Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Respondent, Lloyd Wright, was a teacher employed by the St. Lucie County School District at Westwood High School. Tenecia Poitier was, during the 1986-1987 school year, a student of Respondent in his world history class. In early February, 1987, she filed a complaint against him with school officials because, she says, she got tired of his repeated comments to her of a sexual nature. Reportedly, on one occasion, Respondent indicated to her that he was going to "... fuck her brains out." This comment was overheard by another student in the class, Tony Lee, who believed Respondent was only joking with her. No follow-up action was taken by Respondent on this threat. Ms. Poitier also alleges that on one occasion, while in the school library, Respondent came over and sat down next to her and touched her on the leg. This was observed by Felicia Newton who was sitting across the library table from Ms. Poitier and who, because she was sitting out somewhat from the table, could see Respondent touch her on the outside of the leg. The hug Respondent also gave Ms. Poitier was more of a friendly hug than one with sexual overtones as was the touch. When Ms. Poitier told him to stop, he did and immediately thereafter left the table. Respondent has never hugged or touched Ms. Newton and she has never heard any other girl say Respondent has hugged or touched them except Ms. Poitier, who had told her prior to the library incident that she didn't like the way Respondent was always touching her. On one other occasion, according to Ms. Poitier, when she got chocolate on her pants in class, she asked to go to the rest room to wash it off. In response, she claims, Respondent grabbed her "butt" and commented, "Girl, I want that thing" or words to that effect. Ms. Poitier claims that when he did that, she "cussed him out." Ms. Poitier filed her complaint with school officials after reporting the incident to her father. It would appear, however, that the complaint was motivated by fear of punishment herself, as Respondent contends that on the day prior to the complaint, he observed her doing her math homework in his history class and confiscated and destroyed it. When he did this, she became irate and indicated she was going to tell her father. With that, Respondent summoned a representative of the administration and had her ejected from class. He also wrote a letter to her counselor complaining that she refused to follow class rules and was disruptive and requested she be taken out of his class because she was not doing the required work. There is ample independent testimony from others, including Ms. Poitier herself; that she curses frequently in class and her reputation for telling the truth is not good. In addition, Respondent had notified Ms. Poitier that she had been denied membership in the Millionaire's Club which he sponsored, because she would not follow club rules. She was also dismissed from membership in the Pep Club because of her forgery of Respondent's name to hall passes. Neither these latter actions nor the allegations of her removal from class, testified to only by Respondent, were corroborated by independent evidence. Ms. Poitier denies being put out of the Pep Club and claims she quit the Millionaire's club to join another one. Ms. Poitier indicates, on the other hand, that she was written up because she had threatened to tell her father what Respondent had said and done to her. Her veracity being successfully attacked, however, it is found that Respondent's story is more believable. Respondent, Ms. Poitier claims, also hugged other girls and touched at least one, Ms. McGee, on the leg when she came up to his desk on one occasion. In fact, she claims, he will touch any girl who will put up with it. McGee, on the other hand, denied that Respondent touched her on the leg as alleged by Poitier, but contends he did hug her around the shoulder from the side on one occasion. More significant, however, is the fact, admitted by the Respondent, that early one morning, while driving his mother to the grocery store, he saw Ms. McGee walking with two boys, one of whom was her brother. Respondent drove up beside them, waved and blew his horn to get their attention, and then told her he was going to take her to the woods. He claims he did not mean the comment to be taken literally but more as a joke like the kids would make. He did not believe that McGee took the comment seriously but, in fact she did, and the comment was totally inappropriate for a teacher to make to a female student under any circumstances. Other students, such as Eugenia Lunsford, report improper comments by Respondent to them or others. Ms. Lunsford claims she heard him tell girls, in the classroom, that he liked them and ask them if he could have a chance with them. She contends she heard him state that he'd like to "fuck" Cochina Hall and Tenecia Poitier. Ms. McGee remembers Respondent stating he would like to do something sexual to her, and on one occasions, when she asked him to stop peeling a grapefruit in class, he asked her if he could touch her. He never did, however, except to give her a hug. She considers the term "touch" to mean a sexually oriented touching of a girl's private parts. She also recalls an incident where she saw Respondent pull Ms. Foster's shirt away from her body by the pocket and look down the front. She thinks he was looking at her breasts. Ms. Foster, however, denies this incident happened. In light of this, Ms. McGee's testimony is suspect and, like Ms. Poitier, her credibility is slight. There is no evidence that by any of the hugs that he gave the various girls he in any way committed any inappropriate touching of the breasts or any place else or that though unwelcome, they were sexual in nature. The report by Ms. Lunsford of Respondent's touching Ms. Foster's "butt" was denied by Ms. Foster. In substance, Ms. Lunsford's testimony is not credible and Ms. Foster considers Respondent a good teacher. She would not fear going back into his class. Tony Lee, who heard Respondent make the inappropriate comment to Ms. Poitier, also heard him say to a female student, "Pull your pants down and let me touch you." At the time, Respondent and a group of female students were laughing and joking together and he does not feel that Respondent's comment was seriously made. In fact, Respondent frequently joked with his students, both male and female, making suggestive comments, and everyone knew they were jokes. Lee knows of no incident where Respondent ever attempted to follow up on these comments. He denies ever hearing that Respondent attempted to touch Ms. McGee. To the contrary, she allegedly told Lee she had attempted to touch Respondent and Lee told her she was crazy to do that. Only one parent had direct knowledge of Respondent's relationship with his students. At one parent/teacher night, Mrs. Johnson was attending Respondent's presentation to a group of students and parents when he reportedly stopped in mid- sentence and ogled one or more female students who came into the room. Mrs. Johnson felt his stare, which, she claimed, constituted a visual undressing of the girls, was inappropriate and embarrassing. Her comments were endorsed by her daughter Josephine, who would not want to go back into Respondent's class. In this incidents however, Respondent neither said anything to or about these girls nor did he attempt to touch them. Petitioner presented testimony to establish that at one time, Respondent humiliated a male student in his class by implying he was a homosexual. Both the student and his mother were permitted to testify to this incident without objection by Respondent. This is, however, irrelevant to the issues framed by the Notice of Charges and in any case, the student admits that he and another student were smirking at allegedly inaccurate statements made by Respondent during his lecture, misconduct and out-of-line behavior in and of itself. Assuming, arguendo, that Respondent's reaction to the student was inappropriate, it has no relevance to the conduct complained of in the Notice of Charges. Other present and former students of Respondent indicated that he had a good rapport with his students and is a good teacher. None of these individuals including, Ms. Shaw, Ms. Donovan, Ms. Fuller, Ms. Frazier, and Ms. Diaz have ever seen him be improper or sexual in orientation with students notwithstanding numerous observations. He is not known by these people to flirt with or improperly touch students or to make suggestive comments to them though he would hug from time to time. The extent of his familiarity would be comments like, "Hey, baby. How ya doin'?," or words to that effect, comments readily admitted by Respondent. According to Ms. Frazier, a student in Respondent's class with Ms. Poitier, some students would speak improperly to Respondent by cussing at him. Usually, he would warn them but if they got out of hands he would write them up. Respondent is described by some, and by himself, as a friendly, outgoing, caring person who tries to get his students to achieve their potential. He is a tough taskmaster who expects his students to do their best. By his own admission, he tries to relate to his students by speaking their language and using their phrases. He tries to get his students to relate to him by relating to them and in 9 1/2 years as a teacher he has never before been told this was improper. He admits to hugging his students from the side and to touching them on the arm or head in encouragement while teaching. He rides up and down the aisles in his classroom on a rolling chair so he can sit next to students who are having trouble to help them. He uses flattery, even personal comments such as "You are beautiful" in an effort to motivate his students and denies that any of his comments or touchings were salacious or sexually oriented. From an evaluation of the evidence, it becomes clear that Respondent did not touch or handle his female students in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner. It is equally clear, however, that on several occasions he did make lewd, lascivious, or indecent comments to female students which could be construed as advances though it is doubtful he would have followed through on them. These comments, however, in the expert opinion of Ms. Bretherick, an experienced teacher, are never appropriate for a teacher to make to a student. A teacher who made such comments would be ineffective as a teacher. Exposure to such a teacher adversely effects the students' capacity to learn the subject matter and clouds or distorts the concept of the teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Lloyd Wright, be discharged from employment with the St. Lucie School District because of misconduct in office. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1366 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner Petitioner, by letter, specifically declined to submit proposed findings of fact. By Respondent Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated Finding of Fact. Accepted as to the ultimate fact that the comment was made. Motivation is irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. First sentence is. Accepted and incorporated in the Finding of Fact. Second Sentence is irrelevant to the issues. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: George R. Hill, Superintendent School Board of St. Lucie County 2909 Delaware Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Jack Gale, Esquire The Boston House 239 South Indian River Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Lorene C. Powell, Esquire Asst. Gen. Counsel FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel B. Harrell, Esquire First Citizens Federal Building 1600 South Federal Highway, Suite 200 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 1988 LLOYD WRIGHT, Appellant, DOAH CASE NO: 87-1366 CASE NO. 87-2723 v. SCHOOL BOARD OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Appellee. / Decision filed December 28, 1988 Appeal from the School Board of St. Lucie County. Lloyd Wright, Fort Pierce, pro se appellant. Daniel B. Harrell of Gonano, Harrell & Sherrard, Fort Pierce, for appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. HERSEY, C.J., DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. MANDATE from DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT This cause having been brought to this Court by appeal, and after due consideration the Court having issued its opinion; YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further proceedings be had in said cause in accordance with the opinion of this Court, and with the rules of procedure and laws of the State of Florida. WITNESS the Honorable George W. Hersey, Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, and seal of the said Court at West Palm Beach, Florida on this day DATE: January 13, 1989 CASE NO.: 87-2723 COUNTY OF ORIGIN: School Board of St. Lucie Co. T.C. CASE NO.: 87-1366 STYLE: Wright v. School Board of St. Lucie Clyde Heath Clerk of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District ORIGINAL TO: School Board of St. Lucie county cc: Lloyd Wright, pro se Daniel B. Harrell, Esquire
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated specified Miami- Dade County School Board rules, giving Petitioner just cause to suspend Respondent for five work days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes.1/ Respondent is a 27-year teacher employed by the Miami- Dade County Public Schools ("M-DCPS"). For the first 24 years of his career, Respondent taught adult vocational classes. For the past three years, Respondent has taught at Miami Lakes Educational Center ("Miami Lakes"). He is a television production teacher, teaching students entry-level television production skills to prepare them for careers in the television industry. Background of this Proceeding At all times material, Respondent's employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between M-DCPS and the United Teachers of Dade, Petitioner's rules and policies, and Florida law. This matter had its genesis in late 2010, when two or three female students complained to Miami Lakes Assistant Principal Michael Tandlich that they felt uncomfortable in Respondent's classroom, specifically because Respondent touched them. In response to the complaints, Mr. Tandlich took written statements from approximately ten students in Respondent's class.2/ He took the statements to the Miami Lakes principal. As a result, the school initiated an investigation of Respondent's actions regarding the students in his class. Once the investigation was complete, the matter was referred to Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") for a comprehensive review of all information related to the matter. On March 1, 2011, Milagros Hernandez, District Director for OPS, sent Respondent a letter stating that as a result of the investigation, "[t]he initial investigative findings indicate that Probable Cause has been established for the allegation of violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4.109, Employee Student Relationships. Probable cause is defined as '[b]ased upon an evaluation of the evidence, it is more likely than not the alleged act occurred.'" On March 8, 2011, OPS conducted a Conference-for-the- Record ("CFR"). Respondent and Ms. Hernandez were among the attendees. The CFR is a fact-finding conference held to discuss the incident and to afford the subject of the investigation the opportunity to tell his or her side of the story. Following the CFR, OPS sent a letter to Respondent, dated May 4, 2011, advising him that OPS recommended that he "be suspended without pay for 5 workdays for violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics " On May 11, 2011, Petitioner suspended Respondent for five work days without pay for alleged violation of the above- stated rules.3/ Incidents Giving Rise to Alleged Violations A.S. is a female student in Respondent's television production class. She is in her junior year of high school at Miami Lakes. A.S. testified that Respondent touched her on the shoulders on more than one occasion, the touching made her feel uncomfortable, and she told him to stop. On one occasion when Respondent touched her on the shoulders, A.S. yelled at Respondent, "Stop touching me, you pedophile!" or something to that effect. She testified that Respondent did not touch her on any part of her body other than her shoulders, and has stopped touching her. Testimony was elicited from A.S. and another student, J.G., establishing that A.S. is overly-dramatic, blows things out of proportion, and acts out in class in order to be the center of attention. The evidence also established that A.S. may have some animus toward Respondent because he is much stricter and has set much higher academic and behavioral standards than did his predecessor, and does not tolerate A.S's disruptive behavior in class. J.C. is a female student in Respondent's class, and is A.S.'s friend. She is in her junior year of high school at Miami Lakes. J.C. testified that Respondent sometimes touched her on the shoulders, and that once, Respondent touched her dress at about mid-thigh level. The touching made her uncomfortable, but she never asked him to stop. Respondent did not touch her on any other part of her body. She acknowledged that Respondent's conduct likely was meant as complimentary and encouraging. J.C. testified that Respondent had made the class much more demanding than had his predecessor, and that her classmates and friends had discussed their unhappiness with the change. She acknowledged that around that time, some students went to the assistant principal and complained that Respondent was touching students and making them feel uncomfortable. J.G. is a male student in Respondent's class. J.G. testified that Respondent is a very strict teacher and that his class is very demanding "in a good way." J.G. testified that Respondent is very respectful of his students and encourages them during class, verbally and by patting them on the back or touching them on the shoulders. He treats male and female students the same in that regard. J.G. has never seen Respondent touch any of his students, male or female, in an inappropriate manner. J.G. stated that Respondent is a very professional teacher. Respondent also presented the testimony of Dr. Angela Thomas Dupree, Vice Principal at Lindsay Hopkins Technical Education Center. Before assuming her current position, Dr. Dupree served at Miami Lakes for 12 years as an assistant principal and a vice principal. For approximately ten of her 12 years at Miami Lakes, she worked with Respondent as his direct supervisor and observed Respondent interacting with his students. She testified that he was very knowledgeable and always engaged in the classroom, and that he treated students with respect and dignity. She never observed, and was not aware of, any instances in which Respondent did not honor the integrity and retain the respect of his students. During her time in working with Respondent, he always conducted himself in a manner that reflected credit on him and on the school system. Respondent testified on his own behalf. Respondent's goal in teaching the television production class is to prepare his students to enter the workforce in the television production industry. His classes are structured according to the grade level of the students in the class. For his higher level classes (i.e., junior and senior classes), students are given assignments for the day, then move into different areas to work on their specific assignments. Respondent supervises the students by walking back and forth between the work areas to make sure everyone is on task. One studio is very small, so it is not unusual for Respondent to walk up behind students when they are working and to touch them as he is showing them how to perform a task or use the computer. Respondent also encourages his students, verbally, by patting them on the back or touching their shoulders, and by giving them "high five." Respondent testified that in one of his college communication courses, there was discussion about the importance of "breaking the shield" that each person has, in order to enhance interpersonal communication. Respondent noted that is often why people shake hands. Respondent testified that he tries to "break the shield" with his students, in part by touching them, in order to more effectively communicate with them. Touching always has been a part of the way Respondent teaches and conducts his class, until this incident. Respondent testified that he did touch A.S. on her shoulders. On the day on which A.S. called Respondent a "pedophile," A.S. had been doing her homework for another class while in Respondent's class, and Respondent had asked her to stop. She ignored Respondent's request. Respondent was lecturing and walking around the studio, and the students' chairs and desks were arranged in the middle of the studio. As Respondent was walking around the studio, he observed A.S. continuing to do her homework despite being asked to stop. He walked up behind her and put his hands on her shoulders to get her to stop. A.S. jumped up and yelled at him. Respondent testified that he touched A.S. on her shoulders, and, on another occasion, may have touched her hair, but that he did not touch her on any other part of her body. Respondent recalled touching J.C.'s dress. On the day in question, the students were wearing professional clothing, rather than their usual uniforms, as part of a "dressing for success" program being conducted at the school. Respondent was sitting down and J.C. was standing next to him. He touched the skirt of her dress and complimented her on her appearance. Respondent testified that he only meant to compliment her, and that she did not appear to be uncomfortable. Respondent testified that he never has inappropriately touched students, and that when he has touched students, it has never been with intent to do anything wrong. He acknowledged that he understands the difference between touching adult students and minor students while encouraging them in their class work. Assistant Principal Michael Tandlich testified that Petitioner's policy is to prohibit the touching of students in any way; however, Mr. Tandlich was unable to identify any such policy or provision in Petitioner's rules. He also testified that he and the teachers at Miami Lakes routinely touch students——which he acknowledged would constitute widespread violation of such a policy, if one existed. Finally, he testified that he considers touching of students other than a handshake to be inappropriate——contradicting his previous testimony that there is an absolute prohibition on touching students. Mr. Tandlich testified that teachers are informed, in the first meeting with school administration personnel at the beginning of the school year, regarding Petitioner's policies. However, Respondent credibly testified that he never was told that all touching of students is prohibited.4/ IV. Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Petitioner's rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, "Responsibilities and Duties," provides in pertinent part: I. Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a matter that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited. Petitioner's rule 6Gx-4A-1.213, "Code of Ethics," provides in pertinent part:
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 rescinding the suspension of Respondent from his employment for five days without pay, and paying Respondent’s back salary for the five-day period for which he was suspended. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 28th day of November, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether the Seminole County School Board has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment or to otherwise discipline him based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Seminole County, Florida. Respondent is a 48-year-old male. He has been employed as an educational support employee of the School Board for approximately five years. During the 2001-02 school year, Respondent worked at Seminole High School (SHS) as a computer specialist. Collective Bargaining Agreement and SHS Handbook Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the Seminole Educational Clerical Association, Inc., and the School Board (SECA Agreement). Article VII, Section 5 of the SECA Agreement provides in pertinent part: Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years . . . shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended, or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: Violation of School Board Policy. Violation of work rules. * * * Article VIII, Section 1 of the SECA Agreement provides in relevant part that "[e]mployees may be immediately disciplined including termination for serious violation of the following: misconduct; " Respondent's employment is also governed by the SHS Faculty Handbook (SHS Handbook). The SHS Handbook is provided to SHS employees at an orientation session prior to the beginning of each school year. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the SHS Handbook prior to the 2001-02 school year. The SHS Handbook includes a sexual harassment policy which states that the School Board "will not tolerate sexual/racial harassment activity by any of its employees." As it relates to the circumstances of this case, the policy defines sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate verbal, nonverbal, graphic, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: * * * (c) such conduct substantially interferes with . . . [a] student’s academic performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive . . . school environment. Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following: verbal, nonverbal, graphic, and written harassment or abuse; * * * (c) repeated remarks to a person with sexual or demeaning implications; * * * In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual[] harassment, the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred will be investigated. . . . . The sexual harassment policy in the SHS Handbook is virtually identical to the School Board's district-wide sexual harassment policy. Thus, a violation of the policy in the SHS Handbook is a violation of School Board policy. Alleged Inappropriate Comments/Conduct by Respondent During the 2001-02 School Year Respondent had four "peer counselors" assigned to him during the 2001-02 school year, including eleventh-grader Nichole Combee. A peer counselor is a student who assists a teacher or other school staff member with designated tasks, such as filing or running errands on campus. The student provides that assistance for one class period per day. Nichole had approached Respondent at some point during the first semester of the 2001-02 school year and asked whether she could be a peer counselor for him. The record does not reflect the process by which that request was processed or approved by the administration at SHS, or even whether such approval is required. Nichole started as a peer counselor for Respondent in January 2002, which is the beginning of the second semester of the 2001-02 school year. Nichole continued in that position through May 23, 2002, when the regular school year ended. Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor during seventh period, which is the last period of the school day. Nichole's primary duty as Respondent's peer counselor was filing computer permission slips. During the time that Nichole was Respondent's peer counselor, she discussed her family troubles and school attendance problems with Respondent and his assistant, Mark Williams. Respondent tried to help Nichole with those problems. On several occasions, he talked to Nichole's mother on the phone in an attempt to help work things out between Nichole and her mother with respect to the "trouble" created at home by Nichole's academic and attendance problems. Nichole also discussed problems that she was having with male students and some male teachers at SHS looking at her large breasts rather than her eyes when they were speaking to her. She told Respondent at the time that he and Mr. Williams always looked her in the eye, and she reaffirmed that statement in her testimony at the hearing. Nichole discussed matters related to her breasts with Respondent on other occasions as well. On at least one occasion, she told Respondent that her breasts caused her back to hurt because of their size. On subsequent occasions when Nichole complained about her back hurting, Respondent replied by saying, "Well, you know why." That comment was intended by Respondent and understood by Nichole to be a reference to Nichole's prior comments that her large breasts were the cause of her back pain. Respondent never told Nichole that she should not discuss her breasts or other personal matters with him. Respondent acknowledged at the hearing that it would have been inappropriate for him to initiate a conversation with Nichole about her breasts (as a source of her back pain or otherwise), but that he did not see anything wrong with the discussions that he had with Nichole on that subject because she brought it up and because there was nothing sexual being implied. After classes had ended on the last day of the 2001-02 school year, a number of students engaged in a "water fight" using water balloons and "water bazookas." This conduct is apparently a "tradition" at SHS. The SHS administration had directed the school staff to try to prevent this conduct and/or to get the students off campus and onto their busses as quickly as possible. Respondent observed a group of students involved in a water fight near his office in the media center, and he went outside to break up the students. The group included Nichole and her friend Natalie Cotto-Caraballo, who was a tenth-grader at SHS. Nichole and Natalie were wearing white tank-top shirts that they had made for the last day of school. The shirts had gotten wet during the water fight and, as a result, the girls' bras were visible through the shirts. Respondent commented to Nichole and Natalie that he could see their bras through their shirts and that they needed to cover themselves up. He then directed the girls and the other students in the group to their buses. Nichole testified that the comment made her feel somewhat uncomfortable because "it's our bras and, you know, even though people see them, usually they don't say anything, you know." Respondent's comment regarding his ability to see the girls' bras was not inappropriate under the circumstances; it was a statement of fact and justified Respondent's direction to the girls to cover themselves up. Nichole did not immediately report the bra comment, either to her parent(s) or the SHS administration. Indeed, the comment did not even come to light until Nichole's second interview with the School Board's investigator in August 2002. Respondent gave Nichole a hug as she was leaving for her bus on the last day of school and told her to have a nice summer. Despite its close proximity in time to the bra comment, Nichole testified that the hug did not make her uncomfortable. She just considered it to be friendly "good bye" hug, which was all that was intended by Respondent. Nichole did not complain about Respondent to her parent(s) or anyone in the SHS administration during the time that she was his peer counselor. Lunch Invitations During Summer School Nichole attended the first session of summer school, which began on June 3, 2002, less than two weeks after the end of the regular school year. The only class that Nichole took during summer school was an English class taught by "Ms. Morris." Nichole was not Respondent's peer counselor during summer school, nor was she working on any school-related project with Respondent during that time. On June 3, 2002, while Respondent and Mr. Williams were in Ms. Morris' class fixing a computer, Respondent asked Nichole if she wanted to go to lunch with him off-campus. Nichole declined the invitation because she was "grounded" and had to pick up her brother from school. Respondent was again in Ms. Morris' class on June 5, 2002, and he again invited Nichole to lunch. Nichole again declined. Respondent did not have permission from Nichole's parent(s) or the SHS administration to take Nichole off-campus. The reason that Respondent invited Nichole to lunch was to thank her for doing a good job as his peer counselor and to congratulate her on deciding to stay in school and attend summer school, which Respondent and Mr. Williams had both counseled her to do. Respondent had taken a former male student off-campus to lunch for the same reasons in the past. Respondent and Nichole were not alone at the time of either invitation. Both invitations occurred in Ms. Morris' classroom, and Ms. Morris and other students were "milling around" in the classroom at the time. At the hearing, Nichole testified that she didn't think anything of the lunch invitations at first since she considered Respondent a "friend." However, she also testified that it "it was a little uncomfortable because he is a teacher." Nichole did not report the lunch invitations to Ms. Morris or to anyone in the SHS administration. Nichole did, however, tell her mother about Respondent's lunch invitations because "she thought she should know." On June 5, 2003, Nichole's mother called the SHS principal, Karen Coleman, and complained about the lunch invitations. Ms. Coleman told Nichole’s mother that she would look into the matter, which she did. The resulting investigation led to this proceeding. Investigation and Preliminary Disciplinary Recommendation Ms. Coleman began the investigation by speaking to Nichole on June 5, 2002. That discussion focused only on the lunch invitations. Nichole provided Ms. Colemen an unsworn written statement regarding the lunch invitations on June 5, 2002. That statement did not include any reference to the "lingerie incident" discussed below or the incidents described above involving the bra comment or the hug that Respondent gave to Nichole on the last day of school. Nichole provided Ms. Coleman another unsworn written statement on June 6, 2002. That statement referenced Respondent's comments about the source of Nichole's back pain, but it did not mention the lingerie incident or the other incidents described above. After speaking with Nichole, Ms. Coleman spoke with Respondent. Respondent admitted that he had invited Nichole to lunch off-campus. He further admitted that he did not have permission from Nichole’s parent(s) to take her off-campus and that he did not obtain permission from the SHS administration. Respondent told Ms. Coleman that he did not realize that such permission was necessary. Respondent had taken a male peer counselor to lunch off-campus in the past without receiving approval from the student's parents or the SHS. After Ms. Coleman's conversations with Nichole and Respondent, she contacted John Reichert, the School Board's director of human resources. Mr. Reichert directed John Byerly, the School Board’s internal affairs investigator, to conduct a formal investigation. Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole on June 10, 2002, at SHS. Nichole did not mention the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug to Mr. Byerly during that interview. Mr. Byerly also interviewed Respondent and Mr. Williams as part of his investigation. The results of Mr. Byerly's investigation were presented to the Executive Professional Standards Review Committee (Review Committee) on June 27, 2002. Among other functions, the Review Committee is used to make disciplinary recommendations to Mr. Reichert. The Review Committee’s recommendation was characterized at the hearing as "preliminary," and it is apparently not binding on Mr. Reichert when he formulates his recommendations to the Superintendent regarding employee disciplinary actions. The Review Committee recommended that Respondent be suspended for three days and/or be reassigned or transferred to another school. That recommendation was based only upon Respondent’s lunch invitations to Nichole and comments regarding the source of her back pain; it did not take into account the lingerie incident, the bra comment, or the hug because those incidents had not been disclosed by Nichole or Natalie at that point. Mr. Reichert and/or the Superintendent apparently did not accept the Review Committee’s recommendation because the Superintendent's July 26, 2002, letter recommended termination of Respondent's employment. At the hearing, Mr. Reichert testified that the reason for the change in the recommended discipline was the subsequent discovery of the lingerie incident, which he characterized as the "major driving factor" behind the termination recommendation. However, the preponderance of the credible evidence demonstrates that the lingerie incident was not disclosed to School Board staff until after the July 26, 2002, letter. Alleged Gift of Lingerie The lingerie incident was first disclosed by Natalie on August 2, 2002, when she was interviewed by Mr. Byerly.1 Natalie had given an unsworn written statement to Ms. Coleman on that same date, but that statement did not mention the lingerie incident. Based upon the "new information" from Natalie, Mr. Byerly interviewed Nichole again on August 15, 2002. The interview occurred at Lyman High School (LHS), where Nichole had transferred for her senior year.2 After the interview, Mr. Byerly had Nichole prepare a sworn written statement. The statement included the following account of the lingerie incident, which was consistent with Nichole's testimony at the hearing: When I was a peer counselor for Mr. Reeder, I had walked into class on[e] afternoon in 7th period and we were talking and he said ["]oh here I got something for you.["] He handed me a white plastic bag and through the bag I could see a black thing and I knew it was the langera [sic]. I then just put it on the floor and went on with my work. When the bell rang I picked up my belongings including the white plastic bag. When I got on the bus I showed Natalie it. It was a black see[-]through spagatie [sic] strap shirt and black thongs. When I got off the bus I walked home and through [sic] it away. That was the last time anything was ever said about it. Mr. Byerly interviewed Natalie again on August 16, 2002. Natalie's told Mr. Byerly that the lingerie incident occurred "a couple months before the end of the regular school year" and that Nichole showed her the lingerie on the bus. However, the sworn written statement she prepared after the interview indicated that the incident occurred "[a]bout the day before school was over" and that she learned of it "on the bus/car." Nichole told Natalie that the lingerie was from Respondent. Natalie had no independent personal knowledge that it was from him. There were some inconsistencies in Natalie's and Nichole's descriptions of the lingerie, but those inconsistencies were not material. They consistently described the lingerie as having a black see-through top and black panties. Nichole did not report the incident to the SHS administration around the time that it allegedly occurred. Nor did she tell her mother about the incident, even though she considered the lingerie gift to be more inappropriate than the lunch invitations which she did immediately tell her mother about. Nichole testified that she was somewhat embarrassed by the gift and she did not want her mother to think she "led into it." Respondent unequivocally denied that he gave Nichole any lingerie or other clothing, and Nichole's and Natalie's testimony relating to the lingerie incident was not credible. Thus, the School Board failed to prove that Respondent gave Nichole the lingerie. It is undisputed that Respondent never engaged in any type of sexual contact (e.g., kissing, inappropriate touching) with Nichole. Nichole made that point clear in both of her interviews with Mr. Byerly and in her testimony at the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Seminole County School Board issue a final order which dismisses the Petition for Termination and provides Respondent the remedial relief that he is entitled under the collective bargaining agreement. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2003.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Darrell Timothy Roundtree (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 30, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The Respondent has denied any and all wrongdoing.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a teacher employed by the Broward County Public School District. He was assigned duties as a physical education teacher during the 2003/2004 school year at Walker Elementary School. The Respondent holds a Florida Educator’s Certificate and is subject to the provisions of law governing the conduct and discipline of teachers within the state. The Petitioner is responsible to investigate and prosecute complaints against persons who hold Florida Educator’s Certificates who have allegedly violated provisions of law. In this case, the Petitioner filed a six-count Administrative Complaint against the Respondent following an investigation of charges that came from the Broward County School District. Although the allegations in the instant case are not the first disciplinary concerns regarding the Respondent, the instant charges, if proved, are sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against the Respondent's teaching certificate. Prior allegations against the Respondent resulted in a Letter of Concern being placed in his file based upon a claim that he had tweaked the nipples of a seven-year-old student. A second charge was not prosecuted due to the lack of cooperation by the alleged victim and his parent. The Respondent resigned his employment with the Broward County School District on September 16, 2005. The resignation followed an investigation into the conduct that is the subject matter of the instant proceeding. Sometime in 2003 the Respondent started a business for the purpose of providing male escorts. As depicted in this record, males hired through the Respondent's company were dispatched to parties or events and asked to dance and provide male companionship for the attendees of the party. Although prostitution was not the stated goal of the enterprise, it was not without possibility given the nature of the information describing the males. Pictures of the males were posted to the Respondent's website with listings as to sexual preference, age, and dimension of the males' anatomy. Although he initially denied involvement in the website, the record is clear the Respondent took pictures of partially nude males for the purpose of posting them on the website, SouthFloridaThugz.com. One of the males was a student in the Broward County GED program. The student, J. M., heard about the Respondent's business through a friend. A partially nude picture of J. M.'s friend was posted on the Respondent's website. According to J. M., the Respondent would take pictures of the males, post them for review, and schedule "parties" for the "clients" to attend. J. M. was scheduled to attend one such party. Based upon his conversation with the Respondent, J. M. expected to attend a party, dance nude for the attendees, and receive $300.00 for compensation. From that $300.00 J. M. expected the Respondent to receive a portion of the compensation. J. M. believed that the party would have women as well as men in attendance. J. M.'s friend had suggested that sometimes "safe sex" might occur. When he got to the party, J. M. was stunned to find that only men attended. He did not expect to be watched by gay men. He did not agree to that and insisted on leaving. He returned the $300.00 and told the Respondent he would not "do business" with him. Later J. M. went to authorities to file a complaint against the Respondent. J. M.'s complaint led to an investigation by the Broward County School District. Thereafter, the Respondent's school-issued computer was examined. The school-issued computer was used to access adult websites, chat sites, and other inappropriate sites. Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 8 show a complete listing of the sites. The Respondent claimed that the computer use was not his, but such denial has not been deemed credible. After the matter was fully investigated by the Broward School District, it was determined that the Respondent had lost his effectiveness with the school system. The instant case was investigated and prosecuted over a period of time within which the Respondent and others gave multiple statements. The Respondent gave inconsistent and contradictory statements on more than one occasion. The student, J. M., was deemed the more credible of the two. Further, it is determined that the computer history of the Respondent's school-issued computer clearly and unambiguously established that the Respondent accessed inappropriate websites and chat rooms. It is determined that the Respondent did not verify the age of J. M. before making the pictures of his nude torso and groin area. Further, the Respondent did not maintain records to verify that the other nude and partially nude males depicted on the website were adults. Finally, it is determined that the purpose of the website was not for "dancing." The depiction of the males' penises in a state of arousal would not suggest or relate to any dancing ability. The Respondent's claim that his privacy has been invaded is unfounded. Teachers in the State of Florida are held to a high standard of conduct. It is expected that a school- issued computer may be subject to inspection by school authorities. The Respondent has taught for approximately 21 years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order permanently revoking the Respondent’s teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Darrell Timothy Roundtree 2388 South Oakland Park Drive, Apartment 202 Oakland Park, Florida 33309
Findings Of Fact During the 1993/1994 school year, the Respondent, Alan Davis, was in his 12th year teaching eighth grade science at Meadowlawn Middle School in St. Petersburg, Florida. He is on a professional services contract. He has a good record and reputation as science teacher at the school and no prior disciplinary problems (or even accusations against him.) The Respondent's classroom was located on the east wall of the school building, at the intersection of two interior hallways to the north and west of the classroom. There is a classroom door to the outside to the east, and the entire east wall of the classroom consists of windows looking across a walkway directly onto portable special education classrooms. There are vertical blinds that can be drawn across the windows and closed. The blinds usually are drawn but not closed. There is a classroom door to the hallway to the west of the classroom. Immediately across the intersecting hallway to the north of the classroom is the door to the teachers' lounge. Immediately past the intersecting hallway to the north is the door to the office of the school resource officer. Immediately past the resource officer's office, only approximately 25 feet from the door to the Respondent's classroom, is a suite of offices belonging to the school principal and other school administration personnel. Kim Wilder was an eighth grader at Meadowlawn during the 1993/1994 school year. She was in the Respondent's fourth period science class. Through about half of the year, she enjoyed a good record and reputation as a pupil of the school. Her grades were A's and B's, and she was not a disciplinary problem. However, several people noticed a change in her behavior in the middle of the school year. Her relationship with her parents deteriorated somewhat, and she sometimes displayed an attitude of not caring about family or school. The beginning of these changes in Kim roughly coincided with her friendship with a boy named Gilbert, who was a poor student, both in academics (he had to repeat grades) and in conduct. Gilbert also later began to spread rumors that he and Kim allegedly were sexually active. Such rumors came to the attention of interested and concerned teachers, one of whom alerted Kim's parents. Kim's parents became convinced that Gilbert was a bad influence on Kim and that she would be better off not seeing him. They refused to allow him to visit at their home, and they insisted that she stop seeing him. This created a conflict between Kim and her family. In the course of conversations with some girl friends approximately the end of March or beginning of April, 1994, Kim disclosed that she had been sexually assaulted by the Respondent. Initially, she told one of her friends only that the Respondent had "felt on" and "kissed" her. She told others additional details. But the first three friends she told did not recall any allegation that the Respondent performed oral sex on Kim. In later retellings, Kim added that allegation. In one later retelling, she added the allegation that the Respondent felt her breasts. Kim forbade her friends to tell anyone about her allegations. But one of her friends disclosed the allegations, and school authorities were informed on or about April 8, 1994. When Kim learned that the school authorities were investigating her allegations, she was very upset and angry at the friend who disclosed her confidences. When the school authorities confronted Kim, she maintained that her allegations were true, and the school authorities brought her home from school. Kim's parents were not home but her sister-in-law, who lived next door, was home and spoke with Kim. Based on the sister-in-law's testimony, it does not appear that Kim's statement to her was very detailed. Although Kim and her parents reported that they generally have an open and communicative relationship, Kim refused to discuss the allegations with them when they came home from work. Instead, she referred her parents to her sister-in-law. Through at least August 26, 1994, Kim had not discussed the details of her allegations with her parents. (They have, however, read statements she has written concerning the allegations.) Law enforcement interviewed Kim at her home on April 8, 1994, and memorialized the interview in a written statement. On June 21, 1994, Kim wrote an account of the alleged assault by the Respondent. Kim also recounted the entirety of the alleged assault twice during testimony at final hearing, once on direct and again on cross; parts were repeated once more on redirect. All of these statements are replete with rich detail, making them seem real. However, with one noteworthy exception, the consistent precision with which the details are repeated seems unnatural and could give the impression of being recited from a memorized script. Before her fourth period science class on Friday, December 10, 1993, the Respondent told her that her mother had telephoned the Respondent earlier that morning to inquire about the C on her report card for the second grading period (after getting an A for the first grading period) and that the Respondent had told Kim's her mother that Kim was missing seven assignments. The Respondent told Kim that she could get the assignments, together with the book she needed to do them, after school. (The required book would not be available until after school because the Respondent's classes shared the use of the same books during class.) Meanwhile, in the detailed versions of her allegations, Kim stated that she was jokingly bantering with a friend and the Respondent about whose "man" the Respondent was, as they did from time to time. She stated that, on this occasion, the Respondent informed them that he was "a dirty old man." She stated that she and her friend did not take the Respondent's statement seriously. Kim stated that, after school ended at about 3:50 p.m. on Friday, December 10, 1993, she went to the Respondent's class room to get the make-up assignments. She testified that she would have arrived at approximately 4 p.m. She said the Respondent was straightening desks and that she helped him finish before sitting in one of the desks. She stated that he then asked her if she had come by to see if he really was a "dirty old man." She made an off-hand comment to the effect, "I guess," or "whatever." He then walked to the classroom door and shut it. Several of the witnesses, including her friends and her sister-in-law, testified that, when Kim first told them what happened, she said that the Respondent locked the classroom door. The report of the law enforcement interview on April 8, 1994, also indicated that Kim told law enforcement that the Respondent locked the door. In fact, the classroom door does not lock from the inside. In her June 21, 1994, statement and in her testimony at final hearing, Kim stated that she thought the Respondent locked the door. Kim alleged that, after shutting (and, in the early versions, locking) the door, the Respondent put a poster with a monkey on it over the window portion of the door and dragged an easel with a flip chart in front of the door, apparently to block access to the classroom or, at least, to serve as an alarm to give him some time to react in the event someone tried to enter the classroom. There was indeed a poster of a monkey (or chimpanzee) on display in the Respondent's classroom that year, and there also was an easel in the classroom that would have been at the Respondent's disposal. But, in fact, the classroom door opens into the hallway, not into the classroom, and the placement of the easel in front of the door would not have been very effective. It is possible that it was the Respondent, not Kim, who overlooked the manner in which the door opened. But, even if the classroom door had been locked or blocked, the Respondent's classroom was adjacent to another science classroom, and there is a door between the two classrooms that does not lock. Ordinarily, it would not be uncommon for the Respondent's fellow science teacher, as well as a few students, to be in the adjacent classroom from 3:50 p.m. until as late as 4:05 p.m. In addition, administration personnel in the suite containing the principal's office and the other administration offices generally are occupied until 4:30 p.m., or later, even on a Friday. Custodians also circulated through the building after school (although they generally did not clean the Respondent's classroom until later.) Fortuitously, it has been possible to deduce, from some of the details provided in Kim's allegations, the precise day on which the alleged assault occurred--Friday, December 10, 1993. It so happens that Friday, December 10, 1993, was the last day of the school science fair. There were approximately 200 projects on display in the school gymnasium, which was just down the hall from the Respondent's classroom. Entrants in the fair were required to dismantle and remove their projects after school that day. As a result, although both students and teachers generally leave the school building promptly on Fridays, and fewer after school activities usually are planned for Fridays, more than the normal number of students would have been in the hallway during the time immediately after the end of school on that particular Friday. In addition, the Respondent's fellow science teacher in the connecting classroom adjacent to the Respondent's had arranged with a handful of his students to allow them to dismantle their projects earlier in the day and store them in his classroom. These students would have been in the connecting adjacent classroom between approximately 3:50 and 4:05 p.m. picking up their science projects. Kim alleged that, after securing the classroom door, the Respondent returned to her and asked whether she thought he was a "dirty old man." She stated that, when she answered, "no, I think you are a nice guy," he suggested, "maybe you should go now," and went over to remove the easel and open the door. But, she alleged, when she insisted that she had to stay in order to get her assignments, he again went to the door and repeated the steps he had just taken to secure the door. This time, when he returned to her, he backed her into a corner of the classroom, using gentle pressure on the shoulders, and (in each telling, "putting his arm around her neck") began kissing her. Kim stated that she did not resist the Respondent or call for help because the Respondent was not being violent, and she was afraid that he would become violent if she was not compliant, so she kissed him back. She alleged that he proceeded to lift her ankle-length "peach and black floral print skirt" (which she was wearing with a "black, long sleeve V-neck shirt"), remove her panties (and, in each telling, she stepped out of the panties "with [her] right foot" while he held her panties) and insert his finger into her vagina. She alleged that he pressed down on her shoulders until she was in a squatting position, lay on his back on the floor and positioned his head under her, and initiated oral sex. After this, he allegedly stood her up, and resumed kissing her, while unbuckling his belt and unzipping his pants. She alleged that he took her hand and placed it on his penis. She alleged that, when he removed his hand from hers, she removed her hand from his penis. When she allegedly thwarted his attempt to have intercourse with her, he allegedly turned her around to face the wall, bent her over (somehow, towards the walls she was facing), again pulled up her skirt, and (as best she could tell) again attempted intercourse, this time from the rear (she alleged that she "felt something hard against her vagina"). Then, she alleged, she detected movement from behind her and assumed that he was masturbating and ejaculating because, when she turned around after the movement stopped, he was wiping something off the floor with a yellow towel. (A yellow cloth, from which a piece had been torn or cut, was found in one of the closets in the Respondent's classroom during the School Board's investigation of the allegations. But it was not proven that the cloth which the Respondent allegedly used to clean the floor on the afternoon of Friday, December 10, 1993, had come from the cloth found in the closet in the Respondent's classroom.) Kim alleged that the Respondent apologized to her for what he did and begged her both never to come back to his classroom alone after school and not to tell anyone. She alleged that the Respondent made reference to a teacher who was being disciplined for sexual misconduct with a student 20 years ago and stated that he always would be afraid that she would disclose what he had done. (In fact, such a story had been reported in the local newspapers on December 8, 1993.) Kim alleged that she promised the Respondent she would not tell anyone. According to Kim, after the incident, which lasted a total of 20-30 minutes, she and the Respondent calmly and amicably left the school together. They allegedly exited through the classroom door into the hallway to the west of the classroom, crossed the intersecting hallway, immediately down which is located the door to the teachers' lounge, and continued walking down the hallway. Immediately past the intersecting hallway, they would have had to pass both the office of the school resource officer and the suite of offices belonging to the school principal and other school administration personnel. A little further down the hallway, they would have passed between the school cafeteria and the school gymnasium (the site of the science fair). Just past the cafeteria and gymnasium, they would have come to the door leading to the parking lot. Kim stated that no one saw them and that they did not see anyone on their way out of the building. Kim alleged that, before she left the building to walk home, she watched the Respondent walk across the parking lot and get in his pickup truck. The Respondent testified that, after learning the date on which it was deduced that the assault allegedly occurred, he realized that it would have been impossible for Kim to have witnessed him getting into his pickup truck on the day in question. He testified that he was having mechanical problems with the truck that week and was driving his wife's car across the bay bridge to work after dropping her off at her place of employment in Tampa, where they lived, while his truck was being repaired. He produced a cancelled check and was able to secure a computer printout from the bill he paid for the repairs when he picked the truck up the next day, Saturday, December 11, 1993. Kim also testified that the Respondent left the "monkey poster" on the door covering the window when they left the classroom. But the custodian who cleaned the Respondent's classroom each evening did not recall ever seeing the "monkey poster" anywhere but on the wall. The Respondent denied engaging in any of the alleged inappropriate behavior. He was able to reconstruct that he had bus duty on Friday, December 10, 1993, and would not have returned to his classroom until 4 p.m. He recalled that there was an unusual amount of activity in the hallways, especially for a Friday, but that probably was attributable to the school science fair. He recalled that, as he approached his classroom, he noticed several students in the adjacent connecting classroom with his fellow science teacher. He thinks he saw Kim there, too. In any event, Kim followed him into his classroom shortly after he unlocked it, opened the door and turned on the lights. He remembered that she helped him straighten desks and that he sat at a desk with her to go over the assignments. He did not recall whether he or she actually wrote the assignments down. He then gave her the book she needed, and she left. He testified that the entire process took approximately five minutes and that the door to the classroom never was closed during that time. Kim alleged that, although she never completed the missing assignments, the Respondent raised her grade from a C to a B. The Respondent testified that Kim completed four of the seven missing assignments. The Respondent normally would not either keep the make-up assignments nor, to prevent other students from copying them, return them to the student. Kim alleged that the Respondent gave her special privileges, like library passes, after the assault. But it was not proven that the Respondent gave more privileges to Kim after the alleged incident than before, or that he gave her privileges that he did not also give to other good students like Kim. Kim alleged that the Respondent often complimented her appearance. The Respondent admitted to affirmatively answering occasional direct questions from Kim as to whether she was pretty. He also recalled occasions when he told Kim and other female students that they were "pretty enough already" and did not need to (and should not) comb their hair and apply makeup in class. Kim alleged that, on one occasion, the Respondent commented that a low-cut blouse she was wearing was distracting. The Respondent recalled once reprimanding Kim for wearing a blouse that was revealing and in violation of school dress code. He admitted that he may have told her that it could be distracting to other students. The Respondent admitted to making an inappropriate comment to or about Kim on one occasion. The school assembled in the gymnasium one day for the introduction of a fund-raising campaign that featured a "money machine." The money machine consisted of a transparent booth with dollar bills inside. As part of the fund-raising campaign, students would be allowed to enter the booth while fans blowing air through holes in the floor of the booth blew the dollars bills off the floor and around inside the booth. The student inside had a limited period of time to grab as many dollar bills as possible. When volunteers were requested to demonstrate the "money machine," Kim thought better of it since she was wearing a skirt. The next day, in the Respondent's class, the Respondent asked Kim why she hadn't volunteered. When she answered that she was wearing a skirt and was concerned that air in the booth would have lifted her skirt, the Respondent commented aloud to the class, "that would have been interesting," or words to that effect. The Respondent was trying to be funny but admitted that the comment was not appropriate. It is noteworthy that, when the Respondent was told that Gilbert was spreading rumors to the effect that he and Kim had an intimate sexual relationship, the Respondent warned Kim to take appropriate steps to protect her reputation. It was revealed during the course of the investigation into Kim's allegations against the Respondent that Kim also has made allegations that, during the summer of 1993, she was forcibly raped at two in the morning, in the bathroom of a restaurant, by a 24-year old male acquaintance. Although Kim's mother thought she remembered Kim returning home upset after the alleged incident, she also testified that she may have learned about it after the allegations against the Respondent surfaced--long after the alleged rape. (Kim's mother, who has been terminally ill and on several medications for some time, seemed confused on this point.) Regardless when Kim revealed the alleged rape, both she and her mother agreed that Kim asked her mother not to tell anyone because Kim could "handle it" by herself. Kim did not receive any treatment or counseling for the alleged rape. Kim also did not mention the alleged rape to law enforcement during the investigation into the allegations against the Respondent. Although it is possible that the alleged rape or the Respondent's alleged sexual assault actually happened, both seem improbable. Yet, it is troubling that no obvious motivation for Kim to fabricate the allegations against the Respondent appears from the evidence. It is possible that she was seeking attention. It is possible that her mother's medical condition could have played a role in motivating such action. On the other hand, it could have had something to do with the relationship between Kim and Gilbert. Maybe she was upset with the Respondent for his role, minor as it was, in turning her parents against Gilbert. Maybe she was trying to deflect her parents' attention away from the bad influence that Gilbert might have represented by trying to make the point that acquaintances or even teachers could pose a worse threat. Maybe the alleged rape and the allegations against the Respondent arose from apprehension about how to explain feared consequences of sexual activity with Gilbert, as irrational as it might seem. Maybe there are other possible explanations in the nature of mental or emotional instability. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that Kim was simply making up a story to impress her girl friends and found herself committed to the story when one of them disobeyed Kim's command not to tell anyone. One can only speculate as to what the actual motivation could have been.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order dismissing the charges and reinstating the Respondent with back pay. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated; the rest is rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. 13.-29. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven that she "volunteered." (She decided not to volunteer.) Rejected as not proven that he told Kim (privately, as opposed to as part of the class). Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 32.-33. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13.-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Keith B. Martin, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301-4th Street S.W. Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. Suite 301 1718 East Seventh Avenue Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County School System Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688
Findings Of Fact During times pertinent to this consolidated proceeding, the Respondent, Eugene Lamar Moore, has held teacher's certificate number 271828 issued by the State of Florida Department of Education for the subject areas of English and Bible studies. The Respondent was employed as a teacher by the Escambia County School District at Washington High School during times pertinent to the facts in this proceeding. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, as they relate to licensure of teachers and regulation - and enforcement of the practice standards which teachers are required to observe in the practice of that profession in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, Escambia County School Board, is a local government agency charged, as pertinent hereto, with regulating the practice and practice standards of teachers and professional conduct of teachers in its employ in the Escambia County school system. The Respondent was employed at times pertinent hereto by the Escambia County school system as a teacher at the Washington High School. He began teaching in the County under an annual contract of employment in 1970. At the conclusion of the 1973-74 school year, the Respondent was awarded a continuing contract of employment by the County School Board and has been employed by Escambia County as a continuing contract teacher ever since. On May 27, 1985, during a change of classes in his classroom, at a time when other students were present, the Respondent kissed student Rebecca Cleveland on the cheek. He had known her for approximately one year and eight months at the time the incident occurred. He felt he knew and understood her personality well enough to have no fear that lightheartedly kissing her on the cheek would embarrass her or offend her. It was not his intention to derive personal benefit or gratification by hugging or kissing Rebecca Cleveland on the cheek nor did he intend to offend, embarrass or expose her to disparagement in any way. Rebecca Cleveland acknowledged that the Respondent had never attempted to kiss her before that day and also acknowledged that she did not really believe Respondent intended to hurt her or to intentionally embarrass her. Michelle Clawson was another female student at Washington High School and contended in her testimony that the Respondent put his arm around her, attempted to kiss her and attempted to "french kiss" her. Indeed, the Respondent had put his arm around Michelle Clawson on a number of occasions for the purpose of generally encouraging her and encouraging her to take tests, but had not attempted to kiss her on any occasion. Ms. Clawson additionally contended that Mr. Moore was trying to maintain a good personal relationship with her by giving her undeserved high grades and stated that she asked several boys in the class to stay with her in Mr. Moore's room after class on the day he allegedly attempted to kiss her (presumably for protection). She also stated that Mr. Moore requested that she go to a football game with him, presumably as his date. This testimony is not credited, however, for a number of reasons. Firstly, Ms. Clawson's claim that Respondent tried to "french kiss" her was a recent addition to previous and different versions of the alleged kissing incident related in her previous statements. Concerning her charge that he was giving her undeserved good grades, it was established unequivocally that indeed Mr. Moore had actually given her an "F" during the grading period in question. Concerning her staying in his class after others had left and asking several boys to remain with her, Ms. Clawson was unable to explain why she remained in Mr. Moore's room in the first place, especially after the "boys" supposedly informed her that they could not stay with her. Concerning the alleged "football game date," she conceded that the entire class was present when the conversation occurred. It is very implausible that Mr. Moore would have asked Ms. Clawson for a date, had he been inclined to do so at all, in the presence of any other students, especially not the entire class. If such an incident had occurred it seems likely that there would have been at least one other witness to verify the nature of the conversation in question. It was also established by independent, uncontradicted proof that the Respondent was in charge of arranging buses and other logistics for football game trips and other school trips and served as a chaperone on some occasions for such events. The Respondent's version of this conversation to the effect that, if it occurred, he was merely trying to determine if Michelle Clawson would be able to attend the football game and offering to obtain permission for her from her parents, is accepted over Ms. Clawson's version. Ms. Georgette Floyd is another ninth grade English teacher at Washington High School, like Respondent. Michelle Clawson had been in Ms. Floyd's class the year previous to the one when the alleged incident supposedly occurred in the Respondent's class. Ms. Clawson did not pass Ms. Floyd's freshman English class and was required to repeat the course. She was thus assigned to repeat freshman English in the Respondent's class the year after she was in Ms. Floyd's class. Prior to the time Respondent had Michelle Clawson enter his class, Ms. Floyd warned him that Ms. Clawson might present some problems. Ms. Floyd had found that Ms. Clawson, on occasion, would attempt to provocatively expose parts of her body by sitting in a suggestive or provocative fashion and had been known to spread false comment about teachers, particularly Ms. Floyd. In summary, it is concluded that Michelle Clawson's testimony is not credible and is not credited herein. Her version of the events is simply not plausible in the face of the Respondent's and Ms. Floyd's testimony; further, she was shown to have a motive for giving an untruthful version of the events in question, to wit, her poor academic performance and failing grades in Respondent's and Ms. Floyd's classes. Ms. Floyd's testimony that Ms. Clawson had previously made a false accusation against her was uncontradicted. 1/ Concerning the charges about the Respondent's alleged loss of effectiveness in the school system, Mr. Sherman Robinson, the principal of Washington High School testified that he did not believe Mr. Moore was any longer an effective teacher at Washington High School. Mr. Robinson based this opinion on his belief that the Respondent's effectiveness was diminished as a result of the Rebecca Cleveland incident of May 1985. He conceded, however, that the Respondent had taught school at Washington High School for the entire following 1985-86 school year and indeed for a portion of the 1986-87 school year. The Respondent's formal teaching evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was prepared after the incident became known concerning Rebecca Cleveland. That evaluation covers areas involving professional responsibility (encompassing the types of conduct in question) as well as academic performance. The Respondent's evaluation for the 1984-85 school year demonstrates that he received the highest possible score in four out of five sub-categories. He received the next highest score in the remaining sub-categories. No part of that evaluation was unsatisfactory. The Respondent's formal teaching evaluation for the 1985-86 school year was prepared after the incident concerning Rebecca Cleveland became known. The Respondent's 1985-86 evaluation demonstrated that he received the highest possible score on that part of the evaluation that deals with professionalism or professional responsibility. All of the Respondent's teaching, after the Rebecca Cleveland incident occurred, was at Washington High School, and he received all satisfactory or higher evaluations on each category for that period of time after the Rebecca Cleveland incident.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Education Practices Commission dismissing the complaint by the Department of Education against the Respondent, Eugene Lamar Moore, in its entirety. It is Further RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Dismissal filed by the Superintendent of Schools for Escambia County should be denied and that the Respondent, Eugene Lamar Moore, should be reinstated to his position of employment as a continuing contract teacher with full back pay from the date of suspension. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1987.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent has committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent, Seneka Rachel Arrington, holds Florida Educator's Certificate 1012300, which is valid through June 2009. Respondent was employed as a Language Arts Teacher at Matanzas High School in the Flagler County School District during the 2006/2007 year. On or about October 9, 2006, Respondent was terminated from her teaching position with the school district. On or about April 3, 2007, Respondent removed merchandise from a retail establishment without paying for it and with the intention of converting it to her own use. Respondent was arrested and charged with one count of retail theft. On or about May 29, 2007, Respondent entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the state attorney's office with regard to the charge of retail theft. Findings of Fact Based Upon Evidence Presented at Hearing Dr. Hugh Christopher Pryor is the principal at Matanzas High School (Matanzas). Dr. Pryor hired Respondent in May 2006 for a position as an English teacher, to begin work in August 2006. During her employment at Matanzas, Respondent also worked as an assistant cheerleading coach. K.M. was a freshman at Matanzas during the 2006-2007 school year. She was on the cheerleading squad and knew Respondent as one of her coaches. She was not a student in any of Respondent's classes. M.H., K.M.'s boyfriend at all times material to the allegations in this case, was a 14-year-old freshman on the Matanzas football team and a student in one of Respondent's classes. C.J. was another freshman member of the football team and a friend of M.H.'s. He was not a student in any of Respondent's classes. Respondent was well-liked by students at the high school. Although K.M. testified that she was authoritative and strict with the girls on the cheerleading squad, she got along with all of the girls and "kind of was like us." K.M. regarded her more as a friend than as a teacher. On occasion, K.M. used Respondent's cell phone. On October 6 or 7, 2006, Donald Apperson Jr., the school's resource officer, was approached by a friend at a social outing who suggested he check into whether "the black cheerleading coach" at Matanzas was having a sexual relationship with some of the football players. Respondent was the only teacher who could fit this description. On Monday, October 9, 2006, Mr. Apperson reported this information to Ken Seybold, who was an assistant principal and the athletic director at Matanzas. The principal was notified and an investigation was initiated. Respondent was notified of the allegations, which she denied, and was sent home pending completion of the investigation. The investigation consisted of speaking with several members of the football team and was completed in a single day. At the end of the day, the principal determined that Respondent's employment would be terminated because she was still under a 97- day probationary period wherein she could be terminated without cause. Respondent was notified of the decision to terminate her employment the next day, October 10, 2006. Because she was terminated within the statutory probationary period for the initial contract for employment, no cause was listed. While Dr. Pryor testified that he was generally dissatisfied with her performance, his testimony regarding why was sketchy at best, and there was nothing in her personnel file to indicate that she was counseled in any way with respect to her performance. Teachers in the Flagler County School District are generally admonished not to transport students in a teacher's personal vehicle. Transporting students is only condoned where the student's parent has been notified and permission granted, and where an administrator has been notified of the need to transport the student. This procedure is apparently covered during orientation for new employees. However, no written policy regarding the transport of students was produced or cited, and Dr. Pryor indicated that Respondent was late to the orientation session prior to the beginning of the school year. It cannot be determined from the record in this case whether Respondent was aware of this policy. Respondent transported students in her personal vehicle on two occasions. On the first occasion, Respondent took K.M. and one other cheerleader to the Volusia Mall in order to look for dresses for a dance at school. K.M. testified that her mother had given permission for K.M. to go with Respondent on this outing. Respondent and the two girls were accompanied on this outing by Respondent's mother and sister. The second outing also involved shopping for clothes for the school dance. On this trip, Respondent took K.M. as well as M.H. and C.J. in her car after football and cheerleading practice. The four went first to the St. Augustine outlet mall and then to the Volusia Mall to shop for clothes. K.M. testified that her mother had given her permission to go with Respondent, but probably would not have given permission if she had known the boys would also be going. Neither M.H. nor C.J. had permission from a parent to ride in Respondent's car. The boys testified that they both drove Respondent's car while on this trip, although the testimony is inconsistent as to who drove when, and is not credible. Neither boy had a learner's permit to drive. No evidence was presented regarding the dates of these two shopping trips, other than they both occurred prior to September 29, 2006, which was the date identified for the dance. This same date is identified as the date for a football game in Cairo, Georgia, discussed below. After the conclusion of the second shopping trip, Respondent dropped K.M. off at her home. At this point, the boys testified, and stated as part of the district's investigation, that Respondent offered to take them back to her apartment to spend the night. According to M.H. and C.J., they went with Respondent back to her apartment where they ate fast food and watched television. They claimed that Respondent told them they could sleep in her bed while she slept on the couch. At some time during the night, Respondent allegedly crawled in the bed between the two boys, ground her hips against M.H.'s crotch, and took his hand and placed it outside her shorts against her vaginal area. M.H. claimed this made him uncomfortable and he moved to the floor, while Respondent continued to sleep in the bed with C.J. In the morning, the boys claim that Respondent woke them up and drove them to school. M.H. testified that he was in Respondent's English class and that she treated him differently than the other students. He, along with other boys at school, fantasized about the "fine, black English teacher." He thought it was cool to spend extra time with her and led others to believe he was having sex with her until one of his friends questioned the propriety of doing so. He testified that he "freaked out" while on a bus going to an out-of-state football game September 29, 2006, because Respondent kept calling him on his cell phone and he did not want to talk to her. Juxtaposed against the testimony of C.J. and M.H. is the testimony of Monica Arrington and Karastan Saunders. Monica Arrington, Respondent's younger sister, testified that during the period of time Respondent was employed at Matanzas, she shared Respondent's apartment and sometimes helped her out with the cheerleaders. Monica was a freshman at Bethune Cookman College and did not like living on campus, so instead lived with her sister. Ms. Arrington did not have her own transportation and relied on her sister to drop her off at school each day. Ms. Arrington confirmed that she went with Respondent, her mother and two female students to Volusia Mall to shop for clothes on one occasion, but did not identify any other time where students were at Respondent's apartment. Karastan Saunders also testified that during the fall of 2006, he lived at Respondent's apartment in exchange for paying a portion of the utilities. Mr. Saunders testified that he spent every night at the apartment because he did not have the funds to go elsewhere, and that he did not recall anyone coming over to the apartment other than family and mutual friends. After considering all of the evidence presented, the more credible evidence is that while Respondent took students shopping on at least one occasion, the testimony of M.H. and C.J. that they spent the night at Respondent's apartment is not credible. M.H. admitted that he has lied to his dad "because everybody lies to their dad sometimes." He claimed he lied to Respondent to avoid going to Orlando with her and about having a learner's permit to drive, and that he lied to his father about where he was the night he claims to have been at Respondent's apartment. M.H. also insinuated to his friends that he had a sexual relationship with Respondent, and that all of the boys thought she was the prettiest teacher at the school. However, he did not want Respondent to be arrested and would not cooperate with authorities. Even during the course of the hearing, his testimony was inconsistent regarding whom he told about his relationship with Respondent and what he told them. Significantly, C.J.'s testimony did not corroborate the alleged inappropriate touching M.H. claimed. C.J. did not witness any inappropriate touching or M.H. and Respondent having sex. While M.H. claimed that Respondent kept calling him while on the bus to Georgia for a football game, no phone records were produced and no one else's testimony was presented to support the claim. K.M. admitted that M.H. has lied to her on occasion and that he has had some issues with drugs and alcohol.1/ C.J.'s testimony is also not very credible. Like M.H., C.J. lied to his father about his whereabouts on the night in question. While he testified that he sometimes drove his dad's car to school without permission, his father testified that he only has one car and uses it every day to get to work. While M.H. claimed C.J. told him that Respondent and C.J. had sex the night they were allegedly at the apartment, C.J. denied it. He also stated that he was suspended for five days for bringing a laser to school during the timeframe related to this case, a suspension that his father knew nothing about. Likewise, C.J.'s claim that he went with Respondent on some unspecified weekend to Orlando while she got her cheerleading certification is not credible. By contrast, both Monica Arrington and Karastan Saunders were candid, consistent, calm and forthright while testifying. While both C.J. and M.H. were not where they were supposed to be on the night in question, they were not at Respondent's apartment. After Respondent was terminated from her employment, the allegations that she engaged in an appropriate relationship with a student were reported by local media. The publicity was extensive. Because the allegations involved alleged sexual conduct with a minor that would have occurred in Volusia County as opposed to Flagler County, the matter was referred to authorities in Volusia County. However, no criminal charges were ever brought against Respondent because neither M.H. nor his father wished to cooperate with authorities.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 1, and dismissing Counts 2-7 of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Commission reprimand Respondent, impose a $500 fine and place her on one year of probation in the event that she works as a teacher in a public school setting. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner terminated Respondent's annual contract as a teacher for just cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner hired Respondent, an inexperienced teacher who had recently graduated from college, and assigned him to teach and serve as an assistant basketball coach at Dixie Hollins High School during the 2000-01 school year. For the 2001-02 school year, Petitioner reassigned Respondent to Tarpon Springs High School, where Respondent assumed the duties of head basketball coach. During both school years, Respondent was on annual contract. Initially, an administrator at Tarpon Springs High School informed Respondent that he would teach American history and economics, which are the subjects that he had taught at Dixie Hollins High School. When Respondent reported for duty at Tarpon Springs High School, administrators did not give him a schedule until a couple of days before classes started. At that time, Respondent learned that, during the first quarter, he was to teach counseling and personal fitness, neither of which he had taught before. He also learned that, the following quarter, he was to teach Freshman Experience, which was a relatively new course, and personal fitness. In the third quarter, he was due to teach earth-space science in place of personal fitness. At least for the first two quarters, Respondent was assigned students in the GOALS program, which is designed for students who have not made substantial academic progress due to social problems. In this program, the students take only four classes per quarter. Each class runs one hour and forty-five minutes, five days weekly. Respondent had difficulties assembling materials for the peer counseling course. Teachers who had previously taught the course were not available. Extensive renovations at the school made it difficult to locate materials for this and other courses. Respondent finally visited a teacher at another school and obtained books, guides, and tests for peer counseling. These materials advised Respondent to help the students learn to settle their disputes peaceably without adult intervention and suggested that the teacher supplement the book with relevant movies dealing with peer pressures, conflict, and social issues. Respondent experienced similar difficulties with the personal fitness course, for which he had books, but no teacher edition or worksheets. However, Respondent's background in athletics presumably prepared him to teach this course. Although Respondent voiced similar complaints about Freshman Experience, he had a quarter to try to obtain materials. Also, no one else at the school had any experience with this course, which the District had abruptly required the high schools to teach. Similar to peer counseling, Freshman Experience is a motivational course that also covers personal and academic issues, as revealed by the titles of the required books, Chicken Soup for the Soul and Ten Steps for How To Manage Time. The seven charges listed in the Preliminary Statement fall into four groups. Charges 1 and 2 are the most serious; they allege that Respondent kissed two students and touched the vaginal area of one of these students. Charges 3 and 4 are also sexual in nature; they allege that Respondent made inappropriate comments to female students about their appearance and inappropriate sexual comments to or in front of students. Charges 5 and 6 pertain to classroom management; they allege that Respondent allowed students to come to his classroom for no legitimate purpose and encouraged students to leave campus to get him food. Charges 7-9 pertain to curriculum, administration, and instruction; they allege that Respondent used noncurriculum-related materials (such as videos), lacked appropriate recordkeeping, and lacked appropriate classroom instruction. Petitioner wisely dropped Charges 6, 8, and 9. No evidence in the record supported these allegations prior to Petitioner's announcement that it was not pursuing these allegations. Charges 5 and 7 require little more analysis. The evidence supports neither of these allegations. Concerning Charge 5, unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom included basketball players. While Respondent remained the basketball coach, these players briefly visited the room from time to time to discuss something about the basketball program. Petitioner did not show the extent of these visits or that they were illegitimate. Unenrolled students who were not participating in the basketball program infrequently visited Respondent's classroom. Although the principal testified that one of his assistant principals told him that there was a problem with unenrolled students visiting Respondent's classroom, he added that she rejected his offer to talk to Respondent and said she would handle it. After that conversation between the principal and assistant principal, the principal said the problem was eliminated. Interestingly, though, neither the assistant principal nor anyone else ever talked to Respondent about this issue, which appears not to have loomed large at the time. Concerning Charge 7, Petitioner never proved the rating of any of the films mentioned during the hearing as shown in Petitioner's classroom. Films mentioned during the hearing as shown in one of Respondent's classes include With Honors, Rudy (shown repeatedly), Finding Forrestor, Saving Private Ryan, The Hurricane, [The Mask of] Zorro, and assorted basketball videotapes. The record reflects disagreement among Petitioner's administrators as to the policy concerning the application of the District policy regarding R-rated films. According to the representative of the Office of Professional Standards, The Patriot (apparently an R-rated film) "could" violate this policy, but, according to the principal, who is now handling workforce development in the District office, The Patriot "probably" would not be a problem. Even if The Patriot were a problem, as an R-rated film, it would be so only if Respondent had not obtained permission slips from parents to show this and perhaps other R- rated films. Respondent testified that he did so. Notwithstanding the testimony of one student to the contrary, Petitioner never proved that Respondent failed to obtain permission slips. The issue of the relationship, if any, between the films and the courses fails because Petitioner failed to prove the contents of the films or to prove adequately the prescribed content of the courses, so as to permit a finding that the films were irrelevant to the courses. The broad outlines of peer counseling in particular, at least as established in this record, would appear to accommodate a vast array of films. A sufficient number of students testified in sufficient detail to a broad array of bookwork, class discussion, and other instructional and assessment methods in both peer counseling and Freshman Counseling to overcome whatever proof that Petitioner offered in support of Charge 7. The crux of this case lies in the charges involving sexual improprieties, as alleged in Charges 1-4. The quality of proof was considerably different between Charges 1 and 2, on the one hand, and Charges 3 and 4, on the other hand. Analyzing Charges 3 and 4 first may help explain the findings as to Charges 1 and 2. Concerning Charges 3 and 4, Petitioner proved that Respondent made numerous inappropriate comments to female students, of a sexual nature, that understandably made the students feel uncomfortable. Respondent directed three of these comments and one behavior to T. R., a junior. While walking around the track during the personal fitness class that T. R. was taking from Respondent, he asked her what she thought of a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. T. R. was either 18 years old or Respondent implied that the dating would await her 18th birthday; either way, T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant her. Although actually 29 or 30 years old at the time, Respondent typically told his students that he was only 26 years old, so T. R. reasonably believed that Respondent meant him. T. R. was so uncomfortable with this question that she mentioned it to a female teacher at the school, Cheryl Marks- Satinoff. Thoughtfully considering the matter, Ms. Marks- Satinoff found that the question was "odd," but not "extremely inappropriate" and "on the fence." Ms. Marks-Satinoff's characterization of the question, in isolation, is fair. In the context of other comments to T. R. and other female students during the relatively short period of two school quarters--little else, if any, of which was Ms. Marks-Satinoff was then aware--the comment acquires its proper characterization. To T. R., Respondent also said, "If I were still in high school, I'd be climbing in your window at night." T. R. was "shocked" by this comment, but her mother or stepmother, when told by T. R. about the comment--again, in isolation--did not attach much importance to it. On another occasion, when a female student asked why T. R.'s grade was better than D. P.'s grade, Respondent replied, "T. R. and I have an agreement." While taking Respondent for personal fitness, T. R. found Respondent staring at her repeatedly. Accordingly, T. R. switched from stretch pants to baggies. T. R.'s testimony is credible. She spoke with adults about two of the comments roughly at the time that they were made. Also, T. R. bore no grudge against Respondent. She said that she did not think twice about the dating comment, although she obviously gave it enough thought to raise it with Ms. Marks- Satinoff. T. R. freely admitted that Respondent made the comment about crawling into her window in a joking manner. She discredited D. P., who is the alleged victim of the most serious sexual incident, discussed below, as a person who always lies, convincingly. T. R. added that D. P. told her once that Respondent "tried" to kiss her and put his hand up her skirt and did not understand why D. P. confided in her initially. T. R. testified that she never heard Respondent do or say anything inappropriate in the personal fitness class that she took with D. P. T. R. testified that Respondent made her and her friends leave if they disturbed his class the few times they got out of their assigned class to visit his office and watch movies. T. R. described another female student, B. H., who testified to several inappropriate comments made by Respondent, as someone who "likes to stir the pot." To A. T., an 18-year-old who graduated from Tarpon Springs High School in June 2002, Respondent alluded to the size of her breasts, in front of the class, and used his hands to frame them. Although done in connection with a warning that A. T. was violating the school dress code due to the revealing nature of her shirt, Respondent delivered this warning in a sexual manner that was obviously unnecessary for the purpose of reminding the student to conform to the dress code. A. T. testified that she liked Respondent as a teacher, but he made her uncomfortable, and he should be more a teacher than a friend. Like T. R., A. T. seemed not to bear any negative feelings toward Respondent, but instead merely seemed to be describing an insensitive incident as it happened. To N. S., a junior at the time, Respondent said, upon learning that she had surgically implanted rods in her back, that he wanted to have sex with her. N. S. testified that she was not bothered by the remark. N. S.'s testimony is credited. She was friendly toward Respondent and had long dated Respondent's teacher assistant. To A. M., Respondent said that she looked pretty and could get any guy she wanted. A. M.'s testimony is credited. She did not have much interaction with Respondent and was not part of any group interested in causing him trouble. She seems simply to have truthfully reported an ill-advised comment that Respondent made to her, although she did not describe her reaction to the comment. To L. D., Respondent said that he had a bracelet of hers that she had lent him and that, whenever he looked at it, it reminded him of her. L. D. felt uncomfortable about this remark. L. D. also testified that Respondent sometimes tried to get the boys to treat the girls with respect, and her testimony is credited. Other witnesses, especially D. P. and B. H., described other comments, but their credibility is poor, and their testimony cannot be credited. The demeanor of two witnesses favorable to Respondent revealed something bordering on exasperation with him, even as they testified that he never said anything sexually inappropriate in class. The demeanor of each witness was consistent with someone who believed that Respondent was only joking around in class, when making sexually charged comments, and had suffered more than enough due to the consequences of lies told by two female students, as described below. In isolation, the comment about having sex with a student with orthopedic rods in her back is sexually offensive, as is the sexual comment and gesture framing a female student's breasts is sexually offensive. The comments about the agreement between T. R. and Respondent, the bracelet reminding Respondent of L. D., and A. M. being able to sufficiently pretty to get any boy are not sexually offensive, in isolation, but, even in isolation, betray a tendency by Respondent to regard certain of his female students as females more than students. With the exception of the comment to A. M., all of the comments, gesture, and behavior, in the aggregate during a relatively short period of time, depict a transformation by Respondent of the relationship between a teacher and several of his students to a more ambiguous relationship, at times resembling the relationship that might exist between these girls and the boys with whom they attended high school. Nearly all of these incidents embarrassed the female students; all of them, except perhaps A. M., reasonably should have been embarrassed by them. Several of these incidents suggest that Respondent regarded these female students as available for him in some role other than that of student--for instance, as females with whom to flirt. Petitioner has proved that Respondent exploited these female students, with the possible exception of A. M., for personal gain. This characterization of these comments, gesture, and behavior is confirmed by Respondent's implausible assertion that all of these students, except N. S., are lying. If confident that the comments, gesture, and behavior were innocuous or at least not improper, Respondent could have gained credibility by admitting these incidents and explaining their innocence. With one exception, Petitioner has not proved that Respondent sexually harassed or discriminated against his female students or these students in particular. The record does not suggest any quid pro quo in the sexual incidents, although the agreement with T. R. approaches the type of proof required. Nor does the record suggest that the sexual commentary, gesturing, or behavior were so pervasive as to create a hostile environment. Two students, N. S., A. M., and L. D., were each the subject of a single comment. One student, A. T., was the subject of a single incident, which consisted of a comment and gesture. On this record, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent's treatment of these students rose to harassment or discrimination of them or of his female students in general. However, Respondent's treatment of T. R. rose to harassment and sexual discrimination because he made three sexually inappropriate comments and engaged in one sexually inappropriate behavior that caused her to alter her mode of dress. Respondent implicitly asked her to think about dating him--now or later--with the comment about a 26-year-old dating an 18-year-old. Respondent implicitly identified the possibility of their having sex with the comment about climbing in her window. Respondent alluded to the possibility of sex between T. R., a student, and himself, a teacher with the power of the grade, with the comment about her grade resulting from an agreement. And Respondent leered at T. R. sufficiently to cause her to change her workout clothes. In partial mitigation of the sexual comments, gesture, and behavior, but not the harassment or discrimination, no one seems to have provided Respondent with any timely feedback on this manner of interacting with certain female students. The only reports to adults seem to have been of isolated comments. In addition to the two reports noted above, a male student reported inappropriate comments, midway through the first quarter, to the teacher who was head of GOALS. Although the teacher did not describe the inappropriate comments, she said that she talked only to the two female students involved and evidently decided that the matter was not sufficiently important to discuss with Respondent or the administration. As noted above, Ms. Marks-Satinoff learned from T. R. of a borderline inappropriate comment. Sometime later, in January, she spoke briefly with Respondent and advised him to watch inappropriate comments. This marks the only feedback, and it was too late to alter the course of events. However, for the same reason that this lack of feedback does not mitigate at all the harassment and discrimination involving T. R., the value of this mitigation is largely undermined by the fact that the knowledge of the need to refrain from improper personal references to students is not granted only to the most experienced teachers or administrators. Perhaps Respondent was not fully aware that his comments, gesture, and behavior were sexually charged and did not realize the effects of these comments, gesture, and behavior on his students, as some teachers may not be fully aware of their sarcasm and its effect on their students. However, Respondent, as a teacher, remains responsible for determining the effect of his interaction upon his students and ultimately must bear the consequences if he fails to identify the problem. D. P. is the complainant in Charge 1. She was born in September 1984 and was a senior during the 2001-02 school year. Respondent taught her peer counseling during the first quarter and personal fitness during the second quarter. D. P. testified that on Monday, January 14, 2002, she approached Respondent to ask if she could exempt a final exam. She testified that he said to return after lunch. When she did, she testified that they met in his office where he kissed her and moved his hand up her leg until he digitally penetrated her vagina. D. P.'s testimony is unbelievable for several reasons. First, two different students testified that they heard her say that she would get Respondent into trouble. One of the students testified that he heard her say this immediately after an argument D. P. had with Respondent over absences and tardies. D. P. was upset with Respondent because her numerous absences and tardies prevented him from exempting her from the final examination in his class. D. P. did not tell anyone of the alleged incident until immediately after she found that she could not obtain an exam exemption from Respondent. Second, D. P.'s testimony is unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. Some inconsistencies are not fatal to credibility, but the number and importance of inconsistencies in her testimony and statements preclude a finding of credibility. Numerous material discrepancies exist between D. P.'s testimony at the hearing and her testimony in a prehearing deposition. Other discrepancies exist between her testimony at the hearing and earlier statements given to law- enforcement officers or made to others. These discrepancies include differences of two hours as to when during the day the incident occurred and one day as to which day on which it occurred. D. P.'s implausible implication is often that the persons taking down her version of events made a mistake. Third, D. P.'s testimony is improbable. First, Respondent was aware of the investigation into his dealings with female students by the morning of January 14. The investigation was already underway by the end of the prior week. For instance, D. P. had given her first statement on January 11. It is unlikely that Respondent would engage in such egregious sexual abuse of a student while he knew that he was under investigation. Second, Respondent's teacher assistant testified that he was in the office during the entire time that the incident supposedly would have taken place, and he never saw D. P. Fourth, D. P. has a poor reputation for honesty among her peers who know her well. D. P. testified that she told several persons about the sexual abuse, but they all denied such conversations. At one point during her testimony, she stated that everyone at school had his or her own opinion concerning rumors as to with which student Respondent was accused of having an improper relationship. As she testified, D. P. seemed clearly to have relished the attention that she had gained by making the charge. S. Y. is the complainant in Charge 2. S. Y. was born in April 1987 and was a sophomore during the 2001-02 school year. She was a student of Respondent. She testified that Respondent taught her Freshman Experience during the third quarter, although she was not a freshman and Respondent did not teach very long into the third quarter before he was terminated, as described below. S. Y. testified that Respondent kissed her one day while they were alone in his office. A number of reasons exist that undermine the credibility of this assertion. First, S. Y.'s testimony is also unusually inconsistent with other statements that she has given. At different times, she has attested that the kiss occurred between Thanksgiving and Christmas, before Thanksgiving, and in January. Second, S. Y.'s timing in reporting the kiss is suspect. First, three times she told investigators nothing about a kiss. Second, she reported the kiss only after she knew that D. P. had accused Respondent of sexual improprieties. S. Y. admitted that emotions were running "sky high" at the time. Unlike D. P., who did not like Respondent, S. Y. liked him, at one time even having a crush on him. S. Y. appeared capable of jealousy regarding her feelings about Respondent, as evidenced by the following facts. Third, S. Y. reported the kiss immediately after he referred her to the office for abruptly interrupting his class and loudly demanding that he tell her who else he was "fucking." Although she denied knowledge that Respondent was having sexual intercourse with any students, including herself, S. Y. admitted that the referral prompted her to report the kiss to an investigator. Fourth, S. Y. engaged in embellishment concerning her relationship with Respondent, as would be consistent with a fantasy attachment to him. Although S. Y. implausibly denied it, she told Ms. Marks-Satinoff that she had been to Respondent's home, which was in a poor section of Clearwater. Respondent's home is not in a poor section of Clearwater. S. Y. also has said that Respondent proposed that she and another girl perform in a porn movie that he would make. The reality is either that she proposed it to Respondent, who told her never to suggest such a thing again, or that a former boyfriend proposed the porn movie--without Respondent's involvement. For the reasons listed above, it is impossible to credit the testimony of D. P. or S. Y. that Respondent sexually abused them. Although the presence of multiple accusations of this type may sometimes be indicative of their reliability, they are more likely due to Respondent's sexual banter and flirtation and repeated failure to maintain appropriate boundaries between the professional and the personal. Both D. P. and S. Y. were doubtlessly aware of Respondent's tendencies in this regard, and, from this sexually charged atmosphere, which Respondent himself had helped create, they struck back at Respondent by making sexual allegations. D. P. chose to strike out at Respondent for not granting her an exemption to which she was not entitled, and S. Y. chose to strike out at Respondent for referring her to the office and not meeting the unrealistic expectations that she and her infatuation on Respondent had generated. Shortly after D. P. and possibly S. Y.'s charges emerged, law enforcement officers arrested Respondent, who remained in jail for nine days. In June 2002, the state attorney's office dropped the charges, although D. P. testified at the hearing that she intended to sue Respondent and Petitioner. Petitioner then terminated Respondent's employment six weeks prior to the end of the term of his annual contract. A proper penalty must reflect the nature of the offense and its impact on the students. Some students who were the subject of improper comments, gesture, and behavior denied embarrassment. Of those admitting to embarrassment, it does not seem to have been traumatizing or even especially painful. Not entirely without reason, some of the students implied that Respondent had already suffered enough, having been fired and served nine days in jail on accusations that were not established on this record. Also, the mitigation discussed above, as to the failure of authority figures to provide Respondent with timely feedback as to the improper comments, gesture, and behavior, but not harassment and discrimination, plays a role in setting the penalty. Petitioner's representative from the Office of Professional Standards testified that Charges 3 and 4 would suffice to warrant dismissal, depending on the frequency of the improper comments. The improper comments warrant, at most, an unpaid suspension of three days, but the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. warrant a more serious penalty. In the absence of the other sexually inappropriate comments and gesture, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. probably would warrant a long suspension. However, two facts warrant termination. First, the harassment and discrimination involving T. R. are accompanied by the sexually inappropriate comments and gesture involving the other students. Second, still not grasping the requirements of a professional's proper relationship toward his students, Respondent has continued, implausibly, to deny all of the sexually inappropriate comments, except for an admission of a vague version of the comment about the orthopedic rod in N. S.'s back. By branding these students liars when he himself is lying, Respondent makes the case for Petitioner that termination is the proper remedy.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Florida Education Center Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Jacqueline M. Spoto, Esquire School Board of Pinellas County 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942
The Issue Should Respondent be terminated from his employment as a member of Petitioner's instructional staff for his alleged relationship with Kristie Lynn Smith, who at the time of the alleged misconduct was a minor student and member of Respondent's household? In particular, Petitioner accuses Respondent of a romantic involvement with Ms. Smith, to include sexual intercourse.
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to the inquiry Respondent has been employed as a classroom teacher, part of instructional staff with the Putnam County School Board. His employment has been at Interlachen High School in Interlachen, Putnam County, Florida. Respondent has taught Driver Education and Health and Life Management Skills. Respondent has also served as coach for the girls' varsity basketball team. Kristie Lynn Smith was born November 24, 1980. At the times relevant to the inquiry she was a student in the Putnam County School District. Ms. Smith met Respondent as a student in Respondent's Health and Life Management Skills class, in the second semester of her ninth grade year. In January 1997, Ms. Smith was placed in foster care in the custody of Respondent and his wife, Teresa Dorsey. Ms. Smith lived with the Dorseys in their home from January 1997 through August 1997. Other children residing in the Dorsey home were Respondent's children Mikey, Jeanny, and Raymond. Another foster child, K.W., lived in the home during Ms. Smith's residency. The expectation of foster parenting for the benefit of Ms. Smith and K.W. was that Respondent and his wife would exercise parental authority over the foster children. After Ms. Smith was placed with the Dorseys for foster care, she began to ride to her school with Respondent in his automobile. On these occasions Respondent and Ms. Smith would engage in conversation that was not unexpected. In latter May 1997, Respondent began to discuss his marital problems with Ms. Smith. In these discussions Respondent confided that Respondent's marriage with his wife, Teresa, was over and that Respondent was contemplating the formal dissolution of his marriage. Respondent's discussions with Ms. Smith extended to expressing Respondent's feelings towards Ms. Smith by telling her he cared for her. This was followed by Respondent's statement to Ms. Smith that he was in love with her. Ms. Smith replied that she had similar feelings for Respondent. Respondent and Ms. Smith in their discussions talked about having sexual relations with each other. Expression was given to their affection by flirting, hugging, and kissing each other with open mouths. The relationship between Respondent and Ms. Smith progressed to the point where Ms. Smith agreed to have sexual intercourse with Respondent. Within a few days beyond reaching the agreement to have sexual intercourse, Respondent, in their home, took Ms. Smith from the room she shared with K.W. into the bedroom shared by Mikey and Jeanny, placed a mattress on the floor, removed his and Ms. Smith's clothing and engaged in sexual intercourse with Ms. Smith. This same activity took place three or four more times in the home in the month of May 1997. While on a vacation in West Virginia that began the last week of May 1997, Ms. Smith confided in K.W. that Ms. Smith and Respondent had an ongoing romantic relationship. K.W. observed some of the contacts between Respondent and Ms. Smith that involved hand holding, hugging, and what K.W. described as "French kissing," meaning that the tongues of Respondent and Ms. Smith were in each other's mouth. Upon the return from West Virginia, in the first part of June 1997, Respondent and Ms. Smith continued their liaison, to include sexual intercourse that took place on numerous occasions either in Jeanny and Mikey's bedroom, Ms. Smith's bedroom, or Respondent's bedroom. The sexual encounters that have been described took place at night when other persons had retired to sleep. The numerous occasions of sexual relations between Respondent and Ms. Smith took place over the period from the end of May 1997 into August 1997. Those encounters were such that in June 1997, Ms. Smith believed that she had become pregnant by Respondent. To confirm her suspicion Ms. Smith went with a friend, Lisa Comeau, and purchased a pregnancy test kit. At that time Ms. Comeau was also a student at Interlachen High School. Ms. Comeau was mindful of the relationship between Ms. Smith and Respondent to the extent that Ms. Comeau had been told by Ms. Smith that Respondent and Ms. Smith were having sexual relations. Respondent had taught Ms. Comeau as a Driver's Education and Health class teacher. The results of the pregnancy test as administered at Ms. Comeau's home revealed that Ms. Smith was not pregnant. In June 1997, Ms. Smith enrolled in a Driver's Education Course that was being taught at Palatka High School, part of the Putnam County School District. Respondent taught Ms. Smith in that class and was responsible for assigning Ms. Smith's final grade. During this time period Respondent and Ms. Smith were having sexual relations. During the period May 1997 through August 1997, Respondent and Ms. Smith exchanged letters describing their affection. Those letters were passed directly from Respondent to Ms. Smith and from Ms. Smith to Respondent or on other occasions letters were being indirectly transmitted through K.W. Respondent would also leave letters for Ms. Smith in a dresser drawer in the home. The letters were being written and exchanged sometime between May 1997 and August 1997. K.W. and Lisa Comeau were aware of the contents of some of this correspondence. Through the letters which Respondent wrote to Ms. Smith he expressed his love and devotion, the anticipation of having children with Ms. Smith, the desire to be Ms. Smith's husband, and the specific statement of wanting to make love to Ms. Smith and to hold her in his arms and to lay there for hours. The contents of some of the letters are more completely described in the Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 4-13. Although Respondent expressed some reservation in testimony concerning their relationship, about first receiving letters from Ms. Smith which expressed her feelings towards Respondent, his manner of addressing his concerns was to begin writing letters back to Ms. Smith of the nature that has been described previously. While Respondent in his testimony concerning the relationship with Ms. Smith has denied the finding made here that he had engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Smith, he does not deny discussion of their intention to have sexual relations at a time in the future. Neither does Respondent deny having written the letters that have been discussed which describe lovemaking and fathering Ms. Smith's children. The July 24, 1998, edition of the Palatka Daily News reported some of the contents of correspondence from Respondent to Ms. Smith that have been described, in particular, the reference "I want to make love to you . . . and hold you in my arms and lay there for hours." The article also referred to Respondent's admission that he loved Ms. Smith at the time of their relationship and hoped the two of them would be married and have a family. As reported in the newspaper article Respondent had testified in the trial that he had "fallen" for Ms. Smith. The account of Respondent's statement that he loved Ms. Smith, as found in the newspaper was consistent with his trial testimony. Respondent's trial testimony constituted testimony for the present proceeding. Mr. David Buckles, District School Superintendent for Putnam County School District, testified concerning his opinion on Respondent's loss of effectiveness as a teacher. Before offering that testimony Mr. Buckles had been accepted as an expert to provide opinion testimony concerning loss of effectiveness in the community to teach. Upon reviewing the contents of correspondence from Respondent to Ms. Smith, Mr. Buckles opined that the authorship of that item, Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4 and its delivery to Ms. Smith, then a 16-year- old student, followed by public admission of such contact between Respondent and Ms. Smith would cause Respondent to be less than effective in teaching. Respondent in his testimony at trial, had acknowledged writing the correspondence found in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. Additionally, Mr. Buckles offered the opinion that a teacher would lose effectiveness in the instance where the teacher stated a desire to father a child by one of his students, as published in the community. Respondent in his trial testimony acknowledged that in one of the letters written to Ms. Smith, he had stated that he wanted to father Ms. Smith's children. Moreover, Mr. Buckles offered the opinion that a teacher would lose effectiveness in the community to serve as a teacher if the teacher admitted in a public forum that the teacher was in love with a 16-year-old student. Respondent in his trial testimony acknowledged that he loved Ms. Smith at the time of their relationship. Respondent in his trial testimony also acknowledged writing letters to Ms. Smith which expressed his love for her. Mr. Buckles expressed the opinion that a teacher, who in a public forum acknowledges having discussed having sexual intercourse with a student on a future date, had lost effectiveness. In the trial testimony Respondent indicated that he had talked with Ms. Smith about having sex after they were going to be married, and that it was something Respondent and Ms. Smith knew would take place as part of the marriage. Additionally, Mr. Buckles' opinion countenances the previously mentioned discussion in correspondence from Respondent to Ms. Smith, reported in the newspaper and testified about in hearing, in which Respondent acknowledged authoring the correspondence which includes the phrase "I want to make love to you . . . and hold you in my arms and lay there for hours." Eventually, the relationship between Respondent and Ms. Smith was found out. Although Ms. Smith denied their relationship initially, upon its discovery, out of fear of losing her attachment to Respondent and getting in trouble, eventually, Ms. Smith admitted to the relationship. Ms. Smith and K.W. were removed from Respondent's home. Respondent did not carry forward his stated intentions to divorce his wife and marry Ms. Smith. Respondent continues to be married to Teresa Dorsey.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Putnam County School Board dismissing Respondent from his employment with the Putnam County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed any of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 2014, and, if so, what is the appropriate disciplinary penalty?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who hold a Florida Educational Certificate when they are appropriately alleged to have committed a violation as provided in section 1012.795, Florida Statutes, and related rules. See § 1012.796, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Shadrick Fields, a male and, at the time of the events pertinent to this case, a middle school teacher employed by the Broward County School District (the District), holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 977090. Valid through June 30, 2017, the certificate covers the areas of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), Social Science, and Exceptional Student Education. Respondent was employed as a coach and Social Science teacher at Pompano Beach Middle School during the school years 2007-2010. In the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was also employed as an assistant coach (but not as a teacher) at Coconut Creek High School. Pompano Beach Middle School and Coconut Creek High School are within and part of the District. On or about April 26, 2010, Respondent resigned his teaching position in lieu of termination of his position. The District accepted the resignation and placed Respondent’s identification in its records under “non-hire” status. The personnel action was taken because of allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Respondent and a female student. An Inappropriate Relationship Develops J.D. is a female. Born in 1992, she attended Pompano Beach Middle School in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. She met Respondent at Pompano Beach Middle School although he was not her teacher or her coach. The events that led to Respondent’s resignation occurred principally in the 2009-2010 school year when J.D. was 17 years of age (her 18th birthday was in March 2010) and a student at Coconut Creek High School. The events had their origin, however, in 2006 when J.D. was a middle school child. J.D. met Respondent as a seventh grader when Respondent was “doing security [for the school] at the time.” Hr’g Tr. 81. Later, J.D. had contact with Respondent in Respondent’s capacity as coach of the middle school football team. On the last day of J.D.’s eighth grade school year (in 2006), Respondent gave J.D. a letter written from him to her. The letter was not produced at the hearing. Respondent asked for it back, and J.D. returned it to him. When asked about the letter at the hearing, the following colloquy took place between and counsel for Petitioner: I have to go in detail about the letter? Q. Well . . . just tell us in general, what was the nature of the letter? A. He liked me. I liked him. Hr’g Tr. 83. J.D. did not see or communicate with Respondent over the summer between her eighth and ninth grade. J.D. resumed contact with Respondent during her freshman year at Coconut Creek High School where she was a student and he was one of the coaches for the wrestling team. Respondent was not J.D.’s coach nor was he one of her teachers; he continued to teach at Pompano Beach Middle School. Nonetheless, they talked on the phone. On Valentine’s Day, Respondent gave J.D. a card. The card opens with the statement, “Falling in love with you was something I hadn’t expected but being in love with you is something I wouldn’t stop, even if I tried.” Pet’r’s Ex. 6. It closes with the statements, “I already have my Valentine’s Day Gift and it’s you! I love you.” Id. J.D. claimed at the hearing that she and Respondent engaged in sexual relations once during her freshman year at Coconut Creek. She said they took place in Respondent’s truck, an arrangement they agreed to both by speaking about it and writing about it. The letters related to their rendezvous in the truck were not produced at the hearing because J.D. disposed of them in a trash receptacle. J.D. claimed that she engaged in sexual intercourse with Respondent only one other time: during her senior year, again in Respondent’s truck. The time that elapsed between the two sexual events, according to J.D., was due to an agreement between Respondent and J.D.: they agreed to cease further sexual involvement until she graduated from high school (albeit, as J.D. testified, the agreement failed in February of her senior year). During the time between the two incidents of sexual relations to which J.D. testified, J.D. and Respondent frequently communicated through writings, cards, and letters. When Respondent wrote to J.D. he delivered the communications through one of two methods: he handed them to her directly or he placed them in an open tube affixed to the wall of a hallway outside the wrestling locker room. When the latter method was followed, Respondent would send a text to J.D. to alert her to the presence of a letter in the tube. The purpose of using the tube was to prevent suspicion by others should Respondent be observed handing written communication to J.D. The letters produced at the hearing that J.D. received are emotionally intimate. The third of the four letters that make up Petitioner’s Exhibit 7 is highly charged and sexually graphic. It refers, for example, in detail to love-making in which Respondent and J.D. had engaged. Respondent’s letters refer to himself as “King” and are signed “M.N.U.A.I.A.,” which stands for “Me and You Against It All.” See Pet’r’s Ex. 7. During J.D.’s senior year in high school, J.D. and Respondent had increased opportunities to interact on school days. J.D. played on a school flag football team and became the assistant manager of the wrestling team for which Respondent was the coach. Family members picked J.D. up after flag football practice or when she stayed after school in her capacity as the wrestling team assistant manager. But Respondent also provided her transportation home in his truck. He gave J.D. a ride home after these extra-curricular events whenever she asked. The question was asked at the hearing, “Generally, who gave you a ride home?” J.D. testified, “Mr. Fields.” Hr’g Tr. 98. Respondent also gave J.D. cards and gifts, including a Teddy Bear that was delivered with a card. The card ends with “I’m your Teddy Bear baby, M.N.U.A.I.A. I Love You.” The card makes reference to the silence of Teddy Bears and that “they will never breath [sic] a word of secrets you may tell.” Pet’r’s Ex. 8. In December and January of the 2009-2010 school year (J.D.’s senior year), Respondent had significant contact with J.D. by cell phone. Pet’r’s Ex. 9. For the month of December 2009, phone calls between J.D.’s cell phone and Respondent’s cell phone averaged more than one per day. Following more than 40 phone calls in January of 2010, the phone contact continued into February. In the middle of the month of February 2010, Respondent handed a Valentine card to J.D. (He did not place it in the tube because “[i]t wouldn’t fit in there.”). Hr’g Tr. 96. The card states, “You know that I would give anything to be in your arms, touching your face, staring into your eyes and tasting your lips. I can’t but I can depend on our love to see me through.” The card addresses J.D. as “Lil Solja” and is signed: Happy Valentine’s Day #1 M.N.U.A.I.A. Love & “Sincerely Yours”, Solja Pet’r’s Ex. 9. Over the late 2009 and early 2010 time period, some of the many phone calls between J.D. and Respondent were for extended periods of time or were at odd hours. One set of calls was both. On February 19, 2010, a call was placed from Respondent’s cell phone to J.D.’s cell phone that is shown by phone records to have lasted for 186 minutes (until 2:50 in the morning of February 20, 2010). The same records show that one minute later, at 2:51 a.m., February 20, 2010, a phone call was placed from J.D.’s cell phone to Respondent’s cell phone. This second “middle of the night” phone call lasted another 76 minutes. The two calls total more than four hours. The lengthy “middle of the night” phone calls in mid-February of 2010 occurred roughly one week before events that precipitated the discovery of J.D.’s relationship with Respondent. The events took place on February 26 and 27, 2010, the weekend before J.D.’s 18th birthday. Discovered February 26, 2010, was a Friday. J.D. worked that evening at Steinmart as a merchandiser. She had worked at Steinmart her entire senior year with a schedule of roughly 20 hours per week. The following are questions and answers from the transcript of the hearing about what occurred the evening of February 26, 2010, when J.D. was at work: Q. Did Mr. Fields come to your work that day? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what happened. A. I went to work, took a break right before the store closed, around eight-something. I had been talking to him throughout the day. He came to my job. We had sex. I got off work and went home. * * * Q. . . . Mr. Fields came to your work, correct? A. Came to my job on my break. Q. And how long of a break did you have? A. Thirty minutes. Q. Thirty minutes. And what did you do on that break? A. I got in the truck with him, we talked, we had sex and I went back to work. Q. When you say you had sex, you had sexual intercourse? A. Yes. Q. And this occurred in Mr. Fields’ truck? A. Yes. Q. Where at in the truck? A. In the back seat. Hr’g Tr. 101. When asked by counsel for Petitioner how she felt about having sex with Respondent in his truck, she testified as if it were nothing unusual: “I really didn’t feel no way.” Hr’g Tr. 102. When asked immediately after, “You felt what?” J.D. reiterated her testimony, “I really didn’t feel any type of way, you know.” Id. During the interlude in the truck, J.D. and Respondent developed plans for the next night, Saturday, February 27. J.D. did not have to work that Saturday, but she “planned to lie to [her] mom” and tell her she did so she could, in her words, “spend the time with him before my birthday.” Hr’g Tr. 103. Hewing to the plan, J.D. told her mother that she was needed at Steinmart on Saturday to help her manager with inventory. J.D.’s mother, accordingly, drove her to work and dropped her off in the middle of the day. Later in the day, J.D.’s mother returned to Steinmart to purchase a shirt for her husband using a family discount by virtue of J.D.’s employment. She asked for J.D. in the store because J.D. had to sign a form to make the discount effective. When it turned out that J.D. was not at work and had not been at work, J.D.’s mother became extremely concerned. She called J.D. and texted her. When the calls and texts to J.D. went unanswered she enlisted other family members to assist in contacting and locating J.D. She lodged a missing person’s report with local law enforcement, and she began her own investigation. J.D.’s cell phone was under her mother’s account. When her mother checked the phone log she saw a number “that had been calling back and forth.” Hr’g Tr. 40. The phone number was Respondent’s: 954-691-6468. J.D.’s mother did not recognize the phone number, but discovered later that it belonged to Respondent. When asked about a voice message she left on Respondent’s phone, J.D.’s mother testified, “I don’t want to say under oath what I said but I was upset once I realized whose phone it was.” Hr’g Tr. 41. After testifying that the pattern and consistency of the phone calls between her daughter and an older male made her distraught, she was asked to explain by counsel. She answered, “Because I just felt like that communication shouldn’t have been going on, as many times as I’d seen it in the call log.” Id. Between being transported to her work place and the frantic activity of her mother, J.D. had talked to Respondent on the phone. He picked her up at Steinmart and drove her across the county to a movie theater in the western part of the county about 35 minutes away by car. After watching a movie, “The Crazies,” the two had something to eat at “TGI Friday’s,” hearing transcript 105, a restaurant in the same plaza as the movie theater. J.D. noticed that she had received phone calls from her mother, but she was “scared,” id., to call her back. While the two were still inside the restaurant, Respondent noticed that he had received telephone calls from J.D.’s mother as well. J.D. told Respondent not to return the call, and he did not. Respondent drove J.D. back to Steinmart and dropped her off at roughly 9 p.m., the time J.D. should have been getting off work had she worked that day. Respondent did not return J.D.’s mother’s call before he left J.D. at Steinmart. J.D.’s brother picked her up at Steinmart and drove J.D. home where she was met by Deputy Matthews, who had responded on behalf of local law enforcement to the missing person’s report. Deputy Matthews’ report indicated that J.D. was questioned about sexual activity with Respondent and that she denied sexual activity. Text Messages On Sunday (February 28, 2010), Respondent texted J.D.: Does she still want to talk to me? I’ll take da day off in effort to make things right by sitting down with her. A million more apologizes from da heart. Pet’r’s Ex. 5, at P010/011 [marked in hand-writing as “83”]. On March 1, 2010, the next Monday, Respondent sent text messages to J.D. At 3:17 in the morning, his text reads, I hope I haven’t tarnished or messed your life first and everyone else that looks up to me. I’ve let so many down . . . mainly you. I pray for ur fams forgiveness. Pet’r’s Ex. 5, P0087/011 [marked in hand-writing as “81”]. Another text follows at 3:45 in the morning: I never lied to you. Everything I said I meant from the heart but I should have never told you. Every day forward free is a blessing & will be cherished. Id. Later in the day, at 3:36 in the afternoon, Respondent texted “I’m going to turn myself in. Its all in your hands, my life.” Pet’r’s Ex. 5, P0097/011 [marked in hand-writing as “82”]. Over several days, J.D. and her mother engaged in a number of emotion-laden conversations. J.D.’s mother reached the point of “yelling” and “crying.” Hr’g Tr. 56. At some point in the midst of the emotional interchanges between J.D. and her mother, J.D.’s mother told her that she intended to take J.D. to a gynecologist for an examination for sexual activity. J.D. did not want her mother to know that she was not a virgin. But she was not concerned for herself alone. She did not want to tell anyone that she had engaged in sexual activity with Respondent because she wanted to protect him. The gynecological examination of J.D. revealed that she had been sexually active. Despite misgivings both for herself and because of the potential impact to Respondent, J.D. told her mother she had engaged in sex with Respondent. J.D.’s mother’s impression was that J.D. had not been sexually active even though she had a boyfriend (who was not Respondent). When J.D. revealed the sexual nature of her relationship with Respondent after the examination, J.D.’s mother called local law enforcement to report it. As a result of the call, a case was opened, and it was assigned to Deputy Julie Bower of the Broward County’s Sheriff’s Office of Sex Crimes. Deputy Bower questioned J.D. and reviewed the phone records, as well as the cards and letters that have been admitted into evidence in this proceeding. Deputy Bower confirmed that J.D. was 17 years’ old, a minor, when Respondent took her to the movies and that Respondent was over the age of 24 at the time. Their ages led Deputy Bower to conduct an investigation into whether Respondent had committed the crime of “Unlawful Sex with Certain Minors.” March 5 Statement to the Sex Crimes Unit On March 5, 2010, Officer Bower took a statement from J.D. In the statement J.D. admitted that she and Respondent had engaged in sexual activity on February 26, 2010. As the interview for the statement progressed, Deputy Bower took J.D. through the history of the relationship. J.D. stated that Respondent seemed to take an interest in her more than the other girls at school (Pet’r’s Ex. 2, p. 4 of 24). She also related that she received the first letter from him at the end of the eighth grade, but that she was not interested in him until her senior year in high school when Respondent started writing her and giving her gifts: “clothes, shoes, . . . cards, letters” id., page 7 of 24, and a bracelet of white gold. In the meantime, during her ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades, J.D. claimed in the statement that their relationship was “nothing . . . just a hi and bye.” Pet’r’s Ex. 2, p. 6 of 24. She related that in December of 2009, however, her relationship with Respondent started changing after “he made the move” (Id., p. 8 of 24), at which time she decided she wanted to start dating. They discussed having sex, and Respondent told J.D. that he loved her. J.D. stated to Deputy Bower that she was a virgin until the encounter with Respondent in his truck on her break from work on Friday, February 26, 2010, at which time she claimed they engaged in sexual intercourse. Deputy Bower was unable to verify J.D.’s claim of sexual intercourse with Respondent through any source other than J.D.’s statement. Nonetheless, Respondent was prosecuted criminally. Acquittal Respondent was charged with the crime of Unlawful Sexual Activity. He was tried by jury in the circuit court in and for Broward County and was found not guilty. See Respondent’s Ex. 1, Circuit Court Disposition Order in and for Broward County, Florida, rendered October 31, 2011, and an attached “Felony Order of Acquittal.” The Administrative Complaint and the Amended Administrative Complaint An Administrative Complaint seeking appropriate disciplinary sanction of Respondent’s educator’s certificate was issued by Dr. Tony Bennett, as Commissioner of Education, on July 8, 2013, 20 months or so after the acquittal. The complaint contains three counts of statutory violations and two of rule violations all based on facts alleged in a section entitled “Material Allegations.” The gist of the material allegations are contained in the section’s first sentence, “During the 2009/2010 school year, Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with J.D., a 17-year-old, female student.” Administrative Complaint. The statutory violations are of section 1012.795(1)(d), Florida Statutes, for “gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education;” section 1012.795(1)(g), Florida Statutes, for “personal conduct which seriously reduced his effectiveness as employee of the school board;” and, of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, for violation of “the Principles of Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by the State Board of Education rules.” Administrative Complaint, p. 2 of 3. The rule violations are of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), “in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental health and/or physical health and/or safety,” and of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(e), “in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.” On March 24, 2014, Petitioner executed an Amended Administrative Complaint deemed filed as of that date by an Order Granting Leave to Amend. The amended complaint adds two new paragraphs to the material allegations. The new paragraphs expand the time frame for the basis of the statutory and rule violations outside the 2009-2010 school year to prior years back to 2006. The second of the two paragraphs of material allegations alleges: In subsequent years [post-2006], including 2010, Respondent wrote type [sic] letters . . . to J.D., along with cards and music CD’s. Some of the letters contained sexually graphic language . . . Amended Administrative Complaint, para. 3 and 4. The amended complaints also add two new rule violations, one of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(f) that Respondent intentionally violated or denied a student’s legal rights; and, the second of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(h) that Respondent exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. Amended Administrative Complaint, Counts 6 and 7. Respondent’s Defense to the Factual Allegations The following statement appears in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties: “Respondent admitted his text messages and phone calls to J.D. but denied any sexual activity or involvement with the notes and letters.” In addition to Respondent’s testimony under oath that he did not engage in sexual activity with J.D., he points to a number of facts that support his argument for why J.D.’s testimony that it occurred should not be credited: a. her denials to law enforcement the night of February 27, 2014; b. her denials to her mother at first; c. her claim to her mother that she had sex with Respondent only after the pressure of emotional conversations and the gynecological examination that showed her to have been sexually active; d. the inconsistency between her statement under oath to Deputy Bower that the first sexual encounter with Respondent was in her senior year and the statement under oath that her first sexual encounter with Respondent was when she was in the ninth grade; and e. the testimony of Dwanaill Sutton. Mr. Sutton was a year behind J.D. in high school and a member of the wrestling team. He met J.D. when he was in the ninth grade through his best friend at the time, another male member of the wrestling team. The coaches of the wrestling team were “Coach Carradine and Shadrick Fields [Respondent].” Hr’g Tr. 279. Respondent also coached Mr. Sutton on the football team, again as an assistant coach. Eventually, Mr. Sutton and J.D. became “best friends.” Id. They remained so into Mr. Sutton’s junior year (J.D.’s senior year). They do not see each other much anymore but they communicate “[v]ia social media.” Hr’g Tr. 280. Mr. Sutton has no ill feeling about J.D.’s allegations against Respondent. While J.D. and Mr. Sutton were still under the status “best friends,” Mr. Sutton was interviewed at school one day before lunch by a detective who asked him questions about J.D. and Respondent. At lunch, Mr. Sutton asked J.D. what she knew about the detective. J.D. replied that she had given Mr. Sutton’s name to the detective. Mr. Sutton followed up by asking J.D. “what was going on with her and Coach Fields because those were the only two names that the detective mentioned.” Hr’g Tr. 284. J.D. replied “‘nothing happened.’” Id. When asked by counsel if Mr. Sutton asked J.D. “did you guys do something?” id., Mr. Sutton replied that J.D. said “‘We didn’t do anything.’” Hr’g Tr. 285. With regard to the written communication J.D. claims to have received from Respondent, he argues J.D.’s testimony should not be credited because: Respondent denies sending any such items [and did so under oath]. [citation omitted] Respondent testified that he does not write in the fashion the card and letters were written and that it seems as if someone with less than a college education prepared them. [citation omitted] He denies giving J.D. any cards, stuffed bear or bracelet. [citation omitted] Petitioner failed to produce any evidence to support the conclusion that the handwriting on the various cards and letters was that of Respondent. No handwriting expert testimony was adduced and no lay testimony was presented that the writings were that of Respondent. Respondent’s Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6 of 11, para. 16. Respondent claims that the purpose of his relationship with J.D., and the many phone calls and communications with her, was to lift her spirits in the face of personal problems at home, particularly with her step-father and not being able to live with her biological father, and ensuing academic problems and problems at school. But he admits the relationship was inappropriate: [A]s far as lifting her spirits . . . [w]hat I should have did is had a female teacher or mentor be that person for her. I shouldn’t have been there like that. That was inappropriate for me to be there. Hr’g Tr. 228.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s educator’s certificate be permanently revoked and that he be barred from re-application. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 5th day of December, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny L. McCray, Jr., Esquire Law Office of Johnny L. McCray, Jr., P.A. 400 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 (eServed) Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street, Suite E Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed) Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Lois S. Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
