The Issue Whether the Petitioner's decision to suspend the Respondent without pay for a period of five working days should be sustained.1
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Mr. Fox is a teacher of emotionally handicapped students who has been employed by the School Board for approximately 27 years and has taught at Jefferson Davis for the past 23 years. He is employed by the School Board under a continuing contract. On March 28, 2000, Mr. Fox was issued a written reprimand by the Director of the School Board's Department of Employee Relations for making inappropriate comments to students. During the 2000-2001 school year, Mr. Fox taught a sixth grade class composed of six to eight emotionally handicapped students, some of whom had behavioral problems. The students in the class were between 11 and 12 years of age. B.W. was a student in Mr. Fox's class from the first part of November 2000 until he was transferred in the spring to another class for emotionally handicapped students.2 B.W. testified that Mr. Fox cussed in class, using words like "damn" and "asshole," and saying things like "quit your bitching." B.W. testified that he "believed" he overheard Mr. Fox say "fuck" in a conversation with another teacher about restaurants and cars. B.W. agreed when counsel for the School Board asked him if Mr. Fox ever told him, another student in the class, to "shut the hell up."3 B.W. recalled that, when Mr. Fox was talking to a girl in the class who had been fighting, he overheard Mr. Fox tell her, in response to something that she said to him, that he would see her at her funeral.4 B.W. also testified that some of Mr. Fox's actions in the classroom bothered him.5 B.W. told his mother that Mr. Fox was being "real rude,"6 and he complained to her about Mr. Fox almost every day. L.G., B.W.'s mother, testified that B.W. complained to her about Mr. Fox. B.W. told her that, one time, Mr. Fox told him to "shut the hell up."7 B.W. also told her that Mr. Fox used the "f- word" to a teacher, and B.W. told her that Mr. Fox "said the word, damn, one time."8 B.W. also told her that Mr. Fox told him to "sit back down in the damn seat."9 When B.W. told her these things, L.G. testified that she would contact Todd Smith and Anthony Rochon at Jefferson Davis; she spoke with them weekly. L.G. testified that she had written in B.W.'s agenda book that Mr. Fox should correspond with her or call her on the telephone if there were a problem with B.W. According to L.G., Mr. Fox called her at work one day and told her that he had a problem with B.W. L.G. went to the school immediately and went into the classroom to help her son. L.G. testified that Mr. Fox was rude to her on this occasion because he told her in a gruff voice: "'Tell him to do that page there.'"10 L.G. also testified that Mr. Fox telephoned her to talk about B.W. not doing his work and being obnoxious in class. L.G. testified that Mr. Fox was rude and unprofessional during these conversations; he was "very short" with her and once told her that B.W. "wouldn't do his damn work."11 The 2000-2001 school year was Anthony Rochon's first year as the Crisis Intervention Teacher at Jefferson Davis. His job is to assist the special education teachers with students who become overly disruptive in the classroom. The students are removed from the classroom and sent to him for counseling. In many cases, the students are very angry when they come into his office; Mr. Rochon must sometimes send the student home because he or she cannot be calmed down, but, other times, the student stays with Mr. Rochon the entire day or returns to the classroom. At unspecified times during the 2000-2001 school year, Mr. Rochon received complaints regarding Mr. Fox's comments and actions in the classroom. These complaints came primarily from four male students, including B.W. and S.M., although other students in Mr. Fox's class would occasionally complain. Mr. Rochon received more complaints from the students in Mr. Fox's class than he did with respect to the other two classes for the emotionally handicapped at Jefferson Davis. Mr. Rochon could not remember during his testimony specifically what each student said about Mr. Fox, but he thinks that B.W. may have said that Mr. Fox cursed at him "or something like that."12 With respect to the other complaints, Mr. Rochon recalled that "[s]ome [students] would say he cursed at them, used profanity. Some would say he made derogatory remarks about their intelligence. And those were basically their major complaints. Yelled at them."13 Some students complained to Mr. Rochon that Mr. Fox called them stupid or yelled at them, told them that they were not wanted in the class and "should be somewhere else."14 In most cases, Mr. Rochon would talk to the student and discover that the student had been angry and misinterpreted what Mr. Fox said. In a few cases, the student would not tell him what the problem was but would become upset and would refuse to return to the classroom; Mr. Rochon would refer these cases to Todd Smith, the assistant principal for the sixth grade. Mr. Rochon also received complaints from the mothers of three of the four male students, including B.W.'s mother and S.M.'s mother. L.G., B.W.'s mother, complained to Mr. Rochon that her son complained to her about things that Mr. Fox said to him, and L.G. complained that Mr. Fox was rude to her. M.M., S.M.'s mother, complained to Mr. Rochon that Mr. Fox hung up on her and was rude to her "or something" and that she received "excessive phone calls or something from Mr. Fox about things her child was doing in class."15 Mr. Rochon has no records of the complaints he received from students or parents, and he does not know whether the accusations against Mr. Fox were true. Mr. Fox frequently sent both B.W. and S.M. to Mr. Rochon for intervention. B.W. was sent to Mr. Rochon two or three times per week, and S.M was sent more often than B.W. Mr. Fox sent both students to Mr. Rochon for intervention because they were disrupting his classroom and he could not teach. Sometimes Mr. Rochon would go to Mr. Fox's classroom to remove B.W. or S.M. in response to a request from Mr. Fox for intervention. Mr. Fox personally observed B.W. "running around the classroom, maybe talking loudly or having an argument with another student and refusing to stop when Mr. Fox asked him to."16 He personally observed S.M. to be "generally . . . loud, would sometimes use profanity. He would leave the room a lot. Mr. Fox had to call me to go find him a lot. He was more of a volatile student in the sense that when he became very angry, he became very aggressive."17 The 2000-2001 school year was Mr. Smith's first year as the assistant principal for the sixth grade at Jefferson Davis. In the fall of 2000, Mr. Smith began receiving complaints from students about Mr. Fox's behavior in the classroom. Mr. Smith also received complaints from the parents of the four male students who complained to Mr. Rochon, especially from the mothers of B.W. and S.M. The complaints began in November 2000, at about the time B.W. was placed in Mr. Fox's classroom.18 Relevant to the issues herein, L.G., B.W.'s mother, complained to Mr. Smith that B.W. complained to her that Mr. Fox used inappropriate language and some profanity, specifically "bullshit," in the classroom. M.M, S.M.'s mother, made similar allegations against Mr. Fox, and she complained to Mr. Smith that Mr. Fox made some inappropriate comments and used some profanity, but she did not give Mr. Smith any specifics. L.G. and M.M. both complained to Mr. Smith that Mr. Fox was unprofessional in his conversations with them, but they did not give any specific instances of such behavior. At their parents' requests, both B.W. and S.M. were transferred out of Mr. Fox's classroom. B.W. testified that he asked Mr. Smith to "get me out of the class because he [Mr. Fox] was rude, and he would make comments to other children which I thought were inappropriate, and they bothered me."19 At about the same time, Mr. Smith discussed the complaints with Mr. Fox, and there were no further complaints from parents. Only one student complained to Mr. Smith about Mr. Fox after Mr. Smith's conversation with Mr. Fox. Mr. Smith turned over the information regarding the complaints of L.G. and M.M. to the principal of Jefferson Davis, and the principal contacted the Personnel Department and referred the matter for investigation. The investigation of Mr. Fox was assigned to Mr. Johnson on January 17, 2001. Mr. Johnson interviewed S.M., the alleged "student victim," on February 1, 2001; he interviewed B.W. and two other students in Mr. Fox's class on March 13, 2001; and he interviewed a seventh grade student on April 10, 2001, who had been in Mr. Fox's class the previous year. Mr. Johnson also interviewed S.M.'s aunt on March 20, 2001, and S.M.'s mother, M.M., on April 10, 2001.20 Mr. Johnson made notes during these interviews and later compiled the notes into summaries of the interviews that were included in his investigation report. He compiled some other documents in this investigation report, including S.M.'s extensive disciplinary history, the written reprimand issued to Mr. Fox on March 28, 2000, and Mr. Fox's evaluations for the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years.21 Mr. Johnson presented the investigation report to a case management committee, which determined that there was probable cause to discipline Mr. Fox and that the appropriate penalty would be a five-day suspension without pay, which would be progressive discipline because of the written reprimand of March 28, 2000. Summary. The School Board presented no evidence that establishes that Mr. Fox used inappropriate language or made inappropriate comments to students or parents on December 19 or 20, 2000. But even going beyond the limited time frame alleged in the Administrative Complaint, the evidence is simply not qualitatively or quantitatively sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that Mr. Fox made inappropriate comments and used inappropriate language in the classroom or to parents. And, even had the evidence supported a finding that Mr. Fox had made inappropriate comments or used inappropriate language on December 19 and 20, 2000, or even during the 2000-2001 school year, such behavior does not involve conviction for an act of moral turpitude, the only specific violation with which Mr. Fox is charged. The only direct evidence of Mr. Fox's behavior in the classroom was the testimony of B.W.. The remaining evidence was either hearsay or hearsay within hearsay: It consisted of the testimony of L.G. with respect to B.W.'s complaints to her about Mr. Fox's comments and language in the classroom; the testimony of Mr. Rochon and Mr. Smith with respect to complaints of primarily unspecified comments and language attributed to Mr. Fox conveyed to them by students and parents, who reported only what their children had told them about Mr. Fox's comments and language in the classroom; and the summaries of the interviews Mr. Johnson conducted with a few students and the aunt and mother of one student. Given all the facts and circumstances in this case, including B.W.'s demeanor as a witness and the use of leading questions to develop his testimony, B.W.'s testimony is not sufficiently credible or persuasive of itself to constitute clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Fox made inappropriate comments and used inappropriate language in his classroom. Furthermore, the hearsay evidence regarding the student complaints about Mr. Fox's language and comments in the classroom, which formed the primary body of evidence against Mr. Fox, cannot be used to enhance B.W.'s credibility and is not sufficiently persuasive, when viewed as supplementing or explaining B.W.'s testimony, to establish clearly and convincingly that Mr. Fox made inappropriate comments or used inappropriate language in the classroom.22 The only direct evidence of Mr. Fox's behavior towards parents is the rather vague testimony of L.G. that Mr. Fox was unprofessional and rude and that, one time, Mr. Fox used the word "damn" in a conversation with her; the other evidence consisted of the testimony of Mr. Rochon and Mr. Smith regarding the complaints of two parents and the summaries of interviews with a student's mother and aunt that were included in the investigation report. A description of Mr. Fox's comments as rude and unprofessional is not sufficiently specific to establish that his comments were inappropriate, and L.G.'s testimony that Mr. Fox said "damn" in one conversation with her, even if true, is not sufficient to support a finding that Mr. Fox's use of the word was inappropriate, especially given the absence in the record of any evidence that the School Board considers inappropriate the use of the word "damn" to a parent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, enter a final order rescinding the five-day suspension of William Fox and ordering that his salary for these five days be paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2002.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended without pay and terminated from employment with Petitioner for falsification of documentation and insubordination.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Chappelle has been employed with the School Board since around August 2002. His supervisor was John Dierdorff. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Chappelle had been a communications technician with the School Board for approximately five years.1 No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Chappelle was a non-instructional employee with the School Board. Additionally, his supervisor for the entire time of his employment in communications with the School Board was Mr. Dierdorff. Approximately one year after beginning his employment with the School Board, Mr. Chappelle was having attendance problems, i.e., absenteeism. Mr. Dierdorff attempted to assist Mr. Chappelle improve his attendance, but to no avail. At a point in time, Mr. Chappelle had exhausted all of his sick leave and had no available sick days. When Mr. Chappelle was absent due to illness, he was required to submit a doctor’s excuse. On December 17, 2007, Mr. Chappelle received a written reprimand for falsification of documentation from the School Board’s Director of the Department of Employee Relations. He had submitted to Mr. Dierdorff a “fraudulent or false doctor’s note that was purported to be from [his doctor].” Among other things, Mr. Chappelle was “directed to cease such conduct immediately” and “to desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future” and was informed that his failure to do so would result in “further disciplinary action up to and including termination.” Mr. Chappelle acknowledged receipt of the written reprimand by signing it on December 17, 2007. The evidence demonstrates that the Director of the Department of Employee Relations had the authority to give Mr. Chappelle the directive. The evidence further demonstrates that the directive was reasonable in nature. Regarding the written reprimand, at hearing, Mr. Chappelle admitted that he had falsified the doctor’s note, submitted it to Mr. Dierdorff, and had received the written reprimand as disciplinary action. Moreover, Mr. Chappelle admitted that he had self-reported the wrongful conduct to the School Board; the School Board had no knowledge that he had falsified the doctor’s note. Mr. Chappelle further admitted that he engaged in the wrongful conduct because, at the time, he was suffering from health issues and having money problems, including no money to pay for a doctor’s services, and his wife was having mental health issues. Several months later, on or about September 29, 2008, Mr. Chappelle submitted a doctor’s note to Mr. Dierdorff. Among other things, the note indicated that Mr. Chappelle was medically cleared for work starting September 29, 2008; and that he was not to work from September 17, 2008, through September 29, 2008. Mr. Dierdorff believed that the doctor’s note had been altered or falsified because the note had whiteout on it and the date of the note appeared to be “9/24/98,” not “9/24/08.” As a result, he referred the matter to the Department of Employee Relations for possible investigation. Subsequently, Mr. Chappelle became the subject of an investigation by Employee Relations. The investigation was based upon the allegation that he had falsified the doctor’s note and had acted in an insubordinate manner by engaging in the same or similar conduct for which he had been previously disciplined. The doctor’s note that was contained in the medical file at the physician’s office was not the same as the doctor’s note submitted to Mr. Dierdorff. Instead of indicating that Mr. Chappelle was medically cleared for work on September 29, 2008, the doctor’s note in the medical file indicated September 25, 2008. Further, instead of indicating a period of time in which Mr. Chappelle was not to work, the doctor’s note in the medical file was blank and, therefore, did not indicate a period of time. However, the doctor’s note in the medical file did indicate that the date of the doctor’s note was “9/24/08,” the same as the doctor’s note submitted to Mr. Dierdorff. The evidence demonstrates that the doctor’s note submitted to Mr. Dierdorff on or about September 29, 2008, was altered and falsified. Mr. Chappelle denies that it was he who altered and falsified the doctor’s note. Mr. Dierdorff denies that he altered or falsified the doctor’s note. Mr. Chappelle does not deny that it was he who submitted the doctor’s note to Mr. Dierdorff. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Chappelle altered and falsified the doctor’s note that he submitted to Mr. Dierdorff on September 29, 2008.2 Mr. Chappelle’s conduct on September 29, 2008, was the same as or similar to his previous conduct for which he was disciplined on December 17, 2007, by a written reprimand. Among other things, Mr. Chappelle was notified in the written reprimand that the same or similar conduct would result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Chappelle intentionally committed the same or similar conduct and intentionally failed to abide by the directive to no longer engage in such action. By letter dated April 24, 2009, the Superintendent, Arthur C. Johnson, Ph.D., advised Mr. Chappelle, among other things, that sufficient just cause existed to impose disciplinary action pursuant to Sections 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.27(5), Florida Statutes; School Board Policies 1.013 and 3.27; and Article 17, Section 6 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Service Employees International Union, Florida Public Services Union, and the School Board. Further, Superintendent Johnson advised Mr. Chappelle that he (Superintendent Johnson) was recommending to the School Board, as discipline, suspension without pay and termination from employment. Mr. Chappelle acknowledged that he received the letter by signing and dating it on April 25, 2009. Superintendent Johnson’s recommendation was submitted to the School Board. The School Board agreed with the recommendation. Mr. Chappelle timely requested an administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order suspending Augustus Chappelle for 15 days and re- instating him at the expiration of the suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 10th day of May, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether the termination of Respondent, Barbara Paul, by Petitioner, "for cause," was justified.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Barbara Paul is a teacher covered under the Duval County Teacher Tenure Act, Laws of Florida, Chapter 21197 (1941), as amended ("Tenure Act") and the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between Duval Teachers United and DCSB for 2006-2009. Respondent is a tenured or experienced contract teacher, who can only be terminated for "just cause" as defined in the Tenure Act and the CBA. Respondent has used the word "boy" on more than one occasion to address male students. Respondent has told a female student to "shut her mouth" or "shut her face." Respondent worked for DCSB as a full-time "tenured" teacher during the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 school years. Respondent, originally born in Jamaica, moved to the United States in March 1989, where she has remained since that time and, with the exception of one year in 1998, has been employed as an English/Language Arts ("E/LA") teacher for DCSB. E/LA consists of primarily literacy, English, grammar, some writing skills, and aspects of reading. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent, a "tenured/professional contract" teacher, was certified by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) to teach language arts and was assigned to teach creative writing to 12 and 13-year-old students (sixth grade) at Paxon. DCSB is a duly-constituted school board charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Duval County, Florida, pursuant to Section 1001.31, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to her contract with DCSB, and consequent to holding a professional teaching certificate issued by FDOE, Respondent was, at all times material, subject to DCSB's rules and regulations as well as all applicable Florida laws and regulations, including Sections 1012.23 and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, and FDOE Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006. Teachers employed by DCSB are bound by a "Progressive Discipline" Policy, which generally prohibits adverse employment action based on misconduct unless the following steps are taken: (a) a verbal reprimand, (b) a written reprimand, (c) a suspension without pay, and (d) termination. The policy may be disregarded for "some more severe acts of misconduct." Respondent does not dispute that the following steps in the Progressive Discipline Policy were taken, although she disputes the factual particulars of such disciplinary actions: September 2006, Step I Verbal Reprimand, DuPont Middle School, based on inappropriate comments made during a parent conference; October 2006, Step II Written Reprimand, DuPont Middle School, based on inappropriate, racial comments to students; May 2007, Step III Five-Day Suspension, DuPont Middle School, for battery upon a student; February 2008, Step II Written Reprimand, Paxon Middle School, for threatening to shove a broom down a student's throat. If the instant charges are supported, Respondent's misconduct during school year 2007-2008 would constitute "Step Three," the final step of the Progressive Discipline Policy, which justifies termination of her employment. The instant charges are based on an incident that occurred on March 19, 2009, at Paxon. During the fourth period (toward the end of the school day), six students reported to the sixth-grade administrative office at Paxon and reported that their creative writing teacher, Respondent, would not allow them into her classroom. Ronnie Williams was the assistant principal and the sixth-grade house administrator at that time. Mr. Williams instructed the school's security officer, J.R. Johnson, to escort the students back to the classroom to find out what was going on, because they had no passes or referrals from the teacher, as required by school policy. Mr. Johnson returned about 15 or 20 minutes later with the students and reported that, contrary to school policy, Respondent still refused to allow them back into her class, and that she stated she would be writing them referrals. Two of the students, K.W. (female) and D.P. (male), told Mr. Williams that Respondent had pushed K.W. and also stepped on K.W.'s foot. D.P. stated that Respondent had hit him in the face with a book. After that, because of the seriousness of the allegations, Mr. Williams asked each student to complete a written statement of what they observed in the classroom. The students were kept separated from one another while they wrote their statements, so that Mr. Williams could observe them. Mr. Williams testified that the children did not have an opportunity to speak with one another or to compare statements, and did not collaborate in any manner when the written statements were done. Mr. Williams then individually interviewed each student. Each of the student's statements was consistent with one another and with K.W.'s and D.P.'s accounts. According to the students' written statements (all of which were entered into evidence without any objection from Respondent) and interviews, D.P. and K.W. had entered Respondent's classroom before the final bell had rung. After she entered the class, K.W. realized she had left her purse with another student and stepped out of the class to retrieve it. D.P. reported that he asked Respondent for permission to go the restroom, which she granted. Both children had put their book bags and books down in the classroom. D.P. reported that when he returned, there was a line of students about four or five deep waiting outside the classroom trying to get in. Respondent was standing in the doorway blocking their entrance and trying to close the door against the students. D.P. went around the line to try to get back in the classroom, reminding Respondent that she had given him permission to go the restroom. Nonetheless, she would not let him back in. Instead, she twisted D.P.'s arm to remove his hand from the classroom door handle, pushed him back and back-handed him with a book across the bridge of his nose and his face. When K.W. tried to enter the classroom to retrieve her book bag, Respondent yelled at her and pushed her back with her forearm and elbowed her two or three times in the chest and in the course of doing so, Respondent also stepped on K.W.'s foot and scratched her. After striking K.W. and D.P., Respondent pushed them out of the classroom door and sent them and four other children to Mr. Williams, the sixth-grade house administrator, without passes or referrals. The following morning, Mr. Williams sent an e-mail to the principal, Dr. Darrell Perry, summarizing the incident. Mr. Williams described a telephone conversation he had with Ms. W. (mother of K.W.), in which Ms. W. told Mr. Williams that her daughter reported to her that Respondent had made several derogatory racial comments to students in class, including using the phrase "negro power," which Ms. W. found to be offensive. The mothers of both K.W. and D.P. came to the school to complete statements. Ms. P. also filed a formal complaint against Respondent to the DCSB police officer on duty at Paxon, Officer Green. Mr. Williams received a referral from Respondent concerning K.W. on the date of the incident, Thursday, March 19, 2009, but did not receive a referral concerning D.P. until Monday, March 23, 2009. Mr. Williams concluded from this delay that "the reason the referral [for D.P.] was written was because there were allegations made against Respondent from D.P." Mr. Williams also observed on the date of the incident a recent scratch on K.W.'s arm that K.W. told him was caused by Respondent. Respondent called Ms. P. (mother of D.P.) on March 19, 2009, telling her that Respondent was writing her son up for skipping class. When Ms. P. tried to ask her about the details, Respondent proceeded to talk about other students in her class. When Ms. P. asked Respondent to tell her what happened with her son, Respondent got short with her and hung up. About five or ten minutes later, her son, D.P., called her and told her that when he got to the classroom, he asked Respondent for permission to go to the restroom, which Respondent granted. When he returned to the classroom, there was a line of children at the door of the classroom trying to get in, and Respondent was in the middle of an altercation with another female student, K.W. Respondent and K.W. were "going back and forth," and D.P. said that he saw Respondent push K.W. and then step on K.W.'s foot. When he tried to enter the classroom, Respondent pushed him and hit him in the face with a book. When Ms. P. returned home, she received a call from Ms. W., the mother of K.W. Prior to the telephone conversation, Ms. P. had never spoken to Ms. W. They did not know each other because they lived in different parts of town. D.P. and K.W. did not have a chance to speak with each other after the incident, because it was the end of the day and Ms. P picked up her son from the office when he telephoned her. The story K.W. told her mother concerning the incident with Respondent was the "same exact thing that my son had just told me when I picked him up from school and when he had called me." Prior to this incident, D.P. had received only one referral at any time in his school history for an altercation with another student. Ms. P.'s testimony was consistent with the written statement that she made on March 20, 2009, the day after the incident. At the hearing, D.P. testified that after the warning bell had rung, but prior to the late bell ringing, he asked Respondent if he could leave the classroom and go to the restroom. Respondent said yes. When he was trying to get back into the classroom, another student was also trying to get into the class to get her things. Respondent was pushing her and stepped on her foot. When D.P. tried to go in, Respondent pushed him and then she hit him in the face with a book. D.P., a small-framed, 11-year-old male of only about five feet tall at the time of the incident, demonstrated how Respondent had hit him, and described the book she used as an oversized literature book with a hard cover. He demonstrated and testified that Respondent hit him with the book across the face, striking him in the nose, that it hurt him when she struck him and that it looked like it was intentional on her part and not an accident. D.P.'s testimony was consistent with the written statement he made to Mr. Williams on the day of the incident. Upon receipt of the incident report, DCSB's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) initiated an investigation. The investigation was primarily handled by OPS Investigator John G. McCallum, an experienced former detective with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department and investigator with the State Attorney's Office, now serving DCSB. While the principals generally handle Step I and Step II disciplinary actions, OPS normally investigates more serious cases, such as the instant case, alleging a battery on a student. Within days of the incident, on Monday, March 23, 2009, Mr. McCallum went to the school and interviewed Assistant Principal Ivey Howard, who was in charge of curriculum; Mr. Williams, the sixth-grade house administrator; student- victim K.W.; student-victim D.P.; Security Officer Johnson; and Christina Price, a reading resource teacher assigned to Respondent's classroom that day. Mr. McCallum also attempted to interview Respondent, but she elected to provide her statement through her counsel. Mr. McCallum also reviewed all the statements that Mr. Williams had received from the students and Ms. P., the mother of D.P. When he individually interviewed students D.P. and K.W., Mr. McCallum asked them also to demonstrate with him what happened, putting Mr. McCallum in the positions that they were in relative to Respondent and the other students. This helps him evaluate witness credibility, in that sometimes a child witness will demonstrate details in the "role play" that he or she may not have put down in the written statement. Similarly, D.P. demonstrated to Mr. McCallum that Respondent "back-handed him" with a workbook across the bridge of his nose and across his face and yanked, twisted, and pulled his arm. Mr. McCallum reported that K.W.'s and D.P.'s verbal statements from his interviews were consistent with their and the other students' written statements. Respondent's version of the events of March 19, 2009, differs dramatically from those of the seven student and two adult witnesses. Respondent asserted that six students were seven minutes late to class, yet she allowed them in the class and wrote their names on the tardy log. She then stated that two students, C.B. and B.P. were "skipping class" and that she saw them at the end of the hallway. Although this detail was not mentioned in her written statement (and is completely contradictory to the testimony of Paxon Principal Darrell Perry), Respondent testified at the hearing that the teachers at Paxon were required to keep their classroom doors locked because "this is the inner city where guns were rampant in our classrooms and outside." She stated that someone knocked on the classroom door, and when she opened it, three students, K.W., D.P., and V.C. (a male student), ran out of her classroom. She then said that the three students stopped "at my door," and K.W. tried to come back in to get her "stuff" from the room and in doing so "slammed" her body into her and cursed at Respondent, demanding her "stuff." Respondent claims to have received an injury from that contact which was treated at an emergency walk- in medical clinic later that evening. She further testified that V.C. and D.P. "forcefully kept the door ajar" as she attempted to close it "to diffuse the situation." Further, contrary to all of the students' statements, Respondent denies pushing or striking any student, although she admits she may have "accidentally" stepped on K.W.'s foot. In her written statement, she asserted that she "wrote referrals on all students who were outside, except A.W." In fact, the only referrals she wrote were for K.W. and D.P. Mr. McCallum found the interviews with the two student victims to be credible and consistent. Conversely, he found Respondent's statement to be markedly distinct from the other statements. Respondent's claim that she was injured and sought medical treatment is doubtful when she failed to report any such claim to the school's administration nor produce at any time any records or medical reports to support this claim. Prior Discipline: A Pattern of Similar Misconduct Paxon Middle School – February 2008 (Step II Written Reprimand) Respondent was hired by Dr. Darrell Perry, principal of Paxon, to teach English and Language Arts to sixth-grade Paxon students beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, which was also Dr. Perry's first year at Paxon. Dr. Perry selected Respondent from the "voluntary surplus list" and interviewed her for the position. Based on her experience as a "seasoned English language arts teacher," he hired Respondent. Dr. Perry was aware of Respondent's prior disciplinary history when he brought her to Paxon, partly because Respondent had to serve out a suspension she received while at DuPont the prior school year for a Step III disciplinary action charging battery upon students. Notwithstanding her prior disciplinary history, Dr. Perry testified that he believed Respondent possessed the right skills and was willing to give her an opportunity to grow in a different setting. Nonetheless, on May 24, 2008, Dr. Perry issued to Respondent a Step II Written Reprimand for Respondent's "inappropriate and offensive" remarks made and actions taken with female student, A.H., on February 14, 2008, in which A.H. alleged that Respondent placed a broom handle in A.H.'s face and stated, "I will shove this broom down your throat." Before issuing the discipline, however, Dr. Perry referred the matter to the OPS (Director John Williams and Investigator Leroy Starling) to investigate. Based on their investigation, interview of Respondent, and review of witness statements, Investigator Starling issued his report sustaining the allegations. Allen Moore, who was, at the time of the A.H. incident, assistant principal at Paxon and eighth-grade house administrator, performed the initial investigation of the alleged misconduct, which was part of his responsibilities as house administrator. Mr. Moore recalled that A.H. came to his office, directly from Respondent's class, and told him that after a verbal exchange between the two, Respondent held a broom handle in A.H.'s face and threatened to shove the broom handle down her throat. Mr. Moore then selected at random five other students from Respondent's class, those whom he knew to be credible and good students, and separately interviewed them and asked them to prepare statements. He also asked A.H. to prepare a written statement. Each student confirmed A.H.'s statement that Respondent threatened to put the broom handle down A.H.'s throat. Mr. Moore concluded that the incident took place as A.H. had stated. In direct contrast to this set of facts, according to Respondent, one of the other female students in the class picked up the broom and asked if she could sweep the floor. Respondent testified that she thought the student was going to hit A.H. or sweep her feet, because A.H. had tripped her. She asked the student to put the broom away. Respondent took the broom from her and was on her way to put it away, stating that she was walking away from A.H., when A.H. began cursing at her, telling Respondent to move or she would "beat" her "a - - " with the broom. Respondent stated that she responded: "and what should I do, stick [the broom] in your mouth?" With respect to the level of discipline he gave to Respondent for the incident, a Step II Written Reprimand, Dr. Perry testified that while he could have given her a Step III termination based on the allegations of the A.H. incident and Respondent's previous Step III discipline issued at Dupont for similar behavior, he decided to give her a Step II. Dr. Perry believed Respondent had some strengths that she could contribute at Paxon. He hoped to rehabilitate her. Shortly before the end of the 2006-2007 school year and before requesting a voluntary transfer to Paxon, Respondent received a five-day suspension for battery upon two DuPont students and for physically blocking another student from leaving her classroom in three separate incidents that took place within days of one another, on April 24, May 2, and May 3, 2007. April 24, 2007 - Alleged Battery of Female Student P.C. In the first occurrence on April 24, 2007, a female seventh-grade student, P.C., was trying to leave Respondent's classroom. P.C. reported that in an attempt to keep her from leaving the classroom, Respondent grabbed P.C.'s ID lanyard, which was around P.C.'s neck, as P.C. walked by Respondent and Respondent yanked her back, leaving her with a rope burn mark on her neck. P.C. reported the incident right away to Assistant Principal Shannon Judge, who testified at the hearing and, shortly after the occurrence, had prepared a written statement to then-school Principal Gary Finger summarizing the incident and her investigation. P.C. stopped Ms. Judge in the hallway, coming straight from the classroom moments after the incident with Respondent, and was visibly upset. P.C. told Ms. Judge that Respondent had stopped her from leaving the room and had grabbed her by her badge as she attempted to leave, which she wore on a lanyard around her neck. P.C. said to Ms. Judge, "look at this," and P.C. turned around and held up her hair in the back. Ms. Judge could see "one dark red line and a smaller red line" on the back of P.C.'s neck, which was not a cut, but which looked like a "burn" where the lanyard had been pulled. P.C. told her that some students had been told by Respondent to stay after class, but that P.C. was not one of them. When P.C. tried to leave the classroom, Respondent blocked the doorway. As she attempted to go around Respondent, Respondent grabbed her ID lanyard. Ms. Judge, who was on her way to another assignment in the lunch room, instructed P.C. to go to Ms. Judge's office and fill out an incident form. When Ms. Judge returned to her office approximately 45 minutes later, she reviewed P.C.'s statement, interviewed her, and took a photograph of the marks on the child's neck, which by then had somewhat faded. P.C. had listed some witnesses in the classroom to the event, whom Ms. Judge interviewed and asked to complete written statements. Ms. Judge also "pulled some random kids from the class" who were not listed on P.C.'s list, each of whom also individually gave written statements and were separately interviewed by Ms. Judge. Ms. Judge also called Respondent and took a verbal statement from her over the telephone. Respondent relied upon her written statement made through her attorney, delivered to DCSB nearly three months later on July 16, 2007, concerning the incident with P.C. Respondent admitted she did have "words" with P.C., and that P.C. was trying to leave her class when she was not supposed to, but that she had not grabbed P.C. by her lanyard. Perhaps, she stated, her lanyard "got caught" on Respondent's arm as P.C. tried to push past her. In her written statement, Respondent also speculated that the marks on P.C.'s neck may have been "self-inflicted or occurred at another time and place." When further questioned about that statement at the hearing, Respondent replied: "She did yank on her lanyard, but I don't know if that was sufficient to leave a mark." When questioned whether Ms. Judge would have any reason to lie about what P.C. told her and the marks on P.C.'s neck that Ms. Judge observed, Respondent replied: "I don't know of any reason." Respondent's statement and testimony, with no evidence to support it, does not support her version of the events. Based on Ms. Judge's investigation, the consistency among all the student witness statements with P.C.'s account, the fact that P.C. was a good student who rarely, if ever, received any referrals or got into trouble, and Ms. Judge's observation of the red marks on P.C.'s neck within moments after the altercation, Ms. Judge concluded that the P.C.'s allegations were substantiated and recommended to Mr. Finger that Respondent should be disciplined for her actions. May 2, 2007 – Alleged Battery of Male Student D.W. On May 2, 2007, within days of the P.C. incident, Respondent had taken her class out into the hallway so that some of the children could use the restroom. One of the male students, D.W., came out of the restroom, and, according to Respondent, she thought he had not washed his hands and was attempting to wipe his hands on Respondent. Carmen Polenco, a science and math teacher for seven years at DuPont and a former director of a program in New York treating women dually diagnosed with psychiatric problems and drug additions and their infant children, was coming out of the administrative office on May 2, 2007, and walking down the main hallway where Respondent and her students were located. As Ms. Polenco approached, she heard students yelling "let him go, let him go" and saw that Respondent had grabbed a male student, D.W., by the collar of his shirt held up around his throat and was pushing him backwards down the hallway toward Ms. Polanco, saying something like "Oh, no you won't" to the student. Ms. Polanco demonstrated at the hearing how Respondent was holding D.W. with one hand around his shirt collar and her other hand in the air. Ms. Polanco told Respondent to stop, and she let D.W. go. D.W. yelled to her, "she grabbed me and she wouldn't let me go and I was scared she was going to hit me." After Respondent let D.W. go, Ms. Polanco noticed that Respondent had scratched the student's neck and broken his necklace. Respondent told Ms. Polanco that the student had placed his hands, open palm on the top of her shoulder. Respondent was "very angry" by this and proceeded to grab him, because, as she stated to Ms. Polanco at the time, "I did not want his dirty hands on me." Ms. Polanco also made a written statement to Assistant Principal Steele the day after the incident. Mr. Steele had also observed some of the incident, and had also memorialized his observations in a memorandum to Mr. Finger one day later. Respondent's version of events again differs dramatically from all the other witnesses' testimony. Again, Respondent relied on her written statement of July 16, 2007, which she affirmed at the hearing. Respondent admitted that she held D.W. by his lapel (not his collar), but stated that she was walking with him "side by side," and not walking him backwards down the hallway as Ms. Polanco observed. At the hearing, Respondent did not have any explanation for Ms. Polanco's contradictory testimony other than that she "was not within close proximity enough to see what happened." In light of Ms. Polanco's testimony that she had a clear view of exactly what Respondent was doing, and the other witness testimony, Respondent's testimony is not credible. May 3, 2007 – Blocking Student's Exit One day later, while he was still in the process of writing up Respondent for the previous two incidents, Mr. Finger received a phone call in his office from Respondent telling him that one of her students would not leave her classroom. When he got there, Mr. Finger took the student out in the hallway and asked him why he did not leave the room. The student responded that it was because Respondent was blocking the door and would not let him out. Mr. Finger then selected some other students at random from the class to find out if the student was telling the truth, and the other student statements were consistent – that Respondent had blocked the door. Respondent's statement summary as to these three incidents is typical of her response of outright and blatant denial to all of the allegations of misconduct that have been lodged against her over a period of years and across two schools and administrations. Despite credible evidence to the contrary, Respondent has repeatedly placed the blame on the very students that she victimized. As a result of the three incidents, on May 23, 2007, Mr. Finger recommended that Respondent receive a Step III five- day suspension, which was approved by DCSB, and which Respondent served out after she voluntarily transferred to Paxon. DuPont Middle School – October 2006 (Step II Written Reprimand) Respondent received a Step II Written Reprimand for comments that she made in class and during a parent-teacher conference in October 2006, in which Mr. Finger and then- Assistant Principal Loretta Hines were also present. The meeting was initiated by the female parent when her son came home and told her that Respondent exhibited prejudicial behavior toward the African-American children as compared to the white children, and made racist comments in the classroom. For example, the child told his mother that Respondent would let the white children go to the bathroom, but not the African-American children, and that she told a white student that she had to send him to a "time-out" because she didn't want the others to think she was a racist. She also referred to African-Americans as "negroes" and called male black students "boy." During the conference, Respondent told the parent that she had no problem referring to African-American male students as "boy" because in her country of origin, Jamaica, this was not an offensive salutation. Respondent made other comments in the conference that angered the parent, and "embarrassed" and "disgusted" Ms. Hines and Mr. Finger. At that time, Respondent had been in the United States for approximately 16 years. Respondent stipulated that she used the term "boy" to address male students, but denies she used it specifically with African-American male students. At the hearing, rather than testify concerning the specific allegations of her misconduct, Respondent "reaffirmed" the written statement she made to Principal Finger on October 18, 2006, in which she denied being a racist, although she admitted that "sixteen years should be long enough to be able to use the proper terminology. However, habits do not just disappear overnight." DuPont Middle School – September 2006 (Step I Verbal Reprimand) Respondent received a Step I verbal warning for telling students to "shut their mouths" or "shut their faces." In her written statement, Respondent stated that she told a female student on at least one occasion to "shut her face because her face was in mine." She also stipulated to this fact in her pretrial stipulation.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Duval County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Barbara Paul as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 6th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Hertz, Esquire Duval Teachers United 1601 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Carol Mirando, Esquire City Hall St. James Building 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ed Pratt-Dannals, Superintendent Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue Whether it was appropriate for Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, to terminate the employment of Respondent, Curtis Brown, under Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes (2007), due to his failure to correct performance deficiencies after having been placed on Professional Services Contract Probation for 90 days, in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(t); his "incompetence," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); his "insubordination," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(u); and his failure to comply with "School Board Policy, State Law or the Appropriate Contractual Agreement," in violation of School Board Policy 8.25(1)(x) and Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner operates, controls, and supervises the public schools of Pinellas County, Florida. It has entered into individual and collective agreements with the teachers it employs and publishes policies that control the activities of its teaching professionals. Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a math teacher at Johns Hopkins Middle School and has a Professional Services Contract. Petitioner employs a formalized teacher evaluation process that assesses 25 teaching "expectations." These "expectations" are grouped in three related categories: Highest Student Achievement, Safe Learning Environment, and Effective and Efficient Operations. Each "expectation" receives one of four ratings: Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, In Progress, and Not Evident. Assessments are made on specific and detailed indicia during observations, interviews, and review of data regarding student achievement. Depending on the number of indicia observed for each of the "expectations," a teacher receives a proficiency rating of Level 1 through 4, with Level 4 being the highest. Below a Level 1 is considered unsatisfactory. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory for school years 2006-07 and 2007-08. There are approximately 8,000 teachers in Pinellas County. Of the 8,000, 23 were rated unsatisfactory for the 2007-08 school year; only three were rated unsatisfactory for both 2006-07 and 2007-08. A state requirement of teacher appraisal includes student performance and learning gains for each student in a teacher's class. The Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test ("FCAT") is probably the most notorious student achievement data source in Florida. Unfortunately, the FCAT scores become available in July. Most annual teacher assessments are completed in April of each school year. However, there are other student achievement data sources that can be appropriately used in assessing student performance and learning gains. They include teacher-made pre- and post-tests, district developed assessments, student grades, and curriculum developed assessments. A teacher may offer any of these data sources during his or her evaluation. Because Respondent had received an unsatisfactory rating for the 2006-07 school year, administrators at his school and from the district office provided special attention and direction during the first months of the 2007-08 school year designed to help Respondent improve his teaching performance. The efforts of the administration were not successful. Respondent was placed on a 90-day probation period on January 14, 2008. He was advised of his unsatisfactory performance. At the same time, he received a revised "success plan" and a copy of Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes. Respondent received several formal observations and critiques during the probation period. Petitioner provided the requisite assistance, direction, and on-going assessment. During the 90-day probationary period, Respondent did not respond to specific corrective direction given him by administrators regarding a myriad of basic administrative details, teaching techniques, and methodology. Respondent's annual evaluation took place on April 24, 2008, after the conclusion of the 90-day probation. Even though requested, Respondent failed to provide any documentation of positive classroom results. Even though Respondent failed to present any evidence of positive classroom results, the evaluator (the school assistant principal) had monitored potential classroom progress through various data available to him. He failed to note any positive trend. Respondent received 19 "Not Evident" ratings in 25 "Expectations" and an unsatisfactory rating. Respondent's performance problems were increasing in spite of a concerted effort by the administration to correct the trend. In the 2005-06 school year, he received six "Not Evident" ratings; in 2006-07, 14 "Not Evident" ratings; and in 2007-2008, 19 "Not Evident" ratings. Over the several years contemplated by the testimony of school administrators who had supervisory authority over Respondent, he failed to teach the subject matter assigned, failed to complete lesson plans correctly and timely, failed to use a particular math teaching software program (River Deep) as required, failed to take attendance, and did not use the required grading software. In each instance he was encouraged and, then specifically directed, to comply with established policy regarding these areas of teaching responsibility; and yet, he failed to do so. Respondent's teaching record contains memos regarding the following: Two formal conferences regarding use of excessive force (12/6/02 and 10/29/03); A formal conference regarding growing number of parent concerns over penalizing students on academic work for behavioral problems and giving students F's for assignments that they couldn't complete due to lost work books (11/3/2004); A formal conference summary involving several issues including instructional methodology, leaving students unsupervised in class and leaving campus early (1/24/2005); Three reprimands for disparaging remarks made to or about students (1/19/05, 2/16/05, 4/02/07); A 15-day suspension for falling asleep in class and again leaving students unattended in class (7/12/2005); A formal conference summary for again leaving students unattended in the classroom and unsupervised outside of the classroom door (2/9/2007); and A formal conference summaries for missing a meeting and not turning in lesson plans and IPDP's (12/04/07, 1/29/08, 3/03/08).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Curtis Brown's, Professional Services Contract be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Julie M. Janssen Superintendent of Schools Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Laurie A. Dart, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
The Issue The issue is whether the Seminole County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment or to otherwise discipline him based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Seminole County, Florida. Respondent is a 48-year-old male. He has been employed as an educational support employee of the School Board for approximately five years. During the 2001-02 school year, Respondent worked at Seminole High School (SHS) as a computer specialist. Collective Bargaining Agreement and SHS Handbook Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Seminole Educational Clerical Association, Inc., and the School Board (SECA Agreement). Article VII, Section 5 of the SECA Agreement provides in pertinent part: Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years . . . shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended, or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: Violation of School Board Policy. Violation of work rules. * * * Article VIII, Section 1 of the SECA Agreement provides in relevant part that "[e]mployees may be immediately disciplined including termination for serious violation of the following: misconduct; " Respondent's employment is also governed by the SHS Faculty Handbook (SHS Handbook). The SHS Handbook is provided to SHS employees at an orientation session prior to the beginning of each school year. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the SHS Handbook prior to the 2001-02 school year. The SHS Handbook includes a sexual harassment policy which states that the School Board "will not tolerate sexual/racial harassment activity by any of its employees." As it relates to the circumstances of this case, the policy defines sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate verbal, nonverbal, graphic, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: * * * (c) such conduct substantially interferes with . . . [a] student’s academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive . . . school environment. Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following: verbal, nonverbal, graphic, and written harassment or abuse; * * * (c) repeated remarks to a person with sexual or demeaning implications; * * * In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual[] harassment, the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred will be investigated. . . . . The sexual harassment policy in the SHS Handbook is virtually identical to the School Board's district-wide sexual harassment policy. Thus, a violation of the policy in the SHS Handbook is a violation of School Board policy. Alleged Inappropriate Comments/Conduct by Respondent During the 2001-02 School Year Respondent had four "peer counselors" assigned to him during the 2001-02 school year, including eleventh-grader Nichole Combee. A peer counselor is a student who assists a teacher or other school staff member with designated tasks, such as filing or running errands on campus. The student provides that assistance for one class period per day. Nichole had approached Respondent at some point during the first semester of the 2001-02 school year and asked whether she could be a peer counselor for him. The record does not reflect the process by which that request was processed or approved by the administration at SHS, or even whether such approval is required. Nichole started as a peer counselor for Respondent in January 2002, which is the beginning of the second semester of the 2001-02 school year. Nichole continued in that position through May 23, 2002, when the regular school year ended. Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor during seventh period, which is the last period of the school day. Nichole's primary duty as Respondent's peer counselor was filing computer permission slips. During the time that Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor, she discussed her family troubles and school attendance problems with Respondent and his assistant, Mark Williams. Respondent tried to help Nichole with those problems. On several occasions, he talked to Nichole's mother on the phone in an attempt to help work things out between Nichole and her mother with respect to the "trouble" created at home by Nichole's academic and attendance problems. Nichole also discussed problems that she was having with male students and some male teachers at SHS looking at her large breasts rather than her eyes when they were speaking to her. She told Respondent at the time that he and Mr. Williams always looked her in the eye, and she reaffirmed that statement in her testimony at the hearing. Nichole discussed matters related to her breasts with Respondent on other occasions as well. On at least one occasion, she told Respondent that her breasts caused her back to hurt because of their size. On subsequent occasions when Nichole complained about her back hurting, Respondent replied by saying, "Well, you know why." That comment was intended by Respondent and understood by Nichole to be a reference to Nichole's prior comments that her large breasts were the cause of her back pain. Respondent never told Nichole that she should not discuss her breasts or other personal matters with him. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that it would have been inappropriate for him to initiate a conversation with Nichole about her breasts (as a source of her back pain or otherwise), but that he did not see anything wrong with the discussions that he had with Nichole on that subject because she brought it up and because there was nothing sexual being implied. After classes had ended on the last day of the 2001-02 school year, a number of students engaged in a "water fight" using water balloons and "water bazookas." This conduct is apparently a "tradition" at SHS. The SHS administration had directed the school staff to try to prevent this conduct and/or to get the students off campus and onto their busses as quickly as possible. Respondent observed a group of students involved in a water fight near his office in the media center, and he went outside to break up the students. The group included Nichole and her friend Natalie Cotto-Caraballo, who was a tenth-grader at SHS. Nichole and Natalie were wearing white tank-top shirts that they had made for the last day of school. The shirts had gotten wet during the water fight and, as a result, the girls' bras were visible through the shirts. Respondent commented to Nichole and Natalie that he could see their bras through their shirts and that they needed to cover themselves up. He then directed the girls and the other students in the group to their buses. Nichole testified that the comment made her feel somewhat uncomfortable because "it's our bras and, you know, even though people see them, usually they don't say anything, you know." Respondent's comment regarding his ability to see the girls' bras was not inappropriate under the circumstances; it was a statement of fact and justified Respondent's direction to the girls to cover themselves up. Nichole did not immediately report the bra comment, either to her parent(s) or the SHS administration. Indeed, the comment did not even come to light until Nichole's second interview with the School Board's investigator in August 2002. Respondent gave Nichole a hug as she was leaving for her bus on the last day of school and told her to have a nice summer. Despite its close proximity in time to the bra comment, Nichole testified that the hug did not make her uncomfortable. She just considered it to be friendly "good bye" hug, which was all that was intended by Respondent. Nichole did not complain about Respondent to her parent(s) or anyone in the SHS administration during the time that she was his peer counselor. Lunch Invitations During Summer School Nichole attended the first session of summer school, which began on June 3, 2002, less than two weeks after the end of the regular school year. The only class that Nichole took during summer school was an English class taught by "Ms. Morris." Nichole was not Respondent's peer counselor during summer school, nor was she working on any school-related project with Respondent during that time. On June 3, 2002, while Respondent and Mr. Williams were in Ms. Morris' class fixing a computer, Respondent asked Nichole if she wanted to go to lunch with him off-campus. Nichole declined the invitation because she was "grounded" and had to pick up her brother from school. Respondent was again in Ms. Morris' class on June 5, 2002, and he again invited Nichole to lunch. Nichole again declined. Respondent did not have permission from Nichole's parent(s) or the SHS administration to take Nichole off-campus. The reason that Respondent invited Nichole to lunch was to thank her for doing a good job as his peer counselor and to congratulate her on deciding to stay in school and attend summer school, which Respondent and Mr. Williams had both counseled her to do. Respondent had taken a former male student off-campus to lunch for the same reasons in the past. Respondent and Nichole were not alone at the time of either invitation. Both invitations occurred in Ms. Morris' classroom, and Ms. Morris and other students were "milling around" in the classroom at the time. At the hearing, Nichole testified that she didn't think anything of the lunch invitations at first since she considered Respondent a "friend." However, she also testified that it "it was a little uncomfortable because he is a teacher." Nichole did not report the lunch invitations to Ms. Morris or to anyone in the SHS administration. Nichole did, however, tell her mother about Respondent's lunch invitations because "she thought she should know." On June 5, 2003, Nichole's mother called the SHS principal, Karen Coleman, and complained about the lunch invitations. Ms. Coleman told Nichole’s mother that she would look into the matter, which she did. The resulting investigation led to this proceeding. Investigation and Preliminary Disciplinary Recommendation Ms. Coleman began the investigation by speaking to Nichole on June 5, 2002. That discussion focused only on the lunch invitations. Nichole provided Ms. Colemen an unsworn written statement regarding the lunch invitations on June 5, 2002. That statement did not include any reference to the "lingerie incident" discussed below or the incidents described above involving the bra comment or the hug that Respondent gave to Nichole on the last day of school. Nichole provided Ms. Coleman another unsworn written statement on June 6, 2002. That statement referenced Respondent's comments about the source of Nichole's back pain, but it did not mention the lingerie incident or the other incidents described above. After speaking with Nichole, Ms. Coleman spoke with Respondent. Respondent admitted that he had invited Nichole to lunch off-campus. He further admitted that he did not have permission from Nichole’s parent(s) to take her off-campus and that he did not obtain permission from the SHS administration. Respondent told Ms. Coleman that he did not realize that such permission was necessary. Respondent had taken a male peer counselor to lunch off-campus in the past without receiving approval from the student's parents or the SHS. After Ms. Coleman's conversations with Nichole and Respondent, she contacted John Reichert, the School Board's director of human resources. Mr. Reichert directed John Byerly, the School Board’s internal affairs investigator, to conduct a formal investigation. Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole on June 10, 2002, at SHS. Nichole did not mention the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug to Mr. Byerly during that interview. Mr. Byerly also interviewed Respondent and Mr. Williams as part of his investigation. The results of Mr. Byerly's investigation were presented to the Executive Professional Standards Review Committee (Review Committee) on June 27, 2002. Among other functions, the Review Committee is used to make disciplinary recommendations to Mr. Reichert. The Review Committee’s recommendation was characterized at the hearing as "preliminary," and it is apparently not binding on Mr. Reichert when he formulates his recommendations to the Superintendent regarding employee disciplinary actions. The Review Committee recommended that Respondent be suspended for three days and/or be reassigned or transferred to another school. That recommendation was based only upon Respondent’s lunch invitations to Nichole and comments regarding the source of her back pain; it did not take into account the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug because those incidents had not been disclosed by Nichole or Natalie at that point. Mr. Reichert and/or the Superintendent apparently did not accept the Review Committee’s recommendation because the Superintendent's July 26, 2002, letter recommended termination of Respondent's employment. At the hearing, Mr. Reichert testified that the reason for the change in the recommended discipline was the subsequent discovery of the lingerie incident, which he characterized as the "major driving factor" behind the termination recommendation. However, the preponderance of the credible evidence demonstrates that the lingerie incident was not disclosed to School Board staff until after the July 26, 2002, letter. Alleged Gift of Lingerie The lingerie incident was first disclosed by Natalie on August 2, 2002, when she was interviewed by Mr. Byerly.1 Natalie had given an unsworn written statement to Ms. Coleman on that same date, but that statement did not mention the lingerie incident. Based upon the "new information" from Natalie, Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole again on August 15, 2002. The interview occurred at Lyman High School (LHS), where Nichole had transferred for her senior year.2 After the interview, Mr. Byerly had Nichole prepare a sworn written statement. The statement included the following account of the lingerie incident, which was consistent with Nichole's testimony at the hearing: When I was a peer counselor for Mr. Reeder, I had walked into class on[e] afternoon in 7th period and we were talking and he said ["]oh here I got something for you.["] He handed me a white plastic bag and through the bag I could see a black thing and I knew it was the langera [sic]. I then just put it on the floor and went on with my work. When the bell rang I picked up my belongings including the white plastic bag. When I got on the bus I showed Natalie it. It was a black see[-]through spagatie [sic] strap shirt and black thongs. When I got off the bus I walked home and through [sic] it away. That was the last time anything was ever said about it. Mr. Byerly interviewed Natalie again on August 16, 2002. Natalie's told Mr. Byerly that the lingerie incident occurred "a couple months before the end of the regular school year" and that Nichole showed her the lingerie on the bus. However, the sworn written statement she prepared after the interview indicated that the incident occurred "[a]bout the day before school was over" and that she learned of it "on the bus/car." Nichole told Natalie that the lingerie was from Respondent. Natalie had no independent personal knowledge that it was from him. There were some inconsistencies in Natalie's and Nichole's descriptions of the lingerie, but those inconsistencies were not material. They consistently described the lingerie as having a black see-through top and black panties. Nichole did not report the incident to the SHS administration around the time that it allegedly occurred. Nor did she tell her mother about the incident, even though she considered the lingerie gift to be more inappropriate than the lunch invitations which she did immediately tell her mother about. Nichole testified that she was somewhat embarrassed by the gift and she did not want her mother to think she "led into it." Respondent unequivocally denied that he gave Nichole any lingerie or other clothing, and Nichole's and Natalie's testimony relating to the lingerie incident was not credible. Thus, the School Board failed to prove that Respondent gave Nichole the lingerie. It is undisputed that Respondent never engaged in any type of sexual contact (e.g., kissing, inappropriate touching) with Nichole. Nichole made that point clear in both of her interviews with Mr. Byerly and in her testimony at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board issue a final order which dismisses the Petition for Termination and provides Respondent the remedial relief that he is entitled under the collective bargaining agreement. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent, a noninstructional employee.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner hired Respondent in December 2002 to provide clerical services at Sunset Elementary School, where she worked until she was suspended, as described below. Sunset Elementary School is a magnet school that receives more applications than it can accept. At all material times, Respondent was the sole magnet clerk, who handled the vast amount of paperwork through the recruitment/application process that runs annually from October 1 through January. These duties included ensuring that the paperwork was accurate and scheduling interviews with candidates. Under her 12-month contract, Respondent was required to perform her duties from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. daily. A new principal arrived at Sunset Elementary School for the 2003-04 school year. Immediately, Respondent began having problems with attendance, arriving late or not at all. At first, the principal spoke with Respondent informally, reminding her of her duties and the importance that she arrive at work on time every day. When informal discussions failed to result in any improvement, the principal sent Respondent a memorandum dated September 24, 2003, identifying seven absences for various reasons and six tardies. The memorandum requires Respondent to provide advance notice of absences and a physician's note for absences due to illness. This intervention was ineffective. By memorandum dated April 16, 2004, the principal detailed 21 additional absences or tardies during the same school year since the prior memorandum. These absences included seven consecutive school days in April. As the principal testified, the main purpose of this memorandum was to learn if Respondent had quit. By memorandum dated July 21, 2004, the principal reprimanded Respondent for her excessive absences and tardies during the preceding school year. Respondent's attendance was not satisfactory the following school year. By memorandum dated April 14, 2005, the principal again reprimanded Respondent for repeated absences and tardies and failure to comply with the directives from the preceding school year. Since the memorandum of July 21, 2004, Respondent had been absent, tardy, or left early 43 times. In the six weeks since the April 14, 2005, reprimand, Respondent missed all or part of six days of work. By memorandum dated May 25, 2005, the principal reprimanded Respondent for gross insubordination due to the six absences or tardies since the April 14 memorandum. Again, Respondent failed to respond to these interventions. During the 2005-06 school year, she was absent 45 times, as advised by memorandum to her from the principal dated June 12, 2006. By memorandum dated June 13, 2006, from the principal, Respondent was again reprimanded for her absences and tardies during the preceding school year. On October 13 and 19, 2006, Respondent failed to appear at work without prior (or subsequent) authorization. Petitioner conducted a conference for the record on November 7, 2006, at which its representatives discussed with Respondent her noncompliance with attendance rules. By memorandum dated November 21, 2006, from the principal to an assistant superintendent, the principal recommended dismissal of Respondent for gross insubordination and unsatisfactory attendance. By letter dated December 20, 2006, the assistant superintendent informed Respondent of her intention to ask Petitioner, at its January 17, 2007, meeting, to suspend Respondent without pay and initiate dismissal proceedings against her, unless Respondent requested a hearing within 20 days. Respondent timely requested a hearing. Article XXI, Section 3.D of the applicable collective bargaining agreement applies to "educational support employees" and provides: Upon successful completion of the probationary period, the employees' employment status shall continue from year to year, unless the number of employees is reduced on a district-wide basis for financial reasons, or the employee is terminated for just cause. Just cause includes, but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ana I. Segura, Esquire Janeen R. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Amy Marie Utrera 1201 Southwest 124th Court, Unit C Miami, Florida 33184
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida (including, among others, Phillis Wheatley Elementary School (Phillis Wheatley) and Palm Springs Middle School (Palm Springs)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Respondent is now, and has been since October 1987, employed as a classroom teacher by the School Board. She holds a professional services contract. Respondent first taught for the School Board at Phillis Wheatley. In 1996, she moved to Palm Springs, where she remained until she was "assigned to a paid administrative placement at [the] Region Center I [effective October 4, 2007] pending the resolution of investigative case # N-85085" (referenced in paragraph 14 of the Notice of Specific Charges). Respondent has previously been disciplined by the School Board for using physical means to control student behavior. In 1992, following an investigation during which Respondent "admitted to placing tape on one student's mouth and telling the other to place the tape on his mouth" and "also admitted to hitting a student on the head with a dictionary and tapping another student on the hand with a ruler," she received the following "letter of reprimand" from her principal at Phillis Wheatley: On August 8, 1992, you were charged with conduct unbecoming a School Board employee and battery of students. You violated the Chapter 6B-1.01(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, and Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx-13-4A-1.21, "Conduct Unbecoming a School Board Employee." The above infractions were substantiated by the Special Investigative Unit, Case No. 92-00946. You are directed to comply with the procedures outlined in the Chapter 6B- 1.01(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profess[ion] in Florida, to refrain from demeaning students, punishing them by taping mouths, touching or taping students to discipline them or to demonstrate affection, and to conduct yourself in a professional manner. Any recurrence of the infractions will result in further disciplinary actions. In 1995, Respondent was reprimanded for striking a student with a stack of papers and received the following "Confirmation of Administrative Action" from the Phillis Wheatley principal: Please be advised that after a complete investigation of Case Number 95-12689 done by this administrator the following guidelines must be reviewed with this administrator. Review the faculty handbook pg 18, on Corporal Punishment. Review a copy of School Board Rule 6Gx4A-1.21, Employee Conduct, and Chapter 6B-1.01(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. You are to refrain from touching or tapping students to discipline them and you must conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times. Any recurrence of this infraction will result in further disciplinary action. In 2004, after determining that Respondent had "acted inappropriately" when, in anger, she had "grabbed" a student by the "hair yanking [the student's] head backwards," the Palm Springs principal issued Respondent the following written reprimand: On December 11, 2003, you inappropriately disciplined (a) student(s) while waiting in front of the cafeteria. You violated the Contract between the Miami- Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, Article VIII, Section 1. [a]s well as School and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules, 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment, and 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Code of Student Conduct. It is your responsibility as a classroom teacher to maintain control and discipline of students. However, it is imperative that you follow school and Miami-Dade County School Board rules in doing so. Rules governing student discipline a[re] outlined in the Code of Student Conduct, Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, faculty handbook, and Promoting and Maintain[ing] a Safe Learning Environment document, and are referenced in the United Teachers of Dade Contract, Article VII, Section I. You are directed immediately to refrain from using any physical means to affect student behavior. You are directed immediately to implement the appropriate procedures for dealing with inappropriate student behavior as stipulated in the documents above[]. The above infraction was substantiated by an Administrative Review, Case Number J08655. You are directed to refrain from using inappropriate procedures in the performance of your assigned duties. You are directed to implement immediately, approved procedures in the performance of your assigned duties. Any recurrences of the above infraction will result in further disciplinary action. As a School Board employee, Respondent is expected to conduct herself in accordance with School Board rules, including the aforementioned School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13- 5D-1.07. At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21I has provided as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 has provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Corporal Punishment - Prohibited The administration of corporal punishment in Miami-Dade County Public Schools is strictly prohibited. Miami-Dade County Public Schools has implemented comprehensive programs for the alternative control of discipline. These programs include, but are not limited to, counseling, timeout rooms, in-school suspension centers, student mediation and conflict resolution, parental involvement, alternative education programs, and other forms of positive reinforcement. In addition, suspensions and/or expulsions are available as administrative disciplinary action depending upon the severity of the misconduct. Procedures are in place for students to make up any work missed while on suspension, or to participate in an alternative program if recommended for expulsion. As an instructional employee of the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD (UTD Contract). Article V of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "[e]mployer [r]ights." Section 1 of Article V provides, in part, that the School Board has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss or terminate bargaining unit employees "for just cause." Article VIII of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "[s]afe learning environment." Section 1.D. of Article VIII provides as follows: The parties recognize the potential for difficult circumstances and problems related to the use of corporal punishment. Accordingly, the parties agree that such punishment shall be prohibited as a disciplinary option, and further agree to act affirmatively in continuing to identify and implement more effective alternatives for dealing with student behavior. The involvement of school-site personnel in developing such alternatives is critical to their potential for success. Article XXI of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "[e]mployee [r]ights and [d]ue [p]rocess." Section 1.B.1.a. of Article XXI provides that "[a]ny member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Section 1.B.2. of Article XXI provides, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) " In the instant case, the School Board is seeking to dismiss Respondent based on conduct in which she allegedly engaged during the 2007-2008 school year. While assigned to Palm Springs during the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent taught three periods of language arts to sixth and seventh grade Spanish-speaking ESOL students. She also had responsibility for a sixth grade homeroom class. Y. L., J. T., and I. M. were sixth grade students at Palm Springs during the 2007-2008 school year. They each had Respondent for homeroom and language arts for a brief time during the beginning of that school year. At all material times during the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent understood that the School Board had a policy "strictly prohibit[ing]" the use of corporal punishment. Nonetheless, on more than one occasion during this time period, Respondent used physical means to redirect Y. L. She grabbed him by the hair and pulled him by the arm, hurting him in the process. She also "grabbed other students by their arms" to control their behavior. Respondent made threats to throw Y. L. and other students out the window if they did not behave. Although Respondent had no intention of carrying out these threats, Y. L. believed that the threats were real and that Respondent meant what she had said. On one occasion, Respondent opened a window, had Y. L. stand next to it, and told him that if he moved at all, she would toss him out the open window. As a disciplinary measure, Respondent had Y. L. pick up his wheel-equipped book bag (filled with textbooks and notebooks for all his classes) and hold it on top of his head for an extended period of time while he was standing in place. Y. L. felt some discomfort in his shoulder when he did this. Afraid of Respondent, Y. L. often "hid[] in the bathroom" at school instead of going to Respondent's classroom. On numerous occasions, Y. L.'s mother had to pick him up from school before the end of the school day because he had vomited. At home, Y. L. had trouble sleeping and refused to eat. He lost approximately 20 pounds (going from 100 pounds down to 80). Y. L. was not the only student that Respondent directed to stand with a filled book bag on his head. J. T. and I. M. were also issued such a directive by Respondent. It happened the first week of the school year on a day when the students remained in their homeroom classes until dismissal because of a power outage that left the school without lights and air conditioning for much of the day. Towards the end of the day (after power had been restored to the school), J. T. and I. M. were talking to one another when they were not supposed to. In response to their transgression, Respondent instructed them to stand in separate corners of the classroom and hold their book bags (which were similar to Y. L.'s) on top of their heads.2 The book bags remained on their heads for a substantial enough period of time to cause them to experience pain. 3 Y. L., J. T., I. M., and their parents complained to the Palm Springs administration about Respondent's disciplinary tactics. In response to Y. L.'s and his mother's complaints, one of the school's assistant principals, Niki Ruiz, interviewed "randomly selected" classmates of Y. L.'s. These students "corroborated what Y. [L.] was saying." On September 26, 2007, the matter was turned over to the School Board's General Investigative Unit (GIU) for investigation. Respondent was removed from the classroom and placed on alternative assignment pending the outcome of the investigation. Following the GIU investigation, the matter was referred to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. There was a conference-for-the-record held on February 6, 2008, at which Respondent had the opportunity to tell her side of the story. In her remarks, she expressed a disdain for authority when she said, "I'm very professional but I don't stick to rules." The School Board's Superintendent of Schools recommended that the School Board suspend Respondent and initiate termination proceedings against her. The School Board took such action at its May 21, 2008, meeting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating her employment as a professional service contract teacher with the School Board for the reasons set forth above DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 16th day of December, 2008.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with the Polk County School Board because of the matters alleged in the letter of intent prepared by the Superintendent of Schools.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Polk County School Board, (Board), was the county agency responsible for providing public primary, secondary and adult education in Polk County, Florida, and operated Haines City High School, (HCHS), in Haines City. Respondent had been employed at HCHS for eight years, and in the last two years prior to the incidents herein taught in the school's Diversified Cooperative Training Program, (DCT) under a continuing contract of employment. DCT students are allowed to leave campus before the end of the school day to work at jobs in the local area. However, Respondent allowed some students to leave school during the morning hours for the purpose of getting breakfast and, coincidentally, to bring items back to school for her to eat. There is also allegation that Respondent would solicit students to run personal errands for her during school hours but would not give them a pass to allow them to lawfully leave the campus. Allegedly, she advised them that they were on their own and she would deny responsibility or knowledge if they were caught. Taken together, the evidence establishes that Respondent did allow students to leave class on personal business and did not give them passes to be off campus. It also appears that she solicited them to pick up items for her while they were away, but not that she solicited students to leave class to run errands off campus for her. Even so, her actions are in violation of the Board policy regarding student absence from campus, a policy about which Respondent had been briefed. In addition, some time during the Autumn of 1994, Respondent overheard a student on the school's football team, Bradford Parton, discussing with his girlfriend the fact he was having cramps. Respondent advised him he should take potassium and on at least one occasion, during a class session, gave Parton a pill which, she said, would give him energy and take away his cramps. She believed the pill was the functional equivalent of one banana. Respondent was aware that it was a violation of Board policy for anyone other than the school nurse to administer any form of pill or medication to a student. When the Principal learned that Respondent had given Parton the pill, he directed an investigation into the matter. On November 17, 1994, after he had heard that Respondent was making comments in class to the effect that the students were getting her in trouble with the administration, the Principal gave her verbal instructions not to discuss these matters with the students and to limit her conversations with them to matters related to class work. His comment to her included, "Just teach the class. Just don't bring yourself down to their level." The following day, on November 18, 1994, after receiving word that Respondent had again spoken to Parton after he had warned her not to do so, the Principal reduced his prior comments to writing and again instructed her not to discuss the matter with any students, warning her that he considered her doing so a matter of insubordination which, if repeated, would result in severe disciplinary action. There is some indication Respondent, in early December, 1994, advised several students after the warning she was going to have them removed from her class She subsequently advised the school's guidance counselor that several of the students involved should be removed from her class because they appeared to be "unhappy" in it. The students denied being unhappy in class and urgently resisted being removed because they needed the credit to graduate. Respondent's comments to the students constituted insubordination, and her action in urging removal of the students was considered by the administration to be an attempt at retaliation against them because of their allegations made against her. There is also indication that while the investigation into the allegations against her was under way, Respondent spoke with Ms. Denmark, another teacher, who was in the room when Respondent gave the pill to Mr. Parton, in an effort to get her to change her statement. School Board officials consider Respondent's blatant violation of school rules and policies by allowing students to leave campus without a pass and by improperly administering a pill to a student combine to severely impair her effectiveness as a teacher. Under the circumstances established here, this appears to be the case. Prior to the initiation of this action, Respondent had received a verbal warning regarding drinking in front of students at a conference and regarding making untoward comments about Blacks. Her personnel record, commencing with the teacher evaluation of her performance in the 1988-1989 school year, reflects positive comments and no substantial criticism. However, in July, 1994, the Superintendent advised Respondent of his intention to suspend her without pay for five days for making improper comments of a sexual nature toward students and for allowing students to grade papers, to average grades and to have access to her grade book. Respondent requested hearing on this proposed action. That hearing was held consolidated with the instant hearing and no final action has been taken by the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Mary L. Canova's, suspension without pay pending hearing be sustained and that she be dismissed from employment as a teacher with the Polk County School Board because of misconduct in office and gross insubordination as described herein. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-2599 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted in so far as Respondent allowed students to leave campus and periodically suggested those who did run errands for her. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein with the understanding that the term, "no further details regarding the allegations were provided" refers to the charging letter, and that Respondent was provided with specific allegations of misconduct prior to hearing. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected. See Partain's December 2, 1994 letter to Chapman. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Lane, Tron, Clarke, Bertrand, Vreeland & Jacobsen, P.A. Post Office Box 1578 150 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. 24650 U. S. Highway 19 North Suite 308 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 John A. Stewart Superintendent Polk County Schools Post Office Box 391 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830
