The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(d), (g), and (j), Florida Statutes (2012), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(4)(c) and (5)(a), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as a second-grade teacher at Boston Avenue Charter School (Boston Avenue) in the Volusia County School District. Respondent holds Florida Educator’s Certificate number 1170778, which covers the areas of elementary education, English for speakers of other languages, reading, and exceptional student education, and is valid through June 30, 2016. During the 2011-2012 school year, Nichole Gaw was the principal at Boston Avenue. Racheal Welch Luebbert was also a teacher employed at Boston Avenue, but at the time of this incident worked as an intervention teacher and did not have her own classroom. Students at Boston Avenue normally wore uniforms. During the spring of 2012, the school was participating in a fundraiser called Blue Jeans for Babies, in order to benefit the March of Dimes. Money for the fundraiser was raised by students paying for the privilege of wearing clothes other than their uniforms on Wednesdays. Students contributed 50 cents to participate. Teachers were given manila envelopes to hold the collected money, but those envelopes were not always used. At the end of the day, the money collected by each class was given to Ms. Gaw. On April 25, 2012, there was a staff meeting scheduled. Before the staff meeting, Ms. Gaw was standing in front of the door of her office near the school reception area. While Ms. Gaw was standing at her door, Ms. Luebbert walked up to her and handed her a clear sandwich bag containing the money that had been collected in the classroom where she was working and given to her by the classroom teacher. Ms. Luebbert asked Ms. Gaw what Ms. Gaw wanted her to do with the money, and Ms. Gaw told her to put it in Ms. Gaw’s box. Because Ms. Gaw’s door was already locked, Ms. Luebbert handed Ms. Gaw the baggie and Ms. Gaw placed it in the mail holder on the outside of Ms. Gaw’s door. Immediately past Ms. Gaw’s door is an area with faculty mailboxes, a copier, and restrooms. Prior to the scheduled staff meeting, several people, including Respondent, passed through the area. Respondent walked past Ms. Gaw and spoke with Ms. Gaw briefly before entering the area where the mailboxes, copier, and restrooms were located. While Respondent was still in that area, Ms. Gaw and other personnel present left the area to attend the staff meeting. After the others had left, Respondent came from the mailbox area, past Ms. Gaw’s door into the reception area. She was carrying a paper or folder of some sort. As Respondent passed through the hall, she looked down the hallway. She paused, turned around, and appeared to be looking around as if to see if anyone else was present. Respondent walked over to Ms. Gaw’s door, took something out of the mail holder on the door with her right hand, and placed the object on top of the paperwork in her left hand. She then slid the object from the top of the paperwork to her left hand, and with her left hand placed it in her pocket. The object taken from Ms. Gaw’s door appears to be the sandwich bag containing the Blue Jeans for Babies collection. After the staff meeting, Ms. Gaw went to her office door to retrieve the sandwich bag, only to find that it was not there. Boston Avenue had video surveillance cameras that provided surveillance video for the general area near Ms. Gaw’s door. While part of the door itself is visible in the video footage, the mail holder on the door is not visible. Ms. Gaw retrieved the video footage for the office area and viewed it with management for Boston Avenue. Based upon her observation of the video footage, Ms. Gaw believed that Respondent took the sandwich bag containing the money. In accordance with management instructions, she called the police to report the theft, and on April 26, 2012, Officer Myriam Godwin of the Deland Police Department came to the school. Ms. Gaw spoke with Officer Godwin, told her that a teacher had stolen some money, and advised her that there was video surveillance footage of the incident. Officer Godwin viewed the video, which in her view appeared to show the theft of the money in the sandwich bag. She then spoke to Ms. Barry. Ms. Barry was summoned from her classroom to speak to Officer Godwin. Officer Godwin introduced herself, read Ms. Barry her rights, and explained the reason for questioning Ms. Barry. Ms. Barry immediately denied the theft. However, she eventually admitted taking the money and said she had done so because of financial problems. Officer Godwin did not place Ms. Barry under arrest at the time of the interview because the crime at issue is a misdemeanor. Instead, she completed an arrest affidavit charging Ms. Barry with petit theft. Ms. Barry’s employment with Boston Avenue was terminated on April 30, 2012. The theft of the money was reported in the news media, including television, newspaper, and the internet. On April 12, 2013, in the case of State of Florida v. Nicole S. Torres, Case No. 2012 008933 MMAWS (Volusia County Court), Respondent pleaded nolo contendere to petit theft, and adjudication was withheld. She was required to pay restitution in the amount of $28.55, and to pay court costs. Ms. Barry claims that she did not take the money, and that she would never take anything that did not belong to her. She does not recall what she placed in her pocket that day, but insists it was not the baggie with money. Ms. Barry also claims that she only told Officer Godwin that she took the money because she felt she was being harassed and threatened by Officer Godwin, and was afraid she would lose her daughter. In her view, admitting to the theft and telling Officer Godwin “what she wanted to hear” was the easiest course of action. Officer Godwin denied pressuring Ms. Barry, and said she did not threaten her in any way. She did not threaten to take Ms. Barry’s child, and certainly would not do so over a $28 theft. She also denied saying that if Ms. Barry did not cooperate, she would do what she had to do. Officer Godwin’s testimony is credited. Even assuming that she made the statement Ms. Barry attributed to her, which the undersigned does not find, the statement is not particularly threatening. It is simply a statement indicating that the officer would investigate and follow up without Ms. Barry’s cooperation, something she would be required to do in any event. After multiple viewings of the video tape and review of the evidence received, it is found that Respondent took the baggie from the envelope slot on Ms. Gaw’s door. Given Respondent’s participation in the March of Dimes fundraiser, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that Respondent knew the money in the baggie was from the March of Dimes fundraiser.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the charges in Counts 1, 3, and 5 of the Administrative Complaint, and not guilty of the charges in Counts 2 and 4. It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded; that she pay an administrative fine of $1,000; that her teaching certificate be suspended for a period of two years, followed by a period of probation for five years; and that prior to returning to the classroom, she take a three-hour college level course in ethics. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner school board has good cause to reject the Walton County School superintendent's recommendation of Ann Farrior (Respondent) for renewal of an annual contract to serve in the position of school psychologist.
Findings Of Fact Ann Farrior was employed as a school psychologist by the Walton County School District for the 1998-1999 school year. She was employed on the recommendation of the superintendent and under an annual contract for that school year. Title 20, United States Code, Chapter 33, is known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The intelligence testing and questions regarding assessment and placement of exceptional education students is governed by that federal statute and rules pendent thereto. The federal regulations implementing the IDEA provide certain federal funds to assist in their implementation by local school districts. The Walton County School District receives federal funding to implement the IDEA. The failure to comply with appropriate federal regulations governing testing, assessment and placement of exceptional education students can result in a loss of such federal funding for the District. The Superintendent, Mr. Bludworth, nominated Ms. Farrior for the school psychologist position at issue for the 1998-1999 school year with the understanding that although she was not certified as a school psychologist, she was eligible to be certified as such. During the course of her employment as a school psychologist that school year, state audit personnel determined that she was not properly credentialed to administer intelligence testing as part of the assessment process for exceptional education students, which is necessary to the formulation of Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) which is in turn a necessary element of the ultimate decision of proper placement of such students in the educational system in a school district. In view of this situation, Mr. Sam Goff of the Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services of the Department of Education wrote the superintendent on January 20, 1999, outlining specific requirements that the District would have to meet in order to bring itself into compliance with the IDEA as a result of Ms. Farrior's ineligibility to administer intelligence testing as part of the assessment and evaluation process for exceptional students. The superintendent also received notice by memorandum of January 28, 1999, and by letter of January 29, 1999, from the Auditor General's staff and the Auditor General (in evidence as Petitioner Exhibits 4 and 5), that audit findings had determined that the District employed a person as a school psychologist (the Respondent) concerning whom school district records did not indicate a basis for that person being qualified for the school psychologist's position. The Auditor General's findings noted that the position description for school psychologist employed by the school district included responsibilities for administering testing and assessing placement for all exceptional education students. The preliminary findings noted that the employee, the Respondent, then serving as a school psychologist possessed only a temporary Florida teaching certificate in "psychology" which had expired on June 30, 1998, and which did not constitute certification as a "school psychologist." District records did not show that the Respondent had renewed her teaching certificate or had otherwise met the minimum job requirements for the school psychologist position. The Auditor General recommended that the school district document its records with a basis upon which the individual, the Respondent, was determined to be qualified for the school psychologist position or to take appropriate action to provide for a licensed or certified school psychologist for administering testing and for assessing placement for exceptional students. As a result of receiving these communications and preliminary findings, the superintendent met with the Respondent and felt compelled to request her resignation. Nancy Holder had been the school psychologist in the position that Ann Farrior assumed. Early in the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Holder, who is a certified school psychologist, had been transferred to the position of "Staffing Specialist" upon which occurrence Ann Farrior then occupied the position of school psychologist. Ms. Holder, in her testimony, described the duties of school psychologist as including, in addition to performing intelligence testing of students, testing for academic achievement, and personality testing as well as counseling duties involving students, their parent, and teachers. The school psychologist must also participate in staffing meetings and in the IEP formulation process and resulting decisions regarding placement of exceptional students; she must assist classroom teachers and parents with the particular problems involving both exceptional students as well as students who do not have exceptionalities or diagnoses. Because of the above-referenced preliminary audit findings by the Department of Education, Ms. Holder was required to assume the additional responsibility of supervising Ms. Farrior's activities for the remainder of her annual contract year as well as undertaking to re-test those students whom Ms. Farrior had previously tested. The school district alternatively obtained a consultant to perform the educational testing that otherwise would have been done by Ms. Farrior as school psychologist had she been qualified under the pertinent regulations to do so. The school district received a statement from the Department of Education's Bureau of Teacher Certification, dated March 22, 1999, concerning the Respondent's eligibility to apply for or to receive certification as a school psychologist. That statement of eligibility noted that the Respondent lacked 27- semester hours of graduate school credit in school psychology which would necessarily have to include six-semester hours of graduate credit in a supervised school psychology internship. Additionally, Ms. Farrior would have to submit a passing score on the state-required teacher certification examination. Ms. Farrior enrolled in an appropriate school psychology internship program for the 1999-2000 school year, but as of the date of the hearing in this case, she still lacked 24 of the required semester hours of graduate credit in school psychology and had not yet submitted a passing score on the Florida State Teacher Certification examination. The Walton County School Board has a written policy adopted August 13, 1996, and in force at times pertinent hereto which authorizes the superintendent "to select and recommended non-certificated instructional personnel for appointment pursuant to Section 321.1725, Florida Statutes, and State Board of Education Rule 6A-1.0502, when special services are needed to deliver instruction." Section 228.041(9), Florida Statutes defines the term "instructional personnel" as including "school psychologists." There is no showing in the evidence of record, however, that "special services" are needed to deliver instruction. That is, although the school psychologist position is statutorily deemed to be in the category of "instructional personnel" it does not involve the teaching of students. Rather the school psychologist position, which is the subject of this case, involves testing, evaluation, assessment, and assistance in the placement of exceptional students in appropriate courses of instruction. There was no showing that special services were needed to actually deliver instruction, as envisioned by the above-referenced written policy of the School Board concerning the appointment of non-certificated instructional personnel, such as Ms. Farrior. Given the above-referenced audit findings in relation to the controlling federal regulations referenced above and the Board's policy allowing employment of certificated personnel "out-of-field" only in cases where special services are needed to deliver instruction, it has not been demonstrated that the School Board realistically had an option, in the proper exercise of its discretionary authority, to hire Ms. Farrior "out-of-field" as a "school psychologist" based merely on her only certification, which was a temporary certificate authorizing the teaching of psychology (not certification as a school psychologist which is really a pupil support position). Moreover, the School Board's policy authorizes the employment of teachers for instruction in areas other than that for which they are certificated only in the absence of available qualified, certified instructors. Although the school psychologist position at issue remains unfilled, there is no evidence to demonstrate why it is unfilled and no evidence of record to demonstrate that there are not qualified, certified personnel available to be hired as a school psychologist to fill that position. When the superintendent recommended the Respondent for a second annual contract in April of 1999, he was already aware that she was not qualified to perform the duties of a school psychologist and that the District would have to contract with outside consultants or other qualified persons to at least secure the administration of intelligence and other psychological testing, which testing is a part of the job description and duties of a school psychologist. The then exceptional education director for the District, Ms. Rushing, had suggested to the superintendent that he recommend the Respondent in April of 1999 for the position of "evaluation specialist." This would more represent the actual duties Ms. Farrior had been performing after the Department of Education audit finding that she was not qualified to serve as a school psychologist. Unfortunately, however, there was no authorized position of "evaluation specialist" and the superintendent has no authority to set the qualifications for a particular position or a recommend a person for a position that had not otherwise been approved nor its qualifications approved of by the School Board. In summary, as of the date of the hearing, the Respondent was not yet eligible to receive either a regular or temporary certificate from the Department of Education as a school psychologist and still lacked 24 semester hours of graduate credit necessary for such certification; she had not yet passed the Florida State Teacher Certification Examination for school psychologist although she had secured and enrolled in an appropriate internship to satisfy the above-referenced six-hour internship requirement.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Walton County rejecting the nomination of Ann Farrior to serve in the position of school psychologist for the school year 1999-2000, because good cause for such action has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence in the manner found and concluded above. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 George R. Mead, II, Esquire Clark, Pennington, Hart, Larry, Bond, Stackhouse & Stone 125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 Post Office Box 13010 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3010 John F. Bludworth Superintendent of Schools Walton County School District 145 Park Street, Suite 3 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was a School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the Dade County school district. Such authority includes, but is not limited to, the employment of appropriate staff for the Dade County schools. Geographically, the Respondent's district covers a span of approximately seventy-eight miles. Petitioner is an unmarried 41 year old male citizen of the United States of America. In August of 1992, Petitioner applied for a teaching position with the Office of Personnel Staffing (the personnel office) in the Dade County school system. The personnel office is responsible for staffing instructional staff: teachers and teacher's aides. The personnel office receives approximately fifty thousand applications annually from individuals seeking employment with the Respondent. Many of the applications are for employment as teachers for the Dade County school system. The personnel office hires approximately three to four thousand people a year. Of that number, approximately two thousand people are hired as teachers. The operational procedures of the personnel office regarding the application and hiring process for teachers are set forth in the instructions for completing the teacher application package. The instructions are in the front of the application package. Completion of the teacher application process requires that all applicants submit a completed application package, including the submission of all official transcripts. An applicant's official transcripts are always required; all teacher applicants must submit these documents to the personnel office. In this case, Petitioner signed the application package attesting to the fact that he received the package in its entirety. Petitioner was familiar with all of the contents of the application package, including the instructions to the application package. Before submitting his application package to the personnel office, petitioner knew or should have known that official transcripts were a required portion of the application package. Petitioner failed to provide the personnel office with his official transcripts when he submitted his application package. Official transcripts are required to avoid the submission of transcripts that reflect altered and/or forged grades and subject areas. Additionally, the submission of official transcripts facilitates the analysis of the applicant's individual subject performances, possible secondary areas of certification, and additional experiences, subjects or classes that may enhance or decrease the written assessment of the applicant. Examination of an official transcript is the only reliable available means of receiving the information. The personnel office does not seek an applicant's official transcripts, nor does the office have the authority to request such documents from the Florida Department of Education. Official transcripts are confidential documents and once submitted to the State such documents will be released only to the applicant once the applicant's file has expired. Additionally, the Board does not have the capability, nor is it required, to confirm or cross reference the existence of an applicant's official transcript with another agency for purposes of assessing the applicant's qualifications. All applicants seeking employment as a teacher with the Board must meet the application criteria established by the personnel office. All of the requirements for completing an application package are chronicled in the instructions to the application package. Once an application is received, the personnel office has a standard procedure of immediately reviewing an application to verify that it is complete. In this case, Petitioner's application was deemed incomplete because it lacked Petitioner's official transcripts. Based on the preceding, Petitioner's application was not processed. Because the application was not completed, Petitioner was not eligible for employment. An applicant may call for an appointment for an interview after the applicant has submitted a completed application package and the applicant's file is processed. If the applicant's file is not completed and processed, the applicant cannot be scheduled or considered for an interview. The personnel office did not interview Petitioner because his application was incomplete and unprocessed. The only reason Petitioner was not interviewed was because his application was incomplete. No other factor influenced this matter. The Petitioner's marital status did not impact the decision to deem his employment application incomplete. The Board does not take issue with employing single men. Other than Petitioner's complaint, the Board has not received a charge of marital status discrimination in the last ten years. Staff from the personnel office spoke with Petitioner regarding his incomplete application package. The personnel office offered to assist Petitioner. Petitioner was advised that if he furnished the personnel office with his original set of official transcripts, that Dr. Garner would personally copy his originals, attest to their authenticity, return the originals to Petitioner, and proceed with Petitioner's interview (presuming the transcripts were as Petitioner represented). Petitioner never submitted the official transcripts for review and copying. Additionally, Petitioner did not seek a certified copy of his records from the Florida Department of Education. Only at the hearing was Petitioner willing to allow his set of the official transcripts to be reviewed. A statement of eligibility or certification from the Florida Department of Education does not make an applicant automatically qualified for, and entitled to, a teaching position with the Board. Completion of the teacher application package also includes the submission of a completed W-4 tax form. The information solicited on a W-4 form is not considered or even reviewed by the personnel office when they assess an applicant's credentials and overall qualifications for employment. The personnel office does not use a W-4 form to screen applicants by marital status. Additionally, the personnel office requests the tax information, along with other information, before the actual date of hire, in order to avoid operational delays. Past experiences have demonstrated that it is inefficient and impractical to have a newly hired employee mail the W-4 form to the wage and salary office after the individual's actual date of hire. The personnel office processes the paperwork but does not hire teacher applicants. The office is a clearing house that gets applicants ready for hire. The actual hiring of an applicant occurs at a school. The application procedures and all of its requirements have been in effect for approximately thirteen years. The application procedures and all of its requirements are essential in order to facilitate the procedure of hiring the most qualified personnel, regardless of their marital status. It is also essential in order to expedite the process for providing newly hired employees with immediate compensation and benefits. Administrative procedures, regulations, directives and guidelines are permissible methods of implementing School Board policies. The Board received notification from the EEOC that Petitioner had filed a charge of sex and marital discrimination against the School Board. On May 23, 1995, the EEOC issued a letter of determination as to the merits of Petitioner's allegations of sex and marital status discrimination, finding, in pertinent part, that Examination of the evidence of record shows that (Petitioner) was not considered for any position because he failed to submit all the material required with the application. Evidence further shows that all applicants must submit the required material to be con- sidered for vacancies. The (Petitioner) was unable to provide and the Commission's inves- tigation did not disclose any evidence which would show Respondent considered the (Petitioner's) sex or marital status when reaching its decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint against the Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-5316 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 37, 50, and 54 are hereby accepted and adopted by reference. Paragraph 5 is accurate but irrelevant to the resolution of the issue of this case. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are accurate but unnecessary to the resolution of the issue of this case. Paragraphs 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, 36, 38, and 44 are accepted. All other paragraphs not listed above are irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Heidi N. Shulman, Esquire School Board of Dade County, Florida School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Steve J. Longariello 9999 Summerbreeze Drive, Number 422 Sunrise, Florida 33322 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Building Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Building Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Dwyer held a Temporary Educator Certificate No. 798892, covering the areas of English to Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and Family and Consumer Services, which was valid through June 30, 2008. Ms. Dwyer has not sought to renew her teaching certificate. At all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Ms. Dwyer was employed as an ESOL resource teacher at Dowdell Middle School (Dowdell), located in the Hillsborough County School District. On May 9, 2008, a multi-cultural festival was being held at Dowdell. Ms. Dwyer was heading up the festival. On May 9, 2008, P.J. was a student at Dowdell, and he was assigned to take pictures for the school yearbook by his teacher, Ms. Bedford. The assignment was to take pictures of Ms. Belin's class. When he arrived at Ms. Belin's classroom, she was not present, and he returned to Ms. Bedford's classroom. He was told to go to the festival, where Ms. Belin probably had gone, and to take pictures of the festival and Ms. Belin's class. Ms. Bedford gave P.J. a pass, and he had the camera with him. He headed to the festival, which was being conducted in the auditorium. There were two sets of double doors located on one side of the auditorium with a wall dividing the sets of double doors. When P.J. arrived at the double doors, Ms. Dwyer was at the doors on the inside of the auditorium. P.J. asked Ms. Dwyer to let him in because he had a pass and he was supposed to take pictures of the festival. Ms. Dwyer told him that he could not come in, but he countered that he had a pass. Ms. Dwyer told him that if he did not move that she was going to slam his hand in the door. He did not go away and told her that she better not shut the door on his hand. Ms. Dwyer shut the door on his left hand. P.J. quickly pulled his hand out. Mr. Dewitt Jones, Jr., is a seventh-grade teacher at Dowdell. He witnessed part of the incident between Ms. Dwyer and P.J. He saw P.J. reach for the door and tell Ms. Dwyer not to close the door on his hand. Mr. Jones also saw Ms. Dwyer close the door on P.J.'s hand and then observed P.J. holding his hand. Mr. Jones could tell that P.J. was in pain and told him to go to the office so that the nurse could check his hand and to report the incident. Another witness, J.D., observed Ms. Dwyer yelling at P.J. and then closing the door on P.J.'s hand. He also saw P.J. grab his hand after the door closed on it. P.J. went back to Ms. Bedford's class and told her what had happened. She advised him to go to the office and file a report and then to go to the nurse to have his hand examined. The police were called as a result of the incident. A police officer interviewed P.J., and P.J. advised the police officer that his left hand was the hand that was caught in the door. The police officer took pictures of P.J.'s left hand and a picture showing both left and right hands. Two or three days after the incident, P.J. went to his physician. An X-Ray was taken of his hand, but the X-Ray did not reveal any broken bones. The physician prescribed some pain medication for P.J. After the incident, there was a fair amount of coverage in the media about the incident. Ms. Dwyer was removed from the classroom and given administrative work to do. Because Ms. Dwyer did not renew her teaching certificate, she was not allowed to return to teach in the Hillsborough County School District for the 2008-2009 school year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mary Dwyer violated sections 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j) and rule 6B-1.006(3)(a); placing her on probation for two years with the condition that she complete a class on adolescent development; giving her a written reprimand, which is to be placed in her file; and imposing a fine of $500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2011.
