The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent, Sherry Mixon, should be terminated for cause by the Petitioner, the Escambia County School Board (Board).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was employed, by the Board, as a teacher's assistant for special needs or handicapped students. In obtaining such employment the Respondent had to complete employment application documents which contained a question concerning her prior medical or physical history as to whether she had any injuries or a debilitating condition. She failed to disclose that she had a prior back injury and associated workers' compensation claim and that therefore she had some degree of physical disability. The job duties of teacher's assistant for special needs students require a teacher's assistant to be in relatively good physical condition. It is a condition and necessary part of the consideration of whether to hire such a teacher's assistant. If he or she has any prior injury or physical condition, such might reflect on his or her ability to physically handle students in appropriate ways, protecting herself or others from injury. A certain physical ability is required for this employment position because, in working with handicapped students, the teacher's assistant needs to be able to physically and safely intervene between violent handicapped students. Thus, the inquiry on the employment application documents concerning prior physical conditions or injuries is directly relevant to the decision of whether or not to hire such a person. The testimony of Kevin Windham as well as the evidence gleaned from the Petitioner's Exhibits one through six, established that the Respondent was hired as a teacher's assistant. After she experienced an accident or injury on a bus, and while delving into her health situation, the Board learned of her prior workers' compensation back injury. It therefore also learned that she had failed to disclose that prior injury on her employment application. The Board needs to know of any prior injuries in order to know whether an applicant for a position meets the physical qualifications for that position and is thus fit for duty. The safety of the job applicant or students or other persons might be placed at risk if an injured or physically unfit person is hired for certain positions such as teacher's assistant for special needs or handicapped students. The facts requested in the question on her application, which she failed to answer, therefore amounted to a condition on the offer of employment to the Respondent. The Respondent thus failed to establish that she was truly physically qualified for the job position in question, by not disclosing her prior injury. Moreover, by knowingly failing to answer this inquiry on her job application documents, the Respondent committed an act of dishonesty, both of which facts constitute misconduct in office. Thus, good cause for termination has been established.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness, and the pleadings and arguments of the party, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the School Board of Escambia County terminating the Respondent, Sherry Mixon, for good cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons, Longoria & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 Scherry Mixon 222 Ruby Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32505 Jim Paul, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502-5728
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact During all times relevant hereto, Petitioner served as head of the Florida Department of Education, the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints of violations of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ against teachers holding Florida educator certificates. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 725789, covering the areas of middle school integrated curriculum and physical education, which is valid through June 30, 2020. During all times relevant hereto, Respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at Lehigh Acres Middle School in the Lee County School District. Respondent has been a Florida educator for 24 years, all with the Lee County School District. The Administrative Complaint, as to the material allegations, contends that “[o]n or about February 18, 2016, Respondent engaged in a physical altercation with 13-year-old, female student, A.O., when A.O. refused to give Respondent A.O.’s cellphone [and that] Respondent held A.O. to the ground during the altercation.” The Video The altercation in question took place in the school gymnasium (gym). Activities in the gym are monitored by at least a single video surveillance camera. The images captured by the video camera are somewhat grainy, but it is possible to glean from the images the general nature of the interaction between Respondent and the student in question; there is, however, no audio associated with the surveillance video. Respondent is seen on the surveillance video walking around the gym while students (approximately 40) are positioned on the floor throughout the gym. The video shows student A.O. sitting on the gym floor with her back against the bleachers. It appears from the surveillance video that the nearest student to A.O. is approximately eight to ten feet away. The video also shows that Respondent appears to weigh at least twice as much as A.O. and stand at least four inches taller. It is undisputed that Respondent, while moving about the gym, observed A.O. using her cellphone. The video shows Respondent moving towards A.O. When she is approximately three feet from A.O., Respondent communicates in some way to A.O. that she needs to give Respondent her cellphone. The student, while continuing to sit on the floor, is then seen either placing or attempting to place the cellphone in the right- rear pocket of her pants. Respondent, without pausing, then positions herself over the student and attempts to remove the cellphone from either the student’s pocket or hand. The student then rolls onto her right side and positions herself so that her right rear pocket is pressed against the gym floor. At this time, the student is in a near fetal position. Respondent, while continuing to stand over the student, then tussles with the student for about 10 seconds while attempting to take the cellphone. The student then extricates herself from Respondent’s grasp, and while rising from the floor is then pushed in the back by Respondent, which then creates about an arms-length distance between Respondent and the student. The student, while standing, then turns towards Respondent and appears to swing at Respondent with her left hand. Respondent knocks away the student’s extended left arm and then pushes the student onto the lower bench portion of the bleachers. The student lands on her butt and then immediately rises and moves towards Respondent. Respondent and the student’s arms then become entangled. While their arms are entangled, Respondent pushes the student back several steps, forces the student into a seated position on the bleacher bench, and then pushes the student to the gym floor. Respondent then positions herself on top of the student and subdues her by pinning her to the gym floor with her right leg over the student’s left leg and her left leg across the student’s upper back and shoulder area. Respondent released the student after approximately 40 seconds. Before releasing A.O., the video shows that many of the students in class rushed to the area of the gym where the altercation occurred, formed a semi-circle around Respondent and A.O., and recorded the incident on their cellphones. A cellphone video capturing portions of the incident was admitted into evidence, and on this video, a student is heard suggesting to another student that the recording of the altercation should be posted to YouTube. Student A.O. A.O. was in the eighth grade when the incident with Respondent occurred. A.O. did not testify at the disputed fact hearing, but she did submit written statements to school officials following the altercation with Respondent.2/ On February 22, 2016, A.O. provided the following written statement: I was sitting down on my phone like some other kids were doing to, not knowing I wasn’t allowed to use it because it’s my first day in gym. So Ms. Parsons said give me the phone so I said no, I’m sorry Miss, and when I went to reach for my pocket to put it in and she reached down and pushed her elbow and arm up against my neck and chest so I was on the ground flat by that time and we ended up both getting up and trying to get the phone and she ended up pushing me and then somehow she ended up holding me down by holding my arms and sitting on top of me. After she had pushed me on the bleachers she had lightly hit my leg so I hit her in her head. On August 17, 2016, A.O. provided an additional written statement, which reads as follows: I would like to add, that when she was above me after she put her forearm on me I did not feel safe so I stood up. Also when she had pushed me on the bleachers and kept wrestling with me I had been kicking her so she could leave me alone. After I was escorted to ISS, then Mr. Restino’s office, I was brought to the clinic after he had seen the video and Ms. Garcia took pictures of all my red marks and some scratches, they weren’t deep though. Respondent’s Version of Events On February 18, 2016, the date of the altercation in question, Respondent prepared the following written statement: This afternoon as I was walking around the classroom monitoring the students, I was checking to make sure that the students were working on their projects. I saw that the young lady in question was on her phone. I asked her to give me her phone and I reached my hand out for the phone. She snatched it away and I continued to ask her for the phone. I took the phone and she said I wasn’t getting her phone and struggled with me. I got the phone and she stood up and punched me in my right ear. I pushed her back and she came at me again so I pushed her back again. She kicked me in the stomach. I grabbed one of her arms and her leg as she went to kick me again and I brought her down to the floor. I put my knee on her back as I held her arm and leg. I told her that I could not believe that she would do this over a phone [and] that I probably would have given it back to her at the end of the class period since it was near the end of the day. She said that she didn’t know that because she was new. I told her even if she was new that you don’t hit a grown-up or a teacher like that. I told her that I was going to let her up. She said okay. By that time coach McDowell came over and said th[at] coach Steidl had called for assistance. Deputy Matthews came in and I explained what happened. He talked with her for a few seconds. I asked him if I should give him the phone or give it back to her. He said to give it to her so I did and they left. Later, I noticed that I had some scratches and blood on my arm and I went to the clinic to get my arm treated. On June 30, 2016, Respondent sent an email to the human resources department for the School Board of Lee County. In this missive Respondent notes, in support of her belief that she did nothing wrong in this situation, that during the fracas with A.O. “students were cheering” for Respondent and that throughout the incident she was merely “responding to [A.O.’s] inappropriate and disrespectful behavior.” Respondent testified during the final hearing and her testimony was in material part consistent with her written statements. Cellphone Policy Ms. Neketa Watson was the principal of Lehigh Acres Middle School during the 2015-2016 school year. According to Ms. Watson, the Student Code of Conduct in effect at the time of the incident in question provides as follows: Students may possess cell phones and other personal electronic devices while on school grounds during regular school hours, however they must be turned off at all times unless utilized for an approved activity. Cell phone usage is allowed during non-instructional time or for an approved activity. Possession of all personal electronic devices, including cell phones, is done at the student’s own risk and the school assumes no responsibility, legal or otherwise, with regard to these items. During the 2015-2016 school year, Ms. Watson sent weekly emails to all school personnel reminding them about school policy and procedures. The weekly reminders would often include reference to the school’s cellphone policy, which provides that “if we see it, we hear it, we take the phone.” The cellphone policy reminders sent out by Ms. Watson also explained to school personnel that they should not use physical force when attempting to secure a cellphone from a student and that if a student refused to turn over a phone when requested, then personnel should “call for an administrative administrator who removes the student” and then processes the student for suspension. Ms. Watson explained that she did not include the reminder about the cellphone policy in each of her weekly emails to personnel, but she specifically recalled having done so the week of the incident in question. Ms. Watson testified that the reminder was sent on Sunday night (February 14, 2016). On February 18, 2016, Adrienne McDowell was employed by the School Board of Lee County as an educational paraprofessional for physical education and was assigned to Lehigh Acres Middle School. In explaining her understanding of the cellphone policy, Ms. McDowell testified as follows: A: What we were told via email a couple weeks prior to this event that Ms. Watson sent out, when a student has a cellphone out, if you see it or hear it, you need to ask for it. If they don’t place that phone in your hands willingly, then you call for a specialist to come and deal with that student. It is not our job to take a cellphone away from a student, we just call for a specialist. Q: By specialist, what do you mean? A: Security, administration, someone in the specialist team, guidance counselor, you know. There are different, -- like I said, a specialist is a security guard, administration or guidance counselor; anybody more equipped to handle the situation than we are. Respondent testified that she was unaware of Ms. Watson’s emails to personnel regarding the proper protocol for confiscating cellphones from non-compliant students. On June 17, 2016, Respondent, as part of the investigation conducted herein, sent an email to school board officials and stated therein that it was her belief that “[i]f I had not taken her phone, that the students would have disrespected and challenged me from that day forward.” In the same missive, Respondent, in an attempt to discredit one of the students who witnessed her altercation with A.O., noted that she disciplined the student witness “for his misbehavior by writing him a referral and having him escorted out of [her] classroom.” Given Respondent’s admitted general awareness of the school’s policy of referring misbehaving students to an appropriate administrator for disciplinary action, and her concerns about being challenged and disrespected, Respondent’s testimony that she was unaware of Ms. Watson’s directive regarding students who refuse to hand over their cell phones is not credible. Student Detention, Search and Seizure Lee County School Board Policy 4.03 sets forth procedures related to searching a student’s person and property. Numbered paragraph (3) of the policy provides in part that “[a]n administrative staff member or an instructional staff member designated by an administrator may search a student’s person [and] personal belongings . . . if there is reasonable suspicion to believe the search will result in evidence the student has violated Florida Statute or School Board Rule or if the student consents to such search.” Respondent was neither an administrative staff member nor an instructional staff member with authorization to conduct student searches, and therefore her actions of physically searching A.O. and taking her cellphone violated Lee County School Board Policy 4.03. Aggressor or Victim Respondent challenges the instant proceeding in part on the theory that the facts demonstrate that she was the victim and merely acted in self-defense against the actions of a combative student. Contrary to Respondent’s contention, the credible evidence, as captured by the surveillance video, establishes that Respondent committed the initial act of aggression when she, without hesitation, lorded over A.O. and physically grabbed the student in an unauthorized effort to confiscate A.O.’s cellphone. While it is true that the student, after initially being pinned to the gym floor by Respondent, eventually freed herself from Respondent’s grip and in her agitated state committed reflexive acts of aggression towards Respondent, the credible evidence establishes that these events would not have occurred but for Respondent’s initial use of unauthorized and unreasonable force. Respondent, without question, had the right to protect herself against the aggressive countermeasures initiated by the student. However, it is also the case that under the facts of this case the student equally had the right to protect herself against Respondent’s initial acts of aggression.3/
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 the violations alleged in counts one through three of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Respondent's Florida Educator Certificate 725789 for a period of two years, to be followed by a one-year period of probation. The terms and conditions of Respondent's suspension and probation shall be established by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this this 16th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 2018.
The Issue Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent left a kindergarten student, K.M., alone in her classroom on April 2, 2018, as alleged in Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based on the record and evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material fact: Stipulated Facts Respondent holds Educator Certificate 1168653, covering the areas of Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Foreign Languages, and Exceptional Student Education (“ESE”), valid through June 30, 2021. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed as a kindergarten teacher at Sunland Park Academy, in the school district of Broward County, Florida. Evidence Presented at the Hearing Samiyeh Nasser During the 2017-2018 school year, Samiyeh Nasser (“Nasser”) was employed as a Teacher’s Assistant at Sunland Park Academy in the Broward County School district. She worked with the kindergarten classes. Nasser “pulled out” students, removing them from a teacher’s class and bringing them to her own room to provide extra help with reading, spelling, and word pronunciation. She regularly went to Leger’s classroom during first period each day, at approximately 9:00 a.m., and would take four or five students to her own classroom. She would then bring them back to their regular class to attend “specials,” which are elective classes. On April 2, 2018, when Nasser returned children to Leger’s classroom, at 10:05 a.m. that day, she noticed that the other students had already left the room, but that there was one student, K.M., there alone. When Nasser found her, K.M. was crying. When Nasser asked her why she was alone, K.M. said that her classmates had gone to physical education class (“P.E.”), and that she had been told by her teacher, Respondent, to stay in the classroom. Based on other credible evidence, K.M.’s comment to Nasser regarding having to “stay in the classroom” referred to a counseling conversation which Leger had with K.M. earlier in the morning, prior to the class leaving for P.E. She did not mention anything to Nasser about Steven Bynes (“Bynes”), a pool substitute who had assumed responsibility for the class in Respondent’s absence. Nasser opened the back door to the classroom, saw the other students at P.E., and instructed the small group of students she brought back to the classroom to join them outside. She did not see either Leger or Bynes with the students at P.E. when she found K.M. Nasser remained with K.M. briefly, hugged her to calm her down, and then left her in the room as she went on to assume her other duties. She was in Leger’s classroom a total of approximately five to seven minutes. Steven Bynes, Jr. Steven Bynes, Jr., was employed as a pool substitute at Sunland Park Academy during the 2017-2018 school year. He provided coverage when teachers were absent or out, and no outside substitute was hired for the day. On April 2, 2018, he was instructed to cover Leger’s class while Leger attended a meeting.1 Bynes was in Respondent’s classroom for approximately 20 minutes. Leger returned to the classroom while Bynes was still there and advised him that the class had “specials.” Bynes claimed that he advised Leger that it was two minutes before the class was to go to P.E., and advised her that she “still had time” to take them there. 1 This was a meeting between Leger, the guidance counselor, and a parent mentioned later in this Recommended Order, paragraph 60 infra. He claimed that Leger did not say anything to him, and he left the classroom to return to the front office. After the fact, Bynes was told that a student had been left in the classroom, but he denied knowledge of it and denied responsibility for leaving K.M. in the classroom. He claimed he left the class with Leger. He also denied having any conversation with K.M. in the classroom. Bynes denied taking the class to P.E. and stated that when he left the classroom, he left the students with Leger.2 Nikia Ragin Nikia Ragin (“Ragin”) was the Assistant Principal at Sunland Park Academy during the 2017-2018 school year. She was told by the Principal that Nasser had reported an incident concerning a student, K.M. After speaking to Nasser, she spoke to K.M. Ragin spoke to K.M. approximately two hours after the event took place, and then reported to the Principal. Ragin was also present when Leger explained to the Principal that Bynes, not she, had taken the students to P.E. Other than Leger’s statement, Ragin found no other evidence to conclude that Bynes had taken the students to P.E. Ragin’s conclusion regarding the evidence, at that point, was misguided and affected because the school surveillance cameras that would likely show who took the students to P.E. were not operating properly.3 Leger elaborated and explained to Ragin that she was in a meeting with the guidance counselor when the students went to specials. 2 Notably, Bynes said he didn’t really remember what Leger said or did after he advised her that she still had time to take the class to specials. Curiously, after he said this, he testified that he simply “walked out of the classroom.” This description by Bynes was significantly at odds with Leger’s testimony and recollection of the same discussion. Bynes seemed vague and uncertain at times regarding the incident. Leger’s description of her encounter and discussion with Bynes when she returned, is more persuasive and credible, and is adopted. 3 The camera tapes had been reviewed by Ragin because of Leger’s claim about not taking the students to P.E. Had the surveillance cameras been working, there would have been clear images of the kindergarten hallways and other relevant areas. There were also other inoperative cameras, that if working properly, would have shown relevant views of the hallway leading to and from the office of the guidance counselor. Sharonda Bailey Sunland Park Academy Principal, Sharonda Bailey (“Bailey”), received a report from Nasser about a student in Leger’s class. She referred the matter to Ragin, and saw her speaking with Nasser and also with K.M. Bailey recalled that Bynes had been in the classroom that day to cover the class. She asked him if anything had occurred when he was in the classroom. Bynes told Bailey that Leger had returned to the classroom and said something about the students being late for specials. Bynes recounted to Bailey that he explained to Leger that they weren’t that late, that she should take them herself, and that he then walked out the front door. When she spoke with Respondent, Leger stated to her that she did not leave a student in the classroom and that Bynes was the person who took the students to P.E. Bailey also attempted to verify who took the students to P.E. through the school’s security cameras. However, because the camera system was antiquated, it had not captured or recorded what she needed to see. The security cameras glitched and froze, and the time stamp was off. In short, the cameras were not capable of adequately displaying Respondent’s location or movement in the hallways because its quality was so poor.4 4 The security videos of the kindergarten hallway and the area outside the office of the guidance counselor were requested by Leger during discovery. However, they were not provided to her and were not used or shown at the final hearing. Bailey contacted K.M.’s mother and told her that her child was left alone in the classroom while the rest of the class was taken to specials. She explained that she would investigate the incident. Because Bailey was not able to find anyone during the investigation to validate Respondent’s position that she did not leave the student behind, she issued a written reprimand to Leger. Bailey did not speak at length with K.M. about the incident, but merely asked if she was okay. Private Investigator William Miller William Miller (“Miller”) was retained by Leger’s counsel to attempt to locate K.M. He ultimately located her in Gulfport, Mississippi. He telephoned K.M.’s mother, Shirelle M. He reached her in her car on her way to pick up K.M. from school. Later that day, Miller was also able to speak directly to K.M.5 Miller asked K.M. if she remembered the incident. K.M. explained that Respondent went to a meeting, and that the class had been turned over to a substitute teacher by the name of Mr. Bynes. She told him Bynes took the class to P.E. outside the classroom. K.M. related to Miller that she told Bynes she had been bad, and that Respondent had told her she could not go outside for P.E. K.M. stated that Bynes then told her to “wait in the classroom” and he took the rest of the class to P.E. Miller testified that neither he nor K.M.’s mother provided her with any background, mentioned Bynes, or in any way suggested what information they wanted from her. Miller had work experience interviewing juvenile witnesses and testified that he “assiduously avoided” leading K.M., because they are so prone to being improperly led when questioned. 5 Shirelle M. had called back about 30 minutes later and Miller spoke to K.M. on her mother’s speaker phone while they were in the car together. Miller recounted that K.M.’s mother expressed surprise that K.M. recalled the name of Bynes, and assured Miller that she had not coached K.M. in any way.6 Based on his interviews over the phone, affidavits were prepared for K.M. and her mother, which documented the verbal information they had provided to Miller. The affidavits were given to K.M.’s mother. Miller explained to her that the affidavits should be their testimony, and not the testimony of either Miller or the attorney in the case. He also explained that if there were any changes that needed to be made, she should make the changes, send the affidavit back to him, and that the affidavits could be redone, if necessary. Miller asked the mother to read and go over the affidavit that K.M. was being asked to sign. Miller arranged to have a notary go to their apartment in Mississippi to have the mother and the child execute the affidavits. Before this occurred, he was able to reach Shirelle M. by telephone. She apologized and told him that the delay in executing the affidavit stemmed from the fact that she had changed jobs, and that the Gulf Coast had experienced three separate hurricanes since he had last spoken to her. Miller explained to her that he did not want it to be inconvenient and that he would make the arrangements necessary to get a notary to her to be able to notarize the affidavits. The notary was given specific instructions to tell Shirelle M. and K.M. that they did not have to sign the affidavits, and could make any changes to them that they wanted. Despite the delay in securing her signature, Miller still felt that the mother did not have any hesitation signing her affidavit. 6 K.M.’s mother had been told of the incident, but had not been told about Bynes at the time of the incident. Ruth Galliard Leger Respondent was K.M.’s kindergarten teacher at Sunland Park Academy during the 2017-2018 school year. She recalled that K.M. was a good student and they got along well. Sometime during the morning of April 2, 2018, Respondent requested an emergency meeting with the school’s guidance counselor and the parent of a male student. The male student had come in late to class that day. He became disruptive, knocking teaching items, like posters and magnets, to the floor.7 The meeting was scheduled by the guidance counselor. Respondent left for the meeting when Bynes arrived at her classroom to provide coverage. Earlier that morning, K.M. had also been disruptive. Respondent counseled her and told her that if she did it again, Respondent would take some time from her P.E., consistent with the class rules, and that she would have to stay behind in the classroom with Respondent for a few minutes of her P.E. time.8 On the day of the incident, the class had P.E. scheduled at 10:10 a.m. When Respondent left for her meeting, the class had not yet gone to P.E. During the meeting with the guidance counselor, Respondent excused herself and returned briefly to her classroom to retrieve a form that needed to be signed by those in attendance at the conference. Resp. Ex. 1. When she entered the room to get the form, Bynes was there with her students. Respondent explained to Bynes that she forgot the form, and that her meeting with the counselor and parent was not over. Respondent asked Bynes what time it was and when he told her that it was approximately 10:15 a.m., she reminded him that the class had specials at 10:10 a.m. 7 This was out character for him, prompting Respondent to request the emergency meeting. 8 Four other students had also been counseled that morning about their conduct and the consequences before Respondent went to her meeting with the counselor. Bynes said that they had only missed five minutes, and the class could still go to P.E. Respondent retrieved the form she needed, went out the front door into the kindergarten hallway, and back to her meeting. The class was in the room with Bynes when Respondent departed to go back to the meeting. However, she did not see Bynes take the students to P.E. After the meeting with the counselor and the parent, Respondent left the counselor’s office. Respondent and the student’s parent stood in the first- grade hallway talking for several minutes.9 Respondent then walked the mother to the front door of the school, where there are more cameras, and parted company with her. Leger then proceeded down the hallway back to her classroom. When she got back, she was shocked to find K.M. standing in the room by herself. When she asked K.M. why she was in the room, K.M. explained that she had remembered that Leger previously told her that she owed time from P.E. for misbehaving. As a result, she decided to stay behind in the room when the others went to P.E. Respondent did not recall telling K.M. to “stay back” from P.E. Leger told K.M. that she did not have to remain behind, that she wasn’t upset with her, and that she should have gone to P.E. with the rest of the kids. Since there were five minutes left in the P.E. class, Respondent took K.M. out to P.E. When Respondent picked up her students from P.E. five minutes later, K.M. was fine and the class went to lunch. The next day, at the end of school, Principal Bailey handed Respondent a letter advising her that she was under investigation for leaving a child unattended. 9 This hallway was covered by the same faulty security cameras previously mentioned. At her disciplinary meeting, Respondent told Bailey that she did not leave K.M. in the classroom, and that she was at a meeting with the guidance counselor and a parent at the time. To support her defense, Respondent asked Bailey for the school videos which would show her in different hallways, entering the counselor’s office, and speaking with and walking the mother to the front door when her students went to P.E. Leger later asked her first lawyer on two separate occasions to obtain the relevant videos from the Broward County School District through a Freedom of Information Act request. Resp. Exs. 12a and 12b. She wanted the security videos to be subpoenaed for this case.10 K.M. remained in Respondent’s class for the balance of the year and Respondent had a good year with her. Leger never spoke to K.M. or her mother about the incident. Shirelle M. Shirelle M. is the mother of K.M. She recalled Miller calling and speaking to her and K.M. on the speaker phone. She heard K.M. tell Miller that it was Bynes that had left her in the classroom. She heard K.M.’s entire conversation with Miller. The affidavit that K.M. signed was an accurate recitation of the phone conversation she heard between Miller and her daughter in the car. She also signed her own affidavit that accurately set forth her conversation with Miller. Resp. Ex. 8. She knew that she could make any changes to her affidavit before signing it. 10 The undersigned took administrative notice of the DOAH file, which included Respondent’s subpoena to the Broward County School District seeking the videos, the District’s response, and Respondent’s Motion to Compel seeking access to the videos. Shirelle M. was there when K.M. signed her affidavit, and read it with her beforehand. She testified that no person forced her daughter to sign the affidavit. She explained the long period of time that elapsed between the time that she got the affidavit and the time that she signed. The delay was due to her work schedule, which involved four or five jobs, since the COVID-19 pandemic. She testified that she had no hesitation executing her affidavit, and did so freely and voluntarily, since it was accurate and correct. Concerning the day of the classroom incident, she saw her daughter before speaking with the Principal when she picked K.M. up from aftercare. She did not get much detail from the Principal, who said that the matter was still under investigation. The Principal never told her that it was Respondent who left K.M. in the room. She never overheard K.M. tell anyone that Respondent had left her in the classroom. K.M. Before beginning her testimony, eight-year-old K.M. was questioned by the undersigned. She was polite, alert, and calm. She understood the oath and the importance of telling the truth. She remembered when she lived in Florida. She also recalled Respondent as her kindergarten teacher and the incident of being left in the classroom. K.M. testified that it was Bynes who left her in the classroom when Respondent was at a meeting. 11 She recalled that when Bynes arrived at the classroom, Respondent then left for a meeting. 11 The Transcript mistakenly phonetically wrote Barnes. It should have been Bynes. K.M. stayed behind when the rest of the class went to P.E. She did so because Respondent had told her earlier that morning to stay behind because of minor discipline issues with her. More specifically, as the class left to go to P.E., K.M. told Bynes that she was supposed to remain in the classroom, and Bynes said “okay” and took the remainder of the class to P.E. K.M. remained in the classroom while the class was at P.E., until Respondent returned from her meeting. When asked by Leger why she was there alone, K.M. reminded Respondent that she had previously told her to stay in the class. K.M. executed an affidavit that she read and that her mother read to her. It accurately reflected what happened. Resp. Ex. 13b. K.M. recalled speaking to a man on the phone (Investigator Miller), and told him the same thing as what she testified to in court. K.M. unequivocally stated twice during the hearing that she never told anyone that Respondent, Leger, had left her in the classroom. Nobody told K.M. what to say in the hearing, and she remembered on her own that to which she testified. K.M. liked Respondent and stated that she was “a pretty good teacher.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint and the charges contained therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 10th day of February, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Lisa M. Forbess Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a dormitory teacher I for approximately four years prior to his dismissal in May, 1987. The incident which resulted in his dismissal occurred on May 2, 1987, on the second floor of James Hall, a dormitory for deaf students, where he worked as a dormitory teacher. At approximately 11:15 p.m., Petitioner told Tommy Downing, a student at the school and resident of James Hall, to go to bed. Downing was in another student's room at the time and was wearing a fabric vest used as a target for a toy laser gun. The testimony conflicts as to exactly what happened, but from a review of all the evidence and after considering the witnesses' demeanor, it is found that Downing, who was thirteen years old at the time, threw the vest at Petitioner, hitting him in the eye. Petitioner sustained no injury. As a result of the surprise of being hit with the vest, Petitioner threw a clip board he was holding in his hand in Downing's direction. Downing and Petitioner were approximately twelve feet apart at the time. The clip board struck Downing just below his elbow causing severe pain and swelling for which he required attention in the school infirmary. Downing became extremely upset as a result of the incident and it took staff some time to calm him down. Petitioner's action was grossly negligent and reckless, and exhibited an extreme disregard for the safety of Downing, as well as another student who was also in close proximity to the incident. At the time of this incident, Petitioner was rated as "below" standards, with unsatisfactory communication skills and knowledge of his job. Good communication skills are very important when dealing with deaf students, and Petitioner's inabilities in this aspect of his job had been a repeated cause for his poor job performance and evaluations. Petitioner's personnel file reveals that he was placed on ten days administrative leave in December 1986, and was reprimanded in January, 1987 for failure to report to work. After investigating the incident involving Downing and Petitioner, Respondent dismissed Petitioner from employment on May 30, 1987 "for violation of Article 26 of the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind Standards of Conduct." Article 26 provides a definition of "student abuse" and employee disciplinary standards relating thereto, as follows: Treatment under which a student is deprived, or allowed to be deprived, of necessary treatment, habilitation, care, sustenance, clothing, shelter, supervision, or medical services essential to his well- being; is permitted to live in an environment in which such deprivation or environment causes, or is likely to cause, impairment of physical or emotional health; or is subject to physical or psychological injury. First occurrence 3-day suspension to Dismissal Second occurrence Dismissal (Emphasis supplied.) Respondent does not contest that Petitioner has timely sought a hearing to review the decision to terminate his employment. According to Respondent's Personnel Director, Sam Visconti, the severest employee disciplinary action of dismissal is taken when an employee's action causes harm to a student, and the consequences or harm are severe. In this case, Petitioner's action did cause harm, with severe pain and swelling to Downing, and showed an extreme disregard for the possible consequences of his action.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner as an employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert T. Dawson, President Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind 207 North San Marco Avenue St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Barbara Staros Harmon, Esquire Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Samuel White 94 South Street St. Augustine, Florida 32082
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lawrence Brennan, holds Florida teaching certificate number 250648, issued by the State Department of Education. The Respondent is certified in the area of English and his certificate is valid through June 30, 1988. The Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System in which he has taught since September 8, 1969. The Respondent has taught at Paxon Junior High School since 1984-84, and has taught compensatory education in Paxon Junior High School during school years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Compensatory education is a special program for children with low test scores. Many of the students also have disciplinary problems. The Respondent received satisfactory evaluations for the last three full years of his employment, to include his years at Paxon. The Respondent was removed from the classroom and Paxon Junior High School following the altercation with a student on February 27, 1986, which gave rise to these charges. The Respondent is currently assigned to one of the media centers of the Department of Education in Duval County. The Respondent was informed in writing of the various requirements and responsibilities of teachers in the Duval County School System. Bresha Woods was a student of the Respondent's in November 1985. Ms. Woods had received six to eight referrals to the Principal's office through November 1985 for disrupting class and for not performing assigned duties. Subsequent to the incident described here, Woods was suspended and transferred to the Darnell Cookman Alternative School in March of the 1985-86 school year. On November 7, 1985, the Respondent told Woods to take her things and to go to the Principal's office for not doing her work and disrupting class. Woods delayed, slowly gathering her books, purse and other belongings. The Respondent approached Woods from the rear as she was at her desk, grasped her by the shoulders, pulled her to her feet alongside the desk, turned her toward the door of the classroom and told her to go to the school office. Woods' statement that she was "marked up" is not credible and the fact that she visited a physician on March 29, 1987, is not relevant because of the passage of time. No report of the physician's findings was offered. Woods' report to Atkinson that Respondent had choked her was contrary to Woods' sworn testimony. Atkinson accepted Woods' version of events as opposed to the explanation of Respondent. See T 179, 180. In January 1986, Delilah Elliott, a new student at Paxon, was late for class and cut across a grassy area between the wings of the classroom building which was closed to walking students. Between classes the Respondent was performing monitoring duties outside the classroom as do many of the teachers and staff and observed Ms. Elliott crossing the prohibited area. The Respondent called for Elliott to stop. Although Elliott heard the Respondent call for her to stop, she ignored him, attempting to go to her next class. The Respondent approached her, grabbed her by the shoulders to restrain her, and pushed her toward the sidewalk. She attempted to walk around him and continue on to her class. Elliott refused to tell the Respondent her name. The Respondent herded Elliott to the Principal's office, sometimes pushing her in the back when she stopped walking. Ms. Atkinson, the Assistant Principal in charge of disciplining girls, having seen the incident, followed the Respondent to the office. Atkinson told the Respondent not to be so physical with the children. The Respondent advised Atkinson that he knew what the rules were. Atkinson advised the Respondent that she would take care of the problem, and that he should return to class. Atkinson took no action against Elliott because, according to Atkinson, walking on the grass was not a referral offense. As the Respondent exited the office, Atkinson heard the Respondent say to Elliott, "You little tramp." The Respondent was frequently in physical contact with students in his class. Craig Monasco and Frank Lane were students in the Respondent's class. The Respondent grabbed their buttocks on several occasions when they were leaning over getting books. This practice, called "scooping" by the students, was a form of horse play engaged in by the students. The students were embarrassed by this. On other occasions, the Respondent pulled students out of their seats in the process of disciplining them within the classroom. Leopolean Spikes was a 13 year old black student in the Respondent's 7th grade comp. ed. English class. Spikes had a history of disruptive behavior in class and had been sent to the Principal's office several times during the school year. On February 26, 1986, Spikes was disruptive in class and the Respondent escorted him to the Principal's office. On this occasion, Spikes had refused to accept the referral, and Spikes said he was going to have his father come out and talk with the Respondent. The Respondent added Spikes' additional comments to the referral regarding Spikes' behavior and escorted Spikes to the Principal's office. Upon re-entering the class, the Respondent stated to the class that had Spikes hit him, the Respondent would have knocked him through the wall. The Principal gave Spikes an in-school suspension for his conduct of February 26, 1986. However, based upon the general school policy, a child with the number of referrals that Spikes had had would have been subject to general suspension. On February 27, 1986, Spikes reported to the Respondent's first period comp. ed. class. Spikes exhibited additional disruptive behavior during the class period of approximately 50 minutes in length. During this time, the Respondent warned Spikes on several occasions that he was going to refer him again if his behavior did not change. Shortly before the class was over, Spikes' continued disruptive conduct caused the Respondent to write a referral of Spikes to the Principal. The Respondent told Spikes to go to the Principal's office. Spikes delayed in getting his personal effects together to go to the Principal's office, and the Respondent went over to Spikes and told him to hurry up and leave the class. Spikes told the Respondent that he would not go to the Principal's office. At this point, a conflict exists in testimony regarding what occurred next. The one non-involved adult observer, Ms. Morkin, the co-teacher, stated that she observed six "acts" to the incident: (1) Spikes stood around reading the referral and not doing anything; (2) Respondent guided Spikes to the door by the shoulder; (3) Spikes ran around her desk to his own desk by the windows and wall; (4) Books were thrown in the direction of her desk from the vicinity of Spikes' desk; and (5) A struggle ensued between Spikes and Respondent, which came to an end with the Respondent kneeling next to Spikes and restraining Spikes on the floor. The various student witnesses had more dramatic versions of the incident, but one can trace the activity by its location. Their versions began with: (1) Spikes refused to go and told Respondent that he was not going to the office at or around Spikes' desk; (2) Spikes or Respondent threw books; (3) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the desk; (4) Spikes threatened Respondent with a desk; (5) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the wall and Spikes' head hit against the wall; and (6) The fight ended with Respondent pinning Spikes to the floor. The following findings are based upon a most credible evidence and testimony presented: The Respondent was standing in the aisle alongside Spikes' desk and between Spikes' desk and the front of the room where Ms. Morkin's desk was located. Spikes, when confronted by the Respondent and told to hurry, told Respondent he refused to go, and threw his books at Respondent, who was standing between Spikes and Morkin. Spikes adopted a combative stance and the Respondent grabbed Spikes' arms, fearing that Spikes was going to strike him. Spikes began to struggle and both Spikes and the Respondent fell to the floor. Respondent let go of Spikes and regained his feet and Spikes pulled himself to his feet using the back of a school desk which he raised in front of him and advanced toward the Respondent saying, "I'm going to hit you with this desk. See T-70. The Respondent pushed the desk out of the way, grabbed the writing portion of the desk, then grabbed Spikes and a second struggle ensued, during which Spikes hit the Respondent, who grabbed Spikes in a bear hug. Spikes and the Respondent were by the windowed wall of the classroom, and the Respondent attempted to pin Spikes against the windowed wall to stop his struggling and prevent Spikes from hitting him. In doing so, Spikes' head was banged against the window once. Spikes continued to hit the Respondent all this time. The Respondent and Spikes again fell to the floor where Spikes ceased fighting after Respondent pinned him down. After the struggle ceased, Ms. Morkin left to seek assistance as the Respondent requested. After he was at the office, a knot came up on Spikes' head. Spikes parents were called and they took Spikes to the emergency room where he underwent a complete examination, to include X-rays of his head. This examination revealed no abnormal findings except tenderness and swelling in the left occipital area of the head. Subsequent medical problems which Spikes has suffered were related to an injury to the right occipital area. No evidence of such an injury was revealed in the examination or reported by Spikes. See Petitioner's Exhibit The Respondent is approximately 6' tall and weighs approximately 200 pounds. Spikes is approximately 4'6" tall and weighs 72 pounds. Mr. Randolph and Ms. Atkinson, the persons in charge of disciplining children at the school, gave their opinions concerning the appropriateness of the Respondent's actions. In their opinion, the Respondent's actions were inappropriate. The record reflects that both Atkinson and Randolph had failed to apply the requisite disciplinary standards to students by taking action to remove them from the school system permanently, based upon continued disciplinary problems. Atkinson, who observed the Elliott incident, described the Respondent as "striking the student" and was of the opinion that a person who touches another person with their hand is striking the person. Mr. Larry Paulk, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Affairs for the Duval County Schools, interviewed the Respondent after the altercation. To Paulk, the Respondent appeared hostile and was sarcastic in his dealings and approach to students. Paulk offered his opinion that the Respondent's conduct regarding discipline and leadership was inappropriate. The Respondent has attended psychiatric counseling for the past year to deal with his hostility and to improve his effectiveness as a teacher. There is no evidence of the Respondent receiving progressive discipline for prior acts involving physical contact with students, although he received several written reprimands for inappropriate conduct towards students to include physical conduct, language, and attitude. Mr. Randolph, the principal in charge of boys, advised that the school's solution for the removal of an unwilling child from class was to call the Principal. The Principal would come to the room and ask the student to come out of the classroom and, if the student refused, the Principal would then call a uniformed policeman who would arrest the child for trespassing. In Randolph's experience they had never had to take the final step of calling for a uniformed policeman.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the Respondent's employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed as a behavioral interventionist with the Palm Beach County School District during the 2000-2001 school year. A behavioral interventionist is a non- instructional employee who works primarily with students receiving services through Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Programs. In addition to monitoring performance and behavior of ESE students, Respondent supervised regular education students who were serving in-house suspensions, performed bus and cafeteria duty, and helped maintain discipline throughout the campus. Respondent also served as an assistant football coach. Respondent received specialized training in order to perform his duties as a behavioral interventionist. He received child development training and attended approximately 12-13 workshops dealing with physical restraint and conflict resolution issues. Respondent is not a member of a collective bargaining unit. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Student 1, a male, was 17-years old and a junior at Forest Hill. Student 1 is 5'10" tall and weighs approximately 260 pounds. Respondent is 6'3" tall and weighs approximately 250 pounds. Respondent is a former professional football player who routinely lifts weights. On December 11, 2000, between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Student 1 was in the area of the outdoor basketball court watching a basketball game. Student 1 had permission to be on the campus of Forest Hill, but he should not have been in the area of the outdoor basketball court. Respondent was in the weight room at Forrest Hill that afternoon demonstrating weight lifting techniques to a group of his football players. After he completed his weight lifting workout, Respondent went to the outdoor basketball court to play basketball. Respondent began playing basketball with a group of students, including students who did not play football. Student 1 could have played if he had wanted to do so. Student 1 was not playing when the acts at issue in this proceeding occurred. Shortly after the game began, Student 1 was standing off the basketball court observing the game when the basketball ball was thrown out of bounds near him. Respondent walked up to Student 1 and said, "why don't you get the ball fat boy?" In response, Student 1 used profane language and was disrespectful towards Respondent. Respondent reacted by tapping Student 1 on the cheek with his open hand. Student 1 asked Respondent why he hit him, but received no response. As Student 1 attempted to walk away, Respondent tapped him again on the back of the head and the two exchanged words. Respondent was not justified in making physical contact with Student 1. Student 1 again addressed Respondent using profane language. Respondent reacted by taking Student 1 to the ground using a technique that he had been trained to use to restrain students. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent placed Student 1 in a chokehold when he took him to the ground. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent did not use a chokehold on Student 1. There was also a conflict in the evidence as to whether Student 1 had become aggressive and whether Respondent was merely trying to restrain Student 1. The evidence is clear that Respondent physically restrained Student 1 because Student 1 had been disrespectful towards him, not because Student 1 had become combative. Respondent was not justified in physically restraining Student 1. Student 1 was on the ground when Respondent released him from the restraining hold. As Student 1 was attempting to rise, Respondent hit him with his forearm, which forced Student 1 back to the ground. Witnesses at the basketball court told Student 1 to stay down, but he attempted to rise and saw Respondent in a three-point position typically assumed by football linemen. Almost immediately, Respondent came at Student 1 again and forearmed him back to the ground. Student 1 fell back to the ground, biting his tongue as he went down. He then got up and began cursing. After an interval of a few minutes, Student 1 asked Respondent why he had hit him and began to spit in the general direction of Respondent. Respondent, believing that Student 1 was spitting at him, grabbed him in the area of the neck and forced him against the fence surrounding the basketball court. Respondent told Student 1, "Don't play with me boy, I'm not a kid." Respondent was not justified in that use of force against Student 1. The incident lasted over a period of several minutes. Student 2 was present during the entire incident and Student 3 was present during the latter part of the incident (when Respondent grabbed Student 1 by the neck and forced him against the fence). Both witnesses corroborated Student 1's version of the events. No other student witnesses testified at the final hearing. Student 1 complained that afternoon to a coach named Coleman about what had occurred and he also told his mother later that evening when he got home. Student 1 complained to his mother that his neck hurt and she took him to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a sprained neck. On December 12, 2000, Student 1 and his mother returned to the school and complained to Assistant Principal Mark Sagovac, about what happened the afternoon before. Mr. Sagovac thereafter spoke with Respondent, who did not deny the incident had occurred. Respondent admitted to Mr. Sagovac that he called Student 1 a "fat boy" and asked him to get the ball, which had rolled out of bounds. Respondent further told Mr. Sagovac that he pushed Student 1 to the ground with his forearm and forced Student 1 up against the fence because he felt Student 1 was threatening him. After speaking with Respondent, Mr. Sagovac interviewed Student 1 again and spoke to other witnesses. Some time thereafter a meeting was held between Student 1, his mother, Respondent, Mr. Sagovac, and Assistant Principal Green, who is also an assistant principal assigned to Forest Hill. The incident was discussed again and at one point, Respondent apologized to Student 1 and his mother. After the meeting concluded, Mr. Sagovac issued to Respondent a verbal reprimand with written notation for the actions he took on December 11, 2000. Prior to serving the Respondent with the verbal reprimand with written notation, Sagovac did not consult with his principal or anyone in the Petitioner 's Personnel Office or Office of Professional Standards to determine if he was complying with policy or if he was following accepted personnel practice concerning the contemplated discipline. Mr. Sagovac was not complying with school policy when he issued the verbal reprimand with written notation. Mr. Sagovac did not have the authority to discipline Respondent. Shortly after the conclusion of the meeting attended by Student 1, his mother, Respondent, and Mr. Sagovac, a complaint was made to the school district's police department concerning the December 11, 2000, incident. Based upon the complaint, a criminal investigation into Respondent's actions was initiated. There was no evidence as to the status of any criminal charges presented at the final hearing. Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards received information concerning the criminal investigation, which caused it to open its own administrative investigation. After the Office of Professional Standards received the police report and the attached documents, the case was assigned to an investigator. During the Petitioner's investigation, Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay and assigned to duty at his home. This assignment became effective February 1, 2001. After Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards completed its investigation, it prepared a report of the incident and, consistent with its rules, submitted the case for review to a case management committee. Case management review is a process whereby approximately a dozen high level employees working for the district meet at the direction of the Superintendent to review pending personnel cases which may result in the suspension of employment without pay or the termination of employment. Respondent's case management committee determined that probable cause existed to sustain the allegation Respondent used inappropriate physical force on the student in question. Once probable cause was found, it further determined that the level of the force used warranted a recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. Based upon the case management committee's recommendation to terminate Respondent for having engaged in inappropriate physical force on a student, Superintendent of Schools Arthur C. Johnson notified Respondent by letter dated May 8, 2001, that he would recommend to the School Board at its meeting to be held May 16, 2001, that Respondent's employment be terminated and that he be suspended without pay pending the completion of the proceedings to terminate his employment. On May 16, 2001, the School Board voted to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. It is the policy of the Petitioner that no employee is to use physical force with a student unless the employee is breaking up a fight, acting in self-defense, or protecting the student from hurting him or herself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of February, 2002.
Findings Of Fact The facts which resulted in the filing of these administrative charges are not in great dispute. The Respondent, Henry Gooch, taught the class of Marriage and the Family during the summer term of 1975 at Santa Fe Community College. The college class schedule listed this course and indicated that the course included the weekend of July 12 and 13. Classes began around July 2, 1975, and Respondent informed the students that class attendance was required for this course, any student who missed over three classes would receive a "W" (for which a student does not receive a course credit), that the weekend experience would count as five class sessions, and that the course would, because of this weekend, terminate two weeks earlier than normal. Respondent Gooch stated that the weekend experience was a requirement for the course and that any student that did not attend would receive a grade of "W." At no time were any students given an indication of what was to take place during this required weekend "experience." The weekend experience took place on Little Lake Santa Fe outside Gainesville, Florida. One student advised the Respondent that because of religious reasons, she could not attend. This student did not attend the weekend experience and received a "W" for the course. Failure to get credit for this course caused this student not to graduate after the summer term and required her continuing attendance and enrollment at Santa Fe Community College. Students were permitted to bring their spouses to the weekend experience and several of them did. After the students arrived, the Respondent began a group discussion on the topic of public nudity. This discussion became very heated and apparently some of the students got the impression that nudity was part of the program for this weekend. Several of them, in fact, asked Mr. Gooch whether he intended to require nudity as part of the weekend experiences. Mr. Gooch assured them it was not. After this discussion had ended Mr. Gooch began what has been called "the machine game." Basically what happened is that one student was asked to come into the center of the room and imitate a machine. After this had begun, the other students were advised to join in by forming a circle or a line and to imitate the machine in unison. Each student was then asked to exchange pants with the student in front of then. At this time, at least one student found this activity to be extremely objectionable. Several other students did not participate in the exchange of clothing. One student, Ron Griffith, who found the activities objectionable, left the room and shortly thereafter left the weekend with his wife. The student Griffith eventually filed a formal complaint with the School Administration outlining his version of the activities of the weekend and his feelings that the Respondent's conduct was extremely unprofessional. This statement was admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. The Respondent stated that the factual allegations in that complaint are accurate. At least one other student left the weekend after the machine game had been completed and that student also received a "W." Shortly after student Griffith filed his formal complaint with the School Administration, the Respondent Gooch was suspended from teaching responsibilities at Santa Fe. This occurred on August 1, 1975. Another instructor took over the responsibilities for teaching Marriage and the Family and in that manner the course was completed. It is admitted that the school regulations regarding field trips was not complied with by the Respondent Gooch. A copy of the school regulations in the school policy manual had been assigned to Gooch as Department Coordinator. Mr. Gooch claims he was not aware of the field trip policy and would have complied with it had he known. For several students that did not attend the weekend trip or left before its completion and who received "W's" for their final grade, there was no real showing that an alternative requirement for course completion was made available to them. It is true that the Respondent Gooch testified he intended to give several of these students an opportunity to make up the missed time at this weekend, but whatever effort he put into this was certainly inadequate, particularly in light of the fact that his prior announcements would give any reasonable person the absolute impression that failure to participate and complete this weekend made the grade of "W" mandatory. There is certainly no question that the Respondent, Gooch, did violate provisions of the College Policy Manual. The pleadings filed in this case admit such did occur. The crucial issue is whether these were mere technical violations or whether the nature of the Respondent's conducts should be considered serious infractions. It is undisputed that the Respondent required the attendance of students in this course at this weekend experience. The charges filed on behalf of the college state that the students were coerced to attend this weekend. Perhaps coerced is not the most appropriate word to use, but it is certain attendance at this weekend was mandatory on a threat of receiving no credit for the course. It is also undisputed that the students were not given any indication of what to expect during this weekend. The Respondent should have known that his planned activities for this weekend would be objectionable or distasteful to at least some of the students in this class. Those students were given no choice or alternative course of study by which they could have received credit for this course as a substitute for this weekend experience. As a result, these students, as mentioned above, did not participate in the weekend experience and received a grade of "W" for the course of Marriage and the Family. The failure of these students to receive credit for this course was a direct result of the Respondent's not complying with school policy. Even though the Respondent advised the class the weekend experience was a mandatory requirement in time for the students to drop this course and add another one to receive required credit, that opportunity was not very meaningful without a better explanation of what was involved in the "weekend experience." The students could not be held responsible for having made a choice in this matter when they were uninformed as to what they were choosing. A student should not be subjected to requirements found to be personally distasteful without at least the sanction of the University and the informed consent of the student. In this case, neither occurred, as the school policy on field trips was not followed and the students were kept in total ignorance as to what the itinerary was for this weekend. The students who received a "W" grade cannot be said to have failed to meet the minimum requirements in this course when one of the announced requirements, the unapproved field trip, violated school policy. It must, therefore, be concluded the Respondent Henry Gooch did violate School Policy 1- 5.17 by causing several students to receive the grade of "W" for not participating in the weekend. Were it only that the weekend turned out to be less than completely successful, this matter might be dismissed as nothing more than exercise of poor judgement on the part of the Respondent that caused no real harm. However, the violation of school policy combined with this poor judgement caused several students to lose credit for the course and at least one not to graduate in time. The loss to the students cannot be replaced and the harm to them is real, not speculative. Therefore, it is recommended that the Respondent Gooch be found to have violated school policy, and suspended until the end of the Fall Quarter of 1975, thereupon to be returned to faculty Status on an annual contract status. Furthermore, he should not be considered for reinstatement on a continuing contract basis for one year and during this probationary period, not be eligible for pay adjustment. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Cates, Esquire Attorney for Respondent 635 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida Robert V. Bookman, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner 222 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's contract for immorality, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code; misconduct in office, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code; and incompetency, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent came to the United States from British Guyana in 1977. In 1988, Respondent obtained an educator's certificate and began teaching in Dade County. Petitioner hired him in 1992 and assigned him to Silver Lakes Middle School. For several years, Respondent taught language arts, which is the area in which he is certified, to all grades. Petitioner later assigned Respondent to teach students in the dropout prevention program at Silver Lakes Middle School. The students in the dropout prevention program typically represent greater academic challenges to a teacher than do their counterparts in regular education. For the past five or six years, Respondent taught dropout prevention at Silver Lakes Middle School. His teaching approach is to try to develop rapport with the students during the first nine weeks of the school year while, at the same time, identify specific areas of weakness within each student that may require attention during the school year. On October 17, 2001, Respondent administered a diagnostic test to identify areas in which students needed work. Unable to answer some of the questions, some students asked Respondent for help. Respondent declined to help because his assistance would destroy the purpose of the test. Some of the students began to misbehave. After several attempts by Respondent to control these students, they threatened to go to the office and complain about Respondent. Respondent invited the students to go to the office and complain about him. He wrote passes for several students, and several more students joined the others to visit the office, rather than take the test, and complain to an administrator about Respondent. The principal received the students in her office and listened to their complaints, which appear to have been the source of the allegations in this case. The principal took statements from the students and then returned with them to Respondent's classroom. While in the classroom, the principal helped the students with the diagnostic test that Respondent had been administering. Recognizing that the diagnostic value of his test was lost, Respondent then joined the principal in helping the students with their diagnostic test. Prominent among the students' complaints to the principal was that Respondent had struck a student, J. H. Petitioner produced little direct evidence supporting this allegation. Twice, J. H. ignored subpoenas to testify in this case. Respondent testified that J. H. later admitted to him that other boys in the class made him lie and say that Respondent hit him. J. H.'s failure to comply with subpoenas is consistent with Respondent's testimony. Absent J. H.'s testimony, it is difficult to determine exactly what, if anything, happened with him and Respondent. The most likely scenario is that J. H. succumbed to the pressures of other students in the class and lied that Respondent had hit him, knowing that the only contact that had taken place between Respondent and J. H. was incidental contact during a minor incident of horseplay. Three of the four student witnesses whom Petitioner called to substantiate the charges were unconvincing. The fourth--J. G.--was vague and unable or unwilling to supply evidence against Respondent, whom he described as "the nicest man." Student D. S. testified at the hearing that Respondent ignored the students' questions in class about classroom material, called J. H. "peanut head," called "Jarvis" "bumbleclot," told D. S. that he lacked motivation and was lazy, and told other students that they came to school looking like a "bum." "Bumbleclot" appears to be a derogatory term in a Jamaican patois, although the record does not establish the intended or actual effect that any use of the word would have in Respondent's class. When handed a previous statement, D. S. added to his complaints that Respondent often said "bloody" in class and would . . . like nudge [J. H.], like, hit him in the arm." D. S. also recalled that Respondent said "cock-eyed" in class. D. S. admitted that he never heard Respondent threaten to "pop" a student. Discrepancies exist between D. S.'s testimony and his prior statements. First, he initially omitted the most significant allegation--that Respondent struck J. H.--and, when he later mentioned it, he downplayed it to a "nudge." Likewise, D. S. initially omitted any mention of Respondent's use of "bloody." Also, D. S. never mentioned Respondent's use of "bumbleclot" in his previous statements. D. S.'s testimony establishes the unlikelihood that Respondent actually hit J. H. or that he ever threatened to "pop" a student in class. Student J. P. testified that she heard other students say that Respondent pushed D. V. out the door of the portable classroom after ejecting him from class. Due to J. P.'s admitted failure to have observed the incident, the Administrative Law Judge struck the testimony. However, despite admitting that she did not see this incident, J. P. stated that she went to the office with other students and informed the principal of the incident. J. P. also testified that Respondent often said "bloody" and refused to explain all of an assignment to her after she missed school, which she admitted happened frequently. Lastly, J. P. complained that Respondent issued her a referral for going to the bathroom. In addition to missing school, J. P. was often tardy when returning from various errands, and many times she did not do her work. J. P.'s testimony establishes only that Respondent may have said "bloody" a few times in class. Student J. G. testified that he recalled Respondent using "hell or damn" in class, although, on cross-examination, he denied any recollection of any use of either of these words. J. G. testified that he heard Respondent say something about knocking a student into next week, although he could not recall whether the latter comment was made in jest. J. G. added that he saw Respondent give J. H. "a little hit." Student D. V. testified that he saw Respondent hit J. H., although his description of the conversation accompanying the incident was materially different at the hearing than in a previous statement. D. V. testified that Respondent threatened to "pop" students and told them to "shut [their] bloody mouths." D. V. added that he asked Respondent one time if he could call his mother to bring his medication for attention deficit disorder, and Respondent denied him permission to make the call. D. V. also testified that Respondent, while sitting beside the door, pushed D. V. on the shoulder to get him out of the classroom, and D. V. responded by warning that he would get his sister to "kick [Respondent's] ass." Although D. V.'s testimony is not undermined by the inconsistencies plaguing the testimony of D. S. and J. P., D. V. shares the antipathy of these other two students for Respondent. Each of these students resented Respondent's efforts to discipline and teach them. Each of these students betrayed a desire to act in concert to get Respondent in trouble, as they felt he had gotten them into trouble. Respondent called as a witness one student, W. L., who testified forcefully that she heard the other students coercing J. H. to say falsely that Respondent had hit him. W. L. testified that the only improper word that she heard Respondent use was "bloody" and that Respondent and J. H. engaged in some horseplay in class. Perhaps the most useful witness was an assistant principal at Silver Lakes Middle School. At the end of the 2001-02 school year, the assistant principal completed an evaluation of Respondent in which he assigned him a satisfactory rating, which is the highest, in all categories, including classroom management. It is clear from the testimony of the assistant principal that he gave the complaints of Respondent's students exactly the weight that they deserved. Respondent admitted that he used "bloody" in class, but the record fails to develop the appreciation of his students for the intensity of this word in certain non-American cultures. Respondent admitted that he once used the phrase, "pop you one," but the record fails to develop the context so as to preclude the likelihood that Respondent said these words in jest. Respondent admitted that he used "cock-eyed," "skinny boy," and "bony boy," but, again, the record fails to establish a context as to permit a finding that these terms were abusive or disparaging. Respondent, who is black, mentioned that he had been called "black nugget" and "kiwi," but only as part of an effort to develop tolerance for names among students eager to take offense. Respondent ejected D. V. from the classroom for legitimate reasons. According to D. V. himself, any followup contact was with Respondent in the seated position, so as not likely to have been significant. According to another student, D. V. grabbed Respondent. At most, the record depicts an angry, disruptive student who has stubbornly refused to comply with his teacher's ejection of him from the classroom, so that other students have a chance to learn. Likewise, D. V.'s complaint that Respondent denied him the chance to call his mother for his attention deficit medication suffers for the lack of context. Undoubtedly, D. V. joined in ongoing efforts to disrupt the class and avoid receiving instruction. The only context for this request provided by the record is that D. V. asked for permission immediately after returning from lunch, when he would have had ample opportunity to call his mother. Although it is possible that D. V. first thought of the missing medication after lunch, it is at least as likely that he thought of the missing medication as a convenient excuse to extend his mid-day respite from learning. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent was guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, or immorality.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carmen M. Rodriguez Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, P.A. 9245 Southwest 157th Street Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33157 Mark F. Kelly Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Camara Baiyna Njeri Tunsill, violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., as alleged in the August 14, 2019, Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is then responsible for filing a formal complaint and prosecuting the complaint pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes. At the time of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Tunsill held Florida Educator’s three-year non-renewable temporary certificate #1291027, which covered the areas of elementary education, English, and exceptional student education (ESE). Ms. Tunsill’s temporary certificate was valid through June 30, 2019, and has since expired.1 Ms. Tunsill received her undergraduate degree in English and African- American Studies in 2013. She began teaching as a substitute teacher in the LCSD in 2014, and remained a substitute teacher for the LCSD during the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years. In August 2017, Ms. Tunsill started as a full-time teacher at Kate Sullivan. Ms. Tunsill was an ESE teacher, and also taught students with emotional behavior disorders (EBD), learning disabilities, special needs, and other exceptionalities. She taught third, fourth, and fifth-grade students in these categories. Mr. Bryan, the principal of Kate Sullivan, testified that Ms. Tunsill was “a very good teacher,” and rated her as “effective and highly- effective.” Ms. Tunsill received certification to teach as a substitute teacher in the LCSD in July 2013. On March 2, 2014, she completed a LCSD introductory teacher training. In March 2014, and in May 2016, Ms. Tunsill attended district-wide new employee orientation training. On September 20, 2018, she completed training in identifying and reporting child abuse and neglect. At the time of her employment, and for each school year that she was employed, LCSD had an Employee Handbook that Ms. Tunsill acknowledged that she had read. Although the Employee Handbook expressly states that it “is neither a contract nor a substitute for the official District policies and procedures[,]” it also states: All District employees are expected to comply with all appropriate policies and procedures. It is your supervisor’s responsibility to inform you of policies 1 Although Ms. Tunsill’s temporary certificate has expired, Respondent “may investigate or continue to investigate and take action on a complaint filed against a person whose educator certificate has expired if the act or acts that are the basis for the complaint were allegedly committed while that person possessed an educator certificate.” § 1012.795, Fla. Stat. most applicable to your position. However, you are encouraged to review policies at your site, the District office or online at http://www.neola.com/leon-fl/. At the time of her employment, LCSD had the following policies in effect, under the code 5350: student suicide prevention; and suicide intervention procedures. LCSD made these policies available to its employees. LCSD’s suicide intervention procedures state, in part: Parents/Guardians (herein “parents”), students, and school personnel have shared responsibility for being aware of suicide warning signs and bringing information regarding a student that may be contemplating suicide to the attention of school administrators and/or designated school personnel. * * * Suicide risk interviews shall be conducted solely by qualified school personnel. Qualified school personnel include certified school counselors, school psychologists, and school social workers and other school personnel selected by District and school administrators who have successfully completed the District-provided suicide risk interview training. Whenever possible, qualified school personnel conducting the suicide risk interview are familiar with and to the student. Suicide risk interviews shall not be conducted by personnel from outside agencies or private organizations. At Kate Sullivan, the qualified school personnel referenced in LCSD’s suicide intervention procedures are the guidance counselors, assistant principal, and principal. Ms. Tunsill testified that she was not aware of LCSD’s student suicide prevention or suicide intervention procedures, and that she never received any training about what to do in such a situation. As discussed below, the undersigned does not credit Ms. Tunsill’s testimony. 2017 Incident Ms. Wolak, who was a guidance counselor at Kate Sullivan during Ms. Tunsill’s employment, testified that she had previously informed Ms. Tunsill that, upon learning of a student’s threatened suicide, she was to immediately inform qualified school personnel at Kate Sullivan. Ms. Tunsill denies that this conversation happened. On October 31, 2017, a student in Ms. Tunsill’s class threatened suicide. Ms. Tunsill immediately reported this threat to Ms. Wolak, who thereafter conducted a suicide risk interview and informed Kate Sullivan’s principal, Mr. Bryan that same day, during school hours. With respect to this 2017 incident, Ms. Wolak testified that Ms. Tunsill acted in conformity with her instructions and LCSD’s student suicide prevention and intervention procedures. The undersigned finds that Ms. Tunsill was aware of LCSD’s student suicide prevention and intervention procedures, and how Kate Sullivan implemented these procedures, if not before, then immediately after the October 31, 2017, incident. Incident in Administrative Complaint The Administrative Complaint alleges the following: On or about September 25, 2018, Respondent failed to protect the safety and welfare of a student when she failed to immediately notify a relevant party that [the student], a fifth grade male Exceptional Student Education (ESE) student, made comments that he wanted to kill himself. Respondent allowed [the student] to leave the protection of the school grounds without ensuring that [the student] would be safe and protected. After a minimal effort to contact the school guidance counselor and/or the student’s parent, Respondent ceased efforts to protect [the student] until the following day. Subsequent to returning home, [the student] threatened to kill himself by stabbing and as a result was Baker Acted. The student at issue in this proceeding (student), who had been diagnosed previously with an EBD, was assigned to Ms. Tunsill’s classroom at Kate Sullivan for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years.2 The student’s mother testified that she had multiple telephone conversations with Ms. Tunsill about the student after his assignment to her classroom. The student’s mother stated: [Ms. Tunsill] would call me when [the student] had, you know, a difficult day. I contacted her when [the student] brought things up that I was concerned about that happened at school. [The student] had even called her on my cell phone just on his own to ask her questions. We had multiple text messages back and forth on that same cell phone. In a period of time of close proximity to September 25, 2018, the student’s mother testified that she spoke with Ms. Tunsill about the student’s mental health, as the student had recently suffered a panic attack. The mother texted Ms. Tunsill and asked her to be “very gentle with him, and to please call me if there were any thing that arises that I needed to be concerned about.” Ms. Tunsill denied that this communication took place. The undersigned finds the student’s mother’s testimony on these communications with Ms. Tunsill more credible. On September 25, 2018 (and well prior to that date), Mr. Sanders worked as a behavior specialist in Ms. Tunsill’s classroom. On this, and other dates, Mr. Sanders, and two paraprofessionals, worked in Ms. Tunsill’s classroom. On September 25, 2018, Mr. Sanders removed the student from Ms. Tunsill’s classroom because of his disruptive and aggressive behavior. Mr. Sanders placed the student in a time-out hallway outside of the classroom in an attempt to calm him down. 2 Mr. Bryan testified that the student was previously at another elementary school in Leon County, but because of his specific diagnosis, LCSD transferred the student to Ms. Tunsill’s classroom at Kate Sullivan, which had a specific program for the student’s EBD. After Mr. Sanders removed him from Ms. Tunsill’s classroom, at approximately 10:54 a.m., the student told Mr. Sanders that he intended to commit suicide, that he would record it on video, that it would be Mr. Sanders’s fault, and that Mr. Sanders would be fired. Mr. Sanders testified that after the student told him of the suicide threat, he reported this threat to Ms. Tunsill, at some time between 12:15 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. that day, because, as he testified, “that’s what I always do. I - - I notify the teacher.” Ms. Tunsill then tried to call Ms. Wolak, the guidance counselor, but was unable to reach her. Ms. Tunsill did not attempt to contact anyone else during the school day concerning the student’s reported threat. Ms. Tunsill required that the student remain in the time-out hallway for the rest of the day with Mr. Sanders. At 3:15—the end of the school day—Ms. Tunsill walked with the student to the ESE school bus. The student left campus on the ESE school bus and went home. At 5:50 p.m. that day, after the school day concluded, Ms. Tunsill sent an e-mail to Ms. Wolak that stated, “If you get a chance, come by my room tomorrow after school starts.” The e-mail did not mention anything about the student’s suicide threat. At 8:23 p.m. that evening, Ms. Tunsill sent a text message to the student’s mother that stated, “Are you able to speak with me briefly?” For reasons that the undersigned explains below, the student’s mother did not respond to Ms. Tunsill’s text. When the student arrived home that afternoon, his parents were at work. The student called his mother, and after their conversation, the mother concluded that the student was about to commit suicide. The mother left her office immediately and called her husband, who called law enforcement. Officer Salmonsen testified that he was in the area and responded to the call concerning a potential suicide. Officer Salmonsen entered the home and found the student sitting on a sofa with a “very large butcher knife positioned under his throat, near his chest, touching the skin.” Officer Salmonsen was able to negotiate with the student, and secured him (and the knife) until other officers arrived. When the other officers arrived, the student was taken into custody pursuant to the Baker Act. On September 26, 2018, at 7:43 a.m., Ms. Wolak responded to Ms. Tunsill’s e-mail from the previous afternoon, and stated, “I will, but it won’t be until after my classes. I have duty, then a meeting at 8:45, then class at 8:50.” At 7:49 a.m., Ms. Tunsill responded to Ms. Wolak’s e-mail, and stated, “Ok, thanks.” Then, at 11:06 a.m., Ms. Tunsill sent another e-mail to Ms. Wolak that stated, “Never mind.” Before reading the “never mind” e-mail, Ms. Wolak went to see Ms. Tunsill. Ms. Tunsill told Ms. Wolak of the student’s comments from the previous day, and that the student was not at school. Ms. Wolak immediately left to contact Mr. Bryan, the principal. Unable to reach Mr. Bryan, Ms. Wolak spoke to the assistant principal and then called the student’s mother and spoke to her. The student’s mother informed Ms. Wolak that the student had threatened to kill himself with a knife while at home the previous day, and had been Baker Acted. A short time later, Ms. Wolak spoke directly to Mr. Bryan. Mr. Bryan contacted the LCSD to inform them of this incident, and attempted to contact the student’s mother, who was too upset to speak with him. Thereafter, on September 27, 2018, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) received a report of the student’s attempted suicide, opened an investigation, and assigned Ms. Williams to investigate it. DCF informed LCSD of this investigation. Ms. Williams interviewed Mr. Bryan, Mr. Sanders, the student’s mother, and Ms. Tunsill. DCF thereafter closed its investigation, with a finding of “failure to protect” against Ms. Tunsill. On September 27, 2018, the Superintendent of LCSD also authorized an investigation of this incident. Mr. Williams interviewed Mr. Bryan, Mr. Sanders, the student’s mother, and Ms. Tunsill. LCSD also placed Ms. Tunsill on administrative leave, with pay, during the pendency of its investigation. Mr. Williams noted that prior to his interview of Ms. Tunsill, he informed her that she could have representation present during the interview. Mr. Williams also noted that on the day of her interview, October 5, 2018, he provided Ms. Tunsill with an “Employee Interview Preliminary Personnel Investigation Form,” which she read, initialed, and stated she understood. Ms. Tunsill acknowledged that LCSD gave her more than 48 hours to prepare for the interview, and that it had advised her of her right to representation during the interview.3 In her interviews with DCF Investigator Ms. Williams, and LCSD Investigator Mr. Williams, Ms. Tunsill admitted that she attempted to contact Ms. Wolak by phone with no answer, and e-mailed Ms. Wolak after the conclusion of the school day. At the conclusion of its investigation, LCSD concluded that Ms. Tunsill failed to promptly report a suicide threat made by one of her students while in her class to school administration or the student’s parents, in derogation of LCSD Policy 5230. LCSD further concluded that “this behavior constitutes a violation of s. 1012.795, F.S.” On October 17, 2018, Ms. Tunsill received a letter of reprimand from LCSD. It similarly concluded that Ms. Tunsill “failed to report a serious incident fully in conjunction with LCS[D] Policy 5350, Suicide Intervention Procedures, and failure to exercise the professional judgment expected of a Leon County Schools employee.” LCSD, thereafter, forwarded the findings of its investigation, and the letter of reprimand, to Petitioner. Ms. Tunsill provided a written response to LCSD’s letter of reprimand. 3 Throughout the final hearing, and her proposed recommended order, Ms. Tunsill (and her qualified representative) made numerous and various challenges and arguments that LCSD’s investigation was unconstitutional, was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and failed to accord her procedural due process. Such challenges and arguments are not appropriate for consideration in this administrative proceeding under chapter 120. Thereafter, Petitioner opened an investigation into Ms. Tunsill based on the LCSD’s investigation and letter of reprimand. As Ms. Tunsill’s Florida Educator’s 3-Year Non-Renewable Temporary Certificate expired on July 1, 2019, and because the instant matter has remained pending since that date, Petitioner has not considered Ms. Tunsill’s application for a Professional Educator’s Certificate, and Ms. Tunsill has been unable to teach in Florida for the current school year, 2019-20. Put another way, Ms. Tunsill has, thus far, effectively served nearly a one-year suspension from teaching without pay, during the pendency of this proceeding. Ms. Tunsill stated that she was unaware of LCSD’s Policy 5350, and that LCSD had never trained her on this policy, prior to the incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint. She further stated that she never discussed with Ms. Wolak any procedures or reporting requirements after learning of a suicide threat. The undersigned finds Ms. Tunsill’s testimony is not credible, based on her awareness of LCSD’s student suicide prevention and intervention procedures, and how Kate Sullivan implemented these procedures, if not before, then immediately after, the 2017 incident involving a separate suicide threat involving a student. Additionally, Ms. Tunsill acknowledged, each school year that she taught within the LCSD, that she had read the Employee Handbook, which encouraged employees to review LCSD policies. Ms. Tunsill further stated LCSD Policy 5350 provides that the student’s parents and Kate Sullivan administrators, but not her (because, as a teacher, she is not “designated school personnel”), shared in the responsibility for the student’s situation. This misses the point of this proceeding. Ms. Tunsill’s failure to inform any of those individuals in a timely fashion is the reason LCSD found that she failed to exercise professional judgment. It is clear from the testimony of Kate Sullivan employees, and a review of LCSD Policy 5350, that any student suicide threat must be taken seriously. Ms. Tunsill’s failure to act in a timely and serious matter to the student’s suicide threat on September 25, 2018, resulted in a serious incident at the student’s home that, thankfully, was not tragic. It is also clear from the testimony and evidence presented that Ms. Tunsill was otherwise an excellent and dedicated teacher who served the specific needs and challenges of her unique student population. Petitioner has established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Tunsill failed to make a reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to the student’s mental health, physical health, and safety.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the statutes and rules listed above, that her educator’s certificate be suspended for a period of twelve months, nunc pro tunc, from May 31, 2019, to May 31, 2020, and that she be placed on probation for a period of twelve months after her suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Camara Tunsill Apartment A 1577 Jacks Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 (eServed) Hakim Abdullah 1647 West 10th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
