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 Did Respondent, Liudmila Parker, commit misconduct in office, willful neglect of duty and gross insubordination in violation of section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ as well as engage in conduct unbecoming a public employee? Did Ms. Parker violate the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession and Orange County School Board Management Directive B-12? What discipline, if any, should Petitioner, Orange County School Board (Board), impose on Ms. Parker?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Admitted by Both Parties2/ The Board employed Ms. Parker as a classroom teacher. Ms. Parker held a Professional Service Contract with the Board. Ms. Parker received a written reprimand on May 3, 2010, for verbal intimidation of students and interfering in an investigation. On November 19, 2010, Ms. Parker received a written reprimand for embarrassing students. On November 29, 2010, Ms. Parker received a 5 day suspension without pay for confronting a student regarding a complaint the student and his parent made about Ms. Parker. From February 9, 2011, through the end of the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Parker was on relief of duty status without pay. Background Facts Ms. Parker taught ninth-grade English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) at Dr. Phillips High School in Orange County, Florida, during the 2011-2012 school year. Ms. Parker has been teaching for 34 years. She started teaching in Lithuania where she taught for 27 years. In Lithuania she also taught ESOL. Ms. Parker majored in ESOL and has taught it all her life. Assistant Principal of Instruction Dr. Suzanne Knight was Ms. Parker's direct supervisor. When Ms. Parker began work at Dr. Phillips, she was given a copy of the Dr. Phillips High School Faculty and Staff Handbook. She also had access to an electronic copy of the handbook. The handbook included a copy of the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. The handbook also included a copy of Orange County Management Directive B-12, Code of Civility. Ms. Parker read and understood the handbook. Ms. Parker read and understood the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Ms. Parker read and understood the Code of Civility. The handbook described and emphasized how to use common sense and professional judgment to avoid complications resulting from conduct that violates the Code of Ethics. The handbook included these admonitions: "All co-workers and employees of the district are to be treated with dignity, respect and courtesy at all times." "Use common sense and good judgment. Ask yourself how someone else could perceive your comments or actions. Ask yourself if your comments or actions could be taken out of context and/or misinterpreted." "Avoid putting yourself in a position where you have to defend, explain or justify your behavior or actions." December 8, 2011, Email Dr. Phillips High School Principal Eugene Trochinski observed Ms. Parker's classroom teaching on November 17, 2011. Dr. Knight observed Ms. Parker's classroom teaching on December 5, 2011. Mr. Trochinski and Dr. Knight gave Ms. Parker written comments after observing her performance. On December 8, 2011, in an email to Mr. Trochinski and Dr. Knight, sent at 3:52 a.m., Ms. Parker stated that she had "several questions to ask." The tone and the text of the email were confrontational and belligerent. Each of Ms. Parker's "questions" was in bold face font, something Ms. Parker does to demonstrate her indignation. Some of Ms. Parker's supervisors' observations and her "questions" follow: Observation--"Student in back of room working on Rosetta Stone but not engaged in daily lesson." "Question" "Do you think they should work with the whole group without understanding anything?" Do you think it is better for them???" Observation--"How do you celebrate success in the lesson" There was no evidence of this between teacher and students during my observation." "Question": "Do you want me to interrupt the test and start celebrating success because you came in for observation???" Observation--[Although the specific observation was not reproduced, it was plainly about the students not appearing to be engaged and the lesson being difficult to focus on.] "Question(s)"--"My students demonstrated good behavior and they were listening attentively. Your comments 'Students did not appear to be engaged in the lesson' and 'It was hard to focus on the lesson due to not understanding the starting point' do not make sense at all. Hard to focus for who? For you??? May be. My students were focused!!! Once again,Dr. Knight was in class during Benchmark test results analysis. Her comments show that she does not like to see that students are focused and attentive." Ms. Parker follows her "questions" with: "To sum up, I evaluate the above-mentioned comments of administrators as one more evidence of a biased attitude towards me at school; it is apparent nagging, nothing else." The email ends with a demand to compare and contrast the teacher training at Dr. Phillips with teacher training at Hunter's Creek Middle School and Evans High School. The last words of the email are: "Thank you for your time spent on reading this email. I am looking forward to getting your responses to my questions ASAP." Ms. Parker's explanation for her charges of bias was only that she was a good teacher and, therefore, Dr. Knight must be picking on her. Section 1012.34(3)(c) and Article X, Section (B)(2) of the Contract between the School Board of Orange County and the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association impose a duty on Dr. Knight and Mr. Trochinski to evaluate the performance of teachers under their supervision, including Ms. Parker. This observation and assessment is not "nagging" or "bias." Ms. Parker's December 8, 2011, email about their observations was discourteous, disrespectful, uncooperative, and a display of temper. It interfered with her ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight and Mr. Trochinski to effectively perform their duties. Ms. Parker's email also demonstrates a refusal to take responsibility for her own actions and statements. Ms. Parker's testimony about a later conversation with Ms. Knight affirmed the hostility to criticism and suggestions for improvement recorded in her email. One example is her lengthy answer, at page 430, line 16 of the Transcript, to the question "How long would she [Dr. Knight] come in to your class?" Ms. Parker's answer included this statement, with emphasis supplied: So--and then when she said that it doesn't coincide, I asked, Okay, Dr. Knight, for example you were in my class on December 5th, and you saw--and she wrote down, she had in her notes--that we were going to read and work with fluency based on the story The Birds. And she said, yes. I said, Then why do you say that my lesson plans do not coincide with what I was teaching? She said, Hum, I came in at the beginning and then I don't know what you were teaching. I said, Do you think that I wrote this agenda for the president or somebody else? I wrote for the students. I cannot just write the words and do something else. I don't know. It seems to me there is common sense here. Yeah. So she was just arguing. And her statements, I don't know. This statement was a display of temper, discourteous, disrespectful, and uncooperative. It also interfered with Ms. Parker's ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight to perform her duties. Because of the December 8, 2011, email, Dr. Knight held a conference with Ms. Parker on December 9, 2011, about the email. Dr. Knight explained what was wrong with the email. She also advised Ms. Parker of the importance of being careful when writing emails because of the risks that a writer may not be as polite as they would be in a personal conversation and the risk that emails may be written and sent when emotions are running high. Ms. Parker reiterated her claims that all criticisms were due to bias. Ms. Parker interrupted Dr. Knight and said "Let's have a dialogue not a monologue." During the meeting of December 8, 2012, Ms. Parker did not acknowledge any validity to any of the concerns raised. She did, however, complain about training and lack of support. During this meeting, Ms. Parker communicated in person as she had in the email. She again demonstrated an inability to accept criticism and responsibility for her own actions. She was again discourteous, disrespectful, and uncooperative and displayed her temper. Ms. Parker's behavior interfered with her ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight to perform her duties. Ms. Parker's approach was the same during her testimony. She testified that she had a right to tell an administrator to stop talking and let her speak. Ms. Parker impatiently described the December 8 meeting as useless. In her words starting at page 556, line 17: Yes, I can [tell an administrator that she should stop talking]. Because she was starting to say again and again, and I have no time to sit the whole planning period without any production, without any use, because my planning period I'd rather spend with students. By the way, at that meeting, I wanted to stand up and leave her office, because she didn't want to listen to me. She was only talking, talking, talking. For monologue, she could send me an e-mail. If it was a dialogue--meeting is meant for dialogue, for exchanging ideas, for talking, to discussing [sic] things, but she was just talking and talking. That's why I said, Let us have dialogue, not monologue, because she was speaking 15 minutes. Later in her testimony, Ms. Parker dismisses Dr. Knight's efforts to explain what Ms. Parker had done wrong and suggest improvements this way: "She brought me there to discuss things. Instead of discussion, she began to say boring things, repeating." Ms. Parker's testimony reflected the confrontational and belligerent approach manifested in her emails and conversations during her employment. She repeatedly expressed her view of her superiority as a teacher and her view that all criticisms were unfounded and unfair. She never acknowledged even a possibility that any of her actions or communications were improper. "Elements of Literature" Communications On January 5, 2012, Ms. Parker lunched with fellow teacher Brandi Boone and two other teachers. During lunch, Ms. Parker said that she did not use the "Elements of Literature" curriculum book and had not used it since the beginning of the year, because it was "too difficult" for her students. On January 11, 2012, Dr. Knight conducted an ESOL meeting to address aligning the ESOL curriculum with the general English curriculum. Having both general and ESOL students use the "Elements of Literature" curriculum was part of the school's required teaching strategy. During the meeting, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight that she used the "Elements of Literature" curriculum and that she loved it. On January 12, 2012, Ms. Boone approached Dr. Knight and told Dr. Knight about Ms. Parker's statement during the January 5, 2012, lunch meeting that she was not using "Elements of Literature" because it was too difficult for her students. On January 17, 2012, Dr. Knight called Ms. Parker in to her office. Assistant Principal Alisa Dorsett was present. During the meeting Dr. Knight asked Ms. Parker if she used "Elements of Literature." She asked because of her observations of Ms. Parker's classroom teaching and Ms. Boone's statements. Ms. Parker said that she was. Because of what she had observed and what Ms. Boone had reported, Dr. Knight questioned the accuracy of this. She told Ms. Parker she thought that Ms. Parker was "being less than honest." This was a fair observation based on the information known to Dr. Knight. During the meeting, Ms. Parker repeatedly got up and tried to go behind Dr. Knight's desk to show her documents. Dr. Knight repeatedly had to ask Ms. Parker to sit down. At the end of the meeting, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight that "If you want to go to court, we can go to court." Ms. Parker testified that she said: "Shall we go to court? We'll go to court." Regardless of the exact wording, the gist of the comment is the same. The comment, like Ms. Parker's conduct in the meeting, was a combative, discourteous, threatening, and uncooperative response to Dr. Knight's attempt to address a professional issue. The comment and Ms. Parker's behavior in the meeting also interfered with Ms. Parker's ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight to perform her duties. It is not the fact that Ms. Parker wanted to exercise her legal rights that is improper. It is the way she expressed it that is improper. Ms. Parker's repeated attempts to move behind Dr. Knight's desk were also combative, discourteous, threatening, and uncooperative. Emails of January 17 and 18 After the January 17 meeting, Ms. Parker wrote emails to Dr. Knight and Ms. Dorsett. In her January 17 email to Ms. Dorsett, Ms. Parker asked Ms. Dorsett to write in her notes that Dr. Knight told Ms. Parker that she was a dishonest person and that Ms. Parker had lied during the ESOL meeting. Ms. Dorsett replied that she would write that Ms. Parker had asked to have that statement included in her notes. But Ms. Dorsett testified that she did not agree that the requested additions were accurate. Ms. Parker sent another email to Dr. Knight on January 18, 2012, in which she said that Ms. Dorsett had not responded to the January 17 email. Ms. Parker then asked in the email, "So who is dishonest then?" The statement is discourteous, disrespectful, a display of temper, and uncooperative. It also interfered with Ms. Parker's ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight and Ms. Dorsett to perform their duties. Communications with Ms. Boone On Sunday, January 22, 2012, at 12:49 a.m., Ms. Parker sent Ms. Boone an email. In it, Ms. Parker accused Ms. Boone of telling Dr. Knight that she grouped her students by ethnicities. Ms. Parker, who suspected but had not confirmed that Ms. Boone told Dr. Knight that she said she did not use "Elements of Literature," went on to discuss her usage of "Elements of Literature." The email concluded: "My colleagues who create slanders will be really upset when investigation starts. According to The Principles of Professional Conduct, 'the educator shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.' You have to be honest and tell the truth. You must take responsibility for your words and actions." The statement was threatening. Ms. Parker intended to convey to Ms. Boone that she would sue her for slander. Exercising your legal rights, including in a work place context, is not inherently improper. But Ms. Parker's threat of investigations and slander suits reduced her ability to effectively perform her duties, reduced Ms. Boone's ability to effectively perform her duties, harassed Ms. Boone, created a hostile and intimidating environment, and was bullying. Ms. Boone replied in an email of January 22, 2012, at 8:24 p.m. She denied accusing Ms. Parker of grouping students by ethnicity. She acknowledged providing information to Dr. Knight and that she was appalled when Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight she used and loved "Elements of Literature." In a second email a few minutes later, Ms. Boone said that she wanted Dr. Knight present for any further conversations between her and Ms. Parker about students or Ms. Parker's claims. Ms. Parker responded with a lengthy email that included the following series of sarcastic and combative statements. You showed yourself a very disrespectful person accusing me, a veteran teacher, who is 2 times older than you, who has worked 34 years at school. I also noticed that you have hearing problems. Am I right? Maybe you misunderstood something and jumped to conclusions? Besides, I love humor. Boring people do not understand it as a rule. And guess what? I have a lot of students' works done during the first semester based on "Elements of Literature", and I can show them to everybody at any time. I showed them to Dr. Knight. Why should I tell [sic] that I did not work with EL??? You saw my students' projects too. In your class there are no students' works at all! To sum up, you violated the Principles of Professional Conduct: Obligation to the Profession of Education (d) and (e) because you created offensive environment and made a malicious statement about your colleague (me). Now you will have to take responsibility for your words. After your actions I have no desire to communicate with you at all, but because of working conditions I will have to have "that pleasure", only in the presence of Rita or administrator. Ms. Parker's statements in these email communications harassed Ms. Boone and created a hostile, intimidating, and oppressive environment. The statements were discourteous and interfered with the ability of Ms. Parker and Ms. Boone to perform their duties. Midpoint Evaluation Dr. Knight met with Ms. Parker on January 19, 2012, to discuss her midpoint evaluation. Assistant Principal Bridget Bresk attended as a witness. During the meeting, Dr. Knight gave Ms. Parker a direct and reasonable order to acknowledge that she had received the written mid-point evaluation. Ms. Parker had not acknowledged receipt as requested when she was provided the evaluation. The acknowledgement form only asked the teacher to acknowledge receiving the evaluation. It did not state or imply that the teacher agreed with the evaluation. Ms. Parker refused. Ms. Parker said that she would not acknowledge receipt of the evaluation because she did not agree with it. Dr. Knight explained that the acknowledgement simply stated that Ms. Parker had received it and did not say that Ms. Parker agreed with the evaluation. Ms. Parker still refused. She told Dr. Knight that "acknowledge" means to agree and that Dr. Knight "should look it up yourself." Ms. Parker intentionally refused to obey a reasonable direct order given by her direct supervisor, Dr. Knight. Ms. Parker was also discourteous and uncooperative. Her conduct impaired Dr. Knight's ability to perform her duties. During the meeting, when they discussed what Ms. Parker needed to improve, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight "sorry for breathing." She sought to justify the comment by saying it was an "American expression." Ms. Parker also told Dr. Knight her comments after the classroom observation about celebrating student success were "ridiculous." At the meeting's end, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight one of the following: "I have people who will take care of me and I have people who will take care of you"; "There are people who will take care of me and take care of you."; or "There are people who will take care of me and you." There are no material differences between the three statements. Any version is a threatening and bullying statement. Ms. Parker's argument that she was only stating the obvious, that she could file a grievance, is not persuasive. She made no reference to a grievance in the meeting. Her words plainly convey a darker impression than "we may have to agree to disagree and resolve our disagreements legally" or "I will file a grievance about this." The preceding comments were threatening, bullying, discourteous, disrespectful, and uncooperative. Also, throughout the meeting, Ms. Parker's conduct impaired the ability of Dr. Knight and Ms. Parker to perform their duties. After the meeting, Ms. Parker sent Dr. Knight two emails. The first, sent at 5:20 p.m., included the following two sarcastic statements: I appreciate your close attention to me lately. I wish you started to analyze planning problems since the beginning of the school year, but better late than never. Well, I think you are very brave. I wonder if you are aware of the fact that Code of Civility refers to all OCPS employees, not only teachers. The second, sent 30 minutes later, included the two statements that follow. Referring to Dr. Knight's concerns about whether Ms. Parker was using the "Elements of Literature," Ms. Parker said: It proves again and again your hostile biased attitude. Earlier or later, we all have to pay for what we have done. . . . (Unknown author). Ms. Parker's original explanation that she was paraphrasing a biblical passage and her later explanation that she was quoting Oscar Wilde are neither persuasive nor material. The source of the quote does not alter the fact that the statement and the entire email are discourteous, disrespectful, bullying, and uncooperative. Grievance Meeting On January 20, 2012, Ms. Parker submitted a grievance to the Board's employee relations office. Carianne Reggio, the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer and Equity Officer for the Orange County Schools, investigated the grievance. Ms. Reggio met with Ms. Parker on March 20, 2012, to advise her of the result of the investigation. During the meeting Ms. Parker displayed, as she had in her meetings with Dr. Knight, what the union representative described as confidence "that borders on what we might perceive as arrogance." During the meeting, Ms. Parker gave no indication that she acknowledged that anything she had said or done during the communications and meetings from December 2011 forward was inappropriate or improper. She maintained that same position during her testimony. During the three-hour meeting, Ms. Reggio reviewed her findings of no violations with Ms. Parker and considered Ms. Parker's reactions and complaints. Ms. Parker was very upset. While Ms. Reggio was walking Ms. Parker to the elevator, Ms. Parker said she could see why teachers resort to extreme measures and shoot up school systems. This was a reference to a recent murder/suicide in Jacksonville, Florida, where a teacher shot the headmistress of his school and then killed himself. Ms. Parker did not accompany this statement with any gestures, a display of a weapon, or any more specific statement. The statement was crass, disquieting, and inappropriate. But it was not a threat. On March 6, 2012, the Superintendent of Schools recommended termination of Ms. Parker's contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Orange County School Board enter a final order finding that there is just cause to terminate Ms. Parker's employment and terminating her professional service contract for just cause pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 23rd day of October, 2012.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should Petitioner impose on Respondent's teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating public school teachers in Florida. Respondent was licensed in the field of elementary education pursuant to Florida Educator's Certificate No. 865460. The certificate was valid through June 30, 2006. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Sadler Elementary School in the Orange County School District (the District). In August 2003, S.W. enrolled as a student in the District and began attending Freedom High School. S.W. was 18 years old. During September 2003, S.W. met Respondent through Respondent’s daughter, who also attended Freedom High School. On the first day they met, Respondent provided S.W. with alcoholic beverages while S.W. was at Respondent's residence. During that same initial meeting, Respondent also initiated a sexual relationship with S.W. The sexual relationship between Respondent and S.W. continued, with S.W. moving into Respondent’s apartment sometime between mid-September and early October of 2003. During their relationship, Respondent provided S.W. with alcoholic beverages approximately every other day. Respondent also used cocaine, cannabis, and other illegal substances with S.W. on multiple occasions. In late October or early November 2003, S.W. dropped out of school. The decision was precipitated at the urging of Respondent, who convinced S.W. that school was a “waste of time.” Respondent was also concerned that the relationship threatened Respondent's employment as long as S.W. was a student. In January of 2004, S.W. ended his relationship with Respondent. Mr. John Hawco, an employee of the District for 27 years, served as a senior manager of employee relations during the 2003-2004 school year. Mr. Hawco received information that Respondent was involved in an inappropriate relationship with S.W., and an investigation ensued. The evidence obtained during the investigation included a “love note” from Respondent to S.W., as well as a letter from an apartment complex indicating that S.W. was an authorized resident in Respondent’s apartment. The District placed Respondent on relief of duty. Respondent resigned from her teaching position on April 1, 2004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), (f) and (i), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (h) and permanently revoking Florida Educator's Certificate No. 865460. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Louann Hernandez 11733 Sindlesham Court Orlando, Florida 32837 Louann Hernandez 375 Renssiaer Avenue Auburndale, Florida 33823 Edward T. Bauer, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louann Hernandez 101 Booth Lane, Apartment A Kissimmee, Florida 34743 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists to suspend Respondent from her employment with the Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as an art teacher at Western High School ("Western High"). Respondent's career with the School Board, which spans some 21 years, has not proceeded entirely without incident: on January 31, 1997, Respondent uttered profanity in the presence of her students, which resulted in the issuance of a written reprimand that directed her to "cease and desist from inappropriate remarks"; several months later, Respondent's further use of colorful language led to a second written reprimand; and, in August 2009, Respondent agreed to serve a three-day suspension "for inappropriate language." The School Board now seeks to suspend Respondent for five days based upon an allegation that, on August 16, 2013, she used profanity and "aggressively grabbed" a female student's arm during an episode in Western High's parking lot. The facts relating to the instant charges are recounted below. Instant Allegations On the morning of August 16, 2013——the final weekday before the start of the 2013-2014 school year——Respondent arrived at Western High's campus to place the finishing touches on her classroom. On several occasions throughout the day, one of Western High's assistant principals announced that the school's parking lot would be locked at 5:30 p.m. The final such warning, which was made at 5:15 p.m., prompted Respondent to exit the building approximately five minutes later. As she headed toward her vehicle, Respondent (accompanied by her mother, Carol Fischer, herself a longtime educator) noticed several groups of students decorating parking spaces in the school lot. As explained during the final hearing, the students' presence was not unusual, for incoming seniors at Western High were authorized, pursuant to a school fundraiser, to "purchase" a parking space and adorn it as each saw fit. Mindful that the school gate would soon be locked, Respondent walked toward the groups and, from a distance of approximately 50 yards, loudly directed them to pack up their belongings and leave the campus. Each of the groups complied, save for one, which prompted Respondent to approach the stragglers and repeatedly announce——with diminishing volume as she made her way closer——that they needed to go home. Suffice it to say that these importunings had no discernable effect on the group's activities; as a result, Respondent continued toward the parking spot where the students were working. Now in their immediate vicinity, Respondent informed the group (which included two female students, N.S. and T.C., both of whom were incoming seniors at Western High) that they had two minutes to gather their possessions and leave the campus. During the ensuing interaction, T.C. began to argue with Respondent and, to make matters worse, acted as if she intended to continue painting. Her patience understandably waning, Respondent reached toward T.C. and, in a non-violent fashion, placed her hand on the student's upper arm. This brief physical contact, intended to secure T.C.'s complete attention and gesture her in the direction of the exit, was instantly met with a vocal objection. Respondent immediately reacted by stepping backwards,1/ at which point the group began to gather up the painting materials. T.C. and the other students departed the parking lot a short time later. Contrary to the complaint's allegations, the credible evidence demonstrates that, although Respondent addressed the students with an elevated voice (but only as she approached from a distance), she at no point used profanity or any other inappropriate language.2/ Further, the record is pellucid that Respondent's momentary, gesturing contact with T.C. was completely innocuous and in no way constituted an "aggressive grab."3/ Indeed, T.C. acknowledged during her final hearing testimony that Respondent plainly intended no harm.4/ Finally, and with respect to the charge of insubordination, there has been no showing that Respondent's behavior ran afoul of any direct order. Although the School Board attempted to prove the existence of a "no touching whatsoever" rule, the testimony on that point was internally contradictory and ultimately unpersuasive. In any event, and as discussed shortly, a general policy——i.e., one applicable to all employees——does not constitute a direct order for the purpose of sustaining an insubordination charge. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of misconduct in office. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order: exonerating Respondent of all charges brought against her in this proceeding; and awarding Respondent any lost pay and benefits she experienced as a result of the five-day suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 3rd day of June, 2014.
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 presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the Miami-Dade County School Board as a teacher. He held a professional service contract of employment. Respondent has an erratic history of employment by the School Board. He began his employment in 1988 as a substitute teacher. From the Spring of 1989 until February 1990 he worked as a teacher's aide. In May 1990 he resigned rather than accept an assignment at Banyan Elementary School. In February 1991 he was re-employed as a substitute teacher. During the 1991-92 school year, Respondent was employed at North Hialeah Elementary School as a teacher. Because his classroom performance was unsatisfactory, he was issued prescriptions for improvement. He received a reprimand on December 12, 1991, for failing to comply with the prescriptions. His teaching performance for that school year was unsatisfactory. In January 1992 Respondent was granted medical leave due to his "adjustment disorder." On March 17 he was "cleared" to return to work with conditions, but Respondent extended his leave to April 12. On April 10, however, he tendered his resignation as a teacher, taking a teacher's aide position instead on April 13. On September 28, 1992, he resigned as a teacher's aide, stating his intention to work as an air conditioning contractor following Hurricane Andrew. Instead, he worked as a teacher for the Palm Beach County School Board. On October 28, 1993, Respondent was re-employed by the Miami-Dade County School Board. He began teaching at Jan Mann, an alternative education middle school for at-risk students. At that school, Respondent expressed extreme anger, had emotional flare-ups, and had difficulty coping with stress. He even faked a heart attack. He had difficulty getting along with colleagues, and his students complained that he called them names. In September 1994 Respondent's principal requested that Respondent be transferred to a less stressful location for his safety as well as that of the staff and students. On October 25, 1995, at his new assignment, Kelsey L. Pharr Elementary School, Respondent became involved in an argument with trespassing middle-school students and was on the verge of physically fighting with them. That evening, during the Parent Open House, those middle-school students returned with high-school students. Respondent became extremely agitated and was perspiring profusely. He threatened the students, telling them he would shoot them and put them in a "body bag." (He had frequently made similar statements to his own students.) An employee at the school saw a gun under Respondent's shirt, but a subsequent search did not uncover the gun. At Kelsey Pharr, Respondent frequently screamed at female co-workers, and some were afraid of him. On November 27, 1995, Respondent's principal directed him to refrain from making any threatening remarks in the presence of others and from bringing weapons onto school grounds. Further, Respondent was directed to maintain professional decorum at all times. On June 21, 1997, Respondent was arrested by the Metro- Dade police for operating a motorcycle "chop shop" at his home. During the arrest, Respondent yelled profanities, committed battery on a police officer, resisted the police with violence, and feigned a heart attack. Respondent was uncooperative and disrespectful. He did not conduct himself with professional decorum. Because of the number of guns that were observed in Respondent's home, the police contacted federal Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents. A federal search warrant was executed at Respondent's home. The federal agents seized an "arsenal" of guns, silencers, pipe bombs, hate literature, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and manuals on how to make silencers and on how to kill people with knives or hands. There is no legitimate reason to possess without federal registration the short-barrel rifle, machine gun, and silencers which were seized from Respondent's home. There was also evidence that silencers were being manufactured in Respondent's home, which is illegal. Respondent was the subject of much media attention. He was charged with the federal offense of manufacturing firearms without a license. Respondent was transferred to an alternate assignment with the School Board while his criminal charges were pending. On October 21, 1997, Respondent plead guilty to possession of a firearm which was not registered, and he was sentenced on May 28, 1998, to 24 months' imprisonment, commencing on August 31, 1998. As part of Respondent's plea agreement, the remaining charges were dropped. Respondent's conduct has been inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. Respondent's conduct has been sufficiently notorious to bring him into public disgrace and impair his service to the community. One of the police officers involved in Respondent's arrest was "disgusted" to discover that Respondent was a teacher. Respondent's conduct did not reflect credit upon himself and the education profession. Respondent's erratic work history and emotional instability, coupled with his involvement with guns and criminal activity, make him a risk in the education community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension without pay, dismissing him as an employee of the School Board, and denying all claims for back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Federal Corrections Institute Stephen W. Chase Registration No. 50294-004 Post Office Box 979137 Miami, Florida 33197 Stephen Chase 8365 Southwest 183 Terrace Miami, Florida 33157 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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 The issue in this case is whether there is just cause for a thirty-day suspension of Priscilla Parris' employment with the Miami-Dade 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 Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX §4(b) of the Florida Constitution; and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Parris started her employment with Petitioner in 1982. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. Parris was employed pursuant to a professional services contract, a collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade. After holding various teaching positions with the School Board, Parris was assigned to Benjamin Franklin Elementary School ("Franklin") in 2005. At all times material to this matter, Parris was a teacher at Franklin. On April 21, 2010, Adrian Rogers ("Rogers"), Assistant Principal at Franklin, was conducting a faculty meeting in the school's media center. During the meeting while at the podium in the front of the media center, Rogers solicited volunteers to serve on an interview committee for a new principal or assistant principal, in case one had to be replaced. Parris raised her hand to volunteer for the interview committee. Rogers handpicked the interview committee from the volunteers but did not select Parris. Instead, she chose the non-classroom teachers who volunteered for the interview committee. As the faculty meeting continued, Parris voiced her concerns to Rogers that the interview committee consisted of non-classroom teachers. Rogers responded that she would talk to Parris about it after the meeting and would not discuss the matter further during the faculty meeting. After the meeting, Parris got up from her seat and walked1 towards Rogers in the front of the room questioning the committee selection. Rogers' response upset Parris and both women became agitated. Both raised their voices during the exchange of words and got louder and louder. The heated disagreement turned into an argument. At some point during the heated discussion, Parris told Rogers, "Don't talk to me like that. I am old enough to be your mother." Rogers responded and Parris retorted, "I don't think your mother would approve, if she was alive, you talking to someone older than you [like that]. . . you better watch your back because you are going to regret disrespecting me." Parris also referred to Rogers as a little girl. Rogers then walked to a different area in the media center to get her belongings and Parris attempted to follow her. Rogers did not like what Parris said to her and felt that Parris was coming toward her as though Parris was going to attack her. Rogers told Parris "You need to step back." As Parris walked toward Rogers to continue the discussion and explain herself,2 Charles Johnson ("Johnson") stepped in front of her and she bumped him as he blocked her from following Rogers. When Johnson stood between the two, he lightly held Parris near the shoulder with an open hand. Johnson told Parris, "This is not worth it. You don't want to do this." At that point, Parris stopped following Rogers and backed away. No physical contact ever took place between Parris and Rogers. Several teachers were surprised by the incident between Parris and Rogers and left the media center quickly after the faculty meeting. Wayne Kirkland ("Kirkland"), the librarian, walked over to Rogers and Parris because both voices were so loud. He saw how upset Rogers was and calmed Parris down by telling her, "let's walk outside." Parris left with Kirkland and he walked her from the media center to her car. Soon thereafter, Parris left the school grounds in an attempt to make her dentist appointment. After an investigation of the incident in the Franklin media center, the matter ultimately was brought to the attention of the Administrative Director, who by letter on or about January 31, 2011, advised Respondent that a determination had been made that the Superintendent would recommend suspension without pay to the School Board. On February 9, 2011, the School Board followed the recommendation and took action to suspend Respondent without pay for 30 workdays. Parris 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 Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order rescinding the 30-day suspension with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 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 30th day June, 2011.
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
