to ensure that outgoing FedEx deliveries met the regular schedule, and sent at least one FedEx delivery to the wrong location. Competent evidence indicates that Petitioner needed to pay more attention to detail. Petitioner failed to proofread final drafts of monthly reports that she prepared. As of June 29, 2000, every such report had errors in them. Petitioner failed to focus on directions for work assignments. She often failed to return the work in the order that it was assigned. Petitioner failed to prioritize her work. She did not give project-related activities priority over day-to-day overhead issues. When Petitioner felt overwhelmed by an assignment, she was unwilling to shift gears to handle a higher priority activity. Petitioner had difficulty working the office schedule. She needed to understand that she could not work a later schedule. She also had to understand that overtime pay would not be authorized except for work directly related to client projects or for important overhead objectives. Petitioner failed to be accountable to the professional staff that depended on her administrative assistance. At times, she was unwilling to accept work assignments from staff members other than Mr. May. At times Petitioner was argumentative with her co-workers and inflexible regarding office procedures and protocols. She needed to moderate her behavior towards her co-workers. Petitioner was paid at Respondent's top pay rate for the second highest administrative support grade. She should have been serving as a resource for staff members that were not expected to have expertise in word processing. However, Petitioner's computer proficiency was at a beginners level at best. At times, Mr. May had to assist Petitioner with computer skills that she should have mastered. After receiving the written warning, Petitioner showed no improvement in her job performance or ability to work with the people in Respondent's Tallahassee office. Therefore, Mr. May terminated Petitioner's employment on July 25, 2000, for substandard work performance. Respondent's decision to fire Petitioner was based solely upon her poor performance record. It was not a result of any complaints she made against Mr. Dale the preceding year when she worked in the Jacksonville office. In making his decision to terminate Petitioner, Mr. May did not receive input from anyone in the Jacksonville office or from any other of Respondent's employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sharon Jensen 2692 Spring Lake Road Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists to discipline Respondent based on allegations that she used inappropriate language when talking to students in violation of the Code of Ethics and/or the Principles of Professional Conduct, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing all employees for public schools within Duval County. In addition to the regular K-12 classes, the School Board has created the Bridge for Success program. The Bridge operates at eight sites within the Duval County school system. One of those sites is Ribault High School (“Ribault”). The Bridge is a new program, created to assist students who have fallen behind their chronologically-aged peers due to academic or other problems. The program is an innovative approach aimed at helping students who have fallen behind catch up with their peers and graduate from high school at about the same time as others of their same age. Many of the students in the Bridge program have behavioral issues as well as academic struggles. They can be a difficult group of students to teach. The goal of the Bridge program is “to promote and graduate” those students, to improve their attendance, and to teach them how to function as students. At its inception, there were 864 students in the program, distributed among the eight campuses. There were 108 students assigned to Ribault. By the end of the first school year, only 75 to 80 students remained in the program at Ribault. Some students had dropped out of school, some had moved to a different school, and it was difficult midway through the school year to replace those who had left. At all times relevant hereto, Quiller was a math teacher in the Bridge program at the Ribault location. She was hired for that position just prior to the 2013-2014 school year, the final year of the Bridge program. She had been teaching in the Duval County school system as a mathematics teacher for 21 years. Quiller is a graduate of Ribault and has very strong ties to the school. Quiller was chosen as a teacher for the Bridge program for many reasons: she was a graduate of Ribault and held a special place in her heart for the school and its students; she was certified in grades six through 12 for math, a less than common certification; she had a master’s degree in Guidance, giving her a better background and training for facing the Bridge students; she had been previously assigned to an alternative school for behavioral problem students; and, she demonstrated the kind of caring personality necessary for the challenges of teaching such students. When Quiller was hired, she mistakenly thought her position would be in the area of guidance. However, she was hired to teach math, partly in recognition of her status as a certified teacher in that area. She was hired to teach several math classes in the Bridge program, including Algebra I and II, Math for College, and Geometry. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, the Bridge was not entirely ready for implementation at Ribault. There was a shortage of books and other materials and the program had not yet filled all the required staff positions. The start- up of the program was a challenge for both the teachers and school administrators. Also, the students in the Bridge program were not always cooperative or interested in school. No one denies that it was a difficult situation for all involved. Despite the lack of materials and adequate staff, Quiller’s classes began relatively well. She was a very strict teacher, demanding participation by all students regardless of their level of interest. She expected and required each student to be fully prepared when they entered the classroom. For example, the students were expected to have pen/pencil and paper, to have their homework completed, and to be ready for class. She was, however, very frustrated at times because many of the students seemed to ignore the fact that they were being given a second chance. They continued to demonstrate the kind of behavior that caused them to fall behind in the first place. As a result of their behaviors, many of the students in her classes were failing. Most of the students who testified at final hearing were in agreement that the classroom was fairly unruly, but agreed that Quiller was a stern disciplinarian and reacted promptly to quell any disruptions. Conversely, one student said the class was always quiet and that Quiller would make anyone making noise leave the classroom. Principal Davis began getting some complaints about Quiller beginning in September 2013, a month or so after commencement of the school year. The first complaints were relayed to her from assistant principal Micheau. During the first pep rally of the year (in late August), Micheau had been sitting with a group of students who were being disciplined and therefore, could not attend the rally. The students brought up unsolicited complaints about Quiller, saying that Quiller had used profanity towards her students. Micheau relayed these allegations to Principal Davis and Davis instructed Micheau to meet with Quiller and remind her that such language was not acceptable. Micheau met with Quiller and attempted to explain-- without being accusatory--that it was improper to use such language in front of students. Quiller denied ever having used inappropriate language with students; Micheau took Quiller at her word at that time. Sometime later, Micheau heard loud talking emanating from Quiller’s classroom area. When she investigated, she saw Quiller standing in the hallway next to her room. She was yelling loudly at a student and was obviously very upset. Micheau attempted to call her over and calm her down, calling out her name over and over, “Ms. Quiller. Ms. Quiller. Ms. Quiller.” Quiller yelled at Micheau to reprimand the student rather than her, saying, “You [Micheau] need to talk to these damn kids!” Micheau, shocked at Quiller’s language and her anger, removed the student from the classroom, and went back to her office. A few weeks later, Micheau was in her office adjacent to Quiller’s classroom. She and Rita Franklin, who was at the school that day as a School Improvement Coach, heard a loud commotion outside the office and went to investigate. When they came out of the office, they saw the school security guard already moving toward the sounds emanating from Quiller’s classroom. Upon arrival at the classroom, Micheau and Franklin heard Quiller talking very loudly to her students. She threatened to throw one student’s test paper into the trash. She told the students that the work they were being asked to do was third-grade work and they still could not get it right. She referred to the students as “hooligans” or “hoodlums.” When Quiller saw Micheau and Franklin outside her door, she reduced the volume and changed the content of her comments to the students. Quiller’s demeanor and actions were inconsistent with professional behavior by a teacher. Quiller denies making any of the alleged statements, except for the comment about some of the work being third-grade level. According to Quiller, that comment was made about some supplemental work she had assigned to an algebra project; she told the students it was third-grade work so they should not be intimidated by it. As to the comments about being flunkies, Quiller maintains that all she said was that the boys were flunking her class, although that would not have been an appropriate thing to say in front of other students. While Quiller seems to be generally honest and forthright, the most credible evidence is that she made remarks to the students along the lines of what Franklin and Micheau reported. Crimley, the security guard who was also present during one of the outbursts, heard Quiller say something about “getting this kid out of my damn class.” Crimley usually went into Quiller’s classroom three-to-five times a day but never heard her curse at students during those visits. Crimley attempted to testify at final hearing that some students had recanted their accusations against Quiller because “it had gone too far” and they did not want Quiller to be sanctioned. That testimony was not allowed due to its hearsay nature, but it is also inconsistent with the testimony of the students who testified at final hearing. On another occasion, Quiller was talking loudly to a student named Wayne and one or two other male students. The boys were doing some sort of vulgar dance and were attempting to enter the classroom at about the time the tardy bell was ringing. Quiller said something to the effect of “you are a bunch of flunkies and you need my class” and “your dirty ass can’t come into my class.” Both Micheau and another teacher, Ms. Crowden- Richardson, heard those comments. By the end of the first semester, i.e., about the time of the winter break from school, Principal Davis began getting additional complaints from students and their parents about Quiller. T.C., who was likely about to fail Quiller’s class, remembers hearing Quiller saying such things as “you kids can’t remember [sh--],” and “[N---s] always coming into my class and sleeping,” and she said students were coming into her class when high on drugs. C.F., who had a D and C on his first two grade reports from Quiller's class, heard Quiller say, “Y’all don’t do [sh--],” and also that students had been “smoking weed.” A.P., a D and F student in Quiller’s class, reported that Quiller told the class to “shut the [f---] up,” told kids to get their “ass” out of the classroom, and referred to students as “[N---s].” A.P. said these things were not yelled in anger, but in a normal tone of voice. F.H., an admittedly problem student, remembers Quiller telling a student to “Sit your ass down and come to class on time.” She also heard Quiller say, “[N---], please,” or some such comment. None of the aforementioned students’ testimony was individually very persuasive. Each of the students was struggling in class and had received their poor grades just prior to the time of the comments they reported hearing. It is certainly possible they had an axe to grind with Quiller. One student (D.R.) who testified that he never heard Quiller make such comments was passing the class, had regular attendance, and generally commended Quiller for being strict and stern with problem students. Nonetheless, the students’ description of Quiller’s comments and behavior was fairly consistent. The things they reported Quiller saying were very similar to contemporaneously written statements from them and other students. The alleged remarks were similar in nature to one another but not exactly the same, so the comments did not seem rehearsed or planned. The students were very direct and unwavering when testifying at final hearing. The greater weight of the evidence supports the contention that Quiller used inappropriate language in her classroom. In the letter notifying Quiller of her termination from employment, it is alleged that Quiller made the following inappropriate communications: “Kids do not do [sh--],” “You all should know this [sh--] already,” “Shut the [f---] up,” “Get out of my [f---ing] class,” “You do not do your [f---ing] work,” “You little [N---s],” and “You are all some lazy [N---s] for coming to class late.” There was not enough credible testimony to support all of the allegations that each of those things was said to students or in the presence of students. There was, however, sufficient evidence to support that some of those statements had likely been made. The contemporaneous written statements by students and staff support the verbal recollections made at final hearing, at least in part. While the students were making disparaging comments about Quiller, she was in turn making complaints to school administration concerning the program. She lamented the lack of materials and raised concerns about her own safety in the classroom. More than once, Quiller walked out of her classroom as she became too frustrated to teach. It was undoubtedly a very difficult situation for Quiller and other teachers. All in all, the Bridge program had elements of success as well as some problems. Some of the students were able to graduate with their classmates, some were able to catch up to those in their age cohorts, and some came to the realization that school simply would not be appropriate for them. The program gave students a good chance to make up for past failures. But it was not a panacea and did not work for everyone. Quiller asked that certain students be removed from her classes because she believed they were poisoning the other students. Some were removed, some were not. Quiller gave far more D's and F's to her students than other teachers in the program. Many of her students began to receive passing grades after Quiller was replaced, however. Quiller maintains that the low grades were given because the students earned them, i.e., they were not issued as punishment or retribution for bad behavior. But the students’ subsequent success under a different teacher suggests otherwise. Quiller appeared unemotional and stoic when discussing the allegations against her. Some of her responses to questions at final hearing seemed to be aimed at avoiding the allegations rather than denying them. She had undeniably been placed in a very trying and vexatious situation and tried to make the best of it, but she very well may have crossed the line at times with her words and behavior. It is impossible to place oneself in the environment in which Quiller was working, but it is easy to see that the classroom problems she faced could drive a person to outbursts on occasion. As opined by Davis and Micheau, there is never a valid reason to curse at students, but there are times when doing so could be more understandable. Quiller had been reprimanded in the past for using profanity in the presence of students. She received discipline on two separate occasions for her language. While she denied the allegations, there is some support for the premise that Quiller, on occasion, used profanity around or directly to her students. Even those who support her recognized that Quiller would sometimes use profanity, albeit fairly innocuous and restrained in nature. There is a strong suggestion in the testimony that Quiller was using such language in the hopes it would resonate with these students, described as the worst of the worst. However, there is no acceptable rationale for using such language around students. Quiller was placed in an almost untenable situation with the students assigned to her classes. They were unruly and generally well behind academically. She did not have all the tools needed to work with the students and her classes were too large. Nonetheless, she was expected to maintain her composure and professionalism. While that is easy to say without “walking a mile in her shoes,” it is still a prerequisite for teaching that the teacher act professionally and not do anything to disparage the students. Quiller was by all accounts a good teacher prior to her involvement in the Bridge for Success program. She received a most difficult teaching certification and had favorable annual reviews for most of her time as a teacher. She was sought and hired as a teacher at Ribault on the basis of her distinguished career and training. She is not a bad person or a bad teacher. However, she succumbed to a harsh situation and failed to maintain her decorum. Quiller’s prior disciplinary history included the following: December 2001--A written reprimand (Step II discipline) for using profanity in the presence of students; April 2013, 11 years later--A verbal reprimand (Step I) for making an inappropriate comment to a student; October 2013--A written reprimand (Step II) for using profanity and derogatory language in the presence of students; and February 26, 2014--The notice of termination at issue in the present case (Step IV). The School Board began its recent discipline of Quiller with a Step I verbal reprimand followed by a Step II written reprimand. Due to the nature of Quiller’s conduct, the School Board did not believe it had to follow the Step II discipline with Step III discipline, i.e., suspension without pay. Rather, it went directly to the most severe and extreme level of discipline, Step IV--Termination of employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board, rescinding its termination of the employment of Joyce Quiller and, instead, suspending her for a period of time without pay and reassigning her to a less-challenging position. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 16th day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Wendy Byndloss, Esquire Assistant General Counsel City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephanie M. Schaap, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Dr. Nikolai P. Vitti, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Pam Stewart, Commissioner 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
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend and terminate the Respondent's employment on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a Notice of Specific Charges. The allegations of misconduct charge the Respondent with immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Chico J. Arenas, was employed as a teacher by the Dade County Public Schools pursuant to a professional services contract. At the time of the hearing in this case, K. F. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is a former student of the Respondent. At the time of the hearing, E. W. was a fifteen-year-old student in the 10th grade. She is also a former student of the Respondent. Both K. F. and E. W. are females. Shortly after Halloween in 1990, one day when the Respondent and K. F. were alone in a classroom, the Respondent asked K. F. whether a male student named M. was "getting action." At that time M. was a close friend of K. F. The term "getting action" was a reference to sexual intercourse. When K. F. answered the question in the negative, the Respondent repeated the question and also made statements to the effect of, "M. is lucky," that he had "heard Jamaicans are wicked in bed," and that "older guys will show you more." The Respondent also told K. F. that she made him "excited." K. F. construed these statements as being sexual in nature. As a result of these statements by the Respondent, K. F. lost the trust she had in her teacher and never went back to his class. The incident involving K. F. resulted in the Respondent being made formally aware of the School Board's policies with regard to inappropriate statements to female students containing expressed or implied sexual references and the Respondent was specifically directed to avoid sexual harassment of female students. Beginning in February of 1992, on three separate Saturdays, at approximately 11:00 a.m. on each of those days, the Respondent telephoned E. W. at her home. At that time E. W. was one of the Respondent's students. On each of those occasions the Respondent's statements to E. W. were of a personal nature and had nothing to do with the fulfillment of Respondent's duties as a teacher. On the first of the three telephone calls to E. W., the Respondent identified himself, but there was very little other conversation. Shortly after the Respondent identified himself to her, E. W. told him that she was doing something and asked if he could call back later. During the course of the second telephone call, the Respondent made statements to E. W. to the effect that he "liked" her and that he had "feelings" for her. The Respondent also told E. W. that she was "a beautiful young lady" and that she "had a nice shape." After just a few such statements, E. W. told the Respondent to call back later and she hung up. The Respondent's statements during the second telephone conversation led E. W. to believe that the Respondent had a romantic or sexual interest in her. During the course of his third Saturday telephone call to E. W., the Respondent repeated statements to the effect that he liked her, that she had a beautiful shape, and that she was a beautiful young lady. He went on to also tell her such things as that "he wanted to wrap his hands around [her] and hold [her] tight," that "he wanted to give [her] things," that her boyfriend "didn't have to know what was going on," and he also told her "not to tell her mamma [she] was talking to him on the phone." The Respondent also asked E. W. to meet him in the library near her home and to otherwise skip school so that she could be with him. The Respondent also made comments to the effect that he could do more for E. W. than her boyfriend could and that she was "a beautiful young lady, and [she] deserved beautiful things." As a result of the statements during the third Saturday telephone call, E. W. became convinced that the Respondent wanted to have a sexual relationship with her and she began taking steps to avoid the Respondent. As a student, E. W. was doing well in the Respondent's class. If she had had any personal problems that came to the attention of the Respondent, it would have been his responsibility to have referred her to one of the school counsellors. The Respondent is not certified as a counselor or as a psychologist. At the time of the telephone calls to E. W. described above, the Respondent did not have any school related business which required him to call E. W. at home, nor was he trying to reach E. W.'s mother. When the events described above were reported to school officials, the Respondent was removed from a school based employment site and reassigned to work elsewhere. The reassignment and the reasons for it became known to a number of administrators, teachers, parents, and students. The disclosure of information about the matter resulted in part from statements the Respondent made to others. The Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been impaired as a result of his conduct with E. W. and his prior principal would be reluctant to rehire him as a teacher. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes misconduct in office and is a breach of his professional relationship of trust with students because it exposed a student to embarrassment and disparagement. The Respondent's conduct with E. W. also constitutes immorality.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of immorality, misconduct in office, and gross insubordination as charged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, on the basis of those conclusions, terminating the Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January 1994. APPENDIX The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted in substance with some details modified in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 4: Rejected as irrelevant because the conduct described here was not charged in the Notice of Specific Charges. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, the unnumbered paragraphs following 7, 8, and 9: Accepted in substance with some details modified in he interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraphs 10 and 11: The essence of these paragraphs has been accepted, but most details have been omitted as unnecessary. Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent: By way of clarification, it is noted that the Respondent submitted two post-hearing documents in support of his positions on the issues: one titled RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSED ORDER RECOMMENDING REINSTATEMENT, and the other titled RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. The first of these two documents includes an extensive summary of the testimony, which summary has been carefully reviewed by the Hearing Officer. However, because those summaries do not constitute proposed findings of fact, they are not specifically addressed below. Here, as in the usual course of events, it would serve no useful purpose to recite at length the extent to which the summaries are or are not accurate and to do so would add to this Recommended Order voluminous subordinate and unnecessary details; details which have been carefully considered during the fact-finding in this case. Specifically addressed below are the paragraphs contained in the "Findings of Fact" portion of the RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (This disposition of the proposed findings is, in any event, irrelevant in view of the Hearing Officer's disposition of the immorality charge). Paragraph 4: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The evidence is sufficient to prove the acts alleged by a preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph 5: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as constituting a proposed conclusion of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. (On the basis of Johnson v. School Board of Dade County, 578 So.2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), the Hearing Officer has reached a conclusion different from the one proposed here.) COPIES FURNISHED: David Rothman, Esquire Thornton, Rothman and Emas, P.A. 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 James C. Bovell, Esquire 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Joyce Annunziata, Director Office of Professional Standards Dade County Public Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132 Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue #403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33122 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent satisfactorily corrected specified performance deficiencies within the 90-day probation period prescribed by Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Respondent's employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact One of the statutory duties of Petitioner Miami-Dade County School Board ("Board") is to evaluate the performance of every teacher employed in the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"), at least once per year. To accomplish this, the Board uses a personnel assessment system known as "PACES," which is an acronym for Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. PACES is the product of collective bargaining between the Board and the teachers' union, and it has been duly approved by the Florida Department of Education. The Board's evaluation procedure begins with an observation of the subject teacher, conducted by an administrator trained in the use of PACES. On a score sheet called the Observation Form for Annual Evaluation ("OFAE"), the evaluator rates the teacher's performance on 44 independently dispositive "indicators." The only grades assignable to the respective indicators are "acceptable" and "unacceptable"; thus, the evaluator's decision, for each indicator, is binary: yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down.1 A negative mark on any one of the 44 indicators results in an overall performance evaluation of "unsatisfactory." For the teacher under observation, therefore, each indicator constitutes, in effect, a pass/fail test, with his or her job hanging in the balance. If the teacher passes all 44 of the independently dispositive indicators, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory" and the evaluative process is complete. If, on the other hand, the teacher is given a failing grade on one or more of the 44 indicators and hence adjudged an unsatisfactory performer, then the initial observation is deemed to be "not of record" (i.e. inoperative) and a follow-up, "for the record" evaluation is scheduled to occur, upon notice to the affected teacher, about one month later. In the meantime, the teacher is offered the assistance of a Professional Growth Team ("PGT"), a group of peers who, having received special training in PACES, are in a position to help the affected teacher correct performance deficiencies in advance of the follow-up evaluation. The follow-up evaluation is conducted in the same manner as the initial "not of record" evaluation. If the teacher passes all 44 indicators, then his performance is deemed satisfactory and the evaluative process is complete. If he fails one or more of the indicators, however, then the teacher is placed on probation for a period of 90 calendar days (excluding vacations and holidays). The probation period is preceded by a formal Conference-for-the-Record ("CFR"), at which notice of the specific performance deficiencies is provided to the teacher. As well, the teacher is given a Professional Improvement Plan ("PIP"), wherein particular remedial tasks, intended to help the teacher correct the noted performance deficiencies, are assigned. During the performance probation, the teacher must be formally observed at least twice, by an evaluator using the OFAE. If, on any of these probationary observations, the teacher fails at least one indicator, then another PIP is prepared and offered. Within 14 days after the end of probation, a "confirmatory evaluation" is conducted, using the OFAE. The purpose of the confirmatory evaluation is to determine whether the noted performance deficiencies were corrected. If they were, then the teacher's performance is rated "satisfactory." If not, the principal then makes a recommendation to the superintendent whether to continue or terminate the teacher's employment. As mentioned above, a PACES evaluation takes account of 44 crucial indicators.2 The indicators are organized under "components." The 44 outcome determinative indicators fall within 21 components, which are identified on the OFAE. These components are organized, in turn, under "domains," of which six are identified on the OFAE. Each domain has been assigned a Roman numeral identifier: I through VI. The components are distinguished alphabetically: A, B, C, etc. The indicators are numbered using Arabic numerals. Each specific indicator is named according to the Roman numeral of its domain, the letter of its component, and its own Arabic number. Thus, for example, the first indicator under Component A of Domain I is referred to as "I.A.1." Notwithstanding the PACES taxonomy, the classifications of "domain" and "component" are useful only as a means of organizing the indicators. This is because a teacher does not pass or fail a performance evaluation at the domain level or at the component level; rather, he passes or fails at the indicator level, for, again, each of the 44 indicators is independently dispositive under PACES.3 Thus, each of the determinative 44 indicators is of precisely equal weight. None is more important or less important than another.4 B. At all times material to this case, Respondent Sergio H. Escalona ("Escalona") was a teacher in the District. From 2000 until May 19, 2004, when the Board suspended him pending termination of employment, Escalona was a science teacher at Miami Springs Senior High School ("Miami Springs"), a typical high school in the District. During the 2003-04 school year, an evaluator observed Escalona in his classroom on five separate occasions, each time using the OFAE. The dates of these evaluations were, and the names of the respective evaluators are, as follows: Evaluation Date Evaluator November 5, 2003 Carlos M. del Cuadro, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs December 2, 2003 Mr. del Cuadro January 16, 2004 Douglas P. Rodriguez, Principal, Miami Springs February 17, 2004 Deborah Carter, Assistant Principal, Miami Springs April 5, 2004 Mr. Rodriguez The Board contends that Escalona failed all five evaluations; the first, however, was deemed "not of record" and thus is relevant only insofar as it opened the door to the process that followed. The following table shows, for each evaluation (including the first), the indicators that the respective evaluators thought Escalona had failed: IA1 IA2 IB1 IB3 IE3 IF1 IF2 IIA1 IIA3 IIB2 IIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x 01-16-04 x x x 02-17-04 x x x x 04-05-04 x x x IID1 IID3 IID4 IIE1 IIE2 IIE5 IIIA1 IIIA3 IIIB1 IIIB3 IIIB4 11-05-03 x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x 01-16-04 x x 02-17-04 x 04-05-04 x x x x x IVA3 IVA 5 IVA6 IVB1 IVB2 IVB 3 IVC2 IVD1 IVD3 IVD6 IVE2 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x 02-17-04 x x x x x 04-05-04 x ? x ? x ? x x IVE4 VA1 VA4 VB1 VB2 VC1 VIA2 VIB1 VIB3 VIC2 VIC4 11-05-03 x x x x x x x x 12-02-03 x x x x 01-16-04 x x x x x x x 02-17-04 04-05-04 x ? ? ? x ? x x Because Mr. del Cuadro identified 10 performance deficiencies on December 2, 2003, Escalona was placed on performance probation, pursuant to the procedure described in detail above. Mr. Rodriguez held a CFR on December 9, 2004, to review with Escalona the identified deficiencies and explain the procedures relating to the 90-day probation. Following the CFR, Escalona was given written notice of unsatisfactory performance, in the form of a Summary of Conference-For-The-Record And Professional Improvement Plan (PIP), dated December 9, 2003 ("Summary"). In the Summary, Mr. Rodriguez charged Escalona with failure to satisfactorily perform the following PACES indicators: II.B.4, II.E.5, III.B.3, IV.A.5, IV.B.1, IV.D.1, V.A.1, V.A.4, V.B.1, and VI.A.2. (These 10 indicators are highlighted vertically in the table above.) At the same time, Escalona was given a PIP, and a PGT was assembled to provide assistance. Following the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, based on which Mr. Rodriguez identified 24 deficiencies as shown in the table above, Mr. Rodriguez notified the superintendent that Escalona had failed to correct noted performance deficiencies during a 90-day probation and recommended that Escalona's employment be terminated. The superintendent accepted Mr. Rodriguez's recommendation on April 12, 2004, and shortly thereafter notified Escalona of his decision to recommend that the Board terminate Escalona's employment contract. On May 19, 2004, the Board voted to do just that. C. Of the four evaluations "for the record," the two that were conducted during Escalona's probation (on January 16, 2004, and February 17, 2004) are presently relevant mainly to establish that the proper procedure was followed——a matter that is not genuinely disputed. The substance of these probationary evaluations cannot affect the outcome here because even if Escalona's performance had been perfect during probation, Mr. Rodriguez nevertheless found deficiencies during the post- probation, confirmatory evaluation, which is the only one probative of the dispositive question: Had Escalona corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period after the close of the 90 calendar days' probation? In view of the ultimate issue, the evaluation of December 2, 2003, is primarily relevant because it established the 10 "noted performance deficiencies" that Escalona needed to correct. For reasons that will be discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, the Board cannot terminate Escalona's employment based on other deficiencies allegedly found during probation or at the confirmatory evaluation; rather, it must focus exclusively on those 10 particular deficiencies which Escalona was given 90 calendar days to correct. Thus, stated more precisely, the ultimate question in this case is whether any of the 10 specific deficiencies identified in the Summary provided to Escalona on December 9, 2003, persisted after the 90-day probation. As it happened, Mr. Rodriguez determined, as a result of the confirmatory evaluation on April 5, 2004, that Escalona had corrected three of the 10 noted performance deficiencies, for Mr. Rodriguez gave Escalona a passing grade on the indicators II.B.4, II.E.5, and III.B.3. The remaining seven deficiencies upon which termination could legally be based are identified in the table above with the "?" symbol. It is to these seven allegedly uncorrected deficiencies that our attention now must turn. The Board contends, based on Mr. Rodriguez's confirmatory evaluation of April 5, 2004, that Escalona was still, as of that date, failing satisfactorily to perform the following PACES indicators: 5: The purpose or importance of learning tasks is clear to learners. 1: Teaching and learning activities are appropriate for the complexity of the learning context. IV.D.1: Learners have opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive and/or performance level or to integrate knowledge and understandings. V.A.1: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved in developing associations. 4: Learners are actively engaged and/or involved and encouraged to generate and think about examples from their own experiences. 1: A variety of questions that enable thinking are asked and/or solicited. VI.A.2: Learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks is monitored. The only descriptive evidence in the record regarding Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004——and hence the only evidence of historical fact upon which the undersigned can decide whether Escalona failed adequately to perform the seven indicators just mentioned——consists of Mr. Rodriguez's testimony. Mr. Rodriguez, who had observed Escalona in the classroom for 50 minutes that day, recounted at final hearing what he had seen as follows: Again, there were students that were simply not engaged at all in learning. For example, there was a student that put his head down at a particular time. He slept for about fifteen minutes. Mr. Escalona never addressed the student, never redirected the learning, never tried to engage that student. Overall the students continued to pass notes in class. The students simply——there was really no plan at all. That was get up, give a lecture. Kids were not paying attention. No redirection for student learning. Questions again very basic. Most of the questions had no response from the students. And [they] just seemed very disinterested, the students did, and the lesson was just not acceptable. Final Hearing Transcript at 103-04. To repeat for emphasis, any findings of historical fact concerning Escalona's performance during the confirmatory evaluation must be based on the foregoing testimony, for that is all the evidence there is on the subject.5 Mr. Rodriguez did not explain how he had applied the seven indicators quoted above to his classroom observations of Escalona to determine that the teacher's performance was not up to standards. D. The seven indicators at issue in this case, it will be seen upon close examination, are not standards upon which to base a judgment, but rather factual conditions ("indicator- conditions") for which the evaluator is supposed to look. If a particular indicator-condition (e.g. the purpose of learning tasks is clear to learners) is found to exist, then the evaluator should award the teacher a passing grade of "acceptable" for that indicator (in this example, Indicator IV.A.5); if not, the grade should be "unacceptable." The indicator-conditions are plainly not objective historical facts; they are, rather, subjective facts, which come into being only when the evaluator puts historical facts against external standards, using reason and logic to make qualitative judgments about what occurred. Subjective facts of this nature are sometimes called "ultimate" facts, the answers to "mixed questions" of law and fact. To illustrate this point, imagine that the class Mr. Rodriguez observed on April 5, 2004, had been videotaped from several different camera angles. The resulting tapes would constitute an accurate audio-visual record of what transpired in Escalona's class that day. Anyone later viewing the tapes would be able to make detailed and accurate findings of objective historical fact, including words spoken, actions taken, time spent on particular tasks, etc. But, without more than the videotapes themselves could provide, a viewer would be unable fairly to determine whether, for example, the "[t]eaching and learning activities [had been] appropriate for the complexity of the learning context" (Indicator IV.B.1), or whether the questions asked adequately "enable[d] thinking" (Indicator V.B.1).6 This is because to make such determinations fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the rule of law requires the use of standards of decision, yardsticks against which to measure the perceptible reality captured on film. Another term for standards of decision is "neutral principles." A neutral principle prescribes normative conduct in a way that permits fair judgments to be made consistently—— that is, in this context, enables the reaching of similar results with respect to similarly performing teachers most of the time. A neutral principle must not be either political or results oriented. It must be capable of being applied across- the-board, to all teachers in all evaluations. In the unique milieu of PACES, neutral principles could take a variety of forms. One obvious form would be standards of teacher conduct. Such standards might be defined, for example, with reference to the average competent teacher in the District (or school, or state, etc.). In an adjudicative proceeding such as this one, expert testimony might then be necessary to establish what the average competent teacher does, for example, to monitor learner engagement and/or involvement during learning tasks (Indicator VI.A.2) or to create opportunities to learn at more than one cognitive level (Indicator IV.D.1).7 Other standards might be definitional. For example, to determine whether teaching and learning activities are appropriate (Indicator IV.B.1) practically demands a definition of the term "appropriate" for this context. Still other standards might be framed as tests, e.g. a test for determining whether a question enables thinking (Indicator V.B.1). However the neutral principles are framed, at bottom there must be standards that describe what "satisfactory" performance of the indicators looks like, so that different people can agree, most of the time, that the indicator- conditions are present or absent in a given situation——and in other, similar situations. Without neutral principles to discipline the decision-maker, the indicators can be used as cover for almost any conclusion an evaluator (or Administrative Law Judge) might want to make. In this case, the record is devoid of any persuasive evidence of neutral principles for use in determining, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether the conditions described in the seven relevant indicators were extant in Escalona's classroom on April 5, 2004, or not. E. In this de novo proceeding, the undersigned fact- finder is charged with the responsibility of determining independently, as a matter of ultimate fact, whether, as of the two-week period following probation, Escalona had corrected all of the performance deficiencies of which he was notified at the outset of probation. The only evidence of Escalona's post- probation teaching performance consists of Mr. Rogriguez's testimony about his observation of Escalona for 50 minutes on April 5, 2004, which was quoted above. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony gives the undersigned little to work with. His observations can be boiled down to four major points, none of which flatters Escalona: (a) Escalona lectured, and the students, who seemed disinterested, did not pay attention——some even passed notes; (b) Escalona asked "very basic" questions, most of which elicited "no response"; (c) one student slept for 15 minutes, and Escalona left him alone; (d) the lesson was "just not acceptable." On inspection, these points are much less helpful than they might at first blush appear. One of them——point (d)——is merely a conclusion which invades the undersigned's province as the fact-finder; accordingly, it has been given practically no weight. The only facts offered in support of the conclusions, in point (a), that the students "seemed" disinterested and were "not paying attention" to Escalona's lecture is the testimony that some students passed notes, and some (many?) did not answer the teacher's questions. But this is a rather thin foundation upon which to rest a conclusion that the students were bored because Escalona's teaching was poor. And even if they were (or looked) bored, is it not fairly common for teenaged high-school students to be (or appear) bored in school, for reasons unrelated to the teacher's performance? There is no evidence whatsoever that student boredom (or note passing or non- responsiveness) features only in the classrooms of poorly performing teachers. As for the supposedly "basic" nature of Escalona's questions, see point (b), the undersigned cannot give Mr. Rodriguez's testimony much weight, because there is no evidence as to what the questions actually were or why they were so very basic. Finally, regarding point (c), the fact that a student slept during class is, to be sure, somewhat damaging to Escalona, inasmuch as students should not generally be napping in class, but without additional information about the student (who might have been sick, for all the undersigned knows) and the surrounding circumstances the undersigned is not persuaded that the sleeping student is res ipsa loquitur on the quality of of Escalona's teaching performance. There is certainly no evidence that students doze only in the bad teachers' classes. More important, however, than the paucity of evidence establishing the objective historical facts concerning Escalona's performance on April 5, 2004, is the failure of proof regarding neutral principles for use in determining the existence or nonexistence of the relevant indicator-conditions. Even if the undersigned had a clear picture of what actually occurred in Escalona's classroom that day, which he lacks, he has been provided no standards against which to measure Escalona's performance, to determine whether the indicator- conditions were met or not. The absence of evidence of such standards is fatal to the Board's case. To make ultimate factual determinations without proof of neutral principles, the undersigned would need to apply standards of his own devising. Whatever merit such standards might have, they would not be the standards used to judge other teachers, and hence it would be unfair to apply them to Escalona.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Florida Statutes. When a teacher contests a superintendent's recommendation of dismissal, as here, the ensuing hearing must be conducted "in accordance with chapter 120." See § 1012.34(3)(d)2.b.(II), Fla. Stat. A "chapter 120 proceeding [entails] a hearing de novo intended to 'formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily.'" Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So. 2d 831, 833 (Fla. 1993)(quoting McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)). Thus, the Board's burden in this case was not merely to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators sincerely believed, after conducting a legally sufficient assessment, that Young's performance was deficient, nor even to persuade the undersigned that the evaluators' judgment was factually and legally tenable. Rather, the Board's burden was to persuade the undersigned himself to find, independently, that Young's performance was deficient. Because this case is a proceeding to terminate a teacher's employment and does not involve the loss of a license or certification, the Board was required to prove the alleged grounds for Escalona's dismissal by a preponderance of the evidence. McNeill v. Pinellas County School Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. School Bd. of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Bd. of Lake County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). B. Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, which governs the process for evaluating teachers, provides in full as follows: 1012.34 Assessment procedures and criteria.-- For the purpose of improving the quality of instructional, administrative, and supervisory services in the public schools of the state, the district school superintendent shall establish procedures for assessing the performance of duties and responsibilities of all instructional, administrative, and supervisory personnel employed by the school district. The Department of Education must approve each district's instructional personnel assessment system. The following conditions must be considered in the design of the district's instructional personnel assessment system: The system must be designed to support district and school level improvement plans. The system must provide appropriate instruments, procedures, and criteria for continuous quality improvement of the professional skills of instructional personnel. The system must include a mechanism to give parents an opportunity to provide input into employee performance assessments when appropriate. In addition to addressing generic teaching competencies, districts must determine those teaching fields for which special procedures and criteria will be developed. Each district school board may establish a peer assistance process. The plan may provide a mechanism for assistance of persons who are placed on performance probation as well as offer assistance to other employees who request it. The district school board shall provide training programs that are based upon guidelines provided by the Department of Education to ensure that all individuals with evaluation responsibilities understand the proper use of the assessment criteria and procedures. The assessment procedure for instructional personnel and school administrators must be primarily based on the performance of students assigned to their classrooms or schools, as appropriate. Pursuant to this section, a school district's performance assessment is not limited to basing unsatisfactory performance of instructional personnel and school administrators upon student performance, but may include other criteria approved to assess instructional personnel and school administrators' performance, or any combination of student performance and other approved criteria. The procedures must comply with, but are not limited to, the following requirements: An assessment must be conducted for each employee at least once a year. The assessment must be based upon sound educational principles and contemporary research in effective educational practices. The assessment must primarily use data and indicators of improvement in student performance assessed annually as specified in s. 1008.22 and may consider results of peer reviews in evaluating the employee's performance. Student performance must be measured by state assessments required under s. 1008.22 and by local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the state assessment program. The assessment criteria must include, but are not limited to, indicators that relate to the following: Performance of students. Ability to maintain appropriate discipline. Knowledge of subject matter. The district school board shall make special provisions for evaluating teachers who are assigned to teach out-of-field. Ability to plan and deliver instruction, including implementation of the rigorous reading requirement pursuant to s. 1003.415, when applicable, and the use of technology in the classroom. Ability to evaluate instructional needs. Ability to establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement. Other professional competencies, responsibilities, and requirements as established by rules of the State Board of Education and policies of the district school board. All personnel must be fully informed of the criteria and procedures associated with the assessment process before the assessment takes place. The individual responsible for supervising the employee must assess the employee's performance. The evaluator must submit a written report of the assessment to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee's contract. The evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later than 10 days after the assessment takes place. The evaluator must discuss the written report of assessment with the employee. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the assessment, and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file. If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination. The notice must describe such unsatisfactory performance and include notice of the following procedural requirements: 1. Upon delivery of a notice of unsatisfactory performance, the evaluator must confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct deficiencies within a prescribed period of time. 2.a. If the employee holds a professional service contract as provided in s. 1012.33, the employee shall be placed on performance probation and governed by the provisions of this section for 90 calendar days following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are not counted when calculating the 90-calendar-day period. During the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract must be evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved and must be provided assistance and inservice training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies. At any time during the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract may request a transfer to another appropriate position with a different supervising administrator; however, a transfer does not extend the period for correcting performance deficiencies. b. Within 14 days after the close of the 90 calendar days, the evaluator must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the district school superintendent. Within 14 days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the district school superintendent must notify the employee who holds a professional service contract in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the district school superintendent will recommend that the district school board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the district school superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 days after receipt of the district school superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing. The hearing shall be conducted at the district school board's election in accordance with one of the following procedures: A direct hearing conducted by the district school board within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of ss. 120.569 and 120.57. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain the district school superintendent's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment; or A hearing conducted by an administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Management Services. The hearing shall be conducted within 60 days after receipt of the written appeal in accordance with chapter 120. The recommendation of the administrative law judge shall be made to the district school board. A majority vote of the membership of the district school board shall be required to sustain or change the administrative law judge's recommendation. The determination of the district school board shall be final as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the grounds for termination of employment. The district school superintendent shall notify the department of any instructional personnel who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations and who have been given written notice by the district that their employment is being terminated or is not being renewed or that the district school board intends to terminate, or not renew, their employment. The department shall conduct an investigation to determine whether action shall be taken against the certificateholder pursuant to s. 1012.795(1)(b). The district school superintendent shall develop a mechanism for evaluating the effective use of assessment criteria and evaluation procedures by administrators who are assigned responsibility for evaluating the performance of instructional personnel. The use of the assessment and evaluation procedures shall be considered as part of the annual assessment of the administrator's performance. The system must include a mechanism to give parents and teachers an opportunity to provide input into the administrator's performance assessment, when appropriate. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant a probationary employee a right to continued employment beyond the term of his or her contract. The district school board shall establish a procedure annually reviewing instructional personnel assessment systems to determine compliance with this section. All substantial revisions to an approved system must be reviewed and approved by the district school board before being used to assess instructional personnel. Upon request by a school district, the department shall provide assistance in developing, improving, or reviewing an assessment system. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54, that establish uniform guidelines for the submission, review, and approval of district procedures for the annual assessment of instructional personnel and that include criteria for evaluating professional performance. (Underlining and italics added). Under Section 1012.34(3), school districts must establish a primarily student performance-based procedure (or system) for assessing the performance of teachers. In other words, the method of accomplishing the assessment must be tailored to meet the goal of forming evaluative judgments about teachers' performance based mainly on the performance of their students. In clear terms, then, the legislature has announced that the primary (though not exclusive)8 indicator of whether a teacher is doing a good job is the performance of his students. If a teacher's students are succeeding, then, whatever he is doing, the teacher is likely (though not necessarily) performing his duties satisfactorily. It is plainly the legislature's belief that if we do not know how the teacher's students are performing, then we cannot make a valid judgment as to whether the teacher is performing his duties satisfactorily.9 The statute further mandates that, in assessing teachers, indicators of student performance——which performance is assessed annually as specified in Section 1008.22——must be the primarily-used data. (In contrast, evaluators are permitted, but not required, to make use of peer reviews in assessing teacher performance.) Section 1008.22, which is referenced specifically in Section 1012.34(3)(a), requires that school districts participate in a statewide assessment program, the centerpiece of which is the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). See § 1008.22(3), Fla. Stat. The FCAT is a standardized test that is administered annually to students in grades three through 10. Id. Section 1008.22 is not concerned only with the FCAT, however. Subsection (7), for example, provides as follows: (7) LOCAL ASSESSMENTS.--Measurement of the learning gains of students in all subjects and grade levels other than subjects and grade levels required for the state student achievement testing program is the responsibility of the school districts. Thus, the school districts are charged with developing their own local assessment tools, to fill in the gaps left open by the statewide FCAT testing program. Section 1008.22(5) provides additionally that "[s]tudent performance data shall be used in . . . evaluation of instructional personnel[.]" Section 1012.34(3)(a) prescribes two and only two permissible measures of student performance for use in evaluating teachers: (a) the statewide FCAT assessments and (b) the gap-filling local assessments, both of which measures are required under Section 1008.22. It is clear that Sections 1012.34(3) and 1008.22 have at least one subject in common, namely, student performance-based assessment of teachers. Being in pari materia in this regard, Sections 1012.34 and 1008.22 must be construed so as to further the common goal. See, e.g., Mehl v. State, 632 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 1993)(separate statutory provisions that are in pari materia should be construed to express a unified legislative purpose); Lincoln v. Florida Parole Com'n, 643 So. 2d 668, 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(statutes on same subject and having same general purpose should be construed in pari materia). When the requirements of Section 1012.34(3) are read together with Section 1008.22, several conclusions are inescapable. First, FCAT scores must be the primary source of information used in evaluating any teacher who teaches an FCAT- covered subject to students in grades three through 10. Second, school districts must develop, and annually administer, local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the FCAT. Third, student performance data derived from local assessments must be the primary source of information used in evaluating teachers whose subjects are not covered on the FCAT and/or whose students do not take the FCAT. The absence of evidence in the record concerning the performance of Escalona's students either on the FCAT or on local assessments, as appropriate, see endnote 5, supra, deprives the undersigned of information that the legislature has deemed essential to the evaluation of a teacher's performance. Having neither state nor local assessments to review, the undersigned cannot find that Escalona's performance was deficient in the first place, much less whether he corrected the alleged performance deficiencies in accordance with Section 1012.34(3)(d). Without such findings, the Board cannot dismiss Escalona for failure to correct noted performance deficiencies. C. It was stated in the Findings of Fact above that the Board can terminate Escalona's employment only if, based on an assessment of his performance as of the two-week period following the 90 calendar days of probation, the teacher had failed to correct the particular performance deficiencies of which he had been formally notified in writing prior to probation; other alleged deficiencies, whether observed during probation or thereafter, cannot be relied upon in support of a decision to dismiss Escalona. Standing behind this observation is Section 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The pertinent statutory language instructs that a teacher whose performance has been deemed unsatisfactory must be provided a written "notice of unsatisfactory performance," which notice shall include a description of "such unsatisfactory performance" plus recommendations for improvement in the "specific areas of unsatisfactory performance." The statute then specifies that the teacher must be allowed 90 calendar days "following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance" to correct "the noted performance deficiencies." Clearly, the "noted performance deficiencies" are the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance described in the notice of unsatisfactory performance. Finally, the statute mandates that the teacher shall be assessed within two weeks after the end of probation to determine whether "the performance deficiencies" have been corrected. It is clear, again, that "the performance deficiencies" are "the noted performance deficiencies" described in the written notice of unsatisfactory performance. See § 1012.34(3)(d)1. & 2.a., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The reason why a decision to terminate a poorly performing teacher must be based solely on the specific performance deficiencies described in the pre-probation notice of unsatisfactory performance is plain: allowing the school district to rely on subsequently observed deficiencies would defeat the teacher's unambiguous statutory right to have 90 post-notice calendar days in which to correct the noted performance deficiencies that triggered probation in the first place. This case exemplifies the problem posed by post-notice deficiencies. The notice of unsatisfactory performance (the Summary) that gave rise to Escalona's probation, which was based on Mr. del Cuadro's evaluation of December 2, 2003, charged the teacher with 10 specific performance deficiencies. By February 17, 2004, when Ms. Carter formally observed Escalona for the last time before the end of probation, Escalona had corrected all but one (Indicator IV.A.5) of the noted performance deficiencies——suggesting that he had made significant improvement. Unfortunately for Escalona, however, Ms. Carter believed that the teacher had exhibited nine deficiencies besides the noted performance deficiencies, with the net result that, near the end of probation, Escalona still had 10 deficiencies. Of these nine post-notice deficiencies, four (Indicators I.F.1, I.F.2, II.A.1, and IV.B.3) were recorded for the first time ever on February 17, 2004. Obviously, Escalona was not given 90 days to correct these four alleged deficiencies. Yet another three of the post-notice deficiencies reported by Ms. Carter (Indicators I.A.1, IV.A.6, and IV.B.2) had not been seen since Mr. Cuadro's initial evaluation of November 5, 2003. This initial evaluation, being "not of record," cannot count as a notice of unsatisfactory performance to Escalona. Hence he was not given 90 days to correct these three alleged deficiencies. For that matter, the remaining two post-notice deficiencies alleged to exist on February 17, 2004—— Indicators II.D.4 and IV.A.3——had not been observed, post- notice, until January 16, 2004, which means that Escalona did not have 90 days to correct them, either. For the above reasons, when assessing whether, in fact, Escalona had corrected the noted performance deficiencies as of the two-week period following probation, the undersigned focused, as he was required to do, exclusively on the 10 deficiencies described in the Summary, seven of which were alleged not to have been timely corrected. Having determined as a matter of fact that the evidence was insufficient to prove these seven alleged deficiencies existed or persisted, it must be concluded that the Board has failed to carry its burden of establishing the alleged factual grounds for dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Escalona of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Escalona be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended; and (c) awarding Escalona back salary, plus benefits, to the extent these accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 23rd day of November, 2004.
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Respondent, County of Osceola School Board (the "Board"), discriminated against Petitioner, Valmyr Vilbrun ("Vilbrun"), on the basis of his race (African-American) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act; and Whether the Board retaliated against Vilbrun when he filed a discrimination claim.
Findings Of Fact Vilbrun is an African-American male who, at all times relevant hereto, was teaching an exceptional student education (ESE) class at the School. Vilbrun is currently employed at Alternatives Unlimited, a school in Polk County, Florida. He also works as a dispatcher for the St. Cloud Police Department, a position he has held for several years. The Board is the agency responsible for hiring and supervising all teachers in Osceola County, including those employed at the School. The Board is further responsible for determining whether teachers working under annual contracts are to be renewed at the end of their contract term. Vilbrun was a teacher at the School during the 2008-2009 school year. He was working under an annual contract for that school year only. Vilbrun had been hired by Tapley to teach an ESE class at the School. At the end of the school year, Tapley recommended non-renewal of Vilbrun's contract based, in large part, upon her evaluation of Vilbrun's teaching skills, her concerns about his tardiness, and his negative interaction with a fellow teacher. Vilbrun maintains that the reason for the recommendation of non-renewal was racial discrimination. While citing no direct evidence of discrimination by anyone at the School or the Board, Vilbrun provided circumstantial evidence as to three incidents that had occurred in furtherance of his claim: Vilbrun had a confrontation with a Caucasian, female teacher (Reyes) at the School; Vilbrun had a negative relationship with the dean of students (Andrea Beckel); and There was an issuance of disciplinary letters to four African-American teachers on the same day. Each of those incidents will be discussed more fully below. Incident Involving Fellow Teacher When Vilbrun began teaching at the School, he approached Reyes, a fellow ESE teacher, to help him prepare Individual Education Plans ("IEPs") for his students. IEPs are an integral part of the ESE program, and each teacher is expected to develop IEPs for their students. After a period of assistance from Reyes, Vilbrun began preparing the IEPs for his students by himself. Reyes remembers telling Vilbrun that it was time for him to do the IEPs on his own. Vilbrun remembers deciding to do the IEPs independently after seeing that the extra time spent with Reyes might be misconstrued by others as improper. Reyes is a young, Caucasian woman. In December 2008, about halfway through the school year, one of Reyes' students approached her and asked if she wanted to buy some items that he was selling "for Mr. V's class." Reyes was taken aback because her class was in the midst of a fundraiser at that time, and the School only allows limited fundraisers to be going on at any one time. Reyes telephoned Vilbrun to inquire about his fundraiser, but he did not answer the call. Reyes then emailed the person responsible for coordinating fundraisers at the School to make sure that she (Reyes) was not violating the policy by carrying out her class's fundraiser at that time. She was advised that her fundraiser was authorized. The fundraising coordinator apparently then went to Vilbrun to inquire about his fundraising project. A day or two later, Vilbrun approached Reyes in another teacher's classroom and said, "I can't believe it's in your character to do that." Vilbrun was upset that Reyes had contacted the School office about his alleged fundraiser. He told Reyes that it was not a fundraiser per se and that "the money was going to someone else." The conversation escalated into an argument, and Reyes, a small woman, became uncomfortable and intimidated by Vilbrun's behavior. Reyes was also concerned that because her child and Vilbrun's child both attended the same day care, she would potentially have to confront Vilbrun away from the School grounds. Reyes was upset enough by the incident to contact the principal to discuss her version of what had transpired. The principal spoke with Reyes and asked for a written statement, which Reyes submitted. Coincidentally, Reyes had submitted a typed letter to the office that very morning complaining about another issue she had with Vilbrun, namely, that he was often late to class and that she would have to monitor his students until he arrived. Her hand-written statement about the fundraiser incident was submitted in the afternoon of the day she sent in the tardiness letter. Tapley then issued a letter to Vilbrun advising him that a complaint had been filed against him by another teacher. The letter did not make a determination of whether the complaint was founded, and Vilbrun was given the opportunity to submit a written response prior to meeting with the principal. There is no evidence that a written response was prepared by Vilbrun. Tapley then conducted an investigation to determine whether there were grounds for discipline against either of the teachers involved. As a result of Tapley's investigation into the matter, Tapley verbally advised Vilbrun to keep his distance from Reyes. Tapley then issued a letter of guidance to Vilbrun directing him to follow procedures for all fundraising activities. The letter also addressed Vilbrun's failure to report to work on time. The letter did not provide any sanction or direction concerning interaction with Reyes or other colleagues. As far as Vilbrun knew, no action was taken against Reyes. Relationship With Dean of Students For unknown or unstated reasons, Vilbrun did not have a good working relationship with Beckel, the dean of students at the School. Vilbrun believed Beckel was not adequately performing her role, that she was not able to handle unruly or disruptive students, and that she failed to provide Vilbrun with sufficient support. In April 2009, Vilbrun submitted a memorandum to Tapley addressing his concerns about the relationship between him and Beckel. The memorandum discussed Vilbrun's perception of his interactions with Beckel, but without benefit of Beckel's version of the facts, it is impossible to make a finding as to the exact nature of the relationship between the two individuals. However, the gist of Vilbrun's complaint against Beckel is professional in nature and relates to differences between the two concerning the handling of student discipline. There is one peripheral comment about an "outright discriminative" email received from Beckel in the memorandum. However, the emails presented into evidence by Vilbrun do not substantiate that claim. As a matter of fact, Vilbrun, when asked whether race was a motivating factor for the way Beckel interacted with him, stated, "I can't speculate on that" and "As far as what was causing that, I can't really say." [Transcript, pp. 296-297.] Vilbrun had a general perception that Caucasian teachers did not seem to have the same difficulties with Beckel that he was experiencing. Adverse Action Towards Four African-American Teachers On the day before he received the letter from Tapley concerning the Reyes matter, Vilbrun was the recipient of a letter from Tapley concerning his attendance and punctuality. In fact, all four ESE teachers, all of whom are African-American, received letters on that same day, March 10, 2009. Vilbrun views that fact as evidence of discrimination against him and the other African-American teachers. Tapley generated each of the letters, but states they were based on alleged violations by each teacher and were not based on reference to the recipient's race. Tapley's testimony in this regard is credible. The letters are known as "9.02 letters," based on the section of the Union Agreement in which such letters are described. The 9.02 letters advise teachers of perceived or alleged violations that have been reported and give the teacher an opportunity to respond before further action is taken by administration. The letters are not final and do not establish fault. Rather, they are merely a preliminary step that may either result in a sanction or may be dismissed entirely. One of the recipients of one of the four 9.02 letters, Sweeney, adamantly defended Tapley as non-racist. In fact, Tapley assisted Sweeney and helped her find a new position when Sweeney's class at the School had to be eliminated due to loss of students. Other than the fact that each of the four recipients of a 9.02 letter from Tapley on that date was African-American, there is no evidence that race had anything to do with the letters. A former ESE teacher at the School testified that ESE teachers were sometimes discriminated against as a group, i.e., as ESE teachers, but there was no racial discrimination at the School to her knowledge. Other Factors for Consideration At the end of the 2008-2009 school year, Tapley made a recommendation to the Board for non-renewal of the annual contracts for 17 teachers from the School. Of that group, 11 were Caucasian, three were African-American, and three were Hispanic. Tapley was described by almost every teacher, except Vilbrun, as acting responsibly and without regard to race when dealing with issues at the School. There is no evidence that Tapley engaged in any racist behavior. To the contrary, her demeanor and fairly universal support from staff indicates just the opposite. Andrea Beckel, with whom Vilbrun alleges a strained relationship and who Vilbrun suggests made statements with racist undertones, did not testify. It is impossible to make a finding of fact concerning her behavior or demeanor. The union representative at the School, Patty Minor, described Tapley as decidedly non-racist. Vilbrun never went to Minor with a complaint about Tapley acting in a discriminatory fashion based on race or anything else. One of Tapley's "hot buttons" for her teachers was timely arrival at school. Vilbrun had some issues with timeliness during his tenure at the School. Reyes testified that she had to cover Vilbrun's students on many occasions. Minor, as the union representative, counseled Vilbrun about the necessity for timely arrival. No documentary evidence was presented, however, to substantiate that Vilbrun was habitually tardy. During the 2008-2009 school year, Vilbrun received two "annual" reviews, performed by assistant principal Neves. The reviews indicate satisfactory performance of most of his required tasks and that improvements were being made. However, Vilbrun was viewed by his principal and other administrators as deficient in the classroom. His students were observed to be unfocused and lacking in clear direction as to their studies. Vilbrun rejects those allegations on the basis that Tapley was not his direct supervisor and did not perform regular reviews of his classroom. Tapley, however, viewed Vilbrun on numerous occasions and relied upon reports from other teachers and administrators as the basis for her actions. Of the six teachers hired for the ESE department at the School for the 2009-2010 school year, five had less experience than Vilbrun. However, Tapley testified that she considers qualifications, rather than experience, as the deciding factor for hiring teachers. Vilbrun claims retaliation by the School and/or the Board because of his complaint to the Commission. One of the purported retaliatory actions was a phone reference check form evidencing that Tapley told Ana Smith, a Board employee, she would not rehire Vilbrun or recommend him for employment. Vilbrun also applied for numerous jobs, and he believes that someone at the School or Board was sabotaging his applications or blackballing him in some fashion because he could not get any interviews. However, the phone call and Vilbrun's applications occurred in May 2009; his complaint to the Commission was filed in December of that year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Valmyr Vilbrun, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 27th day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary M. Glassman, Esquire Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D'Agresta, P.A. 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 2000 Orlando, Florida 32801 Candance N. Vilbrun Post Office Box 701975 St. Cloud, Florida 34770
