The Issue The issue in this case is whether the district school board has just cause to dismiss the Respondent from employment, pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner first hired Respondent in January 1990 as a substitute teacher. In 1992, Petitioner changed Respondent's status to a permanent teacher. Respondent began teaching at Miami Coral Park Senior High School in January 1996, but left from 2000 to 2004 to teach in Collier County. Upon return to Petitioner's school system for the 2004-05 school year, Respondent was assigned to a different high school, but later transferred to Coral Park when this school needed a basketball coach. In addition to coaching basketball during the 2008-09 school year, Respondent co-taught a math class. One of Respondent's math students was J. V., who was born on April 10, 1991. She started attending Coral Park Senior High School mid-way through her sophomore year in 2008 after moving to Miami in August 2007. She turned 18 in the spring of her junior year and graduated from Coral Park on June 10, 2010. After graduating, J. V. enrolled in a local community college and published a novel that is sold by Barnes & Noble bookstores. During the 2008-09 school year, J. V.'s contact with Respondent involved typical student-teacher interactions in the classroom, hallways, and other school settings. They had exchanged cell phone numbers and spoke on the phone once or twice per month and texted each other with the same frequency. The record does not describe the nature of these communications, but the record fails to suggest any impropriety in the relationship during J. V.'s junior year. During the 2009-10 school year, J. V. was not assigned to any of Respondent's classes, but she began to visit him in his classroom in the morning before school started. The frequency of these visits varied from zero to three times per week. During these visits, J. V. and Respondent talked about her family, her social life, and some of her medical issues, including the fact that she was being treated for depression. J. V. also told Respondent that she might have ovarian cancer, although she later learned that she merely had a cyst. While attending Coral Park, J. V. was living with her aunt, who had become her legal guardian. J. V.'s relationship with her aunt was strained at times. J. V.'s mother was living in the Dominican Republic, and her father, with whom her mother did not wish her to live, resided in New York. During the 2009-10 school year, J. V. and Respondent exchanged numerous cell phone calls and texts, at nearly all hours of the day and night. Although J. V. initiated most of the calls and texts and Respondent did not respond to all of her calls and texts, Respondent never asked her to stop calling and texting him. Their relationship intensified in October or November of J. V.'s senior year. J. V. has testified that she and Respondent had sexual intercourse. Respondent testified that they did not. Neither witness is a model of veracity. J. V. embellished her story with dates that did not occur and was not perfectly clear in her recollection of the details of Respondent's condominium and tattoo. As noted below, Respondent repeatedly encouraged J. V. not to testify, to avoid being served with a subpoena, and, if served, to ignore the subpoena. Regardless whether sexual intercourse took place, the relationship between J. V. and Respondent, by the end of 2009, became excessively intimate for what is appropriate between a teacher and a student and included some form of sexual activity. A series of texts from Respondent to J. V. in late March or early April 2010 reveal the intimacy that had arisen between them: "I wanted 2 jump u," "2 many eyes!," "Muah," "Im in da gym if u can pass by," "It would have been hard," and “I'l b here." The time devoted to remote communications between Respondent and J. V. provides some basis for assessing the nature of their relationship: from October 2009 through November 2010, Respondent and J. V. exchanged over 1600 texts and consumed over ten hours in phone conversations. Without success, Respondent tried to explain the more incriminating of the texts sent in March or April 2010 from his cell phone. Respondent testified that these texts were sent by an unauthorized user of his phone, probably a member of his basketball team. It is difficult to understand why a player would risk the wrath of his coach, but the absence of any response from J. V.--either to the principal or Respondent-- following receipt of the first of these texts suggests that the relationship of Respondent and J. V. had already involved some form of sexual contact. One also finds indirect proof of an intimate relationship in the conduct of Respondent following Petitioner's decision to initiate dismissal proceedings against him. To credit Respondent's version of events, for the sake of discussion, he was confronted by a student's accusations of sexual intimacy that were a total fabrication. His response was to encourage her to engage in more dishonesty, rather than merely to tell the truth. Even if Respondent's version of events concerning the lack of intimacy were credited--and it is not--his subsequent conduct, as amply documented by numerous texts discussed in detail below, constitutes a startling lack of honesty in professional dealings and disregard for the mental health of a former student. Shortly after receiving an allegation that Respondent was engaged in a sexual relationship with J. V., on April 9, 2010, Petitioner removed Respondent from Coral Park and placed him on alternative assignment in a district office. By letter dated April 9, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent of the nature of the charges, including the initials of the student, and ordered Respondent not to have any contact with the complainant or witnesses with an intent to interfere with the investigation. On April 10, 2010, Respondent and J. V. met at a club known as Mama Juana's; according to both of them, the meeting was by chance and little was said. However, ignoring the directive not to speak with witnesses, Respondent told J. V. that he was being investigated for having a relationship with her and showed her a letter from Petitioner that, supposedly, Respondent happened to have with him at the time of this chance meeting. There is insufficient evidence to find that Respondent and J. V. are lying about the circumstances leading up to the meeting or what was said during it. By letter dated June 4, 2010, which was delivered to Respondent during a conference-for-the-record held on that date, Petitioner again ordered Respondent not to contact any of the parties involved in the investigation. By letter dated August 25, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent that the Superintendent would be recommending to the School Board, during its meeting of September 7, 2010, that it suspend Respondent without pay and initiate dismissal proceedings against him. By letter dated September 8, 2010, Petitioner advised Respondent that the School Board had taken these actions. Upon receipt of the September 8 letter, Respondent testified that he resumed communicating with J. V. who, by this time, had graduated from high school. In fact, Respondent had received a call from J. V. on September 5 and had spoken with her for 70 minutes until nearly midnight that night. On October 5, J. V. again called him, and they talked for 41 minutes. Other lengthy calls--each about 15 minutes--were initiated by J. V. on October 16, 2010, and January 6, 2011. However, there were few, if any, communications between Respondent and J. V. for five months following their meeting at Mama Juana's on April 10. On September 11, 2010, Respondent texted J. V.: "I got suspended w/o pay. Basically fired!" J. V. replied, "Whoa! Wait, now what?! Hon?" After a couple of more exchanges, in which Respondent stated that he would have to go to trial, J. V. asked, "Is there anything that I can actually do to help you out?" Respondent's reply: "Of course. No matter what happens dont show up if they talk 2 u. Not even if they suebpena [sic] u. They cant do anything if [sic] 2 u dont go." J. V. replied, "Anything there is to do, I suppose, i'll do to help you out. I dont want you to stay in this mess. . . . I still care about you tons, I just wanted you to know that :p." This is a remarkable exchange of texts. Respondent baldly asked J. V. to ignore a subpoena. J. V. scrupulously conditioned her willingness to help with "I suppose." Here, Respondent was asking J. V. to behave dishonorably, and J. V., his former student, displayed some misgivings, as she apparently was wrestling with her loyalty to Respondent and her desire to behave honorably. This is a repulsive perversion of the role of the educator. Although J. V. was no longer a student in Respondent's school, Respondent was still a member of the education profession, and, in his dealings with J. V. and Petitioner, he was continuing to deal with a matter that involved the discharge of his professional duties. On September 18, 2010, Respondent initiated another series of texts, but these involved unremarkable matters, such as how J. V. liked college and a job that she had recently started. On September 24, 2010, J. V. initiated a series of texts with "Hello lost :p." Respondent answered, "Hey, me? Cabrona since now u have a bf [boyfriend] u dont have time 4 me!" When J. V. texted that she was "not afraid of the dark, im just afraid of staying alone, period," Respondent responded, "I m not offering any services any more." Respondent testified that he was referring to math services, but, given the circumstances, this explanation is impossible to credit. On the other hand, the services were as likely those of a trusted counselor as of a sexual partner. The text of J. V., however, displays the vulnerability of Respondent's former student, even though nearly one year had passed since the intensification of their relationship to inappropriate levels. The next day, Respondent renewed the texting exchange. J. V. texted that a certain singer "literally places you in my head." Respondent answered, "Thats a good place 2 b. I thought u didnt anymore." J. V. declaimed that she thinks too much, and Respondent answered, "Then why havent u let me c u [see you]?" J. V. replied, "Because i know that is all I am gonna be allowed to do, just see you. And I don't know if that's okay with you." Respondent responded, "It be nice 2 cu though. Even 4 a short while." J. V. agreed, and Respondent replied, "Since now u r da complicated 1 u let me know when." J. V. promised she would and quickly asked what Respondent was up to. Respondent texted, "Let me know if they try 2 get in cotact [sic] w/u? They should b setting a date 4 da hearing soon." Injecting the same element of doubt that she had raised when she offered, on September 11, to help Respondent, J. V. texted, "I seriously doubt that [they will get in contact with me]. But i'll let you know in case they do, i suppose (emphasis supplied)." These texts lend support to the finding that the relationship between Respondent and J. V. was inappropriately intimate during her senior year. It appears that one of them broke if off, possibly over the objection of the other. J. V.'s second use of "I suppose" revealed again her ambivalence about the situation in which Respondent had placed her in asking her not to cooperate with Petitioner's prosecution of its case against him. As J. V. continued to wrestle with her loyalty toward Respondent and unwillingness to behave dishonorably, Respondent steadfastly toyed with her emotions, such as by saying that it felt good to be in her thoughts, and he did not think she thought of him anymore. The next day, after midnight, Respondent renewed the text exchange again by texting, "143." He explained that this was beeper code for "i love you." J. V. replied with a beeper code consisting of the less-intense message, "thinking of you." Except for a congratulatory text, probably for the publication of J. V.'s novel, the next text exchange took place on October 13, 2010, in which J. V. apologized for calling so late, but wanted to know if Respondent could meet her the following night. They agreed to meet instead after lunch on the following day. The following day, they agreed to postpone the meeting until the following week. On October 15, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the final hearing for January 26, 2011. As noted above, a lengthy telephone conversation between Respondent and J. V. took place the next day. On October 26, 2010, Respondent texted J. V.: "My lawyer friend said that 4 da subpoena they have 2 give it in ur hand. So if y dont answer the door if they show up, they cant leave it there. Nd if someone asks y if y r [J. V.] simply say no." As they exchanged texts about a basketball game that was being played, J. V. texted that she preferred baseball, and Respondent replied, "Bat nd balls huh?" J. V. answered "Lol [laughing out loud] :p silly!" She accused him, in Spanish, of a bad thought, and Respondent disingenuously asked, "What did i say?" Then he texted, "Lol." This series of texts represent a remarkable confluence of Respondent's inducing J. V. to dishonesty and engaging in sexual teasing. The remark about a bat and ball was a reference to male genitalia. Surprisingly, Respondent did not deny the sexual connotation of this text, but somehow tried to dismiss it merely as a joking "sexual innuendo." The freedom that Respondent felt to engage in sexual innuendo with a former student betrayed the inappropriate intimacy of the relationship that they once shared--while she was still a student. J. V. initiated a text exchange of Halloween greetings on October 31. On November 8, 2010, J. V. initiated another text exchange by asking how Respondent was doing. He asked how school, work, and her boyfriend were. J. V. typed that all were fine, and Respondent replied, "I m happy 4 u!" However, J. V. texted that there "are certain things that i have to deal with." Respondent texted her to call him. On November 17, 2010, Respondent initiated another text exchange in which he again asked about work, school, and her boyfriend. J. V. replied that all was fine, but her father was in the hospital. The next day, J. V. texted Respondent: "I really have to speak to you but i'll do it after i get out of class:( im so sorry." When Respondent texted her to explain, J. V. responded, "Because im really placed against the wall." Respondent answered: "What do u mean. I m the 1 that has lost everything. Nothing could happen 2 u if u say nothing happened! What r u thinking about doing? Destroying my [rest of message lost]." J. V. replied, "Omg [Oh, my God]! Screw you for saying that as if you'd know me that little to ever think that's something i'd consider doing to you!" She added, "I'll call you once i get home, at 9." Respondent added that he was watching a football game in a bar and "This is killme though. Please let me know!" J. V. responded that, when Respondent had some time to call, he should do so. With this text of apology, J. V. was informing Respondent that she had resolved the dilemma in which Respondent had placed her, and she had decided to tell the truth, rather than behave dishonorably. Casting his professional obligations aside, Respondent tried to dissuade her from telling the truth by turning the focus to himself and his need for her to lie and cover up. Obviously, Respondent's plea for J. V. to say that nothing happened implies that something happened. And the something had to be substantial--i.e., sexual contact, rather than merely excessive texting between a teacher and student--for Respondent to have felt the need to have J. V. conceal the truth. The next day, Respondent initiated a text exchange by stating: "Sorry 4 my reaction but please put urself in my shoes 4 da past 7 mos. I've lost everything that i valued nr u r worried about ur fam finding out. Idk wh [sic]." J. V. did not respond to this text. Obviously, this text was not an apology for asking J. V. to behave dishonorably. Instead, Respondent asked J. V. to identify with his situation. He was sorry merely for having lost his composure and possibly alienating J. V. On November 26, 2010, J. V. initiated a text exchange about holiday shopping. The next day, evidently in response to a telephone call, Respondent texted: "I cant get mad at u. I m just scared out of my mind about what the outcome could be! Thank you 4 assuring me." Three days later, Respondent texted birthday wishes to J. V. On November 30, 2010, J. V. suggested that they get together and have lunch "one of these days." Respondent agreed, but no date was set. On December 1, 2010, J. V. texted Respondent, as well as a number of others, that her book was available for purchase, and he texted congratulations. On December 14, 2010, J. V. texted a friend: "I'm alright most of the times lol. Having a bf has helped me a lot. I'm not alone anymore missing the teacher :(" What this text lacks in detail it makes up for in candor. It is the most direct evidence of the emotionally vulnerable condition of J. V. immediately after Respondent insisted that they stopped seeing each other in April 2010. J. V. initiated the next text exchange on January 4, 2011, when she sent new year's greetings to Respondent. When she asked how he was doing, Respondent replied, "I m ok but getting very anxious over the hearing coming up soon!!" J. V. texted that no one had been in touch with her, but Respondent assured her that she would get something soon. He asked her, "Do you have any idea what you are going to do for the hearing?" J. V. answered, "I'm not gonna do anything." Respondent replied, "We'll talk before then." On January 5, J. V. called or texted Respondent, who replied for her to call him that night. She texted that she would, and he responded, evidently in reference to a phone message, "What are you fuzzy about?" J. V. answered: "The lawyer that always calls from the school board called me not too long ago, that's all." When it became apparent that J. V. could talk then on the phone, the texts ended, evidently so Respondent and J. V. could talk on the phone. As noted above, a lengthy telephone conversation took place between Respondent and J. V. the next day. Sometime during January 2011, J. V. and Respondent spoke by telephone, and Respondent warned her that the authorities would be able to retrieve her text messages. One may safely infer that Respondent was unaware previously of the availability of such data or the ability of Petitioner to supplement its pleadings to add as grounds for dismissal acts and omissions taking place after the initiation of the case against him.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment on the ground of misconduct in office. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850)488-9675 Fax Filing (850)921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerard Robinson, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Christopher La Piano, Esquire School Board Attorney’s Office School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 Teri Guttman Valdes, Esquire 1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
The Issue Whether the Respondents committed the acts complained of in the Notices of Specific Charges filed by the Petitioner on June 30, 2005; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of these cases, the Petitioner was a duly constituted School Board charged with the responsibility to operate, control and to supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County, Florida public school district. Such authority includes the personnel decisions for non-instructional persons employed by the School Board. At all times material to the allegations of these cases, the Respondents were employed by the School Board as electricians assigned to work from the Coral Reef Satellite Maintenance Operations Department (Coral Reef). The Respondents received their daily assignment at the Coral Reef site and then went to the assigned job location to perform their assigned work. As part of their duties, the Respondents were required to clock in and out at the Coral Reef site. There are two time machines at the Coral Reef site and each employee is responsible for personally swiping his identification badge through the clock. The machine generates a computer record for the time of arrival and departure for each employee. Thus the daily time record can be produced for payroll purposes. Each time clock is under surveillance by a video camera system that records all activity at the time clocks. The video records each employee as he or she clocks in or out. At all times material to the allegations of these cases, the School Board’s policy required that each Coral Reef employee personally swipe his identification badge when clocking in or out. In 1982, the Respondents were arrested for vehicular theft and possession of burglary tools. The Respondents were placed on probation for one year and six months for larceny, burglary and having burglary tools in their possession. Adjudication was withheld. In 1987, the Respondents completed applications for employment with the School Board. Such applications were falsified in that they failed to disclose the arrest and criminal disposition described above. The Petitioner did not discover the falsified applications until 1997, when the fingerprinting of school personnel was required by law. Once discovered, both of the Respondents were issued a letter that directed them to “refrain from any further falsification regarding information requested of you by this employer. Failure to comply with this directive will lead to disciplinary action.” The Respondents did not dispute the prior criminal history, do not dispute that they were warned to refrain from further behavior regarding the falsification of information, and do not dispute that they are subject to the School Board rules regarding non-instructional personnel. On March 5, 2004, Frank Semberger clocked out for himself and the Respondents at 3:30 p.m. Since Mr. Semberger possessed the Respondents’ badges in order to swipe them through the time machine, it is reasonable to find that the Respondents provided the badges to Mr. Semberger. The Respondents have not suggested that their badges were either stolen or missing at the relevant time. By allowing Mr. Semberger to clock out for them, the Respondents violated the Petitioner’s time clock policy. On March 19, 2004, Ismael Perez clocked out for himself on one time clock then proceeded to the second time clock and was video recorded swiping a second time there. The time records established that Juan Perez’ badge was swiped at or near the time Ismael Perez was video-taped swiping a time clock. Moreover, the time records did not disclose a second swiping of Ismael Perez’ badge. That is to say there is no record that Ismael Perez “double swiped” his own badge. It is reasonable to find that Juan Perez provided his badge to Ismael Perez so that it could be swiped at the pertinent time. By allowing Ismael Perez to swipe his badge for him, the Respondent, Juan Perez, violated the time clock policy. By swiping his brother’s badge, Ismael Perez violated the time clock policy. The Coral Reef center uses a form described as a daily status form (DSF) to track the assignments for all tradespersons who are sent from Coral Reef to a job site. The form documents the travel time to and from the job site, the hours at the site performing the work, and the status of the work. All tradespersons are to present the DSF at the job site and have the principal or the principal’s designee sign the form. The DSF is dated (including the time of day) and signed both on arrival and at departure from the job site. Although it is difficult to locate a principal or the principal’s designee on busy days or during early morning hours (when many workers arrive at the job), the School Board’s maintenance employee handbook (which is provided to or is available and known to all trades people employed by the Petitioner) specifically requires that all daily status forms be dated and then signed by all tradespersons reporting time on the DSF. Ismael Perez knew the policy required the signature of the principal or the principal’s designee. In practice, many tradespersons do not take time to locate an appropriate signatory. Such behavior is in conflict with the policy. On March 19, 2004, the Respondents submitted a DSF that indicated they had each worked eight hours at Coral Reef Senior High School installing a new outlet to eliminate an extension cord being used to operate a fish tank. The DSF was purportedly signed by Arthur James, a zone mechanic at the school. Mr. James did not sign the DCF. Someone forged Mr. James’ signature on the form. On March 19, 2004, the Respondents did not spend eight hours at Coral Reef Senior High School installing a new outlet for the fish tank. On March 19, 2004, Julio Horstman and Martin Mikulas went to the Coral Reef Senior High School site several times attempting to locate the Respondents. No one at the site verified that the Respondents had been there on that date. Mr. James who had purportedly signed their DSF could not verify the Respondents were on the job on the date in question. On March 5, 9, 10, 11, and 29, 2004, the Respondents turned in DSFs that were not signed by authorized personnel at Coral Reef Senior High School. The name purportedly signed on the forms was a person not employed at the school. These DSFs were not completed correctly and cannot support the hours represented by them. The DSFs claimed the Respondents had spent 78 hours working on the Coral Reef Senior High School marquee. No one at the school can verify the Respondents were there for that time on the dates in question. Had the Respondents complied with the policy, gotten appropriate signatures on the DSF, the uncertainty would not exist. The time spent at the site would be easily verifiable. As it is, persons who went to the job site looking for the Respondents on the pertinent dates could not find them. The Respondents were assigned a large project at the dance studio for the Southwood Middle School (Southwood). They never completed the job. According to the DSFs submitted by the Respondents they worked 120 hours at the site over the following dates: January 26, 27, 28, and 29; March 15, 17, and 28; and April 29 and 30, 2004. Despite the number of days and the number of hours allegedly expended at the site by the Respondents, the dance instructor at the site saw them for only “a couple of hours.” Given the description of her duties and her constant presence in and near the studio during the pertinent time, it would have been reasonable for the instructor to observe the Respondents more than “a couple of hours” for a 120-hour job. Additionally, the Respondents submitted DSFs that were not signed by the Southwood principal or the principal’s designee. In fact, the DSFs submitted for the Southwood job contained the names of persons not employed at Southwood. As the names cannot be verified, the times of arrival and departure from the Southwood site cannot be verified. It is reasonable to find the Respondents again violated the DSF policy. Similar incidents occurred on March 22, 24, 25, and 28, 2004. On each of these dates the Respondents submitted DSFs that cannot be verified. In each instance the person whose name is on the form is not an employee at the school site to which the Respondents were to work. Mr. Horstmann, who went to the job sites looking for the Respondents, could not locate them. The inclusion of a false name or the forgery of a name on a DSF is contrary to School Board policy. The Respondents knew or should have known that the submission of the DSFs without proper signatories was against policy. Article IV of the DCSMEC contract requires that employees such as the Respondents be disciplined for “just and good cause.” The DCSMEC contract does not require “progressive discipline.” At all times material to the allegations of these cases the Respondents were advised of their rights to have a Union representative present during any conference for the record (CFR) regarding the issues of these cases. Additionally, the Respondents were advised that the School Police were conducting an investigation of the matter and waived their right to representation (legal or Union) during the course of an interview with Detective Hodges. The Petitioner conducted a CFR on November 8, 2004. At that time the Respondents appeared with a Union representative. After receiving information regarding the improper time clock and DSFs, the Respondents were afforded an opportunity to explain or provide additional information that would respond to the allegations. Martin Mikulas recommended to the School Superintendent that the Respondents be terminated from their employment with the school district. That recommendation went to the School Board on May 18, 2005, and the action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against the Respondents for non-performance, deficient performance, and misconduct was approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a Final Order approving the suspensions and dismissals of the Respondents. S DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2006, 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 1st day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Randolph F.Crew Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Honorable John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert A. Sugarman, Esquire Sugarman & Susskind, P.A. 2801 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 750 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Melinda L. McNichols, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact During all times relevant hereto, Petitioner served as head of the Florida Department of Education, the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting complaints of violations of section 1012.795, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ against teachers holding Florida educator certificates. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate 730576, covering the areas of emotionally handicapped and mathematics, which is valid through June 30, 2016. During all times relevant hereto, Respondent was employed as a mathematics teacher at Winter Springs High School (WSHS) in the Seminole County School District (SCSD). Dr. Michael Blasewitz is currently the executive director of secondary education for Seminole County Public Schools and was principal at WSHS from 2004 through the 2011- 2012 school year. In 2006, Dr. Blasewitz hired Respondent as a teacher at WSHS. On or about January 25, 2010, Dr. Blasewitz issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent for making inappropriate, sexually suggestive comments to female students. The reprimand contains the following directives: You are to conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times; You are to avoid making remarks that can be interpreted as sexual in nature while in the presence of students; You are to redirect students who exhibit behavior that is unruly, inappropriate, or sexually suggestive; and You are to maintain an appropriate student/teacher relationship at all times when interacting with students. On or about March 5, 2012, Dr. Blasewitz issued a second letter of reprimand to Respondent for making an inappropriate, sexually suggestive comment to a student, and displaying a rubber penis on his desk, which Respondent had confiscated from a student. The reprimand contained the following directives: You are to conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times; You are to avoid making remarks that can be interpreted as sexual in nature while in the presence of students; You are to redirect students who exhibit behavior that is unruly, inappropriate, or sexually suggestive; and You are to maintain an appropriate student/teacher relationship at all times when interacting with students. Respondent was informed in both letters of reprimand that further misconduct could result in more discipline, including termination of his employment. Dr. Donna Reynolds has been the principal at WSHS since 2012. On or about October 11, 2012, a 16-year-old female student, A.T., reported that while in Respondent’s classroom, she was seated on Respondent's desk chair. A.T. alleged that Respondent asked her to remove herself from his chair and when she refused to do so, Respondent sat in the chair (with the student still seated) by physically wedging himself between the back of the chair and A.T.'s back. Respondent, by placing himself in such a position, allegedly caused the front of his torso to press against A.T.'s back. A.T. allegedly did not like being touched by Respondent and, as an expression of her displeasure, poked Respondent in his eye with a marker. An investigation was launched as to Respondent’s alleged misconduct involving A.T., and it was pursuant to this investigation that other alleged misconduct by Respondent was discovered.2/ On or about October 26, 2012, the SCSD reassigned Respondent to the maintenance department pending the outcome of the investigation stemming from the allegations made by A.T. On or about March 15, 2013, the SCSD notified Respondent that at the next regularly scheduled board meeting, the SCSD would be recommending that Respondent's employment be suspended without pay and subsequently terminated. On or about April 12, 2013, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the SCSD, wherein Respondent resigned from employment, effective immediately, and agreed not to seek reemployment with the SCSD in any capacity, “at this time or at any future time.” Respondent, in both the settlement agreement and his letter of resignation, did not admit to or otherwise acknowledge any wrongdoing as it relates to any matter pertaining to his employment with SCSD. Background Former WSHS student K.C., at the time of the disputed fact hearing, was 20 years old. K.C. entered the ninth grade at WSHS during the 2009-10 school year and graduated from WSHS at the end of the 2012-13 school year. During the 2011-12 school year, when K.C. was a junior at WSHS, one of her assigned classes was to work as Respondent’s aide. According to K.C, this resulted in her spending between one to two hours each school day in Respondent’s classroom. M.A. is currently a senior at WSHS. During the 2012-13 school year, M.A. was enrolled as a student in one of the algebra classes taught by Respondent. M.A.’s first language is Spanish and she only started speaking English a few years ago. M.H. graduated from WSHS in 2015. M.H. was never enrolled as a student in any of the classes taught by Respondent but met Respondent during the 2011-12 school year when a student that M.H. befriended on the bus informed M.H. that she was involved sexually with Respondent. M.H., even though she did not know Respondent at the time, approached Respondent and inquired about the nature of his relationship with the student in question. Upon questioning by M.H., Respondent denied that he was involved in a sexual relationship with the student in question. As a consequence of this encounter, Respondent and M.H. developed a friendship. Girls Sitting on Respondent’s Lap Throughout the course of the 2011-12 school year, K.C., while performing her duties in Respondent’s classroom as a teacher’s aide, often observed female students conversing with Respondent while sitting on Respondent’s lap. K.C.’s specific recollection is that throughout the school year there were numerous times when she observed many different girls sitting on Respondent’s lap. According to K.C, the girls would often sit on Respondent’s lap in positions where they would straddle Respondent while facing him, sit such that their butts would be on Respondent’s lap with their backs facing Respondent, or sit across Respondent’s knees. M.A. also witnessed Respondent engage in conduct similar to that described by K.C. During the 2012-13 school year, M.A. was enrolled as a student in one of the algebra classes taught by Respondent. The algebra class met during the first and second periods of the school day. M.A. credibly testified as follows: Q: Okay. Did you ever see any girls sit on Mr. Mulock’s lap? A: Yes. During class. Because I had him for a long time, first and second period. So girls from different grades, older, they would come in the classroom and just talk to him, and they would sit on his lap. Q: I mean how? Sideways? Backwards? A: Facing out. Q: Facing out? A: Uh-huh. Q: Backed up to him with their butt in his lap? A: Yeah. Q: What were they doing while they’re sitting [o]n Mr. Mulock’s lap? A: Talking, laughing, joking around. Tr., pp. 191, 192 M.H. credibly testified to an incident where, against her will, she ended up sitting on Respondent’s lap. According to M.H., one day while in Respondent’s classroom, she was walking past Respondent while he was sitting on a chair, when Respondent, for no reason, grabbed her forearm and tugged her towards him thereby causing her to fall in a seated position on Respondent’s lap. Inappropriate Text Messages K.C. credibly testified that on one occasion she received a sexually suggestive text message from Respondent. K.C. explained that once while working as Respondent’s student aide, she was in Respondent’s classroom when the school’s front office called looking for Respondent. At the time of the call, Respondent was absent from the classroom. K.C., in an attempt to provide cover for Respondent, informed the front office that Respondent was in the hallway talking to another teacher, even though in reality she did not of Respondent’s whereabouts. After speaking with the front office, K.C. texted Respondent and asked “if he was coming to class.” Respondent replied to K.C. saying, “I’m not coming. I have not seen you yet.” K.C. was bothered by Respondent’s sexually suggestive reply. M.H. testified that she also received a sexually inappropriate text message from Respondent. M.H. credibly testified that a few months after befriending Respondent, he randomly sent her a text message generally asking, “hey, what’s up?” M.H. responded by saying, “hey, not much. Just hanging around.” Respondent then texted that “he was sexually frustrated and in need of release.” M.H. was uncertain of Respondent’s motives, and because she felt uncomfortable with Respondent’s text, she elected not to respond to his sexually charged statement. Sexually Suggestive/Inappropriate Comments and Gestures K.C. testified that one of her fellow students died while K.C. was a student at WSHS. Following a memorial service for the departed student, K.C., Respondent, and a number of other female students went to a business establishment near the school for refreshments. While at the establishment, Respondent asked the girls if they were still virgins. According to K.C. “everyone [was] just like shocked and like hurried up and changed the topic.” In a separate incident, Respondent also asked K.C. if she and her then boyfriend were engaged in sexual activity. K.C. advised that Respondent’s inquiry about whether she and her former boyfriend were having sex “was kind of awkward [and] I just felt like he shouldn’t be asking that[,] it was like personal.” Eventually K.C. ceased all contact with Respondent because being in his presence made her feel very uncomfortable. Respondent also made inappropriate comments to M.A. On one occasion, Respondent told M.A., “you are very beautiful. Just wait a little bit longer till you’re 18, because I’m going to be at your door knocking.” M.A. said that she felt embarrassed by Respondent’s statement. M.A. also testified that while in class with Respondent, she observed Respondent jokingly arguing with a female student (C.C.) about a marker. M.A. credibly testified that during this incident, she saw Respondent grab C.C. around her waist and touch C.C. on her butt with his hand. Former WSHS student M.H. credibly testified that Respondent discussed his sex life with her, including sexual fantasies that he had about a female co-worker and his sex life with his wife. Respondent told M.H. that “he was a little frustrated with his wife because she want[ed] to conceive more children at the time, and he liked being more spontaneous about it, and she was scheduling sex on a calendar.” M.H. also credibly testified that Respondent made inappropriate comments about her breasts, stating that Respondent once said that she “looked perky today.” There was also an instance where Respondent pinched M.H. on the butt. M.H. also credibly testified that while Respondent was planning for a scalloping trip with her and several other students, she heard Respondent exclaim that “he couldn’t wait to see [K] (another student at WSHS) in her bikini.” On another occasion M.H. was present when Respondent, while standing next to another female student, squeezed the female student’s lips and said, “doesn’t she have perfect lips for a blow job.” On yet another occasion, M.H. heard Respondent proclaim that a student named C.W. “had big tits” and that another student, S.G., “had a great body.” Finally, M.H. heard Respondent offer the following proposition to student S.G.: Q: And tell us what exactly did you hear Mr. Mulock say. A: He had made a proposition to her that if she could get him off orally, blow job, then he would treat her to a weekend of whatever she wanted to do. Anything. And if she failed to get him off orally, then it was vice-versa, that she got – or he got to do whatever he wanted with her for an entire weekend. Tr., p. 183. M.A. also witnessed Respondent making sexually suggestive gestures and inappropriate comments. M.A. credibly testified as follows: Q: Okay. Did you ever observe Mr. – hear Mr. Mulock make any inappropriate comments and make inappropriate gestures? A: Yes. Q: Tell us about that. A: He would – when he was teaching, he would always talk and then always try and make it out of sex. He would make gestures with his tongue. He would poke his cheek (indicating) with his tongue and just make gestures like that (indicating). And trying to be funny or being nasty. Q: This is kind of embarrassing for you? A: A little bit, yeah. He would do like stuff like that (indicating), like open his mouth and – Q: And move his hand back and forth? A: Yeah. Q: And poke his tongue inside his cheek? A: Yeah (indicating). And he would then swallow stuff and like that. Q: Okay. When he would do those things, in your mind what is he doing? A: I didn’t understand why he would do th[at] stuff in front of the whole class. And the funny thing is that it was only – he was always around girls. So the girls would find that a little bit funny at that time, some girls. And then some guys would just shake their heads. It was very clear what he was trying to do, you know. Q: When you say it was very clear –- A: Yeah. Q: -- what’s clear in your mind? What is he doing? A: Because he’s being nasty, perverted. It’s not right. Tr., pp. 189 through 191. Respondent Assisted M.H. with Skipping Class M.H., by her own admission, was not a star student during her freshman year and she credibly testified that Respondent materially contributed to her less than stellar performance as a student. M.H. testified as follows: Q: Alright. Now at that point did you all, you and Mr. Mulock, then develop a friendship? A: Yes. Q: Did you spend a lot of time with him in class during the class day? A: Yes. Q: Tell us about when you would go to his classes – go to his room. How many times a week would you say you went to his room? A: Probably on a daily basis. Q: Daily basis. How long did you stay there? A. Sometimes the whole day, sometimes just one or two classes, depending on which class I was trying to skip that day. Q: Okay. Now if you’re spending time in his class, and he’s not one of your teachers, weren’t you supposed to be somewhere else? A: Of course. Q: Okay. And did he know that you were supposed to be somewhere else in class? A: Yes. Q: Okay. Did he ever make excuses for you with teachers, to get you back in the class? A: To get me back in – into his classroom, or Q: Into another class. A: Yes. Q: Okay. How would he do that? A: Either by email, or a phone call, or writing a pass. Q: To the teacher whose class you were supposed to be in? A: Yes. Q: Okay. So you just went there often and just kind of hung out? A: Yes. Q: And he was okay with that? A: Yes Tr., pp. 156 through 158. Afterschool Activities Petitioner alleges that Respondent, without the approval of students’ parents and the administration of WSHS, took students fishing on his boat and had students doing yardwork at his personal residence. Neither the boat trip nor the yardwork activity occurred during the school day. Respondent admits that administrative personnel for WSHS were unaware of these afterschool activities. However, as to the fishing trip and yardwork performed at Respondent’s home, the undisputed evidence establishes that the father of one of the students escorted his daughter on the fishing trip and the mother of one of the students that performed yardwork at Respondent’s home transported her daughter to Respondent’s home on the day in question. The evidence offered by Petitioner as to these allegations is insufficient to establish that Respondent engaged in clandestine activities that breeched established standards related to parental consent. Students Hanging Out in Respondent’s Classroom Paragraph 6(e) of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent, after being warned by his immediate supervisor, continued to allow students to hang out and socialize in his classroom during his lunch breaks and planning periods. Dennis McComb arrived at WSHS in October 2011. Mr. McComb was Respondent’s immediate supervisor. Within a month of his arrival, Mr. McComb observed that students, contrary to policy, were in Respondent’s classroom during Respondent’s planning period. Mr. McComb informed Respondent that he needed to cease allowing students in his classroom during the planning period. As previously indicated, K.C. worked as Respondent’s student aide during the 2011-12 academic term. K.C. testified that she witnessed multiple girls hanging out in Respondent’s classroom “when we were switching classes . . . [o]r sometimes they would already be in there when I went to his class for the class I was supposed to be there for.” M.A. testified that “girls from different grades, older, they would come in the classroom and just talk to him, and they would sit on his lap.” M.H. testified that Respondent “would have classes going on, and then other students throughout the day would come in and visit him, or other students would skip in his class as well.” The testimony of these students is not specific as to when they made their observations in relation to Mr. McComb’s directive to Respondent regarding students being in Respondent’s classroom at improper times. Respondent’s Effectiveness as Educator Undermined Dr. Blasewitz, Dr. Reynolds, and Mr. McComb testified that based on Respondent’s conduct while employed at WSHS, they would not want Respondent employed as a teacher and believe the alleged misconduct engaged in by Respondent, if true, would undermine his effectiveness as an educator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in counts one through six of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order suspend Respondent's Florida Educator Certificate 730576 for a period of five years, to be followed by a one-year period of probation. The terms and conditions of Respondent's suspension and probation shall be established by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2015.
Findings Of Fact From September 5, 1991, and at all times material to this case, Respondent Brenda Simmons was employed under an annual contract as a teacher's aide, a classified employee position, by the Lee County School Board. On January 29, 1993, the Cypress Lake High School women's basketball team played the Mariner High School team at the Cypress Lake gym. The Respondent was the coach of the Cypress Lake junior varsity team which played the Mariner team prior to the varsity team game. During the junior varsity game, the Respondent sat with the players while coaching them. During the varsity game, the Respondent sat with her sisters next to the Mariner cheerleaders and close to the playing area. The section within which the Respondent sat during the varsity game is an area where black students generally sit to watch the game. The Respondent is black. The Mariner cheerleaders who testified at the hearing are white. The Respondent and her sisters apparently were annoyed that the cheerleaders would occasionally block their sight lines during cheers. During the game, the Respondent made hand gestures ridiculing the cheerleaders movements. At one point during the game, the Respondent called one cheerleader a "fucking slut." She also called one particular cheerleader a "fat ass." The Mariner cheerleaders were disturbed by the Respondent's behavior and as the game was ending, notified their adviser of the situation. The adviser contacted her Cypress Lakes counterpart who identified the Respondent and informed the assistant principal of Cypress Lakes. In the lobby area of the gym, the Cypress Lakes assistant principal approached the Respondent and inquired as to the situation. The Respondent became loud and angry, at which point the assistant principal suggested that the discussion should be continued on the next school day. The Respondent stated that she did not "have to take this shit" and left the gym. The Respondent then went into the parking lot of the gym and confronted the Mariner cheerleaders as they were being escorted to their transportation. The Respondent threatened the cheerleaders, stating she would "kick your motherfucking asses." The assistant principal, notified of the parking lot incident, went to the scene in an attempt to calm the situation. The Respondent continued to threaten the Mariner cheerleaders and to respond to the assistant principal in an angry and hostile manner. The Superintendent of Schools directed that the matter be investigated. Subsequent to his inquiry, a meeting was conducted on February 5, 1993, at which time the Respondent was provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Respondent denied that she had acted inappropriately towards the Mariner cheerleaders or that she had been insubordinate to the assistant principal. The Respondent claims that the complaining witnesses in this case are unable to distinguish her from her sister and that her sister was the person who acted inappropriately. The evidence, which includes eyewitness identification from persons who worked with the Respondent on a daily basis fails to support her claim. Further, the Respondent's sister denied that she used such language as was alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Brenda Simmons. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 23rd day of February, 1994 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2940 The Respondent filed a written closing argument which included no proposed findings of fact. The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 5-6. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 10. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 11-12. Rejected, subordinate. 14-19, 24, 31. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Bobbie D'Alessandro, Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Marianne Kantor, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 John M. Hament, Esquire Kunkel & Hament Suite 785, 1800 Second Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 Willie Green Willie J. Battle 1971 French Street Fort Myers, Florida 33916
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami- Dade County School Board enter a final order dismissing all charges against Carlos Legoas, rescinding his suspension, and awarding back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 1st day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 John L. Winn, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School District 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of inappropriate sexual conduct with a female student, so as to constitute gross immorality, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes; personal conduct that seriously reduces Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board, in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes; failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning or her mental health or physical safety, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code; intentional exposure of a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code; or exploitation of a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage, in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code. If guilty of any of these violations, an additional issue is what penalty that Petitioner should impose.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified teacher, holding certificate number 649196. He was first employed by the Miami-Dade School District in January 1989. After working as a substitute teacher, Respondent was hired in a permanent capacity in 1990 or 1991. At the time of the alleged incidents, Respondent was a teacher at Coral Reef Senior High School, where he was the head basketball coach and assigned to teach English classes in the Center for Student Instruction. In the summers of 1998 and 1999, Respondent taught in the Summer Youth Employment Program that took place at Coral Reef. In this program, high-school students from Coral Reef and elsewhere attended classes to develop job skills and received monetary compensation while so enrolled. B. L. was born on November 3, 1982. She graduated from Coral Reef in 2000. During the summers of 1998 and 1999, B. L. took classes at Coral Reef that were sponsored by the Summer Youth Employment Program. The first summer she took a class in business and finance, and the second summer she took a class in legal and public affairs. Respondent was a coinstructor for both classes. During the summer of 1998, B. L., who was not a discipline problem, engaged in an argument with two other classmates, who were sisters. Respondent and his coinstructor intervened before any blows were exchanged. The coinstructor took the sisters and counseled them, and Respondent took B. L. and counseled her. Respondent removed B. L. from the classroom momentarily to talk to her outside of the hearing of her classmates and advise her that he was disappointed in her because she was one of the top-performing students and she should not "lower her standards" to the level of the sisters with whom she had been arguing. Respondent told B. L. that she was a "bright student, . . . articulate," that she was a "beautiful young lady [with] a lot going for her," that she seemed to have come from a "good family" and "had good standards," and that Respondent did not think that she should conduct herself like that in class. In the context in which it was said, "beautiful" refers to the totality of a person, including intelligence, attitude, and personality," and is not an inappropriate focus upon a person's physical appearance. After a couple of minutes of talking to B. L. outside the classroom, Respondent returned her to the classroom. He then spoke to the coinstructor and reported the incident to the counselor who dealt with classroom discipline. Respondent was unaware of what, if any, further action the counselor took against B. L. or the sisters. Respondent's other contact with B. L. was unremarkable that summer. A couple of times, he and the coinstructor cited B. L. for violations of the dress code. Generally, though, he taught her and treated her as he did the other students in his class. The following summer, B. L. signed up for Respondent's legal and public affairs class. Concerned that B. L. would be duplicating some of the material that they had covered the previous summer, Respondent spoke with the job counselor, who worked in his classroom. She and Respondent then advised B. L. to transfer to another class, but B. L. refused to do so. During this summer, B. L. confided in a classmate that she had a crush on Respondent and that her relationship with her current boyfriend was unsatisfactory. Nothing significant occurred during that summer between B. L. and Respondent, who again treated her as he did his other students. Obviously, B. L. has testified differently. She testified that, during the first summer, when Respondent had her out in the hall, he told her that a blue dress that she had worn the prior day had been driving him "crazy." She testified that Respondent asked her if she felt attracted toward him, and she said that she did not. B. L. testified that Respondent concluded the conversation by saying words to the effect, "if you're 'bout it 'bout it, you know where I am." B. L. testified that this meant that if she was serious about getting intimate with Respondent, such as kissing him, he would be available. B. L. testified that this was the only inappropriate conduct the first summer. B. L. testified that the following summer, she and Respondent happened to see each other outside of school at a shopping mall while B. L. was with her boyfriend. She testified that they exchanged brief greetings. B. L. testified that the following week at school Respondent brought up their chance encounter and asked if she recalled their conversation last year. She testified that she answered that she did, and he added, "if you want to talk about it, we can talk about it in a private conversation." B. L. testified that this was the only inappropriate conduct the second summer. B. L. testified that Respondent's conduct made her feel "weird," but she was not scared. She testified that her boyfriend was jealous of Respondent; she testified that he probably thought that she was tempted to engage in an inappropriate relationship with Respondent. She testified that she told her boyfriend of Respondent's advances, and he threatened to tell B. L.'s parents and a school counselor if she did not complain about Respondent. One time, while talking to her boyfriend about this matter on the phone, B. L. began to cry and her parents overheard enough of the conversation to learn of B. L.'s claims against Respondent. Several problems preclude crediting B. L.'s testimony. First, she acknowledged that Respondent and the job counselor advised her to change classes the second summer, but she declined to do so because it was too much trouble. Second, she denied having a crush on Respondent, but she described any attention from him as though it came from a "movie star." There is no doubt that she had a crush on Respondent based on her description of Respondent at the hearing, the testimony of the friend in whom she confided, and the testimony of the job counselor, who added that B. L. was breathless and "lovesick" and that she told B. L. that Respondent was happily married and to "get over it." It is likely that B. L.'s obvious infatuation with Respondent bothered her boyfriend. It is plausible that stories of resisted advances would gain B. L. credibility with her boyfriend, although B. L.'s motivation in fabricating these claims against Respondent necessarily remains unknown. Additionally, B. L.'s demeanor while testifying did not add to her credibility. Frequently, her tone and expression suggested that she felt uncomfortable testifying, but her discomfort was not due to victimization by Respondent. Unable to describe her emotions at the time of these claimed advances, B. L.'s discomfort was more likely attributable, at best, to a feeling that Respondent's inappropriate behavior was too trivial for this much attention or, at worst, to an admission of guilt over fabricating these stories and causing Respondent so much trouble. After considering the above-discussed factors, the latter explanation of B. L.'s tone and demeanor is more likely than the former. In any event, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent behaved inappropriately toward B. L. at any time.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2002, 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 20th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E 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 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316-1924 Leslie A. Meek United Teachers of Dade Law Department 2200 Biscayne Boulevard, Fifth Floor Miami, Florida 33137
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
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Ronald Miller, holds a Florida teaching certificate numbered 464113, covering the area of physical education. During the 1980-81 school year he was employed as a teacher of physical education at Miami Coral Park Senior High School in Miami, Florida. He was also hired that year by Miami Coral Park Senior High School to be an assistant basketball coach for the junior varsity basketball team and an assistant coach for the varsity football team. At the beginning of that school year, the head coach for the varsity basketball team, Mr. Edward Joyner, was delayed in his arrival at school. For this reason during the first three or four weeks of school, Mr. Miller was appointed to take Mr. Joyner's place in coaching the varsity basketball team as well. This was the first year of Mr. Miller's assignment as a full-time teacher. The Petitioners are, respectively, the School Board of Dade County, a public agency charged with the hiring, employment and regulation of the operations, activities and practices of teachers it employs to instruct students in the Dade County Public School System. The Education Practices Commission is an agency of the State of Florida within the Department of Education and is charged with the duty of licensing and regulating the licensure status, practice and practice standards of teachers in the State of Florida. During the 1980-81 school year, as in the recent past, Coral Park Senior High School had a club called the Cagerettes which assisted the school's junior varsity basketball and varsity basketball teams by helping to raise funds for different functions as well as to work with the coaching staff performing such services as taking statistics during games. Members of that group were selected from the student body after "tryouts" where the individual applicants were judged on their personality and participation. Cindy Castillo was the captain or president of club for the 1980-81 school year. This was her third consecutive year as a member of the club and her second year as its president. Cindy Castillo approached Mr. Miller shortly after he became employed and after the school year began and asked him to be the faculty sponsor for the club. He had had no previous experience as a club sponsor for any school, but based upon Miss Castillo's representations concerning his insignificant duties as club sponsor, he agreed to become the sponsor of the club. One of the initial witnesses called by the Petitioner was Mr. Doug Wycoff. Mr. Wycoff was an instructor in the English Department at times pertinent here to and also acted in the capacity of athletic business manager for Coral Park Senior High School. As athletic business manger, Mr. Wycoff was required to oversee the financial business and accounting for monies received by the athletic department. These duties included overseeing ticket sales, crowd control, personnel at athletic events, overseeing fund raising efforts and managing the money received therefrom and in general assisting the athletic director. Mr. Wycoff testified that the high school maintained its banking accounts with the Sun Bank. Any monies derived from fund raising activities should go to him as a member of the athletic office in charge of finance and then they would be deposited with the school treasurer. The treasurer typically makes deposits on a daily basis via the Wells Fargo Armored Express Company. At all times material to these proceedings the practice was to segregate all accounts with the bank so that each different sports activity and the personnel involved therein would have their own account and otherwise maintain constant accessibility to the account. Prior to the commencement of the 1980-81 school year, Mr. Wycoff gave general instructions to all faculty members involved with the athletic program regarding who to contact should they have any questions regarding their involvement with a fund raising activity and how to account for the money. Although it was the witnesses' opinion that the Respondent had been present at that meeting, the Respondent denied it and the record does not establish whether or not the Respondent was present at that particular meeting. A condition precedent to the establishment of any fund raising activity of the high school, or a club or a group operating under the auspices of the school, required that the sponsor of the group obtain approval from Mr. Wycoff. The school records reveal, through Mr. Wycoff's testimony, that there were only two functions which had previously been approved for the basketball team. One was a car wash held at the beginning of the year in question and the the second was an M & M candy sale which took place later during the spring of the 80-81 school year. The approval for the car wash was obtained from Mr. Wycoff by the Cagerette captain, Miss Castillo. Near the close of the 80-81 school year the school principal ultimately learned that other fund raising activities had been conducted for which substantial sums of money had been received, which had been unapproved fund raising activities. The generated proceeds were received and unaccounted for by the Respondent. The car wash took place on or about September 27, 1980. Mr. Wycoff issued to Miss Castillo one hundred tickets with a prestamped price of $1.50 on each ticket for sale of car washes. The car wash was a success and generated approximately $900 in gross proceeds Two hundred dollars of that (apparently checks) was turned over to Mr. Wycoff, the balance in cash was retained by the Respondent. The Respondent admitted receiving perhaps $200 to $300 within a few days after this event. The Respondent explained ;to Miss Castillo and the other students involved in the car wash activity, that the monies were going to be held by him for the benefit of the Cagerettes and the basketball team in a special account at a bank near his home. On October 4, 1980, a car wash was held by the Cagerettes with the help of the Respondent. Mr. Wycoff was not requested to approve this endeavor, nor were the funds raised therefrom ever accounted for to Mr. Wycoff or any other employee or official of the school. Approximately $256 was generated and the proceeds were placed in the Respondent's custody at his request. The Respondent admitted that with regard to this fund raising effort he received approximately $247. On approximately October 11, 1980, at the instance of the Respondent and without prior knowledge or approval from Mr. Wycoff, the Cagerettes and basketball players held a donut sale. The total proceeds of that sale approximated the sum of $900. Cynthia Castillo took $594 of that sum to pay the vendor of the donuts and the balance, in the approximate sum of $311, was turned over to the Respondent. The Respondent admitted that he received approximately $300 from that fund raising activity. A second donut sale was held a short time later, also not approved by Mr. Wycoff or any personnel in his office. Approximately $368 were generated from that venture which was initially given to Coach Joyner. The record in this proceeding does not reflect what became of that $368, but it was not included in the sum ultimately the subject of criminal proceedings against the Respondent. In the fall of 1980, the Respondent suggested and initiated a procedure whereby members of the Cagerettes would pay monthly dues. This was a practice that was followed with the dues set in their approximate amount of $2 per member per month. These dues were collected for approximately one month and the monies were turned over to the Respondent in the amount of between $30 and $40. The Respondent never accounted for this money. The Respondent also initiated a procedure whereby the members of the Cagerettes would take up donations from individual girls for "penny week." These donations were taken up in the form of pennies on Monday; nickels on Tuesday; dimes on Wednesday; quarters on Thursday; and dollars on Friday. This activity grossed approximately $43 which was turned over to the Respondent and never accounted for. The initiation of this program on his own by the Respondent without approval of any one in authority was in direct conflict with rules promulgated by the school. Prescribed receipt books were to have been obtained from Mr. Wycoff and used so as to avoid any accounting for the money. This was not done. The Respondent also conducted another fund raising project whereby he solicited donations from students of $1 each for the purchase of athletic socks. At least one student made such a donation, but no socks were purchased. Mr. Wycoff established that no such collection project came to his knowledge and that the athletic department purchases and provides socks for its junior varsity teams at no cost to its members, thus the alleged need for donations to purchase athletic socks was false. During the course of the the 1980-81 school year, both the Respondent and his fellow coach and colleague, Mr. Joyner, made several attempts to have a banquet in honor of the basketball team and Cagerettes. Because of the lack of financing, the banquet never came to fruition. This was because certain funds raised by the above-mentioned fund raising projects during the year were unaccounted for by the Respondent, thus the banquet was severely under-financed. Additionally, several students paid to Mr. Miller at least $10 per banquet ticket for anticipated attendance of themselves and their respective guests. When the banquet was finally cancelled, the Respondent did not return their ticket purchase money. Mr. Lopez established that he was a student at that time and a member of the varsity basketball team. He purchased three tickets at $10 each, payable in cash, and was never refunded when the banquet was cancelled. JoAnn Oropesa paid the Respondent cash for banquet tickets, but was never refunded her money. She made demand on the Respondent for her money and the Respondent informed her that he would make a refund by check in the mail at the end of the school year. He failed to do so. During the school year the Cagerettes and the basketball team agreed with Coach Joyner to have a skating party at a neighboring commercial skating rink. In order to fund this event, the students involved agreed to sell tickets at the price of $3 per ticket. Mr. Wycoff was not advised of this money raising effort either and never received any money for an accounting, therefor, from either Respondent or Coach Joyner. JoAnn Oropesa sold all ten tickets assigned to her at $3 per ticket. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of the monies from that fund raising activity, representing that the money would be used for the banquet in lieu of the skating event which was cancelled, Ultimately, these monies were never returned to JoAnn Oropesa or other students purchasing tickets. Manuel Martinez purchased tickets for the skating party and never had a refund, being merely told by the Respondent to "wait." The same student, Manuel Martinez, established that the Respondent solicited members of his class on more than one occasion to make contributions to a touring gospel singing group of which he was a member and that in consideration for this donation a student could receive an "A" for a test or make-up work. The Respondent also offered that "detentions" or "make-up requirements" could be taken off a student's record, for any of the classes in which the student was enrolled with the Respondent, in return for such donations. The testimony of Manuel Martinez was corroborated by Raphael Lopez, another student of the Respondent's, who established that the Respondent solicited students for contributions to his gospel group in return for enhancement of their grades. Marilyn Munne observed the Respondent soliciting students for contributions to his gospel group in consideration for which he would have a detention "dropped off" which would automatically result in a better grade. The Respondent ultimately proved unable to account for the proceeds of the money generated by the various fund raising projects outlined above and caused resulting concern to the various witnesses testifying on behalf of the Petitioners. Miss Castillo estimated that at least $1,700 had been placed in the Respondent's custody, exclusive of the $368 which she had given to Coach Joyner and which was apparently not accounted for either. Even by the Respondent's own admission he received at least between $900 and $1,100 from these fund raising projects that school year. The testimony of Miss Castillo and other witnesses establishes that the Respondent represented that those monies were to held in a special account for the benefit of the Cagerettes and the basketball team. The Respondent by his own admission acknowledged that he told Miss Castillo that he would "possibly" place the monies in such an account. The Respondent did not have a bank account and did not customarily maintain one. He testified that he maintained a "strong box" used as a depository within his own home. The Respondent testified that he placed the subject money in a green plastic zippered bag (Respondent's Exhibit A) up until the time it was supposedly removed by persons unknown who, according to the Respondent, stole his car on or about February 8, 1981. The Respondent testified that he was about to go spend the night with a friend and put the subject zippered plastic bag or case into his car, went back into the house to get some more belongings and the car was stolen while he was inside. The car was not recovered until some days later and the money was gone, although the plastic bag remained in or returned to the Respondent's possession and was made Exhibit A in this proceeding. The Respondent did not demonstrate that any efforts were made to replace the money prior to his being prosecuted for its disappearance. He did not, for instance, establish that he made any effort to file a claim against his automobile insurance carrier in order to see that the students were recompensed. Ultimately, the State Attorney's Office for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, filed a one count felony Information charging the Respondent with grand theft. The victim in that case was alleged to be the Petitioner's chief witness, Miss Cynthia Castillo. The Respondent, in that criminal proceeding, never went to trial, offering instead to enter into an agreement with the State Attorney to go into the "pre-trial intervention program" which is apparently a sort of probationary status coupled with a court enforced reimbursement of at least $1,700 to the Dade County School Board. The entire scenario described above concerning the fund raising efforts, diversion of the funds generated by them and the Respondent's ultimate refusal or at least inability to account for the whereabouts of those funds and his ultimate criminal prosecution for diversions of the funds became a matter of knowledge of a number of students and parents at the school as well as Mr. Wycoff, Desmond Patrick Gray and other members of the Dade County School Board's administrative staff. It should be noted that although no conviction has been entered against the Respondent in the criminal proceedings referred to above, it has been established without question that he took the cash portions of the funds generated by the various above-described fund raising efforts into his possession, failed to properly account for them, failed to place them in a bank account and failed to deliver them over to Mr. Wycoff or other responsible authorities. He exhibited adequate knowledge of whom he should have delivered the funds to because he only retained the cash portions of the monies generated by each fund raising effort, turning over the non-fungible checks to those entitled to them.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That with regard to case No. 81-2115, the petition of the School Board of Dade County against Ronald Miller, the Respondent, Ronald Miller, be dismissed from his employment with the School Board of Dade County and forfeit all back pay. It is, further RECOMMENDED: With regard to case No. 82-1234, the petition of the Education Practices Commission, Department of Education, Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner against Ronald Miller, that Ronald Miller have his Florida teaching certificate No. 464113 permanently revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Attorney for School Board 3050 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33137 Craig Wilson, Esquire Attorney for Education Practices Commission 315 West Third Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sarah Lea Tobocman, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dr. Leonard M. Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Donald L. Griesheimer, Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER (SCHOOL BOARD) ================================================================= SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-2115 RONALD MILLER, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At the administrative hearing which was scheduled for the time and place shown above, Mr. Carlos Viciedo, Sr., father of the minor student named as Respondent herein, announced that his son, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., had been moved to Los Angeles, California, by his Mother. The student, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., has been enrolled in the school system of Los Angeles, and removed from the Dade County School system. The principal at South Miami Junior High School where Carlos Viciedo, Jr., was enrolled prior to the transfer to Douglas MacArthur Senior High School -- South, verified that papers have been received from the Los Angeles, California, school system to demonstrate that the student has requested a transfer from the schools in Dade County to the schools in Los Angeles. Mr. Carlos Viciedo, Sr., plans to join his family in Los Angeles, and the enrollment of his son in the school system there is permanent.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County dismiss the proceeding it initiated to effect a transfer of the Respondent, Carlos Viciedo, Jr., from South Miami Junior High School to the Alternative Education Program at Douglas MacArthur Senior High School -- South. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 17th day of February, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Neimand, Esquire Suite 300 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Carlos Viciedo, Sr. 1122 Southwest 134th Place Miami, Florida 33183 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Assistant Board Attorney Dade County Public School 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dade County School Board 1410 Northeast 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 8., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Uncontested Facts by the Parties Respondent holds a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 1046827, covering the area of Biology, which is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times pertinent to this matter, Respondent was employed as a Biology teacher at Miami Palmetto Senior High School (“MPHS”) in the Miami-Dade County School District. Respondent knew A.T. was a student at MPHS during the 2015-2016 school year and had tried out for the school’s lacrosse team in late January 2016. Respondent sent a text message to A.T. on December 19, 2016, stating, “How are you?” Respondent sent and exchanged text messages with A.T. in March 2017. Respondent met and engaged in sexual intercourse with A.T. in late March 2017. Respondent resigned from his employment with Miami-Dade County Schools on May 3, 2017, citing “personal reasons.” Additional Findings of Fact Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against individuals who hold Florida educator certificates, and are alleged to have violated provisions of section 1012.795. Respondent is a highly effective educator who, over the course of his ten-year career, has earned the respect of his former principal and science department head, as well as parents and students with whom he has come in contact. The allegations of misconduct in this case have not altered the high professional regard in which Respondent is held by Principal Victoria Dobbs; Science Department Head Pamela Shlachtman; parent and lacrosse team booster club president Nicola Rousseau; and former student, lacrosse player, and the daughter of Nicola Rousseau, Samantha Rousseau. Each of these witnesses testified that their knowledge, observations, and experience working with Respondent led them to believe that he never would have had any type of relationship with a woman he believed to be a high school student. Each of these witnesses testified that, to the best of their knowledge, they had never seen or heard reports of any inappropriate conduct between Respondent and a student. Principal Dobbs bragged in a letter about Respondent and the support of his peers in voting him Science Teacher of the Year. She testified that in her 12 years of service at MPHS, the last three of which she was principal, she had no concerns with Respondent regarding inappropriate relationships with students. To the contrary, she recalled him as a very good teacher, who participated in many school activities and field trips. He also served as coach for the girls’ lacrosse team. Principal Dobbs further testified that she was never informed that Respondent had been accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a student at her school. She was only made aware of a request by the school district for Respondent’s computer. She testified that if she had believed Respondent had an intimate relationship with a high school student, she would not have employed him. Ms. Shlachtman has been employed at MPHS since 2001 and has been a teacher since 1984. She affirmed her previously written statement supporting Respondent, and testified she had participated in the hiring and selection of Respondent ten years previously as a marine biology teacher. She stated that he had “the soul of an educator.” As a member of Ms. Shlachtman’s staff, Respondent had chaperoned multiple field trips, including extended travel with students and staff for the Enviro Team, and to state and national competitions in Montana and Toronto, Canada. Having seen Respondent react with both male and female students on seven- and ten-day trips, she never had a concern or received a complaint. She also knew girls on the lacrosse team and had never heard a concern reported from there. She noted that Respondent had the opportunity to be alone with students on multiple occasions, and no concerns or inappropriate behavior was ever reported. She would rehire Respondent on her staff again, if given the opportunity. Ms. Rousseau, the mother of three daughters who trained with Respondent at his CrossFit gym, also served as president of the girls’ lacrosse team booster club. She affirmed her previous letter of support for Respondent and testified about her commitment to Respondent as a trainer for her three daughters at his gym, which she said would continue. Additionally, Samantha Rousseau, Nicola’s daughter, and a full-time student at the University of Florida, confirmed her support for Respondent. While a student at MPHS, she had served as assistant captain of the girls’ lacrosse team during her senior year (2014), while Respondent was the team coach. She had known Respondent since she was a sophomore student in his Television Production class; she had traveled with Respondent to Los Angeles as part of his class; and had ridden numerous times on the team bus with Respondent. She testified that she believed Respondent would not have been involved with A.T. had he known she was a high school student. Respondent first encountered A.T. during MPHS lacrosse tryouts in late January 2016. A.T. was a junior at that time. Respondent had no further contact with A.T. until he sent her a December 12, 2016, text stating, “Hi! How was your weekend? You missed out on Saturday morning [referring to a workout designed for lacrosse players at CrossFit gym].” A.T., still a student at MPHS at the time of this text message, never replied to it. On March 15, 2017, Respondent sent another text message to A.T., stating, “Hey, what’s up? How have you been?” The remaining text messages sent by Respondent to A.T. were undated, but were sent between March 15 and their sexual encounter in late March. The text messages were sexually graphic. The messages sent by Respondent included explicit photographs, and while those sent by A.T. had explicit photographs, they were removed to protect her privacy. A.T. was a student at MPHS through December 2016. On January 12, 2017, the Miami-Dade School District conducted a conference to formulate an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for A.T. She was placed in a hospital/homebound program at that time and graduated from the virtual school in June 2017. She did not attend college during this time. Respondent never denied the one-time sexual encounter he had with A.T. On the day when the encounter took place, March 19, 2017, A.T. texted Respondent and asked if she could see him that night. A.T. was driven by a friend to Briar Bay Park where she met Respondent, who was already there and waiting for her in his car. She had sexual intercourse with him in his car. After their liaison, Respondent drove her home. A.T. and Respondent had no contact after that time. A great deal of testimony was elicited about whether Respondent texted or phoned A.T. and discussed her status as a student in March 2017. At different times during the investigation into the sexual encounter between A.T. and Respondent, he said he texted, instant messaged, or telephoned A.T. about her school. Respondent believed her to be taking courses at Miami Dade College (“MDC”) during the spring semester of 2017. In fact, she was a student at Brucie Ball Education Center (“Brucie Ball”), a virtual school where she took online courses to complete her high school education, graduating in June 2017. Respondent consistently believed, at the time of his interview by Detective Ochoa, during his deposition, and at hearing, that A.T. was in college and testified he was never told she was at Brucie Ball. A.T.’s memory is less clear. She testified she could not recall telling Respondent she was taking college courses, but there is no doubt she was enrolled at Brucie Ball during her final semester of high school and not at MDC. She remembers that she received a social media invite from Respondent to attend his CrossFit boot camp in December 2016. She recalls communicating back and forth via social media after that time, especially when Respondent texted her about missing her at boot camp. She and Respondent testified to multiple additional conversations via social media or texting, but many of those were not produced as evidence. When a three-month gap between their messaging occurred, Respondent testified that A.T. told him she had been backpacking in Africa with friends and, according to what he recalled she told him, she was taking courses at MDC. She did not recall having told him she was taking courses at MDC, but “guessed he knew” she was still a high school student because the previous year she had been a junior at MPHS. “It never came up,” she testified. While she could not recall having told Respondent she had been to Africa and was taking courses at MDC, A.T. testified she recalled many more text messages between Respondent and her that were not printed from her phone and introduced into evidence at hearing. According to A.T., she had not talked to Respondent about her upcoming 18th birthday on March 2, 2017. Yet, she invited him to the celebration at a club called “Do Not Sit on the Couch.” She also shared with him that she and her friends often visited another club called “Little Hoolies,” and invited Respondent to join them. Both of these clubs serve alcohol and are for adults over 21. Respondent did not join them at either club. A.T. did not recall any of these conversations at hearing. A.T. declined to be interviewed by Petitioner’s Professional Practices Services investigator. At hearing, she could not recall a request to be interviewed. Respondent assumed A.T. was older than 18 when they met at the park for sex, since he believed her to be taking classes at MDC; she hung out with her friends at two adult clubs; and she brought alcohol, a vapor pen, and THC oils with her when they met in the park. He did not believe this to be typical high school behavior. Respondent also believed A.T.’s absence from social media for three months before they had their encounter at the park was explained by her telling him she had been backpacking in Africa where he assumed she did not have readily available access to the Internet. He also believes this supported his understanding that A.T. was in college at that point, since three months of backpacking does not usually occur as part of a high school experience. Respondent consistently testified, from his statements to law enforcement to his appearance at hearing, that had he known A.T. was still a high school student, regardless of whether she was at the school where he taught, he would have never had an intimate relationship with her. Moreover, law enforcement never asked Respondent for his phone at the time of the investigation. After he learned A.T. had been a high school student in March 2017, when they had their one-time sexual relationship, on May 3 of that year he resigned his position as a teacher at MPHS for “personal reasons,” based upon advice he received from union representatives and an investigator, and to spare embarrassment to his school, colleagues, and family. At the time A.T. had entered into an IEP with Miami- Dade, her school was listed as South Miami Senior High School, not MPHS. This explains why Respondent never saw her again at MPHS in her final semester. There was no evidence presented that Respondent knew A.T. had not graduated from MPHS or that she had enrolled in either South Miami High School or Brucie Ball when she did not return to MPHS for the spring semester of 2017. Respondent’s assertion that he was unaware of A.T., an 18-year-old, still being in high school at the time of their March 2017 encounter, along with his cooperation with the investigation and admission at all times pertinent to it that he had a sexual relationship with A.T., renders his testimony more credible than A.T.’s concerning what Respondent knew about her status as a student. No evidence was produced that Respondent ever had an improper relationship with A.T. while she was under the age of 18. A.T.’s lack of candor and lack of cooperation with Detective Ochoa, the investigator on the case, as well as her incomplete memory of the various text messages with Respondent bring into question her truth and veracity when testifying against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2018.
