The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida (including, among others, Ludlam Elementary School (Ludlam)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Respondent has approximately 30 years of teaching experience, and has been a classroom teacher for the School Board since December 1999. As a School Board employee, she has not been the subject of any disciplinary action aside from the 30-workday suspension that is being contested in the instant case. Respondent is currently co-teaching a kindergarten class at Ludlam, the only school at which she has taught during her employment with the School Board. For the eleven years she has been at Ludlam, Respondent has been a kindergarten teacher exclusively, except for the 2009-2010 school year, when she taught second grade. Among the second graders in her class that school year were A. H., A. P., and J. M.3 Dr. Georgette Menocal is now, and was during the 2009- 2010 school year, the principal of Ludlam. At a Ludlam faculty meeting, attended by Respondent, that was held at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, Dr. Menocal gave a PowerPoint presentation in which she reviewed, for those in attendance, key provisions of Ludlam's 2009-2010 Faculty/Staff Handbook (Handbook), including the following excerpt relating to "Classroom Management Procedures": CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES Teachers should make every effort to handle routine classroom discipline problems by conferring with the student, contacting parents, and referring the student to the counselor. If a serious violation of school rules has occurred, a "Student Case Management Referral Form" should be completed and forwarded to the administration. A response will be forthcoming. * * * It is the teacher's responsibility to manage his/her class and to follow the procedures outlined in the Code of Student Conduct. All level 1 behaviors are to be addressed by the teacher. Most level 2 behaviors can be addressed by the teacher and/or counselor. Level 3 (and above) behaviors require a referral to an administrator. Each student referral must be made on a Student Case Management (SCM) referral form. The disciplinary policies of the school should be administered on a consistent basis throughout the school. The CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT should be reviewed with students at the beginning of each school year. NEVER - Use corporal punishment of any kind (hitting, tapping or tying students, having students stand for long periods of time, etc.)[4] The School Board's Code of Student Conduct-Elementary (Code) (which Ludlam teachers were directed by the Handbook to "follow") provided, among other things, that "Level 3 . . . behaviors" included "Fighting (serious)" and that "Fighting (serious)": Occurs when two or more students engage in physical force or violence against each other and they become so enraged that they do not stop when given a verbal command to do so, OR physical restraint is required, AND/OR someone is injured to an extent that requires immediate first aid or medical attention. Any serious fighting incident that causes injury or requires medical attention would result in a suspension. If the principal or designee determines that one student or a group of students attacked someone who did not fight back, the aggressors should receive punishment for battery, aggravated battery, and/or bullying, depending on the facts, and will likely be arrested. Otherwise, administrators will report all other incidents involving mutual participation as Fighting (Serious) without regard to who was the original aggressor. On February 25, 2010, during a mathematics lesson Respondent was teaching, two female students in her class, A. H. and A. P., were involved in an altercation in the back of the classroom, during which A. H. hit A. P. with a book. Respondent intervened and separated the two girls by physically restraining A. H., who struggled to escape Respondent's grasp. As she was holding A. H., Respondent instructed A. P. to hit A. H. back. A. P. did as she was told, striking A. H.5 with a book.6 The incident (Incident), which lasted approximately a minute, was witnessed by J. M., who was in her seat and had turned around to observe the fracas.7 Notwithstanding that she had physically restrained A. H., Respondent did not report the Incident to the school administration (via submission of a completed Student Case Management referral form, as required by the Handbook, or through any other means).8 Following the Incident, the students in Respondent's class left her classroom and went to their Spanish class. Ludlam's assistant principal was subsequently called to the Spanish class. She removed A. H. and A. P. from the class and brought them to Dr. Menocal's office, where Dr. Menocal spoke to them separately. Both A. H. and A. P. told Dr. Menocal about their scuffle earlier that day in Respondent's classroom and how, during this tussle, Respondent had directed A. P. to hit A. H. while A. H. was being held by Respondent. A. H. and A. P. gave Dr. Menocal, at Dr. Menocal's request, the names of three other students who may have witnessed the Incident. The three students9 were brought, separately, to Dr. Menocal's office and questioned by her. Each of the three students confirmed what A. H. and A. P. had told Dr. Menocal. Dr. Menocal asked A. H., A. P., and two of the three other students to whom she had spoken to each write a statement in their own words describing what had happened in Respondent's classroom earlier that day.10 They wrote their statements, separately, in Dr. Menocal's presence. In her written statement, A. H. stated, in pertinent part, "Ms. Grey hold me and then Ms. Grey told her [A. P.] to hit me and then she hit me on my back . . . ." A. P. and the two other children each wrote that Respondent had "let" A. P. "hit" A. H., but they did not specifically state in their written statements that Respondent had told A. P. to strike A. H. After receiving these written statements from the students, Dr. Menocal contacted the School Board police and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to report what the students had related to her about the Incident. That same day, February 25, 2010, a School Board police officer, Officer San Antonio, was dispatched to Ludlam. Officer San Antonio first spoke with Dr. Menocal and then with various students and Respondent. The following morning, at around 9:00 a.m., Respondent's second grade class put on a performance in the school cafeteria as part of a black history month event attended by parents (Performance). Following the Performance, Respondent invited the parents of her students to follow her and the class back to her classroom so that she could have a brief meeting with them (Post-Performance Meeting). Respondent began the meeting by praising the students' Performance. This praise, however, was short-lived, as Respondent started to complain to the parents about the students' "misbehaving" and "acting up" in class. As an example, she cited the altercation the day before between A. H. and A. P. (without identifying them by name). Respondent told the parents that "two little girls" had "got[en] into a fight" and that she was being accused of and investigated by the police for having "held one of them and [having] told the other girl to hit [the girl being held]." Respondent then said, "And I wouldn't do that" (knowing full well that, in fact, she had done "that"), after which she asked her students (including A. H. and A. P.) who were present in the room with the parents, "Did Mrs. Grey do that?" The students responded, in unison, "No, no."11 Respondent informed the parents that, because she "gets in trouble" when she "gets involved," she no longer would hesitate, when a student misbehaved, to prepare and submit to the principal's office a written referral that would follow the misbehaving student "all the way through high school." Later that morning (on February 26, 2010), at approximately 11:15 a.m., a DCFS child protective investigator, Donald Machacon, arrived at Ludlam to investigate the Incident (which Dr. Menocal had reported to DCFS the day before). After first speaking with Dr. Menocal, Mr. Machacon spoke with A. H., A. P., and three other students in Respondent's class.12 The last person Mr. Machacon interviewed at the school that day was Respondent. During her interview with Mr. Machacon on February 26, 2010, A. P. stated that, although at the time of the Incident she had thought she had heard Respondent instruct her to hit A. H., she must not have heard correctly because Respondent, earlier on February 26th, had spoken to her about the matter and denied ever having had given her such an instruction.13 A. P. attributed her having had misunderstood Respondent to Respondent's having had had a "hoarse voice" the day of the Incident. None of the other children Mr. Machacon interviewed at the school on February 26, 2010, including A. H., claimed to have any recollection of Respondent's ever having had told A. P. to hit A. H. (although each of them did tell Mr. Machacon that A. P. had hit A. H. while A. H. was being held by Respondent). Respondent, in her interview, indicated that she had held A. H. in order to "break up a fight," but she denied having had told A. P. to hit A. H. during the altercation. She also denied having had spoken about the Incident earlier that day (February 26, 2010) with A. H. and A. P. She did acknowledge, however, that she had referenced the Incident in a talk she had had with a group of parents shortly after the Performance that morning. She further acknowledged that, the day before (February 25, 2010), she had been questioned about the Incident by Officer San Antonio, who was at the school investigating the matter. By letter dated February 26, 2010, and received by Respondent on March 1, 2010, Dr. Menocal formally informed Respondent, in writing, that "[a]n investigation [was] being conducted" of a complaint made by an unnamed "juvenile" complainant alleging that Respondent had "held" her "so that another student could hit her." Among the parents who had attended the Post- Performance Meeting on February 26, 2010, was M. M., J. M.'s mother. M. M. left the meeting concerned about the safety of her daughter in Respondent's classroom given what Respondent had told the parents, particularly about the fight between the "two little girls" that the police had been called to the school to investigate.14 Moreover, M. M. thought that it was inappropriate for Respondent to have discussed the matter at the meeting. The following week, M. M. made arrangements to meet with Dr. Menocal so that she could air her grievances about Respondent. (These grievances were not only about what had occurred at the Post- Performance Meeting. They also concerned "classroom management issues.") Sometime before this meeting between M. M. and Dr. Menocal took place, M. M. learned more about the Incident from J. M. during a discussion the two had following a physical altercation between J. M. and J. M.'s sister. M. M. had initiated the discussion by asking whether J. M. believed that J. M.'s sister had deserved to be hit by J. M., a question to which J. M. responded in the affirmative. When M. M. inquired as to why J. M. felt this way, J. M. answered, "Well, it's like in Mrs. Grey's class, when you get hit, you hit back." In response to her mother's request that she elaborate, J. M. told M. M. about the Incident and how, after A. H. had hit A. P., Respondent had grabbed ahold of A. H., told A. P. to hit A. H. back,15 and then announced to the class, "This is what happens in Mrs. Grey's class, when you hit; you get hit back." M. M. had her meeting with Dr. Menocal approximately a week after the Incident. During her audience with Dr. Menocal, M. M. raised a number of complaints that she had about Respondent. She talked about, among other things, the comments and remarks Respondent had made to the parents and students in attendance at the Post-Performance Meeting, including those relating to the Incident and its aftermath. On March 8, 2010, Respondent was temporarily reassigned, "until further notice," from Ludlam to the School Board's Region III Office, where she engaged in "professional development" activities. By letter dated May 18, 2010, which she received on May 19, 2010, Respondent was advised that the School Board police had completed its investigation of the Incident and found probable cause to believe that she had violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21. The letter further advised Respondent of her right "to file a written exception" with the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS).16 Respondent submitted to OPS her "written exception," by letter dated May 25, 2010. She subsequently sent to OPS a "[r]evised [v]ersion" of this letter, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Pursuant to your letter dated May 18, 2010, informing me of the outcome of your investigation (SPAR #R-09002), I wish to exercise my right to provide a written exception to your findings. I take exception to your findings of probable cause to the violation because no such violation occurred. My intervention was simply to stop the aggressing child from hitting the other child and preventing a fight, possibly leading to injuries, between the two children. Below please find specific items with which I take issue . . . . * * * Det. Torrens also states that two students who were interviewed as witnesses told him exactly the same thing which, significantly, was not that I told one child to hit the other as the information from the two combatants indicate. These children also provided him with previously written statements. I would like to see the original documents; to know who took the statements and who was present. I would also like the children to be interviewed on tape as to the veracity of the statements, being cognizant of the fact that these are eight year olds who often repeat what they hear or are told.[17] I did not tell the one child to hit the other, nor did I hold one child so that the other could hit her. I was merely holding back the very aggressive child, who was struggling with me to get loose so that she could attack the other child. It was at this time that the other child, who was free, hit the child I was holding. There were seventeen children in the class at the time I separated the two girls. All seventeen children saw what happened and they all heard what happened. I would like all seventeen children to be separately interviewed on tape. * * * I also wish to clarify the issue of the administrative letter and the suggestion that I discussed the investigation with the parents. This incident occurred on Thursday, February 25th 2010. Officer San Antonio asked me what happened in my classroom on the very same Thursday that it occurred, and I told her that I saw one child crying and I asked her what was the matter. She told me that the other child had hit her, so I separated them. The aggressing child then got angry and wanted to fight, so I held on to her, when the other child came over and tapped her on the back. The Black History function was held on the following Friday (2/26/10). I had no discussions with any parents about the incident. In fact I was not aware that there was an investigation until Mr. Machacon came to the school the afternoon of that same Friday, and told me there were these allegations against me. I certainly could not discuss an investigation that I did not know about.[18] Furthermore, Dr. Menocal did not give me the administrative letter until the following Monday afternoon (3/1/10) and I got assigned to the region the following Monday (3/8/10), eleven days after the incident. I hope this letter helps to provide additional information which will aid in a more comprehensive fact gathering process to enable a fair and just review, with the concomitant overturn of the probable cause findings. These charges I take very seriously as I have dedicated my entire adult life (over thirty years) to the vocation of educating young children without a single incident. I have assiduously guarded the propriety of this noble profession and will resist any attempt to impugn my integrity or besmirch my character. On June 2, 2010, OPS held a conference-for-the-record, at which Respondent had an opportunity to verbally respond to the probable cause finding made by the School Board police. By letter dated July 21, 2010, Assistant Superintendent Rojas advised Respondent that OPS had made a "recommendation that [she] be suspended without pay 30 workdays via an agenda item [that would] be presented to [the School Board] at the meeting scheduled for September 7, 2010." In a subsequent letter, dated August 26, 2010, Assistant Superintendent Rojas informed Respondent that the Superintendent would be recommending to the School Board, at its scheduled September 7, 2010, meeting, that Respondent receive a 30-workday suspension. The School Board followed the Superintendent's recommendation and suspended Respondent without pay from September 8, 2010, through October 19, 2010. Furthermore, it directed Respondent to report to duty at Ludlam on October 20, 2010. Respondent has served her suspension. By letter dated September 8, 2010, Respondent "request[ed] a hearing to be held before an administrative law judge" to contest her suspension. The matter was thereafter referred to DOAH. A. P.'s and A. H.'s depositions were taken in anticipation of the hearing. At her deposition, A. P. declined to answer any questions. A. H. was deposed on December 6, 2010. When asked about the Incident, she stated that she had been hit by A. P. while being held by Respondent. It was her testimony that Respondent was simply "trying [to] keep [her and A. P.] apart," and that Respondent did not tell A. P. to hit her, an assertion that was in direct conflict with what A. H. had related to Dr. Menocal the day of the Incident, when the matter was fresh in A. H.'s mind and she had not yet been exposed to the remarks that Respondent would make at the Post-Performance Meeting.19 A. H. further testified during her deposition that, after the altercation, Respondent "called the office and the office came."20
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board issue a final order upholding Respondent's 30-workday suspension for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 8th day of March, 2011.
The Issue Did Petitioner, Gregory K. Adkins, as Superintendent for the Board of the School District of Lee County, Florida (Superintendent), prove just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres?
Findings Of Fact The Superintendent, on behalf of the School Board of Lee County (Board), is responsible for hiring, overseeing, and terminating, all employees in the school district. At all times material to this case, the Board employed Mr. Torres as a security specialist at East Lee County High School (East Lee). Mr. Torres also sometimes served as an assistant coach and/or substitute athletic trainer. Mr. Torres has worked for the Board since August 5, 2011. For the 2011 through 2015 school years Mr. Torres’ received a final Performance Evaluation with a score of “Effective” in all areas assessed. The "Manager Comments" on Mr. Torres' Final Performance Evaluations consisted of the following: "Mr. Torres is an integral part of the MLE [Mirror Lakes Elementary] team. He has been a great addition to our staff [2014-2015 Evaluation]”; "Mr. Torres is a very valuable asset and is well respected and supported as an integral part of the MLE team [2013-2014 Evaluation]"; "Orlando performs various duties at East: security and coaching. He has done a good job with both. Orlando was accepting of taking on the night security position until a candidate was hired [2012-2013 Evaluation]"; and "Orlando is a team player and is always willing to go above and beyond to help staff and students [2011-2012 Evaluation]." Mr. Torres is a member of SPALC and was a member during all periods relevant to this matter. On February 4, 2016, the Board’s Department of Professional Standards and Equity (PS&E) received reports that on several occasions Mr. Torres made inappropriate comments and sexual remarks in the presence of or to female high school students. The comments included suggestions that Mr. Torres was interested in sex with the students. The comments caused the students extreme discomfort and embarrassment and created an inhospitable learning environment. The Board investigated. The information it collected caused the Board to terminate Mr. Torres’ employment. PS&E Coordinator, Andy Brown, conducted an investigation that included interviews of several students and of Mr. Torres. When Mr. Torres met Mr. Brown for his interview, Mr. Torres did not know the reason for the interview. Mr. Brown advised Mr. Torres that he was the subject of an investigation and asked him if he knew what it was about. Mr. Torres said: “When I meet with a female, I always have another female present.” This was not true. Mr. Torres’ spontaneous and dishonest statement in response to simply being asked if he knew what the investigation was about is persuasive evidence that he had improper conversations with female students and is a contributing factor to concluding that his testimony denying the charges is not credible. In November and December of 2015, and January 2016, Mr. Torres made several sexually charged, inappropriate comments to students. Five of the incidents involved N.M., who was an eleventh grade student at the time. N.M.’s mother worked at the school. Consequently, N.M. stayed at school after classes until her mother left work. N.M.’s mother arranged for N.M. to assist Mr. Torres in his training tasks after school. This is how she met Mr. Torres. The arrangement lasted about a week. Around November 2015, Mr. Torres gave N.M. a “high-five.” He prolonged the contact by grabbing her hand and intertwining his fingers with hers. In a separate incident, while giving N.M. a “bandaid” for a scratch, Mr. Torres asked her if she would ever get involved with a married man. She said no and walked away. On another occasion, N.M. encountered Mr. Torres while she was walking to lunch. N.M. was wearing what she described as a “burgundy semi-see-through” shirt. Mr. Torres told her to cover up her “goodies” or her “girls,” referring to her breasts, so nobody else could see them. N.M.’s testimony used the word “girls” while her statement in February 2016 said “goodies.” This minor discrepancy is understandable given the passage of time and the stresses of an interview and testimony. On yet another occasion, Mr. Torres remarked in Spanish, when N.M. bent down, “I like ass.” Mr. Torres spoke to N.M. after she had been called to the school office to provide a statement about a conflict that Mr. Torres had with another student. When he learned the purpose of the request for a statement from N.M., Mr. Torres said, “I thought I was gonna get in trouble for flirting with you; thank god we didn’t take it to second base.” In early February, N.M. was walking with her then- friend S.S., when Mr. Torres exited a room and saw them. He said “you look delic . . ., beautiful,” to N.M., shifting from “delicious” to “beautiful” when he noticed S.S. Mr. Torres also made a comment about wishing N.M. was 18. Another Security Specialist, Russell Barrs, who N.M. considered a friend, overheard bits of a conversation between N.M. and S.S. about the encounter. He asked N.M. about it. She replied with generalities A day or two later N.M. met with Mr. Barrs and provided complete information about Mr. Torres’ comments to her. Mr. Barrs reported this to Assistant Principal Edward Matthews. Mr. Matthews launched the investigation. It is noteworthy that S.S., whose friendship with N.M. ended, still testified to the same events as N.M. did. The two had a falling out sometime in 2016. The testimony of S.S. was not a matter of loyal support for a friend. In fact, the tone and body language of both students gave the distinct impression that the end of the friendship was not pleasant. N.M.’s mother had just started working at the school. N.M. did not immediately report Mr. Torres’ advances to her mother or other adults. When she did report them, her initial statements were incomplete and vague. She just told her mother she was not comfortable being in the room with Mr. Torres. She also told her mother that Mr. Torres “says things.” Later, after speaking to Mr. Barrs, N.M. provided her mother a complete description of the comments. After classes, Mr. Torres spent a good deal of time in the training room where first aid supplies and ice are stored for student-athletes. The training room was divided into two smaller rooms separated by a door that was usually shut. One room contained the ice machine, other equipment, and supplies. The other part of the room served as an office for Mr. Torres. Students, including N.M. and C.P., assisted or visited with Mr. Torres in the training room at times. C.P. was a female student who served as one of the managers for the girls’ basketball team. Once while observing her prepare an ice pack by sucking air out of it, Mr. Torres said words to the effect of “like how you suck a boy’s dick.” C.P. was a ninth grader at the time. Mr. Torres also told her that he would like to marry her when she turned 18. Another time, Mr. Torres tried to hug C.P. Mr. Torres also told C.P. that they should not talk in the hall because the security video cameras may record them. Another time, after overhearing a discussion in Spanish by several female students about sexual activity, Mr. Torres told C.P. that if he ever had sex with her he would break her. Two or three times Mr. Torres told C.P. that she was beautiful and he wanted to marry her after she graduated. The comments made C.P. extremely uncomfortable and unsure of what to do. She was scared. She quit her position as manager to avoid contact with Mr. Torres. Like N.M., C.P. was slow to report the comments to an adult. When she first told her step-mother she described Mr. Torres’ comments as coming from a substitute teacher. C.P. was scared and did not want to get involved. When she did, the details understandably came out in bits and pieces. Mr. Torres’ improper familiarity with students N.M. and C.P. and his sexually charged comments were frequent and varied. They were improper and detrimental to the emotional and mental health of the students. The crux of Mr. Torres’ defense is that none of the testimony about his actions is true. His testimony is not as credible as that of the students who testified to his offenses. One reason, mentioned earlier, is Mr. Torres’ spontaneous statement when Mr. Brown met him for the interview that he was never alone with a female. It manifests guilt and anxiousness that would not be present without his being aware of his improper behavior. Another reason is that the testimony of the students is sufficiently consistent to provide credibility. And N.M., C.P., and S.S. all made reports within a few months of Mr. Torres’ comments. A third reason is that N.M.’s testimony was supported by S.S. at hearing even though their earlier friendship had ended. A fourth reason is that there is no evidence of a motive for N.M., S.S., and C.P to fabricate their reports. For the time period when Mr. Torres made the comment to C.P. about “breaking her,” several students offered differing testimony about who was in the room when and whether Mr. Torres was giving a student instruction on a trumpet. This testimony is not sufficient to impeach the credibility of N.M. and C.P. Those were not the students to whom the offending remarks were made. The details of that day would not have been noteworthy to them at the time. Similarly, given the nature of Mr. Torres’ comments, the details of exactly who was present when would have been secondary to N.M. and C.P. Finally, Mr. Torres made one particularly transparent and deliberate effort to manipulate the truth during cross-examination that undermines relying on Mr. Torres’ testimony. Early in the hearing, in Mr. Torres’ presence, the Board attempted to enter evidence that during prior employment as a detention officer with the Sheriff of Lee County, Mr. Torres reacted to teasing by other officers by drawing his service pistol. The objection to the evidence was sustained. Later Mr. Torres testified that the testimony against him was not credible because he would never take such risks at a school where his wife was also employed, his children were students, and N.M.’s mother was employed. This testimony opened the door to the pistol drawing incident as evidence of Mr. Torres taking risky actions at work. The exchange about the incident, starting at page 329 of Volume II of the Transcript, follows: Q: But you engaged in risky behavior in your two law enforcement jobs prior, did you not? A: I don’t consider that risky behavior. Q: Well, you don’t consider pulling your service revolver as risky behavior? [objection and ruling] A: I have never carried a revolver. Q: Your service weapon, sir? ALJ: You said you never carried a revolver. Have you ever carried a pistol? A: Yes sir. ALJ: Next question. Q: Would you consider pulling your service pistol in an inappropriate manner risky behavior, sir? A: Yes, sir. Mr. Torres testified with full knowledge from the earlier attempt to introduce evidence of the incident to what the question referred. His answer was hair-splitting at best and demonstrated a willingness to shade, if not evade, the truth that significantly undermines his credibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order finding just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Orlando Torres, and dismissing him from his position with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as alleged in the letter from Duval County School Board dated May 25, 2017; and, if so, the appropriate disciplinary action.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Duval County, Florida. Art. IX, § (4)(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell is a teacher covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between Duval Teachers United and the Duval County School Board for 2014-2017. At all times material to this matter, Respondent was a teacher assigned to Hyde Grove. During the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent was assigned to teach second-grade students. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to comply with the 2016-2017 staff handbook which required staff members to strive to achieve ethical conduct and to familiarize themselves with the Code of Ethics. Teachers are trained to avoid touching students aggressively and to avoid leaving students unsupervised. The staff handbook provides that students should not be left unsupervised in a classroom or other area. The policy also provides that no student should be sent to the playground without teacher supervision. Ms. Sapp, the principal of Hyde Grove, provided training to the staff during pre-planning training and orientation week. One of those trainings was on Ethics and Professionalism. The training in-service record reflects that Respondent completed the training. During the training, Ms. Sapp provided guidelines for interaction with students and demonstrated the training principles. To avoid aggressive touching of students, she gave examples as follows: “[i]f a student falls down to the floor, pouting, as children would do, . . . basically ask for them to get up, but, rule of thumb, just not to put your hands on the student.” Ms. Sapp testified that teachers could exercise various strategies to diffuse a situation with a student engaged in disruptive behavior. Teachers are trained to create distance between the child who is being disruptive and the adult, until someone else could remove that child. Another strategy is to transfer the disruptive student to the partner-teacher for time- out. A teacher could also send the classroom partner for help or call the administration for assistance. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that her partner-teacher, Ms. Hinton, was absent on the day of the incident so she did not use that strategy. However, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell did not otherwise use any of the suggested strategies during the incident with the student. The facts that serve as the basis for this case occurred in April 2017. On April 20, 2017, at approximately 2:45 p.m., classes were preparing for afternoon dismissal. At around the same time, Ms. Jones, the Team-Up instructor arrived at the classroom she shared with Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. Team-Up is an after-school program that provides academic enrichment, arts and crafts, and homework assistance. The Team-Up program operates from 2:55 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. each day. As she entered the classroom, Ms. Jones saw Ms. Stripling-Mitchell talking to students to prepare them for dismissal. The students were working on the iReady program using laptops. Respondent was working with three students who were seated in the back left corner of the classroom. Ms. Jones noticed that J.K. was being noncompliant with Ms. Stripling- Mitchell’s requests to continue working on the iReady program. As a result of the disruptive behavior, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell directed the student to return his laptop to the laptop cart and leave her classroom. The student continued to be disruptive and stated that he was not going to leave. Ms. Jones heard Ms. Stripling-Mitchell say, “[l]et me help you out with it,” and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell led the student by his left arm to the front of the classroom. Ms. Jones also heard the student say, “[n]o. I didn’t do anything. Get your hands off me.” While the student walked with Respondent side by side, he continued to resist. When the two arrived at the front of the classroom, the student turned and faced Respondent. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell bent over toward the student’s face. Her face was a few inches from the student’s. Ms. Jones saw Ms. Stripling-Mitchell pointing and waving her finger in the student’s face while saying, "[w]hat did your mother tell you? Didn't she tell you to respect me? I'm going to call your mother and she's going to beat your butt." Ms. Jones testimony about this statement is different in her written statement, which states, “[M]s. Stripling-Mitchell said, What did your mother tell you about being disruptive? What did your mother tell you about being disrespectful to me? I am going to call your mother and tell her everything you have done here today so she can get on your butt!” Ms. Jones was at the back of the room, near the sink, on the opposite side of the room from Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student. Although the statements are different, the difference is of minor significance. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell threatened to call the student’s parent while she and J.K. were at the front of the classroom and in front of other students. The student in turn yelled at Respondent to get out of his face. At the same time, he raised the laptop above his head and swung it at Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. Respondent blocked the laptop and took it from the student. The student then attempted to punch Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. She dropped the laptop and blocked his punch. Although Ms. Jones witnessed the events, she had not intervened to assist Ms. Stripling-Mitchell at this point. Ms. Jones contacted the administration office two times, but the teachers did not receive assistance in the classroom. After Ms. Stripling-Mitchell struggled with the student, she restrained him against one of the two dry-erase boards using her hand and forearm. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was directly facing the student with her back to the classroom, and the student’s back was against the dry-erase board. Ms. Jones testified that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student continued to argue and they moved along the dry-erase board laterally, for approximately eight feet. Ultimately, Ms. Jones separated Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and the student. Ms. Jones walked the student to Ms. Sapp’s office. During the walk to the principal’s office, the student complained of shortness of breath and was breathing heavily. Ms. Sapp was notified that a student was in her office and there was an issue she needed to address. Ms. Sapp testified that when she initially saw the student, he was crying, huffing and puffing, and breathing hard. When Ms. Sapp asked what happened, the student told Ms. Sapp that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell placed her hands around his throat and that he could not breathe. After J.K. told his account of the incident, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell arrived in the office. Ms. Sapp then met with J.K. and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell. During the meeting, J.K. repeated that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choked him. Ms. Stripling- Mitchell interrupted J.K. and engaged him in reenactment of the incident. The reenactment consisted of Ms. Stripling-Mitchell demonstrating how she restrained the student using her hand near his neck. Ms. Sapp then stopped the reenactment and asked the student to wait outside her office. Ms. Sapp told Ms. Stripling-Mitchell she should not touch the children, and Ms. Stripling acknowledged in agreement this was the school policy. Ms. Sapp testified that it was unacceptable for Ms. Stripling-Mitchell to instruct the student to leave her class and go sit at the picnic bench without supervision. Ms. Sapp finished her meeting with Ms. Stripling- Mitchell, and Ms. Stripling-Mitchell returned to her classroom. Before Ms. Sapp met with J.K. and Ms. Stripling- Mitchell, she contacted the Office of Professional Standards for guidance regarding the appropriate next step. Ms. Sapp was advised to obtain statements regarding the incident. Ms. Sapp later asked Ms. Jones to send students who had knowledge of the incident to her office. After speaking with the students, Ms. Sapp asked the students to write statements about the incident as requested by the Office of Professional Standards. The statements were provided to the investigator conducting the investigation of the allegations, Mr. Gregory. Mr. Gregory collected the written statements and interviewed five students the day following the incident. Overall, the students provided varied descriptions of what happened. Mr. Gregory also conducted an interview of Ms. Jones, a portion of which occurred in the classroom, and requested that she provide a written statement. In addition to obtaining witness statements, Mr. Gregory researched Ms. Stripling-Mitchell’s discipline history. He discovered that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell had been the subject of prior investigations that resulted in disciplinary action. On May 18, 2012, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was investigated for use of profanity, demeaning, and derogatory communication directed toward employees. She was issued a written reprimand, a Step II disciplinary action. In December 2016, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was involved in an incident with a different student that is of direct relevance to this proceeding. In that incident, a parent complained about Ms. Stripling-Mitchell’s interaction with their child. It was determined that during an interaction with a disruptive student, Respondent pushed that student to the floor and verbally reprimanded him in front of other students. The incident resulted in the child being subject to embarrassment and physical aggression. On January 9, 2017, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was issued a written reprimand, her second Step II disciplinary action. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was also directed to seek assistance from the Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”) to obtain training on strategies for deescalating situations. After the interviews and review of the statements, Mr. Gregory concluded that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell used inappropriate physical contact with J.K. by restraining him against the wall with her hand and arm against his throat, after J.K. swung the laptop at her. Although not specifically alleged in the Notice, there was a dispute whether the student was choked. Ms. Jones testified that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choked the student during the incident. However, she did not mention choking in her written statement. At hearing, Ms. Jones was confronted with a text message addressing that issue. The texts were as follows: Ms. Stripling-Mitchell: I was told that Ms. Timberlake planned or plans to call DCF or someone since J.K. told her I choked him that why he tried to hit me. LIES!! Ms. Jones: What!!! That’s a freaking lie!!! You did not choke him!!! Ms. Jones’ testimony regarding Ms. Stripling-Mitchell choking J.K. was not credible. There was also a dispute regarding whether Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist toward the student. Ms. Jones testified Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist and threatened to strike the student. Ms. Jones did not mention this allegation in her written statement provided days after the incident. Ms. Jones also did not mention this alleged observation when Mr. Gregory interviewed her. Ms. Stripling- Mitchell testified that she did not raise her fist to strike J.K. The student provided a statement describing the incident in his own words. He indicated that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell placed her hand on his neck. There was no reference in the student’s statement that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell tried to punch him. Several other students provided written statements which also did not include any indication that Ms. Stripling- Mitchell raised her fist toward the student. The undersigned finds no credible evidence that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell raised her fist to strike the student. There was much discussion at hearing regarding the description and behavioral history of the student. Ms. Jones described the student as a seven-year-old, scrawny boy, standing at four feet, nine inches. She also stated that the student could be sweet, but could be provoked “if things don’t go his way, if you threaten him or when the children . . . play a game called “the dozens.”2/ Ms. Stripling-Mitchell, on the other hand, described the student as routinely disruptive and noncompliant with staff. Between October 2016 and April 2017, J.K. engaged in conduct that resulted in six referrals. The referrals involved pushing another student, attempting to trip a student multiple times, stabbing a student in the arm with a pencil, and fighting. There were no referrals that involved a confrontation with a teacher. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell provided her account of the incident at hearing. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that she became the student’s teacher in August 2016. Shortly after he became her student, she became aware of his disruptive behavior. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell had a practice of telling J.K., “[I]’m going to call your mom if you don’t settle down,” to encourage him to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior. On April 20, 2017, Respondent was working with three students on the iReady system when she heard someone say “[t]he folder hit me.” When she approached a group of three boys, including J.K., one student said, “J.K. just hit me with a folder.” Ms. Stripling-Mitchell instructed the boys to get back to work. Before she returned to her seat, she heard someone say “Stop.” She then returned to J.K. and told him, “[y]ou’re going to need to go sit on the picnic table.” J.K. agreed to return to the iReady activity. However, a short time later, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell heard a loud yell from one of the boys at J.K.’s table. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell then repeated to J.K., “[y]ou’re going to have to leave.” Ms. Stripling-Mitchell recalls that Ms. Jones arrived and sat at a table in the opposite corner of the room and began changing her shoes. During this time, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell continued to engage in a back-and-forth exchange with J.K. Similar to Ms. Jones’ account of the incident, J.K. swung the laptop at Ms. Stripling-Mitchell and she blocked it. Then, J.K. tried to punch her, which she also blocked. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that after she blocked his punch, J.K. continued to attack her by trying to throw her to the floor. She testified that she had to restrain him against the dry-erase board to avoid falling. It is disputed whether the student continued to attack Ms. Stripling-Mitchell after she took the laptop and blocked his punch. Ms. Jones testified the student was not attacking Ms. Stripling-Mitchell, but rather he was trying to get away while Ms. Stripling-Mitchell was restraining him. On the other hand, Ms. Stripling-Mitchell testified that the student was trying to “flip” her, which is why she restrained him. The undersigned finds Ms. Jones’ testimony more credible. After J.K.’s failed attempt to punch her, there was no evidence of a threat for which Ms. Stripling-Mitchell needed to defend herself. Even if there was a threat, Ms. Stripling- Mitchell inappropriately touched J.K. by restraining him against the dry-erase board using her hand against his neck area. Ultimate Findings of Fact Overall, the credible evidence demonstrates that Ms. Stripling-Mitchell restrained the student against the dry- erase board using her hand near his neck. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she told the student that his mother was going to discipline him at home for his behavior in front of other students. Ms. Stripling-Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she instructed the student to leave her classroom to sit at the picnic bench.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Duval County School Board, enter a final order sustaining the Step III written reprimand and suspension without pay disciplinary action imposed against Respondent, Stephanie Stripling-Mitchell, as an instructional employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 12th day of December, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, a Behavior Management Teacher (BMT), due to Respondent's inappropriate interaction with a student on April 16, 2014, as alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a BMT at Allapattah Middle School (Allapattah), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately 14 years pursuant to a professional service contract and subject to Florida Statutes, the regulations issued by the Florida State Board of Education, the policies and procedures of the School Board, and the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement in effect between Miami-Dade Public Schools and United Teachers of Dade (UTD contract). During his employment with the school district, Respondent took a break from teaching to attend divinity school. He became a permanent teacher in 2007 and worked in Miami Senior High School. Respondent transferred to Allapattah in 2011 at the request of its assistant principal. During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent served as a SPED reading, language arts, and math teacher. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent held dual roles as the SPED Chair and a SPED teacher. In November 2013, Respondent was offered and accepted the position of BMT at Allapattah. The BMT is considered the "first in line" to deal with a student who causes a disturbance in the classroom by behavior such as cursing or fighting. If called by a teacher to assist or a BMT observes a student acting out in such a way as to disrupt a classroom, the BMT intervenes to try and get both sides of the story regarding why the student is upset and tries to redirect or modify the student's behavior so that the student can remain in the classroom. If that is unsuccessful, the BMT removes the student to a special education classroom where the BMT uses other techniques, such as discussing respect, to calm the student. The BMT may also recommend an in- school or out-of-school suspension. Respondent was in a graduate program for guidance counseling when offered the BMT position. He accepted the position because he felt the BMT role would help him better understand the student population with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBDs). As the BMT, Respondent was assigned 30 students with severe behavioral issues. Respondent also continued some duties of the SPED Chair position until February 2014. Respondent received uniformly satisfactory performance evaluations throughout his teaching career with Petitioner. He was not previously counseled or disciplined for any reason. On April 16, 2014, Towanda Seabrook, the SPED Chairperson, entered a seventh-grade classroom for observation and saw two students being disruptive. N.H. was cursing the classroom teacher, and D.J. was talking with other students. Ms. Seabrook directed these students to leave the classroom and go with her to the SPED office/classroom. The SPED office/classroom is in Allapattah's classroom 1165. It is a large room with several work stations and a conference table that are used by the EBD counselors, teachers, and the BMT. Attached and opening into the SPED office/classroom are the offices of the SPED Chairperson and EBD counselors. After going with Ms. Seabrook to the SPED classroom, N.H. directed his profanity and ranting at Ms. Seabrook calling her a "motherfucker," "whore," and "bitch" and repeatedly saying "fuck you" to her. Ms. Seabrook attempted to defuse the situation by explaining that she is a mother and asking N.H. how would he like it if someone said these types of graphic things to his mother. Ms. Seabrook chose not to go "toe to toe" with N.H. because she was aware that his exceptionality, EBD, causes him to be unable to control his emotions and temper. N.H. is known to curse and use profanity directed at teachers. Despite N.H.'s continued use of graphic language, Ms. Seabrook felt she had the situation under control and attempted to complete some SPED paperwork. Respondent entered the classroom and heard N.H.'s barrage of profanity and aggression directed at Ms. Seabrook. Respondent was familiar with N.H. due to N.H.'s history of being disrespectful to teachers, running out of class, name calling, defiance, and fighting. Respondent worked with N.H. on an almost daily basis attempting to help N.H. stay in school and modify his behavior to facilitate learning. Respondent described N.H. as one of the most difficult students with whom he was assigned to work. Because the BMT is supposed to be the first line of response to a belligerent and disruptive EBD student, Respondent immediately tried to diffuse the situation by reasoning with N.H. N.H. proceeded to call Respondent (an African-American male) "Nigger," "Ho" (whore), "pussy," "punk," and repeatedly said "fuck you." This tirade by N.H. went on for almost 45 minutes. During this time, N.H. and D.J. sat at the conference table in the classroom. Throughout the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent had tried numerous strategies to assist N.H. in controlling his behavior and temper at school-–all with no success. On April 16, 2014, after listening to N.H. verbally abuse Ms. Seabrook and himself, Respondent decided to use an unorthodox strategy to get N.H. to understand the gravity of his words and to calm down. Respondent asked N.H. if he knew what "fucking" means. N.H. responded "a dick inside a pussy." Respondent replied, "A dick inside a pussy? Maybe if you were fucking you wouldn't behave this way," implying that if N.H. was having sex, perhaps he would be better able to control his emotions at school. Ms. Seabrook overheard this portion of the conversation and it made her uncomfortable so she left the room. She believed this method used by Respondent was inappropriate and not likely to be successful, and she intended to talk to Respondent about it before advising the principal. Notably, Ms. Seabrook did not feel the need to intervene or immediately report the conversation and testified that in response to N.H.'s provocation, she may also have said "fuck you" back to N.H. This graphic discussion was also overheard by Deborah Phillips, an EBD counselor, who was in an adjacent office with the door open. After N.H. called Respondent a "pussy," Respondent asked N.H. if he knew what one was, had ever seen one or knew what to do with one. Ms. Phillips did not intervene or report the conversation. According to Ms. Phillips, this extremely graphic and profane interaction between N.H. and Respondent was only a minute or two. Ms. Phillips testified that she would not go toe to toe with N.H. because she believed it would only elevate the behavior. While Respondent and N.H. were arguing, and Respondent asked N.H. to define the words he was using, D.J. used his cell phone to video and audio record approximately 25 seconds of the conversation. In the recording, Respondent is heard telling N.H. to spell "Ho." N.H. answered "hoe," and Respondent stated, "yea nigga-–that's what I thought." During the brief recording, D.J. is heard laughing in the background. The conversation had the desired effect. N.H. started laughing and immediately calmed down. Respondent was able to escort N.H. to the principal's office where it was decided that N.H. would not be suspended, but rather Respondent would drive N.H. home. During the ride home, N.H. was calm and there were no further incidents or inappropriate discussions. The following school day, D.J.'s mother brought the recording to the attention of the principal who initiated an investigation. Respondent immediately expressed remorse and regret that he used this unconventional method of defusing N.H.'s anger. Respondent admitted participating in the graphic dialogue and acknowledged that it was inappropriate. As a result of the investigation, Respondent was suspended effective June 19, 2014, without pay and recommended for termination from employment. Findings of Ultimate Fact As discussed in greater detail below, Petitioner proved Respondent violated School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, but failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed any of the other charged offenses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order: (1) finding that just cause does not exist to terminate Respondent's employment; and (2) imposing punishment consisting of suspension without pay from employment through the end of the first semester of the 2014-2015 school year for violation of School Board Policy 3210 that does not amount to misconduct in office. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 20th day of November, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the two Respondents, or either of them, should be assigned to the Petitioner's school program.
Findings Of Fact During the 1989/90 school year, Michel Alvarez and his brother, Maikel Alvarez, were both students at American Senior High School in Dade County, Florida. Michel was in the ninth grade and Maikel was in the tenth grade. During the 1989/90 school year, Michel and Maikel Alvarez were students in the industrial arts class of a teacher named Morton Bernstein. On May 1, 1990, during the change of classes after second period, Michel Alvarez approached another student in his second period industrial arts class, Benny Rodriguez, and asked why the latter had been pointing at him. A verbal dispute ensued as to whether there had been any pointing and, if so, what anyone was going to do about it. Thereupon, Michel tackled Benny around the waist with enough force to knock Benny to the floor. Both boys fell to the floor, Benny beneath on his back, Michel above, facing Benny and holding onto him. They struggled on the ground. As they struggled, a large crowd of other students quickly gathered. During the course of the struggle, Benny Rodriguez was kicked or stomped several times. As a result of the blows he received during the struggle, Benny Rodriguez suffered a broken nose and several bruised ribs. 1/ Maikel Alvarez was nearby when he was informed that his brother was in trouble. Maikel pushed his way through the crowd and worked his way towards the middle. Maikel pulled his brother off of Benny Rodriguez and Maikel and Michel Alvarez moved away from the crowd of students. Maikel and Michel Alvarez both went to their respective third period classes. During third period, both of them were called to the Principal's office. At about the same time that Maikel Alvarez went to help his brother, a teacher named Morton Bernstein became aware of the crowd and the struggle and went to break it up. When Bernstein got to the scene of the fracas, the struggle was over and Benny Rodriguez was on the floor, obviously injured. Bernstein assisted Benny and called the school security office. A school security officer accompanied Benny to the main office. Donald Hoecherl, an assistant principal, was present when the security officer brought Benny to the office. Hoecherl put Benny in a room and asked if he was okay. Benny was still bleeding but was coherent. Hoecherl questioned Benny to find out what happened. He then summoned Michel and Maikel to the office where he questioned them. He also called the parents of the students involved, the police, and the school's special investigative unit. Hoecherl had the students write down what happened after they had given him a verbal account. Benny was released to his parent. He was taken to his doctor who then sent him to the hospital. He remained hospitalized for two days and had an operation for the fracture to his nose. Mrs. Alvarez arrived and Hoecherl explained, through an interpreter, what had happened based on the account he had gotten from Bernstein and the students. During the discussion with Mrs. Alvarez and her sons, Maikel appeared to have a poor attitude and he did not appear to be taking what had happened seriously. Mrs. Alvarez told Maikel to straighten up in his chair. She then slapped him. Maikel pushed his mother against the wall. Hoecherl and the police officer who had been called to the school had to restrain Maikel from further physical confrontation toward his mother. Maikel was placed in handcuffs. Hoecherl told Mrs. Alvarez that he was suspending both Michel and Maikel for ten days and recommending an expulsion with a waiver to opportunity school. He made certain that School Board rules and procedures for according the Alvarezes their due process rights were followed. Hoecherl prepared and mailed home the Notice of Suspension forms for Maikel and Michel which narrated the reasons for the disciplinary actions and the right to a school level hearing. Michel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the suspension was for battery and kicking another student. Maikel's Notice of Suspension form indicated that the action was being taken for battery on a student and parent. Both forms indicated that these rule infractions were Group III violations. The School District's Code of Student Conduct provides that Group III violations warrant expulsion from school. Bernstein had both Michel and Maikel as students in his industrial arts classes. Michel required more attention than the rest of the students. Bernstein described Michel's behavior as disruptive of the regular program and also indicated that Michel's behavior created safety concerns because of the use of power tools in his class. Michel was not passing Bernstein's course because of excessive absences and poor effort. Maikel did little or no work in Bernstein's class. He sat around and talked to friends and did not complete projects. His absences were excessive and he was not passing. Carol McKenny taught Michel math. Michel was disruptive, absent excessively, and was making no effort. He required more attention than her other students, which made it difficult to teach. She talked to Michel and to Mrs. Alvarez about her concerns in an attempt to help him, yet this produced no noticeable improvements in his behavior, attendance, or effort. James McKiernan taught Maikel biology. Maikel was failing this subject because he was making no effort and was frequently absent. McKiernan spoke with Maikel and Mrs Alvarez, but Maikel did not improve. Henry Adams was Michel's and Maikel's guidance counselor. He talked to both students during the year in an attempt to help them. He discussed their chronic absences which were in excess of the state mandatory attendance requirements. He discussed the relationship of attendance to grades. He discussed their behavior in class. He talked to Mrs. Alvarez about their absences and poor progress in school. Adams, who is knowledgeable of the programs offered by the district's opportunity schools, is of the opinion that both students would benefit from such placement because of the smaller class sizes, more structured environment, and increased counseling services. Hoecherl conducted a review of both students' school records files prior to making his final recommendation to the Assistant Superintendent for Alternative Education. His review included grade reports, ability test scores, discipline reports, and attendance information. Michel has average ability and was capable of making B's and C's; however, he failed six of eight courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel has average to slightly below average ability, but was capable of average work in the courses he was taking; however, he failed seven of nine courses during the year. Even had he not been suspended on May 1, 1990, he would not have been academically successful because of his grades prior to the last marking period. Maikel had previously been suspended for five days for fighting. This was a Group III expellable offense. Maikel also had been assigned to several Saturday schools in an attempt to help him remediate the work he had missed when he cut classes on approximately 20 occasions. Saturday school is a District- approved method for helping a student improve his academic performance through a tutorial program. American High School had provided both Michel and Maikel with a variety of student services, including counseling by Adams, Saturday school for Maikel, teacher conferences, and parental contact by the administration. Despite the school's efforts, both students were not successful in the regular program at American High School. An opportunity school assignment would assist Michel and Maikel because it would provide greater structure, smaller class sizes and increased student services. This educational alternative program would afford both students an opportunity to become more successful in school. Maikel is currently enrolled in the opportunity school. He is doing well in his classes and has improved his attendance.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Dade County School Board enter a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that Michel Alvarez and Maikel Alvarez are properly assigned to Douglas MacArthur Senior School-North, an opportunity school located in Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County Florida, this 11th day of December, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1990.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent had just cause to suspend Petitioner for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that the School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was employed full-time with the School Board as a teacher and held a professional service contract. Mr. Boundy had been a teacher with the School Board for 15 years. In his professional career, Mr. Boundy had been a teacher, then had practiced law in the State of Florida for 15 years, and had become a teacher again. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was assigned to Nautilus Middle School, hereinafter Nautilus, in the Miami-Dade County’s school district. He was assigned to teach science. On September 30, 2005, Mr. Boundy was teaching his science class at Nautilus. He was having problems with one particular student, D. M., who was approximately 14 years of age.1 D. M. had just returned to class from being on indoor suspension, for cutting class. Earlier that day, after having returned from indoor suspension, D. M. had been involved in a physical altercation, a “minor”2 fight, and Mr. Boundy counseled him. At lunch time, another teacher broke-up a fight between D. M. and another student; Mr. Boundy counseled him again. Mr. Boundy determined that the first fight did “not” warrant a “write-up” and that the second fight perhaps “may” have warranted a write-up but that he decided not to do so.3 After lunch, while in Mr. Boundy’s class, D. M. had another fight with a student, which was D. M.’s third fight that day. Mr. Boundy has a policy in his class that, “after three strikes, you’re out,”4 therefore, instead of counseling D. M. again, Mr. Boundy determined that a “write-up” was warranted and that D. M. had to leave his class. Mr. Boundy told D. M. to leave the class and go to the office. Before leaving the class, D. M. began spraying perfume and then walked out into the hallway but did not go the office. Mr. Boundy observed D. M. still outside in the hallway. When Mr. Boundy walked out of his class into the hallway, he observed D. M spraying perfume in the hallway. Mr. Boundy asked D. M. to give the perfume to him (Mr. Boundy). D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy at which time Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.’s hand and pulled it behind his (D. M.’s) back and told D. M. that he (D. M.) needed to go to the office. The hallway outside of Mr. Boundy’s classroom is equipped with a surveillance camera, which recorded the interaction between Mr. Boundy and D. M. after the contact described above. The surveillance camera does not record as a regular video camera but records as a series of snapshots or still pictures approximately every second, with gaps in between the snapshots; therefore, the surveillance camera fails to reveal completely what happens within a segment of time.5 As a result of the gaps in between snapshots of the surveillance camera, the testimony of witnesses is crucial in determining what happened. While in the hallway, the surveillance camera shows Mr. Boundy’s back to it and D. M. directly in front of him in such close proximity as if their bodies were touching. Mr. Boundy testified that he took D. M. by the arms and was directing him toward the doors leading to the office. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found to be credible. Subsequently, while also in the hallway, the surveillance camera, in several snapshots, shows Mr. Boundy and D. M. separated, with D. M. facing Mr. Boundy, who testified that D. M. wrestled away from him. The surveillance camera also shows, in one snapshot, Mr. Boundy’s left hand on D. M.’s right shoulder and, in another snapshot, D. M. moving back toward the classroom. Mr. Boundy testified that D. M. was going back to the classroom without his (Mr. Boundy’s) permission. D. M. admitted that he was returning to the classroom without Mr. Boundy’s permission. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found credible. Further snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy grabbing D. M. by the arms and shoulder area, when D. M. gets close to the classroom, and pushing D. M. down the hallway; and shows some students observing the conduct in the hallway. Also, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy and D. M. exiting the exit doors at the stairwell, with Mr. Boundy continuing to hold D. M.’s arms. After they go through the exit doors, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy releasing D. M. and watching D. M. go down the stairs. Mr. Boundy testified that he told D. M. to go to the office. D. M. does not deny that Mr. Boundy told him to go to the office at that point. D. M. went to the main office. The school counselor, Amy Magney, talked with D. M., who was loud and appeared to be agitated. Ms. Magney observed marks on D. M.’s arms and the back of his neck, which she described as “very red.” D. M. informed Ms. Magney that Mr. Boundy’s forceful touching had caused the red marks. Ms. Magney took D. M. to the assistant principal, Ms. Gonsky, who observed marks on D. M.’s arms, which were red, and marks on D. M.’s the neck, shoulder area, which Ms. Gonsky described as a “little red.” Mr. Boundy admits, and at no time did he deny, that he grabbed D. M. by the arms and shoulder area. For example, at the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, Mr. Boundy admitted that he held D. M.’s arms by the back directing him towards the stairs. A detective of the School Board’s police department reviewed the snapshots by the surveillance camera. From the detective’s observation, he determined that Mr. Boundy did not take any malicious action against D. M.; that D. M. was resisting Mr. Boundy; that, at one point, D. M. made an aggressive action against Mr. Boundy; and that Mr. Boundy was “directing, escorting” D. M. through the exit doors. D. M. testified that Mr. Boundy also grabbed him around the neck. Mr. Boundy denies that he grabbed or touched D. M.’s neck but admits that he grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area. V. V., a student in Mr. Boundy’s class, testified that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. by the neck, pushing D. M. out of the classroom. Also, the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, indicates that the same student stated that, while Mr. Boundy and D. M. were in the hallway, D. M. swung at Mr. Boundy and struck him in the chest. Mr. Boundy denies that he was struck by D. M. and D. M. denies that he struck Mr. Boundy. V. V.’s testimony is not found to be credible. The snapshots by the surveillance camera do not show Mr. Boundy grabbing or touching D. M.’s neck. Ms. Magney was the first person in the school's office to observe the marks, and when she saw the marks on the back of D. M.’s “neck,” the marks were “very red”; however, when Ms. Gonsky, the second person in the school's office to observe the marks, the marks around the “neck, shoulder area” were a “little red.” Further, D. M. had been in two physical altercations before the incident with Mr. Boundy and the last altercation had occurred at lunch time. Ms. Gonsky’s account of the location of the red marks is not inconsistent with Mr. Boundy’s testimony, regarding the shoulder area. Additionally, when Ms. Gonsky observed the marks at the neck, shoulder area, they were a little red, not red or very red. The undersigned finds Mr. Boundy’s and Ms. Gonsky’s testimony and account more credible regarding the marks being at the shoulder area, not the neck. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area and that the marks at the shoulder area were caused by Mr. Boundy and were a little red. No dispute exists that D. M. was being disruptive. Mr. Boundy had counseled D. M. on two occasions that same day for fighting. D. M. had committed a third strike by fighting again in Mr. Boundy's class, and according to Mr. Boundy's classroom policy of which the students were aware, the third strike meant that the student was leaving the classroom and going to the school's office. Mr. Boundy was going to write-up D. M. for the incident but did not do so. Before he could write-up D. M., Mr. Boundy was summoned to the school's office after the administrators in the office observed the marks and heard D. M.'s version of the incident. At the beginning of each school year, the principal of Nautilus, Caridad Figueredo, has an opening meeting, consisting of two days. At the opening meeting, among other things, Ms. Figueredo notifies the Nautilus' faculty that they must comply with the rules of the School Board and the Code of Ethics, and some of the rules are reviewed with the faculty. Further, at the opening meeting, Nautilus' faculty is provided a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Nautilus' faculty signs an acknowledgement that they understand that they are responsible for becoming knowledgeable about the rules and adhering to them. Mr. Boundy signed an acknowledgement and received a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Regarding physical contact, Ms. Figueredo indicates at the opening meeting that the School Board prohibits using physical contact to maintain discipline or to affect a student’s behavior. As a result, at the opening meeting, she informs Nautilus' faculty, and stresses to them, that they should not use physical force or, generally, to come in physical contact with the students. However, as to coming into physical contact with students, an exception is recognized and allowed in the touching of a student by a teacher if the teacher has a rapport with the student and the student has no objection to or approves of the teacher just tapping him or her. That exception is not applicable in the instant case. Nautilus had a 2005-2006 Faculty and Staff Handbook, hereinafter Handbook. The Handbook contained a Progressive Discipline Plan, hereinafter Plan, for teachers to use when they encounter disruptive students. The Plan contained several steps of action, which provided in pertinent part: Step I: Teacher The teacher may handle discipline in the following ways (list not inclusive): Move close to the student – use verbal and/or non-verbal techniques to correct behavior problems * * * Speak with the student on a one-to-one basis * * * Contact parent (verbal and/or written) Hold parent or student/parent conference PLEASE NOTE: Parent contact is REQUIRED before a referral can be made to the administration. Only disciplinary problems involving infractions of the Code of Student Conduct Group III or higher (fighting . . .) may be directly referred to the administration using a case management form. * * * Step IV: Referring Students For Administrative Action Students should be sent directly to the appropriate administrator only when critical incidents occur such as fighting . . . Please use your emergency button to request for[sic] assistance. If a student becomes disruptive and you request removal the administrator will take the appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary according to the Code of Student Conduct and provide teachers immediate feedback. (emphasis in original) The Handbook also contained a section entitled “Things To Remember When Dealing With A Student,” which provided in pertinent part: 4. DON’T: Snatch things away from students. Become confrontational. Physically block an exit. Argue or get on the student’s level. Shout or put them down. Disrespect them. * * * 6. Use common sense regarding touching students: Be aware that affectionate gestures may be misconstrued. Avoid physical contact of any kind in situations involving you and student (i.e. where there are no witnesses). Additionally, the Handbook contained a section entitled “How to Avoid Legal Complications as an Educator,” which provided in pertinent part: Respect the space of others. Do not place your hands on students. * * * Know the laws, School Board policies and school rules, and follow them. * * * Corporal punishment is prohibited in Miami- Dade County Public Schools. Treat each student with respect. Establish a policy regarding discipline. Distribute the policy to students and parents at the beginning of the year or when the students begin your class. The School Board has established “Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment,” which provides in pertinent part: Purpose of the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment This document, Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment, is incorporated by reference and is a part of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Maintenance of Appropriate Student Behavior. It has been prepared to assist school administrators in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. These procedures and directions are set forth to guide and promote orderly and productive participation of students in school life and support the achievement of Florida's education goal for school safety and environment, Section 229.591(3)(e), F.S. Student actions and behaviors that can be defined as disruptive and/or threatening must be dealt with according to Florida Statutes, and Florida Board of Education and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules. This manual contains information necessary to assist school administrators in making the most appropriate decisions and taking warranted action in promoting maintaining a safe learning environment. * * * Administrators, counselors, and appropriate staff are expected to become familiar with this document, to review it periodically, and to utilize it according to its inherent purpose -- promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As the administration and staff at each school site address the requirements of current Miami- Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) guidelines, they should also review modifications of requirements related to school discipline and school safety as established by the Florida Legislature. * * * GUIDELINE #39: REMOVAL OF STUDENT FROM CLASS AND POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF THE STUDENT BY THE TEACHER CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: Florida Statutes and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules allow for teachers to remove a disruptive student from class if the behavior of the student has an adverse effect on the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with students or the ability of the students to learn. Section 232.271, F.S., provides for the right of the teacher to refuse to accept a student back to class who has been removed for disruptive behavior which adversely affects the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with the students or with the ability of the students to learn. Provisions for Exceptional Students: The Placement Review Committee shall refer to the IEP team all exclusion requests for students from exceptional education classes. Temporary Removal from Class 1. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive, prior to the student's return to class, a report describing corrective action(s) taken. Guidelines for implementing this provision shall be developed by each Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC). Code of Student Conduct Infractions The principal or designee will follow the Code of Student Conduct on all disciplinary matters. Only those disciplinary problems which disrupt a teacher's instruction, when the teacher requests the student's permanent removal from class, shall be referred to the Placement Review Committee, if the request is not resolved by the principal. A CFR was held on November 15, 2005. A Summary of the CFR was prepared and provides in pertinent part: [Mr. Boundy was asked]: 'Did you touch the student?' [Mr. Boundy] replied: 'Yes and it will never happen again.' * * * The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you [Mr. Boundy] during the conference: Adhere to all M-DCPS [Miami-Dade County Public Schools] rules and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Rules [sic] 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Cease and desist from utilizing physical means to effect the behavior of students. * * * During the conference, you [Mr. Boundy] were directed to comply with and were provided copies of the following School Board Rules: 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties 6Gx13-4A-1.213, The Code of Ethics You [Mr. Boundy] were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's [School Board's] concern for any behavior, which adversely affects this level of professionalism. You [Mr. Boundy] were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. . . . Further, attached to the Summary of the CFR was "Guideline #9: Corporal Punishment, Current Law and/or Practice, from the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment," which provides in pertinent part: GUIDELINE #9: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS PROHIBITED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. . . . Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), F.S., defines corporal punishment as: . . . the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rule. However, the term 'corporal punishment' does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary for self-protection or to protect other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with the Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331, Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students and Article VIII of the Contract Between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to Mr. Boundy’s going into the hallway, to confront D. M., alternative avenues were available to Mr. Boundy for sending D. M. to the school's office without confronting him in the hallway. Nautilus has a protocol that, whenever a teacher is unable to control a disruptive student by using classroom management techniques, the teacher can press a security button, located in the classroom, and a security monitor or an administrator will immediately come to the classroom. The security monitor or administrator will assess the situation and remove the disruptive student. Mr. Boundy failed to use this established protocol. The undersigned does not find credible the testimony given on alternative methods of dealing with D. M., as a disruptive student, in terms of in-school suspension, student mediation, conflict resolution, parent involvement, alternative education, suspension, and expulsion as being applicable to the instant case. These alternatives are available after the student is removed from the classroom to the school's office; they fail to address the immediate removal of the physical presence of a disruptive student from the classroom. The exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline Nos. 9 and 39, regarding the use of physical restraint techniques for situations involving Exceptional Student Education (ESE), is not applicable to the instant case. Mr. Boundy's class was not an ESE class, and D. M. was not an ESE student. Also, the exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline No. 9, regarding situations to protect other students, is not applicable to the instant case. None of the other students in Mr. Boundy's class were in harm's way or needed protection in the hallway outside Mr. Boundy's classroom. However, the exception to corporal punishment in a situation for self-protection, i.e., the protection of Mr. Boundy from D. M., was applicable in the instant case. When D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy, Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.'s arms and put his (D. M.'s) arms behind his back; at that instant, Mr. Boundy was in need of self-protection and he (Mr. Boundy) acted appropriately. But, the evidence fails to demonstrate that, after Mr. Boundy prevented D. M. from striking him, Mr. Boundy continued to be in need of self-protection. Self-protection failed to continue to exist and failed to exist during the time that Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall to the exit doors. The Administrative Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Gretchen Williams, testified that Mr. Boundy's use of physical contact in the handling of D. M. in the hallway and that the presence of red marks on D. M., exemplified excessive force, which rendered Mr. Boundy's action as a violent act. Further, she testified that Mr. Boundy's conduct was corporal punishment; that his violent act constituted unseemly conduct; and that his violent act was contrary to the School Board's prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment, which constituted unseemly conduct and was conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Williams' testimony is found to be credible. Also, the School Board's Administrative Director, Region II, DanySu Pritchett testified that Mr. Boundy's physical force constituted violence in the workplace; and that he failed to maintain the respect and confidence of the student and the value of worth and dignity of the student through the use of physical force. Further, she testified that the failure to use an alternative method of removal by using the emergency call button was poor judgment and constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Pritchett's testimony is found to be credible. Additionally, Ms. Figueredo, testified that Mr. Boundy subjected D. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by using physical force in the hallway in front of D. M.'s classmates while Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall. Further, Ms. Figueredo testified that, during the hallway incident, Mr. Boundy engaged in corporal punishment, conduct unbecoming an employee of the School Board, unseemly conduct, and poor judgment, and was not a good role model to the students and staff. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Also, Ms. Figueredo testified that Mr. Boundy's use of poor judgment and failure to use established protocol and to exemplify a good role model to the students and the staff caused Mr. Boundy to lose his effectiveness. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Pending the investigation of the incident by the School Board, Mr. Boundy was removed from the classroom. He was placed on alternative assignment, i.e., at his home. Due to Mr. Boundy's failure to follow established protocol at Nautilus for the removal of D. M. from the classroom, to the physical force used by Mr. Boundy, to the marks that were a little red and were caused by the physical force, and to the seriousness of the incident, by memorandum dated November 21, 2005, Ms. Figueredo recommended a 30-day suspension for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Ms. Pritchett agreed with the recommendation. By memorandum dated December 1, 2005, the School Board's Region Center II concurred in the recommendation. On February 28, 2006, a meeting was held with Mr. Boundy to address the forthcoming School Board's consideration of the recommendation for a 30-day suspension without pay. Those in attendance included Mr. Boundy, Ms. Williams, Ms. Pritchett, Ms. Figueredo, and a UTD representative, Mr. Molnar. The determination was that Mr. Boundy would be recommended for a 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, including but not limited to "deficient performance of job responsibilities; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; and violation of State Board Rule 6B-1.001, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment--Prohibited." By letter dated March 1, 2006, Mr. Boundy was notified by the School Board's Assistant Superintendent, among other things, that the School Board's Superintendent would be recommending, at the School Board's meeting scheduled for March 15, 2006, the 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, indicating the violations aforementioned. By letter dated March 16, 2006, the School Board's Assistant Superintendent notified Mr. Boundy, among other things, that the School Board had approved the recommendation and that he was not to report to work at Nautilus from March 16, 2006 through April 26, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding that just cause existed for the 30-day suspension, without pay, from employment of Robert Boundy. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Arthur Williams, committed the violations alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, whether such violations are just cause for his suspension without pay for thirty days.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a duly constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the school district. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Arthur Williams, was an employee of School Board and was subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations pertinent to employees of the school district. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed pursuant to a professional service contract and was assigned to teach beginning band at Norland Middle School. The sole incident complained of in this case occurred on or about January 24, 2006, in the Respondent’s sixth period band class. The Respondent’s band class was located in a large classroom with three riser sections formed into a semi-circle. Students assigned seats in the higher section would step up the risers using the railed “hallways” leading to the upper sections. On or about January 24, 2006, C. M. was a student in the Respondent’s sixth period class. C. M. had an assigned seat in an upper riser section. For reasons known only to C. M., the student left his seat and walked down the riser hallway to pick up a piece of paper and throw it into a trash can located on or near the floor. Presumably, the trash can was at the lowest section (compared to the student’s seat). When the Respondent observed the student, C. M., out of his seat, he approached the student, put his hands on the student’s shoulders, turned him around (to then face his seat), and told him to return to his seat. In connection with the verbal direction to return to his seat, the Respondent gave the student a slight shove to direct him in the proper direction. The student, C. M., was out of his seat without permission, was unprepared for class, and was not responsible for throwing trash away (presumably an act he felt justified his behavior). The slight shove was so imperceptible that it did not offend any student who observed the action. C. M. did not show any sign of injury at the time of the incident described above. None of the students alleged that the Respondent had acted in anger in redirecting the student to his seat. None of the students perceived the act of redirecting the student as an act of corporal punishment or physical aggression against the student. Some six days after the incident complained of, the mother of the alleged victim took the student to the hospital. The mother claimed the student was diagnosed with a sprained ankle. There is no evidence to support a finding that the Respondent caused the alleged victim’s alleged sprained ankle. None of the other student witnesses verified that C. M. was injured or seen limping on or about the date of the incident. The Respondent continued teaching at the school through the conclusion of the 2005-2006 school year. The Respondent did not endanger the student, C. M., at any time. After the incident complained of herein, the student’s mother decided to move the student from the Respondent’s class. When the Respondent went to a conference with the office of professional standards there was no allegation that the Respondent had failed to comply with the corporal punishment guidelines. The act of redirecting the student to his seat was not an attempt at corporal punishment. The Respondent did not make physical contact with the student, C. M., to maintain discipline. It is undisputed that the Respondent was merely attempting to get the student to return to his seat. The Respondent’s conduct did not disparage the student. The Respondent’s conduct did not embarrass the student. The Respondent did not push C. M. down. On or near the date of the incident, the Respondent called C. M.’s parent to address the student’s poor class performance. The incident complained of herein was not addressed during the call. In fact, prior to the call, C. M. had not complained regarding the incident described above. When faced with an allegation of poor class performance, C. M. told his parent about the incident described above and claimed he had been injured in the process. The alleged injury prompted the removal of the student from the Respondent’s class. Thereafter, the parent contacted the Petitioner’s region office to file a complaint against the Respondent. That complaint resulted in the instant action. Ms. Pritchett maintained that the Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been adversely impaired as a result of the parent’s complaint regarding the incident. The record lacks any information regarding the Respondent’s past school performance. No prior disciplinary issues or actions were noted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a Final Order concluding the Respondent’s behavior does not warrant a 30-day suspension. S DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2007, 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 2nd day of April, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Rudolph F. Crew Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Ana I. Segura, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carol Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with the St. Lucie County School Board.
Findings Of Fact The Parties/Background Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida. In or around 1987, Respondent graduated from Florida Atlantic University with a bachelor of science degree in education. It is undisputed that Respondent holds no other professional degree, much less one that would permit him to utilize the title "doctor." (The significance of this point will be illustrated shortly.) The following year, in 1988, the School Board hired Respondent as a classroom teacher, a position he has held since that time. By all appearances, Respondent's employment with the School Board proceeded without incident for more than 20 years, during which period he earned favorable performance evaluations and received no disciplinary sanctions. In October of 2011, and as a minor bump in the road, the principal of Port St. Lucie High School ("PSLHS"), Dr. Mark Rendell, issued Respondent a "letter of concern" after he received information that Respondent had criticized a PSLHS graduate in a Facebook posting. Among other things, Dr. Rendell's letter cautioned Respondent that communications with members of the public should be "carried out in an ethical and professional manner," and that educators are held to a "higher standard than other citizens." Respondent's real troubles with the School Board began on May 18, 2012, with his arrest in Okeechobee County in connection with several criminal offenses——charges to which he would later plead no contest. The conduct that led to the arrest is fully explicated below; suffice it to say for the moment that Respondent allegedly utilized an inauthentic animal inspection certificate in connection with his sale (and shipment) of a dog to an out-of-state purchaser, Gail Richards. The School Board's ensuing investigation into Respondent's behavior, which culminated in the filing of the instant Complaint, uncovered other instances of alleged wrongdoing, namely: that Respondent had sold and shipped animals with bogus inspection records in two transactions that preceded the sale to Ms. Richards; and that, in connection with his service as a dog judge for the American Kennel Club, Respondent had misrepresented his educational qualifications by using the title "doctor." The undersigned begins with the facts relating to Respondent's transactions with Ms. Richards and the other purchasers. Transactions at Issue At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent bred and sold animals——specifically, cats and longhaired dachshunds——under the moniker "Aviance Show Dogs." Respondent's activities in this regard, which occurred during his employment with the School Board, occasionally involved the shipment of animals by commercial aircraft to out-of-state purchasers. The School Board alleges, and Respondent does not dispute, that an animal shipped from state to state via a commercial airline must be accompanied by a health inspection certificate, a document formally known as a "Certificate for Interstate or International Movement of Small Animals" (hereinafter "inspection certificate"). The pre-printed language of an inspection certificate solicits, among other information, the name and contact information of the animal's owner, a description of the animal, the identity and address of the purchaser, and, most important, a certification from a licensed veterinarian that the animal has been vaccinated for rabies, as well as examined and found to be free from clinical signs of contagious disease. As alluded to previously, the School Board contends that, in connection with three separate transactions that occurred over a span of 19 months, Respondent utilized inspection certificates that were fraudulent or otherwise illegitimate. The first transaction in question, which took place in late February or early March of 2009, involved Respondent's sale and shipment of a dachshund (named "Uno") to co-purchasers who resided in the state of Texas. Oddly, the dachshund, which Respondent shipped from Florida by commercial airline, was accompanied by a "State of California Department of Food and Agriculture" inspection certificate. Even more peculiar is the fact that, notwithstanding Respondent's admission in this proceeding that Uno had never been to California, the inspection certificate's handwritten entries indicated: that Uno was evaluated for signs of contagious disease at the Santa Clara Pet Hospital on February 28, 2009; that "Jennifer W. Lawrence," a California veterinarian, performed the examination (the inspection certificate bears what purports to be her signature); that Dr. Lawrence holds California license number 12620; and that, on the date of the examination, a rabies vaccine was administered. As it happens, there is a Dr. Jennifer Lawrence who holds license number 12620 and practices veterinary medicine at the Santa Clara Pet Hospital in Santa Clara, California; the problem, though, is that Dr. Lawrence——who, prior to this proceeding, had never heard of Respondent——credibly testified that she neither examined Uno nor signed the inspection form. What is more, Dr. Lawrence's testimony establishes that Uno has never been examined or treated by any veterinarian employed at the Santa Clara Pet Hospital. In other words, the veterinary information handwritten on the face of Uno's inspection certificate is false. Three months later, on June 5, 2009, Respondent shipped a cat named "Beau" by commercial aircraft from Florida to a purchaser in Texas. The "State of California" inspection certificate accompanying the shipment listed Respondent's name and address, the purchaser's contact information, and the cat's name, age, and gender. Although the inspection certificate's handwritten notations also indicate that Dr. Jennifer Lawrence examined Beau at the Santa Clara Pet Hospital (on June 4, 2009, a day Respondent concedes1/ he was not in California), Dr. Lawrence's credible testimony establishes, once again, that she did not sign the certificate, and, further, that the animal in question had never been evaluated or vaccinated by any veterinarian at her clinic. By all appearances, the two transactions discussed above did not result in any direct, adverse consequences to Respondent; the same cannot be said for the next sale at issue, which involved Respondent's shipment of a dachshund (identified as "Jackson") to Ms. Richards. It is undisputed that, on or about October 16, 2010, Respondent shipped Jackson by commercial airline from Florida to Missouri, where Ms. Richards resided. As with the other sales, Jackson was accompanied by a "State of California" inspection certificate that included Respondent's name and contact information, the name of the purchaser, and a description of the dog. The face of the inspection certificate also indicated that "Dr. Drew Lawrence" had examined and vaccinated Jackson at the "San Jose Animal Hospital" on October 14, 2010. (Whether such a veterinarian or clinic actually exists is of no moment, for Respondent admits that Jackson was never examined by a "Drew Lawrence" in the state of California or anywhere else.2/) The peculiarities of Jackson's inspection certificate did not go unnoticed: a short time after delivery, Ms. Richards contacted Respondent and inquired about the handwritten notations regarding the dog's purported examination and vaccination. Dissatisfied with Respondent's explanation, Ms. Richards ultimately filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Agriculture. Thereafter, on June 7, 2012, the State of Florida charged Respondent by information with three criminal offenses, all of which related to the transaction with Ms. Richards. In particular, Respondent was charged with: forgery of a certificate of veterinary inspection, a third degree felony3/ (Count I); failure to inoculate a dog or cat transported/offered for sale, a first degree misdemeanor (Count II); and failure to include a health certificate with a dog or cat offered for sale, a first degree misdemeanor4/ (Count III). Some six months later, on December 5, 2012, Respondent reached a plea agreement with the State, the terms of which called for the dismissal of Count II and the entry of no contest pleas to Counts I and III. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of the misdemeanor charge and sentenced to a probationary term of 12 months. With respect to the felony offense, the adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on probation for five years; as a special condition of that probation, Respondent was ordered to make restitution to Ms. Richards in the amount of $2,050——Jackson's approximate purchase price. Although Respondent does not deny that the three inspection certificates at issue contained illegitimate veterinary information, he asseverates that the inauthentic entries were made without his knowledge or involvement. In particular, Respondent claims that the three animals in question were examined at his residence (in Okeechobee County) by a veterinarian who operated a mobile clinic; that the veterinarian supplied the inspection certificates; that he (Respondent) filled out some of the information on each of the forms, such as his name and address, the identities of the purchasers, and the names of the animals; and that the mobile veterinarian was responsible for the bogus vaccination and examination entries, which Respondent asserts he never saw. For a multitude of reasons, Respondent's explanation is rejected. First, Respondent's claim that he has no recollection of the mobile veterinarian's identity or the name of the clinic (a business he purportedly used on at least three occasions over a span of more than 19 months) is dubious at best. Further, it is highly improbable that Respondent could have managed to fill out some of the information at the top of each form——which he concedes he did——without taking notice of the headers reading "State of California." If that were not enough, Respondent's version of the events contemplates, incredibly, that the mobile veterinarian, on his or her own accord and without Respondent's involvement, affixed (to two of the forms) "Jennifer Lawrence" and "Santa Clara Pet Hospital"——a veterinarian and animal clinic used by Margaret Peat, a longtime acquaintance of Respondent's and a person with whom Respondent has co-owned various animals.5/ Finally, the record contains written statements from Respondent, albeit in connection with different transactions than the three at issue in this matter, which reflect his willingness to utilize illegitimate inspection certificates. For instance, on March 1, 2010, Respondent posted, via Facebook, the following message to Ms. Peat concerning an impending shipment of two dogs, "Blossom" and "Dimitri": That would be the perfect home for Blossie. I have a show 12-14 of March but I can run her to the airport any other day. I'd like to ship Dimitri at the same time to you so that I can combine the trip and the shipping. . . . PBI is the airport, use West Palm Beach and use Continental or Delta. I think both do prepay. I will use two of the blank health certificates you gave me so there will not be a charge for that . . . . Petitioner's Exhibit 23A, p. 16 (emphasis added). Subsequently, on April 19 and May 3, 2011, Respondent wrote as follows to a buyer identified as Jacqulyn Waggoner: Sorry for the delay. . . . I can have [the dog] out this Friday. The crate you used is way too small so I'll buy the next size up. I will do a health certificate from another dog so expenses will stay at a minimum. * * * So is [the flight] paid and confirmed? I'm sending [the dog] with a fake health certificate so you don't have a charge on that. Petitioner's Exhibit 22, pp. 392-393; 399 (emphasis added).6/ Based upon the findings detailed above, it is determined that Respondent was aware of, and responsible for, the illegitimate notations to the three inspection certificates in question.7/ Other Allegations As noted previously, the Complaint further alleges that Respondent has inappropriately utilized the title "doctor" in connection with his service as a dog judge for the American Kennel Club ("AKC"), and that such conduct occurred during his term of employment with the School Board. The first documented instance of such behavior occurred in 2002, when Respondent submitted several applications to the AKC for placement on its registry of dog judges. In one of the applications, dated March 28, 2002, Respondent wrote his name as: "John S. Contoupe, DR." The other application reads, similarly, "John S. Contoupe DR." Not surprisingly, the AKC identifies Respondent in its directory of judges as "Dr. John S. Contoupe." Subsequently, in late 2010 or early 2011, Respondent traveled to Russia to judge a dog show for an international organization. Upon his return, Respondent drafted an article (for a hunting publication of some sort) in which he described his overseas experience. The article, which Respondent disseminated to the publisher by e-mail using his School Board account, contained the following closing: "Respectfully, Dr. John S. Contoupe."8/ Respondent's inappropriate use of the title "doctor" has not been limited to written expression. Indeed, an acquaintance of Respondent's in the dog show community, Marianne McCullough, credibly testified that, during their first meeting in or around 2010, Respondent introduced himself as "doctor." Ms. McCullough further recounted, again credibly, that she has observed other persons address Respondent as "doctor" on various occasions and that Respondent never corrected them. Another witness called by the School Board, Mary Boyle (who likewise met Respondent at a dog show roughly four years ago), testified truthfully that she believed——erroneously, as she later found out——that Respondent held a doctoral degree, that she would introduce him to others as "doctor," and that Respondent never corrected her. Ultimate Findings It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office by virtue of his violation of School Board Policy 6.301(3)(b)(vii), a provision that subjects an employee to discipline, including termination, upon a conviction for any criminal act that constitutes a misdemeanor. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of immorality, as that offense is defined by the State Board of Education. Although Respondent's use of the title "doctor" and falsification of the inspection certificates were unquestionably dishonest, there has been no showing that such behavior, which occurred outside the presence of students, brought the education profession into public disgrace or impaired Respondent's service to the community. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of gross insubordination. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the disposition of Respondent's criminal offenses did not involve a conviction for, or plea of guilty to, a crime involving moral turpitude.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order finding Respondent: guilty of violating School Board Policy 6.301(3)(b)(vii); guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2); not guilty of immorality; not guilty of gross insubordination; and not guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. It is further RECOMMENDED that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2013.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent, a teacher, for 30 days without pay for pushing a student.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by the School Board as an eighth-grade teacher at NDM, a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has taught for the School Board for 15 years without receipt of any prior discipline. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. The proposed discipline is based upon conduct occurring on Thursday, March 4, 2014. On that day, 14-year-old eighth-grade student, D.H., entered Respondent's classroom approximately ten minutes late. Respondent told D.H., “You are going to jail.” When D.H. asked why and said he had done nothing wrong, Respondent did not answer and instructed D.H. to immediately leave the classroom. This interaction was observed by other students in the classroom. D.H. exited to the hallway outside of Respondent's class. At or about this same time, substitute teacher Green was walking several students who had been disruptive to other classrooms. Green took a female student to Respondent's class. Green saw D.H. and told him to go into the classroom. Green opened Respondent's classroom door and asked if she could leave the female student with Respondent and he agreed. While Green and Respondent were talking, D.H. attempted to re-enter the classroom as directed by Green. Respondent stood in front of D.H. and told him he was not allowed to enter. D.H. asked why and said he was going to enter. Respondent replied, “You'd have to go through me first. I wanna see that.” D.H. replied, “Man, I ain't studying you, I don't even see you.” Respondent and D.H. then got in a heated verbal exchange. Green tried unsuccessfully to have Respondent calm down and go back in the classroom. Respondent taunted D.H. by saying he was waiting for D.H. to throw the first punch and that he would give D.H. a “beat down.” Respondent escalated the situation by calling D.H. “weak” and saying “You have no power. That's why you always get beat up.” D.H. was visibly upset and Green kept him separated from Respondent. Respondent went back into the classroom and closed the door, but continued making comments, gestures, and laughing at D.H. in front of his classmates. D.H. remained in the hall yelling. Respondent opened the door again and said if D.H. put his hands on him, he would give him a beat down. D.H. moved from behind Green, towards Respondent, and got a few inches from him and said, “I'm right here. What are you going to do?” D.H. did not touch Respondent. Respondent hit D.H. hard with two open hands to D.H.'s chest causing D.H. to stumble several steps and fall into Green. At the time of this incident, Respondent weighed 220 pounds. D.H. was 14 and weighed approximately 140 pounds. Green told another student to call security and then convinced Respondent to go back in his classroom. Green took D.H. to her classroom. D.H. was not physically injured, but was embarrassed. As a result of the investigation, Respondent was suspended without pay for a period of 30 days for misconduct in office, in violation of State Board of Education and School Board rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding Richter Flambert guilty of misconduct in office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of 30 school days, and placing him on probation for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2015.
