Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Lloyd Wright, was a teacher employed by the St. Lucie County School District at Westwood High School. Tenecia Poitier was, during the 1986-1987 school year, a student of Respondent in his world history class. In early February, 1987, she filed a complaint against him with school officials because, she says, she got tired of his repeated comments to her of a sexual nature. Reportedly, on one occasion, Respondent indicated to her that he was going to "... fuck her brains out." This comment was overheard by another student in the class, Tony Lee, who believed Respondent was only joking with her. No follow-up action was taken by Respondent on this threat. Ms. Poitier also alleges that on one occasion, while in the school library, Respondent came over and sat down next to her and touched her on the leg. This was observed by Felicia Newton who was sitting across the library table from Ms. Poitier and who, because she was sitting out somewhat from the table, could see Respondent touch her on the outside of the leg. The hug Respondent also gave Ms. Poitier was more of a friendly hug than one with sexual overtones as was the touch. When Ms. Poitier told him to stop, he did and immediately thereafter left the table. Respondent has never hugged or touched Ms. Newton and she has never heard any other girl say Respondent has hugged or touched them except Ms. Poitier, who had told her prior to the library incident that she didn't like the way Respondent was always touching her. On one other occasion, according to Ms. Poitier, when she got chocolate on her pants in class, she asked to go to the rest room to wash it off. In response, she claims, Respondent grabbed her "butt" and commented, "Girl, I want that thing" or words to that effect. Ms. Poitier claims that when he did that, she "cussed him out." Ms. Poitier filed her complaint with school officials after reporting the incident to her father. It would appear, however, that the complaint was motivated by fear of punishment herself, as Respondent contends that on the day prior to the complaint, he observed her doing her math homework in his history class and confiscated and destroyed it. When he did this, she became irate and indicated she was going to tell her father. With that, Respondent summoned a representative of the administration and had her ejected from class. He also wrote a letter to her counselor complaining that she refused to follow class rules and was disruptive and requested she be taken out of his class because she was not doing the required work. There is ample independent testimony from others, including Ms. Poitier herself; that she curses frequently in class and her reputation for telling the truth is not good. In addition, Respondent had notified Ms. Poitier that she had been denied membership in the Millionaire's Club which he sponsored, because she would not follow club rules. She was also dismissed from membership in the Pep Club because of her forgery of Respondent's name to hall passes. Neither these latter actions nor the allegations of her removal from class, testified to only by Respondent, were corroborated by independent evidence. Ms. Poitier denies being put out of the Pep Club and claims she quit the Millionaire's club to join another one. Ms. Poitier indicates, on the other hand, that she was written up because she had threatened to tell her father what Respondent had said and done to her. Her veracity being successfully attacked, however, it is found that Respondent's story is more believable. Respondent, Ms. Poitier claims, also hugged other girls and touched at least one, Ms. McGee, on the leg when she came up to his desk on one occasion. In fact, she claims, he will touch any girl who will put up with it. McGee, on the other hand, denied that Respondent touched her on the leg as alleged by Poitier, but contends he did hug her around the shoulder from the side on one occasion. More significant, however, is the fact, admitted by the Respondent, that early one morning, while driving his mother to the grocery store, he saw Ms. McGee walking with two boys, one of whom was her brother. Respondent drove up beside them, waved and blew his horn to get their attention, and then told her he was going to take her to the woods. He claims he did not mean the comment to be taken literally but more as a joke like the kids would make. He did not believe that McGee took the comment seriously but, in fact she did, and the comment was totally inappropriate for a teacher to make to a female student under any circumstances. Other students, such as Eugenia Lunsford, report improper comments by Respondent to them or others. Ms. Lunsford claims she heard him tell girls, in the classroom, that he liked them and ask them if he could have a chance with them. She contends she heard him state that he'd like to "fuck" Cochina Hall and Tenecia Poitier. Ms. McGee remembers Respondent stating he would like to do something sexual to her, and on one occasions, when she asked him to stop peeling a grapefruit in class, he asked her if he could touch her. He never did, however, except to give her a hug. She considers the term "touch" to mean a sexually oriented touching of a girl's private parts. She also recalls an incident where she saw Respondent pull Ms. Foster's shirt away from her body by the pocket and look down the front. She thinks he was looking at her breasts. Ms. Foster, however, denies this incident happened. In light of this, Ms. McGee's testimony is suspect and, like Ms. Poitier, her credibility is slight. There is no evidence that by any of the hugs that he gave the various girls he in any way committed any inappropriate touching of the breasts or any place else or that though unwelcome, they were sexual in nature. The report by Ms. Lunsford of Respondent's touching Ms. Foster's "butt" was denied by Ms. Foster. In substance, Ms. Lunsford's testimony is not credible and Ms. Foster considers Respondent a good teacher. She would not fear going back into his class. Tony Lee, who heard Respondent make the inappropriate comment to Ms. Poitier, also heard him say to a female student, "Pull your pants down and let me touch you." At the time, Respondent and a group of female students were laughing and joking together and he does not feel that Respondent's comment was seriously made. In fact, Respondent frequently joked with his students, both male and female, making suggestive comments, and everyone knew they were jokes. Lee knows of no incident where Respondent ever attempted to follow up on these comments. He denies ever hearing that Respondent attempted to touch Ms. McGee. To the contrary, she allegedly told Lee she had attempted to touch Respondent and Lee told her she was crazy to do that. Only one parent had direct knowledge of Respondent's relationship with his students. At one parent/teacher night, Mrs. Johnson was attending Respondent's presentation to a group of students and parents when he reportedly stopped in mid- sentence and ogled one or more female students who came into the room. Mrs. Johnson felt his stare, which, she claimed, constituted a visual undressing of the girls, was inappropriate and embarrassing. Her comments were endorsed by her daughter Josephine, who would not want to go back into Respondent's class. In this incidents however, Respondent neither said anything to or about these girls nor did he attempt to touch them. Petitioner presented testimony to establish that at one time, Respondent humiliated a male student in his class by implying he was a homosexual. Both the student and his mother were permitted to testify to this incident without objection by Respondent. This is, however, irrelevant to the issues framed by the Notice of Charges and in any case, the student admits that he and another student were smirking at allegedly inaccurate statements made by Respondent during his lecture, misconduct and out-of-line behavior in and of itself. Assuming, arguendo, that Respondent's reaction to the student was inappropriate, it has no relevance to the conduct complained of in the Notice of Charges. Other present and former students of Respondent indicated that he had a good rapport with his students and is a good teacher. None of these individuals including, Ms. Shaw, Ms. Donovan, Ms. Fuller, Ms. Frazier, and Ms. Diaz have ever seen him be improper or sexual in orientation with students notwithstanding numerous observations. He is not known by these people to flirt with or improperly touch students or to make suggestive comments to them though he would hug from time to time. The extent of his familiarity would be comments like, "Hey, baby. How ya doin'?," or words to that effect, comments readily admitted by Respondent. According to Ms. Frazier, a student in Respondent's class with Ms. Poitier, some students would speak improperly to Respondent by cussing at him. Usually, he would warn them but if they got out of hands he would write them up. Respondent is described by some, and by himself, as a friendly, outgoing, caring person who tries to get his students to achieve their potential. He is a tough taskmaster who expects his students to do their best. By his own admission, he tries to relate to his students by speaking their language and using their phrases. He tries to get his students to relate to him by relating to them and in 9 1/2 years as a teacher he has never before been told this was improper. He admits to hugging his students from the side and to touching them on the arm or head in encouragement while teaching. He rides up and down the aisles in his classroom on a rolling chair so he can sit next to students who are having trouble to help them. He uses flattery, even personal comments such as "You are beautiful" in an effort to motivate his students and denies that any of his comments or touchings were salacious or sexually oriented. From an evaluation of the evidence, it becomes clear that Respondent did not touch or handle his female students in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner. It is equally clear, however, that on several occasions he did make lewd, lascivious, or indecent comments to female students which could be construed as advances though it is doubtful he would have followed through on them. These comments, however, in the expert opinion of Ms. Bretherick, an experienced teacher, are never appropriate for a teacher to make to a student. A teacher who made such comments would be ineffective as a teacher. Exposure to such a teacher adversely effects the students' capacity to learn the subject matter and clouds or distorts the concept of the teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lloyd Wright, be discharged from employment with the St. Lucie School District because of misconduct in office. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1366 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. By Petitioner Petitioner, by letter, specifically declined to submit proposed findings of fact. By Respondent Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Accepted as to the ultimate fact that the comment was made. Motivation is irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. First sentence is. Accepted and incorporated in the Finding of Fact. Second Sentence is irrelevant to the issues. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: George R. Hill, Superintendent School Board of St. Lucie County 2909 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Jack Gale, Esquire The Boston House 239 South Indian River Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire Asst. Gen. Counsel FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel B. Harrell, Esquire First Citizens Federal Building 1600 South Federal Highway, Suite 200 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 1988 LLOYD WRIGHT, Appellant, DOAH CASE NO: 87-1366 CASE NO. 87-2723 v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee. / Decision filed December 28, 1988 Appeal from the School Board of St. Lucie County. Lloyd Wright, Fort Pierce, pro se appellant. Daniel B. Harrell of Gonano, Harrell & Sherrard, Fort Pierce, for appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. HERSEY, C.J., DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. MANDATE from DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT This cause having been brought to this Court by appeal, and after due consideration the Court having issued its opinion; YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further proceedings be had in said cause in accordance with the opinion of this Court, and with the rules of procedure and laws of the State of Florida. WITNESS the Honorable George W. Hersey, Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, and seal of the said Court at West Palm Beach, Florida on this day DATE: January 13, 1989 CASE NO.: 87-2723 COUNTY OF ORIGIN: School Board of St. Lucie Co. T.C. CASE NO.: 87-1366 STYLE: Wright v. School Board of St. Lucie Clyde Heath Clerk of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District ORIGINAL TO: School Board of St. Lucie county cc: Lloyd Wright, pro se Daniel B. Harrell, Esquire
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause, within the meaning of Section 231.36(1), Florida Statutes (1997), to terminate Respondent's employment as a classroom teacher. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent as a member of the instructional staff at Beaumont Middle School, now known as Kissimmee Middle School ("Kissimmee"), pursuant to a written annual contract as required in Section 231.36(1). Respondent first taught at Kissimmee in the 1995-96 school year. Prior to that, Respondent taught school in Virginia. On November 29, 1996, Respondent was in his second year at Kissimmee. However, he had not yet signed his annual contract for the 1996-97 school year. On November 29, 1996, Respondent was arrested in the Florida Mall in Orange County, Florida. He was charged with indecent exposure of sexual organs. The charging affidavit alleges that Respondent masturbated while standing at a urinal in the men's room of a Sears department store in the Florida Mall. The affidavit also alleges that a male at an adjacent urinal also masturbated. Petitioner proceeded with disciplinary action against Respondent in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the contract between Petitioner and the Osceola Classroom Teachers Association. In a letter dated December 3, 1996, from Dr. Thomas McCraley, Superintendent, Osceola County School District, Petitioner suspended Respondent with pay. By letter dated December 16, 1996, Respondent requested an administrative hearing. On December 17, 1996, the Board voted unanimously to suspend Respondent without pay ". . . because the employee is requesting an administrative hearing." The Board referred the matter to DOAH to conduct an administrative hearing. The ultimate issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment. Just cause is defined in Section 231.36(1) to include misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. In the letter from Dr. McCraley, Petitioner expands the statutory definition of just cause to include immorality and misconduct other than misconduct in office. Dr. McCraley's letter is the only charging document in this case. The charging document is the instrument by which the Board provides Respondent with notice of the charges against him. The charging document states that there is just cause to terminate Respondent's employment based solely on: the alleged sexual acts, including masturbation; and the subsequent arrest. In relevant part, the charging document provides Respondent with notice of the following charges against him: This letter will serve to formally advise you that you are hereby suspended with pay from your position . . . effective immediately. Also, please be advised that I will recommend to the . . . . Board at the December 17, 1996 Board meeting that your contract with the School District be terminated. Please be advised that in the event you timely request a hearing, I will be recommending to the . . . Board that you be suspended without pay until this matter is fully adjudicated. Your recommended termination is based on the following information: On or about November 29, 1996 while you were on or about the Sears restroom in the Florida Mall . . . you were observed and did perform inappropriate and improper sexual acts in the presence of a minor person. These acts include . . . masturbation. You were thereafter arrested by law enforcement for those acts. The above-described acts and subsequent arrest constitute grounds under Section 231.36 . . . for your termination, including . . . misconduct in office, immorality, misconduct, and, if convicted of this offense, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. . . . The charging document does not charge that Respondent's teaching ability is impaired. However, Petitioner did disclose in its responses to interrogatories that it intended to present evidence relevant to this additional charge. Petitioner provided Respondent with adequate notice of the additional charge of impaired teaching ability. Evidence relevant to this additional charge did not exist when Petitioner issued the charging document. When Petitioner discovered such evidence, Petitioner properly disclosed the additional charge to Respondent during discovery. This proceeding is not penal in nature. It does not propose disciplinary action against Respondent's license. The original charges in the charging document are based solely on the alleged sexual acts in the men's room. The charges disclosed in the responses to discovery are based on alleged adverse publicity and its effect on the school environment. Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed any sexual acts in the men's room. Without proof of the underlying facts, Petitioner lacks just cause to terminate Respondent's employment on the grounds stated in the charging document. Just cause is statutorily defined to include the conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. Respondent was not convicted in criminal court of a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of Section 231.36(1). On August 4, 1997, the judge in the criminal case granted a motion for judgment of acquittal and excused the jury. The charge that Respondent engaged in sexual acts in the men's room is based solely on the observations of Deputy Steven Franklin of the Orange County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Franklin and Deputy Tina Durden were at the Florida Mall on November 29, 1996, to investigate complaints of homosexual acts committed in bathrooms at the mall. Deputy Franklin went into a men's room to urinate. He used a urinal adjacent to the urinal used by Respondent at the same time. Another male was adjacent to Respondent but on the opposite side of Respondent from Deputy Franklin. Deputy Franklin observed Respondent and the other male for less than two seconds. While he was waiting for a urinal, Deputy Franklin also observed Respondent from behind for a few minutes. However, Deputy Franklin could not observe Respondent's hands before he stood beside Respondent at the urinal. The observations by Deputy Franklin for less than two seconds are insufficient to determine whether Respondent was masturbating or voiding Respondent's urinary tract. Respondent has a medical history that makes it difficult for Respondent to determine whether his urinary tract is empty after he urinates. On November 29, 1996, Respondent went to the Florida Mall to obtain a fresh supply of a cleaning solution he used to avoid scratching reflective lenses in eyeglasses that Respondent purchased from Sears Optical in August 1996. The Sears Optical at the Florida Mall was the store location closest to Respondent's residence. However, it was approximately a 45- minute drive from Respondent's house. During the drive, Respondent drank a large bottle of water. He drank the water as part of the treatment for a kidney infection that developed after Respondent passed a kidney stone approximately two days prior to November 29, 1996. Respondent had a long medical history of kidney stones. Since 1972, Respondent had passed numerous kidney stones. After locating a parking place at the Florida Mall, Respondent needed to urinate. He went to the men's room adjacent to Sears Optical. Respondent had to wait for a urinal to become available. November 29, 1996, was the day after Thanksgiving, and the men's room was crowded. Respondent went to the first urinal that became available. He was at the urinal for no more than two minutes. When Respondent first attempted to urinate, he felt some pain in the kidney area. Respondent leaned forward to reduce the pain. He placed his left hand against the wall to avoid touching the urinal. Respondent was not sure he had voided all of the urine from his urinary tract. Respondent has no feeling in his penis due to an automobile accident that occurred in 1988. The automobile accident caused nerve damage. The loss of feeling makes it difficult for Respondent to determine whether or not he has emptied all of the urine from his urinary tract. To be sure all of the urine was eliminated from his urinary tract on November 29, 1996, Respondent shook and stroked his penis several times. Respondent's penis was not erect. Respondent can not have an erection without injection of a specific medication. Respondent has not had an injection since 1991 because the injections are painful and last for only a brief period. Deputy Franklin observed Respondent's hands and penis for less than two seconds and incorrectly concluded that Respondent was masturbating. In fact, Respondent was making sure there was no urine remaining in his urinary tract. While Respondent was at the urinal, he neither spoke to anyone nor touched anyone else. He was not aware of those around him other than a man standing behind him at the electric hand dryer who later identified himself as Deputy Franklin. After Respondent finished urinating, he washed his hands and left the men's room. He was arrested outside the men's room. Deputies Franklin and Durden also arrested the male who had used the urinal next to Respondent. The deputies escorted Respondent to a hearing aid store across from the waiting room of Sears Optical and told him to sit down. The deputies brought the other man to the area where Respondent was sitting. They asked Respondent and the other man if they knew each other. Both men stated that they did not know each other. The deputies searched and hand cuffed both men. The deputies detained both men for approximately 15 minutes. During that time, Respondent asked why he had been arrested but received no answer. The deputies then took both men in handcuffs through the mall to a security office near the hotel in the mall. Respondent remained at the security office for approximately three to four hours. While Respondent was in the security office, the deputies informed Respondent of the charges against him. Respondent repeatedly denied the charges. Respondent was taken to the 33rd Street jail at about 4:00 p.m. He was booked, photographed, finger printed, and placed in a holding cell. He was allowed to make a telephone call at about 5:00 p.m. Respondent telephoned one of his two sons and asked his son to provide bail. Respondent was allowed to leave the jail at about 8:00 p.m. As soon as Respondent reached his son's house, Respondent attempted to report the incident to Principal John Beall. Principal Beall was not available. Respondent telephoned Assistant Principal Karen Turner, who subsequently reported the incident to the principal. The decision to suspend Respondent with pay was made by Petitioner after a meeting on December 3, 1996, between Respondent, his representatives, and representatives for Petitioner. Petitioner did not undertake an independent investigation of the matter but relied solely on the police report, the arrest, statements by Petitioner's director of human resources, and the attorney for the Board. At the meeting, Respondent disclosed his medical condition and offered to provide documentation. He subsequently signed a medical authorization to release those records. At a meeting of the Board on December 17, 1996, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay. Respondent did not have an opportunity to discuss his case with the Board. The Board relied on the advice of its counsel who in turn relied solely on the criminal arrest and underlying documents. Two local newspapers covered the arrest and suspension of Respondent. The articles were first published after the Board voted to suspend Respondent without pay on December 17, 1996. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher is not impaired. A copy of a newspaper article was gratuitously distributed at Kissimmee in early January 1997. The publicity has not impaired Respondent's effectiveness with students, faculty, or parents. Approximately a dozen students, out of a student body of approximately 400, referred to the incident in class. The discussions were brief and dissipated after four or five days. Many of the students who discussed the matter in class have moved on to high school and are no longer at Kissimmee. Respondent has a very good rapport with students, even though he is strict and does not play or horse around with them. Teachers have not observed inappropriate behavior between Respondent and his students. Fellow teachers would like for Respondent to return to Kissimmee. Parents have not expressed any concern to Respondent's fellow teachers. One parent did complain to Assistant Principal Turner about Respondent. Respondent is a very competent and very dynamic teacher who exceeds the minimum requirements as a teacher at Kissimmee. He goes to great lengths to help students learn and communicate effectively. He assists parents and fellow teachers. Prior to Respondent's arrest, Respondent received excellent job evaluations. Principal Beall considered Respondent to be an excellent teacher who was creative, effective with students, a good manager of the classroom, and demonstrated independent initiative. Principal Beall chose Respondent to serve as a temporary dean and encouraged Respondent to attend a program designed to qualify Respondent as an assistant principal. Principal Beall and several other witnesses for Petitioner would not hesitate to reinstate Respondent at Kissimmee if the charges against him are not proven. Respondent has obtained an education that significantly exceeds the minimum educational qualifications prescribed in Section 231.17(1)(c) for an elementary or secondary teacher. Respondent earned a bachelor's degree and master's degree in education and geography, respectively, and also earned a PhD. degree in Christian counseling. Respondent has over 20 years of teaching experience in Virginia and Florida. Prior to this case, Respondent has never been disciplined by a school district in which he taught. Respondent has never been arrested prior to this case. Respondent is certified to teach in Virginia. He has met all of the requirements for renewal of his teaching certificate in Florida. He is awaiting the outcome of this proceeding before submitting the necessary paperwork for the renewal of his Florida teaching certificate. At the hearing, Petitioner charged for the first time that Respondent violated school regulations and policies contained in the faculty handbook. Petitioner argued that Respondent violated regulations and policies that prohibit faculty contact with students outside of the school by providing care and instruction to students after school. Respondent objected to the admission of evidence relevant to this charge on several grounds, including the ground that such evidence was not relevant to any charges in the charging document or in the responses to discovery and the ground that allowing such a charge to be made for the first time during the hearing violated essential due process requirements. The undersigned reserved ruling on the objection and heard evidence from both parties. Petitioner did not provide prior notice of the charge that Respondent violated regulations and policies in the faculty handbook. The failure to comply with essential requirements of due process precludes Petitioner from submitting evidence to support such charges. Even if Petitioner had complied with due process requirements, the evidence would not affect the outcome of this proceeding. Petitioner either failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated relevant regulations and policies in the faculty handbook, or Petitioner condoned the violations committed by Respondent. Respondent had previously been selected by his team of teachers to visit a student named Josh Harweger and Josh's mother in their home to address learning and behavioral problems experienced by Josh. Respondent conferred with Josh's mother at her home, on the telephone, and at school in conjunction with other members of the teaching team. One evening at about 11:00 p.m., Josh's mother came to Respondent's residence without notice and asked Respondent to care for her son overnight while she took care of a family emergency. Respondent agreed to allow Josh to spend the night in his home, which Respondent shared with his son and daughter-in- law and Respondent's other son. The next morning, Respondent informed three members of the Kissimmee staff, including Assistant Principal Turner, of the situation. Josh's mother did not return the next day as promised. In fact, she did not return until approximately five days had passed. Each day, Respondent informed Assistant Principal Turner of the situation. Petitioner condoned each stay. No other student ever spent the night at Respondent's house. Augustine Rivera is the other student for whom Petitioner asserts a violation of regulations and policies in the faculty handbook. Respondent's relationship with Augustine was strictly professional and conducted with the knowledge and consent of Augustine's mother. Augustine has a learning disability and was a student in Respondent's classes for three years. Respondent tutored Augustine after class, even after Augustine's mother was informed of the arrest on November 29, 1996. Augustine's mother drove Augustine to Respondent's house after school for tutoring. Augustine is now in high school. Respondent continues to tutor Augustine once or twice a week after school in Respondent's house with the approval of Augustine's mother. Respondent's tutoring after school has significantly improved Augustine's academic performance and ameliorated Augustine's behavioral problems. Out of gratitude for Respondent's assistance, Augustine has performed various home maintenance tasks for Respondent, including mowing the yard. Respondent and other members of his teaching team created a study jam-session after school for students who wanted academic assistance. The study jam-program had the prior approval of the principal. The study jam-sessions were in addition to Respondent's regular duties and did not relieve Respondent of this regular teaching responsibilities. Approximately eight to ten students went to Respondent's home for a cookout as a reward for exceeding their goals in the study jams. The students came with their parents or had parental permission. Petitioner condoned the cookouts. Respondent obtained the prior approval of the principal for the cookouts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of the underlying factual allegations, finding that there is not just cause to terminate Respondent's employment, and reinstating Respondent with back pay from December 17, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Thomas L. McCraley, Superintendent Osceola County School Board 817 Bill Beck Boulevard Kissimmee, Florida 34744-4495 G. Russell Petersen, Esquire 3339 Cardinal Drive, Suite 200 Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Joseph Egan, Jr., Esquire Egan, Lev and Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802
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 Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on her sex and by retaliating against her.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes (2008). As a Florida non-profit corporation, all of Respondent's activities are governed by its bylaws. Petitioner, a white female, has worked for Respondent off and on during the last five years. Most recently, Petitioner began working for Respondent on January 18, 2008, as a part-time food preparation (prep) worker and a part-time waitress in Respondent's restaurant. Petitioner accepted the job because she had recently left a full-time position with another employer due to the distance of that job from her house. As a prep worker, Petitioner earned a set hourly wage. Petitioner's responsibilities included assisting the chef in preparing meals and cleaning up the kitchen. The chef, Tony Mongone, directed Petitioner's kitchen work but he was not her supervisor. As a waitress, Petitioner earned $3.35 per hour plus tips. On Tuesdays and Fridays, Petitioner earned an average of $100 in tips per shift. Petitioner worked between five and six hours on Tuesday evenings and between five and eight hours on Friday evenings when Respondent served sit-down dinners to its members. On these occasions, Respondent's kitchen served an average of 200 dinners in a two-hour period of time. Petitioner also worked when Respondent catered for banquets and other special occasions. Petitioner worked a total of 41.66 hours in January 2008; 81.5 hours in February 2008; 45.13 hours in March 2008; and 71.17 hours in April 2008. She worked 10.32 hours for the first week in May 2008. Over the course of her 15.4 week term of employment, Petitioner averaged 16.23 hours per week. Although it varied according to the event, there were five to eight other servers or waitresses (all females) working along with Petitioner on any given night. There always were eight-to-10 workers in and around the kitchen, including the servers, the chef, one pizza maker, and the kitchen prep person. At all times relevant here, Linda Ferguson was the club manager and Petitioner's direct supervisor. Ms. Ferguson was responsible for day-to-day management of all club activities with the authority to enforce all club policies. Ms. Ferguson also was in charge of all aspects of hiring and terminating employees and managing volunteer personnel. Ms. Ferguson was in the restaurant on most Friday evenings. When Ms. Ferguson was not scheduled to work, the assistant manager, Carolyn Weeks, was on duty. On Petitioner’s first night as the kitchen prep worker, Chef Mongone was drinking from a pitcher of beer. Early in the evening, Chef Mongone made comments about her breasts, telling her they were nice and asking whether they were real. Later that evening, when the staff was cleaning the kitchen, Chef Mongone walked up behind Petitioner and touched her backside. Petitioner immediately turned on Chef Mongone, telling him assertively, "Don't ever do that again! How would you like it if someone did that to your wife?" Chef Mongone just stood there as Petitioner turned and walked away. Petitioner immediately informed Ms. Ferguson about the incident. Ms. Ferguson inquired whether Petitioner wanted her "to take care of it." Petitioner responded that she felt she "had already done so." Ms. Ferguson spoke to Chef Mongone about his drinking on the job and his inappropriate conduct. Chef Mongone responded in an insubordinate way, denying all allegations of improper conduct. Ms. Ferguson also spoke to Mike Mercante, Respondent's President at that time. Ms. Ferguson complained to Mr. Mercante about Chef Mongone's drinking and offensive conduct. In the following weeks, Chef Mongone sometimes raised his voice at Petitioner and she back at him. On days that Petitioner worked as a waitress, Chef Mongone held up Petitioner's food orders, causing delays in service that resulted in reduced tips for Petitioner. The delays in releasing Petitioner's food orders usually occurred after Petitioner and Chef Mongone exchanged angry words. On or about February 11, 2008, Petitioner was working as a waitress. When she placed her first food order, Chef Mongone began yelling at her for not putting her name and table number on the ticket. When Petitioner reached to retrieve the ticket, Chef Mongone told her not to touch it. At that point, Petitioner started yelling at Chef Mongone. Petitioner admits her response was not nice and describes herself as having "lost it." When Petitioner returned to the kitchen to get her next order, she overheard Chef Mongone telling the kitchen staff that she was stupid because she could not remember to put her name on a ticket. Once again Petitioner's temper got the best of her. Petitioner called Chef Mongone a drunk, triggering another argument with Chef Mongone. Despite the hard feelings between Chef Mongone and Petitioner, Chef Mongone made additional inappropriate remarks to Petitioner. On one occasion, Chef Mongone observed Petitioner wiping her hand on the seat of her pants. Chef Mongone then stated that he "would like to do that, too." On or about February 15, 2008, Petitioner was scheduled to work first as a prep worker and later as a waitress. While she was in the kitchen, she shared a bag of Valentine candy with the staff. When only one piece of candy was left, Petitioner asked Chef Mongone if he wanted it. Chef Mongone replied that he did not want the candy. However, when Petitioner put the candy in her mouth, Chef Mongone made some comment about the way Petitioner sucked the candy. Chef Mongone immediately stated that he did not mean for his comment to come out like it did. Nevertheless, Petitioner was offended and responded in a negative way. Sometime after February 15, 2008, Petitioner wrote a letter to the members of Respondent's Executive Board. The letter details Petitioner conflict with Chef Mongone. Petitioner gave the letter to Ms. Ferguson, who gave it to Mr. Mercante. February 15, 2008, was Petitioner's last day as a kitchen prep worker. From that time forward, Ms. Ferguson scheduled Petitioner to work only as a waitress in order to reduce the time Petitioner would have to spend in the kitchen. On February 20, 2008, Respondent's Executive Board had a meeting. At the meeting, the board members discussed Petitioner's letter. Chef Mongone attended the meeting and denied all allegations. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Executive Board directed one of its members to draft a letter of reprimand for Chef Mongone. In an internal memorandum dated February 22, 2008, Respondent's Executive Board advised Chef Mongone that he had been warned about his rule infractions and general behavior for the past recent months. According to the memorandum, Chef Mongone would receive no further warnings and any future infractions of club rules or Florida law would result in disciplinary action up to and including immediate termination of employment. Respondent does not have a written policy prohibiting sexual harassment. It does have a rule against drinking on duty. On or about May 6, 2008, Petitioner once again became upset at work because the kitchen was crowded and Chef Mongone yelled at her. Petitioner called her husband to complain that Chef Mongone had cursed at her, saying, "Bitch, get the f--- out of the kitchen.” Petitioner also alleged that Chef Mongone was holding up her food orders. When Petitioner's husband arrived at the restaurant, he met Petitioner, Chef Mongone, Ms. Weeks (Assistant Manager), and Lou Barletta (Respondent's Vice President) in the restaurant's parking lot. Petitioner's husband told Chef Mongone that Petitioner would show him respect if Chef Mongone demonstrated respect for Petitioner. The discussion in the parking lot was civil and ended with Chef Mongone and Petitioner's husband shaking hands. After the meeting, Chef Mongone made it clear that he could no longer work with Petitioner and that one of them had to go. Petitioner did not want to go back into the kitchen after the meeting. Ms. Weeks suggested that Petitioner go home until everything cooled down. Petitioner agreed and left the premises. Petitioner was scheduled to work the following Saturday. Before Petitioner reported to work, Ms. Ferguson talked to Mr. Mercante. After that conversation, Ms. Ferguson told Petitioner that she should not come back to work until Ms. Ferguson could replace Chef Mongone. Ms. Ferguson was actively looking for a new chef. After locating a replacement for Chef Mongone, Mr. Mercante would not approve the termination of Chef Mongone's employment. At the end of June 2008, Respondent did not renew Ms. Ferguson's contract. Ms. Weeks replaced Ms. Ferguson as Respondent's General Manager. Due to financial difficulties, Respondent did not hire an assistant manager when Ms. Weeks became the General Manager. Respondent also eliminated all table-busing positions, using volunteers to clear the tables. Respondent has not called anyone back to work after laying them off. Like Ms. Ferguson, Ms. Weeks had problems with Chef Mongone. She eventually hired a new chef and fired Chef Mongone due to his alcohol consumption at work. Petitioner initially drew unemployment compensation from Respondent's place of business. Except for a couple of days of work, Petitioner has been unemployed since May 6, 2008. She is still drawing unemployment compensation from her most recent employer. Petitioner acknowledges that the economy is the reason she has been unable to obtain a job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 25th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David Glasser, Esquire Glasser & Handel 116 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Mary Nelson Morgan, Esquire Cole, Stone, Stoudemire, and Morgan P.A. 201 North Hogan Street Suite 200 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent's Professional Service Contract should be terminated for just cause based on actions constituting misconduct in office within the meaning of Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2004),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Charlotte County Public School System. Art. IX, §4, Fla. Const. and §1001.30, Fla. Stat. Mr. LaGrange began his employment with the Board in 1991. In January 2005, Mr. LaGrange began teaching a new Health Careers and Occupations class at Port Charlotte High School. The class was a vocational educational course for low- functioning students and consisted of about 20 ninth-grade students. A.V., N.M., T.B., S.B., N.H., and B.H. were students in this class. Sometime in either March or April 2005, Mr. LaGrange made an inappropriate remark about A.V.'s appearance. The incident happened near the end of the class, while A.V. was drawing on the board with her back to the students. Mr. LaGrange stated: "Look at A.V.'s cute little ass" or words to that effect. This remark greatly embarrassed A.V. As A.V. was leaving Mr. LaGrange's classroom on the day of the incident, she yelled to Mr. LaGrange that it was a disgusting and perverted comment for him to make in front of the entire class. Other students, including N.M., N.H., T.B., and B.H., heard Mr. LaGrange make the sexually inappropriate remark about A.V. Although each student's recollection of the incident may vary concerning the exact words that Mr. LaGrange used, the students all agreed that Mr. LaGrange made an inappropriate remark about A.V.'s backside in front of the class. Mr. LaGrange also made some inappropriate remarks to N.M. He told her that "If I have a wet dream about you, I won't tell you" or words to that effect. Mr. LaGrange's comments made N.M. feel uncomfortable and caused her to view Mr. LaGrange as "weird." T.B. also heard Mr. LaGrange make comments in class concerning wet dreams. A.M., a female student, would sometimes come into Mr. LaGrange's classroom, kneel beside the desk of S.B., a male student, and watch S.B. draw. S.B. heard Mr. LaGrange comment to A.M. to the effect that she liked to be on her knees for guys a lot. S.B. also heard Mr. LaGrange tell N.M. that "for somebody who is a schoolgirl, you know a lot about sex." S.B. felt that the remarks were perverted. On April 28, 2005, Mr. LaGrange referred A.V. and N.M. to a school dean, Matthew Wheldon, for excessive gum chewing. Gum chewing is a minor infraction and is normally allowed in classrooms other than Mr. LaGrange's class. Mr. Wheldon asked the girls how things were going in Mr. LaGrange's class, and they confided in him about the inappropriate remarks that Mr. LaGrange had been making in the classroom. Mr. Wheldon referred the matter to the assistant principal, and an investigation ensued, resulting in Mr. LaGrange being suspended. After reviewing the investigation report and being made aware of two other times that Mr. LaGrange had been disciplined, the Superintendent of Schools for the School Board of Charlotte County recommended to the Board that Mr. LaGrange be dismissed from his teaching position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the actions of Leonard LaGrange constitute just cause to dismiss him from his employment with the Charlotte County School Board, and terminating his Professional Services Contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Pinellas County School Board (Petitioner) has just cause for terminating the employment of Gerald A. DiPanfilo (Respondent).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner under a professional services contract. The Respondent has worked as a Pinellas County teacher for approximately 27 years, serving as an art teacher at Seminole High School for approximately one-half of his career with the Petitioner. On July 11, 2007, the Respondent went to "Grand Central," an apparently "gay bar" located in downtown St. Petersburg, Florida. The Respondent testified at the hearing that he had been at the lounge with friends. After drinking excessively, he decided to go home and asked the bartender to call for a cab to transport him to his condominium. As he waited for the cab to arrive, he sat at the bar. J.G., a male who had just turned 17 years old on June 23, 2007, and who was enrolled in the Pinellas County School System, was also in the lounge as the same time as the Respondent. The Respondent testified that he had limited conversation with J.G. while in the tavern. There is no evidence that the Respondent knew that J.G. was enrolled in the Pinellas County School System. The Respondent testified that, when the cab arrived, he got into the cab and that J.G. "forced" himself into the cab with the Respondent. He testified that he exited the cab at a Publix grocery store about one and a half blocks from his residence, that he apparently walked alone to his condominium, and that, when he entered the ground-floor garage to obtain cigarettes from his car, he discovered J.G. waiting. The Respondent's testimony failed to indicate at what point J.G. exited the cab, why the Respondent would have exited the cab at Publix, or how J.G. would have known where the Respondent's condo was located. The Respondent testified that J.G. asked for a drink of water and the Respondent, despite asserting that he "was a little nervous," admitted the stranger into his residence. The Respondent testified that, after entering the residence, J.G. began "pulling his shirt up." The Respondent also testified as follows: I'm not sure whether he was taking his pants off or not. But at the time I made a gesture of some sort, and I said Whoa. And he said, May I borrow your cell phone or may I borrow your phone. And he took my phone, and he went out into the hallway, which I started to get suspicious at that point of why did he need to use--talk out in the hall. So I went out there immediately. The Respondent testified that he re-entered his condo and noticed his car keys were missing. He testified that he called the cell phone and J.G. answered. The Respondent testified that he then called the police and reported his car as stolen. The Respondent testified that there was never any discussion with J.G. about obtaining drugs. The Respondent denied any discussion with J.G. about having sex or paying for sexual activity. The Respondent denied that J.G. made any statement about age. The Respondent's testimony as to the events of the evening lacked sufficient clarity to be reliable and are not credited. J.G. testified that he entered the "Grand Central" to get a glass of water. J.G. testified that he was not gay, but acknowledged being aware that "Grand Central" was apparently widely-known to have gay customers "because it's full of gay people in there." J.G. testified that he interacted with the Respondent with the intention of hustling him for money. J.G. testified that the Respondent offered to buy him a drink, but that the bartender refused to serve alcohol to J.G., who did not have identification. J.G. testified that the Respondent offered him a "ride home" and he accepted. J.G. testified that the two took the cab to the Respondent's condo and did not talk during the cab ride. J.G. testified that, after arriving at the condo, the Respondent asked if J.G. could obtain drugs, and J.G. said he could; that J.G. and the Respondent then walked to a nearby Publix; and that the Respondent obtained money from the ATM. J.G. testified that they returned to and entered the Respondent's condo and that the Respondent "approached him" with his pants down. J.G. testified that he remained fully clothed while at the Respondent's residence, while the Respondent touched J.G.'s body "everywhere" including his genitals for a period of five to seven minutes. J.G. testified that he told the Respondent at some point during the evening that he was 17 years old "because I wasn't feeling what was going on at the time." While at the Respondent's residence, J.G. pretended to call the supposed resource (his cousin) to obtain drugs, after which J.G. left to obtain the drugs with the Respondent's cash, his car, and his cell phone. J.G. testified that he had no intention of returning to the Respondent's residence. As part of an investigation into the alleged auto theft, the Respondent was interviewed by a law enforcement officer and submitted a written statement to the police. In the written statement, the Respondent wrote that he "messed around briefly" with the person who had allegedly stolen the vehicle. After reviewing the information, the matter was subsequently referred to a second law enforcement officer for the purpose of conducting an investigation into the alleged sexual activity with a minor. According to the testimony of the officer investigating the sexual activity, the Respondent stated that he and J.G. had been kissing in the cab and that, after arriving at the condo, the two had undressed and had rubbed each other's penises. The officer noted that the Respondent stated he might have given money to the minor, but was not sure. The Respondent indicated that he believed J.G. to have been of legal age. At the hearing, the Respondent testified that he had no recollection of making the admissions of sexual activity between himself and J.G. to the police investigator and was unsure why he made the statements. The officer also interviewed J.G. and testified that J.G. stated that he had advised the Respondent of his age during the cab ride. The officer also testified that J.G. stated that the Respondent gave money to J.G. in exchange for sex and drugs and that, after returning to the Respondent's residence, the two had physical contact but that J.G. remained dressed during the contact. J.G. has a substantial criminal arrest record, given his age, for various drug offenses as well as battery, burglary, and grand theft. He was charged with auto theft in connection with taking the Respondent's car. J.G. acknowledged at the hearing that he had previously stated that he was willing to allege sexual activity with the Respondent in an attempt to avoid being charged with auto theft. The greater weight of the evidence presented at the hearing established that the Respondent engaged in sexual activity with J.G. on July 11, 2007, or very early on the morning of the following day. This finding is specifically based upon the admissions made by the Respondent to the investigators; admissions that the Respondent continued to make over a period of several days as the investigation proceeded. As a teacher, the Respondent has an obligation to ascertain the age of persons with whom he is involved. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent realistically considered whether or not J.G. was of legal age. Students at Seminole High School became aware of publicity related to the events of July 11, 2007, and some students posted copies of newspaper articles on campus. Administrators were contacted by some parents who had various concerns. The school principal and a district administrator testified that they believed the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired as a result of the events of July 11, 2007. Prior to the date of these events, the Respondent had been convicted of a DUI offense, but the Petitioner had not yet taken any related disciplinary action. The employment of a Pinellas County teacher would not be routinely terminated on the basis of the Respondent's DUI conviction. While the allegations related to the events of July 11 were being investigated, the Petitioner reassigned the Respondent to work in the district warehouse, where he had numerous absences from work. The Respondent testified without contradiction as to his mental state of mind during this period to explain the absences. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent's employment should be terminated solely on the basis of the absences.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order terminating the employment of Gerald A. DiPanfilo. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Pinellas County School Board policies related to sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual conduct with students, and inappropriate relationships with students, and if so, whether the violations constitute just cause for her dismissal as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dorothy Simon (Respondent), has been employed as a teacher by the Pinellas County School Board (School Board) since 1980. Her entire teaching career in the Pinellas County School District has been spent at the Pinellas Technical Education Center (PTEC). Pursuant to her employment, Respondent was issued a professional services contract. During the 1995-96 school year, Respondent taught an electronics technology course at PTEC in which approximately twenty-six (26) to thirty (30) students were enrolled. The course lasted one year, and upon completion of the course work, the students received a certificate. Except for one seventeen year old who was enrolled in the course, all of the students in Respondent's class were between the ages of twenty (20) and forty-eight (48) years old. On or about March 1996, a male student named Thomas Mitchell, who was approximately forty (40) years of age, enrolled in the electronics technology course taught by Respondent. Mitchell, who was not married, held himself out as an ordained minister and told Respondent that he wanted to be called "Reverend Mitchell". Consequently, Respondent as well as students in the class referred to and addressed Thomas Mitchell as Reverend Mitchell. On or about July 15, 1996, Mr. Mitchell gave the Respondent a letter in which Mr. Mitchell expressed a physical and emotional attraction to her and discussed starting a relationship with the Respondent. Prior to July 19, 1996, while on school premises, Respondent approached Mr. Mitchell and asked him if he would accompany her and her thirteen year old daughter to the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, and act as their bodyguard during their stay. On or about July 19, 20 and 21, 1996, Mr. Mitchell accompanied Respondent and her daughter to the Summer Olympics in Atlanta. Mr. Mitchell drove the Respondent's car to Atlanta. While in Atlanta, Mr. Mitchell stayed with Respondent and her daughter in a hotel room which Respondent had reserved and paid for a year in advance. Respondent paid for Mr. Mitchell's meals and gave him $50.00 spending money. Mitchell later return the $50.00 to Respondent. After class, on or about July 22, 1996, Respondent drove several students to a nearby bus stop and Mr. Mitchell to Workforce, a center near PTEC where he tutored children. While Respondent was driving Mr. Mitchell to Workforce, she asked him if he would house-sit for her while she and her daughter were on vacation for two weeks. The Respondent offered to pay Mr. Mitchell $100.00 each week, and in return he was to feed her pets, clean her pool and live in her house while she was vacationing. Mr. Mitchell accepted the Respondent's offer. After class, on July 25, 1996, the last day of school before the summer break, Respondent drove several students to the bus stop and gave Mr. Mitchell a ride to his mother's apartment where he lived. Both the bus stop and Mr. Mitchell's mother's apartment were in the vicinity of PTEC. Respondent had given Mitchell a ride home on one other occasion and often gave other students rides to various places when they so requested. Shortly after Respondent dropped Mr. Mitchell off at his mother's apartment, while driving home, Respondent was involved in an automobile accident in which Respondent's vehicle struck a teen-age girl. After police and paramedics arrived at the scene of the accident, Respondent remained on the scene. However, about one hour after their arrival, the police who were investigating the accident advised Respondent to go home. Respondent was quite shaken, and did not feel that she was in any condition to drive herself home. Rather than driving herself home, Respondent went to Mr. Mitchell's residence, which was nearby, and asked him to drive her home. Mr. Mitchell complied with Respondent's request. On the way to Respondent's house, Mitchell and Respondent made two stops. The first stop was at a bank where the Respondent made a cash withdrawal for the $200.00 that she was going to give Mr. Mitchell for house-sitting. The second stop was at a liquor store where Mr. Mitchell, at the Respondent's request, went inside and purchased a bottle of vodka. Mr. Mitchell then drove Respondent home and when they arrived, Respondent had one drink of orange juice and vodka. Respondent then went into her swimming pool to calm herself and was shortly thereafter joined by Mr. Mitchell. While both were in the pool, Respondent asked Mr. Mitchell to hug her because she wanted to be comforted. Mr. Mitchell then hugged Respondent and the two engaged in sexual intercourse. On or about July 27, 1996, Respondent and her daughter drove to Mr. Mitchell's residence and picked him up. Mr. Mitchell accompanied Respondent and her daughter to a swim meet in which the daughter was participating. After the swim meet, Mr. Mitchell drove the Respondent and her daughter to the airport for their departure on a two-week vacation. Mr. Mitchell returned to Respondent's home and house- sat for Respondent for two weeks while she was away on vacation, pursuant to their previously made agreement. As promised, Respondent paid Mr. Mitchell $100.00 per week for house-sitting. While on vacation, Respondent received one phone call from Mr. Mitchell in which he requested an additional $100.00. Respondent wired Mr. Mitchell the $100.00. When Respondent returned from vacation, she found that Mr. Mitchell had trashed and vandalized her house. She later determined that Mitchell had run up an exorbitant phone bill and had stolen approximately $2,300 from her by making unauthorized cash withdrawals on a credit card that had been mailed to her home while she was away. When school began at PTEC in August 1996, Mr. Mitchell was still enrolled as a student in Respondent's electronics technology course. At that time Mr. Mitchell had approximately two weeks of course work remaining to be completed in order to receive a certificate of completion. Upon returning to PTEC after the summer break, Respondent went to see Dr. Warren Laux, Director at PTEC, concerning Mr. Mitchell. Respondent was afraid of Mr. Mitchell, and requested that he be removed from her class because she did not want to come in contact with him. Respondent explained that Mr. Mitchell house-sat for her during a two-week vacation and left the house a mess, stole money from her and ran up an exorbitant phone bill during his stay. Because she had notified police of these incidents involving Mr. Mitchell, the Respondent told Dr. Laux that the situation created a conflict for her if Mr. Mitchell remained in her class. During their discussion, Dr. Laux asked Respondent if there had been any sexual relationship between herself and Mr. Mitchell. The Respondent stated that she had sex with Mr. Mitchell on one occasion. However, Respondent did not give details of the time, place, or circumstances surrounding that encounter. Dr. Laux explained to Respondent that for the moment it appeared that Mr. Mitchell had done nothing which violated the Student Code of Conduct and, accordingly, there was no valid reason to remove him from her class. During August 1996, Respondent told some students in her class that the person who had house-sat for her when she was away on vacation had trashed her house. However, Respondent did not identify Mr. Mitchell as that person. During August 1996, while in her classroom, Respondent told Mr. Mitchell that she would rather scratch his eyes out than have him in her class. At the time this comment was made by Respondent, there were students in the classroom, but on the other side of the room. Respondent's comments to Mr. Mitchell were not made loudly enough for other students to hear. The School Board's Office of Professional Standards conducted an investigation regarding the allegations that the Respondent had been involved with a student. As a part of this investigation, Respondent was interviewed on three occasions: August 28, 1996; September 3, 1996; and mid-September 1996. During each interview, Respondent admitted that on one occasion she had engaged in sexual intercourse with one of her students, Thomas Mitchell. Respondent's conduct impaired her effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent failed to maintain a professional relationship with her student Thomas Mitchell and used her position to enter into a personal relationship with him. Once that relationship deteriorated, as admitted by Respondent, it was impossible for her to work with that student, and her effectiveness was significantly impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be dismissed from her position as a teacher with the Pinellas County School Board.DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin Assistant School Board Attorney Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East Seventh Avenue Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Ms. Dorothy Simon 6315 Eight Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission may revoke or suspend John T. Guzalak's Florida teaching certificate, or otherwise discipline Mr. Guzalak, for violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint entered September 21, 1992?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Betty Castor, as Commissioner of Education, on behalf of the EPC, is authorized to discipline individuals holding Florida teaching certificates. The Respondent is John T. Guzalak. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Guzalak held Florida teaching certificate number 615516. Mr. Guzalak is certified to teach English and Speech. Mr. Guzalak's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1995. From approximately August of 1987, until June of 1992, Mr. Guzalak served as a teacher for the Okaloosa County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"). Mr. Guzalak's Attendance at Choctawhatchee Senior High School. Mr. Guzalak attended, and graduated from, Choctawhatchee Senior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Choctaw"). Mr. Guzalak graduated from Choctaw in 1981. Choctaw is a high school located in Okaloosa County, Florida. Choctaw has approximately 2,000 students, 117 to 120 teachers and a total of approximately 160 employees. While a student at Choctaw, Mr. Guzalak was active in debate and drama. His drama teacher was Mary Jo Yeager. Ms. Yeager was so impressed with Mr. Guzalak's acting ability that she cast him in the male leading role of essentially every play produced at Choctaw while Mr. Guzalak was a student there. Ms. Yeager and Mr. Guzalak developed a friendship and still remain friends. Mr. Guzalak's Employment by the School Board. After Mr. Guzalak had graduated from Choctaw and was attending college, Mr. Guzalak informed Ms. Yeager that he was interested in becoming a teacher. Ms. Yeager, who was planning to retire in a few years, talked to Richard G. Bounds, the Principal at Choctaw, about the possibility of Mr. Guzalak replacing her when she retired. Prior to August, 1987, Mr. Guzalak applied for a teaching position with the School Board as a teacher at Meigs Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as "Meigs"). Ms. Yeager recommended that Mr. Guzalak be hired. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Meigs and began his employment with the School Board in August, 1987. Mr. Guzalak taught speech/drama and English during the 1987-1988 school year at Meigs. The Stage Crafters' Party. In January, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a local theatre group known as Stage Crafters. The group presented a play in which Mr. Guzalak participated during that month. Mr. Guzalak organized and gave a party for the cast of Stage Crafters after the presentation of the play. The party was held at the home of Mr. Guzalak's parents, where Mr. Guzalak lived until approximately August, 1991. Mr. Guzalak invited all students in his speech/drama classes at Meigs to attend the Stage Crafters' party. Mr. Guzalak invited his students because he thought it would be beneficial for his students to meet and talk to individuals who were involved in drama and who had more experience with acting. Mr. Guzalak had alcoholic beverages available for his guests during the Stage Crafters' party. A table was set up where guests were able to obtain alcoholic drinks. Adults drank alcoholic beverage in front of Mr. Guzalak's students during the party. Alcohol was consumed in the presence of students who were under the legal age required to consume alcoholic beverages. The evidence failed to prove that students who were not legally old enough to drink alcohol who were at the Stage Crafters' party were encouraged or allowed to drink alcoholic beverages. The evidence also failed to prove that underage students were in fact drinking in the presence of Mr. Guzalak or that Mr. Guzalak drank alcoholic beverages in front of any underage students. The testimony of Chris Hutcherson, a student at Meigs at the time of the party, concerning the party was contradicted by the testimony of Aaron Utley, another student at Meigs at the time, and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak testified that the underage students who attended the Stage Crafters' party were mainly relegated to half of the house and the adults and alcohol were located, and the consumption of alcoholic beverages took place, in the other half of the house. Mr. Guzalak testified that this separation of his underage students from the adults consuming alcohol was deliberate and intended to mitigate the extent to which alcohol would be consumed in front of his underage students. This testimony contradicts the purpose for which Mr. Guzalak indicated the students were invited to the Stage Crafters' party and is rejected. Mr. Guzalak simply failed to exercise good judgement when he allowed his underage students to attend a party without also inviting their parents when he knew that alcoholic beverages would be consumed. Mr. Guzalak was counseled by Bobby Smith, Principal at Meigs and Mr. Guzalak's supervisor, after Mr. Smith learned of the party. Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Smith that he had not consumed alcohol in the presence of his students at the party. Mr. Guzalak did admit that alcoholic beverages had been consumed in front of his students, although he minimized the extent to which alcohol had been consumed. Mr. Smith counseled Mr. Guzalak about his lack of judgement in allowing his underage students to attend a party where alcohol was being consumed. Meigs Student-Cast Dinner. In May, 1988, Mr. Guzalak was involved with a play presented at Meigs. The cast of the play consisted of Meigs students. After the play, Mr. Guzalak took the cast of the play to dinner at a restaurant. Some parents also attended the dinner. Mr. Guzalak failed to inform Mr. Smith or anyone else in the Meigs administration about the dinner. During the dinner Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of the students, who were too young to legally consume alcoholic beverages, and the parents who attended the dinner. After the dinner about five students stayed to talk to Mr. Guzalak after everyone else had departed. When Mr. Guzalak was ready to take the students home who had stayed, he let one of the students drive his automobile. The student driver was 15 years of age at the time. The student driver had a learners' driving permit which allowed her to drive with an adult in the automobile. The student driver took the other students home and then drove to her own home. Mr. Guzalak then drove himself home from the home of the student that had driven his automobile. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had allowed the student driver to drive his automobile because he was concerned about the fact that he had consumed a glass of wine. This testimony is inconsistent with Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not give the drinking of the glass of wine with dinner in the presence of the students any thought, one way or the other, and is not credible. Mr. Guzalak allowed the student to drive his automobile that evening because Mr. Guzalak wanted to be accepted by students as a friend and not just a teacher. Consuming alcoholic beverages in front of students is against the policies of the School Board. Mr. Smith and Mr. Guzalak had previously discussed the inappropriateness of a teacher consuming alcohol in front of students as a result of the Stage Crafters' party. Despite this prior warning, Mr. Guzalak again exercised poor judgement and failed to adhere to School Board policy. Mr. Smith was informed of the dinner and spoke to Mr. Guzalak about it. Mr. Smith admonished Mr. Guzalak for drinking alcohol in front of his students. A few days after their discussion, Mr. Guzalak was given a formal, written reprimand by Mr. Smith. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Mr. Guzalak was specifically reprimanded for drinking alcohol in front of his students. He was also informed that he was required "to discuss any and all school sponsored activities with [Mr. Smith] before they occur." See Petitioners' Exhibit 2. During Mr. Smith's conference with Mr. Guzalak, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Smith about why it was improper for him to consume alcohol in front of students under the circumstances of the cast dinner. Mr. Guzalak found it difficult to understand why the drinking of a glass of wine with dinner in the presence of students by a teacher was inappropriate. Mr. Guzalak's Employment at Choctaw. Ms. Yeager decided to retire from Choctaw after the 1988-1989 school year. She recommended that Mr. Bounds hire Mr. Guzalak to be her replacement. Mr. Bounds questioned Mr. Smith about Mr. Guzalak's performance at Meigs. Mr. Smith informed Mr. Bounds of the dinner incident when Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in the presence of students and provided Mr. Bounds with a copy of the written reprimand, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, that Mr. Smith had given to Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Bounds, Mr. Guzalak's supervisor at Choctaw, discussed Mr. Smith's written reprimand with Mr. Guzalak prior to, or soon after, Mr. Guzalak's employment at Choctaw. Mr. Bounds cautioned Mr. Guzalak about consuming alcohol in front of underage students. This was the third time that Mr. Guzalak had been cautioned about the inappropriateness of consuming alcohol in front of underage students. Mr. Guzalak was hired to teach at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak began his employment at Choctaw in August of 1989. Mr. Guzalak taught at Choctaw during the 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992 school years. Part of his duties included coaching the forensic teams. The 1990-1991 School Year--Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak developed and maintained relationships with several Choctaw students which went beyond the appropriate and acceptable teacher- student relationship. Those relationships were more typical of the relationships that students develop among themselves. During the 1990-1991 school year students would go to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit. Students who went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year included Sarah Stimac, David Barron, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul, Kevin Mock, Richard "Matt" Schoditsch, David Hodges, Thomas Ignas and Ross Foster. Sarah Stimac, Bobby Arnold, Steve Bucci, Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were seniors at Choctaw during the 1990-1991 school year. David Barron was a sophomore at Choctaw. David Hodges and Thomas Ignas were juniors at Choctaw. Matt Schoditsch and Ross Foster were also students at Choctaw. Initially, students began going to Mr. Guzalak's home for school- related purposes. They went for assistance from Mr. Guzalak with school subjects, to practice for plays and to practice for forensic team competitions. Students eventually began visiting Mr. Guzalak's home primarily for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak allowed students to come to Mr. Guzalak's home to visit without invitation, without informing Mr. Guzalak they were coming and without asking for Mr. Guzalak's permission. While at Mr. Guzalak's home, students would watch movies, listen to music, play music, play chess, talk and "just hang out." Mr. Guzalak's characterization of student visits as tending to be "academic in nature" is rejected. At some time during the Fall of 1990, Mr. Guzalak invited a group of students who had formed a rock band to come to his home to practice for an upcoming pep rally. Bobby Arnold was one of the first students to be invited to practice at Mr. Guzalak's home. Eventually, the students included Steve Bucci, Kevin Foster and John Randall. A few other students would join in on occasion. At some point, students, including those mentioned in the foregoing finding of fact, would go to Mr. Guzalak's home and just play music as opposed to practicing for some upcoming event. Other students, including Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock would listen. The music sessions were social in nature and were not school related. Bobby Arnold's suggestion that the students and Mr. Guzalak, in addition to playing music, would talk about books is rejected to the extent that Bobby Arnold was suggesting an academic purpose for his visits. As Steve Bucci described the visits, they were "jam sessions." Bobby Arnold went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least five to seven times during the 1990-1991 school year. Steve Bucci indicated that the music sessions at Mr. Guzalak's home took place two times a month and more often if he was getting ready for a talent show. Matt Schoditsch went to Mr. Guzalak's home at least six times. Matt Schoditsch's testimony that he only went to Mr. Guzalak's home for academic purposes and not for social reasons was contradicted by many of the other witnesses in this proceeding, including Mr. Guzalak, and is rejected. Mr. Schoditsch's suggestion that students would "be sitting there reading a book or something . . . Magazines" is rejected. Even Mr. Guzalak admitted that students came for social reasons. David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home more than twelve times and less than twenty times. During three to five of those visits by David Barron went to Mr. Guzalak's home, beer was consumed by underage students in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Matt Schoditsch, Kevin Foster, Patrick Peavy and others were at Mr. Guzalak's home at times that David Barron saw beer consumed by underage students in front of Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak also consumed beer in David Barron's presence and the presence of other underage students. The beer consumed by David Barron was either provided by Mr. Guzalak or Mr. Barron brought his own beer. On one of the occasions where Mr. Guzalak provided beer to David Barron at Mr. Guzalak's home, it was a type of beer that David Barron had not seen before. Mr. Guzalak said that he got the beer when he had gone north to visit his parents. On one occasion Mr. Guzalak drank a glass of wine in front of Kevin Mock. This took place despite the fact that Mr. Guzalak had previously been counselled by Mr. Smith (twice) and Mr. Bounds about the impropriety of drinking alcohol in front of students. Mr. Guzalak offered Kevin Mock a drink of the wine and Mr. Mock took it. Sarah Stimac also went to Mr. Guzalak's home during the 1990-1991 school year. Patrick Peavy started taking Ms. Stimac to Mr. Guzalak's. Mr. Peavy was Ms. Stimac's boy friend during the 1990-1991 school year. Mr. Peavy and Ms. Stimac had started doing things with a group of their friends during the summer of 1989 and by the end of the summer they had developed a relationship. Sarah Stimac began going to Mr. Guzalak's home because Patrick Peavy and his friends, primarily Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock, liked to go there and they went there often. On one occasion during the 1990-1991 school year, Sarah Stimac saw Mr. Guzalak and Eric Gaul smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home in the guest rest room. They used a "bong", a pipe-like device used for smoking marijuana. Ms. Stimac also witnessed Patrick Peavy and Kevin Mock smoke marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Mock admitted to Martha Clemons, his girl friend during part of the 1990-1991 school year, that he had smoked marijuana at Mr. Guzalak's home. Sarah Stimac also saw marijuana smoked and alcoholic beverages consumed on at least one other occasion at Mr. Guzalak's home. Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock visited Mr. Guzalak's home more frequently than other students. By their own admissions, they went to Mr. Guzalak's home, on average, from two to three times a week. Contrary to Mr. Guzalak's testimony that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock were rarely at his home at the same time, Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's together or were at Mr. Guzalak's home at the same time often based upon their own admissions. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Peavy, Mr. Gaul and Mr. Mock went to Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis. Sarah Stimac substantiated the fact that Patrick Peavy went to Mr. Guzalak's home frequently. She went with him approximately six times. She also picked him up at Mr. Guzalak's and she telephoned Mr. Peavy at Mr. Guzalak's home. Mr. Peavy told Ms. Stimac and his parents that he was going to Mr. Guzalak's home more often than he actually went. Mr. Peavy lied to Ms. Stimac and his parents so that he could do other things without Ms. Stimac or so that he could do things that his parents would not let him do if he told them the truth. This gave Ms. Stimac the impression that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home more often then he actually was. Despite this fact, the weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Peavy was at Mr. Guzalak's home on a frequent and regular basis for non-academic purposes. The 1990-1991 School Year Initiation Night. At some time during the Fall of 1990, an annual event, referred to as "Initiation Night," took place at Choctaw. Groups of students at Choctaw traditionally go out together on Initiation Night. On Initiation Night during the Fall of 1990, Sarah Stimac drove Angie Smallwood to Mr. Guzalak's home at approximately 9:00 p.m. to pick up Patrick Peavy. Mr. Peavy had told Ms. Stimac that he would be there. Mr. Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock were at Mr. Guzalak's home and were picked up by Ms. Stimac. After Sarah Stimac picked up Patrick Peavy, he told Ms. Stimac that he had been drinking and that he had smoked marijuana and taken LSD. The evidence, however, failed to prove where these events took place. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was present when these events took place or that he was aware of what had happened. After leaving Mr. Guzalak's home, Ms. Stimac and the students she picked up went to a local pizza restaurant and met other students, including Matt Schoditsch. The students then went to a bayou where they built a fire. Eric Gaul had a bottle of spiced rum. At some point during the evening Okaloosa County sheriff's deputies appeared. When they did, despite the cold evening, Patrick Peavy, who had been swinging on a rope swing over the water, fell into the water. Whether Mr. Peavy did so because he was startled (as he testified) or because he was trying to get rid of the marijuana and LSD he had in his pocket (as Ms. Stimac testified) need not be decided. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was directly involved in this incident. It is also not necessary to decide whether Mr. Peavy had drugs in his pocket because the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak had anything to do with any such drugs. After Eric Gaul admitted that the bottle of spiced rum he had, and which the deputies had found, was his and he had convinced the deputies that he had a stranger buy the rum for him at a liquor store, the students were allowed to leave. Although Mr. Gaul, after getting into Ms. Stimac's automobile, stated that he had been given the rum by Mr. Guzalak, the evidence failed to prove the truth of this hearsay statement. After the incident at the bayou the students went back to Mr. Guzalak's home. The 1990-1991 School Year Senior Prom. The day of the 1990-1991 school year senior prom, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy had a fight and broke off their relationship. They did, however, go to the prom together that night. The prom was held at a local motel. Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy rented a room at the motel. At some time before the prom was over, Sarah Stimac and Patrick Peavy went to the room they had rented. Mr. Guzalak came to the room to visit. Mr. Peavy had invited Mr. Guzalak. Mr. Guzalak left after Ms. Stimac gave Mr. Peavy an ultimatum that either Mr. Guzalak leave or she would, and Mr. Peavy asked Mr. Guzalak to leave. Mr. Guzalak stayed approximately five to fifteen minutes. Although there was alcohol in Ms. Stimac's and Mr. Peavy's room, the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was aware of the alcohol or that anyone was drinking while Mr. Guzalak was there. The 1990-1991 Spring Break Canoe Trip. During the spring break of April, 1991, a student party was organized. The party consisted of a canoe trip down a local river. The party was not a school-sponsored event. Mr. Guzalak was invited to come on the 1991 canoe trip. Although Mr. Guzalak remembered that he was invited by one or more students, Mr. Guzalak, who had an excellent memory for most details, could not remember the names of any student that invited him. Mr. Guzalak spent most of the trip with Patrick Peavy, Eric Gaul and Kevin Mock. There were about 120 students who participated in the canoe trip. They met at the Choctaw parking lot the morning of the trip. During the canoe trip, underage students were drinking beer. They did so openly and in Mr. Guzalak's presence. Mr. Guzalak was offered beer at least ten times by underage students. Kevin Mock admitted that he drank beer in front of Mr. Guzalak during the trip. Mr. Guzalak did not make any effort to stop any of the underage students from drinking alcoholic beverages. Mr. Guzalak's testimony that there was nothing he could do about students drink beer on the trip is not credible. Mr. Guzalak had a duty and responsibility to attempt to stop underage students from drinking beer. Even if Mr. Guzalak's testimony that he did not attempt to stop the drinking because of the number of students involved was credible (which it is not), his testimony did not explain why he did not say something to those students who were bold enough to offer him a beer and then students who he came into contact with that were drinking beer By allowing the consumption of alcohol in his presence by students who were under the legal drinking age, Mr. Guzalak condoned their illegal behavior. When a teacher allows the violation of one law, it becomes difficult for the teacher to enforce other laws and rules governing student conduct. Mr. Guzalak failed to report the incident to Mr. Bounds or any other administrative employees at Choctaw. Mr. Guzalak should not have just ignored the fact that students, some of whom were his students, had blatantly violated the law in his presence. The 1991-1992 School Year--Mr. Bounds Second Warning. In approximately August of 1991, Patrick Peavy's father spoke to Mr. Bounds about his belief that his son was drinking alcohol and using drugs at Mr. Guzalak's home. The evidence failed to prove what basis, if any, Mr. Peavy had for his suspicions at the time he made his complaint. As a result of the concerns raised by Patrick Peavy's father, Mr. Bounds spoke to Mr. Guzalak. The conversation took place on approximately September 19, 1991. Among other things, Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that a parent had reported that students were frequenting Mr. Guzalak's home and that alcohol and drugs were being used there. Mr. Bounds told Mr. Guzalak that the parent had followed his child to Mr. Guzalak's home. While Mr. Guzalak admitted to Mr. Bounds that students were frequenting his home, he denied that alcohol was being consumed or that drugs were being used. Mr. Bounds explained to Mr. Guzalak why it was not a good idea to allow students to come to his home. Mr. Guzalak, however, did not agree with Mr. Bounds' concerns over the possible pitfalls of forming personal, social relationships with his students. On September 24, 1991, Mr. Bounds wrote a memorandum to Mr. Guzalak "to reiterate my position regarding our conversation in my office on Thursday, September 19, 1991." Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also stated the following in the memorandum: During our conversation you related to me that students from our school were invited and allowed to visit your home for non-academic reasons. Furthermore, you related to me that students from our school are not discouraged by you to establish a personal friendship with you. These personal friendships are encouraged by your participating in non-school related activities. You are hereby notified that all future contact with students from our school should be exclusively of a professional and academic nature. Moreover, meetings with our students should be held on our school property exclusively unless express permission is obtained from me. Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Mr. Bounds also arranged for Mr. Guzalak to meet with Annette Lee (formerly, Annette Francis), Personnel Director of the School Board. Ms. Lee, who was Assistant Superintendent, Human Resource Division, at the time, met with Mr. Guzalak. On October 9, 1991, Ms. Lee wrote Mr. Guzalak a letter memorializing this meeting and provided him with a copy of a document titled "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching," a form containing some School Board expectations for teacher conduct. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5. Ms. Lee also discussed the inappropriateness of Mr. Guzalak's behavior and stressed to him the importance of maintaining a professional relationship with students. Mr. Guzalak again admitted that he had developed friendships with some of his students and that he had seen them on occasion socially. Among other things, Ms. Lee stressed the following portions of the "How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgement to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching" form she had provided to Mr. Guzalak: Interaction with Students: Maintain a professional barrier between you and students. You are the adult, teacher and the professional; act like the expert not like another one of the "kids." . . . . 3. Refer students to the appropriate resource person for counseling and/or discussions about personal matters. . . . . 5. Do NOT discuss your personal life or personal matters with students. Do NOT discuss your husband, boyfriend, dates or controversial issues with students. . . . . 10. Chaperone only school sponsored functions. Do NOT socialize with students. If you chaperone a field trip, put in writing what your responsibilities will be. Do NOT drink alcoholic beverages in front of students. Do NOT take children home with you. . . . . C. Reputation in the Community. . . . . Communicate with parents and document your communications. Dress and act appropriately but professionally. You are a role model in the community as well as in the school; be a good example for students. Use common sense and good judgement. Ask yourself how someone else could perceive your comments or actions. Ask yourself if your comments or actions could be taken out of context and/or misinterpreted. Avoid putting yourself in a position where you have to defend, explain, or justify your behavior or actions. Avoid putting yourself in a position where it's your word against another person's word. . . . . Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Continued Student Visits to Mr. Guzalak's Home. Mr. Guzalak was very concerned about what Mr. Bounds had told him about students coming to his home. Mr. Guzalak thought that he was being watched (by a parent) and he was concerned because some of the allegations about alcohol and drug use were true. Initially, Mr. Guzalak told students who dropped by or who asked if they could come by, not to come or that they could not stay. For example, Mr. Guzalak told Thomas Ignas and David Hodgson they should not come to his home. On at least one occasion, however, Mr. Guzalak allowed students to visit him at his home during the 1991-1992 school year after Mr. Bounds had instructed Mr. Guzalak to stop such visits. The incident took place during the first three months of 1992. Aaron Utley was told to come to Mr. Guzalak's home by either David Hodges or Thomas Ignas. When Mr. Utley arrived at Mr. Guzalak's home, Mr. Hodges and Mr. Ignas were there with Mr. Guzalak. There were empty beer cans on the coffee table. Mr. Hodges was drunk. Mr. Guzalak did not request that any of the students leave. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, that alcohol was consumed by Mr. Guzalak in front of the students or that the students consumed alcohol in front of Mr. Guzalak. The Florida State University Trip--September, 1991. At some time after Mr. Guzalak spoke to Mr. Bounds in September 1991, Mr. Guzalak took a group of students who were participating in the forensic program to Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida, for a forensic competition. Among others on the trip were Chris Hutcherson, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey. These Choctaw students stayed in the same motel room while on the trip. One evening, Mark Bradshaw, David MacCarroll and Josh Mickey came into the motel room where they were staying and smelled marijuana smoke. Mr. Hutcherson was in the room. Mr. Hutcherson had smoked marijuana just before the other students came into the room. Mr. Guzalak came into the motel room shortly after the students arrived and he smelled the marijuana smoke also. Mr. Guzalak asked what was going on, but no one admitted anything at that time. At some point during the trip, Chris Hutcherson admitted to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana in the motel room. At no time did Mr. Guzalak report Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Hutcherson's family, Mr. Bounds or any other administrative official. Nor did Mr. Guzalak take any disciplinary action against Mr. Hutcherson. Failing to report the use of illicit drugs was against school policy. Mr. Guzalak did not even explain to Chris Hutcherson why he should not have been using marijuana. Instead, Mr. Guzalak told Mr. Hutcherson that he had put Mr. Guzalak in an untenable position by his actions. Because Mr. Bounds had spoken to Mr. Guzalak only a few days before this incident, Mr. Guzalak's concern was not for Mr. Hutcherson or even the forensic team--"[i]t was for myself." See line 11, page 595, Transcript of the Final Hearing. Mr. Guzalak, by his use of marijuana and alcohol with students prior to this incidental, had placed himself in a position of action in a manner similar to that of Mr. Hutcherson. Therefore, it became difficult for Mr. Guzalak to carry out his responsibility as a teacher to report Mr. Hutcherson's admission. The Pensacola Trip--November, 1991. In November, 1991, the Choctaw forensic team went to Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida, to participate in a competition. Since the competition was out of Okaloosa County, students were prohibited by School Board policy from driving their own vehicles. Students who participated in the competition were required to have their parents sign a form granting permission for their child to travel on the trip. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. On the permission form it indicated that "students' may not drive themselves to out of county school-sponsored activities . . . ." The students who were going on the Pensacola trip were told to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. They were scheduled to leave at 6:30 a.m. Chris Hutcherson, who was to participate in the Pensacola competition, did not want to get up as early as he would have to arise to be at Choctaw at 6:15 a.m. Therefore, Mr. Hutcherson asked his mother, Sharon Philbrook, if he could drive his automobile to Pensacola. She told him no. She also spoke to Mr. Guzalak who confirmed the School Board policy that students were not allowed to drive their own vehicles on the trip and that transportation would be provided for students for the trip. The morning of the Pensacola trip, Ms. Philbrook found a note from Chris Hutcherson indicating he had taken his stepbrother's automobile despite her instructions to the contrary. Ms. Philbrook reported the incident to Mr. Bounds who suggested that she go to Pensacola and get Mr. Hutcherson. She did so. Upon arriving at the competition site, Ms. Philbrook introduced herself to Mr. Guzalak and explained what had happened. She also told him that she had reported the incident to Mr. Bounds and that Mr. Bounds wanted Mr. Guzalak to telephone him. Mr. Guzalak was very upset about what Ms. Philbrook told him and told her he wished she had not telephoned Mr. Bounds. In light of Mr. Bounds' admonishment of Mr. Guzalak in September and Chris Hutcherson's admission to Mr. Guzalak that he had smoked marijuana on the Florida State University trip (which Mr. Guzalak had not reported), Mr. Guzalak's reaction is understandable. Mr. Guzalak's reaction and the other evidence presented by the EPC concerning this incident, however, failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak was responsible for Chris Hutcherson's violation of School Board policy against students driving their own vehicles out of the county. As a result of Mr. Hutcherson's actions, Mr. Guzalak informed Mr. Hutcherson that he could no longer travel with the forensic team. Mr. Hutcherson's testimony concerning whether Mr. Guzalak told him that it was okay to drive his own automobile to Pensacola was not credible and is rejected. The Rush Concert--February, 1992. In February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak was responsible for the production of a play at Choctaw. During the week before the play was to begin, Mr. Guzalak cancelled a rehearsal. The rehearsal was cancelled because Mr. Guzalak and several students involved in the play wanted to attend a concert by a musical group, Rush, in Pensacola. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak went to the concert with any students from Choctaw, although he did see and speak to at least one student at the concert. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak acted improperly or violated School Board policy in cancelling the rehearsal. Matt Schoditsch's Party--February, 1992. On a Friday evening in February, 1992, Mr. Guzalak spoke to Matt Schoditsch on the telephone. Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak to come to his home. Mr. Schoditsch told Mr. Guzalak that there would be other students at his home, students that Mr. Guzalak knew, and that they would be grilling food. Mr. Guzalak knew that Mr. Schoditsch was having a student get-together. Mr. Guzalak's and Mr. Schoditsch's testimony that Mr. Guzalak was invited and came to Mr. Schoditsch's home only to discuss his participation in a play is not credible. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Schoditsch invited Mr. Guzalak for social reasons, and that Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation for social reasons. Mr. Guzalak accepted the invitation and went to a student's house contrary to Mr. Bounds' directive to him and contrary to Ms. Lee's advice. Mr. Guzalak testified that he had assumed that Mr. Schoditsch's parents would be there. Mr. Guzalak also testified that it was not until after students starting showing up with beer that he realized that Mr. Schoditsch's parents were not there. This testimony is not credible. In light of Mr. Bounds' directive, which Mr. Guzalak indicated he was very concerned about, a reasonable person would have inquired. Additionally, a reasonable person, especially a teacher and one who had previously been accused of being too friendly with students, would seek out a student's parents soon after arriving at their home to introduce himself or to say hello if the teacher thought the parents were home. Even if Mr. Guzalak did not know that Mr. Schoditsch's parent would not be home before he arrived, he should have realized soon after arriving that they were not there and left. Shortly after arriving at Mr. Schoditsch's home, Mr. Guzalak saw students start to arrive with beer which they began drinking. According to Mr. Guzalak and Mr. Schoditsch, Mr. Guzalak expressed concern to Mr. Schoditsch about students drinking in front of him. They also testified that Mr. Schoditsch attempted to stop the drinking, but too many students started coming, and there was too much beer. This testimony is not credible. According to Mr. Barron, who also attended the party, there were only fifteen to twenty people at the party. If Mr. Schoditsch had really wanted to, he could have stopped the drinking. Mr. Schoditsch had no intention of stopping the beer drinking. And Mr. Guzalak did not expect him to. Even after Mr. Guzalak saw students drinking beer he did not leave immediately. According to his own testimony, he stayed another twenty-five to thirty minutes after he saw students drinking and even took time to go speak to a student, Jodie Brooks, before leaving. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether Mr. Guzalak drank alcohol while at Mr. Schoditsch's home. Although Mr. Barron thought Mr. Guzalak was drinking a mixed drink because he was drinking out of Mr. Schoditsch's cup or glass, Mr. Barron did not testify about how he knew that Mr. Schoditsch was drinking a mixed drink. Use of Profanity. It is against the policy of the School Board for a teacher to use profanity in the presence of students. Mr. Guzalak used the term "fucking" in front of several students when he became angry about their use of squirt guns on a forensic competition trip. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak used profanity in the classroom. Supervision of Students on Trips. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Guzalak failed to provide adequate or required supervision of students while on school trips. Mr. Guzalak's Resignation from the School Board. Ultimately, several teachers became aware of various rumors about Mr. Guzalak and some of his inappropriate behavior with students. Those comments were reported to Mr. Bounds, who spoke to a few students and then reported the problem to Ms. Lee. The Superintendent of Okaloosa County Schools met with Mr. Guzalak in March 1992, and discussed the various allegations against him. Mr. Guzalak subsequently resigned, effective at the end of the 1991-1992 school year. Credibility of the Witnesses. Mr. Guzalak and the students who were most involved in the incidents at issue in this proceeding denied that most of the more serious accusations against Mr. Guzalak are true. In addition to denying the accusations against him, Mr. Guzalak also suggested that he is the victim of unfounded rumors. Finally, Mr. Guzalak questioned the credibility and motives of some of the witnesses who testified in this proceeding. The denials of Mr. Guzalak and those students who supported his version of events have been rejected. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Guzalak's testimony was not convincing. The denial of the accusations by several (but not all) of the witnesses called by Mr. Guzalak was also not credible and has been rejected. Many of those witnesses are young men who have developed a close relationship to Mr. Guzalak. They consider Mr. Guzalak to be their "friend." Their testimony reflected their desire not to betray their "friend" and has been rejected in large part based upon the weight of all of the evidence. The efforts to suggest that Mr. Guzalak is merely a victim of rumors also failed. Rumors were caused, in part, because of the perception that Mr. Guzalak was different or eccentric, and, in part, because of the incidents described in this Recommended Order. While there were no doubt rumors concerning this matter and Mr. Guzalak, the incidents which have been found to have occurred in this Recommended Order are based upon the specific knowledge of those witnesses found to be credible. Many of those incidents were confirmed or substantiated by more than one witness. Finally, the efforts of Mr. Guzalak to discredit some of the witnesses also failed. Most of those efforts were directed at Sarah Stimac, Chris Hutcherson and Aaron Utley. The testimony of Ms. Stimac, Mr. Utley and most of the other witnesses called by the Petitioner was credible. It is true, however, that Mr. Hutcherson's testimony contained inconsistencies and that Mr. Hutcherson evidenced an extremely bitter and judgemental attitude against Mr. Guzalak. Consequently, Mr. Hutcherson's testimony has not been accepted except to the extent that it has been corroborated by other evidence. Attacks on Ms. Stimac's credibility are rejected. The suggestion that Sarah Stimac was not credible fails to consider, among other things, the fact that Ms. Stimac's actions in this matter were taken at some personal expense and aggravation. Mr. Guzalak, during the investigation of this matter by the EPC, allowed several students to read confidential statements that Ms. Stimac and other students had given during the investigation. He did so without regard to the consequences to Ms. Stimac or the other students. As a result, Ms. Stimac has faced hostility and ridicule from those misguided students who believe that not telling, or "ratting," on a friend is admirable. Despite such hostility, Ms. Stimac refused to compromise her integrity. The weight of the evidence proved that other students, such as Aaron Utley and David Barron made the same choice that Sarah Stimac made. Rather than lacking credibility, Ms. Stimac's testimony, Mr. Barron's testimony, and the testimony of most of the other students who spoke out about Mr. Guzalak's inappropriate conduct is admirable. The Impact of Mr. Guzalak's Actions on His Ability to Perform His Duties Effectively. There was no direct evidence to prove that Mr. Guzalak was not effective in the classroom. Most of the witnesses agreed that Mr. Guzalak was very effective in the classroom. Several of the witnesses spoke of Mr. Guzalak's intelligence and ability with some admiration. Unfortunately, Mr. Guzalak, by his own admission and based upon the facts presented in this case, has evidenced a lack of the judgement necessary for him to be entrusted with the education of young people. This fact is based upon the nature of the improper acts which Mr. Guzalak has been found to have committed in this case and by his attitude about the warnings he received from Mr. Smith, Mr. Bounds, Ms. Lee and even Mr. Guzalak's coworkers. A teacher that drinks alcohol in the presence of students and provides alcohol to, or condones the use of, alcoholic beverages by students has lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher because of the high standard of conduct expected of teachers. A teacher that uses marijuana in the presence of students or allows students to use marijuana in his or her presence has also lost his or her effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's conduct was, therefore, contrary to the conduct expected of him by the School Board and the community. Mr. Guzalak's conduct is sufficiently notorious in the community that he has lost his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak's inability to follow the directions of his supervisors has also reduced his effectiveness as a teacher. Mr. Guzalak probably has begun to take too much stock in the praise he has received concerning his intelligence and abilities. He has begun to believe his "reviews." As a result, Mr. Guzalak believes that he knows more about how to be an effective teacher than his supervisors and fellow teachers. Mr. Guzalak was asked during the hearing why he had a problem with Mr. Bounds' directive concerning his student friendships. Mr. Guzalak's response, which evidences his attitude about the appropriate role of a teacher with his or her students, was as follows: Because I was used to the idea at that point of having some social contact with students. It was important to me. I was, basically, disturbed because I felt that Richard Bounds was asking me to suddenly make some sort of major capitulation, not in my life-style, but in my mode of thought, in the way I viewed my relationship with students. He wanted me to be an authoritarian clone, if I must. Lines 18-25, Page 627 and Lines 1-2, Page 628, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Additionally, Mr. Guzalak answered the following questions: Q. [Mr. Bounds is] your principal. Shouldn't he be allowed to tell you how you should behave with your students? A. No. Q. He shouldn't be able to tell you how you conduct yourself with your students? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because I'm an adult and because I'm a professional. And I'm capable of making those decisions on my own. . . . . Lines 17-25, Page 628 and Lines 1-2, Page 629, Vol. IV of the Transcript. Rather than being an "authoritarian clone," Mr. Guzalak attempted to reach some of his students by being their friend on their level. To some extent, he was influenced by Ms. Yeager, who developed friendships with her students. Ms. Yeager, however, was more mature, married, had a family and had been teaching for some time. As Ms. Yeager put it: . . . . Of course, I have an advantage, being an old, married woman. I mean, I had a husband. I had a family. I had a track record when I came here, Ms. O'Sullivan. I taught seven years junior high and two more years in high school. So I think age -- Not all people are respected because they're older, as you know. But, I'm saying I sort of had an edge there on John [Guzalak], plus experience. Lines 19-25, Page 375 and Lines 1-2, Page 376, Vol. III of Transcript. More importantly, Ms. Yeager, by her actions, her character and her good judgement, was able to develop a certain level of friendship with her students while maintaining her distance and her professionalism. Mr. Guzalak has not evidenced the ability to do the same because of his lack of judgement and his inability to heed the advice and experience of his supervisors and peers.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 310395 covering the areas of biology and science. During the 1985-1986 school year, he taught ecology and science courses at Winter Park High School in the Orange County School District until he was relieved from duty on March 13, 1986, as a result of an investigation into the incidents and behavior described below. During the school day, Respondent repeatedly harassed the female students with sexual remarks, attempts at sexual humor, and requests for sexual favors and intimacies. The sexual harassment so permeated the classroom that Respondent was completely unable to discharge his professional teaching responsibilities. Faye Zentner was a senior at Winter Park High School during the 1985- 1986 school year. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent knew that she was a student, he repeatedly asked her to go with him on a date, followed by dinner and bed. Unsolicited, he gave her his home telephone number and told her to call him. He frequently remarked on her clothing, advising her that she should not wear such nice clothes. He often communicated by notes that he would show her and then tear up. Ruth Evans was a senior at Winter Park High School during the 1985-1986 school year. She was in Respondent's science class. Respondent repeatedly complimented her on her dress. He would intentionally drop a pencil and watch her while she picked it up. At different times, Respondent told her that he "wanted her body" and thought that she had a "nice ass." He also told her that he wanted to "get between her legs." He asked her to go out with him and then to his place. One afternoon when Ms. Evans asked to leave class 10 minutes early for a school-sponsored softball game, Respondent's response was, "If you're not going to do anything for me, why should I do anything for you?" Kristen Fischer was a senior at Winter Park High school during the 1985-1986 school year. She was in Respondent's ecology class. Looking at her breasts and body while speaking, Respondent would frequently tell Ms. Fischer that he liked what he saw, including her tight jeans. As with the other female students, Respondent asked Ms. Fischer to go out with him and have a drink. The testimony of the remaining female students reiterated the above testimony and established a pattern of sexual harassment on the part of Respondent. Respondent summoned Juliana Gomes from the classroom and, in the hall, commented on her appearance and asked her out on dates. Ms. Gomes finally began reporting to school late in order to avoid her first-period class with Respondent. Respondent told jokes involving female body parts, such as the vagina, to Laurie Kreitner, another student. When she would not listen to these jokes privately at his desk, Respondent would tell them publicly to the entire class. Respondent regularly asked Sheila Buchanan, another of his students, what she was doing on that Friday night and where she would be. At spring break, he found out where she and her girlfriends would be staying at the beach and gave them his hotel room and telephone numbers with an invitation to call him. During the entire term in ecology, Respondent administered only one test and a couple of quizzes. Otherwise, the students and Respondent sat around and talked about movies and matters unrelated to the subject of the class. On more than one occasion, Respondent admitted that his grades were a reflection of whom he liked and whom he did not like. Respondent even allowed Ms. Buchanan to grade half of the finals, and she gave good grades to her friends.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent's teaching certificate be permanently revoked. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 COPIES FURNISHED: Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. David Holder, Esquire Rigsby & Holder Suite 200 1408 North Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Reginald Crooms 617 South Delaney Avenue, No. 19 Orlando, Florida 32801
