The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges (as finally amended)? If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County with just or proper cause to take disciplinary action against him? If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent: School Board Employment Respondent has been employed by the School Board since March 23, 1979. He is currently under suspension pending the outcome of these disciplinary proceedings. For the duration of his employment with the School Board until his suspension, Respondent was a custodial worker assigned to the D.A. Dorsey Educational Center (Center). At the time of his suspension, he was a lead custodian at the Center and, in the opinion of the principal of the Center, Stella Johnson, "do[ing] a fine job" performing his custodial duties. As the lead custodian, Respondent occupied a position of trust inasmuch as he had the keys to the Center and ready access to School Board property inside the building. Furthermore, at times, the performance of his custodial duties brought him in direct contact with students. Respondent: Post-Hire "Criminal History" and School Board Reaction to Reports of His Criminal ConductThe 1985 Warning In the summer of 1985, Respondent was the subject of a School Board police investigation. The results of the investigation were set forth in an investigative report prepared by the School Board police. Upon receiving the investigative report, which indicated that Respondent had been arrested after a purse snatching incident and charged with armed robbery, Henry Horstmann, a director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, scheduled a conference-for-the-record with Respondent. At the time of the conference, according to the information Horstmann had received, the armed robbery charge against Respondent had not been resolved. Horstmann warned Respondent at this 1985 conference- for-the-record that criminal activity on Respondent's part, whether occurring on or off the job, could lead to Respondent's dismissal. Approximately a year later, Horstmann was advised that the criminal proceeding against Respondent had ended with Respondent pleading guilty to, and being convicted of, the crime of "attempting to solicit." Because Respondent was "a good employee insofar as his performance at the work site," the principal of the Center02 wanted him to remain in his position. Consequently, he was not terminated. The Thefts at the Pembroke Lakes Mall In the fall of 1994, while working a second job that involved helping in the cleaning of the Pembroke Lakes Mall in Pembroke Pines, Florida, Respondent stole merchandise from stores in the mall (after business hours when the stores were closed). On November 28, 1994, Respondent gave a statement to Pembroke Pines police confessing to these crimes.03 Criminal charges were filed against Respondent. On April 25, 1995, based upon guilty pleas that he had entered, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of: one count of burglary in Broward County 02 Stella Johnson was not the principal of the Center at the time. It was not until August of 1991 that she became principal of the school. 03 In response to a question asked by the interrogating officer, Respondent stated that he committed these crimes because he had "[p]roblems . . . marriage, jobs, Circuit Court Case No. 95000607CF10A; one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 95000609CF10A; one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 94020151CF10A; and one count of burglary and one count of grand theft in the third degree in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 95000671CF10A. In each of these cases, he was sentenced to 90 days in the Broward County Jail and one year of probation. The sentences were to run concurrently. In August of 1995, Johnson received a telephone call from Respondent's probation officer, who was seeking verification of Respondent's employment status. It was during this telephone conversation with Respondent's probation officer that Johnson first learned of the thefts that Respondent had committed while working at the Pembroke Lakes Mall. Immediately after the conclusion of the conversation, Johnson telephoned the Office of Professional Standards for guidance and direction.04 In accordance with the advice she was given, Johnson requested the School Board police to conduct an investigation of Respondent's criminal background. Pursuant to Johnson's request, on or about October 25, 1995, School Board police conducted such an investigation and apprised her, in writing, of the preliminary results of the investigation. Johnson passed on the information she had received from the School Board police to the Office of Professional Standards. Thereafter, a conference-for-the-record was scheduled to address Respondent's "future employment status with Dade County Public Schools." The conference-for-the-record was held on February 7, 1996. Dr. James Monroe, the executive director of the Office of Professional Standards, prepared, and bills, drugs, just problems." 04 Johnson advised the Office of Professional Standards during this telephone call that there had been a series of thefts of school property at her school and that, in some instances, it appeared that one or more school employees might be responsible because of the absence of any signs of forced entry. Johnson, however, had insufficient evidence to prove that Respondent was the perpetrator of any of these thefts. subsequently furnished to Respondent, a memorandum (dated February 28, 1996) in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. The memorandum read as follows: On February 7, 1996, a conference-for-the-record was held with you [Respondent] in the Office of Professional Standards conducted by this administrator. In attendance were Ms. Stella Johnson, Principal, Dorsey Educational Center, Mr. Nelson Perez, District Director, Ms. Chris Harris, Bargaining Agent Representative, American Federation of State, County, [and] Municipal Employees, and this administrator. The conference was held to address Investigative Report No. A00007 concerning your prior arrest, and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools. Service History As you reported in this conference, you were initially employed by Dade County Public Schools as a Custodian on March 23, 1979 and assigned to D.A. Dorsey Educational Center to the present. Conference Data Reviewed A Review of the record included reference to the following investigative issues: This administrator presented to and reviewed with you a copy of the investigative report in its entirety. In reference to your arrest of November 28, 1994, you reported having been detained by police authorities and that you remain on probation through April 4, 1996.05 You declined to make a comment when asked about your arrest of August 18, 1990 for purchase/possession of cocaine. This administrator noted a similar arrest of May 30, 1986 for possession of marijuana for which you declined to make a comment. In reference to your arrest of June 22, 1985, I noted that you had been arrested (May 30, 1986) while under a three year probation during the period of September 17, 1985 through September 17, 1988. Ms. Harris raised a question as to the need to address prior arrests. Ms. Johnson expressed concern relative to recurring incidents of theft during time periods for which you had been granted permission to enter the facilities during off duty hours. Ms. Johnson reported having previously discussed these incidents with you. Ms. Johnson noted that your second arrest had adversely impacted your overall effectiveness as an employee inasmuch as your assigned duties and responsibilities include making provisions for the maintenance, cleaning and security of School Board equipment and property. 0 5 It appears that, at the time of this 5 Cont. February 7, 1996, conference-for-the-record, the School Board administration knew that Respondent had been adjudicated guilty of, and sentenced for, the crimes (of burglary and grand theft) he had committed at the Pembroke Lakes Mall. This administrator presented to you and reviewed with you memoranda dated March 13, 1984, February 17, 1984, February 9, 1984, December 12, 1983 and November 2, 1983 in their entirety. I specifically reviewed with you the principal's notation of your unacceptable performance relative to your failure to secure gates and doors as required. Ms. Johnson noted that she has discussed similar occurrence with you on a recurring basis. Action To Be Taken You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Associate Superintendent in the Bureau of Professional Standards and Operations, the Assistant Superintendent of the Office of Applied Technology, Adult, Career and Community Education, and the Principal of Dorsey Education[al] Center. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of their recommendations will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include: a letter of reprimand, suspension or dismissal. You were apprised of your rights to clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. On or about July 2, 1996, the School Board police supplemented its previous report of the results of its investigation of Respondent's criminal record. On September 25, 1996, another conference-for-the-record was held concerning Respondent's "future employment status with Dade County Public Schools." Dr. Thomasina O'Donnell, who had conducted the September 25, 1996, conference-for-the-record on behalf of the Office of Professional Standards, prepared, and sent to Respondent, a summary of the conference. The summary, which was dated September 30, 1996, read as follows: On September 25, 1996, a conference-for-the-record was held with you [Respondent] in the Office of Professional Standards, In attendance were Ms. Stella Johnson, Principal, Miami Skill Center, Mr. Herman Bain, Board Member, AFSCME, and this administrator. The conference was held to address your noncompliance with School Board policy and rules regarding Conduct Unbecoming a School Board Employee and your future employment status with Dade County Public Schools. Service History As you reported in this conference, you were initially employed by Dade County Public Schools as a Custodian in 1979 and assigned to Dorsey Education Center where you have remained. I began by reviewing the reason for this conference which is to discuss a Records Check that revealed a total of four arrests. The last arrest was in 1994 for burglary and grand theft and it resulted in an adjudication of guilty. You said that during that period of time when you had been arrested, you had personal problems. However, currently that is no longer the case and you have your life under control. Ms. Johnson, your principal, said that your work performance is good and you do a fine job. Your attendance is also good. Your union representative requested a copy of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, Employee Conduct, which was provided. I explained that although your arrests were not directly related to your Dade County Public Schools job, there is a level of expectation regarding employee conduct and your arrests place you in violation of that expectation. Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of their recommendation will compel formal notification of the recommended action of disciplinary measures to include: a letter of reprimand, suspension, dismissal, or the imposition of community service. You were apprised of your rights to clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any such response appended to your record. Since there were not further questions or comments, the conference was adjourned. At its October 23, 1996, meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated dismissal proceedings against him "for just cause, including violation of employee conduct rule and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude." The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a lead custodian employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by AFSCME and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME, effective July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1997 (AFSCME Contract). Article II, Section 3, of the AFSCME Contract provides as follows: ARTICLE II- RECOGNITION SECTION 3. The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following: (1) selection and promotion of employees; (2) separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause; (3) the designation of the organizational structure of the DCPS and lines of administrative authority of DCPS. It is understood and agreed that management possess the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following: Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause; Direct the work force; Hire, assign, and transfer employees; Determine the missions of the Board agencies; Determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed or desirable for carrying out the Board's missions; Introduce new or improved methods or facilities; Change existing methods or facilities; Relieve employees because of lack of work; Contract out for goods or services; and, Such other rights, normally consistent with management's duty and responsibility for operation of the Board's services, provided, however, that the exercise of such rights does not preclude the Union from conferring about the practical consequences that decisions may have on terms and conditions of employment. Article IX of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "working conditions." Section 11 of Article IX is entitled "Personal Life." It provides as follows: The private and personal life of an employee, except for such incidents and occurrences which could lead to suspension and dismissal as provided by statute, shall not be within the appropriate concern of the Board.06 0 6 This provision of the AFSCME Contract does not protect employees who engage in criminal conduct inasmuch as the commission of a crime Article XI of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "disciplinary action." Section 1 of Article XI is entitled "Due Process." It provides as follows: Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed: 1. verbal warning; 2. written warning (acknowledged); and, 3. A. Conference-for-the-Record. Conference-for-the-Record shall be held as the first step when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated personnel investigation. The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME bargaining unit members shall be is not a "private and personal" matter. Rather, it is "an offense against the public." Shaw v. Fletcher, 188 So. 135, 136 (Fla. 1939). consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline (i.e., in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record). The employee shall have the right to representation in Conferences-for-the-Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated. The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency. The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notification of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit. Section 2 of Article XI is entitled "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade." It provides as follows: Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action. The Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and reductions- in-grade. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Dismissal, suspension, reduction-in-grade, and non- reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Section 3 of Article XI is entitled "Cause for Suspension." It provides as follows: In those cases where any employee has not complied with Board policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent. Section 4 of Article XI is entitled "Types of Separation." It provides, in part, as follows: Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any four distinct types of separation. Voluntary-- The employee initiates the separation by resigning, retiring, abandoning the position, or other unilateral action by the employee. Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence. Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. Non-reappointment-- The employee is separated by management's decision not to offer another annual contract. However, such non-reappointment shall not be in lieu of discipline or lay-off. Employees whose performance has been deemed marginal by the supervising administrator, who have been counseled during the school year concerning performance, and have failed to perform acceptably shall not be reappointed. Such employees and the Union shall be put on written notice of possible non-reappointment. Counseling and written notice of non- reappointment shall be provided in a timely manner. This action shall not be arbitrary or capricious, but based upon reason for the best interest of the employer. AFSCME bargaining unit members employed by the school district in excess of five years shall not be subject to non-reappointment. Such employees may only be discharged for just cause. Layoff-- . . . The factors most important in determining what type of separation occurred for a given employee are: which party initiated the action; what time of the work year the action occurred; and the employer's expressed intent. Appendix III of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "classification plan and procedures." Section R of Appendix III is entitled "Custodial Services." It provides, in part, as follows: The following guidelines and procedures will be implemented regarding the organization and provision of custodial services. 1. SUPERVISION The site administrator (e.g., principal) shall have overall responsibility and supervisory authority for all custodial activities and resultant facility condition. The principal's responsibility in this area is typically and properly delegated to the site Head custodian (or, in a few very large facilities, to a Plant Foreman). The Head Custodian (or Plant Foreman) shall be responsible for all custodial activities on all shifts. Custodians who lead other custodial workers in a group or team shall be designated as Lead Custodians. Lead Custodians would be limited to one per shift, per site. Where a single custodian is assigned to a shift and is responsible for closing and securing the facility at the end of that shift, that custodian would also be designated as a Lead Custodian. . . . CAREER LADDER The custodial career ladder shall include criteria/guidelines, as outlined below: Job Classification . . . Site Custodian . . . Lead Custodian . . . Head Custodian . . . Plant Foreman . . . Master Custodian . . . TRAINING . . . Site Custodian (1) Works at a school or facility site . . . Lead/Head Custodian or Plant Foreman (1) This is a leadership position at a school or facility site. . . . The School Board's Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, 6Gx13-4C-1.02, and 6Gx13- 4C-1.021 As a School Board employee, Respondent was obligated to act in accordance with School Board rules and regulations,07 including Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I), 6Gx13-4C-1.02, and 6Gx13- 4C1.021,08 which provide as follows: Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I) Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES 07 These rules and regulations are referred to in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract. Pursuant to Article XI, violation of these rules and regulations can lead to disciplinary action. 08 An employee who does not meet his responsibility of complying with School Board rules and regulations is guilty of "non- performance of job responsibilities," as that term is used in Article XI, Section 4.C., of the AFSCME Contract. I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. 6Gx13-4C-1.02 Activities NON-INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL The Board recognizes and appreciates the important supporting role played by non- instructional personnel in the school system's educational program. For that reason the Board endeavors to select persons of the highest quality to fill vacancies as they occur. One of the important functions served by the non-teaching staff is that of demonstrating good citizenship in the community. The Board reaffirms its wish that all employees of the schools enjoy the full rights and privileges of residency and citizenship in this community and in the state. Because of its high regard for the school system's non-teaching staff, the Board confidently expects that its employees will place special emphasis upon representing the school system ably both formally and informally in the community. 6Gx13-4C-1.021 FINGERPRINTING OF ALL EMPLOYEES UPON APPLICATION AND EMPLOYMENT Pursuant to Florida Statute 231.02, it is the intent of the School Board to insure that only individuals of good moral character09 be employed by the school system. The Dade County Public Schools work force is mobile and an employee in the course of a career may be assigned to various work locations where students are present. It is thus necessary to perform the appropriate security checks on all newly hired personnel. All applicants for full-time and part- time jobs shall be fingerprinted at the time of application for employment. When the applicant is hired, the district shall file a complete set of fingerprints on the new hire with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). FDLE will process and submit the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for federal processing. The cost of fingerprinting and the fingerprint processing shall be borne by the employee. All new employees, full and part-time, shall be on probationary status pending fingerprint processing and determination, based on results of the fingerprint check, of compliance with standards of good moral character. Employees not found to be of good 0 9 Individuals who engage in "immorality," as defined in Rule 6B-4.009(2), Florida Administrative Code, (i.e., conduct "inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals [which is] sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual's service in the community") are not "individuals of good moral character," within the meaning of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.021. moral character will have their probationary employment terminated. For purposes of this rule, good moral character means exemplifying the acts and conduct which could cause a reasonable person to have confidence in an individual's honesty, fairness and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of the state and nation. The Dade County Public Schools shall review fingerprint reports and determine if an employee's criminal record contains crimes involving moral turpitude. For purposes of this rule, moral turpitude means "a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties, which, according to the accepted standards of the time, a person owes to other people or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statutes, fixes moral turpitude." Rule 6B-4.009(6), FAC. Employees found through fingerprint processing to have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude will be terminated from employment. Crimes which may demonstrate moral turpitude include but are not limited to: Murder (Section 782.04 F.S.) Manslaughter (Section 782.07 F.S.) Vehicular homicide (Section 782.071 F.S.) Killing an unborn child by injury to the mother (Section 782.09 F.S.) Assault upon a minor (Section 784.011 F.S.) Aggravated assault (Section 784.021 F.S.) Aggravated assault relating to battery upon a minor (Section 784.03 F.S.) Aggravated battery (Section 784.045 F.S.) Kidnapping (Section 787.01 F.S.) False imprisonment (Section 787.02 F.S.) Removing children from the state or concealing children contrary to court order (Section 787.04 F.S.) Sexual battery (Section 794.011 F.S.) Carnal intercourse with an unmarried person under 18 years of age (Section 794.05 F.S.) Prostitution (Chapter 796 F.S.) Arson (Section 806.01 F.S.) Robbery (Section 812.13 F.S.) Incest (Section 826.04 F.S.) Aggravated child abuse (Section 827.03 F.S.) Child abuse (Section 827.04 F.S.) Negligent treatment of children (Section 827.05 F.S.) Sexual performance by a child (Section 827.071 F.S.) Exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult (Section 825.102 F.S.) Drug abuse if the offense was a felony or if any other person involved in the offense was a minor (Chapter 893 F.S.) If the administration finds it appropriate upon consideration of the particular circumstances of an applicant's/employee's case (timing, persons involved, specific mitigating facts), a determination may be made finding that such crime as applied to the applicant/employee does not involve moral turpitude. A probationary employee terminated because of lack of good moral character including but not necessarily limited to conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude shall have the right to appeal such decision to Labor Relations and Personnel Management. The request for appeal must be filed within 15 days following notification of termination. Personnel who have been fingerprinted and processed in accordance with this rule and who have had a break in service of more than 90 days shall be required to be re- fingerprinted in order to be re-employed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order finding that, for the reasons set forth above, "disciplinary action" against Respondent is warranted and imposing upon Respondent the "disciplinary action" described in paragraph 61 of this Recommended Order. 016 Failure to do so may result in further "disciplinary action" being taken against him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of March, 1997. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1997.
The Issue Did Petitioner, Gregory K. Adkins, as Superintendent for the Board of the School District of Lee County, Florida (Superintendent), prove just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres?
Findings Of Fact The Superintendent, on behalf of the School Board of Lee County (Board), is responsible for hiring, overseeing, and terminating, all employees in the school district. At all times material to this case, the Board employed Mr. Torres as a security specialist at East Lee County High School (East Lee). Mr. Torres also sometimes served as an assistant coach and/or substitute athletic trainer. Mr. Torres has worked for the Board since August 5, 2011. For the 2011 through 2015 school years Mr. Torres’ received a final Performance Evaluation with a score of “Effective” in all areas assessed. The "Manager Comments" on Mr. Torres' Final Performance Evaluations consisted of the following: "Mr. Torres is an integral part of the MLE [Mirror Lakes Elementary] team. He has been a great addition to our staff [2014-2015 Evaluation]”; "Mr. Torres is a very valuable asset and is well respected and supported as an integral part of the MLE team [2013-2014 Evaluation]"; "Orlando performs various duties at East: security and coaching. He has done a good job with both. Orlando was accepting of taking on the night security position until a candidate was hired [2012-2013 Evaluation]"; and "Orlando is a team player and is always willing to go above and beyond to help staff and students [2011-2012 Evaluation]." Mr. Torres is a member of SPALC and was a member during all periods relevant to this matter. On February 4, 2016, the Board’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (PS&E) received reports that on several occasions Mr. Torres made inappropriate comments and sexual remarks in the presence of or to female high school students. The comments included suggestions that Mr. Torres was interested in sex with the students. The comments caused the students extreme discomfort and embarrassment and created an inhospitable learning environment. The Board investigated. The information it collected caused the Board to terminate Mr. Torres’ employment. PS&E Coordinator, Andy Brown, conducted an investigation that included interviews of several students and of Mr. Torres. When Mr. Torres met Mr. Brown for his interview, Mr. Torres did not know the reason for the interview. Mr. Brown advised Mr. Torres that he was the subject of an investigation and asked him if he knew what it was about. Mr. Torres said: “When I meet with a female, I always have another female present.” This was not true. Mr. Torres’ spontaneous and dishonest statement in response to simply being asked if he knew what the investigation was about is persuasive evidence that he had improper conversations with female students and is a contributing factor to concluding that his testimony denying the charges is not credible. In November and December of 2015, and January 2016, Mr. Torres made several sexually charged, inappropriate comments to students. Five of the incidents involved N.M., who was an eleventh grade student at the time. N.M.’s mother worked at the school. Consequently, N.M. stayed at school after classes until her mother left work. N.M.’s mother arranged for N.M. to assist Mr. Torres in his training tasks after school. This is how she met Mr. Torres. The arrangement lasted about a week. Around November 2015, Mr. Torres gave N.M. a “high-five.” He prolonged the contact by grabbing her hand and intertwining his fingers with hers. In a separate incident, while giving N.M. a “bandaid” for a scratch, Mr. Torres asked her if she would ever get involved with a married man. She said no and walked away. On another occasion, N.M. encountered Mr. Torres while she was walking to lunch. N.M. was wearing what she described as a “burgundy semi-see-through” shirt. Mr. Torres told her to cover up her “goodies” or her “girls,” referring to her breasts, so nobody else could see them. N.M.’s testimony used the word “girls” while her statement in February 2016 said “goodies.” This minor discrepancy is understandable given the passage of time and the stresses of an interview and testimony. On yet another occasion, Mr. Torres remarked in Spanish, when N.M. bent down, “I like ass.” Mr. Torres spoke to N.M. after she had been called to the school office to provide a statement about a conflict that Mr. Torres had with another student. When he learned the purpose of the request for a statement from N.M., Mr. Torres said, “I thought I was gonna get in trouble for flirting with you; thank god we didn’t take it to second base.” In early February, N.M. was walking with her then- friend S.S., when Mr. Torres exited a room and saw them. He said “you look delic . . ., beautiful,” to N.M., shifting from “delicious” to “beautiful” when he noticed S.S. Mr. Torres also made a comment about wishing N.M. was 18. Another Security Specialist, Russell Barrs, who N.M. considered a friend, overheard bits of a conversation between N.M. and S.S. about the encounter. He asked N.M. about it. She replied with generalities A day or two later N.M. met with Mr. Barrs and provided complete information about Mr. Torres’ comments to her. Mr. Barrs reported this to Assistant Principal Edward Matthews. Mr. Matthews launched the investigation. It is noteworthy that S.S., whose friendship with N.M. ended, still testified to the same events as N.M. did. The two had a falling out sometime in 2016. The testimony of S.S. was not a matter of loyal support for a friend. In fact, the tone and body language of both students gave the distinct impression that the end of the friendship was not pleasant. N.M.’s mother had just started working at the school. N.M. did not immediately report Mr. Torres’ advances to her mother or other adults. When she did report them, her initial statements were incomplete and vague. She just told her mother she was not comfortable being in the room with Mr. Torres. She also told her mother that Mr. Torres “says things.” Later, after speaking to Mr. Barrs, N.M. provided her mother a complete description of the comments. After classes, Mr. Torres spent a good deal of time in the training room where first aid supplies and ice are stored for student-athletes. The training room was divided into two smaller rooms separated by a door that was usually shut. One room contained the ice machine, other equipment, and supplies. The other part of the room served as an office for Mr. Torres. Students, including N.M. and C.P., assisted or visited with Mr. Torres in the training room at times. C.P. was a female student who served as one of the managers for the girls’ basketball team. Once while observing her prepare an ice pack by sucking air out of it, Mr. Torres said words to the effect of “like how you suck a boy’s dick.” C.P. was a ninth grader at the time. Mr. Torres also told her that he would like to marry her when she turned 18. Another time, Mr. Torres tried to hug C.P. Mr. Torres also told C.P. that they should not talk in the hall because the security video cameras may record them. Another time, after overhearing a discussion in Spanish by several female students about sexual activity, Mr. Torres told C.P. that if he ever had sex with her he would break her. Two or three times Mr. Torres told C.P. that she was beautiful and he wanted to marry her after she graduated. The comments made C.P. extremely uncomfortable and unsure of what to do. She was scared. She quit her position as manager to avoid contact with Mr. Torres. Like N.M., C.P. was slow to report the comments to an adult. When she first told her step-mother she described Mr. Torres’ comments as coming from a substitute teacher. C.P. was scared and did not want to get involved. When she did, the details understandably came out in bits and pieces. Mr. Torres’ improper familiarity with students N.M. and C.P. and his sexually charged comments were frequent and varied. They were improper and detrimental to the emotional and mental health of the students. The crux of Mr. Torres’ defense is that none of the testimony about his actions is true. His testimony is not as credible as that of the students who testified to his offenses. One reason, mentioned earlier, is Mr. Torres’ spontaneous statement when Mr. Brown met him for the interview that he was never alone with a female. It manifests guilt and anxiousness that would not be present without his being aware of his improper behavior. Another reason is that the testimony of the students is sufficiently consistent to provide credibility. And N.M., C.P., and S.S. all made reports within a few months of Mr. Torres’ comments. A third reason is that N.M.’s testimony was supported by S.S. at hearing even though their earlier friendship had ended. A fourth reason is that there is no evidence of a motive for N.M., S.S., and C.P to fabricate their reports. For the time period when Mr. Torres made the comment to C.P. about “breaking her,” several students offered differing testimony about who was in the room when and whether Mr. Torres was giving a student instruction on a trumpet. This testimony is not sufficient to impeach the credibility of N.M. and C.P. Those were not the students to whom the offending remarks were made. The details of that day would not have been noteworthy to them at the time. Similarly, given the nature of Mr. Torres’ comments, the details of exactly who was present when would have been secondary to N.M. and C.P. Finally, Mr. Torres made one particularly transparent and deliberate effort to manipulate the truth during cross-examination that undermines relying on Mr. Torres’ testimony. Early in the hearing, in Mr. Torres’ presence, the Board attempted to enter evidence that during prior employment as a detention officer with the Sheriff of Lee County, Mr. Torres reacted to teasing by other officers by drawing his service pistol. The objection to the evidence was sustained. Later Mr. Torres testified that the testimony against him was not credible because he would never take such risks at a school where his wife was also employed, his children were students, and N.M.’s mother was employed. This testimony opened the door to the pistol drawing incident as evidence of Mr. Torres taking risky actions at work. The exchange about the incident, starting at page 329 of Volume II of the Transcript, follows: Q: But you engaged in risky behavior in your two law enforcement jobs prior, did you not? A: I don’t consider that risky behavior. Q: Well, you don’t consider pulling your service revolver as risky behavior? [objection and ruling] A: I have never carried a revolver. Q: Your service weapon, sir? ALJ: You said you never carried a revolver. Have you ever carried a pistol? A: Yes sir. ALJ: Next question. Q: Would you consider pulling your service pistol in an inappropriate manner risky behavior, sir? A: Yes, sir. Mr. Torres testified with full knowledge from the earlier attempt to introduce evidence of the incident to what the question referred. His answer was hair-splitting at best and demonstrated a willingness to shade, if not evade, the truth that significantly undermines his credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order finding just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres, and dismissing him from his position with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Miami- Dade County School Board should be terminated for the reasons specified in the letter of notification of suspension and dismissal dated June 20, 2013, and the Notice of Specific Charges filed on August 28, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami- Dade County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed as a social studies teacher at Horace Mann Middle School ("Horace Mann"), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material, Respondent's employment was governed, in part, by a collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). Dr. Jones-Carey, the principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Dorothy De Posada, the assistant principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Petitioner alleges, in its Notice of Specific Charges, an array of factual scenarios spanning several years that, when considered individually or in concert, supply just cause for Respondent's termination. Below, the undersigned has endeavored to address each seriatim. 2010-2011 School Year: Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on May 23, 2011, concerning an alleged incident that occurred on April 27, 2011. On May 25, 2011, Dr. Jones-Carey held a Conference for the Record ("CFR") regarding this alleged incident.1/ Respondent was directed to strictly adhere to all Miami-Dade County School Board ("MDCSB") rules and regulations, specifically, rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213. 2011-2012 School Year: On April 13, 2012, subsequent to the investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on February 27, 2012, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to all MDCSB rules and regulations, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Respondent was further directed to refrain from contacting any of the parties in the incident, refrain from using physical discipline, and "to conduct [herself] both in [her] employment and in the community in a manner that will reflect credit upon [herself] and M-DCPS." Respondent agreed to a 17-day suspension without pay regarding the alleged incident. 2012-2013 School Year: October 24, 2012 On November 16, 2012, subsequent to an investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on October 24, 2012, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to all MDCSB policies, specifically 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; refrain from contacting any parties involved in the investigation; and "to conduct [herself] both in [her] employment and in the community in a manner that will reflect credit upon [herself] and M-DCPS." Additionally, on November 28, 2012, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand concerning the October 24, 2012, incident. November 5, 2012 On November 5, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey observed several male students standing outside of Respondent's classroom during the class period. While Petitioner contends said students were told to remain outside of the classroom at Respondent's instruction due to body odor, Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to support such a finding.2/ November 26, 2012 Shawnda Green-McKenzie is the Horace Mann social studies department chair and a social studies teacher. Ms. McKenzie explained that, on or around November 26, 2012, it was necessary for several homeroom classes to be "dissolved." The students in the dissolved homeroom classroom were to be added to the roster of other homeroom classes. Ms. McKenzie further explained that the homeroom teachers, such as Respondent, were unaware of the number of additional homeroom students they would acquire until the day the additional students arrived. On November 26, 2012, Ms. Green-McKenzie observed that a substantial number of the newly acquired students did not have desks or chairs available for their use in Respondent's homeroom class. She further observed some of the children sitting on the floor. Petitioner failed to present any evidence concerning when the new students presented themselves to Respondent's homeroom or the duration said students did not have available desks or chairs. While Ms. Green-McKenzie agreed that children sitting on the floor would "be kind of a safety concern if someone were walking around in the classroom," she further opined that Respondent's classroom was "definitely too small to take any additional desks" and adding additional chairs would make it "tight." February 8, 2013 On March 21, 2013, subsequent to an investigation of an alleged incident that occurred on February 8, 2013, a CFR was held. Respondent was directed to adhere to MDCSB policies and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit upon herself and the teaching profession. On April 9, 2013, Respondent issued a letter of reprimand concerning the alleged incident which likewise directed her to adhere to MDCSB policies and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit to herself and the teaching profession. February 20, March 7, and April 1, 2013 Dr. Jones-Carey testified that, on those occasions when a teacher is absent and a substitute teacher is unavailable, the students are typically "split" among classrooms within the same department. Teachers are expected to cooperate and receive the "split-list" students. Prior to February 9, 2013, Respondent was accommodating and amenable to accepting students on the "split-list." On February 20, March 7, and April 7, 2013, however, Ms. Green-McKenzie was informed that Respondent was unable to receive, or uncomfortable in receiving, any additional students. Respondent's refusal to accept the split-list students was premised upon her concern that accepting students, who may potentially have behavioral problems, may incite further problems between herself and the Horace Mann administration. After the second occasion (March 7, 2013), Ms. McKenzie-Green simply stopped placing Respondent's name on the split-lists. On each of the above-referenced occasions, Ms. McKenzie Green accepted the Respondent's split-list students into her classroom. Ms. McKenzie-Green explained that her classroom is a "double" that always has additional space and seating and can accommodate upwards of 60 students. Dr. Jones-Cary credibly testified that Respondent's unwillingness to accept the split-list children created a disruption in the "flow of instruction" and was disruptive to the operation of the school. March 1 and 5, 2013 On March 1 and March 5, 2013, Ms. De Posada observed Respondent, during class, seated in a chair in the doorway of her classroom with her feet up on the doorframe. On both occasions, Ms. De Posada directed Respondent to move inside the classroom; however, she refused. March 7, 2013 On March 7, 2013, Ms. De Posada observed that Respondent's classroom door was open. When Ms. De Posada directed Respondent to close the door, Respondent refused. In addition to Ms. De Posada's directive, Dr. Jones-Carey had previously issued an email directive to all faculty and staff to keep the classroom doors closed in an effort to preserve the newly-installed air-conditioning system. March 12, 2013 On March 12, 2013, Ms. De Posada was present in the main office with several parents, as well as clerical staff. Respondent was also present in the main office for the purpose of making photocopies. Due to the number and nature of individuals present, coupled with a pending deadline on another administrative matter, Ms. De Posada requested Respondent to leave the main office and offered clerical assistance in providing Respondent the needed copies. Ms. De Posada credibly testified that, in response to the request, Respondent complained loudly and defiantly, and refused to leave the office when directed. March 21, 2013 On March 21, 2013, Ms. De Posada presented to Respondent's classroom to conduct an official observation. On that occasion, she observed that, after the class bell had rung, Respondent's students remained outside and unsupervised. Ms. De Posada took it upon herself to usher the students inside the classroom. Respondent arrived prior to the late bell and took her seat at her desk. Ms. De Posada advised Respondent that she was there to officially observe and requested Respondent's lesson plans. Ms. De Posada credibly testified that Respondent thereafter opened her desk drawer, tossed her lesson plans to Ms. De Posada without speaking, and slammed the desk drawer.3/ Respondent proceeded to call roll and, upon completion of same, began reading the paper. Once finished her reading, Respondent remained in her chair and, with the exception of reprimanding three children, did not engage with the students. Respondent did not engage in any conversation with Ms. De Posada throughout the duration of the observation. Respondent concedes that she did not interact with Ms. De Posada during the observation because of her concern of being falsely accused of irate or belligerent behavior. April 3, 2013 On April 3, 2013, Horace Mann held a mandatory faculty meeting to provide training for the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"). Per the UTD Contract, teachers are required to extend their workday for the purpose attending faculty meetings; however, such meetings cannot exceed one hour and shall begin no later than ten minutes after students are dismissed. On this occasion, the faculty meeting was scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m., however, it began a few minutes later to allow all teachers to arrive. Respondent, believing the UTD Contract allowed for her to leave at 5:00 p.m., left prior to the meeting being formally dismissed and without prior approval, at approximately 5:00 p.m. When Dr. Carey-Jones called out to Respondent, she continued to walk away from the meeting. Respondent was notified via a school-wide email that a make-up session for the FCAT training would be conducted at 8:20 a.m. Respondent perceived the make-up session was voluntary because it was scheduled prior to 8:30 (the time she believes she is required to work) and conflicted with a FCAT practice run also scheduled for that morning. Respondent did not seek clarification as to where she was to report. Accordingly, Respondent did not present to the training, but rather, went to the testing center. It is undisputed that Respondent did not complete the requisite training, and, therefore, was unable to proctor the FCAT exam. As a result, other teachers were assigned to cover Respondent's duties or responsibilities. April 24 and May 6, 2013 On April 24, 2013, a CFR was held and Respondent was directed to adhere to School Board polices and conduct herself in her employment and community in a manner that would reflect credit upon herself and her profession. On May 6, 2013, following Dr. Jones-Carey's recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated, the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") held a final CFR. Thereafter, OPS recommended that Respondent's employment be suspended pending dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding Shavonne Anderson guilty of gross insubordination, suspend her employment without pay for a period of 180 school days, and place her on probation for a period of two years. Because Ms. Anderson has already been suspended for more than 180 school days, it is RECOMMENDED that her employment be reinstated, with the calculation of back pay not to include pay for the 180- day suspension period. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Lake County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondents for the reasons specified in the agency action letters dated April 17, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lake County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Lake County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Rosier has been employed at Groveland Elementary School (Groveland) in Lake County, Florida, for three years. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, Mr. Rosier was the Instructional Dean. One of Mr. Rosier’s duties was to assist teachers with students who have behavioral problems and liaison with parents of these students. Mr. Rosier also conducted in- school suspension of students. Mr. Rosier also had a contract supplement to assist with students who were on campus after school hours because they either missed the bus or were not picked up by their parent or guardian on time. Mr. Rosier assisted by keeping the student safe and contacting the emergency contact on file for the student to find a way to get the student home. Ms. Lassen has taught at Groveland for four years. She taught first grade during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Petitioner Lassen is an “inclusion teacher,” meaning her classroom is a combination of students receiving Exceptional Student Education (ESE) services and students with no need for services. Ms. Lassen has no special training in ESE services for children with behavioral challenges. ESE students in her classroom are “push in, pull out,” meaning an exceptional education teacher comes in to work with some of the students in the classroom, and other students are pulled out of the classroom to work with an exceptional education teacher. Ms. Lassen was not happy at Groveland. She enjoyed teaching and was passionate about her students achieving their learning potential. However, she was frustrated by what she saw as a lack of needed services for her ESE students. Ms. Lassen applied for a transfer during the 2016 school year, but the transfer was denied. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Lassen had eleven ESE students in her classroom, four of whom had severe behavioral issues. Some of her students were violent, even trying to harm themselves. She found it stressful to corral children who were throwing things in the classroom, especially at other children, while trying to teach the required lessons. She often found herself dealing with parents who were upset about their ESE child being disciplined for their behaviors, or who were upset about the treatment of their child by an ESE student. To address these concerns, Ms. Lassen frequently met with Mr. Rosier. Toward the end of the 2017-2018 school year--in March 2018 particularly--they met roughly twice a week. The two met once in Mr. Rosier’s office and sometimes in the portable where Mr. Rosier conducted in-school suspension; however, they met most frequently in Ms. Lassen’s classroom. The meetings usually occurred around 4:00 p.m., after students were dismissed at 3:30 p.m. and Mr. Rosier’s after- school responsibilities ended. Ms. Lassen usually left the school between 4:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to pick up her own children from school and daycare and take them to after-school activities. During the meetings, Ms. Lassen discussed with Mr. Rosier the behavioral challenges she faced with students in her classroom, as well as the issues with parents. Mr. Rosier had the responsibility to deal with parents, often conducting parent conferences to address issues arising in the classroom. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier became friends, and occasionally discussed personal matters, in addition to classroom and parent issues. Sometimes Ms. Lassen would become emotional. Mr. Rosier assured her he would work to get the help the students needed. Kimberly Sneed was the Groveland Principal during the 2017-2018 school year. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Sneed entered Ms. Lassen’s classroom shortly after 4:00 p.m. Assistant Principal Joseph Mabry had suggested to Ms. Sneed that she should look into why Mr. Rosier was in Ms. Lassen’s classroom at that time. When Ms. Sneed arrived, she observed that the lights were turned off and the classroom was empty. She walked to the classroom supply closet, inserted her key, and opened the door, which opens inward. Just as she was pushing the door open, Ms. Lassen pulled the door open to exit the closet with her purse and supply bag in hand. Ms. Sneed did not try the closet door handle first to determine whether the closet was locked. She simply inserted the key in the lock and pushed open the door. She testified that she was not certain the closet door was actually locked. The closet light was off when Ms. Lassen opened the closet. Ms. Lassen testified that she had just switched the light off before opening the door to exit the closet. Ms. Sneed turned the light switch on as she entered the closet. Ms. Lassen was surprised to see Ms. Sneed and asked if she could help her find something. Ms. Sneed asked Ms. Lassen why she had been in a dark closet. How Ms. Lassen replied to Ms. Sneed’s question was a disputed issue. Ms. Lassen maintains she said, “Ms. Sneed, you don’t understand, all it was, it was just a kiss, a kiss on the cheek, nothing more.” Ms. Sneed maintains Ms. Lassen said, “We were only kissing, we weren’t doing anything, no sex or nothing.” Ms. Lassen promptly left to pick up her children. Ms. Sneed entered the closet and observed Mr. Rosier standing at the back of the L-shaped closet, with his back to the door. Mr. Rosier was fully clothed, but his shirt was untucked and his glasses were off. Ms. Sneed did not question Mr. Rosier. Instead she quipped sarcastically, “Really, Mr. Rosier? Really?” Mr. Rosier did not turn toward Ms. Sneed or otherwise respond to her immediately. As Ms. Sneed exited the closet and proceeded to leave the classroom, Mr. Rosier called after her and asked if he could talk with her in her office. What else Mr. Rosier said to Ms. Sneed at that time was also a disputed issue. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier stated, “I’ll admit we were kissing, and it turned into touching, but nothing else.” Mr. Rosier was not certain what exactly he said, but admitted that he did use the word “kiss.” He testified that everything happened quickly. He was embarrassed and Ms. Sneed was angry. The following day, Ms. Sneed reported the incident to the School Board Employee Relations Supervisor Katherine Falcon. That same day, both Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier were interviewed separately by Ms. Falcon. Ms. Falcon drafted an interview questionnaire based solely on her telephone conversation with Ms. Sneed that morning. The questionnaire contained the following seven questions: For the record state your name. What is your current position? How long have you been in your current position? Yesterday, Ms. Sneed found you and another teacher in a locked dark closet. Can you explain? Is this the first time you have engaged in this activity on campus? Did you share any information about this incident with anyone else? Is there anything else you would like to say? Ms. Falcon asked the questions, and David Meyers, Employee Relations Manager, typed Respondents’ answers. Ms. Falcon printed the interview record on site and presented it to each respective Respondent to review and sign. The report states Ms. Lassen’s response to Question 4 as follows: The closet was unlocked. It is always unlocked. I just kissed him. It didn’t go any further. There was no touching or clothing off. Nothing exposed. Nothing like that has ever happened before. Yesterday was more, like a kiss goodbye. I was getting ready to leave and getting my stuff. He was standing by the door. He was standing by my filing cabinet. Nobody ever comes in there during the day. Sneed wanted to know what we were doing in there. We told her we were fooling around a little bit, kissing. Ms. Lassen signed her interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. Ms. Lassen testified that she did not review the interview report before signing, did not understand it to be any form of discipline, and was anxious to return to her classroom because her ESE students do not do well in her absence. At the final hearing, Ms. Lassen denied stating anything about “fooling around a little” with Mr. Rosier. In response to the same question, Mr. Rosier’s report states the following: The closet wasn’t locked. This teacher, Katie Lassen and I have become good friends. Yesterday we caught ourselves being too close, kissing, hugging . . . . We were first in the main classroom. When we began to kiss we went in the closet. There was a knock on the door. It was Ms. Sneed. My clothes were kind of wrangled. Mr. Rosier also signed his interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. At the final hearing, Mr. Rosier denied stating that he and Ms. Lassen were “kissing and hugging” or that “when we began to kiss we went into the closet.” As to his statement that “we caught ourselves becoming too close,” he testified that he meant they had begun discussing personal issues in addition to Ms. Lassen’s concerns with her ESE students. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier testified as follows: they were discussing her concerns about a particular ESE student who was very disruptive and threatened to harm himself. Ms. Lassen was emotional. Ms. Lassen proceeded into the closet to get her things so she could leave to pick up her children and get them to after-school activities. Just inside the closet, Ms. Lassen broke down crying again. Mr. Rosier entered the closet, closing the door behind him (allegedly to keep anyone from seeing Ms. Lassen cry), put his hands on her shoulders and told her to get herself together and not let anyone see her crying when she left the school. She collected herself, thanked him, gave him a hug and they exchanged kisses on the cheek. Respondents’ stories at final hearing were nearly identical, a little too well-rehearsed, and differed too much from the spontaneous statements made at the time of the incident, to be credible. Based on the totality of the evidence, and inferences drawn therefrom, the undersigned finds as follows: Mr. Rosier was consoling Ms. Lassen and the two adults became caught up in the moment, giving in to an attraction born from an initial respectful working relationship. The encounter was brief and there is no credible evidence that Respondents did anything other than kiss each other. Both Respondents regret it and had no intention to continue anything other than a professional relationship. This incident occurred after school hours, sometime between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on April 2, 2018. The only students on campus were at an after-school care program in a different building across campus. No one witnessed Respondents kissing or entering the closet together. Only Ms. Sneed witnessed Respondents emerging from the closet. Both Respondents were terminated effective April 23, 2018. Administrative Charges The school board’s administrative complaints suffer from a lack of specificity. Both employees are charged with “engaging in sexual misconduct on the school campus with another school board employee which is considered Misconduct in Office,” in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for Educators (Principles). The administrative complaints do not charge Respondents with any specific date, time, or place of particular conduct which constitutes “sexual misconduct.”2/ Moreover, the School Board introduced no definition of sexual misconduct. The School Board inquired about some specific conduct during the Employee Relations interviews with Respondents. Ms. Falcon asked Respondents about being found together in a “locked dark closet.” The School Board failed to prove that the closet was either locked or dark while Respondents were in the closet. It appears the School Board bases its charge of Misconduct in Office, in part, on an allegation that the Respondents had “engaged in this activity on campus” on dates other than April 2, 2018. When Ms. Sneed went to Ms. Lassen’s room on April 2, 2018, she was acting upon a report that Mr. Rosier went to Ms. Lassen’s room every day at 4:00 p.m. There is no reliable evidence in the record to support a finding to that effect. The report that Mr. Rosier “went to Ms. Lassen’s classroom every day at 4:00,” was hearsay to the 4th degree,3/ without any non-hearsay corroborating evidence. Petitioner did not prove Respondents were ever together in a closet, much less a dark closet, on campus any date other than April 2, 2018. Finally, it appears the School Board bases its charges, in part, on an allegation that Mr. Rosier was not fulfilling his after-school duties because he was spending too much time with Ms. Lassen. To that point, Petitioner introduced testimony that on the Friday after spring break in March, Mr. Rosier was not to be found when the administration had to deal with a student who had either missed the bus or was not picked up on time. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier came through the front office, observed the student there with herself and Mr. Mabry, and left through the front office. Ms. Sneed assumed Mr. Rosier had left for the day, but that when she left the school she saw his car in the parking lot. Mr. Rosier recalled that particular day, and testified that, as two administrators were attending to the student, he did not see the need for a third. He chose instead to keep his appointment with Ms. Lassen to discuss her difficult students. Petitioner did not prove that Mr. Rosier neglected either his after-school or any other duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondents Katie Lassen and Alan Rosier, and award back pay and benefits retroactive to April 23, 2018. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board, has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned credits and makes the following findings of material and relevant facts: Lockridge has been employed by the School Board and last worked as an ESE behavior technician at Northport K-8 School. Pet. Exh. 1. Lockridge is a continuing status employee covered under the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the School Board and the Classroom Teachers' Association Classified Unit ("CTA/CU"). Resp. Exh. 6. The CTA/CU consists of behavior technicians, paraprofessionals, bus paraprofessionals, and clerical staff. Tr. II, p. 180, lines 10-14. During the 2014-2015 school year, Lockridge was assigned to Teacher Amber McDonald's self-contained classroom for intellectually disabled students at Floresta Elementary. The intellectually disabled classroom is for students with emotional disorders and students with an intelligence quotient ("IQ") under 69. Tr. I, p. 51, line 25-p. 52, line 2. For the 2014-2015 school year, there were five adults working in Ms. McDoanld's classroom: Randolph Lockridge, behavior technician; Sharon Koen, paraprofessional; Stephanie Ludwig, paraprofessional; Ms. McDonald, classroom teacher; and Deborah Ramsingh, student teacher. Tr. I, p. 52, line 24-p. 53, line 7. There were approximately 12 students in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 53, lines 8-10. Student D.S. was an eight-year-old ESE student whose primary disability is intellectual. D.S. is non-verbal and has Down's syndrome. Pet. Exh. 7. Because of his disability, D.S. is limited to two-word utterances "here and there." He has an IQ below 60 and intellectually he is on about a one and one-half- year-old level. Tr. I, p. 54, lines 10-17. September 8 and 9, 2014, Incidents with D.S. On September 8, 2014, Ms. Ramsingh was engaged in a lesson with the students on using crayons, teaching them how to hold the crayons and how to draw on the paper. D.S. kept taking his crayons and throwing them on the floor. She observed Lockridge take the student's hand and press his fingernail into the palm of D.S.'s hand. The student screamed "ow" and pulled his hand back. Tr. I, p. 34, lines 9-18. Lockridge looked at him and asked, "Why are you crying, what's wrong?" Tr. I, p. 35, lines 14-15. Ms. Ramsingh reported what she saw the following day to Ms. McDonald, the supervising teacher in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 35, line 25-p. 36, line 12. On September 9, 2014, when Lockridge and D.S. returned to the classroom from physical education ("PE"), Ms. Ramsingh observed another interaction between them. D.S. had his crayons, and he threw them on the floor again. Lockridge took his hand and pushed his fingernail into the palm of the student's hand again. He said "ow" again, but continued to throw his crayons on the floor. Lockridge pressed his finger into the student's hand a second time. The student said "ow" again. When Lockridge realized Ms. Ramsingh was looking at him, he commented, "I shouldn't do that, they don't like when I do that, some people think it is abuse." Tr. I, p. 36 line 22-p. 37 line 9. Ms. Ramsingh went to Ms. McDonald and told her that Lockridge put his fingernail in the student's hand two more times, and she told Ms. McDonald the statement that Lockridge made. Tr. I, p. 38, lines 12-18. Ms. McDonald left the classroom to report it. Tr. I, p. 38, lines 17- 20. Ms. Ludwig took D.S. into the restroom and yelled for Ms. Koen to come into the restroom. Tr. I, p. 39, lines 14-18. Ms. Koen told Lockridge to get Ms. McDonald. Tr. I, p. 40, lines 9-14. The staff had ice packs on D.S. Tr. I, p. 40, lines 21-23. Ms. Ramsingh observed the fingernail marks in D.S.'s hand and the ice that the staff was putting on D.S.'s wrist. Tr. I, p. 47, lines 5-9. Ms. Ramsingh gave a statement to law enforcement the following day. Tr. I, p. 41, lines 3-7; Pet. Exh. 4. She also provided a statement for the School Board's investigation. Pet. Exh. 7. Ms. McDonald testified about what she observed on D.S.'s body (after the student had returned from P.E.). She described it as a fresh bruise about three to four inches on both of D.S.'s wrists; it looked like he had a hand mark on both his wrists, and it was purplish already. Tr. I, p. 55, lines 5-11. D.S. did not have any bruises on his body before he went to PE. Ms. McDonald asked Lockridge what happened. Lockridge said he did not know, "maybe he fell." Tr. I, p. 56, lines 1-2. Lockridge said he had to help D.S. walk. Tr. I, p. 56, lines 5-6. D.S. did not have any bruising on his body when he left the classroom for PE. But, he returned with bruises on his wrist, and Lockridge was responsible for supervising D.S. while he was at PE. Tr. I, p. 73, lines 17-25. Ms. McDonald testified that her observation of Lockridge was that there were a lot of times he was loud and instead of de-escalating a situation, he would often escalate it. Tr. I, p. 59, lines 1-3. There were parents of children that Lockridge had worked with who had concerns about Lockridge. As a result, Ms. McDonald restricted him from working with specific students in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 58, lines 4-5 and lines 15-18. As a behavior technician, Lockridge was trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI). Pet. Exh. 20 and Exh. 23. The purpose of CPI is to de-escalate a situation before it ever comes to the point of having to restrain a child. Tr. I, p. 59, lines 4-8, and p. 59, lines 12-14. Ms. McDonald testified that de-escalation means to approach the student and get them to calm down, to breathe. Tr. I, p. 60, lines 1-6. Ms. McDonald also testified that it is not appropriate to restrain a child by the wrist where bruising would be caused. Tr. I, p. 62, lines 21-24. If the child begins to resist, "the teacher should not move, but should stand there until the child is ready to move." Tr. I, p. 64, lines 2-4. Lockridge provided a statement to the principal regarding the September 9, 2014, incident with D.S. Pet. Exh. 9. Law enforcement was contacted. Tr. I, p. 56, lines 14- 15; Pet. Exh. 4. On September 10, 2014, the school security officer, Frank Sisto, notified Maurice Bonner, executive director of Human Resources, of Ms. Ramsingh's report. Pet. Exh. 11. On September 10, 2014, Mr. Bonner hand-delivered a Formal Notice of Investigation and Temporary Duty Assignment to Lockridge and also verbally notified Lockridge of the allegations. Pet. Exh. 6; Tr. II, p. 171, lines 23–p. 172, line 11. Lockridge was temporarily assigned to the ESE office pending an investigation. On March 19, 2015, the School Board's internal investigation concluded. Pet. Exh. 7. On May 1, 2015, Mr. Lockridge received a Letter of Reprimand from Mr. Bonner and was reassigned to Northport K-8 School as a behavior technician. Pet. Exh. 15. Involvement by Mr. Maurice Bonner Mr. Bonner testified that he discussed Lockridge's conduct and his expectations concerning future conduct with Lockridge. Specifically, Mr. Bonner explained to Lockridge that inappropriate discipline of students was not acceptable behavior and that he was to cease and desist from any type of such discipline in the future. Tr. II, p. 174, line 15-21. As executive director of Human Resources for St. Lucie County Public Schools, Mr. Bonner is in charge of the hiring process for applicants, in charge of records for the school district employees, supports administrators in the discipline process, works with employees on leave, interprets School Board policy, and provides support to the superintendent and the School Board members. Tr. II, p. 168, lines 12-17. Mr. Bonner is responsible for applying and enforcing School Board Policy Chapter 6.00, Human Resources. Tr. II, p. 169, line 24–p. 170, line 4. When an allegation of inappropriate conduct or violation of School Board policy is made for an individual who interacts with students, and if it rises to the level of institutional abuse, the school district's protocol is for the School Board administrators to contact the Department of Children and Families, law enforcement, the human resources administrator, and then the parent. Tr. II, p. 171, lines 5-15. After Lockridge was assigned to Northport K-8 School on May 1, 2015, there was another incident involving Lockridge and a disabled student, V.S.I. Tr. II, p. 175, lines 14-18. On January 20, 2015, when Lockridge said he did not want to give any further statement, he and Victoria Rodriguez, his union representative, asked for a copy of the incident report from the law enforcement officer. Tr. II, p. 179, lines 21– p. 180, line 3. The School Board provided the incident report to Lockridge and Ms. Rodriguez, and Lockridge wrote a statement. Pet. Exh. 10. Lockridge said he was too nervous (about the meeting) and he did not want to sit down and answer questions. But, he eventually wrote his statement after reviewing law enforcement's incident report while his union representative was present. Pet. Exh. 10; Tr. II, p. 182, line 6. By letter dated June 29, 2015, Superintendent Genelle Yost informed Lockridge that she intended to recommend to the School Board that he be terminated. Pet. Exh. 22. Mr. Bonner, in his conversation with Lockridge regarding the first incident (with Student D.S.), warned and instructed Lockridge to not use inappropriate discipline on students. Despite this warning, a few weeks later at Northport K-8 School, Lockridge used inappropriate discipline on a student again. Mr. Bonner, as an administrator, had given Lockridge a previous directive that was not followed. In Mr. Bonner's professional opinion, that constituted insubordination. Tr. II, p. 185, lines 17–p. 186, line 1; Pet. Exh. 24. Mr. Bonner testified that sitting on a student's hands is not appropriate discipline. It is not an appropriate method of restraint of a student. Tr. II, p. 186, lines 5-9. In addition, it constitutes a violation of the code of ethics of the standards for employees in the education profession, putting students in danger of harm. Mr. Bonner stated that "We're in charge of their health, welfare and safety and that's not meeting that standard." Pet. Exh. 24; Tr. II, p. 186, lines 10-14. Commenting on the incident involved, Mr. Bonner felt that "sticking a thumb down in a student's palm" was indecent conduct and can be considered abusive to a student. Tr. II, p. 186, lines 21–p. 187, line 1; Pet. Exh. 24. In his opinion, Lockridge's conduct constituted unsatisfactory work performance since he had harmed a student. He also felt it constituted neglect of duty and violation of any rule, policy, or regulation. Tr. II, p. 187, lines 5-18; Pet. Exh. 24. Mr. Bonner explained how progressive discipline works: We have several steps that we can use as far as disciplining employees based on their conduct and based on the severity . . . if we believe that the incident or the behavior is severe enough, we can skip steps . . . we can start immediately with termination if it's severe enough. If we don't believe it is severe enough to go that way, then we go down that continuum--a letter of concern, letter of reprimand, suspension or termination. Tr. II, p. 191, lines 7-23. When you look at progressive discipline, you have to look at what the previous action is. If you're going to look at multiple offenses of the same nature, you can't discredit that. T. II, p. 193, line 23–p. 194, line 2. In Mr. Bonner's opinion, Lockridge's second incident of sitting on a child's hand is "also abusive and discourteous conduct, it's immoral and indecent, it's negligent because he was told not to use inappropriate discipline, it's unsatisfactory work performance, and it's a neglect of his duty because it's not proper protocol or training for restraint of a student. His conduct is also a violation of the rules, policies, and regulations." Tr. II, p. 194, lines 3-10; Pet. Exh. 24. Lockridge had a duty and responsibility, and he failed to discharge that duty knowingly, and that was negligence, in Mr. Bonner's opinion. Tr. II, p. 194, lines 23-25; Pet. Exh. 24. Lockridge knew that sitting on a child's hands was not a proper restraint technique under the CPI training that he has received as a behavior technician for the St. Lucie County Public School System. He was told, based on a previous instruction, that sticking his thumb down in the student's hand was not appropriate discipline or restraint of a student. He knew that what he was doing was not appropriate and that it did not meet the standards of the St. Lucie County Public School System nor the training he received. Tr. II, p. 195, lines 11-23. Mr. Bonner told Lockridge when he gave him the Letter of Reprimand that if Lockridge violated any of the School Board policies again, more severe disciplinary action could be taken. Tr. II, p. 197, lines 13-22. The standard for skipping steps in progressive discipline is based on the employee's behavior. Tr. II, p. 198, lines 12-15. "It is on a case by case basis . . . if you did something very egregious, we don't have to start at the beginning of that continuum. Based on the behavior of the employee then [sic] dictates where we go on to that continuum." Tr. II, p. 198, lines 17-23. May 19, 2015, Incident with V.S.I. Jennifer Staab was a behavior technician at Northport K-8 School. Tr. I, p. 80, lines 1-6. Ms. Staab was certified in CPI. Tr. I, p. 81, lines 5-9. She worked with students in an emotionally behaviorally disturbed ("EBD") classroom on May 19, 2015. It is a self- contained classroom. Tr. I, p. 82, lines 1-7. On May 19, 2015, there were eight or nine students in the EDB self-contained classroom. Tr. I, p. 82, lines 11-14. There was only one way into the desk; the desk was pushed up against the computers. Tr. I, p. 83, lines 11-15. Ms. Staab heard a slap and that drew her attention to that direction. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 5-8. Lockridge was sitting on the desk; his back was towards V.S.I. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 11-12. V.S.I. was sitting in the desk. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 14-18. When Lockridge got off of the desk, Ms. Staab noticed deep indentations, at least two or three of them, on the student's one arm. Tr. I, p. 85, lines 22–p. 86, line 5. Ms. Staab concluded that Lockridge had to have been sitting on V.S.I.'s hands. Tr. I, p. 86, lines 16-18. From the way behavior technicians are trained, Ms. Staab considered Lockridge being seated on the desk and trying to prevent the student from getting out of the desk, to be an inappropriate restraint. Tr. I, p. 87, lines 14-22. If the student is not a threat to themselves or others, then physical restraint is not appropriate. Tr. I, p. 89, lines 15-18. While doing a single-hold restraint, the adult is behind the child. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 1-4. Ms. Staab never observed Lockridge behind the child. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 5-7. Ms. Staab noticed two indentations on V.S.I.'s arm, about three inches long. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 8-19. Testimony of Randolph Lockridge Ms. Staab did not witness V.S.I. trying to elope or run from the classroom. Tr. I, p. 98, lines 22-24. Lockridge admitted that he took hold of V.S.I.'s wrists, causing bruising to her wrists. Pet. Exh. 16; Tr. II, p. 213, lines 6-9. From Lockridge's perspective, "it was crisis because she was not being safe . . . she was 'not complying' with his verbal direction." (emphasis added). Tr. II, p. 213, lines 19-23. Lockridge argued that V.S.I. exhibited behavior, i.e. her elopement, that might harm other students. Tr. II, p. 213, line 24–p. 214, line 5.1/ Lockridge testified, without specific detail, that V.S.I. "could have hit, kicked, maybe spit on somebody or something." Tr. II, p. 214, lines 7-10. Lockridge testified that he was holding V.S.I.'s wrists when he was sitting on them. Tr. II, p. 215, lines 4-6. Despite his training, Lockridge testified that he did not understand that it was an inappropriate method of discipline for him to be sitting on V.S.I.'s hands. Tr. II, p. 215, lines 11-13. Lockridge testified that he did not intentionally violate any School Board policies or intend to violate any directives that he was given. Tr. II, p. 220, line 24–p. 221, line 3. This appeared, in part, to be the crux of his defense to the charges brought. Lockridge testified that when the incident was happening at Northport K-8 School with V.S.I., he reverted to and used his "military restraint training," instead of his School Board restraint training. Tr. II, p. 222, lines 15-17. Lockridge testified that he did not bring up this issue of his military training "kicking in," as he put it, concerning the incident involving V.S.I. However, he discussed it before with a behavior analyst concerning another student. Tr. II, p. 230, lines 19-21, and p. 231, lines 18-20. Lockridge related an incident that had occurred in May 2015. Apparently, a student tried to assault him while he was walking back to the ESE office. His old military restraint training came into play, and he ended up having to put the student on the ground. He physically put the student on the ground. Tr. II, p. 232, lines 12-16, and p. 233, lines 4-11. In a candid admission, Lockridge testified that he does not believe that "at this moment" he could work with disabled students at the school district as a behavior technician. Pet. Exh. 12; Tr. II, p. 236, lines 21-24. Describing his military restraint training (that he sometimes reverts to), Lockridge testified that because he was going to be working with prison detainees, "They taught us various techniques to keep yourself safe and try not to do harm to the prisoners either." Tr. II, p. 237, lines 17-22. Lockridge testified that, unlike CPI training, military restraint training is not non-violent training. It could be violent. Because, as he put it, you are working with prison detainees. So, Lockridge could not say it was non-violent. Tr. II, p. 237, line 23–p. 238, line 3. When asked if it is foreseeable that he could become violent with a student, Lockridge answered, "I don't know. . . . I understand what I did was wrong. I don't know how I could have done some things differently. I don't know." Tr. II, p. 238, lines 4-8. When asked if he can say with any degree of certainty that he may not pose a danger to students, Lockridge testified that, "if I'm put in a stressful situation with a very aggressive student or that I perceive to be aggressive, I do what I think is best for my safety at the time. Or the student's safety too." Tr. II, p. 238, lines 14-24. Lockridge testified, frankly, that for him, it is sometimes more of an automatic response and that he cannot really control this military restraint training that kicks in. Tr. II, p. 238. line 25–p. 239, line 3. Testimony of Virginia Snyder Virginia Snyder works for the Department of Children and Families as a child protective investigator. Tr. I, p. 153, lines 6-8. She prepared a report of institutional abuse, an investigative summary. Pet. Exh. 2.; Tr. I, p. 153, lines 13-25. Her investigation and report involved Lockridge sitting on V.S.I.'s hands to restrain her in the classroom at Northport K-8 School. Tr. I, p. 154, lines 21-25. She went to the school, talked with administration, talked to witnesses, and talked to children involved on the report. Tr. I, p. 154, lines 3-9. Ms. Snyder made verified findings for "threatened harm of physical injury." Tr. I, p. 154, lines 11-16. Ms. Snyder concluded that Lockridge had in fact sat on the child's hand. Tr. I, p. 155, lines 2-4. She also made a finding that the school district's policies and practices were appropriate. Tr. I, p. 155, lines 15-17. "Threatened harm" means the possibility that the person's actions can cause an injury to the child. Tr. I, p. 155, line 23–p. 156, line 1. Ms. Snyder testified that the Department of Children and Families felt that a pattern was appearing due to a prior investigation that was closed without a substantiated finding. When the Department of Children and Families conducted an institutional staffing, the Department of Children and Families was concerned that there was a pattern starting. Tr. I, p. 157, lines 4-8. Specifically, Ms. Snyder "looked at how Lockridge restrained the child, was it appropriate or was it inappropriate . . . . And that is where we established that there was a type of behavior, a pattern starting." Tr. I, p. 157, line 20–p. 158, line 2. "We (DCF) don't make the recommendation. We make the report so that those involved can have a copy of an official report from the Department of Children and Families. We put the findings in there so that whoever administrative-wise is taking a look at it can make a decision, like the School Board, as to what penalty that staff member may face." Tr. I, p. 159, lines 17-24. Based on Department of Children and Families legislation, she felt that the two incidents are "a pattern" and are not reflective of just isolated events. Tr. I, p. 162, lines 1-5, 16-17. Testimony of William Tomlinson Bill Tomlinson is the executive director for Student Services and Exceptional Student Education. Tr. I, p.112, lines 4-5. He has worked for the School Board a total of 29 years. Tr. I, p. 112, lines 13-14. Tomlinson testified regarding whether behavior technicians are trained in any sort of restraint or CPI. He testified that the school district has two separate models that are used in the district. The first is non-violent crisis prevention intervention, better known as CPI. The second model the district uses, for more severe children that may be in a special day school, is professional crisis management. Non- violent CPI is a nationally recognized model that deals primarily with strategies to verbally de-escalate behavior. It employs different levels of strategies with students before getting into physical management of any type of behavior. The physical management piece is a part or a component of the training, but it is really the last resort. In his opinion, "that (i.e., physical management) should be last." Tr. I, p. 114, lines 4-21. It is meant to be a process in which the teacher tries to curtail the behavior of the student by working with them to help them self-regulate so that the student can take ownership of his/her behavior and get themselves under control without the teacher having to do any type of physical management. Tr. I, p. 115, lines 8-16. "Many teachers, many principals have all been trained in this method so that they understand how to de-escalate behavior verbally, how to work with students to offer choices that you can do, versus doing this." Tr. I, p. 115, line 24. Tomlinson noted that "restraint" is a term used "whenever we physically manage a person . . . the way we define it is if you have to immobilize someone's limbs and they're not free, they no longer have freedom of movement, that would be considered a restraint." Tr. I, p. 116, lines 5-10. In his opinion, restraint of anyone is the last resort. Tr. I, p. 117, line 7. He added that "if you see that the behavior is something that you can verbally begin to de-escalate, have conversation with the child, the child is able to understand rationally what it is that you're asking of them, then you're going to employ all of these strategies before you ever get to that last resort." Tr. I, p. 118, lines 4-9. Any time an employee in the district has involvement with a child and there is a report of suspected institutional abuse, Tomlinson is notified. Mr. Bonner (Human Resources) is notified, and he, law enforcement, and the Department of Children and Families all work through the process together. Tr. I, p. 122, lines 16-23. Lockridge was removed and placed in the ESE department, working in the reception area where there was no access to children while the investigation was ongoing. Tr. I, p. 123, lines 6-11. Freedom of movement is good (the child likes the freedom of running off and playing on a playground or during PE) as long as they are safe. Tr. I, p. 126, lines 19-23. "If we end up bruising the child in anything that means to us that we have applied the wrong process or the wrong procedure." Tr. I, p. 127, lines 4-8.2/ "If the child starts fighting back in the process where there is restraint used, they're trying to get out of that, you need to let them go. You may have to resume the restraint once it is safe to do so." Tr. I, p. 127, lines 9-11. "If the child isn't hurting anybody . . . from crawling under (the desk) or crawling out of their desk . . . then it would be appropriate to not bring attention or get attention from someone. Instead, praise another child for acting appropriately or remaining in their chair. This is an effective approach to use." Tr. I, p. 128, lines 3-25. It is "absolutely not appropriate," in terms of restraint, to sit on a child's hand. Tr. I, p. 129, lines 1-3. It is not appropriate to take a disabled child by the wrist to try to get them to go where you want them to. The first appropriate response is "take my hand and let's walk." Tr. I, p. 131, lines 17–p. 132, line 3. Tomlinson testified, "I may take a person simply by the elbow and follow me. . . . That . . . is after you have exhausted the verbal demand for this. Because it's unnatural to have to do that, to lead people or to pull them where you want them to go." Tr. I, p. 132, lines 14-24. The January 13, 2012, mid-year review for Lockridge shows improvement needed in job knowledge and skills and quality of work. Resp. Exh. 5; Tr. I, p. 143 line 25–p. 144, line 2. Listed on Lockridge's mid-year evaluation at the time was that he needed improvement in job knowledge and skills and the quality of work. The narrative indicated that he was required to work with the behavior analyst at Sam Gaines School to review the appropriate protocols to follow to gain compliance from the students with whom he is working. Lockridge was required to attend training offered behavior technicians on early release and professional development days. Tr. I, p. 149, lines 6-14; Pet. Exh. 19. Lockridge was directed to increase his knowledge of behavioral tools to verbally de-escalate a situation, as well as to remain objective instead of entering into a verbal disagreement with students. It means not getting into a verbal power struggle with the child. "Be calm, relaxed in the tone and tenor of your voice and, whenever you work with the individual, don't let that person bring you into the type of behavior that they're exhibiting." Tr. I, p. 149, line 4–p. 150, line 4; Pet. Exh. 19. Finally, Tomlinson testified that it would not be appropriate for a behavior technician to drive their fingernail into the palm of any child. Tr. I, p. 150 lines 5-9.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the St. Lucie County School Board terminating Respondent from his position as an ESE behavior technician. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 4th day of April, 2016.
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate Respondents' employment with the Monroe County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Events Petitioner is the authorized entity charged with the responsibility to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Monroe County, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondents David Gootee and Marisa Gootee (hereinafter "Mr. Gootee," "Mrs. Gootee, or "the Gootees") served as cosmetology teachers at Key West High School ("KWHS"). Pursuant to the terms of their professional service contracts, Mr. and Mrs. Gootee were obligated to perform, respectively, 4.8 and 7.5 hours of work each school day; in exchange, the Gootees each received salaries.1/ As established during the final hearing, the School Board offers cosmetology instruction to two distinct populations: "traditional" high school students, who are taught during regular school hours; and individuals enrolled in the School Board's adult education program. From what can be gleaned from the record, it appears that, prior to the 2001-2002 school year, adults who received cosmetology instruction did so separately, and at different times (presumably, in the late afternoon or evening), from traditional high school students. Consequently, the work hours for which the Gootees received salaries, which coincided with KWHS's regular bell schedule, were dedicated exclusively to the instruction of traditional students. In or around 2001, however, John Andola, the School Board's director of adult education, asked the Gootees if they would be willing to furnish instruction to the adult students during normal school hours——i.e., at the same time as the traditional cosmetology students. By all accounts, the presence of the adult students would, and ultimately did, impose additional responsibilities upon the Gootees. For instance, the adult students, who were segregated from the traditional students for part of the day (thereby requiring the Gootees to traverse between the two populations), were tested and issued grades.2/ In exchange for their assumption of these extra burdens, Mr. Andola proposed that, in addition to their existing salaries, the Gootees would each receive three hours of compensation——at a rate of approximately $20 per hour——for every workday, notwithstanding the fact that the Gootees would be spending more than three hours daily with the adult students. (In other words, the hourly pay would be "capped" at three hours per workday.) Of the genuine and reasonable belief that Mr. Andola's proposal was legitimate,3/ the Gootees accepted the offer. Before proceeding further, it is important to make two observations concerning the foregoing compensation arrangement. First, and as confirmed by the final hearing testimony of the School Board's witnesses, it was not unheard of in Monroe County for salaried teachers to receive additional, hourly pay for providing instruction to adult education students.4/ Moreover, the disbursement of hourly pay to the Gootees, a practice that would continue unabated from 2001 through September 2009, was no secret; indeed, the authorization of hourly pay on an "as needed basis" is documented throughout the Gootees' personnel forms, which bear the initials or signatures of various School Board officials, including that of the deputy superintendent.5/ In or around 2007, Monique Acevedo replaced Mr. Andola as the School Board's director of adult education. As Mr. Andola's former secretary, Ms. Acevedo was aware that the Gootees were receiving hourly pay, and there is no dispute that the arrangement continued with her approval. At or about the time of Ms. Acevedo's promotion, the adult education department instituted a requirement that its instructors submit written, weekly timesheets. The timesheets, which indicated that the total hours worked per week for the adult program, were signed by the instructor and delivered to the secretary of the department, who, in turn, forwarded the document to Ms. Acevedo for approval. Thereafter, an office manager entered the hours into a computer system, which could then be viewed by the payroll department.6/ Notably, the adult education timesheets related only to the hourly work performed in connection with that particular program; that is, the forms were not intended to document the time spent by salaried instructors in connection with their contractual work responsibilities. Consistent with these procedures, and over the next several years, the Gootees submitted written timesheets to the adult education department. In accordance with the three-hour cap (put in place by Mr. Andola, and continued by Ms. Acevedo), the Gootees billed three hours per day, for a total of 15 hours weekly, on their timesheets. For informational and non-billing purposes only, the Gootees also indicated on the timesheets the span of time in which they were on campus and in the presence of adult students. Specifically, Ms. Gootee typically recorded times of 8:15 a.m. through 3:45 p.m., while Mr. Gootee, who worked a shorter day, generally notated 8:15 a.m. or 8:30 a.m. through 1:00 p.m. However, it must be emphasized, once again, that these ranges, which were recorded solely on the adult timesheets, were not intended to reflect the amount of time the Gootees spent in connection with their salaried, contractual work. (For those duties, KWHS teachers, including the Gootees, were required to sign in and out of the workplace in a separate, daily log.)7/ Subsequently, in late March or early April of 2009, the School Board terminated Ms. Acevedo's employment. At that time, and on an interim basis, Jeff Arnott assumed Ms. Acevedo's duties as the director of the adult education program. Over the next five months, the Gootees continued to submit their weekly timesheets, which Mr. Arnott approved.8/ Thereafter, in September 2009, Mr. Arnott was appointed as the director of the adult education program on a permanent basis, at which point he gained access to the School Board's master schedule. From his examination of the schedule, Mr. Arnott learned that the Gootees' work for the adult program occurred during regular school hours, as opposed to some other time period that did not coincide with their salaried work schedule. Concerned with the "overlap" in the hours, Mr. Arnott immediately inquired of the Gootees (both of whom enjoyed excellent reputations as professionals, a point Mr. Arnott conceded at hearing), who explained, correctly, that the arrangement had been ongoing for years with the approval of the prior directors.9/ Nevertheless, Mr. Arnott reported the issue to the superintendent of schools, culminating in the initiation of the instant proceeding. As noted earlier, the School Board called only two witnesses in this matter: Mr. Arnott, who had no involvement in the adult education department until 2009, some eight years after the Gootees began receiving the hourly pay; and Debra Henriquez, an employee in the School Board's payroll department. Through Ms. Henriquez' testimony, the School Board attempted to establish that the payroll department was unaware of the overlap in the Gootees' hours——an arrangement the witness opines was improper——until September 2009. The School Board fails to recognize, however, that Ms. Henriquez' knowledge of the situation10/ and her view of its legitimacy are of no moment; the issue, as framed by the Complaints, is whether the Gootees, in accepting the hourly compensation, acted with dishonest or fraudulent intent. It is concluded, for the reasons explained below, that the Gootees did not act with such intent. Contrary to the School Board's suggestion, this is not a situation where an educator committed an obvious and indefensible act of impropriety, such as accepting bribes for inflating grades, helping students cheat on the FCAT, or stealing money from the lunchroom cash register——behavior that could not be legitimately defended on the basis that it occurred with a supervisor's encouragement or approval. Here, the director of the adult program, an individual tasked with utilizing adult education funds,11/ offered the Gootees extra pay (approximately $10,000 each per school year, a sum that is hardly conscience shocking) in exchange for their assumption of additional duties; that the work with the adults occurred during regular school hours does not change this fact, nor does it compel a rejection of the Gootees' credible and reasonable testimony that they believed in the arrangement's propriety. This is particularly so in the absence of any evidence that the Gootees' professional services contracts obligated them to accept the adult education students without any corresponding increase in compensation. Finally, the undersigned rejects the School Board's contention that the Gootees' notations on their weekly, adult education timesheets were somehow fraudulent or dishonest. Notably, the entries recorded on the forms accurately reflected the spans of time, during regular school hours, in which the Gootees instructed the adult students——i.e., there is no evidence that the Gootees attempted to conceal the "overlap" by recording time periods when they were not dealing with the adult students, such as after the normal school day or during the evening. Indeed, that the timesheet entries plainly indicated the existence of an overlap only further supports the Gootees' credible testimony that they believed in the arrangement's legitimacy. Determinations of Ultimate Fact It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondents are not guilty of failing to maintain honesty in their professional dealings. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondents are not guilty of submitting fraudulent information on documents connected with their professional dealings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Monroe County School Board enter a final order: dismissing the administrative complaints; immediately reinstating Respondents' employment; and awarding Respondents any lost salary and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 2013.
The Issue Whether Sharon V. Eaddy (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade County School Board (the School Board) on August 29, 2014, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a paraprofessional.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Campbell Drive Center is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the 2013-2014 school year, the School Board employed Respondent as a paraprofessional pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. The School Board assigned Respondent to a Pre-K special education classroom at Campbell Drive Center taught by Pascale Vilaire. Respondent has worked at Campbell Drive Center as a paraprofessional for 13 years. During the 2013-2014 school year, 14 special needs students were assigned to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. Those students were between three and five years of age. L.H., a four-year-old boy who was described as being high functioning on the autism spectrum, was one of Ms. Vilaire’s students. L.H. had frequent temper tantrums during the 2013-2014 school year. Prior to the conduct at issue in this matter, Respondent had had no difficulty managing L.H.’s behavior. There was a conflict in the evidence as to the date the conduct at issue occurred. The undersigned finds that the conduct occurred April 9, 2014, based on the Incident Information admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 4, on the testimony of Yamile Aponte, and on the testimony of Grisel Gutierrez.1/ Ms. Aponte had a daughter in Ms. Vilaire’s class and often served as a parent-volunteer. Ms. Aponte was at Campbell Drive Center’s cafeteria on the morning of April 9, 2014. Present in the cafeteria were Ms. Vilaire, Respondent, some of Ms. Vilaire’s class (including L.H.) and students from other classes. When Ms. Aponte entered the cafeteria, L.H. was crying and hanging on to a trash bin. Ms. Vilaire was attending to another student. Respondent was trying to deal with L.H. to prevent him from tipping over the trash bin. Respondent led L.H. by the wrist back to a table where they sat together. Ms. Aponte approached them and offered L.H. a milk product referred to as a Pediasure. Because L.H. was allergic to milk, Respondent told Ms. Aponte that L.H. could not have the product. When Ms. Vilaire lined up her class to leave the cafeteria, L.H. threw a tantrum because he was still hungry. Ms. Aponte testified that Respondent grabbed L.H. by the wrist and pulled him up. Ms. Vilaire observed the entire interaction between L.H. and Respondent in the cafeteria. Ms. Vilaire did not witness anything she thought was inappropriate or caused her concern. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent became physically aggressive toward L.H. in the cafeteria by dragging him across the floor or otherwise grabbing him inappropriately. Paragraph nine of the Notice of Specific Charges contains the allegation that while in the cafeteria, “Respondent forcefully grabbed L.H. and dragged him across the floor.” Petitioner did not prove those alleged facts. After the class finished in the cafeteria, the students lined up to go back to the classroom. Ms. Vilaire was at the front of the line, and Respondent was ten to fifteen feet behind at the end of the line with L.H. Ms. Aponte was part of the group going from the cafeteria to the classroom. During the walk back to the classroom, Ms. Vilaire did not see or hear anything between Respondent and L.H. she thought was inappropriate. She did not hear anything that diverted her attention to Respondent and L.H. At the time of the conduct at issue, Barbara Jackson, an experienced teacher, taught first grade at Campbell Drive Center. While Ms. Vilaire’s class was walking from the cafeteria to the classroom, Ms. Jackson had a brief conversation with Respondent about getting food for her class from McDonald’s. Ms. Jackson did not hear or see anything inappropriate between Respondent and L.H. After stopping to talk with Ms. Jackson, Respondent resumed walking to Ms. Vilaire’s classroom. L.H. continued to cry and attempted to pull away from Respondent. L.H. wanted to be the leader of the line, a position that is rotated among the class members. Ms. Vilaire led the other class members into the classroom while Ms. Aponte, Respondent, and L.H. were still outside. While still outside, they saw Grisel Gutierrez, a teacher at Campbell Drive Center. L.H. began to throw himself on the ground on top of his backpack. Ms. Aponte and Ms. Gutierrez saw Respondent grab L.H. forcefully by the arm and hit him on his shoulder with a slapping sound.2/ After Respondent returned L.H. to the classroom, L.H. tried to push over a bookcase containing books and toys. To prevent L.H. from pushing over the bookcase, Respondent grabbed L.H. by his hands and held them behind his back. Ms. Vilaire witnessed the interaction between Respondent and L.H. in the classroom and thought Respondent acted appropriately. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent acted inappropriately towards L.H. while in the classroom. Ms. Aponte reported what she had seen to the school principal the day of the incident. Respondent learned that Ms. Aponte had complained against her the day of the incident. After school the day of the incident, Respondent angrily confronted Ms. Aponte and asked her why she had lied. Rounett Green, a security guard at Campbell Drive Center, stepped in to end the confrontation between Respondent and Ms. Aponte. There was no evidence that Respondent attempted to threaten Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not use inappropriate language towards Ms. Aponte. Respondent did not make physical contact with Ms. Aponte. L.H.’s mother heard about the alleged interactions between Respondent and L.H. When L.H. returned home after school, the mother examined L.H. and found no bruises or other unusual marks on L.H.’s body. At its regularly scheduled meeting on June 18, 2014, the School Board suspended Respondent’s employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate her employment.
Recommendation The following recommendations are based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: It is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate the employment of Sharon V. Eaddy. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 15th day of January, 2015.
