The Issue Whether Respondent, Beatrice Yazbeck, a guidance counselor under contract with Petitioner, Orange County School Board, violated an express work rule of Petitioner's Management Directive A-9; and whether Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d) and (e), by committing misconduct in office; and, if so, whether any such offense provides just cause for discipline up to, and including, dismissal of Respondent pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the governing board of the Orange County School District, and Ronald Blocker is the Superintendent of Orange County Public Schools and the executive officer of Petitioner. Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a high school guidance counselor at the campuses of WPHS and the Winter Park Ninth Grade Center (Ninth Grade Center). She has held a Professional Services Contract with Petitioner for several years. Respondent's employment is subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to as the "Contract Between the School Board of Orange County, Florida, and the Orange County Classroom Teachers' Association, 2004-2005." Article XII of the Collective Bargaining Agreement pertains to employee discipline and provides: An employee may be disciplined only for just cause and discipline shall be imposed only for a violation of an expressed rule, an expressed order, an expressed policy or reasonable expectation of management, which reasonably should have been known to the employee. This shall not be construed as to prohibit the administrator from questioning an employee and/or offering reasonable direction at the time of the occurrence of any incident, the result of which might later be dealt with in a disciplinary manner. Any teacher may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the year, provided that the charges against him/her are based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude where applicable, and in accordance with Florida Statutes. Respondent, as a member of the instructional staff of Petitioner, is required to abide by the "Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics)." Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1.006(5). The State Board of Education established "Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct)" that specifically require that educators: shall not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected form such harassment or discrimination. shall not make malicious or intentionally false statements about a colleague. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1.006(5). At the start of the 2004/2005 school year, Respondent was provided a copy of the WPHS's Faculty Handbook, which contained Petitioner's Management Directive A-9. Management Directive A-9 is a work rule prohibiting employees from misusing school computers and internet access for personal, non-educational activities. Management Directive A-9 provides, in pertinent part: Employee Access to Network e. The District authorizes employees to use District computer technology resources and data bases for assigned responsibilities. These resources shall be used by employees to enhance job productivity as it relates to District business. These resources shall be used for District-related purposes and not for personal use or gain or for the benefit of private, "for profit" or "not for profit" organizations. Network Security and Acceptable Use b. Internet resources and e-mail shall be us ed by employees to enhance job productivity as they relate to District business and shall not be used to send abusive, threatening or harassing messages. Employees shall refrain from communications where the meaning of the message, or its transmission or distribution, would be illegal, unethical or irresponsible . . . . * * * 6. Due Process a. Any employee failing to comply with this Management Directive may be subject to disciplinary action as well as civil liability or criminal charges. At the beginning of the 2003/2004 school year, Respondent was involuntarily transferred from Evans High School (EHS) to WPHS. EHS is also racially diverse, however, both the student and faculty population is predominately African- American. WPHS has a student population of approximately 3,800 students and 308 staff members. The student population at WPHS is racially diverse with between 18 percent and 19 percent of the students being African-American. The faculty at WPHS is equally diverse. Within the past two years, WPHS has had an increase in racial diversity among its students due, in significant part, to the advent of opportunity scholarships which enable students of underperforming schools to transfer to other schools within the District. Mary Brinson is an African-American mathematics teacher at WPHS, who has been employed with Petitioner for 30 years. At all times material, Kimrey Ross-Myers was employed as assistant principal for instruction for WPHS and was the assessing administrator of Respondent. William Gordon was employed as principal at WPHS. Donald Shearer is a senior manager in the Employee Relations Department of Petitioner. On January 7, 2005, Respondent, while on duty in the guidance counselor's office at the Ninth Grade Center, composed a personal e-mail to her brother using the school's computer. Among other things, this e-mail contained the following passage: Finally, this at the end of too many horrible experiences of struggle, stress and strife imposed by inept, incompetent, ignorant persons of color and this dike on our main campus whom I have finally discovered may be the culprit responsible for the problems I've had with this female administrator, Kimrey. Funny, isn't it, after all the shit I've put up with at the hand of black folks, I still can't get myself to use the n word. Wonder why???? I'll try to talk to you soon. On January 7, 2005, Respondent accidentally touched the print button, rather than the send button on her computer, which printed the e-mail at a printer networked to the WPHS campus. Recognizing this error, Respondent departed the Ninth Grade Center and drove to WPHS to retrieve the printed e-mail. Unbeknownst to both Mary Brinson and Respondent, the e-mail printed among Ms. Brinson's school grade reports which Ms. Brinson had collected for processing. While reviewing her student grade reports, Ms. Brinson came upon Respondent's e-mail of January 7, 2005, and was alarmed by its demeaning, discriminatory content. Troubled by the fact that the e-mail was authored by a school guidance counselor with whom she had professional contact, Ms. Brinson took it home, and on Monday, gave the e-mail to Kimrey Ross-Myers for handling within her discretion. Ms. Brinson advised Ms. Ross-Myers of the e-mail because she regarded its content as evidencing discriminatory conduct directed at African-Americans and lesbians. Further, she advised Ms. Ross-Myers of the e-mail because she was required to abide by the Code of Ethics requiring that she protect against harassment and discrimination. Ms. Ross-Myers took it to Principal Gordon, who, in turn, referred the e-mail to Mr. Shearer of Petitioner's Employee Relations Department. Upon learning of the January 7, 2005, e-mail, Mr. Shearer instructed the District staff to review Respondent's computer for other similarly offensive e-mails. Two such e-mails were retrieved: one composed by Respondent on May 25, 2004, at 6:47 p.m., and the other on October 7, 2004, at 9:43 a.m., which was transmitted during school hours. In the e-mail composed by Respondent on May 25, 2004, she criticized Ms. Ross-Myers, writing: My work and my nemesis, this evil administrator from hell didn't want me to stay here, has me running around in circles. Respondent, again, criticized her immediate supervisor, Ms. Ross-Myers, in her e-mail of October 7, 2004, writing: Kimrey is the Assistant Principal who was on my case from day one. I was transferred to this school on short notice (one week before the beginning of school) after a perfect evaluation and realignment to the school that transferred me. Referring to her former principal at EHS, Elaine Scott, Respondent also wrote in her e-mail of October 7, 2004: The principal, an ignorant black female, gave all the Counselors a serious ultimatum about our performance, although all of us had gotten impeccable evaluations. The e-mails of May 25, 2004, and October 7, 2004, were transmitted via Petitioner's internet account to Respondent's brother. Principal Gordon testified that after considering all three e-mails composed by Respondent, he became concerned that Respondent may be prejudiced against African-Americans. The ostensibly discriminatory content of the e-mails, combined with all reasonable inferences that could fairly be drawn from them, caused Principal Gordon to believe that Respondent's effectiveness to serve as a high school guidance counselor had been seriously compromised. Petitioner has adopted a Code of Civility that applies to students and staff alike. During the 2004/2005 school year, the Code of Civility was published within the Student Code of Conduct. The Code of Civility specifically prohibits individuals from ethnic stereotyping and uttering slurs. The Code of Student Conduct also prohibits demeaning, abusive, or obscene content in any communication. The e-mails composed by Respondent on January 7, 2005, and October 7, 2004, violate standards of conduct expressly incorporated into the Code of Civility. Ms. Brinson, Ms. Ross-Myers, Principal Gordon, and Superintendent Blocker testified that these e-mails, individually and collectively, caused them to question whether Respondent would interact with students in a fair and equitable fashion while serving in her role as a high school guidance counselor. These concerns were elevated to the extent that Principal Gordon, Ms. Ross-Myers, and Ms. Brinson testified that they would refrain from referring students to Respondent for counseling on matters of racial or sexual orientation sensitivity. The "black" administrator Respondent referred to in her e-mail of October 7, 2004, as "ignorant" is EHS principal, Elaine Scott. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted she inaccurately characterized Principal Scott as being "ignorant." When criticizing her previous administrators at EHS, Respondent associated their race with her finding that they were ignorant, inept, or incompetent. When offering criticism of Caucasian administrators, namely Ms. Ross-Myers, Respondent omitted any racial reference. Respondent testified with respect to her e-mail of January 7, 2005, that the statements therein were true and that she "had many horrible experiences, struggles, stress and strife imposed by inept, incompetent, ignorant persons of color," while serving as a guidance counselor at EHS. Respondent further testified that she did not intend to stereotype African-Americans in a derogatory manner and that she was referring to four specific African-American administrators with whom she worked: James Lawson, Elaine Scott, Chuck Rivers, and Joe Salsby. Respondent gave credible testimony relating to her referring to the "n" word, but not using it. This explanation is that she considers the use of the "n" word to be racist and a horrible thing to say to a person of color and that is why she could not use it. Both Ms. Ross-Myers and Principal Gordon testified that they have had professional contact with these four administrators and confirmed that they are regarded by their peers as being capable, competent, and professional. However, no additional investigation was conducted. The term "dike [sic]," as used in the context of the e-mail, is a disparaging term for a lesbian. Respondent refused to identify the female staff member who was the target of her slur and testified, "I would never put that label on anyone." Despite this denunciation, Respondent did so use this term to disparage a co-worker and, further, did so without any knowledge of her co-worker's true sexual orientation. Respondent testified that she does not use the term "dyke" in public to put labels on people. The term was suggested to her in a telephone conversation by her homosexual brother after she described the conduct of a specific person toward her. In the e-mail to her brother, Respondent used the word as an identifying term to refer to the person by the appellation which her brother had already used for that person. Respondent is so unfamiliar with the word that she misspelled it as "dike" in her e-mail. Respondent assailed Ms. Brinson's motives in coming forward and reporting her accidental discovery of the January 7, 2004, e-mail. Respondent accused Ms. Brinson of "snooping" and of being an "intermeddler," who purposely schemed to get Respondent "fired." At the final hearing, Respondent further accused Ms. Brinson of having committed professional misconduct in reporting the e-mail to her supervisor. Respondent admitted violating Management Directive A-9 when she used the District's computer and internet account to write and transmit a personal e-mail to her brother. Two of the subject e-mails were composed during school hours. Prior to the filing of administrative charges against Respondent, Petitioner had discharged other employees for violating Management Directive A-9, by misusing the District's computer network to compose and send e-mails for personal gain or for transmitting e-mails with obscene and abusive content. Superintendent Blocker further testified that he believed that Respondent's misconduct violated Petitioner's anti-discrimination policy that requires all OCPS employees to act with impartiality and fairness in dealing with co-workers, students, and the public at large. In Petitioner's Administrative Complaint of March 8, 2005, Petitioner alleges that: 1) Respondent violated Management Directive A-9 in misuse of the District's computer network to compose and transmit e-mail that demeaned African- Americans and which contained a slur against lesbians; 2) Respondent violated Subsection 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes (2004), by committing misconduct in office, which seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee; 3) Respondent violated the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d) and (e); and 4) Respondent engaged in misconduct in office, willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and conduct unbecoming of an employee in breach of Respondent's employment agreement with Petitioner. There is no evidence that Respondent committed any act of sexual discrimination against any person or group of persons. There is no evidence that Respondent failed to deliver appropriate counseling services to any student or group of students. There is no evidence that Respondent ever failed to deliver appropriate services to any student, allowed harm to any student, or committed harm to any student for any reason, including the racial or sexual orientation diversity of any student. There is no evidence of harm to any student of diversity by Respondent during her entire career in education. There was no investigation as to whether Respondent was, in fact, racially prejudiced or whether she was, in fact, prejudiced against persons of alternative sexual orientation. Rather, Petitioner ascribed racial and sexual prejudice to her based entirely on the content of the thoughts expressed in her e-mail, which was intended to be a private communication and was not intended for exposure by any person who might be offended by it. All of Petitioner's witnesses admitted that their concern about Respondent's effectiveness as a counselor is anticipatory. The preponderance of the evidence proves that Respondent violated Management Directive A-9 by misusing the District's computer network to compose and transmit e-mails that demeaned African-Americans and which contained a slur against lesbians. Respondent violated Subsection 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes (2004), by committing misconduct in office, which seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee. Respondent violated the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1.006(5)(d) and (e) Respondent engaged in conduct unbecoming of an employee in breach of Respondent's employment agreement with Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Orange County School Board, enter a final order as follows: 1) Find Respondent, Beatrice Yazbeck, guilty of violating Management Directive A-9, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d) and (e); and terminating the Professional Services Contract of Respondent. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be returned to annual contract status and that she be suspended, without pay, for a period of two months. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 14th day of September, 2005.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner, Orange County School Board, to terminate Kimberly Honaker’s employment contract as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly-constituted governing body charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise public schools within Orange County, Florida. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; and §§ 1001.30 and 1001.33, Fla. Stat. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a classroom teacher at Apopka Memorial Middle School (“Apopka Middle School”). Respondent holds a professional service contract with the School Board. The School Board brings this action pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. The School Board asserts that “just cause” exists to terminate Respondent’s employment contract based on misconduct in office, immorality, crimes involving moral turpitude, conduct unbecoming a public employee, violations of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, and violation of her employment agreement. The School Board initiated this action following a series of arrests Respondent experienced in 2014. Respondent’s arrests were based on the actions of Robert Pruitt, a family friend who Respondent allowed to stay in her home in May 2014. On November 18, 2014, Mr. Pruitt plead guilty to lewd or lascivious molestation of Respondent’s daughter, K.H.4/ That same day, Respondent plead nolo contendere to the charge of neglect of a child. In May 2014, Mr. Pruitt was 58 years old. K.H. was 13 years old. The events which culminated in Respondent’s arrests and plea to the charge of neglect of a child began in March 2014. That month, Respondent and her twin daughters, K.H. and C.H., encountered Mr. Pruitt while vacationing in Melbourne, Florida. Respondent, Mr. Pruitt, K.H. and C.H. spent at least a night and a day in each other’s company. Mr. Pruitt was well `known to Respondent. She had known him since childhood when they grew up in Miami together. At some point, Respondent and Mr. Pruitt may have dated. Mr. Pruitt eventually married Respondent’s older sister. At the time of their trip to Melbourne, Mr. Pruitt had long since divorced Respondent’s sister. He was remarried to Sherri Pruitt for approximately 18 years. (Mr. Pruitt and Sherri have been divorced since May 2014.) Respondent testified that she had not seen or spoken to Mr. Pruitt for at least ten years prior to March 2014. While in Melbourne, they reconnected. (As set forth below, testimony differs as to whether this meeting was a chance rendezvous or a planned liaison between Respondent and Mr. Pruitt.) When Mr. Pruitt returned from Melbourne, Sherri confronted him about his trip. She was not pleased that he left her to spend time with Respondent and her daughters. At the final hearing, Sherri testified that during an argument several days after the trip, Mr. Pruitt told her that he had stayed with Respondent and K.H. in a hotel in Melbourne. Mr. Pruitt also told her that he had sex with both Respondent and K.H. On April 16, 2014, Sherri Pruitt filed a Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence against Respondent. Ms. Pruitt’s petition was denied that same day for failing to allege an act of violence. Mr. Pruitt has a history of mental illness and hospitalizations. Sherri Pruitt reported that around 2000, her husband was diagnosed as bipolar, severely depressed, and suffering from a borderline personality disorder. He had been hospitalized numerous times based on his mental health issues and stroke symptoms. Mr. Pruitt had been prescribed anti-psychotic medication. Sherri Pruitt had frequently initiated Baker Act proceedings against Mr. Pruitt.5/ On April 16, 2014, Sherri had Mr. Pruitt readmitted under the Baker Act into Springbrook Hospital in Brooksville, Florida. Springbrook Hospital is a private psychiatric hospital and a designated Baker Act receiving facility. On April 29, 2014, Sherri Pruitt filed a Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence against Mr. Pruitt for repeated violence. Ms. Pruitt alleged that Mr. Pruitt had threatened to commit violence against her. On May 12, 2014, Ms. Pruitt’s petition was denied due to insufficient evidence. Also on April 29, 2014, Respondent received an e-mail on her personal cell phone from the e-mail account of robertpruitt@hotmail.com. The e-mail contained a recording of an audio message. Respondent listened to the recording on her classroom computer at Apopka Middle School. On the recording, Respondent heard a heated discussion between Mr. Pruitt and Sherri. Respondent recognized the voice of Mr. Pruitt who made the following statements: “I am a pedophile. Who do I care that knows that?” “We had [sex] together, me, [Respondent], and [K.H.]. The same day. How about that?” (Ms. Pruitt testified that she recorded the statement during the argument with her husband after he returned from Melbourne.) On or about May 1, 2014, while still admitted to Springbrook Hospital, Mr. Pruitt called Respondent’s mother, Vivian Duff, and asked her to come get him out of the hospital. Mr. Pruitt’s psychiatrist agreed to discharge Mr. Pruitt to Ms. Duff. Mr. Pruitt’s Discharge Instruction noted that he was diagnosed as bipolar. The Discharge Instruction also recorded that Mr. Pruitt had been prescribed medications, including Seroquel, Ativan, Lithium, Lamicta1, and Wellbutrin. Ms. Duff picked up Mr. Pruitt on May 1, 2014, from Springbrook Hospital. She drove him to Respondent’s home. Sherri Pruitt testified that Ms. Duff took Mr. Pruitt out of Springbrook Hospital against her wishes. On the drive from Springbrook Hospital to Respondent’s house, Mr. Pruitt announced that he wanted to stop by his home and “get rid” of his wife. In May 2014, Respondent lived with her husband, Scott Honaker, her mother (Ms. Duff), as well as her twin, 13-year-old daughters (K.H. and C.H.). Respondent lived in a two-story house. Respondent and her husband’s bedroom was on the first floor. Mr. Pruitt was moved into a bedroom on the second floor. Ms. Duff’s bedroom was in the next room. Respondent’s daughters shared a bedroom which was also on the second floor. When Mr. Pruitt arrived at Respondent’s home, he was very frail. Respondent testified that Mr. Pruitt stayed mostly in his bedroom. She relayed that he could not climb up or down the stairs without assistance. After Mr. Pruitt moved into Respondent’s home, he purchased iPhones for both K.H. and C.H. Mr. Pruitt told the girls that they had to share their passwords with him, which they did. Respondent was aware and approved of Mr. Pruitt’s gift to her daughters. While Mr. Pruitt was living at Respondent’s home, Sherri Pruitt discovered Facebook exchanges, text messages, and e-mails between Mr. Pruitt, Respondent, and K.H. Ms. Pruitt believed that these messages implied a sexual relationship between Mr. Pruitt and K.H. Ms. Pruitt also became concerned that Respondent was aware of and condoned this relationship. On May 30, 2014, Ms. Pruitt contacted the Florida Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) and the Apopka Police Department (“APD”) to report her misgivings about the relationship between Mr. Pruitt, Respondent, and K.H. Ms. Pruitt divulged that she suspected Mr. Pruitt was sexually molesting at least one of Respondent’s daughters. APD requested DCF participate in their investigation of the complaint. Based on Sherri Pruitt’s report, around midnight on May 30, 2014, APD, along with Brandon Adkins, a Child Protective Investigator with DCF, converged on Respondent’s home. APD made contact with Respondent, as well as her daughters. Respondent volunteered to ride to the Apopka police station with APD detectives. At that same time, Mr. Adkins drove K.H. and C.H. to the police station. Mr. Pruitt was not present at Respondent’s home that night. He had been admitted to a hospital several days earlier. At the Apopka police station, Respondent was separated from her daughters. APD detectives then questioned Respondent about the relationship between Mr. Pruitt and K.H. and allegations of sexual misconduct. Respondent admitted to APD that Mr. Pruitt and K.H. began communicating through Facebook in January 2014. Respondent also told APD that occasionally she and K.H. had fallen asleep in the same bed with Mr. Pruitt after he moved into their home, usually when they were watching TV together. However, Respondent vigorously denied that Mr. Pruitt had committed any misconduct, sexual or otherwise, with either of her children. APD completed their interview with Respondent early on the morning of May 31, 2014, and released her. After APD detectives questioned Respondent, they then interviewed K.H. and C.H. The daughters denied that Mr. Pruitt molested either of them or engaged in any other sexual misconduct. Brandon Adkins participated in the APD questioning of K.H. and C.H. Mr. Adkins did not detect any behavior indicating abuse or neglect. However, he thought K.H. was lying during the interview. Mr. Adkins decided that K.H. and C.H. should be temporarily placed in a shelter away from their parents’ custody. Mr. Atkins drove K.H. and C.H. to Greater Oaks Village. They arrived at the shelter around 7:00 a.m. After they arrived at the shelter, Mr. Adkins approached K.H. one last time to discuss the allegations that Mr. Pruitt inappropriately touched her. He asked her if she was ready to tell the truth. K.H. said that she was. Referring to his Investigative Summary report, Mr. Adkins relayed that K.H. told him that Mr. Pruitt touched her vagina at least three times and her breasts at least 20 times. In addition, Mr. Pruitt made K.H. watch him ejaculate. K.H. also stated that Mr. Pruitt held her down on his bed against her will and kissed and licked her face. K.H. confessed that she did not admit the truth to the APD detectives because Mr. Pruitt prepared her to lie to them. Later on May 31, 2014, K.H. and C.H. were returned to the police station for another interview with APD detectives and the DCF Child Protective Team. During this interview, K.H. conveyed that she first began communicating with Mr. Pruitt through their personal Facebook accounts. K.H. detailed that they talked every day through Facebook messenger. K.H. also recounted to the interviewers that after Mr. Pruitt moved into her home, he wanted her to sleep in his bedroom with him. K.H. divulged that her mother (Respondent) told Mr. Pruitt that K.H. was too young, but this sleeping arrangement would be acceptable if Respondent also slept in the bedroom with them. During the interview, K.H. revealed that Mr. Pruitt had touched her inappropriately. K.H. declared that Mr. Pruitt “touched my butt like three times. He tried to touch my private areas. He has touched my boobs at least twenty times.” K.H. expressed that on one occasion Mr. Pruitt pinned her arms to her sides and began licking and kissing her breasts. K.H. also disclosed that, “While we were sleeping, he would . . . try and stick his hand down my pants and underwear.” K.H. relayed that Mr. Pruitt would force her hand to his private area and say “touch it, squeeze it.” K.H. stated that on one occasion Mr. Pruitt pulled down his underwear in front of her and ejaculated. Finally, K.H. voiced that every time her mother (Respondent) left her alone in the room with Mr. Pruitt, her mother would tell her “don't let [Mr. Pruitt] touch you in your private areas.” K.H. expressed that Mr. Pruitt’s nickname for her was “Anne.” Mr. Pruitt would refer to himself as “Aramis.” APD concluded that K.H.’s statements constituted sufficient evidence to believe that at least one of the children (K.H.) was being sexually abused by Mr. Pruitt, and Respondent knew about it. More specifically, after Respondent moved Mr. Pruitt into her home, she became aware that he desired to have an inappropriate sexual relationship with her 13-year-old daughter, K.H. Thereafter, Respondent did not exercise reasonable care to protect her daughter from Mr. Pruitt’s sexual advances. Later that day, on May 31, 2014, APD arrested Respondent and charged her with neglect of a child under section 827.03, Florida Statutes (2014).6/ Also on May 31, 2014, after taking Respondent and her daughters in for questioning, APD searched Respondent’s home. APD found several letters which appeared to be written by Mr. Pruitt. One of these letters was addressed to “Anne My Beloved” and stated, “I love you, baby. I am so totally in love you with you that your [sic] all I think about. However, I too love another person too and I am in love with Kim. I sometimes confuse the two of you but you both are different in so many ways. I want to marry Kim but that would mean your parents getting a divorce.” In these letters, Mr. Pruitt also wrote “I love you and I’m in love with you [K.H.]”; “I loved you and wanted you. Still do”; and “I love you [K.H.] and I know its [sic] real.” On June 3, 2014, APD arrested Mr. Pruitt at the hospital in which he was staying. He was charged with lewd or lascivious exhibition in violation of section 800.04, Florida Statutes (2014). After he was arrested, Mr. Pruitt was transported to the Apopka police station. There, after waiving his Miranda rights, he willingly participated in a video-recorded interview. Mr. Pruitt did, however, warn the APD detectives that he is bipolar, schizophrenic, and takes anti-psychotic medication. Initially, Mr. Pruitt denied that he was a pedophile. However, as the interview progressed, Mr. Pruitt admitted to sexual conduct with K.H. He knew K.H. was 13 years old at the time. Mr. Pruitt stated that he began communicating with both K.H. and C.H. online through their Facebook accounts. Soon thereafter, he wanted to see Respondent again. Mr. Pruitt relayed that he and Respondent set up the trip to Melbourne, Florida, in March 2014. Respondent’s daughters accompanied her on the trip. Mr. Pruitt stated that he stayed with Respondent in a hotel room. The girls stayed together in an adjoining room. Mr. Pruitt declared that he had sex with Respondent in Melbourne. Mr. Pruitt told the APD detectives that after his trip to Melbourne he had a “sexual fantasy” about K.H. Mr. Pruitt expressed that Respondent encouraged his developing relationship with K.H. because it brought them closer together. Mr. Pruitt explained that Respondent “wanted me to marry [K.H.] and be the father of her children.” Mr. Pruitt remarked that Respondent “encouraged the whole thing” and “allowed me to get close to [K.H.] as long as she could be close to me.” Mr. Pruitt declared that when he stayed at Respondent’s home, he slept in the same bed with K.H. and Respondent. Mr. Pruitt disclosed that Respondent “brings her child into my bedroom.” He articulated that “as long as [Respondent] was sleeping next to me with her child over here and me right here, she was fine with that.” Mr. Pruitt described more sexually explicit activity while Respondent and K.H. were with him in bed. Specifically, Respondent would touch his penis while he would touch K.H.’s breast. Mr. Pruitt later added, “When I was doing it [to K.H.], [Respondent] was doing something to me, you know, at the same time. She put my hand on [K.H.’s] breasts several time[s]. You know, [Respondent] would pick my hand up and put it on [K.H.’s] breasts several times.” He also offered that, “Maybe I did kiss [K.H.’s] vagina.” But, he “really hope[d] that didn’t happen.” Mr. Pruitt also described an occasion when K.H. walked in on him “playing with myself.” Mr. Pruitt voiced to the APD detectives, “My psychosis and, you know, the fantasies that you get when you’re bipolar. Its [sic] just so vivid. You act upon them, you know.” Mr. Pruitt added, “You know, maybe, it was a fantasy. I don’t know if I did it or not though. To be honest with you, I don’t know if I did it or not though. Probably not.” At one point, Mr. Pruitt expressed to the APD detectives that, “The whole thing was sick, very sick.” After Mr. Pruitt concluded his interview with APD, he requested to write a letter to K.H. After he was provided a pencil, Mr. Pruitt wrote on an APD Witness Statement form: My Beloved Anne, I am so sorry for all of this. I want you to know that none of this is your fault. Your mother and I take full responsibility. I was the adult. I should have known better. I let my emotions for you allow my physical actions take over. I love you Anne. * * * Take care and if you ever need anything – Please do not hesitate to call. I’ll be around. Aramis.” Mr. Pruitt confirmed for the APD detectives that his pet name for K.H. was “Anne.” He referred to himself as “Aramis.” Following the interview with Mr. Pruitt, on June 3, 2014, APD arrested Respondent for a second time and charged her with lewd or lascivious molestation. On July 1, 2014, the State Attorney’s Office formally charged both Respondent and Mr. Pruitt with four counts of lewd or lascivious molestation and one count of lewd or lascivious exhibition pursuant to section 800.04. Respondent was also charged with one count of neglect of a child pursuant to section 827.03. Respondent was released on bail pending trial. At her initial appearance in circuit court in June 2014, Respondent was ordered not to have any unsupervised contact with her daughters. K.H. and C.H. remained at Greater Oaks Village for approximately two weeks. At that time, they were released to the custody of Respondent’s sister. Respondent’s mother, Vivian Duff, moved in with Respondent’s sister to be with the children. On June 3, 2014, due to the seriousness of the charge, the School Board placed Respondent on relief of duty with pay. On June 10, 2014, the School Board placed Respondent on relief of duty without pay pending resolution of her criminal charges. At the final hearing, to reveal further insight into the alleged sexual relationship between Mr. Pruitt, Respondent, and K.H. during May 2014, the School Board produced a voluminous record of Facebook messages in the personal Facebook accounts of Mr. Pruitt, K.H., and Respondent. The messages between Mr. Pruitt and K.H. include the following7/: May 17, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to K.H., “When was the last time I told you that you are [the] sweetest girl I’ve ever known.” May 18, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to K.H., “Can we kiss and hold each other tonight.” K.H. responds, “sure.” Mr. Pruitt later tells K.H., “Don’t wear any underwear.” K.H. responds, “ok.” May 18, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to K.H., “We'll do all our playing at night in bed.” K.H. responds, “ok.” Mr. Pruitt then writes to K.H., “I’ll get your mom to come up as soon as she puts Scott to bed. Then be ready to come over. Please don’t fall asleep.” May 19, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to K.H., “I love you, Anne.” K.H. responds, “I love you aramis. I leave this class at 3:09 I will message u at 3:15.” May 19, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to K.H., “Are you going to kiss me tonight?” K.H. responds, “Yes.” May 19, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to K.H., “Tell me where you like me to touch you.” K.H. responds, “I love when you touch my heart. <3 is my mom still there.” May 19, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to K.H., “Did you know I put my hand down your pants last night?” K.H. responds, “no.” May 19, 2014: K.H. writes to Mr. Pruitt, “i had on a really long gown.” Mr. Pruitt replies, “I know, I had to pull it up three feet to get under it to feel your breast.” May 21, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to K.H., “I try to find the words or phrases to label our relationship and love. I hope we do get married it would be the most defined moment of my life. . . . You truly are my best friend and in 20 months I hope lovers.” K.H. responds, “I love you. I feel the same way of what you said. You are my best friend and lovers.” May 22, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes, “If your [sic] willing to live with your mom hating you every time she sees or hears us making love then I’ll stay. I will do anything for you for us.” K.H. responds, “I’m willing to.” May 23, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to K.H., “I’m going to touch you everywhere but you can’t move too much or you’ll wake up [Respondent] and she’ll want to join our private party.” May 23, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to K.H., “Will you make love to me tonight?” K.H. responds, “Yes.” May 27, 2014: K.H. writes to Mr. Pruitt, “Did you touch my mom under her underwear at 13? If you did you can touch me under mine.” May 29, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes K.H., “I think Sherri [Pruitt] is up to something. I think she’s going to have me and [Respondent] arrested for the e-mails. You promise you wouldn't say anything we've dine [sic].” The personal Facebook accounts of Respondent and Mr. Pruitt also record active communications in May 2014. The Facebook accounts of Respondent and Mr. Pruitt regarding K.H. include the following: May 6, 2014: Respondent writes to Mr. Pruitt, “I NEVER thought you would openly love someone more.” Mr. Pruitt responds, “She’s not just someone. She’s a piece of you.” Respondent replies, “You LOVE making me jealous.” May 10, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to Respondent, “She fell asleep next to me. Ok?” Respondent responds, “She gets all of your affection.” (Respondent specifically acknowledged this exchange and explained that she thought that Mr. Pruitt was referring to one of her dogs who had fallen asleep next to him.) May 10, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to Respondent, “She’s as attached as I am.” Respondent responds, “Duh. As long as its not more.” Mr. Pruitt replies, “Might be. I’m not leaving her. I want to marry her. I need her in my life. It’s the only life I have now.” May 11, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to Respondent, “Are you and K. going to sleep with me.” Respondent responds, “Yes.” Mr. Pruitt replies, “Can I kiss her boob.” Respondent responds, “Can you find them.” May 13, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to Respondent, “I guess I am one saying I love [K.H.] and she’s only 13.” May 13, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to Respondent, “Where are you and [K.H.] sleeping tonite.” Respondent responds, “Wherever you want us to.” (Respondent admitted she wrote this Facebook message to Mr. Pruitt. Respondent stated that she was joking.) May 16, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to Respondent, “I’ve given everything up for a 13 year old.” May 17, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to Respondent, “If I give you 15 minutes of personal time in bed doing what you want can I continue to touch her breasts?” Respondent responds, “No way forget it.” Mr. Pruitt replies, “Too late.” May 21, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to Respondent, “You don’t think that if I wanted to I could get her to have sex with me.” Respondent responds, “Of course you could you better realize your power . . . take it from her mom.” May 21, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to Respondent, “There is or was no couple who had a closer lifelong relationship than you and me. Next is what [K.H.] and I think we have.” Respondent responds, “Love.” Mr. Pruitt later writes, “I’m in love with her. . . . I’ll take care of your baby. Love her, not cheat on her and commit. This is it for me. I found who I want to grow old with.” Respondent responds, “So nice of you to lovd [sic] her that much.” Then, she writes, “You’re not trying to make me jealous, are you.” May 22, 2014: Mr. Pruitt writes to Respondent, “Your actions last night with me and [K.H.] are inexcusable. But I forgive you but I wish you would knock before coming into my room. You probably should apologize to K.H.” Respondent responds, “One time I didn’t knock because I thought [K.H.] was in there. I am sorry. You know I have been knocking.” Respondent also described a Facebook exchange with Mr. Pruitt not long before APD appeared at her home. On this occasion, Mr. Pruitt sent Respondent a message about having anal sex with her and “K.” Respondent testified that she believed that Mr. Pruitt was talking about a friend of hers who was also named “Kim.” Respondent confronted Mr. Pruitt about the message and demanded to know why he was saying crazy things. Respondent expressed that Mr. Pruitt had never previously sent her a message that crude. At that point, Respondent began to suspect that Mr. Pruitt was up to something objectionable on Facebook. Respondent also began to realize that Mr. Pruitt’s mental illness may have presented more difficulties than she could handle. However, she asserted that she never suspected that Mr. Pruitt had involved her daughter in a sexual relationship. On September 30, 2014, Respondent was arrested for a third time related to this incident. On that day, an APD Sergeant observed Respondent eating lunch in a restaurant with both K.H. and C.H. Neither Respondent’s mother nor any other supervising adult was present with them. Respondent’s meeting alone with her daughters violated the conditions of her pretrial release not to have contact with K.H. After leaving the restaurant, Respondent was arrested for violation of a pretrial condition, pursuant to section 741.29(6), Florida Statutes (2014). APD also charged Respondent with possession of a controlled substance pursuant to section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2014). Following her third arrest, the State Attorney moved to revoke Respondent’s bail. The bail revocation hearing was held on October 3, 2014. K.H. testified at the hearing. K.H. denied that Mr. Pruitt had ever sexually molested her. K.H. acknowledged that she told APD detectives in May 2014 that Mr. Pruitt touched her, slept in the same bed with her, and was a pedophile. However, K.H. announced to the court that she was not telling the truth when she made those statements. K.H. asserted that she offered that information because Mr. Adkins had threatened to take her to jail if she told APD that nothing happened between Mr. Pruitt and her. K.H. also explained that the meeting with her mother (Respondent) at the restaurant for lunch was unplanned. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court revoked Respondent’s bond. The court commented that Respondent’s meeting with her daughters appeared “to be a ruse to allow [Respondent] to have contact with her child.” Respondent was sent to jail to await trial. Ultimately, on November 18, 2014, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge of neglect of a child, a third-degree felony under section 827.03(2)(d). The court withheld adjudication. All remaining charges, including the six felony charges alleging lewd or lascivious molestation, lewd or lascivious exhibition, and possession of a controlled substance were dismissed. The misdemeanor charge of violation of a pretrial condition on domestic violence was also closed as "No Information Noticed.” Respondent was sentenced to 54 days in jail with credit for time served. She was placed on probation for two years and had to perform 200 hours of community service. On November 18, 2014, Mr. Pruitt pled guilty to one count of lewd or lascivious molestation, a second-degree felony under section 800.04(5)(c)2. Mr. Pruitt was sentenced to 30 months in jail and required to register as a sex offender. At the final hearing, Respondent professed that she greatly desires to return to teaching. She maintains that she can still be an effective teacher and make a difference in her students’ lives. Outside of this incident, Respondent represented that the School Board has never disciplined her. Respondent suggests that if the School Board has any reservations about her teaching capabilities following the underlying events, she is aware of other teaching positions she can fill within the school district which do not require direct contact with children. Respondent testified that prior to this matter, she taught for the Orange County School District for 17 years. She has taught in both elementary and middle schools for the School Board. Respondent began teaching at Apopka Middle School in 2012. Her daughters entered Apopka Middle School that year, and Respondent transferred to be with them. Respondent testified that in January 2014, Respondent’s sister asked K.H. to use Facebook and find out about Mr. Pruitt’s current situation. Respondent personally reunited with Mr. Pruitt on her trip to Melbourne in March 2014. Respondent claimed that her meeting with Mr. Pruitt was unexpected and unplanned. Respondent denied that they stayed together during the trip. Respondent testified that she and her daughters lodged with her sister, not in a hotel with Mr. Pruitt. While in Melbourne, Respondent learned from Mr. Pruitt that he was experiencing marital problems with his wife. In April 2014, Respondent became aware that Sherri had filed several injunctions against both her and him alleging domestic violence. Respondent fully acknowledged receiving the audio recording on April 29, 2014, from the robertpruitt@hotmail.com e-mail account. Respondent recognized Mr. Pruitt’s voice. She heard the declaration he made to being a pedophile and having sex with both her and K.H. Respondent expressed that she dismissed the audio recording as the result of a marital tiff between Mr. Pruitt and his wife. Respondent asserted that Mr. Pruitt’s statements were not true. Respondent believed that Mr. Pruitt was just “messing” with Sherri Pruitt. Respondent surmised that he was angry with Ms. Pruitt and was trying to hurt her. Respondent testified that in her long association with Mr. Pruitt, she had never known him to show signs of pedophilia. She had never received any information that he could be a threat to her daughters. Respondent further expressed that she believed that her family’s living arrangements precluded the possibility of Mr. Pruitt abusing K.H. Mr. Pruitt could be observed in her home by members of her family at all times. Respondent declared that she never observed Mr. Pruitt make any physical or sexual advances on K.H. Respondent never saw him touch her daughter in an improper manner or do anything suspicious with his hands or body. Furthermore, Respondent never noticed any changes in K.H.’s behavior that would indicate that she was being sexually abused or exploited. K.H. never complained to her about any inappropriate actions on the part of Mr. Pruitt. Respondent testified that she was aware that Mr. Pruitt was communicating with K.H. through Facebook both before and after he moved into her home. She also knew that he bought iPhones for his daughters to facilitate their communications. However, she conceded that she was not aware of the extent of their exchanges on social media. Respondent stated that she did not check her daughter’s Facebook account to review the conversations between Mr. Pruitt and K.H. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted that she frequently communicated with Mr. Pruitt through Facebook during May 2014. However, Respondent vehemently denied that she ever sent or received any sexually related or inappropriate comments on Facebook to or from Mr. Pruitt regarding her daughters. Respondent speculated that Mr. Pruitt created the Facebook conversations all by himself. Respondent opined that Mr. Pruitt would sign on to both his, K.H.’s, and Respondent's Facebook accounts and then send the offensive messages back and forth between the accounts. Thereafter, he would delete all the messages so that neither Respondent nor K.H. could see them. Respondent explained that Mr. Pruitt had access to K.H.’s cell phone. He also knew her passwords. Respondent offered that while Mr. Pruitt was alone in Respondent’s home, he had ample opportunity to construct (and then delete) these sexually explicit conversations. Consequently, neither Respondent nor K.H. had ever seen, or were aware of, the sexual fantasy Mr. Pruitt was living out through Facebook. Respondent also suggested that Sherri Pruitt, who knew Mr. Pruitt’s Facebook passwords and had access to his Facebook accounts, may have authored the messages in an attempt to discredit or incriminate Mr. Pruitt and Respondent. When confronted with the sexual statements K.H. made to DCF and APD regarding Mr. Pruitt, Respondent opined that APD either took K.H.’s words out of context or flatly made them up. Respondent also asserted that APD altered the Facebook messages. Respondent suggested that the APD twisted K.H.’s testimony and the Facebook exchanges so that they would support a criminal action against Respondent and Mr. Pruitt. Respondent testified that she was not aware of Mr. Pruitt’s handwritten letters that were found in her home. Respondent pointed out that there was no indication that Mr. Pruitt had actually delivered the letters to K.H. or that K.H. physically received them. Respondent declared that she never left K.H. alone with Mr. Pruitt. However, Respondent conceded that she and K.H. watched television with Mr. Pruitt in his bedroom. Respondent admitted that on several occasions they fell asleep for about an hour while watching television. Regarding the September 30, 2014, meeting with her daughters, Respondent testified that she randomly encountered her mother and her daughters. Respondent also asserted that she believed that she was authorized to see her children with another adult present. Respondent claimed that her mother was in the restaurant’s vicinity during their meal. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that she elected to plead nolo contendere to the criminal charge so that she could leave jail and return to her family. She was facing felony charges and the possibility of a lengthy jail sentence. Therefore, she believed pleading nolo contendere to the single charge of neglect of a child was in her best interests. K.H. testified at the final hearing. She unwaveringly declared that Mr. Pruitt never communicated with her or touched her in an inappropriate or sexual manner. K.H. conveyed that she first contacted Mr. Pruitt in January 2014, when she sent a friend request to his Facebook account. She also communicated with him through text messages from the cell phone he purchased for her. K.H. stated she did not personally encounter Mr. Pruitt until their trip to Melbourne in March 2014. K.H. corroborated her mother’s statement that she and her mother stayed at her aunt's house while in Melbourne. K.H. admitted that she frequently communicated with Mr. Pruitt through her Facebook account after he moved into their home. K.H. accessed Facebook through her cell phone. However, K.H. denied ever reading or receiving any sexually suggestive Facebook messages that originated from Mr. Pruitt’s Facebook account. K.H. also denied drafting or sending any sexually explicit messages to Mr. Pruitt. K.H. offered that if the sexually explicit messages appeared on her Facebook account, someone must have opened her account and deleted them before she saw them. K.H. relayed that she left her cell phone at home during school days. (K.H. stated that Apopka Middle School did not permit students to use cell phones while at school.) K.H. surmised that if Mr. Pruitt sent the messages to her, he must have accessed her Facebook account, possibly through her cell phone, and deleted the message he sent before she read them. K.H. also posited that Mr. Pruitt used her cell phone to send messages back to himself. At the final hearing, K.H. persistently testified that she never slept in Mr. Pruitt’s bedroom overnight. She specifically denied that she and her mother ever slept with Mr. Pruitt in his bed. K.H. did recount that on one occasion she did fall asleep in his room watching television. But, she was asleep for no more than an hour. She also stated she was never alone in his bedroom. A family member was always present with her. Regarding the letters allegedly written from Mr. Pruitt to her, K.H. testified that she had no memory of ever receiving the letters introduced into evidence. However, she did concede that she received other letters from Mr. Pruitt. At the final hearing, K.H. announced that the story she told Mr. Adkins, the DCF Child Protection Team, APD, and later, a State Attorney, alleging that Mr. Pruitt molested her was not the truth. K.H. explained that she made up her graphic accusations because Mr. Adkins coerced her. K.H. testified that Mr. Adkins threatened her with jail time unless she provided some incriminating testimony against Mr. Pruitt and her mother. Because Mr. Adkins threatened not to let her return home from the shelter, she felt compelled to tell him something. K.H. expressed that the story she told was not her words, but Mr. Adkins’. (At the final hearing, Mr. Adkins denied that he coerced K.H. into making a statement. He asserted that K.H. came up with the number of times Mr. Pruitt touched her vagina and breasts.) At the final hearing, C.H. adamantly testified that nothing inappropriate or sexual occurred between Mr. Pruitt and her sister, K.H, during his stay at their home. She never saw Mr. Pruitt do any improper physical act or make any statement involving K.H. C.H. stated that she and her twin sister were constantly in each other’s presence. C.H. and K.H. shared the same bedroom. She never observed, nor had any knowledge of, any sexual activity between Mr. Pruitt and her sister. Neither did she see Mr. Pruitt and her mother engage in any sexual activity. Furthermore, C.H. stated that she and K.H. kept no secrets from each other. C.H. never heard anything from K.H. about a relationship with Mr. Pruitt. C.H. relayed that Mr. Pruitt began contacting her and K.H. in January 2014, through Facebook. C.H. stated that she first met Mr. Pruitt on the trip to Melbourne with her mother and K.H. Contrary to K.H. and Respondent, however, C.H. testified that Mr. Pruitt picked them up on their way to Melbourne, and they stayed at a hotel together. C.H. agreed with K.H.’s testimony that the sisters would watch television in Mr. Pruitt’s bedroom. C.H. also relayed that K.H. was never in Mr. Pruitt’s room alone. Regarding her interview with DCF and APD on May 31, 2014, C.H. recounted that the APD detectives screamed and yelled at K.H. and her and called them “liars.” C.H. further testified that prior to K.H. talking to Mr. Adkins after he drove them to the shelter, Mr. Adkins indicated they would not see their mother again unless they gave him a statement. At the final hearing, Scott Honaker, Respondent’s husband and the father of K.H. and C.H., determinedly testified that nothing sexual or inappropriate happened between Mr. Pruitt and his daughter, K.H. He never saw Mr. Pruitt make any improper contact with or comments to K.H. Mr. Honaker relayed that he has known Mr. Pruitt most of his life and has never had a problem with him. In April 2014, he and Respondent discussed how to help Mr. Pruitt after he called Respondent’s mother from Springbrook Hospital. Mr. Honaker agreed that Respondent could bring him into their home to help him get his life together. Mr. Honaker did not have any concerns regarding the well-being of his daughters when Mr. Pruitt moved in. Mr. Honaker relayed that when Mr. Pruitt arrived, he was in bad shape. He was weak, frail, and on medication. Mr. Honaker did not believe that Mr. Pruitt posed any threat to anyone. Furthermore, Mr. Honaker never saw his daughters or wife sleep in Mr. Pruitt’s bedroom. When asked about his daughters’ graphic statements to APD and Mr. Adkins, Mr. Honaker believes that the APD detectives harassed and screamed at them to say that Mr. Pruitt sexually molested K.H. He believes that K.H. made up a story to tell APD what they wanted to hear. At the final hearing, Respondent’s mother, Vivian Duff, resolutely testified that nothing sexual or inappropriate happened between Mr. Pruitt and K.H. Ms. Duff relayed that she has known Mr. Pruitt since he was three years old. She was not aware of any past behavior on his part that would cause her to be concerned with his relationship with K.H. or C.H. Ms. Duff described her outing to pick up Mr. Pruitt from Springbrook Hospital on May 1, 2014. When Ms. Duff arrived at the hospital, she spoke with Mr. Pruitt’s treating physician. She relayed that he had no concerns with releasing Mr. Pruitt into her care. He believed that staying with her family in their home would help Mr. Pruitt straighten himself out. At Respondent’s home, Ms. Duff stayed in the bedroom right next to the one Mr. Pruitt used. Ms. Duff stated that Mr. Pruitt mostly stayed in his room. Ms. Duff testified that she never saw or observed Mr. Pruitt have any sexual interest in K.H. Also at the final hearing, Respondent produced two witnesses, Judy Babb and Debbie Cook, who were fellow teachers with Respondent in the Orange County School District. Both witnesses knew Respondent and her daughters and have observed them in their school environments. The witnesses relayed that Respondent had a very healthy relationship with her daughters. They also described Respondent as a very protective mother. Ms. Babb called Respondent a “wonderful mother” and a “wonderful teacher.” Ms. Cook characterized Respondent as “very nurturing, caring, very attentive.” In addition, Ms. Cook personally selected Respondent to teach her son in middle school. Ms. Babb asserted that Respondent can still be an effective teacher at Apopka Middle School. Apopka Middle School Principal, Kelly Pelletier, testified at the final hearing regarding the impact of this matter on Respondent’s teaching position at Apopka Middle School. Principal Pelletier stated that Honaker’s ability to perform her teaching duties has been unacceptably impaired, regardless of whether she was actually convicted of the charges brought against her. Principal Pelletier did not want Respondent returning to her school. According to her, the extensive press publicity alone made it impossible for Respondent to teach. Local, national, and international media covered the story of Respondent’s arrest. Multiple news trucks stationed themselves around the campus after Respondent’s arrest. Principal Pelletier also expressed reluctance to return Respondent to a classroom teaching position because of the negative parental reaction. Principal Pelletier stated that a number of parents contacted her and requested that she not place their children in Respondent’s class. Principal Pelletier explained that, right or wrong, these parents were very uncomfortable with the thought of Respondent teaching their children. Principal Pelletier did not believe she could reassign Respondent to another position in the school based on the same reason. The School Board also asserts that Respondent’s employment contract should be terminated because she failed to self-report her arrests within 48 hours after the arrest. As a member of the School Board’s instructional staff, Respondent’s employment is governed by Florida law, as well as a contract between the School Board and the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association. The School Board’s Management Directive A-10, Guidelines on Self-Reporting of Arrests and Convictions by Employees (“Directive A-10”), states that: The security and safety of our employees, students and guests is of paramount importance. To this end, all employees shall adhere to the following directives. All arrests and convictions (with the exception of minor traffic offenses) of all employees shall be self-reported within 48 hours to the district. Such notice shall not be considered an admission of guilt nor shall such notice be admissible for any purpose in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial. The appropriate authority to self-report arrests and convictions is the Office of Employee Relations. A phone message can be left 24 hours a day at (407)317-3239, and the employee must provide a written follow-up statement within five business days of leaving the message. Failure to self-report may result in discipline, up to and including, dismissal. Arrests shall include cases in which the employee was taken into custody, as well as charges of criminal misconduct for which the employee was not taken into custody. Convictions shall include any conviction, finding of guilt, withholding of adjudication, commitment to a pretrial diversion program, or entering of a plea or Nolo Contendere for any criminal offense other than a minor traffic offense. The School Board argues that Respondent did not notify the Office of Employee Relations within 48 hours of her arrest on Saturday, May 31, 2014. Therefore, Respondent violated Directive A-10. Respondent acknowledged that she had a responsibility to report her May 31, 2014, arrest. However, Respondent asserts that she made a good faith attempt to comply with the self- reporting requirement and should be shown leniency under the circumstances. Respondent explained that she was booked into jail early Sunday morning, June 1, 2014, at 12:37 a.m. On Monday morning, June 2, 2014 (within 48 hours of the arrest), Respondent called Principal Pelletier’s office and reported that she had experienced a family emergency. Respondent received a call back from the school and was advised to set up an appointment to meet with Mike Ganio in the Office of Employee Relations. Mr. Ganio was unavailable that Monday because he was attending a graduation. Therefore, Mr. Ganio offered to meet with Respondent on Tuesday, June 3, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. Respondent met Mr. Ganio at the appointed time. Prior to their meeting, Mr. Ganio received a copy of Respondent’s arrest affidavit from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”). Based on these circumstances, Respondent asserts that she constructively complied with the 48 hour self-reporting requirement for the May 31, 2014, arrest. Therefore, she should not be considered to have violated Directive A-10. Principal Pelletier confirmed that she received a phone message from Respondent on Sunday, June 2, 2014. However, Principal Pelletier stated that Respondent only relayed that she had a family issue and did not specifically report her arrest. Principal Pelletier contended that reporting a “family emergency” is not sufficient to meet the self-reporting requirement under Directive A-10. Directive A-10 clearly requires the employee to call the Office of Employee Relations and that the employee should actually report the arrest. The School Board charges that Respondent also failed to self-report her arrest for lewd or lascivious molestation on June 3, 2014, within 48 hours of her arrest. Respondent conceded that she did not report this arrest to the Office of Employee Relations within 48 hours. However, Respondent argues that she should be excused from violating Directive A-10 because she was in jail without access to a phone, which prevented her from calling the Office of Employee Relations. Respondent explained that after she was arrested on Tuesday, June 3, 2014, she was booked into jail about 8:00 p.m. There, she was placed in isolation, for 48 hours, during which she was unable to make a phone call. Respondent was released from jail on Thursday, June 5, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. Respondent met with Mr. Ganio on Friday morning, June 6, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. In addition, when Respondent arrived for her meeting, she saw that Mr. Ganio had documentation from FDLE of her second arrest on his desk. Respondent asserts that based on these circumstances, as well as the fact that she was only a day late, she should not be disciplined for violating the 48-hour reporting requirement. The School Board claims that Respondent failed to self-report her arrest on September 30, 2014, for violation of the pretrial condition within 48 hours of her arrest. Respondent testified that when she was arrested, she was once again jailed without access to a telephone from which to make a timely call. Respondent also insists that she was under no duty to report this third arrest because she was on administrative leave from her teaching position and did not consider herself a School Board employee at that time. (Mr. Ganio responded that Respondent was still considered an employee of the School Board on September 2014. While the School Board had placed Respondent on leave without pay status in June 2014, Respondent had not been terminated from Apopka Middle School.) Finally, the School Board asserts that Respondent failed to self-report her November 18, 2014, plea of nolo contendere to the charge of neglect of a child within 48 hours. Respondent concedes that she did not self-report her plea deal. However, Respondent testified that she did not believe she was required to report a plea of nolo contendere. Based on competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent committed “misconduct in office” in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2). The evidence and testimony presented during the final hearing demonstrate that Respondent’s behavior, which led to her plea to the charge of neglect of a child, reduces her ability to effectively perform her duties at Apopka Middle School. Accordingly, the School Board met its burden of proving that “just cause” exists to terminate Respondent’s employment pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Orange County School Board, enter a final order dismissing Respondent, Kimberly Honaker, from her teaching contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2017.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(4)(c), (5)(d), (5)(f), and (5)(o), and if so, what penalty would be appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate number 1036252, covering the areas of elementary education, middle grades-integrated curriculum, physical education, and reading. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2017. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as a fourth-grade teacher at HCES. He began working at HCES shortly after the beginning of the school year in the fall of 2009. When he started working at HCES and for part of the time relevant to this case, he was married to Tammy Madison, who was teaching and continues to teach at HCES as a kindergarten teacher. According to Mr. Madison, they separated in late 2011 and he moved out. Both continued to teach at HCES until Respondent’s transfer in January 2014. None of the allegations giving rise to this proceeding are based upon alleged shortcomings in the performance of Mr. Madison’s duties in the classroom. In January 2011, Amanda Cravatt began teaching at HCES as a long-term substitute teacher in the first grade. She had performed her student teaching at HCES and worked in a classroom with Lori Farish. Ms. Cravatt started the school year in August 2011, team teaching with Ms. Farish, but at some point during the school year was assigned her own class. Ms. Cravatt got married in April 2011. She did not know Mr. Madison when she started teaching at HCES, and prior to the 2011-2012 school year, had no contact with him. She has apparently flourished in the classroom, because for the 2013-2014 school year, she was one of the top five teachers in the District. On or about April 5, 2012, Mr. Madison sent Ms. Cravatt an e-mail on the District Groupwise e-mail system, inquiring about her last name. Ms. Cravatt did not solicit the e-mail, but continued the communication with him. At least one of the emails sent to her on Groupwise by Mr. Madison referred to her as a “hot woman.” Ms. Cravatt was unsure when Mr. Madison sent her the first e-mail, but did not believe the one about her name was the first one. She provided him her personal e-mail account address because she knew some of the e-mails were not appropriate to send through the e-mail system. Over a time period comprising approximately two weeks, the nature of the e-mails Mr. Madison and Ms. Cravatt exchanged intensified, including some sexually-explicit text and nude photos. Mr. Madison wanted a sexual relationship with Ms. Cravatt and was very persistent. Despite the fact that they were both legally married, Ms. Cravatt agreed to meet with Mr. Madison on or about April 21, 2012, after attending a family wedding. She met Mr. Madison at a Publix in Perdido Key, and they drove in her car to a parking lot across the street. The two of them got in the back seat of her car and had sexual intercourse. Afterwards, she dropped him off in the Publix parking lot and went home. The accounts given with respect to this encounter are very different. Ms. Cravatt maintains that she went with the purpose of talking to Mr. Madison and getting to know him better. She claims that he was very persistent: that she did not want to have sex and told him so, but that he pressured her to do so. She thought that by going ahead and having sex with him, she could “get out of the situation.” Mr. Madison, on the other hand, contends that from the very beginning the relationship was all about sex: “I mean, that’s what she and I – that’s what it was all about. It was no friendship. It was our friendship conversation was briefly in e-mails but it was all sexual. We met under the knowledge that we were going to have sex.” The accounts concerning the termination of the relationship are equally divergent. Mr. Madison claims that Ms. Cravatt wanted the relationship to continue and that he did not, and that Ms. Cravatt’s feelings were hurt when he ended the relationship. She, on the other hand, testified that she wanted to put the whole thing behind her and that he continued to pressure her to meet again. She was relieved that the school year was almost over. She sent him an e-mail saying she would not see him again, and admitted calling him an ass and a jerk, because he was so persistent. She asked him to destroy the pictures she had sent him and both testified that they agreed to keep the encounter between themselves. Ms. Cravatt destroyed the photos that Mr. Madison sent her and thought he had agreed to destroy the ones of her. Neither account is particularly credible, and the truth about the progression of the encounter is probably somewhere between the two accounts. However, the more credible evidence indicates that both were willing partners, but that Ms. Cravatt quickly regretted the incident. The more persuasive testimony also supports a finding that Ms. Cravatt was embarrassed and wanted to distance herself from the incident. At some point, Ms. Cravatt showed some of the e-mails sent through Groupwise to her co-teacher, Ms. Farish. On or about May 11 or 12, 2012, Ms. Farish spoke to Amanda Moore, the principal for HCES, about the e-mails from Mr. Madison to Ms. Cravatt because of the personal nature of the content. Ms. Moore spoke to both Mr. Madison and Ms. Cravatt about the e-mails and told both of them that they were not to continue on the District Groupwise system.1/ When Ms. Moore spoke with Ms. Cravatt, Ms. Cravatt seemed to her to be concerned about the emails as well. Ms. Moore made it clear that the e-mails through Groupwise could not continue, but did not ask Ms. Cravatt about anything beyond the e-mails, and Ms. Cravatt did not volunteer anything. When Ms. Moore asked Mr. Madison about the e-mails, he told her he was not going to share his personal life with her, but that it was a “two-way thing.” Ms. Moore stated that e-mails on Groupwise were happening on school grounds, and they were not going to continue. She also addressed the fact that his wife worked at HCES at the time these e-mails were sent, and the e-mails were disrespectful to his wife. She warned Mr. Madison that if the e-mails continued, she would start formal disciplinary procedures. Mr. Madison indicated that he understood and there were no further incidents that year. In the spring of the 2012-2013 school year, however, rumors were swirling through the faculty about Mr. Madison’s alleged relationship with a married third-grade teacher at HCES, Ms. Manthei.2/ The rumors made things uncomfortable at school because, as stated by Ms. Moore, both Madisons and Ms. Manthei were on the same faculty, and people were beginning to “take sides.” Both Ms. Manthei and Mr. Madison applied for priority transfers to other schools. Ms. Manthei was successful in obtaining a transfer and left HCES after the spring of 2013 to work at Ferry Pass Middle School. Mr. Madison was not successful in obtaining a transfer at that point, and he and Tammy Madison both continued to work at HCES at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year. On July 10, 2013, the Madisons’ divorce was final. Mr. Madison was 43 years old at this point. In August of 2013, Daniela Brao began teaching third grade at HCES. Ms. Brao was 22 years old, and had just graduated from the University of West Florida. She is a petite, very attractive young woman. This was her first teaching job, and she was living alone, away from her family and friends. She did not know anyone at HCES before she began working there, but wanted to teach at HCES because of its excellent reputation in the District. Ms. Brao taught a different grade, in a different part of the school, and had no students in common with Mr. Madison. She only knew who Mr. Madison was because of faculty meetings and seeing him around school. Tara Papillion, another third- grade teacher with approximately six years’ experience who began at HCES in the fall of 2012, was assigned as her mentor teacher. Ms. Papillion was the person Ms. Brao could consult about any questions she had as a new teacher at the school. Each year, HCES publishes an emergency phone list to members of the faculty and staff. The emergency phone list is published so that faculty and staff can reach each other in times of emergency, such as severe weather. Information about the use of the emergency telephone list is contained in the required reading materials that each teacher is expected to review at the beginning of the school year. Mr. Madison signed a certification on August 29, 2013, that he reviewed the required reading materials. On September 13, 2013, Ms. Brao was waiting to pick up her students from the music portable, which was behind her classroom. Mr. Madison came up to Ms. Brao and asked if she was Cuban or Puerto Rican. Ms. Brao was taken aback because she had never spoken to him before. She replied that she was Venezuelan. Mr. Madison laughed and said something along the lines of “oh, alright, at least I didn’t call you Mexican.” She found the whole incident confusing, because it was her first encounter with him, and she had no real reason based on work assignments to have any interaction with him. Later in the day, Mr. Madison sent her an apology through e-mail, saying he should not have assumed that she could only be Cuban or Puerto Rican and that he could have just asked what her latin background was. Ms. Brao responded by telling Mr. Madison not to worry about it. Both e-mails were on the District Groupwise system. On Monday, September 16, 2013, the school emergency phone list was published. Mr. Madison used the emergency phone list to obtain Ms. Brao’s personal cell phone number. The next day, he texted her, saying: ms. brao, this is miles madison from school. i apologize for texting you without your permission but i rarely run into you at school to ask. i just want to know if you received more than 2 emails from me? im just curious because i tried to retract two. Thanks. Ms. Brao responded by saying, “Hi, no just the one! I replied to it back on Friday. Anyways no worries about the question, no offense taken!” Respondent replied by stating, Ok thanks. i retracted two i sent friday night. i was curious to know if the retract button really worked Ms. Brao did not respond. She did not ask for or expect Respondent to text her, and did not know anything about him except that his wife also worked at HCES. She thought it was strange that he would text her after she had e-mailed him back. On September 26, 2013, at 4:24 p.m., Respondent texted Ms. Brao again, saying, are you mad or upset? (no response) are you mad or upset? (no response) are you not even a little curious? (no response) are you mad or upset? You look angry when i pass Ms. Brao responded about an hour later, saying, “[t]hat must just be my face at the time. Haha.” Respondent texted her again, saying, “so that would mean you are not angry with me for contacting you? i did everything i could not to.” Ms. Brao did not respond. She considered the texts inappropriate and they made her uncomfortable. She did not understand why he was sending them: she did not send texts to other teachers after hours unless there was an emergency, and in addition, she was hearing rumors about Madison and his relationship with a previous teacher at the school who had transferred. Ms. Brao did not want to get caught up in a situation with a man she believed to be married and whose wife was still working at the same school. At some point Ms. Brao mentioned the texts to Ms. Papillion, who initially told her not to worry about them. However, on October 28, 2013, she received another series of texts that increased her discomfort. That afternoon, Respondent texted her saying, do you have any interest at all? i would greatly appreciate a reply either yes or no. i need to know so i can keep you on my mind or get you off. with sugar on top, please say something Ms. Brao replied, No I’m sorry I’m a very private person. I prefer to keep my private life separate from my career. While reasonable people would consider her response to be abundantly clear, Mr. Madison did not get the message. He responded: thank you. i do think you are very beautiful and it is nice to see you everyday. a perfect and let me down easy reply. everything is cool Ms. Brao responded, “thank you, see you at school.” While this text should have ended the exchange, Mr. Madison was undeterred, and texted again: hey, i just realized i am a private person too. do you have an exception for that? just trying a little harder. Ms. Brao responded by saying, “[n]o, I’m sorry also I am already in a relationship.” She was not actually in a relationship, but wanted him to leave her alone. Then the following text exchange occurred: i figured that. how could you not be? i hope you dont feel weird seeing me at school knowing what you know. i thought i had a 1 in a million shot for you and i was happy with those odds i apologize for this, i think about you too much and then drink and so this. i should know better but it is the way you look. Please stop texting me. sorry no more Ms. Brao was very upset by the texts, and this final exchange really bothered her. She decided to say something to her principal about them, and despite being injured in a car accident the following morning, went to school afterwards in order to speak to Ms. Moore. Ms. Brao showed the texts to Ms. Papillion and told her that she was going to talk to Ms. Moore. Ms. Papillion offered to go with her and Ms. Brao readily agreed: she had at this point been employed by the school a scant two months and was very nervous about complaining to her boss about the behavior of another teacher. Ms. Papillion had received some Facebook messages from Respondent that she found odd, but did not consider them to be on the level of the texts Ms. Brao received.3/ Her primary purpose for going with Ms. Brao to see Ms. Moore was to provide emotional support. Ms. Brao was visibly upset about the texts when she spoke to Ms. Moore. She did not know Respondent well enough to know how to take his messages. Ms. Moore called Keith Leonard, Director of Human Resources for the District, because she wanted to make sure that she was taking the necessary steps to have a positive working environment. Mr. Leonard came to the school and spoke with both Ms. Brao and Ms. Papillion, read the Facebook posts and cell phone texts, and assigned the District investigator, Gary Marsh, to investigate further. Mr. Leonard asked Ms. Moore whether there were any other concerns, and Ms. Moore told him about the e-mail issue concerning Mr. Madison and Ms. Cravatt from 2012. Ms. Moore then went to Ms. Cravatt and told her that Mr. Marsh would be talking with her and that Ms. Moore wanted her to share with him the incident with Mr. Madison. At this point, Ms. Moore did not know that there had been any type of sexual encounter or relationship between Mr. Madison and Ms. Cravatt. She only knew about the e-mails exchanged on Groupwise about which she had counseled both teachers in 2012. Mr. Marsh came to the school and spoke with Ms. Brao, Ms. Papillion, Ms. Cravatt, and Mr. Madison. Ms. Brao and Ms. Papillion spoke to Mr. Marsh about the texts and Ms. Papillion relayed the contents of the Facebook messages she received. Being questioned by Mr. Marsh placed Ms. Cravatt in a difficult situation. She had agreed to keep the encounter with Mr. Madison to herself, and true to that agreement, she did not reveal to Mr. Marsh that she had any relationship or encounter with Mr. Marsh. She did acknowledge the Groupwise e-mails but did not indicate that there were any others. In other words, she answered only those questions asked of her. In so doing, she stated that in 2012, Mr. Madison had e-mailed her through Groupwise and made references to her being a “hot woman,” referenced being intoxicated when he was writing to her, and questioned whether she was a newlywed or divorced. These were true statements. She told Mr. Marsh that Respondent’s contacts were highly inappropriate (which they were, especially on a school district e-mail system), as she is married and did not indicate that she wanted further contact with him. She also stated that she still feels uncomfortable around Respondent when they are together at school. While Ms. Cravatt’s answers are most likely accurate statements in response to the questions asked of her, she knew when making them that they did not represent the totality of the interactions she had with Mr. Madison. Given the details left unstated, the statements were misleading. However, they were not necessarily untruthful. In all likelihood, she did not want to be around him and did not want further contact with him, although her feelings were not necessarily as a result of the Groupwise e-mails. Mr. Marsh also interviewed Mr. Madison, and recorded the interview. Respondent acknowledged both the texts and the Facebook messages, admitted that Ms. Brao did not initiate any contact or discussion with him, and that he obtained her personal cell number from the school telephone tree to make initial contact with her. However, he did not feel that his text messages were inappropriate, and noted that he stopped texting her when she asked him to stop. Mr. Madison’s subjective view that the text messages were not inappropriate is not credible and is rejected. Ms. Brao stated that the messages were “creeping her out” and her view is more than reasonable. Respondent was employed at HCES to teach fourth grade, not to use the female faculty as his personal dating service. Moreover, despite his claim that the texts were not inappropriate, the language he used in the text indicates that he knew better: he even apologized up front for texting her without her permission. Moreover, Mr. Madison is not a child. By any objective standard, he should have known that contacting a young woman over 20 years his junior with whom he has no prior relationship, using her personal cell phone number that she did not give him permission to use, is, standing alone, questionable. Continuing to text her when she gave him absolutely no encouragement (and even told him that she was a private person who did not want to mix her professional and private lives) was inappropriate. To text her and reference her looks, state that he cannot stop thinking about her, and state that he thinks about her when he drinks is over the top. Moreover, Respondent admitted that he was pre-occupied with Ms. Brao, wanted to ask her out and was more or less fantasizing a relationship or hoping for one, and could not “read her silence.” Contrary to his claims, Ms. Brao’s reaction was quite clear. It is true that Mr. Madison did not seek to intimidate or threaten Ms. Brao at school and she did not know of any attempt on his part to approach her outside of school other than the texts. However, the texts and their content frightened her. As she stated, because of the rumors at school about his past relationships, and the fact that she did not know him personally, she did not know what he was capable of doing, especially given his statement that he thinks of her when he drinks. As a result, she was concerned for her safety and purchased pepper spray for her protection. She began avoiding Respondent in the halls; checked and locked her classroom each time she entered or exited it; altered her schedule to leave school immediately after the bell; and altered her lunch schedule, all in an effort to avoid contact with Respondent. She quit wearing makeup and wore looser clothing in an effort to look less attractive. Her concerns intensified after she met with Mr. Marsh, and being informed that Respondent was going to be disciplined because of his behavior toward her made her feel more vulnerable, not knowing whether he would retaliate against her for complaining about his behavior. After completion of his investigation, Mr. Marsh presented the information gathered to the District Disciplinary Committee, who then, consistent with District policy and practice, made a recommendation to the Superintendent concerning what, if any, discipline should be imposed. It was determined that a letter of reprimand would be appropriate. On December 5, 2013, Mr. Madison received a Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action and was directed to appear at Dr. Alan Scott’s office on Monday, December 9, 2013, and advised that he could have a union investigator present at the meeting. The Notice indicated that he was being provided a copy of information identifying specifically the offense or misconduct involved, as well as an accounting of the offense including times, dates, witnesses, and any other information presently available. It is not clear from the Notice whether the information was provided that day, or was provided when Mr. Madison met with Dr. Scott on December 9. On December 9, 2013, Respondent was given a letter of reprimand by Dr. Scott. The letter states in pertinent part: The School District of Escambia County learned of allegations regarding you sending inappropriate messages to female co-workers at Hellen Caro Elementary School. In accordance with our contractual obligations you were provided due notice and the opportunity to respond to the allegations. Based on the investigation, including the meeting with you, the District finds you engaged in sending inappropriate and unprofessional messages to female co- workers. These messages were considered to be harassing in nature and created an atmosphere of fear when directed at a newly hired female teacher. The District also found that you inappropriately used the phone tree directory to contact the newly employed teacher without her consent for contact in a non-emergency situation. Based on the above findings, the District concluded your conduct was unprofessional, inappropriate and displayed a disregard for professional standards. The District also concluded that your behavior lacked any positive educational value. Your conduct adversely affects your ability to work in a cohesive nature with fellow co-workers at Hellen Caro Elementary School. The District believes that, as a teacher, you are required to exercise a measure of leadership beyond reproach. By your actions, you have lessened the reputation of all who practice the profession. The profession cannot condone your actions, nor can the public, who we serve. Respondent did not grieve the reprimand or request a hearing to contest the discipline. However, when he received the information compiled through Mr. Marsh’s investigation, including the witness statements, he believed that Ms. Cravatt had gone forward to complain about him. He considered this a betrayal of their agreement and it made him angry. As a result, on December 10, 2013, he e-mailed Ms. Moore and asked to speak to her. She was attending meetings off campus and responded that she would see him upon her return the next day. Mr. Madison met with Ms. Moore on December 11, 2013. At that time he apologized to her for the embarrassment he was causing the District, and indicated that he was trying to make things right and do a good job in the classroom. She in turn shared her expectations for him in teaching his students on a professional level. Mr. Madison told Ms. Moore that he felt he was being unfairly accused by Ms. Brao, Ms. Papillion, and Ms. Cravatt: he said he and Ms. Papillion were only friends, and that he wanted to get to know Ms. Brao better and thought she might be interested in him. He recognized he should not have used the emergency telephone tree to get her telephone number, and stopped texting her when she asked him to. With respect to Ms. Cravatt, he told Ms. Moore that he was very upset when he learned that Ms. Cravatt was a part of this, because they had a relationship in the past with an understanding that they would protect each other and not hurt each other or let it get out. He felt that Ms. Cravatt had broken that promise and he wanted his name cleared. Mr. Madison then handed to Ms. Moore a piece of paper he had prepared on his computer the day before, and that was admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 3. The document stated: I have multiple pictures of Cravatt naked that she sent me during the month of April, 2012. one is of her posing in a bathroom fully naked one is of her bending over and taking a picture of her rear using the mirror. one is of her sunbathing naked (face not shown), Caesarean scar is visible. one is of her sunbathing at the purple parrot just showing her body and feet. Cravatt made a false statement to Gary Marsh stating that she received what she felt was inappropriate messages and that she felt uncomfortable being around me at school. She and Ms. Farrish also conspired or Cravatt alone insinuated that I sent her flowers and a poem during the month of May 2012. Cravatt and I had sex on one occasion in the back of her car behind the True Value in Perdido Key in April 2012. She sent me an email later that I felt was threatening and i said that we were not going to see each other again. She called me an “ass and a jerk” and that was the last contact I had with her. I have sexual emails that she and I exchanged and have printed all pictures of her. Below this text at the bottom of the paper were three short paragraphs that were marked through with blue magic marker but completely readable. Those paragraphs read: I want Cravatt to contact Mr. Marsh at 850- 439-2220 in the presence of Mrs. Moore and she can leave a message if he does not answer. I want her to admit that she lied about her statement. When Mr. Marsh contacts me stating that he received this clarification, then I will not pursue this matter. If she refuses, then the pictures and the e-mails will be delivered to the District. Respondent claims that after he cooled off, he decided that he did not want the pictures to go to the District and only wanted Ms. Moore to get Ms. Cravatt to tell the truth. He claims he marked through the last few paragraphs because he did not want her to follow through with what he had written there, and that when Ms. Moore asked if he wanted the paper back, he said to either burn it or give it back to him. Ms. Moore, on the other hand, testified that Mr. Madison told her that he had compromising pictures of Ms. Cravatt and that if Ms. Cravatt did not go to Mr. Marsh and retract her statement, he was going to send the pictures and e-mails to the District. He asked her if she wanted to see the pictures, and she declined. Ms. Moore read the document and asked Respondent several times if the statements were true and if he was sure he wanted her to go to Ms. Cravatt and he said yes. Ms. Moore’s testimony is credited. She was candid, consistent, and had no agenda other than to maintain a professional atmosphere at HCES. Conversely, Respondent did not give Ms. Moore Petitioner’s Exhibit 3 immediately. He wrote it the day before he gave it to Ms. Moore and by his own testimony, he had cooled down before seeing her. It would have been a simple matter to delete the final paragraphs from the typewritten document before giving it to Ms. Moore. If he did not have access to the computer, he could have cut or torn off the bottom of the page. Instead, he marked through the documents so that they remained legible. Moreover, as is found below, his statements made during the ensuing investigation were consistent with the sentiment expressed in those final paragraphs, and at least at the time he gave the document to Ms. Moore, he did want her to follow through with the District. It is more likely that he changed his mind, if at all, after giving Ms. Moore the document. The afternoon of December 11, Ms. Moore called Ms. Cravatt to her office and showed her the document Respondent had prepared. Ms. Cravatt denied the statements Respondent had documented. Ms. Moore then called Mr. Leonard at the District and reported the day’s events, sent his office a copy of Petitioner’s Exhibit 3 at his request, and was told Mr. Marsh would contact her. December 11 was the first that Ms. Moore was aware that there were allegations that Ms. Cravatt had previous personal contact with Mr. Madison beyond the Groupwise e-mails. The next morning, December 12, Ms. Cravatt came to Ms. Moore’s office at approximately 7:00 a.m. She was crying and very upset, and wanted to speak with Mr. Marsh. Ms. Moore determined that Ms. Cravatt was not going to be able teach her class and arranged for a substitute. Mr. Marsh arrived at HCES at approximately 9:00 a.m. Ms. Cravatt requested to meet with him privately and they spoke in the school professional library. After about 45 minutes, Mr. Marsh asked that Ms. Moore join them. At that point, Ms. Cravatt told Ms. Moore, “you’re not going to be happy with me, but I am going to admit to all of this on paper, but it’s not true.” Ms. Cravatt told Ms. Moore that she just wanted it all to stop. At that point, Mr. Marsh took Ms. Cravatt’s sworn statement in which she admitted to having sent the pictures and sexual e-mails to Mr. Madison, as well as to having sex with him. When the tape was turned off for the recorded interview, however, Ms. Cravatt continued to deny that she had a relationship with Mr. Madison.4/ She did not want to admit to the allegations to Ms. Moore because it was very embarrassing to her and she wanted to keep her private life and her career separate. On Friday, December 13, 2013, both Ms. Cravatt and Mr. Madison were suspended with pay pending completion of an investigation by Mr. Marsh. As stated by Dr. Scott, “[p]art of what we have to do is to protect the educational process at the school. The behavior of adults should not interfere with what we’re trying to do with the young students at the school . . . . The situation at the school was untenable. It was a difficult environment. Some of the female teachers were very uncomfortable there.” As part of the investigation, Mr. Madison was interviewed twice: once on December 12, 2013, and again on December 20, 2013. The summaries of the recorded interviews include the following: [December 12, 2013] In synopsis, Madison was advised he was being interviewed as a witness who had provided allegations to Moore. In discussion, Madison reported having a consensual sexual relationship with Amanda Cravatt in April, 2012; noting he had both pictures and emails as evidence of their relationship. He explained this was their only liaison, and that they had agreed to never discuss their liaison again and to delete anything between them. However, after reading the information provided by Cravatt in a prior investigation, he felt it was necessary to provide this information to Moore so she could speak with Cravatt and have her tell the truth. He added this was a chance for Cravatt to make things right and admit she lied. In further discussion, Madison declined multiple requests to provide the referenced photographs and other documents for review in support of his allegations; stating he was keeping his word with Cravatt to not tell anyone about their relationship. Madison also stated the referenced photographs were his security to keep either her or her husband from doing any harm to him. He noted that if he gives up the photographs, then he has nothing; adding he wanted her to worry for the rest of her life. Madison feels his written comments are not extortion, noting he did not want to hurt either her or her family; only to prove that her comments were false. At the conclusion of the interview [Madison]/5 attempted to take back the document previously given to Moore; claiming it was only meant for Moore to see. [December 20, 2013] On this date, Miles Madison, Teacher, Hellen Caro Elementary School (HCES) was interviewed regarding this investigation, specific to his allegations that A. Cravatt had provided false information during a prior investigation. Madison was accompanied by Bill Vincent, Union Representative . . . . In synopsis, Madison stated his intentions were not to make any “allegations”, but rather provide the information to Ms. Moore, Principal, HCES so she could address them with Ms. Cravatt. Madison felt there had been an “injustice”; as the letter [was] given to Moore only to address his thoughts about what he felt to be incorrect statements by Cravatt. In further discussions, Madison stated only he can interpret what is meant by his comments, as that document was to be used by Moore to get facts straight with Cravatt. In addition, he requested Moore destroy the document after she spoke with Cravatt. Madison also stated that he had no expectations of any specific outcome, but then stated that her comments were a lie and he wanted them removed from the records. He also wanted her to know that he will always have the referenced pictures, but denied he would use the pictures against her. (Emphasis added.) Mr. Madison admitted at hearing that on December 12 he told Mr. Marsh he wanted Ms. Cravatt to be aware he had the photographs and for her to worry for the rest of her life, and that on December 20 he stated he wanted her to know that he will always have those pictures for future reference, yet denies threatening her, saying that he made at least one of those statements in anger. Respondent’s denial is not credible. On January 8, 2014, Respondent was notified that his suspension with pay was lifted and he could return to work the following day. The decision was made, however, that he should not return to HCES, and he was transferred to Ferry Pass Middle School. Ms. Cravatt returned to her classroom at HCES after the Christmas break. Respondent’s transfer from HCES made a significant difference in Ms. Brao’s ability to function as a teacher. As she stated, she felt like she could breathe and it was a relief not to worry about Respondent. Respondent was also notified by letter dated January 8, 2014, that the Superintendent intended to recommend to the School Board that he be suspended for three days without pay, beginning January 22, 2014. The letter provided him a point of entry to challenge the School Board’s decision. The School Board approved the recommendation that Respondent be suspended for three days without pay, and he was notified by letter dated January 22, 2014. Mr. Madison did not challenge the suspension and presently teaches at Ferry Pass Middle School. Respondent expressed no real remorse for his actions, and does not seem to comprehend that he has done anything wrong. He does not believe that Ms. Brao and Ms. Papillion were uncomfortable with him at any time. He continued to express anger toward Ms. Cravatt and considers himself to be a victim with respect to the statements she made to Mr. Marsh in the first investigation. Despite being told repeatedly that she had never gone to Ms. Moore to complain about him, and was questioned as a result of Ms. Farish’s original report to Ms. Moore and Ms. Moore’s report to Mr. Leonard, he insisted that Ms. Cravatt had orchestrated the complaints regarding his e-mails to her. Even assuming that his assumptions were correct, which they are not, his actions would not be justified.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Counts 2-6 in the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent’s license be suspended for a period of two years, followed by probation for three years; that he receive a reprimand and an administrative fine of $500, due two years from the issuance of the Final Order in this case; and that as a condition of probation, Respondent be required to complete such continuing education as determined appropriate by the Commission, with an emphasis on professionalism and boundaries. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Charlotte County School Board (the "School Board") has just cause to terminate the employment contract of Respondent, Natalie Santagata, based upon loss of effectiveness as a teacher due to scandalous materials being disseminated to School Board employees and parents.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly authorized entity responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of the School, which is an elementary school within the Charlotte County Public School system. The School is an "A-rated" school with approximately 650 students and 45 members of the teaching staff. At all times relevant hereto, Santagata was employed at the School under a professional services contract. At the time of her termination from employment by the School Board, Santagata was teaching fifth grade at the School. She had been teaching at the School for approximately four years, having transferred from Peace River Elementary School. By all accounts, Santagata was an excellent teacher when she was hired to work at the School. She was hired to teach third-graders, an important grade due to the "no-child- left-behind" requirements associated with that grade level. Santagata was a "stellar" teacher according to the school principal. When she first came to the School, she taught third grade. Then, she "looped" to fourth grade the next year. One hundred percent of her students' parents agreed to allow their children to loop with her so she could continue teaching them. Santagata continued to be an excellent teacher at the School. However, in the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, things began to change. At the start of the school year Santagata was operating at about the same proficiency level as in previous years, but in November her supervisor and co-workers began to notice disturbing changes in Santagata's appearance and demeanor. She began to show up at work in a somewhat disheveled state, she began to lose a noticeable amount of weight, and she was absent from the classroom more than usual. There were reports that Santagata was leaving her co-teacher alone in the room with the students more frequently. Her co-teacher at that time was a teacher with three years' experience as a teacher, but was in her first year at the School. Santagata was, however, never unable to perform her duties as a teacher during the school year. Santagata was experiencing significant difficulties in her personal life at the time she began to struggle as a teacher. She was going through a very unpleasant divorce and was undergoing extreme stress and anxiety because of that event. Beginning late in 2010 and continuing into the early months of 2011, Santagata showed signs that she was not performing up to her normally excellent standards. According to her principal, Santagata began to lose her "with-it-ness," i.e., her ability to maintain interaction and involvement with her students and their parents. One day, Santagata did not show up for work. When the principal called, Santagata said she had overslept. Santagata, ultimately, made it to work, but she was late and was admonished for that failure on her part. As her concerns about Santagata grew, the principal began to take more frequent "walk-throughs" in Santagata's classroom as a means of monitoring her more effectively. As a result of her observations during those walk-throughs, the principal decided to offer Santagata some help by way of the employee assistance program. The program provides teachers a way to deal with private and personal problems more effectively in order to maintain professionalism in their classrooms. The program was first discussed with Santagata in November of the 2010-2011 school year when the principal first learned Santagata was going through her divorce. The program was offered a second time in January after Santagata's behavior and demeanor began to change even more. There was no evidence as to whether Santagata availed herself of the employee assistance program. At about the time Santagata began showing signs of stress, the School received a few anonymous telephone calls from individuals saying that Santagata was using drugs and making inappropriate life choices. The School knew that Santagata's estranged husband was attempting to hurt her in any way he could. It was believed that he may be the source of the anonymous calls. The School also received an anonymous email advising about a You-Tube video purportedly showing Santagata in a room where other people were apparently smoking marijuana. When confronted with those allegations, Santagata voluntarily agreed to take a drug test to prove her innocence. The School decided not to test Santagata at that time. At a school field day held in the spring, a couple of parents reported to a teacher that Santagata looked "terrible." The teacher reported the observation to the principal, who went to see for herself. The principal found Santagata not to be up to her normal standards, but she did not look terrible. Shortly thereafter, the principal received another anonymous email saying Santagata was abusing drugs. At that time, the School decided to ask Santagata to submit to a drug test. Santagata was placed on administrative leave pending the result of the test, and when the test returned with a negative result, Santagata was reinstated. The reinstatement occurred just a few days before the end of the 2010-2011 school year. After the conclusion of the school year, various administrators at the School received packages from an anonymous sender. The packages contained videos and still photographs that purported to be Santagata engaged in sexual activities and smoking marijuana. The person in the videos and photographs resembled Santagata. The school principal recognized Santagata's house from one of the videos or still photographs. However, there was no verification that the person in the videos and photographs was indeed Santagata. Santagata neither admitted, nor denied that the videos and photographs were of her. One of the videos shows a woman engaging in oral sex with a man. Both appear to be adults and the sexual activity appears to be consensual. The videos also show the man and woman smoking cigarettes, but holding the cigarettes between the thumb and forefinger, i.e., in the manner which is generally associated with smoking marijuana cigarettes. The man in the videos at one point asked the woman whether she was "high" or some such reference to drug use. One of the videos also shows the woman moving from room to room, seemingly gathering clothes and other items as if she were packing. The man and woman appear to be angry at each other during this particular video. The woman appears to be preparing to terminate whatever relationship existed with the man. Once the videos were received at the School Board, they were turned over to the School Board security officer so that an investigation could be conducted. As part of the investigation, the security officer reviewed the videos and pictures, pleadings and other documents concerning Santagata's divorce proceedings, newspaper articles, and other documents. The officer interviewed school employees, but did not interview any parents of students from the School. The officer did not interview Santagata. Mrs. Mangiafico, a parent of students at the school, also received the pictures that had been sent to the School and School Board. Mangiafico's children were never in Santagata's classroom, but they were friends with Santagata's children. Mangiafico may have, at the time she turned over the pictures to the School, stated that she did not want Santagata teaching her children. However, she considered Santagata to be an excellent teacher and that "everybody wanted their kid in her class." Mangiafico did not know whether any other parents of students received the videos or pictures. She did not believe there had been any change in Santagata's reputation as a result of the pictures being disseminated. A local newspaper published an article about Santagata saying she was under investigation due to "inappropriate photos" the School had received. The article was published on August 10, 2011. There is no mention in the article as to what the photographs may have depicted. The School Board recognized that Santagata was not responsible for releasing the videos and pictures. It was, however, concerned about the possible perception of the School and Santagata by the general public. Specifically, the superintendent worried that "because the pictures and videos had been sent out to parents, that would affect [Santagata's] effectiveness in the classroom." The School principal was concerned about "the doubt that was placed in parents' minds" about Santagata as a teacher. Likewise, the assistant superintendent's concern was that once the pictures got out into the public, "it would lessen her effect [sic] as a teacher." The School Board was genuinely worried that if the videos and pictures were distributed more widely, the School may experience some negative public scrutiny. The School and School Board took strong measures to ensure that they were not the source of dissemination of the information to the public, but they could not be sure that some anonymous person might do so. Based upon those concerns, the School Board decided to terminate Santagata's employment. Santagata was offered the opportunity to resign, rather than being fired, but she refused to do so. Santagata was placed on administrative leave with pay, effective August 1, 2011. On September 6, 2011, the School Board voted to terminate Santagata's employment; she was notified by letter the next day. According to the superintendent of schools and the School principal, the pictures and videos were not sufficient, in and of themselves, to warrant discipline against Santagata, nor had any discipline been imposed against Santagata prior to her being placed on administrative leave. The basis of the School Board's action was simply the possibility that Santagata may lose her effectiveness, if the public was made aware of the photographs and videos.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Charlotte County School Board, rescinding the termination of Respondent, Natalie Santagata's, employment and that she be reinstated to her position with back pay and benefits for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2012, 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 13th day of March, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Douglas Whittaker, Superintendent Charlotte County School Board 1445 Education Way Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1052 Gerard Robinson, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles M. Deal, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark S. Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Erin G. Jackson, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 16, 2000, and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Mr. Navarro began working for the School Board as a custodian in July 1996. He was assigned full-time to the custodial staff at C.O. Taylor/Kirklane Elementary School ("Taylor/Kirklane Elementary") during the 1998-1999 and 1999- 2000 school years. The terms of Mr. Navarro's employment are governed by the provisions of the Agreement between The School District of Palm Beach County, Florida, and National Conference of Firemen & Oilers, Local 1227, July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2002 ("Union Contract"). On January 22, 1999, Mr. Navarro suffered an injury to his back while he was lifting several tables to put them on the stage in the school cafeteria; the tables slipped, and Mr. Navarro fell. Mr. Navarro experienced a sharp pain in his back that almost kept him from walking, but he finished his shift that night, which was a Friday night.2 Because of the pain in his back, Mr. Navarro could not get out of bed on Saturday or Sunday, and, on Monday, he went to see his personal doctor, J.J. Bogani, M.D. Dr. Bogani examined Mr. Navarro and prescribed pain medication. Dr. Bogani advised Mr. Navarro to file a workers' compensation claim with the School Board, which he did. As a result of his workers' compensation claim, Mr. Navarro was referred to a Dr. Goldberg, who examined and treated him on February 1, 1999. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Goldberg was one of the physicians who acted as a primary physician, or "gatekeeper," for employees of the School Board who were injured on the job and whose care was covered by workers' compensation insurance. Dr. Goldberg diagnosed Mr. Navarro's injury as lumbar strain. Mr. Navarro saw Dr. Goldberg again on February 3, 1999, and Dr. Goldberg prescribed a back belt for Mr. Navarro. On Mr. Navarro's third visit on February 8, 1999, Dr. Goldberg found that Mr. Navarro had reached maximum medical improvement with respect to the lumbar strain and that the lumbar strain had been resolved. Dr. Goldberg released Mr. Navarro to full-duty work, with an impairment rating of zero percent. Dr. Goldberg examined Mr. Navarro again on March 2, 1999, and Dr. Goldberg reaffirmed his diagnosis of lumbar strain, prescribed physical therapy for Mr. Navarro three times per week for two weeks and returned Mr. Navarro to full-duty work as of March 3, 1999. Dr. Goldberg did not examine Mr. Navarro subsequent to March 2, 1999. In early April 1999, Miguel Mendez, an attorney specializing in workers' compensation, contacted the company that administers the School Board's workers' compensation program on Mr. Navarro's behalf and requested that Mr. Navarro be evaluated by an orthopedist, Dr. Merrill Reuter. The administrator responded in a letter dated April 7, 1999, that Dr. Goldberg declined to recommend an orthopedic evaluation. Mr. Mendez was advised that Mr. Navarro could request a new gatekeeper physician, and a list of approved gatekeeper physicians was included with the letter. Mr. Navarro did not select a new gatekeeper physician until June 2000, even though he continued to have severe back pain. Dr. Bogani, Mr. Navarro's personal physician, treated him for his back problems from March 1999 until June 2000. Agartha Gragg was appointed principal at Taylor/Kirklane Elementary in July 1999, and she was apparently suspicious of Mr. Navarro's work attendance from the beginning of her tenure.3 One of the first changes she made as principal was moving the custodians' sign-in/sign-out log to her office so she could keep track of the comings and goings of the custodial staff. The School Board's personnel records show that Mr. Navarro was absent on annual leave, sick leave, sick leave charged to annual leave, or sick leave charged to "without pay,"4 on January 5 through 14, 18 through 21, and 27 and 28, 2000.5 On January 27, 2000, Dr. Bogani wrote a note on a page of his prescription pad certifying that Mr. Navarro was not able to return to work until January 31, 2000, and that Mr. Navarro needed to be restricted for two weeks, with no heavy lifting or bending. The School Board's records reflect that Mr. Navarro was absent on leave "without pay," sick leave charged to annual leave, or sick leave charged to "without pay" on February 4, 7, through 18, and 21, 2000. Dr. Bogani gave Mr. Navarro a certification dated February 7, 2000, indicating that he could return to work on February 8, 2000. In February 2000, Ms. Gragg received several complaints about Mr. Navarro's job performance from members of the teaching staff. The complaints involved Mr. Navarro's failure to keep his assigned areas clean, especially his failure to keep the floors clean. At the time, Mr. Navarro was working in the area that included the kindergarten classrooms, and one kindergarten teacher wrote Ms. Gragg a note praising the substitute custodian and advising Ms. Gragg that her area was much cleaner when Mr. Navarro was absent. The School Board's records reflect that Mr. Navarro was absent on sick leave, sick leave charged to annual leave, or sick leave charged to "without pay" on March 6, 7, and 13 through 17, 2000, except for one hour on March 13, 2000. Dr. Bogani gave Mr. Navarro a certification dated March 7, 2000, indicating that he could return to work on March 8, 2000. On March 13, 2000, Dr. Bogani gave Mr. Navarro a certification stating that Mr. Navarro would not be able to work during the week of March 13, 2000 and that he would be unable to lift more than 15 pounds on his return to work. In a letter dated March 7, 2000, Ms. Gragg directed Mr. Navarro to attend a meeting with her on March 13, 2000, to discuss his excessive absences and his unsatisfactory job performance. Ms. Gragg advised Mr. Navarro in the letter that he could bring a representative with him and that the meeting could result in disciplinary action. A note at the bottom of the letter states that Ms. Gragg's secretary, Rosa McIntyre, read the letter to Mr. Navarro in Spanish. Mr. Navarro attended the meeting with Lourdes Martinez, a paralegal employed in Mr. Mendez's office, as his representative; the other attendees were Ms. Gragg and Ms. McIntyre. The meeting was summarized in a letter to Mr. Navarro dated March 13, 2000, entitled "Verbal Reprimand With a Written Notation," in which Ms. Gragg noted that Mr. Navarro explained that both his absences and his poor job performance were due to medical reasons. The letter reflects that, at the meeting, Ms. Gragg directed Mr. Navarro to provide medical certification from his doctor for any future absences; directed Mr. Navarro to review cleaning procedures with the Interim Head Custodian at Taylor/Kirklane Elementary; recommended that Mr. Navarro contact Ernie Camerino's6 office to discuss leave options for which he might be eligible; recommended that Mr. Navarro contact the School Board's Employee Benefits and Risk Management office to discuss medical disability options that might be available to him; advised Mr. Navarro that his job performance would be reviewed on April 18, 2000; and, finally, advised Mr. Navarro that, if he failed to follow the directives and recommendations set forth in the letter, he would be subject to further discipline, including termination of his employment. The March 13, 2000, letter was prepared in both an English and a Spanish version and was sent to Mr. Navarro by certified mail. Ms. Gragg also noted in the March 13, 2000, reprimand letter that she might change the area Mr. Navarro was assigned to clean. Ms. Gragg did change Mr. Navarro's assignment, but, according to Mr. Navarro, the change was for the worse because he was required to carry a vacuum cleaner on his back and to vacuum carpeted floors, both of which put a lot of strain on his back. The School Board's records reflect that Mr. Navarro was absent on sick leave, sick leave charged to annual leave, and sick leave charged to "without pay" on April 5 through 7 and 28, 2000, and for four hours on April 27. On May 1, 2000, Dr. Bogani certified that Mr. Navarro was under his care from April 28 through May 2, 2000, and noted that his office should be called if there were any questions. On April 17, 2000, Ms. Gragg received a complaint from a member of the teaching staff that Mr. Navarro had not vacuumed the carpet in her classroom the previous week. A copy of the complaint was provided to Mr. Navarro, and he went to Ms. Gragg's office on April 17, 2000, to discuss the complaint. In a letter dated April 17, 2000, Ms. Gragg requested that Mr. Navarro meet with her to discuss his job performance and any concerns he might have regarding his job. This letter was prepared in both an English version and a Spanish version, and Mr. Navarro signed the acknowledgement that he had received the letter on April 17. Mr. Navarro did not, however, meet with Ms. Gragg during the month of April 2000.7 The School Board's records reflect that Mr. Navarro was absent on sick leave charged to annual leave or sick leave charged to "without pay" on May 1, 2, 11, 12, 15 through 19, 26, and 30, 2000; Mr. Navarro was also absent for five hours on both May 22 and 25, 2000. On May 11, 2000, Dr. Bogani provided certification that Mr. Navarro would be out of work on May 11 and 12, 2000, "for health reasons," noting that his office should be called if there were any questions. On May 15, 2000, Dr. Bogani provided certification that Mr. Navarro would not be able to work on May 15 through 19, 2000, because of "severe muscle spasm in lumbar spine," noting that Mr. Navarro would not be able to vacuum for at least a month. On May 26, 2000, Dr. Bogani provided certification that Mr. Navarro had been under his care for back problems and that Mr. Navarro would be under his care from May 26 through 30, 2000. In a letter dated May 11, 2000, Ms. Gragg notified Mr. Navarro that he was to attend a meeting on May 17, 2000, to discuss allegations of excessive absences and to review his job performance, that he could bring a representative to the meeting, and that the meeting could result in disciplinary action being taken against him. The letter was prepared in both an English and a Spanish version. Meanwhile, Ms. Gragg completed Mr. Navarro's annual evaluation in which she gave him an overall unsatisfactory rating and rated his performance unsatisfactory in several categories, including attendance. Ms. Gragg set forth Mr. Navarro's deficiencies on a separate sheet attached to the annual evaluation, as follows: Job Knowledge You failed to effectively clean the "gang" bathrooms in the main building May 15- May 23, 2000. [Correct dates are April 15- April 23, 2000][8] You failed to effectively clean the floors in Bldg 200 on March 23, April 17-May 25, 2000. [Correct dates are April 17-April 25, 2000, see endnote 9.] Self Management/Self Motivation You did not complete assigned duties in a timely manner. Restrooms in the main building were not cleaned on May 15-23, 2000. [Correct dates are April 15-April 23, 2000, see endnote 9.] Interpersonal effectiveness You failed to complete your assigned duties, thus causing your co-workers to assume extra responsibilities. Mr. Angel Rivera, Head Custodian, was required to clean you assigned areas on March 23, April 17-May 25, 2000. [Correct dates are April 15-April 25, 2000, see endnote 9]. Ms. Gragg also noted on the annual evaluation form that Mr. Navarro had been absent 53 days during the 1999-2000 school year and that she had previously recommended that Mr. Navarro inquire about his eligibility for appropriate leave. The evaluation form was signed by Ms. Gragg and dated May 18, 2000, and, at some point, Ms. Gragg discussed the evaluation and the specific deficiencies and improvement strategies with Mr. Navarro. A note dated May 19, 2000, signed by Ms. McIntyre, indicates that the evaluation was translated into Spanish for Mr. Navarro and that Mr. Navarro refused to sign the form. In a letter dated May 23, 2000, Ms. Gragg issued Mr. Navarro a written reprimand for his failure "to report to work in accordance with published rules and the duties and responsibilities" of his job. Specifically, Ms. Gragg noted that Mr. Navarro had been put on notice on March 20, 2000, that he was to report to work on a regular basis; that he had been absent 14.5 days since March 20, 2000; that he had been absent a total of 53 days during the school year; and that he was absent on May 18 and 19, 2000, but did not call to inform her office of his absence. Mr. Gragg advised Mr. Navarro in this letter that, if he engaged in similar conduct in the future, he would be subject to further discipline, including termination of his employment. The letter was prepared in both an English and a Spanish version. It is not clear from the letter whether Ms. Gragg was reprimanding Mr. Navarro for excessive absences or for failing to call to inform her office of his absences on May 18 and 19, 2000. Ms. Gragg was advised in a letter from a teacher dated May 25, 2000, that Mr. Navarro had failed to empty the garbage can in her classroom on May 24, 2000, and Ms. Gragg provided a copy of the letter to Mr. Navarro. Throughout March, April, and May 2000, Mr. Navarro was experiencing problems with his back, and he was able to work only when he took pain medication, which made him feel drowsy and lethargic. Mr. Navarro visited Dr. Bogani often as a result of the pain, and he always provided to Ms. Gragg Dr. Bogani's medical certifications for his absences.9 Mr. Navarro was also becoming increasingly distraught because of what he considered Ms. Gragg's unfair criticisms of his job performance and her apparent inability to understand the extent of his medical problems. He was particularly affected by his unsatisfactory annual evaluation because he had received satisfactory evaluations since he began working for the School Board. On June 5, 2000, Mr. Mendez, the attorney handling Mr. Navarro's workers' compensation claim, contacted the School Board's workers' compensation administrator on Mr. Navarro's behalf and requested that Dr. James B. Phillips be assigned as Mr. Navarro's gatekeeper. An appointment was arranged for Mr. Navarro with Dr. Phillips for June 8, 2000. Mr. Navarro advised Ms. McIntyre that he would be absent on June 8, 2000, for a doctor's appointment.10 Ms. McIntyre asked that Mr. Navarro complete a "Leave/Temporary Duty Elsewhere" form requesting leave for June 8, 2000, and he refused; this form is a School Board form that must be completed before an employee can be approved for any type of leave. Ms. Gragg sent Mr. Navarro a memorandum dated June 7, 2000, in which she directed him to submit a completed leave form to her "today" and advised him that failure to do so would be considered insubordination and would subject him to discipline. Mr. Navarro submitted a leave form dated June 7, 2000, but he did not indicate on the form the type of leave he requested or the amount of time he would be absent. Ms. Gragg disapproved the request on June 7, 2000, with the notation "Incomplete TDE." Mr. Navarro gave no explanation for his failure to fill out the leave request form completely. Dr. Phillips first saw Mr. Navarro on June 8, 2000, and Mr. Navarro explained to Dr. Phillips that he had injured his back on the job on January 22, 1999. Dr. Phillips did several tests and diagnosed Mr. Navarro as having a "lumbosacral sprain, chronic," but also noted that Mr. Navarro most likely magnified the symptoms of his back injury. Dr. Phillips also recommended that Mr. Navarro have a MRI. Dr. Phillips completed a Workers' Compensation Work Status Report in which he indicated that Mr. Navarro could do light-duty work with the restrictions that he was not to use a vacuum cleaner or to lift more than 15 pounds. Dr. Phillips directed Mr. Navarro to give the form to his supervisor at work. On June 9, 2000, Mr. Navarro took this form to Ms. Gragg's office at Taylor/Kirklane Elementary. At approximately 10:15 a.m., Ms. McIntyre called Linda Meyer, a claims technician for the School Board's workers' compensation program, and advised her that Dr. Phillips had placed Mr. Navarro on light-duty restrictions and that there were no such assignments available at the school. One of Ms. Meyer's responsibilities is to find light-duty placements for School Board employees injured on the job who cannot return to their jobs because of work restrictions imposed by a doctor participating in the School Board's workers' compensation program. Ms. Meyer told Ms. McIntyre to send Mr. Navarro to her office immediately, and Ms. Meyer asked Ms. McIntyre to send Mr. Navarro's work restrictions to her by facsimile. Ms. Meyer found a light duty job for Mr. Navarro that met his work restrictions. Mr. Navarro was to work with the medical records clerk in the School Board's Risk Management office, Sheila Rick; the job required Mr. Navarro to sit at a table, take medical records out of files, count the documents, and return them to the files. Ms. Riczko speaks fluent Spanish, and it would not have been necessary for Mr. Navarro to speak or read English to do this job. Dr. Phillips is of the opinion that Mr. Navarro would have had no physical problem doing this work. When Mr. Navarro had not reported to her office by noon on June 9, 2000, Ms. Meyer telephoned Ms. McIntyre to confirm that Mr. Navarro had been told where to report for his assignment; Ms. McIntyre told Ms. Meyer that Mr. Navarro had left Taylor/Kirklane Elementary at approximately 10:45 a.m. Shortly after noon, Ms. Meyer received a telephone call from Carolyn Killings, Mr. Navarro's union representative, asking about Mr. Navarro's light-duty work assignment. Ms. Killings told Ms. Meyer that Mr. Navarro was in her office; Ms. Meyer told Ms. Killings to tell Mr. Navarro that she had a light-duty work assignment for him and that he was to report to her office. Mr. Navarro did not report to Ms. Meyer's office on June 9, 2000. Ms. Meyer prepared a letter advising Mr. Navarro that he was to report for his temporary light-duty work assignment, and the letter was prepared in both an English version and a Spanish version. In the letter, Ms. Meyer told Mr. Navarro where to report and confirmed that the assignment satisfied the restrictions imposed by Dr. Phillips on June 8, 2000, that he not lift anything weighing more that 15 pounds and that he do no vacuuming. Ms. Meyer further advised Mr. Navarro in this letter that failure to report for this assignment might result in termination of his workers' compensation benefits and in disciplinary action by the School Board, including termination of employment. Ms. Meyer also attached a light-duty sign-in sheet and directed Mr. Navarro to complete the sheet each day. Also on June 9, 2000, after Mr. Navarro had presented to Ms. McIntyre the work restrictions imposed on June 8, 2000, by Dr. Phillips, Ms. Gragg prepared a Written Letter of Reprimand for actions involving repeated insubordination. Specifically, Ms. Gragg reprimanded Mr. Navarro because he left campus at his regular break time of 10:00 a.m. but did not return until 10:45 a.m., with a sandwich.11 Ms. Gragg noted in the letter that she had questioned Mr. Navarro as to why he returned to campus past the end of his break time and how he intended to eat and do his work at the same time. According to the letter, Mr. Navarro explained that he was hungry and had to eat. Ms. Gragg referred in the letter to Mr. Navarro's failure to heed her warning on June 8, 2000, to correct his actions, and she advised Mr. Navarro that she was referring the matter for a "District review" with respect to the next step in the disciplinary process.12 A handwritten note at the bottom of the letter states that Ms. McIntyre "verbally interpreted" the letter into Spanish for Mr. Navarro. Ms. Gragg followed up her June 9, 2000, Written Reprimand with a letter dated June 12, 2000, to the Director of the School Board's Employee Relations Department. In the letter, Ms. Gragg stated: "I have issued a Written Reprimand and the employee has repeated the misconduct. Therefore, I am requesting a District review for the purpose of determining the next step in the discipline process." Ms. Gragg also noted in the June 12, 2000, letter that Mr. Navarro had not reported to the Risk Management office for light duty or to Taylor/Kirklane Elementary for regular duty. Ms. Gragg also telephoned a complaint regarding Mr. Navarro to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards on June 13, 2000. Ms. Gragg charged Mr. Navarro with unauthorized absence and insubordination, based specifically on his refusal on June 7, 2000, to complete a leave form for his doctor's appointment on June 8, 2000, and on Mr. Navarro's failure to respond to her directive on June 9, 2000, that he report to Ms. Meyer's office for a light-duty work assignment. In a letter dated June 15, 2000, Ms. Gragg advised Mr. Navarro that she was concerned that he had not reported to Ms. Meyer's office for his light-duty work assignment or to Taylor/Kirklane Elementary. She asked that Mr. Navarro call her office regarding these absences. This letter was prepared in both an English version and a Spanish version. On June 15, 2000, Ms. Meyer asked Ms. Riczko to telephone Mr. Navarro's home to ask why he had not reported for his light-duty assignment. Ms. Riczko spoke with Mrs. Navarro, who said that Mr. Navarro would be in on Monday, June 19, 2000. On June 19, 2000, Mrs. Navarro telephoned Ms. Riczko and told here that Mr. Navarro had an appointment with his attorney and would not be reporting for his work assignment that day. Mr. Navarro did, however, report to Ms. Meyer's office late in the day on June 19, 2000. Mr. Navarro told Ms. Meyer that he could not work because of the medication he was taking. Ms. Meyer advised Mr. Navarro that he was to have reported for his light-duty work assignment on June 9, 2000, and that, by refusing the light-duty work, he was jeopardizing his workers' compensation benefits. Ms. Meyer suggested that Mr. Navarro talk to someone in Ernie Camerino's office about taking an extended medical leave. Mr. Camerino's office is responsible for processing retirements and leaves of absence for the School Board. Mr. Navarro picked up a set of leave forms from Mr. Camerino's office on June 19, 2000. On June 20, 1999, Mr. Navarro visited Dr. Phillips' office and requested that Dr. Phillips authorize him to take two weeks off of work. Dr. Phillips refused and again advised Mr. Navarro that he could return to light-duty work. Mr. Navarro submitted a Request for Leave of Absence Without Pay to Ms. Gragg on June 22, 2000, in which he asked for personal leave from June 9, 2000, to July 9, 2000. Ms. Gragg denied Mr. Navarro's request in a letter dated June 22, 2000, which was prepared in both an English and a Spanish version. The reasons given by Ms. Gragg for her refusal to approve Mr. Navarro's leave request were as follows: (1) Mr. Navarro did not request the leave in advance; (2) the leave request form was submitted on June 22, 2000, for leave extending from June 9, 2000, to July 9, 2000, and she could not backdate a personal leave request; and (3) Mr. Navarro did not discuss or provide proper documentation on his leave form. Finally, in the June 22, 2000, letter, Ms. Gragg directed Mr. Navarro to report for work on June 26, 2000. Mr. Navarro wrote a letter to Ms. Gragg dated July 26, 2000, in which he explained that he requested personal leave because he did not feel emotionally stable as a result of his problems and that his personal doctor, Dr. Bogani, had given him documents that showed he approved the leave. Mr. Navarro also advised Ms. Gragg that he was scheduled to have an MRI on June 28, 2000,13 and would receive treatment for his back, depending on the results of the test. Mr. Navarro reminded Ms. Gragg that she had prohibited him from bringing his medication to school and that it was the only medication he took, and that it helped him work "almost normal." The contents of this letter had no effect on Ms. Gragg's decision to deny Mr. Navarro's request for leave without pay. Mr. Navarro's MRI was completed on July 9, 2000, and, on July 10, 2000, Dr. Phillips went over the results with Mr. Navarro. The MRI showed that Mr. Navarro had a disc herniation at L5-S1, which displaced the S1 nerve posteriorally, with severe right foraminal narrowing. In Dr. Phillips' opinion, Mr. Navarro had a serious problem with his back, and he modified Mr. Navarro's work restrictions to provide that he could not lift anything weighing more than 10 pounds. In a letter dated July 10, 2000, sent to Mr. Navarro by certified mail and in both an English and a Spanish version, Ms. Meyer noted that he had not yet reported for his light-duty work assignment, and she reiterated the penalties that could be imposed for his failure to report. On July 14, 2000, Ms. Meyer sent another letter to Mr. Navarro, by certified mail and in both an English version and a Spanish version, advising him that he had been scheduled to report for his light-duty work assignment on June 9, 2000, that he had not done so, and that the missed days would not be approved as related to his workers' compensation claim. Ms. Meyer again urged Mr. Navarro to report for work immediately. Mrs. Navarro telephoned Ms. Meyer's office on July 19, 2000, and spoke with Ms. Riczko about Mr. Navarro's light-duty work assignment. Ms. Riczko told Mrs. Navarro that Mr. Navarro must report to Ms. Meyer's office the next morning at 8:00 a.m. to start his work assignment. Mrs. Navarro said that she would tell her husband. Mr. Navarro reported to Ms. Meyer's office at 8:45 a.m. on July 20, 2000; his wife accompanied him. Mr. Navarro told Ms. Meyer and Ms. Riczko, who was acting as interpreter, that he was not able to work because he was taking pills that made him very lethargic and sleepy. He said that he intended to call Dr. Phillips and ask for a different type of pain medication. Ms. Meyer advised Mr. Navarro that it might be best for him to ask for a leave of absence; Ms. Meyer reiterated that he must report for his light-duty assignment if he did not get approved for a leave of absence. Mr. Navarro was told to report at 8:00 a.m. on July 24, 2000, for his light-duty work assignment. He telephoned at 8:45 a.m. and advised Ms. Riczko that he had taken his wife to the hospital emergency room and needed to stay with her. Ms. Riczko heard nothing further from Mr. Navarro, and he never reported to her office for the light-duty work assignment. After reviewing the results of Mr. Navarro's MRI, Dr. Phillips had requested that Mr. Navarro be examined by a neurosurgeon, and, on August 16, 2000, Dr. Brodner examined Mr. Navarro. Dr. Brodner advised Mr. Navarro that he needed surgery on his back and that there was a 20-percent chance that the surgery would cause paralysis in his legs. As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Navarro had refused the surgery because of this risk. Meanwhile, School Board personnel investigated the allegations made by Ms. Gragg in her telephoned complaint of June 13, 2000, and a report of the investigation was submitted to the School Board's Case Management Review Committee for a determination of probable cause. The committee found probable cause at a meeting held on July 23, 2000, and recommended that Mr. Navarro be terminated from his employment with the School Board. Paul LaChance, the Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, arranged to meet with Mr. Navarro on August 15, 2000, in order to go over the investigation report and the committee's recommendation and to allow Mr. Navarro the opportunity to respond to the charges against him. Mr. Navarro presented Mr. LaChance with a letter written in Spanish, which was later translated into English for Mr. LaChance, in which he offered his explanation for his absences and his version of the events leading up to Ms. Gragg's complaint and the events relating to his failure to report for his light-duty work assignment. Mr. LaChance reviewed Mr. Navarro's letter and requested that Ms. Gragg respond to certain allegations against her that Mr. Navarro had included in the letter. After reviewing Ms. Gragg's response to Mr. Navarro's letter, Mr. LaChance recommended that Mr. Navarro be suspended without pay and that his employment with the School Board be terminated. In a document entitled "Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Termination of Employment," dated September 8, 2000, and signed by Dr. Marlin, Mr. Navarro was notified that Dr. Marlin would recommend to the School Board that it terminate Mr. Navarro's employment at its September 20, 2000, meeting. The School Board approved Dr. Marlin's recommendation and immediately suspended Mr. Navarro without pay. Mr. Navarro believed that he was not physically or emotionally able to do even light-duty work, and the School Board's records show that Mr. Navarro did not report for either regular work or his light-duty work assignment from June 9, 2000, through September 20, 2000, when he was suspended from his employment. Summary The evidence presented by the School Board is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Navarro abused his sick leave privileges. The School Board did not present any evidence to establish that Mr. Navarro was absent for reasons other than medical reasons, and, indeed, the School Board classified Mr. Navarro's absences almost exclusively as sick leave, sick leave charged to annual leave, or sick leave charged to "without pay." There is no question that Mr. Navarro used his sick leave as he earned it, and Ms. Gragg was justified when she directed Mr. Navarro in the March 13, 2000, Verbal Reprimand With a Written Notation to provide medical certifications for any future absences. Mr. Navarro submitted such certifications from Dr. Bogani for most of his absences subsequent to March 13, 2000, although he did not provide medical certifications for his absences on April 5, 6, and 7, 2000; for 4 hours on April 27, 2000; or for five hours on May 22 and May 25, 2000. These lapses are not sufficient to support a finding that Mr. Navarro abused his sick leave privileges, and there is no evidence to establish that Ms. Gragg advised Mr. Navarro that the certifications were insufficient or advised him that he had failed to provide the certifications timely. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Navarro was willfully absent from duty without leave from June 9, 2000, until September 20, 2000, when the School Board suspended him and termination proceedings were initiated. Ms. Meyer advised Mr. Navarro of his obligation to report or face possible disciplinary action in her letter dated June 9, 2000, which was sent to Mr. Navarro in both an English and a Spanish version. Mr. Navarro was repeatedly directed to report for work by Ms. Gragg and Ms. Meyer, both verbally and in writing, and he advised that his failure to report for his light-duty work assignment would jeopardize both his workers' compensation benefits and his employment with the School Board. Credence is given to Mr. Navarro's belief that he was emotionally and physically unable to work subsequent to June 8, 2000, but he failed to explain why he did not apply for a leave of absence until June 22, 2000. Ms. Gragg had advised him to inquire about his eligibility for leave in her reprimand letter of March 13, 2000, and Ms. Meyer urged him to talk with Mr. Camerino's office regarding a leave of absence on several occasions. Mr. Navarro did not apply for personal leave without pay until June 22, 2000, and he requested leave from June 9, 2000, through July 9, 2000. When Ms. Gragg denied the leave, Mr. Navarro did not file a grievance pursuant to the Union Contract, he simply did not report for work. Mr. Navarro was aware of the consequences of his failure to pursue his leave request or to report for work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order sustaining the suspension without pay of Miguel Navarro and terminating his employment with the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 22nd day of August, 2001.
The Issue 1 The hearing was called to order at approximately 9:00 a.m., Respondent (and her husband) voluntarily removed themselves from the hearing at approximately 10:09 a.m. A recess was taken from 10:22 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Neither Respondent nor her husband returned to the hearing. The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, the School Board of Osceola County,2 Florida (the Board), has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as an educational support employee pursuant to section 1012.40(2), Florida Statutes (2020).
Findings Of Fact Based on the competent substantial evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Board is responsible for operating the public schools in the Osceola County School District and for hiring, firing, and overseeing both instructional employees and paraprofessional employees within Osceola County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Ms. Strecker-Tattoli was employed by the Board as an exceptional student education (ESE) paraprofessional. During the 2019-2020 school year, Ms. Strecker-Tattoli was assigned to one student in an ESE class at Osceola High School (OHS). The Board’s Policy The Board’s Policy 6.511 covers “ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE.” Specifically, section II provides: “Professional Support – any other employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall be subject to dismissal from employment and shall forfeit compensation for the time of the absence.” Section III provides: “Three (3) working days of failure to report for duty or be on approved leave will be determined abandonment of position and employee will be subject to termination.” The Board’s Process Ms. Rodriguez has been the executive secretary6 for OHS since 2017. Prior to the 2020-2021 school year, Ms. Rodriguez sent an e-mail to everyone employed at OHS with the starting dates and other pertinent information for the upcoming school year. Ms. Rodriguez testified that OHS does not send letters to OHS faculty, staff, or other employees, but uses e-mail to conduct Board business. Ms. Otterson, the Board’s chief human resource officer with 34 years of experience, testified the Board “actually frown[s] upon sending mail through the U.S. postal service. It’s a waste of the taxpayer dollars when every employee has e-mail to communicate Any notification goes through e-mail to employees.” Ms. Otterson also testified about what happens when she is notified of an employee being absent without leave. Ms. Otterson talks with the employee’s administrator and inquires of the attempts made to contact the employee. That administrator provides to Ms. Otterson the dates and times on which those attempted contacts were made and the outcome of each attempt. Ms. Otterson will then direct the administrator to have a “well check” of the employee conducted by local law enforcement. If law enforcement is able to contact the employee, and the employee does not timely contact their administrator, Ms. Otterson will also attempt to contact the employee. Ms. Otterson will use the employee’s phone number listed in the Board’s official employee record. If all attempts to establish contact with the employee are unsuccessful, Ms. Otterson will submit a letter to the Board’s Superintendent with the details of all the attempted contacts. Ms. Otterson 6 Ms. Rodriguez used the term “executive secretary” interchangeably with the terms “designated secretary” and “principal’s secretary.” will also prepare, for the Board’s Superintendent, a job abandonment- termination letter to the employee. The Board provides “access to a variety of electronic resources to assist students and teachers including but not limited to: Moodle, Office 365, [and] Discovery Education.” If anyone has difficulty accessing the various resources, the employee is directed to either their school’s library media specialist or the “Media & Instructional Technology Department at extension 67200.” Further, “district business conducted by e-mail must be done using the e-mail account that the District supplies.” Mr. Murphy is the Board’s Office 365 administrator and network specialist. He testified that every Board employee has an e-mail account which can be accessed using a cell phone or the internet. For security reasons and data retention, Board employees are required to conduct Board business through their active e-mail accounts because the Board does not have control over “external hardware.” Mr. Murphy confirmed Ms. Strecker-Tattoli had an active Office 365 account, including e-mail, from 2019 through September 2020, and had not reported any issues with her account to the information technology (IT) department. August 3, 2020 through September 4, 2020 On August 3, 2020, Ms. Rodriguez sent the following e-mail, with attachments, to all the OHS faculty, including the paraprofessionals, via their individual e-mail addresses: Hello team, Please find attached the new calendars with your work dates. * * * Paraprofessionals and 9 month office assistants return on August 17th and are off on the 8/20 & 8/21 Students return to school 8/24 I will be emailing the Pre-planning schedule soon. Regards, Doris D. Rodriguez One of the attached calendars reflected that OHS paraprofessionals were to begin work on Monday, August 17, 2020, but could stagger their work schedule until the students returned to school on August 24, 2020. Mr. Bryant has been an assistant principal at OHS since 2011. He is in a management and supervisory role, and served as Ms. Strecker-Tattoli’s supervisor. During the 2020-2021 school year, Ms. Strecker-Tattoli was to be assigned as a one-on-one paraprofessional to the ESE student with whom she had worked with during the 2019-2020 school year. Ms. Strecker-Tattoli did not report to OHS for work in August 2020. Mr. Bryant called Ms. Strecker-Tattoli and left a voice message. When he did not receive a return call from Ms. Strecker-Tattoli, Mr. Bryant sent a text message to Ms. Strecker-Tattoli, asking her to respond. Mr. Bryant did not get a response to either his voice or text messages. After failing to get any response from Ms. Strecker-Tattoli, Mr. Bryant contacted Ms. Otterson about Ms. Strecker-Tattoli’s absence. Ms. Otterson and Mr. Bryant discussed the steps that he had taken to communicate with Ms. Strecker-Tattoli. Per the process, Ms. Otterson asked Mr. Bryant to contact a local law enforcement agency to conduct a wellness check on Ms. Strecker-Tattoli. When he received the wellness check information regarding Ms. Strecker-Tattoli, Mr. Bryant was to inform Ms. Otterson of the results. On or around August 19, 2020, Mr. Bryant contacted the Saint Cloud Police Department (PD), and requested a wellness check be performed to determine if Ms. Strecker-Tattoli was alright. Officer Brosam, a certified law enforcement officer, conducted the wellness check on Ms. Strecker-Tattoli. Officer Brosam was greeted by Ms. Strecker-Tattoli at her front door. After explaining that “members of the school district had concerns” for her well-being, Officer Brosam determined that Ms. Strecker-Tattoli was fine. The PD contacted Mr. Bryant and confirmed that Ms. Strecker-Tattoli was fine. Mr. Bryant, then again, attempted to contact Ms. Strecker-Tattoli to no avail. Once Mr. Bryant informed Ms. Otterson that Ms. Strecker-Tattoli was located and fine, Ms. Otterson attempted to contact Ms. Strecker-Tattoli. Ms. Otterson used the Board’s employee record to contact Ms. Strecker- Tattoli, however Ms. Strecker-Tattoli did not respond to Ms. Otterson’s call. Ms. Otterson submitted the information to Dr. Pace detailing the multiple attempts to contact Ms. Strecker-Tattoli. Ms. Otterson then prepared the termination letter for Dr. Pace’s signature. The August 20, 2020, termination letter was issued. On September 1, 2020, Ms. Strecker- Tattoli’s response and request for hearing were received by the Board. Based on information within Ms. Strecker-Tattoli’s request for hearing, Ms. Otterson sent Ms. Strecker-Tattoli an e-mail on September 4, 2020. This e-mail asked Ms. Strecker-Tattoli for the name of the OHS employee to whom she spoke with after Officer Brosam conducted the wellness check. Ms. Strecker-Tattoli did not respond to the requested information. Ms. Strecker-Tattoli’s request for hearing, entered as the Board’s Exhibit 12,7 made requests for copies of various files and records, and alluded to issues different than those set forth in Dr. Pace’s termination for abandonment of position letter. Even the last paragraph of Ms. Strecker- Tattoli’s request for hearing simply recited that she “did not receive any such letter or any other such communication notifying [her] of the date/time to return to [her] position at OHS,” yet it failed to offer any explanation as to why she did not show up for work after the multiple attempted contacts by OHS personnel and the local PD. The unrebutted evidence is that Ms. Strecker-Tattoli was contacted numerous times by OHS staff and once by the local PD. After the repeated attempted contacts, Ms. Strecker-Tattoli did not respond to the various messages left for her. Further, the unrebutted evidence is that Ms. Strecker- Tattoli did not report for work at OHS and she was absent from work for three or more days without notifying her administrator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Osceola County affirm its decision to terminate Ms. Strecker-Tattoli’s employment as a paraprofessional employee for the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire Frank Kruppenbacher, P.A. Building 1000 817 Beck Boulevard Kissimmee, Florida 34744 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lori Strecker Strecker-Tattoli 2336 Deer Creek Boulevard St. Cloud, Florida 34772 Dr. Debra P. Pace, Superintendent The School District of Osceola County, Florida 817 Bill Beck Boulevard Kissimmee, Florida 34744-4492
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner, Polk County School Board, to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the duly-constituted governing body charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise public schools within Polk County, Florida. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; and §§ 1001.30 and 1001.33, Fla. Stat. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a classroom teacher at Lake Shipp Elementary School and held a professional services contract pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. Respondent has spent the last 21 years as a teacher in Polk County. She has taught at Lake Shipp Elementary School since 1998. Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary actions by the School Board prior to this matter. On May 26, 2017, School Board Superintendent Jacqueline M. Byrd issued a letter (the “Termination Letter”) notifying Respondent that she was immediately suspending her from her teaching position and that Superintendent Byrd would recommend Respondent’s termination to the School Board. See § 1012.27(5), Fla. Stat., and School Board of Polk County Bylaws and Policies (“School Board Policies”) section 3140. The Termination Letter set forth the basis for Superintendent Byrd’s recommendation as follows: In December 2016, the [School Board] . . . received allegations that you were having inappropriate contact with a student via text messages. In a subsequent letter, dated October 6, 2017, the School Board expounded that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code rules that require a teacher “to make a reasonable effort to protect students from harmful conditions, to not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and to not exploit a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 8. At a meeting held on June 13, 2017, the School Board adopted Superintendent Byrd’s recommendation and suspended Respondent, without pay, pending the outcome of this evidentiary hearing. Respondent’s actions that gave rise to Superintendent Byrd’s recommendation of termination occurred in November and December 2016. The student involved in this matter, Z.B., was ten years old at the time. Respondent was Z.B.’s fourth-grade math teacher. Also at that time, Respondent’s son, S.H., was nine years old. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that her son had difficulty making friends. During that fall, Respondent had observed Z.B. in her class. She believed that he would make a good playmate for her son. In October 2016, Respondent wrote a letter to Z.B.’s mother, Alita P., inquiring whether Respondent could get Z.B. and S.H. together to play. Ms. P. welcomed the invitation and supported the prospective friendship. Over the next few weeks, Respondent invited Z.B. on multiple playdates with her son. On one occasion, Respondent took Z.B. to the movies with S.H. Z.B. also joined Respondent and S.H. on a day trip to Legoland for which Respondent paid. Twice, Z.B. spent a weekend at Respondent’s house. During the sleepovers, Z.B. slept with S.H. in his bedroom. Respondent also gave Z.B. a college team sweatshirt, as well as purchased a skateboard and helmet for Z.B. so that he could join in with S.H. at a skate park. Ms. P. and Respondent also became friends during this period. They communicated frequently. Respondent requested all playdates through Ms. P. Respondent regularly texted Ms. P. while Z.B. was in her care. Respondent professed that she never made any plans for Z.B. without notifying Ms. P. Around this time, Z.B. experienced a contentious confrontation with another student. Respondent commented to Ms. P. that Z.B. was distressed and exhibiting disruptive behavior. To help the situation, Respondent offered to bring Z.B. lunch at school. She also allowed him to eat breakfast in her classroom. A few days after the incident, Ms. P. relayed to Respondent that Z.B. expressed that he was excited to return to school. Ms. P. thanked Respondent for helping Z.B. through his difficulties. On November 28, 2016, Respondent gave Z.B. a cellphone. Respondent explained that she had an extra, unused phone left over from a phone plan upgrade. Before Respondent provided the phone to Z.B., however, she expressly asked Ms. P. for permission. Not only did Ms. P. approve, but she was excited at how enthusiastically Z.B. accepted the gift. Respondent arranged for Z.B.’s cellphone to reconnect to her family phone plan so that he could text her and S.H.’s cellphones. Respondent also purchased several games (apps) for Z.B. to download onto the cellphone. One of these apps was a music program that allowed him to post videos of himself singing. Respondent had access to watch Z.B.’s videos. Respondent’s relationship with Z.B. (and Ms. P.) came to an abrupt halt on the evening of December 3, 2016. That night, Z.B. was staying with his father. (Ms. P. is divorced from Z.B.’s father.) Ms. P. called Z.B. just after 11:00 p.m. She asked what he was doing. Z.B. responded that he was texting Respondent. Because of the late hour, Ms. P. immediately became concerned. She instructed Z.B. to show the cellphone to his father. After taking the phone and scrolling through the text messages, Z.B.’s father became even more alarmed. A sample of the text messages Respondent sent to Z.B. from November 29 through December 3, 2016, includes: Just wanted to tell you goodnight. . . . See you in the morning. Love you like you are mine. [Z.B. responded with “Love you too.”] You really are the sweetest boy. . . . You’re a good person but you put on a show for people at school. I want you to be successful. You are very special to me. . . . There’s just something about you and your personality that I have grown very fond of. You know I love these late night talks we have. Love you too, yes I forgive you [for putting the phone away for the night], but you better prove it next week. Love you bunches that should make you smile. How much do you love me? Do I get more love? Gimme some love or I’m going to keep pestering you! Where’s my love? Gimme love or I’m taking [a gaming app] back. You can never have too much [heart symbol]. Call me later if you want . . . just call when you want. Those are some smokin hot videos you posted! [Respondent texted after viewing several videos Z.B. created using a music app.] You being a little hottie. Like a gangsta video. You breaking up with me???? In a number of other texts, Respondent wrote “love you” to Z.B. In an equal number of texts, Z.B. wrote to Respondent that he loved her. (In texts with Ms. P., Respondent wrote that she loved her as well.) Other text messages between Respondent and Z.B. included heart symbols and “face throwing a kiss” and “smiling face with heart-eyes” emojis. The cellphone had also been used to “FaceTime” Z.B. several times. Ms. P. believed that the language Respondent used and the sizable number of text messages she sent to her son were highly inappropriate. Therefore, just after Z.B.’s father confiscated the cellphone from Z.B., Ms. P. immediately texted Respondent and told her that she (and Z.B.’s father) had decided to return the phone. Ms. P. thanked Respondent for her “kindness and generosity.” But, she did not believe that Z.B. was “ready for that right now!” However, as Ms. P. and Respondent texted throughout the night of December 3, 2016, Ms. P. grew increasing disturbed at the content and “AMOUNT” of the text messages Respondent sent to her son. She finally informed Respondent that she felt it was best to return the phone and “squash it.” Shortly thereafter, despite Respondent’s repeated apologies at having caused any problems, Ms. P. wrote: The friendship is over! There are a few inappropriate texts on there that an adult doesn’t have with a 10yr old child not [sic] alone a student. I trusted you! On Monday morning, December 5, 2016, Ms. P. contacted Lake Shipp Elementary School to complain about Respondent’s interaction with Z.B. Ms. P. divulged that she believed that Respondent was carrying on an inappropriate relationship with her son. Immediately after this incident, Ms. P. was allowed to transfer Z.B. to a new school. Ms. P. testified that her son had become increasingly uncomfortable at Lake Shipp Elementary School. She disclosed that his behavior changed both at school and at home during the time he was the subject of Respondent’s attention. Currently, Z.B. is doing much better at his new school. Ms. P. relayed that Z.B. has not exhibited any of the behavioral issues that arose during that fall and is making straight A’s. At the final hearing, Respondent acknowledged sending the text messages to Z.B. Respondent also imparted that, as his teacher, she had grown fond of him. However, she adamantly declared that she had no improper intentions or motives other than to help Z.B. She was only trying to build his self-esteem. Respondent explained that she develops an attachment to the children she teaches. She has always made an effort to help students who have fallen between the cracks. When she finds a child who struggles, she wants to make them successful. Respondent pointed out that she did help Z.B. with math during their relationship. Respondent further testified that she used the word “love” to mean that she loved Z.B. like her own child. Respondent asserted that she cared for Z.B. just as any mother would have. Respondent also remarked that she bought Z.B. the skateboard and helmet only so that he could play with S.H. She denied that she ever FaceTimed Z.B. over the cellphone. Only S.H. and Z.B. used FaceTime. Respondent insisted that she never had anything but the best intentions for Z.B. Respondent asserted that anyone who perceived an improper or intimate relationship between them was jumping to the wrong conclusions and making incorrect assumptions. No evidence was produced at the final hearing indicating any inappropriate physical or sexual contact between Respondent and Z.B. Respondent called Joseph Palmer to testify on her behalf. Respondent taught Mr. Palmer’s son, D.P., in first and second grade. D.P. is currently in high school. Mr. Palmer expressed that Respondent was extremely helpful with his son in elementary school. Respondent was D.P.’s math teacher in first grade. She continued to help him with his math, reading, and speech skills throughout elementary school. Mr. Palmer relayed that, similar to Z.B., Respondent invited his son on a trip with her family to Legoland. Prior to the trip, D.P. spent the night at Respondent’s home. Mr. Palmer maintained that he was never concerned with, nor did he ever observe, Respondent act in an inappropriate manner with his son. Mr. Palmer proclaimed that he considers Respondent “like family.” Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the final hearing, the School Board proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent committed “misconduct in office” in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. Accordingly, “just cause” exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, for the School Board to dismiss Respondent during the term of her teacher’s contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Polk County School Board, enter a final order upholding its decision to dismiss Respondent, Kimberly Horbett, from her employment contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 2nd day of May, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause for a ten-day suspension of Paula Prudente's employment with the Palm Beach County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Palm Beach County Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Prudente started her employment with Petitioner in 1978. She was employed pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent is currently a reading teacher at John I. Leonard Community High School. Terry Costa ("Principal Costa" or "Costa") is the principal at John I. Leonard and has been since 2005. She serves as Prudente's supervisor. During Prudente's employment, Costa received complaints regarding Respondent's email use. Teachers complained to Costa that Respondent did not use the email system according to the School District guidelines. On or about September 27, 2007, Costa gave Prudente a directive to refrain from communicating with the chair of the Reading Department in a negative manner through email and to direct concerns to Assistant Principal Howard or Costa.1 Prudente failed to adhere to the directive. Consequently, Costa issued Prudente a verbal reprimand with written notation for failure to follow administrative directives regarding the proper use of email on January 8, 2008. The January 8, 2008, verbal reprimand with written notation for failure to follow the administrative directive regarding the proper use of email during the school day stated: Specifically, you were given directives on September 27, 2007, to refrain from communicating with the chair person of the Reading Department via email, in a negative manner, regarding Reading Department concerns. You were further directed to email any and all department concerns to Terry Costa or Diane Howard. You are directed to cease such conduct immediately. Further, you are to desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future. Failure to do so will result in further disciplinary action up to and including a recommendation for termination. Prudente signed the verbal reprimand on January 9, 2008. On October 1, 2008, Respondent emailed the faculty using "1361" without prior approval.2 Prudente's actions were contrary to the February 6, 2007, prior directive Principal Costa had given her to get permission before sending school-wide emails. On October 8, 2008, a Pre-Disciplinary Meeting was held. During the meeting, Principal Costa reminded Prudente that she had been directed not to email the faculty without going through Administration. Respondent's January 8, 2008, verbal reprimand for improper emails during the school day was discussed. At hearing, Prudente admitted that she had been told not to email the faculty by "1361" without going through administration, but she emailed anyway because the CTA Office had called her to help get teachers to vote. She said, "I know, I wasn't suppose to email the whole faculty, but it was for voting, contract voting I remember." Prudente was reprimanded on October 14, 2008, for violating the directive by Principal Costa. The written reprimand, which Prudente signed, stated: You failed to follow the administrative directive by continuing to use the school district email in a negative manner. You continued to email the faculty using the 1361 mail without an administrator's permission. You are directed to cease such conduct immediately. Further, you are to desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future. Failure to do so will be considered gross insubordination and will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including a recommendation for termination. On November 4, 2008, Respondent sent some co-workers emails with cartoons depicting President-elect Barack Obama in a negative fashion. The politically charged emails offended several of the recipient staff members, who reported the offensive emails to Principal Costa. Retha Palmer, a math teacher, was one of the recipients of the November 4, 2008, email. She was offended by the content of the email. She responded to the email by saying, "I was wondering why would you send this to me? I thought we were friends. Are you confused? These cartoons seem to be very insulting to me, especially when I have a much different belief of Senator Obama. . . . If you can't or won't stop then maybe you should simply seek other environments for this type of harassment." Principal Costa provided the information about Prudente's email use to the Director of Employee Relations. Subsequently, District Police Officer Ezra Dilbert ("Dilbert") was assigned to investigate the allegations against the Respondent. Numerous other emails unrelated to work that Prudente sent were discovered but the School Board's Petition fails to include adequate charges of all the emails. Dilbert's report concluded that Prudente violated the School Board's policies regarding Employee Use of Technology and Political Activities on School Board Property. The matter ultimately was brought to the attention of the School Superintendent, who by letter advised Respondent that a determination had been made that there was "sufficient evidence to warrant [her] suspension without pay," and that he therefore would recommend such to the School Board. The School Board followed the School Superintendent's recommendation, and Prudente timely requested an appeal of the disciplinary action.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order rescinding the ten-day suspension with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day January, 2011.
