The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race, age, or sex in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner, an African-American male, as a paraprofessional, non-instructional employee at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent School Board is the body politic responsible for the administration of public schools within the Suwannee County School District. Petitioner was a member of the non-instructional chapter of the United Teachers of Suwannee County, Florida, and was subject to the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement between that organization and Respondent. Additionally, Petitioner’s employment was subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Continuing Contract of Employment Non-Instructional Education Support Employees of the Public Schools executed between Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner worked at the Suwannee Primary School in Live Oak, Florida. Petitioner’s work schedule required him to work Monday through Friday of each work week. Petitioner’s duty day started at 7:30 a.m. and ended at 2:40 p.m. Marilyn K. Jones, the principal of the Primary School, was Petitioner’s immediate supervisor. Although their surnames are the same, Principal Jones and Petitioner are not related. Petitioner approached Jones on February 14, 2005, and spoke with her regarding his recent employment with a state prison. Petitioner informed Jones that he had been hired as a corrections officer and that he was required to attend orientation and training sessions. Petitioner informed Jones that the initial orientation and training sessions were held during times he was required to work at the Primary School. Petitioner asked for a couple days off from his work at the Primary School to attend these initial sessions. Petitioner was hopeful that once the training and orientation sessions were completed, his work hours with the state prison would be from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and would not interfere with his employment with Respondent. Jones informed the Petitioner that he could use personal leave time that he had accumulated to attend the orientation and training sessions. Jones requested that Petitioner keep her posted regarding the days he would be absent and directed him to complete and submit the forms required to take leave prior to the actual absences so that arrangements could be made for substitute personnel to assume Petitioner's duties. Petitioner did not, however, submit the proper leave forms and the training period at the prison was longer than the originally expected. Additionally, after discussions with the payroll Department, Jones learned that the Petitioner did not have enough accumulated leave time to allow for his previous absences. Jones and the Petitioner had a telephone conversation on March 5, 2005. Jones informed Petitioner that he had been absent more times than their initial understanding, that he had failed to submit the leave forms in advance of the days he would be absent, and that he did not have leave time available. Petitioner apologized for the additional time that he had been absent and again noted that he thought that after the first few days of training, his work at hours at the prison would be from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Jones told Petitioner that his continued absences would be unauthorized and that she did not want him to be fired for taking unauthorized leave. Jones informed the Petitioner that if he wished to resign, he could submit his resignation to her. On March 7, 2005, Petitioner met with Jones and her assistant principal Betty Ann Sumner, along with Sheryl Daniels, the president of the Teacher’s Union, to discuss Petitioner’s absences. Petitioner expressed his desire to work three days a week at the Suwannee Primary School and the other two days at his job with the prison. Jones reiterated her previous statements to Petitioner that she was concerned for him and did not want the School Board to terminate his employment based on his absenteeism. Jones informed Petitioner that he had taken days off from work without providing any advance notice and advised that in the event of future absences, Petitioner must submit the appropriate forms in advance. When Petitioner raised the subject of a leave of absence until the fall semester so that he could schedule his employment with the prison and Respondent to avoid time conflicts, he was referred to Respondent's district office. Subsequently, Petitioner requested a 10 week leave of absence with the Superintendent of the Suwannee County School District, J. Walter Boatright, to continue to pursue training as a corrections officer. Under School Board policy, an absence in excess of five days has to be approved by the School Board. Boatright declined to bring Petitioner’s request for leave to the Suwannee County School Board based on his view that the Board’s policies did not allow an employee an extended leave of absence to receive training for an unrelated second job, that the end of the school year was approaching, and that the School District needed the presence of all of its employees. As established by Boatright's testimony, Respondent often has difficulty finding substitute personnel when its employees are absent for wholly legitimate reasons. Boatright informed Petitioner that he would not recommend that the School Board approve Petitioner’s request and would not bring Petitioner’s request to the School Board for its consideration. Additionally, Boatright recommended that the School Board deny Petitioner’s request for leave for the days that he had already been absent. Petitioner never personally appeared before the School Board to submit his request for personal leave. After Boatright's decision was communicated to him, Petitioner was again absent without leave on several occasions. Petitioner met with Boatright on March 24, 2005. At that meeting, Boatright warned Petitioner that he faced disciplinary action, including termination from employment if he continued to be absent from his non-instructional position without leave. In response to Boatright’s warnings, Petitioner said, “Anybody can do what I do” and suggested that Boatright simply obtain a substitute teacher to fill his position. Following Petitioner's remarks, Boatright informed Petitioner that his role with the Suwannee County School District as a paraprofessional, non-instructional employee was important. Sheryl Daniels, the president of the United Teachers of Suwannee County was also present at the meeting on March 24, 2005, with Boatright and Petitioner. Daniels asked Boatright to reconsider Petitioner’s request for leave because Petitioner had been a good employee in the past and this should merit some additional consideration. Boatright, however, denied Petitioner’s request for leave. Later, Petitioner received a letter dated April 20, 2005, from Boatright, confirming and reiterating the warning delivered to Petitioner during the March 24, 2005. In this letter, Boatright, advised Petitioner “that any further absence without leave on your part after the receipt of this letter will result in my recommendation to the Suwannee County School Board for your termination.” Subsequent to Petitioner’s receipt of the April 20, 2005, letter from Superintendent Boatright, Petitioner was again absent without leave in late April and in May of 2005. On April 28, 2005, Petitioner received his annual employment evaluation. The evaluation was performed by Jones, his principal. An employee’s overall evaluation rating is determined by adding the employees’ scores in seven different categories. Although Petitioner received an overall rating of “Effective,” Petitioner’s rating with respect to his professional responsibilities was “Needs Improvement.” Jones’ evaluation noted that although Petitioner did a good job in the computer lab, his frequent absences were a concern and that student behavior had deteriorated in Petitioner’s classes when he was absent. On April 28, 2005, Boatright filed a petition with the School Board to terminate Petitioner’s employment. A hearing was scheduled for May 15, 2005. The School Board rescheduled the May 15, 2005, hearing, however, when Petitioner requested additional time to prepare for the hearing. Thereafter, Petitioner was served with an Amended Petition for Termination of Employment filed by Boatright. The Superintendent’s Petition for Termination of Employment charged Petitioner with violating Suwannee County School Board Policy Section 6.22, which states, “[a]ny employee of the District who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of the absence and the employee contract shall be subject to cancellation by the School Board.” By letter dated May 31, 2005, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation to Respondent. In that letter, Petitioner wrote that he was submitting his resignation due to the denial of his request for an unpaid leave of absence and the need to avoid further damage to his reputation. Petitioner also stated in the letter that he thought he had been the subject of discrimination and was left with no alternative but to resign his position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Mike Jones Post Office Box 372 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Andrew J. Decker, IV, Esquire Andrew J. Decker, III, Esquire Post Office Box 1288 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Ellis was born in Peru. She is Hispanic. No dispute exists that she is a member of the protected class as it relates to discrimination. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, the Day School was an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. No dispute exists that Ms. Ellis has day care and pre- school experience. She was a teacher in pre-school and day care in Peru and in the United States after moving to the United States with her husband in 1988. Ms. Ellis was also a previous owner of a day care in the United States. In 1998, Ms. Ellis moved to Florida with her husband. She found employment as a day care teacher. In working as a day care teacher, Ms. Ellis also assisted with cleaning the room in which the children were located. On January 10, 2000, Ms. Ellis requested a teacher's assistant or teacher's aide position at the Day School. She did not know of any openings at the Day School. The Day School had not advertised any vacant positions. Ms. Ellis met with Ms. Louise Brand, the director of the Day School.2 The Day School was associated with a church and had a diverse student population. The student population included children from different Hispanic countries, Haiti, and the Bahamas. The diverse student population also included children from different socio-economic backgrounds. Additionally, the teachers and teacher's aides, as well, were diverse.3 At the meeting on January 10, 2000, Ms. Brand inquired as to Ms. Ellis' birthplace, and Ms. Ellis informed her that it was Peru. Ms. Ellis presented to Ms. Brand several certificates, which indicated, among other things, that Ms. Ellis had completed courses and training regarding the care of children. Ms. Ellis also presented documents showing that she had experience in day care centers assisting teachers. Ms. Brand requested a high school diploma from Ms. Ellis. The Day School requires a high school diploma to be hired as a teacher's aide or teacher's assistant, but Ms. Ellis was not informed by Ms. Brand that the Day School was requiring a diploma for the position of a teacher's aide or teacher's assistant. Ms. Ellis had a high school diploma from Peru but did not provide proof of having it to Ms. Brand because Ms. Ellis did not have the diploma with her, since none of the other day care centers at which she worked had requested the diploma. A teacher's assistant, teacher's aide, and assistant teacher are one in the same. These terms and positions were used interchangeably in testimony. Teacher's assistant and teacher's aide are used interchangeably in this Recommended Order. Ms. Brand was aware that Ms. Ellis was Hispanic. At hearing, it was evident that Ms. Ellis speaks with an accent which is Hispanic. Additionally, an interpreter was used when Ms. Ellis testified to make it easier for her (Ms. Ellis) to respond to the questions asked. Ms. Ellis speaks basic English. The Day School requires a teacher's aide to be able to "speak, read and write English." Ms. Brand did not inform Ms. Ellis that speaking English was a requirement to be a teacher's aide at the Day School. Ms. Ellis was not aware that speaking English was a requirement. Ms. Brand instructed Ms. Ellis to return the next day for work. When Ms. Ellis left the Day School, she was expecting to be hired as a teacher's assistant. Ms. Ellis returned to the Day School the next day, dressed to teach, and brought a completed employment application with her. To Ms. Ellis' surprise and dismay, Ms. Brand informed her that no position for a teacher's assistant was available; that only a cleaning position was available; and that Ms. Ellis could take the position of a cleaning/housekeeping person until a teacher's assistant position became available. Ms. Ellis agreed to take the cleaning/housekeeping position.4 Ms. Brand was Ms. Ellis' supervisor. The Day School requires a housekeeping person to be able to "speak, read and write English." As the cleaning/housekeeping person at the Day School, Ms. Ellis had several responsibilities. Her responsibilities included mopping; vacuuming; cleaning out refrigerators; cleaning curtains; assisting the cook; cleaning the area where the children ate; taking out the garbage, which weighed approximately 60 to 70 pounds; moving and placing donated canned goods; and taking out bags of mulch. Ms. Ellis' duties spanned two buildings. Ms. Ellis complained to no avail to Ms. Brand regarding all of the duties given her. Ms. Ellis considered the work to be too much and some of the work to be too heavy. In February 2000, while at work, Ms. Ellis slipped on the floor at the Day School and ammonia was spilled over her body. She was on her way to complain to Ms. Brand about the inordinate amount of work that she was doing. Ms. Ellis had headaches for two weeks after the accident. No evidence was presented that Ms. Ellis reported the accident to Ms. Brand. After slipping on the floor, Ms. Ellis inquired of Ms. Brand as to when she was going to be hired as a teacher's assistant. Ms. Brand ignored her question and told her to return to work. In February 2000, Ms. Ellis attempted to give Ms. Brand a copy of her diploma. Ms. Brand informed her that she (Ms. Brand) did not need a copy. Subsequent to the inquiry about a teacher's assistant position, Ms. Ellis observed individuals, who were white and who had not completed high school, being hired as, believed by Ms. Ellis, teacher's assistants. Ms. Ellis questioned Ms. Brand regarding hiring her as a teacher's assistant. Ms. Brand ignored her and told Ms. Ellis to return to work. No dispute exists that, in the summer of 2000, high school students, who were non-Hispanic, were hired as part-time teacher's aides. Also, some worked more hours than part-time. Ms. Ellis continued to inquire of Ms. Brand about being hired as a teacher's assistant. Ms. Brand told Ms. Ellis that "Spanish are only good for cleaning" and to return to work. Ms. Ellis continued to work as the cleaning/housekeeping person. On Friday, August 4, 2000, around noon, Ms. Ellis injured her back while attempting to throw garbage into the dumpster. She had taken garbage, weighing approximately 60 or 70 pounds, to the dumpster. Ms. Ellis attempted several times to lift and throw the garbage into the dumpster but could not. On her last attempt, she heard something click in her back and remained at the dumpster, without trying to move. After an elapse of some time, Ms. Ellis went to Ms. Brand's office, holding her lower back, and explained to Ms. Brand what happened. Ms. Brand told Ms. Ellis to return to work. Ms. Ellis then requested to go to the hospital, but Ms. Brand denied the request, informing Ms. Ellis that she could go wherever she wanted after 5:30 p.m., which was the end of Ms. Ellis' workday. Ms. Ellis remained on the job until 5:30 p.m. After 5:30 p.m., Ms. Ellis saw a physician, Seth H. Portnoy, D.O., who determined that she had injured her back, a lumbar strain. Dr. Portnoy wrote a prescription of restrictions, which indicated that Ms. Ellis should not perform any bending, lifting, pushing, or pulling for 10 to 14 days and that she needed rest. On the following Monday, August 7, 2000, Ms. Ellis gave the prescription to Ms. Brand, who threw it on the floor and told Ms. Ellis to go to work. Ms. Ellis went to work even though she was in pain and taking prescribed medication for pain. For the next two weeks, Ms. Ellis continued to come to work although she performed very light and little, if any, work. During the entire time, she was in pain and taking prescribed medication for her back. Ms. Ellis continued to request time off for her injury from Ms. Brand, but Ms. Brand refused to pay Ms. Ellis while she was off, thereby not working, so Ms. Ellis continued to come to work. On August 17, 2000, while at the Day School, Ms. Ellis was having severe pain and sat down, not proceeding to a building to which Ms. Brand had directed her to go. When Ms. Ellis failed to report to the building, Ms. Brand directed someone to send Ms. Ellis to her (Ms. Brand's) office. Before getting to Ms. Brand's office, Ms. Ellis and Ms. Brand met one another at the kitchen. Ms. Brand had a list of duties that Ms. Ellis was expected to perform in order to continue to work at the Day School, including taking out garbage. Also, at that time, Ms. Brand wanted Ms. Ellis to take out a heavy bag of garbage; however, Ms. Ellis refused to take out the garbage. Ms. Brand told Ms. Ellis to follow her to her (Ms. Brand's) office. At the office, Ms. Ellis and Ms. Brand got into a shouting match. Ms. Brand made abusive remarks to Ms. Ellis and poked Ms. Ellis with her finger. Ms. Ellis tried to leave Ms. Brand's office, but Ms. Brand prevented her from leaving. A small and short scuffle ensued, with Ms. Brand grabbing Ms. Ellis' shirt, tearing it, and Ms. Ellis suffered a bruise on her buttocks from falling on Ms. Brand's desk. Ms. Ellis was shortly thereafter able to leave Ms. Brand's office, and left shouting "She [Ms. Brand] fired me. She fired me!" When Ms. Ellis left Ms. Brand's office, she (Ms. Ellis) believed that Ms. Brand had fired her. Ms. Ellis did not return to the Day School to work. No dispute exists that between January 2000 and December 2000, the Day School employed full-time and part-time teachers and teacher's aides, some of whom were Hispanics. One such Hispanic teacher's aide was Maria Guerrero who is from the country of Colombia. Ms. Guerrero was hired by Ms. Brand at the Day School around February or March 2000, to work in the afternoons as a teacher's aide and anywhere she was needed. Ms. Guerrero has a high school diploma. Not only was Ms. Guerrero a teacher's aide, but she also had the duties of helping in the kitchen, sweeping floors, taking children on the outside and not remaining inside at any time, and taking out the garbage. As to the garbage, Ms. Guerrero dragged the garbage bags because they were too heavy to lift. At times, some of the non-Hispanic teachers and teacher's aides assisted in doing these same additional duties to "help out," but none were required to do so as often as Ms. Guerrero. Ms. Guerrero considered such treatment of Hispanics by Ms. Brand to be different than the treatment of non-Hispanics by Ms. Brand. Ms. Guerrero resigned from her position in June 2000 because she could no longer handle the many duties imposed upon her by Ms. Brand; because she felt that she was being treated unfairly by Ms. Brand; and because constantly being in the outside heat was too much for her. In addition to being a teacher's aide, Ms. Guerrero was a "floater." The duties of a floater are generally the same as were Ms. Guerrero's additional duties, i.e., filling in where needed. Ms. Guerrero was present when Ms. Brand made the remark to Ms. Ellis regarding Spanish people. Ms. Guerrero heard Ms. Brand state that "Spanish is good for cleaning." The undersigned finds no difference in this statement and the statement indicated by Ms. Ellis, i.e., "Spanish are only good for cleaning." Ms. Guerrero's testimony is found to be credible. At the time Ms. Ellis was in Ms. Brand's office on August 17, 2000, Dorothy Scowronski's, who is the present director of the Day School, worked in the administrative office and was referred to as the "front desk" person. Ms. Scowronski's desk was approximately five feet from Ms. Brand's office. Only a wall and a door separated Ms. Scowronski from Ms. Brand's office. Ms. Brand had two doors in her office which were usually open but were closed at this time. Although Ms. Scowronski was unable to hear what was being said between Ms. Ellis and Ms. Brand, she knew that the two of them were shouting. Ms. Scowronski agrees that Ms. Ellis left Ms. Brand's office shouting that she was fired but also recalls Ms. Brand walking behind Ms. Ellis and telling Ms. Ellis that she was not fired. The undersigned does not find the testimony credible that Ms. Brand told Ms. Ellis that she was not fired. Ms. Brand terminated Ms. Ellis from employment with the Day School. No evidence was presented that Ms. Brand sent or Ms. Ellis received written communication that Ms. Ellis was terminated from employment. Since August 17, 2000, when she was terminated, Ms. Ellis has not worked and has not been able to work, which includes seeking employment, because of her back injury. She has herniated discs, is totally disabled,5 and is in constant pain. She cannot sleep. She has no insurance. Ms. Ellis has a pending workers' compensation claim based on the injury to her back at the Day School. Ms. Ellis pays $80.00 a month for prescribed medication for depression. No evidence was presented as to a psychological or psychiatric report regarding her depression. The evidence is insufficient to draw an inference that the depression is a result of her experience at and termination from the Day School. Ms. Ellis' position as the cleaning/housekeeping person paid $7.25 per hour. She worked eight hours a day, five days a week. The evidence does not show that an allegation of hostile work environment was set forth in Ms. Ellis' complaint of discrimination or Petition for Relief. Further, the evidence does not show that the FCHR investigated an allegation of hostile work environment. Ms. Ellis was represented by counsel in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order: Finding that the Village Methodist Day School (Day School) discriminated against Lindaura Ellis on the basis of her national origin and ordering the Day School to cease such discrimination. Ordering compensation to Ms. Ellis reflected in an adjustment in her rate of pay consistent with this Recommended Order. Ordering the payment of attorney's fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2003, 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 1st day of December, 2003.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Deborah Green, hold Florida teaching certificate 586445, covering the areas of Math, Elementary Education and Educational Leadership. The certificate is valid through June 30, 1997. During the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent was a teacher in the Pinellas County Schools GOALS program at Dixie Hollins High School. GOALS stands for Graduation Options - Alternative to Leaving School. It is a drop-out prevention program. Although the evidence did not describe the GOALS program in detail, the evidence suggests that GOALS teachers may be in the position of having to change some of the rules of regular education in order to keep students from dropping out and yet may still be subject to criticism for not conforming to the rules of regular education. Put another way, there appears to be the potential for some of the priorities of the GOALS program to be inconsistent with some of the priorities of regular education, and it was not clear from the evidence how GOALS teachers are supposed to balance the competing interests. One of the Respondent's GOALS students in history class during the 1991/1992 school year was Andrew Patrick. By definition, as a GOALS student, he was at risk to drop out when he entered the program. He also was a poor student, especially in math. Emotionally, Patrick seemed to suffer from an abnormally strong need to feel popular while at the same time failing to realize that the results of his efforts to be popular generally were the opposite of what he intended. After letting down his guard and allowing himself to be friendly and civil with the Respondent, he soon came to like her personally. At the same time, he seemed to sense (probably correctly) that a personal relationship with the Respondent, who was a very popular teacher, could make him popular by association. Over time, a close teacher-student relationship developed between the Respondent and Patrick. The Respondent was able to use this relationship to further her goal of keeping Patrick interested in school. In addition, the Respondent discovered that Patrick became more interested in school the more he was allowed to help the Respondent in the classroom. As a means of legitimate "positive stroking," the Respondent gave Patrick more and more responsibilities in her classroom and praised him for carrying them out successfully. Over time, Patrick developed an adolescent crush on the Respondent. He became unusually interested in her and in the details of her personal life. He learned, accidentally at first, that the Respondent was dating a man named Michael Miller, who was married and who was the principal of another Pinellas County high school. He questioned her repeatedly about her relationship with Miller and also pestered the Respondent's adopted daughter, who also was in the GOALS program, for information about the Respondent and her personal life. (Actually, the girl was the daughter of a close friend of the Respondent. The Respondent and her friend helped each other raise their children. Both families lived in the Respondent's home, and the Respondent referred to the girl as her daughter.) In addition, for a student, he bought her relatively expensive gifts; he also bought her gifts more frequently than the other students. The Respondent did little to discourage Patrick's obvious crush on her. Instead, she exploited it, in part in furtherance of her objectives as his GOALS teacher but also, during the 1992/1993 school year, in part for her benefit. During the 1992/1993 school year, Patrick's role in the Respondent's pre-algebra classroom expanded to what seemed to be practically the Respondent's personal assistant. The Respondent gave Patrick a desk at the front of the classroom near her teacher desk, facing the students, such as a teaching assistant might have. The Respondent had Patrick prepare weekly GOALS progress reports for her to fill out for each student. (He wrote her name in the appropriate blank, but it was not proven that the blank necessarily called for her signature or initials, as opposed to just her identity as teacher.) The Respondent also had Patrick maintain the hall passes for her use. When a student needed a hall pass, she referred the student to Patrick to get one. Patrick would fill out the hall pass and give it to the student. Usually, the hall pass required the Respondent's signature but, on occasion, Patrick forged the Respondent's signature. When the Respondent was made aware that Patrick had forged her signature, she admonished him not to, but she did not monitor very closely or control him very well. The Respondent also had Patrick complete daily attendance slips to be picked up by a runner from the administrative offices. The Respondent also had Patrick use an answer key to grade daily class assignments and some quizzes for his class and other classes she taught and had him enter the grades in a grade book. (There also was one other student who used an answer key to grade some daily class assignments and some quizzes and enter the grades in a grade book for the Respondent, but the other student was not nearly as heavily involved in these activities as Patrick.) It is not clear from the evidence whether Patrick and the other student entered the daily class assignment and quiz grades in the Respondent's official class grade book or in one of the other grade books that the Respondent maintained for other purposes. Patrick usually performed tasks for the Respondent during math class, but sometimes (as the Respondent was aware) he left other academic classes during the school day to the Respondent's classroom to perform tasks for her. Patrick rarely took quizzes himself. The Respondent had determined that Patrick did not test well, and she devised alternative means of measuring his progress in her classroom. Often, Patrick didn't even know when the Respondent was evaluating and grading what he was doing for her in the classroom. Patrick relished his role as the Respondent's assistant, applied himself to it and did a very good job in the role. He obviously tried very hard to please the Respondent, and she gave Patrick credit for his effort and performance. But it seems questionable how the Respondent fairly and accurately could have evaluated and graded Patrick's progress, especially in a class like pre-algebra, based on his performance in the tasks she was assigning him to do for her in the classroom. On the other hand, what she was doing kept Patrick in school, and there was no evidence that the general approach was incorrect in the context of a GOALS program pre-algebra class. During the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent was under stress at least in part due to her relationship with Miller. It probably comforted her to an extent to allow Patrick to draw her into discussions about subjects such as her relationship with Miller. She stopped short of discussing the intimate details of the relationship, but in some respects Patrick could use his imagination to fill in the blanks. Later in the fall, the Respondent had to deal with the additional stress of having to decide whether to accept an offer of marriage from a well-to-do friend from Texas. She freely discussed her dilemma with Patrick. By January, 1993, the Respondent was having serious difficulty handling the stress and began to suffer physical symptoms. She accepted the advice of her chiropractor, who was treating the physical symptoms of her stress, to take a medical leave of absence. Her application for leave was approved through June 11, 1993, and she began her leave on January 27, 1993. When Patrick inquired about the Respondent's absence from school, and was told that she was gone and probably would not be back, he became hysterical. He went to the principal's office and angrily accused the principal of getting rid of the Respondent because of her relationship with Miller (which the principal knew nothing about) because he was confidant that his (Patrick's) relationship with the Respondent was much too close for her to have left voluntarily without consulting with him. He described the nature of their relationship. When the principal denied that he had anything to do with it, Patrick began to blame himself, saying that he had encouraged the Respondent to drop her relationship with Miller and marry the friend from Texas. The principal calmed Patrick down and had him sent home. That evening, Patrick's mother telephoned the principal to complain about the Respondent. She had talked to her son and obtained new information from him about his relationship with the Respondent and his role in her classroom. After receiving the mother's telephone call, the principal telephoned the Respondent to inform her that a student had made serious allegations about her and that the student's mother had called him very upset. He would not tell her what the allegations were but told her the name of the student. The Respondent declined to talk about it further over the telephone but readily agreed to meet with the principal, Patrick and his mother the next day at 1:00 p.m. The Respondent also agreed to write Patrick and his mother to explain that she was on medical leave of absence. It was not proven that the principal told the Respondent not to talk to Patrick before their meeting the next day. On the morning of the next day, the Respondent telephoned the school office to have Patrick paged to speak to her. The office assistant told her that she only could do so if it was an emergency. The Respondent told her that it was. The Respondent spoke with Patrick for about ten minutes. She asked Patrick what he had said to the principal. When he told her, she admonished him that his statements had put her at risk of losing her job and that he had better "get his story straight." He correctly interpreted her to mean that she wanted him to recant his statements in order to protect her and her job. At the meeting at 1:00 p.m., Patrick recanted his earlier statements and claimed that his mother had blown everything out of proportion. It was improper for the Respondent to use Patrick (and, to a lesser extent, the other student), as she did during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year, as a personal assistant to grade class papers for her and enter grades in grade books for her. Her practice gave Patrick improper access to too many students' grades on papers and quizzes. It also tended to create an unhealthy appearance of favoritism. Although it was not proven that a certain amount of special treatment for good behavior and effort would be inappropriate especially in the context of a GOALS class, the Respondent went overboard when it came to Patrick.) It was improper for the Respondent to engage in the close personal relationship that developed between her and Patrick during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year. It became harmful to the learning environment, it changed the relationship from a teacher-student relationship to a friend-friend relationship, and it tended to create an unhealthy appearance of favoritism. Encouraging Patrick to lie for the Respondent in order to protect her job (and Miller's reputation) exposed him to conditions harmful to his learning and mental and emotional health and safety. The Respondent exploited her relationship with Patrick for personal gain or advantage during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year in that she used him improperly as her personal assistant. Except for the incidents that were the subject matter of this case, the Petitioner has a fine record as a teacher. In fact, at the time she took her medical leave of absence, she was about to be interviewed as part of the School Board's Targeted Selection Process for recruiting and training qualified teachers for promotion to a managerial position. The Respondent's inappropriate conduct during the fall of the 1992/1993 school year resulted from the exercise of poor judgment in the degree to which she varied from the conduct expected of a teacher in regular education while teaching in the GOALS program. The Respondent's poor judgment may have resulted in part from the debilitating personal stress from which she was suffering and which, actually on the eve of her Targeted Selection interview, required her to take a medical leave of absence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order suspending the Respondent for 45 days based on the charges that have been proven in this case. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1629 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that either graded test papers or that test grades were entered or that grades were entered in the Respondent's official grade book. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (She gave them A's in part for the work they did for her, rather than solely for scores earned on tests and quizzes administered to the other students.) Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that a "sexual relationship" with the Texan was discussed. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence rejected as not proven that she did not agree to meet until after talking to the student. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part as conclusion of law. Also, rejected as not proven that it is improper for a teacher to have a student grade another student's daily class assignments and homework assignments for immediate feedback. (This usually is done by exchanging papers in class.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. (The extensive use of Patrick as if he were the Respondent's personal assistant was improper.) Rejected as not proven as to Shannon. Accepted and incorporated as to Patrick. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (It was not proven that the Respondent allowed Patrick to forge her signature to hall passes.) Rejected as not proven in the context of the GOALS program. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven as to Shannon. Accepted and incorporated as to Patrick. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. (For purposes of these rulings, consecutive numbers have been assigned to the unnumbered paragraphs of proposed findings of fact in the Respondent's proposed recommended order.) 1. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or conclusion of law. 2.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence that the Respondent just told Patrick to "tell the truth." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Generally accepted but subordinate, some to facts contrary to those found. The documents in evidence reflect that the Respondent did give quizzes in her GOALS classes. And, while evaluators who observed her classrooms saw students grading class assignments, the evidence was not clear that they were aware of the extent of Patrick's role as the Respondent's personal assistant. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the evidence. But the rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 7.-8. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as to Patrick as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. The rest is rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Fourth sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. The rest is rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire Suite 100 1408 North Piedmont Way Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire 501 First Avenue North Suite 600 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Marguerite Longoria Robinson, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 E. 7th Avenue, Suite 301 P. O. Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a permanent Florida Educator's Certificate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on May 25, 1976. She was educated predominantly in the Tampa Bay area, having attended two years of elementary school, all of middle school, and all of high school in Largo. Petitioner is Hispanic and conversant in Spanish, which is the first language that she learned at home, but her primary language is now English, which she speaks fluently and without accent. Petitioner attended the University of South Florida (USF), from which she graduated on July 1, 1998, with a bachelor of science degree and a 3.3 grade point average. She majored in English education and completed the state-approved teacher education program for English certification for grades 6-12. While attending USF, Petitioner participated in an internship under the supervision of a reading teacher with 11 years' teaching experience. During the internship, which ran from January to April 1998, Petitioner taught language arts and drama to Hillsborough County middle-school students who were predominantly Hispanic. Petitioner's supervising teacher gave her two employment references: the first to the Hillsborough County School District and the second to the Pinellas County School District. In the first reference, which is dated April 5, 1998, the supervising teacher evaluated Petitioner as "excellent" in all categories. The categories are "appearance," "English usage," "cooperation and dependability," "emotional stability," "mature judgment," "leadership," "ability to get along with others," and "ability to work with children in a friendly and understanding way." In her remarks, the teacher stated: "We will be lucky to have her." The teacher enthusiastically recommended that Petitioner be employed as a substitute. In the second reference, which is dated September 18, 1998, the supervising teacher assigned Petitioner the highest score in all categories except "ability to discipline," "professional attitude & growth," and "sympathetic understanding and treatment of students," for which the teacher assigned Petitioner the second highest rating. In response to a question if she know why Petitioner should not work with students, the supervising teacher responded, "Absolutely not." In response to a question if she would employ Petitioner, the supervising teacher stated that she would. Under additional comments, the supervising teacher added: "[Petitioner] motivated students on every level. She has the management skills of a ten year teacher." This case arises out of Petitioner's employment during the summer of 1998 as a residential counselor with the Summer Migrant Institute at the University of South Florida (Migrant Institute). This was Petitioner's first job after college. Her prior employment consisted of working at Walgreens pharmacy, escorting USF teachers and students to ensure their safety while walking the USF campus at night, working in the USF Marriott cafeteria, and serving as a substitute teacher in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. Her present employment is in customer service at the Home Shopping Network. The Migrant Institute is a six-week program sponsored jointly by USF and the Hillsborough County School District. Each summer, eligible middle- and high-school students from throughout Florida live in USF dormitories and attend remedial academic instruction in USF classrooms. The Migrant Institute employs teachers and residential counselors, among other staff. During the summer of 1998, the teachers, residential counselors, and three administrators in charge of the program all resided in the dormitories with the students. The residential counselors performed a variety of supportive roles, such as serving as liaisons with the parents, advisors to the students, and assistants to the teachers. The administrators assigned female residential counselors to female students and male residential counselors to male students, at about a 1:10 ratio. Residential counselors, but not teachers, were required to eat their meals with the students in the cafeteria. There is some dispute, even among the administrators, as to what the administrators told the residential counselors they could and could not do with the students. The record suggests that the assistant director, in particular, was somewhat ambitious in his description of the guidelines and prohibitions that the administrators gave the residential counselors. Of course, nothing in the record suggests that Petitioner lacked the common sense to recognize that she could not voluntarily have sexual contact with a 13-year-old male student. The record is less developed as to what the Migrant Institute rules required Petitioner to do if a 13-year-old male student kissed her, once or even twice. However, the evidence does not support, and even contradicts, the assertions of the administrators that the rules of the Migrant Institute prohibited any contact whatsoever between staff and students of the opposite sex. The student involved in this case is A. M., who was born on August 21, 1984. He had failed most of his classes during the prior school year. He attended the Migrant Institute at the suggestion of his school counselor, who hoped that he could acquire sufficient skills to earn a promotion to the next grade. A. M. took five or six classes during the six-week summer program and earned grades of Bs, Cs, and Ds in his courses. A. M.'s first four weeks at the Migrant Institute passed without incident. In the fourth week, A. M. met Petitioner. Although she was not his residential counselor, A. M. approached Petitioner one afternoon while walking to the dormitories from his last class. During this initial conversation, Petitioner and A. M. spoke only about baseball. However, later in the fourth week, Petitioner and A. M. spoke about other matters, such as his grades and personal problems that he was having that interfered with his academic performance. A. M. missed his father, who was working in Mexico. During the fourth week, Petitioner asked A. M.'s teacher to release him from class, so that Petitioner and A. M. could talk about his problems and academic performance. One day, during the fourth week, after Petitioner and A. M. had spoken three or four times, Petitioner and A. M. happened to encounter each other in a stairwell in the dormitory. It was late in the afternoon after the recreation period, just before the students were to prepare to eat supper. Someone had directed Petitioner to find another boy. After she had found him, Petitioner was climbing the stairs to return to her room when she met A. M. walking down the stairs. Petitioner and A. M. spoke for about a minute on the stairs. Then, without warning, A. M. kissed Petitioner briefly on the lips. Completely surprised by A. M.'s behavior, Petitioner pushed him hard, saying, "What the fuck are you doing?" Obviously unhurt by the push and unoffended by the language, A. M. replied that Petitioner had nice lips. She ignored A. M.'s impertinent comment and warned him never again to misbehave in this manner. A. M. apologized and said that he knew he should not do that. Petitioner added that she did not want to get into trouble or be fired from the program, and A. M. said that he understood. Due to her concerns that she would get into trouble for getting kissed and pushing and swearing at a student, Petitioner decided not to report the incident to the administrators. The next time Petitioner saw A. M. neither of them said anything about the incident, and their relationship returned to how it had been prior to the incident. On one other occasion, Petitioner removed A. M. from class to talk to him. On one occasion, Petitioner sat next to A. M. in the cafeteria and ate lunch with him. Two or three days after the stairwell kissing incident, Petitioner encountered A. M., again late in the afternoon. After having walked her students back to their dormitory following class, Petitioner returned to the classroom building to tutor some boys in a study hall. Knowing Petitioner's teaching background, someone had asked her to tutor the boys because, the prior day, one of the boys' tutors had left the program to return to Mexico. A. M. was among the boys in the study hall. For about 45 minutes, Petitioner tutored the boys, but A. M. was disruptive for the entire time, slamming books and throwing paper. Petitioner told him to stop being disruptive and do his work, but he ignored her. Unable to summon assistance, because she would be leaving the study hall unsupervised, Petitioner tried to deal as best she could with A. M., who was a reasonably large, well developed boy. At the end of the study hall, Petitioner dismissed the other students for dinner, but told A. M. to remain so she could speak to him. Petitioner told A. M. that she did not appreciate his behavior and that other students had a right to learn. Petitioner and A. M. were both sitting, facing each other. Suddenly, A. M. leaned over and kissed Petitioner briefly again. Petitioner was upset, although not angry. She said that they had spoken about this before, and he needed to consider the position in which his behavior left both of them. A. M. again agreed not to attempt this behavior. Again, Petitioner did not report the incident due to concerns that she would get into trouble. It is difficult to describe Petitioner's characterization of these two incidents. At the hearing, Petitioner seemed somewhat shy and even intimidated. In her dealing with the authority represented by the persons at the hearing, Petitioner seemed a very young 24 years old and presumably was an even younger 23 years old during the summer of 1998, as she credibly claims to have felt uncomfortable with the three administrators. On balance, the most compelling view of all of the evidence is that Petitioner felt that A. M.'s behavior was a relatively minor annoyance--a product of an otherwise-harmless crush that he had on her and, if revealed, a potential source of trouble for her with her supervisors. Regardless of her handling of A. M.'s advances, Petitioner unwisely did not discourage his flirting, as she admits even to have engaged in some undescribed flirting herself with A. M., "explaining" that he had told her that he was 16 years old. On Sunday, July 19, the director of the Migrant Institute summoned Petitioner to his room to discuss with him, the assistant director, and the residential counselor supervisor reports that they had heard that Petitioner had an improper relationship with A. M. The director, Patrick Doone, was a USF employee. For the most part, he delegated responsibility for the residential counselors to the assistant director, Sundy Chazares, an assistant principal of a high school within the Hillsborough County School District, and the residential counselor supervisor, Rosie Mendez, also a USF employee, who had been a residential counselor for the preceding seven years before becoming the residential supervisor in the summer of 1998. The meeting consisted of two parts. In the first part, which lasted 15 minutes, Mr. Doone began by asking Petitioner if there was "anything going on" between her and a student, possibly naming A. M. Petitioner said that there was not. Mr. Chazares then took over, saying that he knew that A. M. and Petitioner had kissed. Petitioner admitted that she and A. M. had kissed, but added, "it's not the way you think it is." The meeting quickly became confrontational, with Mr. Chazares and Ms. Mendez loudly making accusations, rather than asking questions and giving Petitioner a chance to explain. Illustrative of the level of discourse was Ms. Mendez's rhetorical question, "So you like 14- year-old boys?" Petitioner began to cry and did not say anything else. Mr. Doone then told Petitioner to return to her room, which she did. After a brief discussion among the three administrators, they decided to terminate Petitioner from the Migrant Institute program that night. Mr. Doone summoned Petitioner from her room and told her, "Pack up your bags and leave the premises as soon as possible." After packing her clothes and saying goodbye to the girls whom she had supervised, Petitioner left the USF campus that evening and did not return, nor did she have further contact with A. M. As a result of her termination from the Migrant Institute program, Petitioner lost the job that she had been given to start teaching fulltime in the Hillsborough County School District in the fall of 1998. On September 14, 1998, Petitioner completed an application for a teaching position with the Pinellas County School District. Submitted the next day, the application discloses the employment with the Migrant Institute. Petitioner answered "no" to the question, "Have you ever been suspended without pay, or dismissed from employment or resigned while an investigation was in progress for possible disciplinary action?" The declaration above Petitioner's signature states in part: "I declare that the answers given by me to the foregoing questions and statements are true and correct without pertinent omissions." At the time that she responded to this question, Petitioner was represented by counsel concerning the incidents of the summer of 1998. However, the Administrative Law Judge excluded evidence of reliance upon advice of counsel. Petitioner testified that she felt that a confidentiality directive issued by a Hillsborough County School District investigator precluded the disclosure of her termination, but this explanation is inadequate. If Petitioner had developed evidence of reliance upon advice of counsel, the evidence might have been mitigative, but not entirely exculpatory because such reliance must be justifiable. The application squarely asked whether the applicant had ever been terminated, and Petitioner failed to answer the question. No legal advice can overcome these simple facts. The incidents during the summer of 1998 do not constitute gross immorality or moral turpitude. These incidents do not constitute personal conduct that seriously reduces Petitioner's effectiveness as an employee of the school board. These incidents do not constitute a violation of any of the rules cited in the proposed recommended order of Respondent. Petitioner did not kiss A. M., but was kissed by him. Petitioner mishandled the misbehavior of A. M. by not reporting it to one of the administrators, at least by the second occasion, although it appears likely that Petitioner justifiably feared that she might lose her job, even if she had reported the misbehavior after the first incident. In any event, Petitioner clearly did not enter into a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old student. The omission of the termination from the Pinellas County School District application was material and dishonest. By answering the question in the negative, Petitioner made a fraudulent nondisclosure of information that is crucial to the hiring decision that any school district must make. Lying on this application denied Petitioner's prospective employer of the right that it has to learn of material facts concerning job applicants, weigh this information, and then arrive at an informed employment decision.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner a Florida Educator's Certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 B. Edwin Johnson Attorney at Law 1433 South Fort Harrison Avenue Suite C Clearwater, Florida 33756 J. David Holder Law Offices of J. David Holder, P.A. Post Office Box 489 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven T. George, began teaching in the Bay County school system in the fall of 1977. He was employed as a physical education teacher and as a coach. The Respondent has had an exemplary record as an instructional employee of the Bay County School Board until he encountered personal problems during the 1988-89 school year. During the 1988-89 school year, he was employed as a physical education teacher and assistant football coach at Mosley High School. During that school year, his supervisor, Assistant Principal Sarah Cooper, observed his performance deteriorate unexpectedly and in a way which was out of character from his previous level of performance and demeanor. She found occasions when he was not properly supervising his class and when he had not done lesson plans, as required by the school administration. Ms. Cooper had to assist the Respondent in developing a semester examination, however, he ultimately used an examination given to him by another teacher. Thereafter, he administered the examination but did not complete the grading of it and failed to complete his grade book, which responsibility was ultimately performed by Ms. Cooper. Additionally, during the 1988-89 school year, the Respondent was observed to become increasingly isolated from other members of the faculty. His behavior became characterized by unpredictability, excessive arrogance, argumentativeness, anger and verbal aggression, which was entirely different from the personality traits which he had exhibited and which his co-workers and supervisors had observed since he had been with the school system. Indeed, female teachers in the physical education department were reluctant to be alone in the workroom with him because of the advent of these objectionable personality traits. The Respondent, during this period of time, was undergoing a divorce, or the aftermath of one, which involved a very emotional custody dispute with his former wife concerning custody of their daughter. During the 1988-89 school year, he was observed to repeatedly burden his co-workers and school administrators with the details of his personal problems and to exhibit uncharacteristic and rather severe emotional outbursts of both anger and grief. After being counseled by his supervisors concerning what they believed to be rather bizarre behavior, when measured against his prior performance and demeanor in other school years, the Respondent ultimately voluntarily admitted himself to Charter Woods, a psychiatric treatment and evaluation facility. The Respondent spent approximately 5-1/2 months in that facility, underwent treatment in response to his supervisor's advice to "get some help", and returned to Mosley High School to complete the 1988-89 school year. For the remainder of that school year, the Respondent satisfactorily assumed and carried out all of his responsibilities and performed his work as a teacher in good fashion. His temperament and demeanor had returned to that of the friendly and caring teacher and co-worker which he had formerly been before his personal problems developed. His supervisor, Ms. Cooper, gave him a satisfactory annual evaluation at the conclusion of the 1988-89 school year. The Respondent's emotional difficulties and related performance difficulties as a teacher reappeared in the 1989-90 school year. During the pre-planning phase of his teaching and coaching duties for the 1989-90 school year, in August of 1989, the Respondent was observed to be very disruptive, argumentative, and, indeed, hostile to a visiting speaker at a seminar for instructional personnel. He was observed to repeatedly interrupt the speaker with arrogant, argumentative questions and comments, during the course of which behavior he was observed to be pacing back and forth at the rear of the room where the seminar was conducted while all other attendees at the seminar were seated and listening to the speaker. This arrogant, argumentative behavior was so apparent and so inappropriate for the seminar-type setting in which it occurred that his supervisor felt it necessary to apologize to the speaker at the lunch break on that day. Additionally, during this pre-planning phase of the school year, which is before the children arrive for the school year, the Respondent was observed to have difficulties in his dealings and relationships with other coaches arising out of his increasingly arrogant, argumentative attitude and behavior. Because of this and, inferentially, because his supervisors were aware of his emotional difficulties with which they had had experience the previous school year, the decision was made to relieve him as assistant football coach at Mosley High School. A meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Tucker, the Principal, and Mr. Cochran, the head coach, to explain that action to the Respondent and to explain to him that he would still continue as a physical education instructor. In the course of that meeting, the Respondent became very emotional, hostile, and argumentative. He exhibited frequent angry outbursts to the extent that he would not allow Mr. Tucker or Mr. Cochran to adequately explain the basis of the personnel action directed at him. The Respondent ultimately, angrily departed from the meeting before it was completed. On that same day, he left Mosley High School without administrative permission and went to Cherry Street Elementary School on some mission related to his daughter, who was a student at that school. She had been the subject of a bitter custody dispute between the Respondent and his former wife. He is accused of interfering with the operation of Cherry Street Elementary School on that occasion, although the record does not reflect what his conduct was at Cherry Street Elementary School that day. The 1989-90 school year then commenced at Mosley High School with the arrival of the students. The Respondent assumed his regular duties as a physical education instructor. He was observed, early in that school year, on a number of occasions, to fail to control behavior of students in his gym class and to fail to be in his gym class at appropriate times which amounted to inadequate supervision of his students on those occasions. His planning for his classes was observed to become sporadic, with repeated occasions when he failed to have lesson plans prepared. Also, in the fall of the 1989-90 school year, he was observed to forget his keys to the physical education area on a number of occasions. He would, on repeated occasions, forget, from one period in a school day to the next, what he was to teach that following period. He would have to be reminded by his colleagues. He would also forget to call his students in adequate time at the end of the physical education period for them to dress for their next classes. He had to be reminded by his colleagues to do this. He would also repeatedly forget when he had extra duty, such as "door duty" and locker room assignments. His general level of cooperativeness with his colleagues declined markedly. His behavior became harsh and rude to his colleagues and to students. He was observed to be very harsh and rude to a new student coming into his physical education class and spoke loudly, in an abrasive manner to the student in front of the class, embarrassing that student. These problems occurred repetitively and in rapid succession during the first month of the school year in September of 1989. Because of the nature of the problems, the past history of the Respondent's emotional instability whereby he had lost his ability to be a caring, productive, well-performing teacher (which had been his unblemished record of behavior and performance for all the years he taught prior to the 1988-89 school year), Mr. Tucker, the Principal, felt that he had to act quickly to prevent an even worse situation occurring in the 1989-90 school year when he observed that the Respondent's emotional instability of the year before was recurring. Consequently, Mr. Tucker requested that the superintendent, Mr. Simonson, meet with the Respondent in an effort to resolve his difficulties in the matter of his perceived emotional instability and resulting declining performance. Accordingly, a meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Simonson, and Mr. Tucker on September 30th. At the meeting, the Respondent was confronted with the fact of his displayed emotional instability and related declining teaching performance, at which point he became very belligerent and hostile. He was, alternatively, on the verge of tears and shouting in anger. Because of the above-stated reasons for the meeting and because of the emotional instability which was so apparently displayed by the Respondent during the meeting, Mr. Simonson gave the Respondent three days of sick leave to allow him to remain at home and get some professional attention to try to regain his emotional stability before returning to the classroom. The Respondent's problems persisted, however. Although the precise date is uncertain, at approximately this time, the Respondent announced that he was going to seek election as Superintendent of the Bay County school system in opposition to Mr. Simonson. The Respondent testified himself that he elected to run for this office while he was still a teacher at Mosley High School in part, at least, to save his job because he believed that the Bay County school administration and particularly, Mr. Simonson, would be reluctant to discharge him while he was a political candidate in opposition to Mr. Simonson because of the bad impression that might make on the electorate. Shortly after he made this announcement, again on an undetermined date in the fall of 1989, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the "Baker Act", Section 394.467, Florida Statutes. Apparently, the Respondent's family members had him committed although the precise reasons are not of record. The Respondent expressed the belief at hearing that his family members had him committed because of his announcement to run for Superintendent, although that is not established to be the case. The Respondent, at the time he was committed, believed that he did not suffer from a mental condition justifying his commitment pursuant to the Baker Act. The Respondent has since come to understand that he suffered from a manic-depressive condition, also known as a "bi-polar disorder". As a result of this eventuality, Mr. Simonson determined that the Respondent should not be teaching in the school system during such a period of emotional instability. In order to be fair to the Respondent, he did not want to actually suspend him from his duties. Accordingly, Mr. Simonson elected to place the Respondent in the status known as "overused sick leave", which means that the Respondent, although he had used up all of his annual and sick leave, could still be carried on the personnel records as an employee in terms of retaining his retirement and insurance benefits, although he was not paid for the time he was absent from his duties as a result of this decision and as a result of his emotional condition. Accordingly, the Respondent was, in this fashion, removed from his instructional duties and from his job site in the fall of 1989, after his involuntary commitment, pursuant to the Baker Act. Thereafter, in the fall of 1989, the Respondent obtained treatment at the "Life Management Center" in Bay County under the care of Dr. Nellis. Dr. Nellis diagnosed the Respondent as suffering from manic-depression and prescribed Lithium to treat his manic condition. The Respondent responded well to treatment, such that Dr. Nellis, late in the fall of 1989, opined that he was fit to return to work as a teacher. The Respondent apparently accepted the fact of his illness, continued taking his medication after being released by Dr. Nellis, and was returned to his duties with the Bay County school system at Rosenwald Middle School in late January or early February of 1990. Once again, he returned to his "old self", in terms of his adequate performance as a teacher, his emotional stability, good relationships with colleagues and students, and his prior demeanor as a genuinely caring teacher. His performance for the remainder of 1990 through the end of classes in June was good. He worked for the remainder of that school year as a physical education instructor, which is the field in which he is certified as a teacher. The Respondent had also been seen by Dr. Zumarraga beginning in November of 1989, who also found him to be manic-depressive, and who informed Mr. Simonson, by letter presented to Mr. Simonson by the Respondent, that the Respondent was taking medication for his illness and had exhibited acceptable behavior. As a result of those assurances by the Respondent's psychiatrist, Mr. Simonson had allowed the Respondent to return to work at Rosenwald Middle School in approximately early February of 1990. Apparently, sometime in late spring or early summer of 1990, the Respondent had doubts that he was still suffering from his condition and consulted another physician for an additional opinion. Apparently, he quit taking his medication sometime during the summer of 1990 as a result of that consultation. In late August of 1990, the Respondent returned to Rosenwald Middle School as a physical education instructor. Ms. Love, who had been Assistant Principal at the school, had moved up to the position of Principal. In the spring of 1990, the Respondent had been quiet and cooperative, had gotten along well with colleagues and students, and had performed his duties well, after undergoing treatment and being placed on a program of medication for his manic- depressive disorder. In the fall, however, he was immediately observed by Ms. Love and others of his colleagues and supervisors to have reverted to the arrogant, abrasive and extremely assertive attitudes and behavior, which he had exhibited in the fall of 1989, prior to securing treatment. Before these attitudes and behavior had manifested themselves, however, and immediately upon the start of the 1990-91 school year, given his long and worthwhile experience in the physical education field in the county system, Ms. Love asked the Respondent if he would work on a plan for a "middle school olympics" athletic event. The Respondent agreed to do this and immediately began setting about the formulation of a plan whereby all of the middle schools in the county would participate in the olympics athletic event on a given day at Tommy Oliver Stadium. He arrived at a plan to accomplish this and drafted it in memorandum form. Instead of sharing it with Ms. Love, however, he transmitted it directly to the Superintendent, Mr. Simonson. This was a departure from appropriate procedures for the planning of such events because the Respondent did not transmit his plan to Ms. Love for her initial approval before its being communicated to supervisory personnel at the county district level. The Respondent became somewhat obsessed with the idea of planning and conducting the olympics event, devoting an inordinate amount of time and energy to it. In early September, the Respondent brought a student to the office for disciplinary reasons asserting that he had caught the student stealing or "going through the lockers". Upon questioning of the Respondent by Ms. Love, it was learned that he did not find the child in the locker room or dressing room actually invading lockers, but found him in the locker room area where he was not supposed to be. He accused the child of stealing or attempting to steal when he had not actually observed him do this. The Respondent was criticized in this action for not having actually observed the child stealing and yet accusing him of it and for having brought prior behavior of the child up in his disciplining of the child, which Ms. Love felt to be inappropriate. In fact, the Respondent had some justification for suspecting this particular child of wrongful conduct or illegal activity because of past disciplinary violations committed by the child of a similar nature. At approximately the same period of time, in early September, the Respondent was observed to have grabbed a child by the arm in the act of admonishing the child for some alleged miscreant behavior and stating that "I am going to break your little arm". Ms. Love counseled the Respondent about these two instances and gave him an "improvement notice" on September 7, 1990 concerning them. An improvement notice is a disciplinary memorandum or report to a teacher such as the Respondent by which the Principal admonishes a teacher for inappropriate behavior and directs steps for improvement of the situation which led to that criticized behavior. On September 14, 1990, Ms. Love had another formal conference with the Respondent, since she had seen his arrogant, abrasive, overly-assertive behavior with colleagues and students continuing. She discussed with him his inappropriate behavior towards students and faculty and the matter of the Respondent's disciplinary referral of a student to the guidance counselor. He had referred a student to the guidance counselor for discipline and had been overbearing and abusive to the guidance counselor in his communication with her concerning the disciplinary referral. Ms. Love counseled him about the basic procedures involved in referring students for discipline, which specifically do not involve the guidance counselor. Rather, disciplinary referrals should appropriately go to the administration of the school, as delineated in the teacher's handbook, which the Respondent had previously been provided. Additionally, Ms. Love felt that the Respondent had exhibited a pattern of not turning in required documents in a timely manner; therefore, she gave him an improvement notice for these matters dated September 28, 1990. In fact, however, it was not established by the Petitioner that the Respondent had been untimely in turning in any required documents, reports, and the like, other than one report which had been due on a Friday, when he was absent due to illness and which he promptly turned in on the following Monday. During the fall of 1990, the Respondent was observed to frequently share details of his custody dispute and problems concerning his child and problems with his wife or former wife through notes, letters and conversations with other members of the staff in an inappropriate manner. He appeared to be emotionally preoccupied with these personal problems while on duty. On the third day of school in the fall of 1990, Mr. Simonson located his office temporarily at Rosenwald Middle School. He had done the same thing at other schools in the county that were having disruptions caused by on-going construction during the fall. Rosenwald Middle School at this time was undergoing construction work, including work on its air-conditioning system, such that many of the students and teachers did not have the benefit of air- conditioning. Mr. Simonson, therefore, elected to spend a day or so at Rosenwald Middle School on a sort of "Bob Graham Work Day". Ms. Love announced that fact over the public address system during the morning announcements on that day. The Respondent came to Ms. Love's office a short time later carrying the school's daily bulletin in his hand. He seemed hostile and agitated, leaned over her desk and shook the bulletin in her face, stating to her that he wanted her to sign on the bulletin her name and the statement she had made about the reason the Superintendent was at the school on that day. He further stated to her, in effect, that he was "fixing to be fired" and that he wanted Ms. Love to admit and put in writing on the face of the morning school bulletin the real reason, as he felt it, why the Superintendent was at the school that day. Ms. Love refused to do this and considered this behavior to be bizarre and threatening, given that the Respondent obviously felt that the Superintendent had been on campus that day to "spy on him". During late September of 1990, the school embarked, at the behest of Ms. Love and other administrators and teachers, on a "school spirit week" contest. The contest involved decorating the doors of the classrooms by the students, using as themes for the decorations certain words which denoted various aspects of "school spirit". The doors were to be decorated during "trust class time". "Trust classes" are classes which meet for approximately fifteen minutes or so at the outset of the school day, somewhat analogous to what is commonly known as "homeroom classes". The students were allowed to decorate the doors during their trust class time. Ms. Love accused the Respondent of keeping students overtime in their trust class, which required them to miss part of their next class and be tardy to that class in order to decorate his room door. In fact, she gave him an "improvement notice" in the nature of a reprimand for this on September 28, 1990. It was not proven, however, that the Respondent had actually kept students late at his behest for this purpose. In fact, his testimony is that he required no students to stay in his trust class working on door decorations after the time for the trust class to be over and instructed them to obtain permission from their other teachers should they elect to stay overtime to decorate the doors. The Hearing Officer having weighed the testimony, candor and credibility of the witnesses on this issue, including the ability of the witnesses to have knowledge of the facts concerning the time and methods employed to accomplish the door decoration effort, this violation of school procedures was not proven. The door decoration contest was judged on September 28, 1990 and the Respondent's class did not win. The Respondent became very agitated and angry at this result to the point of requesting and obtaining a meeting with Ms. Love concerning it. His temper and emotions were out of control on this occasion. He behaved in a loud, abrasive, and angry manner, even to the point of alternately crying, shaking, and shouting. He accused Ms. Love of penalizing his children by denigrating their efforts in the door decoration contest in order to hurt him, claiming that her actions really were a personal vendetta against him in the course of which the children were victimized. In the midst of his emotional outburst concerning this matter, he refused to listen to any explanation which Ms. Love attempted to give him but repeatedly interrupted her efforts to explain how the contest was judged and its rules. He even attempted to call a newspaper concerning the incident. He was inordinately obsessed with the conduct of the contest and with the result. As this incident with Ms. Love was progressing, Corporal Lassiter, the school Resource Officer, observed and heard part of it. In his view, having observed the behavior of the Respondent on this occasion and being aware of the Respondent's past history, Mr. Lassiter considered the possibility of initiating an involuntary Baker Act hospitalization at that moment, because of the Respondent's behavior. During the course of this confrontation with Ms. Love, Mr. Lassiter or others persuaded the Respondent to step across the hall to a different office to calm down. After he went into the other office with Mr. Lassiter and another administrator, Mr. Barnes, the Respondent's behavior continued to be somewhat bizarre. His demeanor toward Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes alternated from being very angry and upset with them to calling them, and acting toward them, as though they were good friends. At one point, he told Mr. Lassiter that when he got elected Superintendent, all would hear about this incident in the newspaper and the reasons for it all "would become very clear". He stated then that Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes would have good employment positions with him when he became Superintendent. Alternatively, before making these statements and also after making these statements, he became angry and hostile to both men, saying, in essence, that they were "all against me", becoming accusatory toward them and asserting, in essence, that Mr. Lassiter, Mr. Barnes, Ms. Love, and others in the administration were seeking to do him harm. Partly at the instance of Mr. Lassiter, the Respondent finally calmed down sufficiently to accede to Mr. Lassiter's recommendation that he call a substitute to take over his classes for the remainder of the day. A substitute was called and Mr. Lassiter then escorted the Respondent to his truck in order to see that he was removed safely from the campus without further incident with colleagues or students. As the Respondent was getting into his truck, preparing to leave the campus, he told Mr. Lassiter to "tell Ms. Love that she can kiss my ass". Teachers are required to be at Rosenwald Middle School by 7:30 a.m. The first bell rings at 7:37 a.m., and the "trust class" begins at 7:45 a.m. On approximately six occasions during September of 1990, Ms. Love had to sit in on the Respondent's trust class because he was late arriving at his class. She gave him an improvement notice concerning this deficiency on September 28, 1990. Additionally, on two separate occasions, Mr. Lassiter handled the Respondent's trust classes when he was late. The next school day after the incident concerning the door decoration contest on September 28, 1990 was October 1, 1990, a Monday. The Respondent was approximately 20 minutes late to school that day. Ms. Love, being concerned about the ramifications of the behavior she had witnessed in the Respondent the preceding Friday, met with the Respondent when he arrived at school for purposes of determining his state of mind and to talk to him about his tardiness. She found him still agitated, although not as much as he had been on Friday, the 28th. He continued to accept no responsibility for those actions and for his tardiness. He denied even being late, and as a result, Ms. Love assigned the school Resource Officer, Corporal Lassiter, to accompany the Respondent whenever he had students with him for the remainder of the day. It should be pointed out, however, that on most of the occasions when the Respondent was tardy to his first class during September of 1990, it was because he did not have a key to fit his office and would have to look for another co-worker to let him in. He was given a key at the outset of the school year which did not fit. Consequently, he disposed of it, ordering another key, the provision of which to him was delayed for unknown reasons. Later that same day, the Respondent brought between 20 and 30 students to the office for being tardy to class. The procedure for handling tardies at Rosenwald Middle School is that if a child is tardy, a teacher counsels with the child at first. The parents are contacted, the child is assigned to "team detention", and a student misconduct form is forwarded to the appropriate administrator upon tardies becoming repetitive. It is unusual to bring a student to the Principal's office for tardiness. The Respondent explained when they arrived at the Principal's office that all of the students were late to class and that Ms. Love should do something about it. This was a departure from normal procedures in dealing with tardy students. It should also be pointed out, however, that the school administration had recently issued a memorandum admonishing teachers that they should deal more severely with tardy students. When this entire group of students proved to be tardy on the day in question, the Respondent volunteered, with the agreement of the other physical education teachers/coaches, to escort the students to the Principal's office for disciplinary reasons concerning their tardiness. The other teachers involved agreed. On that same occasion, on October 1, 1990, when the Respondent had the group of students waiting outside the Principal's office, he apparently had some sort of confrontation with a student named Malackai. Apparently, the student was arguing with him and denying being tardy, which was the reason he was brought to the office. The Respondent offered to wrestle the student after school and "tear him limb from limb". This action caused Mr. Lassiter to step between the Respondent and the student and to send the student to Ms. Love's office to prevent any further such confrontation. Although the student was large for his age, these actions by the Respondent intimidated the student. On that same day, the Respondent was giving a lesson in softball on the softball field. He was being observed by Mr. Lassiter at the time at the behest of Ms. Love, who was concerned about his emotional stability. During this lesson, the Respondent, for unknown reasons, began rather randomly talking about accidents, lions, the dangers of eating red meat, and some sort of discussion of suicide. When he observed a student not paying attention to him, he hit the student on the head with a clipboard. He then continued his rambling discussion. A few minutes later, the same child asked when they would be allowed to play softball; and the Respondent hit him with the clipboard again. The student got tears in his eyes and was intimidated by the Respondent's conduct. When Mr. Lassiter observed that the Respondent might be about to commit the same act for a third time, he stepped between the student and the Respondent in order to prevent this from happening again. Physical education teachers are required to supervise students by direct observation in their locker room where they dress out for physical education classes and then dress in their regular clothes again at the end of classes. This is necessary in order to prevent fights and horseplay in the locker room, which can be dangerous. On October 1, 1990, during the Respondent's period to supervise the boys' locker room, he attempted to telephone Mr. Tucker, the Principal at Mosley High School. While he was on the telephone, he left the locker room class unsupervised and was unable to observe and supervise the locker room from the location of the telephone in the coach's office. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent again left his physical education class unsupervised while he was talking on the telephone for some 15-20 minutes. During the month that the Respondent had worked with Mr. Kent in the physical education department, Mr. Kent felt that although the Respondent generally had handled his duties well, he had spent an excessive amount of time on the telephone, rather than being in his assigned area. October 2, 1990 was the Respondent's last day of employment with the Petitioner. He was suspended with pay and shortly thereafter, the School Board met and accepted the Superintendent's recommendation to suspend the Respondent without pay based upon the conduct described in the above Findings of Fact occurring in August and September of 1990. The Board took the positions that this conduct amounted to gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office. In the Amended Administrative Complaint, on which this matter proceeded to hearing, which was filed on July 30, 1991, the factual allegations of the Complaint assert that the suspension action was taken based upon "alleged gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office"; however, the Amended Complaint actually charges that the factual allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint violate Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, concerning misconduct in office allegedly so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system and charges incapacity (as a subset of incompetency) alleging violations of Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, after the suspension occurred, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the Baker Act on the day following an apparent arrest for DUI, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and having a concealed firearm. The Respondent was convicted of none of these charges but, rather, pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of reckless driving and to a misdemeanor weapons charge. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In fact, the weapon which the Respondent had in his car was believed by him to be legally possessed since it was merely the 22 pistol with which he used blanks for training his bird dogs. The pistol happened to be on the floorboard of his car when he was arrested by the officer. The Respondent spent a short period of time at Bay Medical Center, pursuant to involuntary Baker Act commitment on this occasion. Also, in 1990, at an undetermined time in the fall, he voluntarily admitted himself to the Rivendell Psychiatric Center for approximately 2-1/2 weeks in order to receive additional evaluation because he was unsure whether he was actually manic-depressive or not. Thereafter, while still suspended from his employment, in May of 1991, the Respondent apparently had an argument with his parents at their home in Bonifay and then left their home to return to his own home in the vicinity of Panama City in Bay County, Florida. Rumors apparently were communicated to law enforcement officials to the effect that the Respondent had threatened to kill his parents and had left their home with a high-powered rifle and was journeying to Panama City to his own home. Apparently, as a result of such reports, after the Respondent was at his own home, to his surprise, law enforcement vehicles and numerous law enforcement personnel, especially the Bay County Sheriff Department Swat Team, arrived in his yard, and, by megaphone, demanded his surrender. A television news crew was present at the scene and filmed the incident, which may have received billing as an "armed confrontation" between the swat team and the Respondent. In fact, this is untrue. When the Respondent observed the law enforcement officers arriving on his premises in a number of vehicles, he telephoned his attorney to inform him of the situation and then went to the door in response to the directive that he come outside. When he went to the door to ascertain why the law enforcement officers were at his residence, he was armed with a fork and a hamburger. He was charged with no crime in connection with this incident, although, apparently, he was involuntarily committed under the Baker Act once again for a brief period of time. The incident was disseminated to the public on the electronic media. However, no armed confrontation was proven to have occurred, nor was there any proof that the Respondent ever threatened to kill his parents. Although Mr. Simonson testified that there would be a great public outcry if he reinstated the Respondent because of this incident and the other incidents, there was no showing by the Petitioner that the incidents occurring at Rosenwald Middle School leading to the Respondent's suspension nor the incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase were ever communicated to the public generally or to parents of students of the Bay County school system or the students themselves. It was not shown by the Petitioner that the Superintendent or other officials of the Petitioner received any complaints from parents or members of the general public concerning the Respondent, his behavior, or his teaching performance. The incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase and the swat team confrontation, delineated in the above Findings of Fact, did not occur while the Respondent was on school premises nor while he was engaged in his duties as a teacher or coach. With regard to either incident, he was not shown to have committed any crime or conduct which can constitute misconduct in office. Both incidents occurred in the Respondent's private life, away from his employment and away from the School Board premises. The only conduct shown to have been disseminated in the public media involved the Respondent being taken into custody at his home by the Sheriff's swat team because the television news crew was there filming the incident. He was charged with no crime on that occasion and was shown to have committed no form of reprehensible conduct. He was merely involuntarily committed shortly thereafter, pursuant to the Baker Act. None of that can constitute misconduct in office, much less misconduct in office which in any way abrogates his effectiveness as a teacher in the school system involved. The Respondent has been taking Lithium and Prozac for his manic- depressive condition since 1989. He is presently under the treatment of Dr. David Smith, a licensed psychologist; and Dr. Ben Pimentel, a licensed psychiatrist, at a facility known as the "Life Management Center", as an outpatient. Both of these professionals opined that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, the symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission, as they are at the present time. Indeed, in the past, since he first began taking medication for his condition in 1989 after being diagnosed as manic-depressive, at those times when the Respondent was taking his medication, his behavior and his teaching performance was up to the good and satisfactory standard which he had consistently exhibited from 1977 through the 1987-88 school year. It is only on those occasions when he has ceased taking his medication, in the apparent belief that his problem was not a chronic one, that he has exhibited the emotional instability, such as that displayed at Rosenwald Middle School in August and September of 1990, which is the subject of this proceeding. Indeed, both Drs. Smith and Pimentel, the only experts testifying in this proceeding, who testified for the Respondent, established that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, his symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission and he will be competent to teach in terms of both his emotional stability and his ability to perform his duties as a teacher. Although Dr. Smith acknowledged that the rudeness exhibited by the Respondent on the occasions at issue in this case and his behavior involving striking a student and offering to wrestle a student might be behavior unrelated to the bi-polar disorder, the totality of the evidence supports the finding that, in the Respondent's case, given the many years of his teaching experience when he was a calm, caring, competently-performing instructional employee with behavior not characterized by such outbursts and aggressiveness, such conduct is, indeed, directly related to the present, active nature of his disorder on those occasions. On those occasions, he was not taking his medication. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent needs to continue his medication. If he does continue his medication, he will be competent to continue teaching or to once again teach because his symptoms will remain in remission. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent may need the motivation of a court order or employment directive or condition to insure that he continues his medication because if he obtains a medical opinion that he is no longer sick, he may not take the medication and stop the treatment. Additionally, Dr. Pimentel finds that the Respondent will require monthly counselling sessions and monitoring of his medication level to make sure it remains at a therapeutic level. Under those conditions, however, he would be capable of resuming his teaching duties. The Respondent, in his testimony, expressed the wish to obtain another medical opinion to make sure, in his view, that he is still manic- depressive, although he accepts the diagnosis that he is manic-depressive and is willing to continue his medication and to submit to monthly monitoring of his medication and monthly treatment by his presently-treating professionals.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Steven T. George, be suspended for a period of two years, but that the suspension be abated and the Respondent immediately reinstated to his duties as an instructional employee of the Bay County school district, with all of the rights of a tenured teacher, under the following circumstances which should remain in effect for a probationary period of two (2) years: His psychiatrist shall file monthly with the School Board a detailed report of his attendance at counselling sessions and the result of his monthly blood tests to ascertain if his medication remains at therapeutic levels. He is required to maintain the therapeutic levels of Lithium and Prozac or such medication as his physician and psychiatrist deem medically appropriate. If he fails to attend counselling sessions or to maintain therapeutic blood levels of his appropriate medication for any two (2) consecutive months, then this should be determined to be, at law, willful neglect of duty, subjecting him to dismissal as a teacher with the Bay County school district subject to the Respondent's right to contest such an employment action, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, in this forum. There should be no award of back pay in light of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. There should be no award of attorney's fees in light of the above Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law , and the opinion in Werthman v. School Board of Seminole County, Florida, 17 FLWD 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA, opinion filed May 15, 1992; Case Number 91-1831). The cases cited by the Respondent seem to accord the Respondent a hearing opportunity on the issue, with award of fees being discretionary. The Werthman decision appears contra in termination proceedings, however. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the record evidence. Accepted. Accepted, except that it was not proven that he had "gone through Ms. Love's mailbox". Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 28-29. Accepted. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 33-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37-39. Accepted. 40. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 41-47. Accepted. 48. Rejected, as not, in its entirety, being in accordance with the preponderant, competent evidence of record. 49-56. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 57-61. Accepted. 62. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. 14. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant evidence. 15-22. Accepted. 23. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 24-30. Accepted. 31-36. Accepted. 37. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 38-41. Accepted. 42-48. Accepted. 49-51. Accepted. 52. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 53-54. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 61-63. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 64-72. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. (Second No. 74). Accepted. 75-78. Accepted. 79. Rejected in the sense that it was proven by the Petitioner that at the time he was suspended, the Respondent was incompetent to teach due to incapacity related to his emotional instability. 80-85. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Simonson, Superintendent P.O. Drawer 820 Panama City, FL 32402 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Franklin R. Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, SALE, ET AL. 304 Magnolia Avenue P.O. Drawer 1579 Panama City, FL 32401 David Brooks Kundin, Esq. DOBSON & KUNDIN, P.A. 210 South Monroe Street P.O. Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
Findings Of Fact Ms. Osteen is employed by the School Board as a content staffing specialist in the Exceptional Student Education (E.S.E.) program. Her duties include the placement and monitoring of students in the Leesburg area that are identified as exceptional students. Ms. Osteen is responsible for declaring she student's eligibility for the program and for effectuating placement of those students. At times, in her duties as a staffing specialist, Ms. Osteen determines the number of hours of instructions that E.S.E. students are to receive and prepares individual educational plans (IEPs). As an additional duty, Ms. Osteen is employed as a homebound teacher, carrying out those tasks after the completion of her normal work day which is from 8:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. She was the homebound teacher assigned to William (Billy) Vickery during February and March, 1988. Homebound teachers in the Lake County School System are compensated by submitting a monthly time sheet to the Exceptional Student Education Office. They are paid on an hourly basis cumulative over the month based upon the number of hours actually worked. Payment is only for instructional time with the student, not driving or commuting time. NOTE: PAGE 4 OF THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER IS UNAVAILABLE The composite of the four (4) different F.T.E. weeks determines the money a particular child earns in the system. Instruction of Billy Vickery by Ms. Osteen from February 17, 1988, through February 29, 1988, would have no impact on the F.T.E. count for the Lake County School System because it was after the count and the window period. There is no window period after the F.T.E. week. The entire staff is notified of the F.T.E. periods as they are published near the beginning of the school year. Teachers typically are not, however, involved in reporting the F.T.E. Nancy Vickery, Billy Vickery's mother, made a complaint to the Superintendent's office, in early February concerning Ms. Osteen's performance. Ms. Vickery explained that her concern was the amount of time Billy was receiving in homebound instruction. Ms. Vickery knew that Billy was to receive eleven (11) hours from Ms. Osteen weekly. After Ms. Vickery's conference with the school personnel, she began keeping, at their request, a record of the amount of time Ms. Osteen actually spent instructing Billy. Subsequently, Ms. Vickery created a summary of her time records and submitted it to the School Board. From February 10, 1988, through February 16, 1988, Ms. Vickery reported that Ms. Osteen spent approximately two (2) hours in homebound instruction of Billy. From February 17, 1988 through February 29, 1988, Ms. Vickery reported approximately three (3) hours by spent by Ms. Osteen in homebound instruction of Billy Vickery. After Ms. Vickery's complaint, the School Board hired an independent investigator to make a surveillance report of the number of hours that Ms. Osteen was in fact at the Vickery residence from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. The surveillance report showed that Ms. Osteen spent two (2) hours and fifty-seven (57) minutes at the Vickery home from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. Ms. Osteen submitted a time record to the School Board indicating that she had worked a total of forty-four (44) hours during February in the homebound program of instruction of Billy Vickery. Ms. Osteen claimed eleven (11) hours during the week of February 10, 1988, through February 16, 1988, and nineteen (19) hours from February 17, 1988, through the end of the month. Ms. Osteen admitted that she did not put in the hours claimed. In fact, she also admitted not working during the F.T.E. week, February 8, 1988, through February 12, 1988, and not giving Billy Vickery eleven (11) hours a week instruction from February 1, 1988, through February 17, 1988. The homebound teacher keeps a daily planning book, an attendance register, and a copy of the individual education plan as well as time sheets. Ms. Osteen conceded that homebound teachers are required to keep an attendance register, but that she used her register as a grade book instead. Ms. Osteen claimed that she used her plan book as an attendance registry, but acknowledged that it did not accurately reflect the days that Billy was instructed. Ms. Osteen did not keep an attendance record. Ms. Osteen's plan book is filled in retroactively, meaning that she makes entries for what she had done with Billy, as opposed to planning what she will do. The plan book does not accurately reflect the times or dates spent on the material and Ms. Osteen conceded she filled in the February plan in March with work done partly in March. Mr. Osteen made retroactive entries in the registry, coordinating it with the plan book, and the registry did not reflect what happened on any particular day. Ms. Osteen's testimony was confusing and contradictory regarding the actual instruction given Billy, especially in math. From the records presented and Ms. Osteen's testimony, it cannot be determined what actual instruction hours were given to Billy. Eight (8) witnesses testified either that Ms. Osteen's reputation was that of a truthful person or that they would believe her. Ms. Osteen was described as meticulous, conscientious, thorough and as one who follows the book. Ms. Osteen expected to be paid for the time that she turned in for February claiming that she planned to complete the work and make up the time before pay day. Ms. Osteen claimed that she did not intend to defraud the school system of any money. Ms. Vickery kept a time record for Ms. Osteen's visits to the Vickery home from March 1, 1988, through March 11, 1988, noting that Ms. Osteen made one visit for four (4) minutes and one other visit to have Ms. Vickery sign the time sheet. Ms. Osteen disputed Ms. Vickery's records, claiming that in March she had made up eight (8) hours of the time turned in for February. However, even Ms. Osteen admitted that by the end of the first week in March, she would have owed Billy the eleven (11) additional hours he was entitled to for that week. According to Ms. Osteen's own computations, she still owed Billy ten (10) hours from February. Thus, by March 10, 1988, Billy Vickery was behind twenty-one (21) hours in instruction by Ms. Osteen's own admission. Ms. Osteen's computations are, however, incredible in view of the surveillance report and testimony of Mrs. Vickery. In fact, by March 10, 1988, Billy Vickery was owed at least sixteen (16) hours of instruction for the time period of February 11, 1988 through February 29, 1988, additional hours for the F.T.E. week, and eleven (11) hours for the first seven (7) days of March. The March time records refute Ms. Osteen's claim that she intended to make up the February time. She continued instead to fall further behind with the hours of instruction due. Ms. Osteen attempted to explain her reporting of hours not spent with Billy Vickery by claiming that if she had not, the child would have been denied his entitlement and the County would have lost its F.T.E. There was no basis in fact for these assertions. Ms. Osteen may have believed this, but was incorrect. Ms. Vickery kept a child during the month of February that was ill with Scarletina. Ms. Vickery also conceded that Sandy had illnesses during the time that she taught Billy and had advised her that Ms. Osteen's son had pink eye. However, illness is not relevant to the issues of falsification of the time or attendance records. Ms. Osteen claimed that there was precedence for her falsification of the records, including the fact that she had falsified the time records before for Billy Vickery as well as for another child. Further, Ms. Osteen claimed that School Board personnel falsified records all of the time. The Lake County School Supervisor of Exceptional Student Education conceded that a teacher on occasion is allowed to swap time, but that the practice was not encouraged. Such a request must be written and signed by both the teacher and the supervisor. That was not done in this case. Homebound teachers sometimes extend the time sheet forms to include Saturdays and Sundays as well as holidays in order to accurately report hours worked. Homebound teachers are encouraged to perform the homebound instruction on Monday through Friday and to consider the educational principles that it is better to do small chunks at a time rather than one extended day on a Saturday. Ms. Osteen had turned in a time sheet the last day of school before Christmas vacation reflecting hours not given at that time for a previous student. Additionally, in 1987, Ms. Osteen had been unable to complete the last week in May for Billy Vickery but turned in the time sheet claiming the hours as she had in the past. Ms. Osteen stated that she went back in June to give the additional instruction and that this procedure was approved by her supervisor. Apparently, it was common practice in the Lake County School System for IEPs to be corrected by back-dating, obtaining signatures at a later date, and placing check marks in appropriate places. These corrections were made to reflect what actually had happened. Information known not to comport with the facts was not, however, placed on forms. While it is a common practice for employees to make corrections in forms, it is not an accepted practice to create false statements on forms or records. Witnesses testifying concerning record corrections consistently drew a distinction between falsifying documents and making corrections to reflect what had actually occurred. No falsification of documents was reported.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Lake County enter a Final Order finding Sandra Osteen guilty of the violations set forth above and dismissing her from her employment in the school system. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2029 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, SCHOOL BOARD OF LAKE COUNTY Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-16(1- 16); 18-39(17-38); 41(39); 42 & 43(40); and 44(41). Proposed finding of fact 17 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 40, 45 and 46 are rejected as being argument and as relating to legal conclusions. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, SANDRA OSTEEN Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(1 & 2); 7(8); 10(17); 12 & 13(32); 19 & 20(38); and 22(39). Proposed findings of fact 3-6 and 11 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 14-18, and 23-26 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of facts 27 and 28 are rejected as being argument and as relating to legal conclusions. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter S. McLin, III, Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 1357 Leesburg, Florida 32749-1357 Richard H. Langley, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 188 Clermont, Florida 32711 Freddie G. Garner, Superintendent The School Board of Lake County, Florida 201 West Burleigh Boulevard Tavares, Florida 32778 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 ================================================================= SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT =================================================================
The Issue May Petitioner be recognized by Respondent School District as a professional teacher association, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Despite any typographical or other errors in the Petition, the parties are agreed that this cause is brought solely pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, effective June 21, 1999, reads as follows: 231.6075 Rulemaking authority; professional teacher associations. The State Board of Education shall adopt such rules as necessary to ensure that not-for-profit, professional teacher associations which offer membership to all teachers, noninstructional personnel, and administrators, and which offer teacher training and staff development at no fee to the district shall be given equal access to voluntary teacher meetings, be provided access to teacher mailboxes for distribution of professional literature, and be authorized to collect voluntary membership fees through payroll deduction. On July 7, 1999, Betty Coxe, Division Director, Human Resources Development, Florida Department of Education (DOE) wrote to Florida's District School Superintendents, advising them of the enactment of the statute and that DOE had identified "one statewide organization" which met the criteria to be a professional teacher association under this statute. That association was the Professional Educators Network of Florida, Inc. (PEN). Petitioner TEA was incorporated as a not-for-profit Florida corporation on September 22, 1999, by Jack Daniels as Chairman, Helen Heard as secretary-treasurer, and Daryl Grier as vice-chairman. The president, vice-president, and secretary- treasurer are elected by the Board of Directors. Currently, Chairman Daniels is also president. On October 25, 1999, Dean Andrews, Deputy General Counsel for DOE, issued a legal opinion on the following question: Must the State Board of Education adopt rules prior to school district implementation of Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, relating to professional teacher associations? Mr. Andrews answered the question in the negative, concluding that "Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, is self-executing." On December 20, 1999, David Ashburn, Director, Division of Human Resources Development, DOE, sent a letter to Florida's District School Superintendents "to provide further clarification for district level implementation" of Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. That letter read, in pertinent part: It has come to the attention of the Department that there may be several associations that may meet the criteria for recognition in a district, and thus shall be afforded access to mailboxes, meetings, and payroll deduction as provided in the law. The professional association must provide documentation of compliance with the law and provide training in the district to establish recognition on an individual district by district basis. Therefore, a statewide listing or identification of the associations will not be possible. Implementation and compliance are to be at the local level. (Emphasis supplied) Sometime in January 2000, but before January 10, 2000, Mr. Daniels orally requested that Respondent Duval County School District recognize TEA as a professional teachers association, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. His request was directed to Vicki Reynolds, Executive Director, Office of Policy and Compliance for the Duval County School District, who had been delegated the responsibility for handling this matter by Respondent's Superintendent of Schools. Ms. Reynolds has an extensive background with the Respondent School District. She was an elementary classroom teacher for eight years; served nine years as legal affairs liaison for the District; served as School District general counsel for two and a-half years; and has been in her present position for approximately one year. The record is silent as to whether she continues to be a certified or licensed professional teacher. In two trips to see Ms. Reynolds, Mr. Daniels delivered to her a copy of TEA's Articles of Incorporation and a copy of an October 13, 1999, letter from Buddy Worwetz, President of Worwetz Education Systems. According to Mr. Worwetz's testimony, Worwetz Education Systems is a "training, consulting, technology firm" which "mostly does adult basic training" and some "teacher training." Mr. Worwetz would expect to be paid for such services. The October 13, 1999, Worwetz letter indicated that Worwetz Education Systems had presented many workshops in "educator training" and "staff development," such as "drop out prevention and classroom management," which had been personally taught by Mr. Worwetz in Respondent's School District, and that the company had the capacity to provide workshops in "curriculum and instruction, various subject matter, technology, exceptional student education, communications, diversity, community relations, and the school improvement process," plus two, six- hour courses, taught by Dr. Kyker and Carla Jones, entitled "Introduction to Cooperative Discipline" and "Student-Centered Leadership." TEA contended that these courses constituted appropriate continuing education courses for professional teachers. In January 2000, when she reviewed TEA's Articles of Incorporation and the October 13, 1999, Worwetz letter, Ms. Reynolds accepted them at face value, but Ms. Reynolds could not identify any of the members of TEA's Board of Directors as teachers or educators. She also was not familiar with any of the names or the specifically-titled courses in Mr. Worwetz's October 13, 1999, letter. She was familiar with Mr. Daniels' background, which was primarily in insurance and union organization and litigation. On or about January 10, 2000, she orally denied TEA's recognition request. On January 11, 2000, Mr. Daniels wrote a letter to Respondent's Superintendent of Schools, requesting recognition of TEA. The Superintendent did not write him back, but that day, or shortly thereafter, Ms. Reynolds orally conveyed the Superintendent's denial to Mr. Daniels. On January 26, 2000, TEA filed a Petition for Formal Hearing, which was not acted upon by Respondent. TEA next filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the First District Court of Appeal, requesting that court to compel Respondent School District "to either grant or deny" TEA's request for formal hearing. Respondent opposed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus. On July 12, 2000, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Order, providing in pertinent part, as follows: We issued an order to show cause and find that respondent's arguments in opposition to the petition might ultimately prove to be valid reasons to deny the request for formal hearing or, if a hearing is held, to support the district's decision to decline to authorize TEA. They are not, however valid reasons to fail to act on the petition for formal hearing in a timely fashion. . . . Accordingly, we grant the petition and issue our writ of mandamus, directing the district to act on TEA's petition for formal hearing . . . . Respondent did not deny TEA's request for formal hearing. Rather, Respondent granted TEA's request for formal hearing, in effect declining to recognize TEA, and referred the case to DOAH, on or about August 17, 2000, for a hearing on the merits of recognition, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. In either September or October 2000, Respondent, through Ms. Reynolds, accepted submittals from PEN (see Finding of Fact No. 3) at face value. She reviewed a four-page document provided by PEN, which listed all PEN's teacher education and staff development courses with course descriptions and objectives and named some of the instructors. Ms. Reynolds also reviewed a brochure naming PEN's Board of Directors and stating PEN's mission and vision, and a brochure listing the services PEN offers its members in exchange for their dues, which services include legal representation, insurance, and a statewide networking procedure.1 Ms. Reynolds was able to identify teachers and "educators" certificated and/or licensed by DOE on PEN's Board of Directors and certificated and/or licensed teachers named for its courses. Some of these persons she knew personally and others she knew by reputation from her nearly 20 years as a teacher and/or administrator in Respondent School District. Ms. Reynolds identified a former superintendent of Gadsden County Schools and a former president of Florida State University as being these "educators." She identified the courses offered by PEN as having some value to continuing teacher education. She also accepted that PEN was a statewide professional teacher association which presumably had DOE's imprimitur. (See Finding of Fact No. 3.) Thereafter, Respondent recognized PEN, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, and Respondent now deducts PEN members' dues from Respondent's payroll. Ms. Reynolds also testified that representatives of a union, Duval Teachers United (DTU), had asserted that Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, was unconstitutional and that they had urged that Respondent therefore not recognize any professional teacher associations, including PEN and TEA. It is unclear whether DTU has any affiliation with the AFL-CIO. At hearing, Jack Daniels testified and presented TEA's Articles of Incorporation, demonstrating that TEA is a not-for- profit corporation which offers membership to all teachers, non- instructional personnel, and administrators of all Florida School Districts. TEA apparently operates out of Mr. Daniels' home. TEA is not affiliated with the AFL-CIO. There are no professional (certificated or licensed) teachers on TEA's Board of Directors. It is not necessary to determine if an "educator" also may be a person trained in school administration, teacher qualification, and similar educational support services without also being a licensed or certificated teacher, because TEA's Board does not contain any of these professionals either. TEA did not demonstrate that any of its Board members had any education, training, or experience which would equip him or her to offer appropriate teacher training or staff development. Mr. Daniels has a background in insurance and union organization and litigation. Ms. Heard's qualifications were never clearly revealed. It was disputed whether or not Daryl Grier remained on TEA's Board of Directors as of the date of formal hearing, but in any case, TEA never affirmatively demonstrated that Mr. Grier has any background or qualifications as a teacher or "educator." In fact, his qualifications, if any, were never revealed. Buddy Worwetz testified concerning the courses described in his October 13, 1999, letter to Mr. Daniels (see Finding of Fact Nos. 10 and 11), but he never clearly explained the content of any course offered by his company, including those he has taught in the District. The other instructors available and named in the letter, Dr. Kyker and Carla Jones, were trained and "certified" by contributing authors, Pete DeSisto and Ken Blanchard, of a book with a title similar to one of the course titles, "Introduction to Cooperative Discipline." One of the proposed instructors, Dr. Kyker, reputedly is a "professor," but a professor of what discipline and where she serves as a "professor" was not explained. No mention was made of whether any of these people are certificated or licensed by DOE. Other qualifications, if any, of these proposed instructors were not explained. It was not demonstrated that Mr. Worwetz is a licensed or certificated teacher. Also, the cost and objectives of Worwetz's courses were not explained. However, evidence of Worwetz instructors and courses is essentially moot, since any planned collaboration between TEA and Worwetz Education Systems had ended before formal hearing. Effective May 26, 2000, Mr. Worwetz wrote Mr. Daniels that Worwetz Education Systems would no longer be available to contract with TEA for educational services. Mr. Worwetz's reasons for rescinding his October 13, 1999, offer to deal with TEA were his "gut feeling" that his organization "was being used to bolster TEA's eligibility and capability"; because Mr. Daniels had not contacted him in more than 30 days; and because he believed contracting with TEA would hurt his business with an AFL-CIO rival of TEA. It is clear from Mr. Worwetz's candor and demeanor while testifying that AFL-CIO members had influenced his decision to distance himself from TEA, but there is no evidence of any efforts of the Respondent School District in that regard. TEA currently has no employees, agents, or contractors who can offer continuing teacher education. TEA presented no evidence it currently has any members besides its three Directors, let alone any members who are professional teachers in Respondent's school district who might value receiving TEA materials in their mailboxes and deductions for TEA dues from their paychecks. TEA presented no evidence concerning the content or credit-hour value of educational courses it currently intends to offer. Apparently, TEA expects Respondent to list courses Respondent considers acceptable for teachers' continuing education and staff development and then Mr. Daniels, on behalf of TEA, will try to contract with some entity to produce these courses or will try to contract with an entity already offering such courses. Such a scenario hardly seems feasible, and TEA offered no evidence that any qualified entity exists which is willing to contract with TEA for this service. TEA presented no evidence that it has operating funds with which to provide the educational programs contemplated by the statute. Respondent School District, as represented by Ms. Reynolds, is aware of a prior labor dispute decided by the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) which partially went against Respondent and in favor of a non-AFL-CIO union which Mr. Daniels represented. There also has been litigation before PERC which required Mr. Daniels' union "client" to pay money to Respondent, and the money has not been paid. Despite Ms. Reynolds' denial, her candor and demeanor when testifying suggests that she and her advisers have a concern that Mr. Daniels has a secret union agenda connected with TEA and that this concern was a component of Respondent's denial of recognition to TEA, pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes. Respondent School District, as represented by Ms. Reynolds, views access to teachers' mailboxes and use of payroll deductions as having fiduciary overtones. She and her advisers have reservations about Mr. Daniels' fitness to administer such activities and funds on behalf of TEA. It is feared that programming into Respondent's system a payroll deduction for TEA may cause some of Respondent's employees to believe that Respondent has checked TEA's reliability in fiscal matters and is endorsing TEA in that regard. Respondent does do such checks on the tax-sheltered annuity firms for which Respondent makes payroll deductions. Supporting its concerns about union agitation and fiscal responsibility, Respondent had admitted in evidence PERC Show Cause Order Docket No. RC-99-014; Order No. 99E-070, dated March 18, 2000, found at 6 FPER paragraph 31099. That Order, in pertinent part, found as fact as follows: In 1990 Florida American Union (FAU) . . . through Daniels, filed an unfair labor practice charge which it knew was frivolous or groundless and ordered FAU to pay the [Duval County] School District its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Commission approved this recommendation. See Florida American Union v. Duval County School District, 16 FPER ¶21150 (1990). In 1993, . . . Daniels [as lay representative of a union] filed a motion asserting racial allegations against the Commission. That motion contained inaccurate and deceptively stated information and the Commission denied the motion as devoid of merit in form and substance. See Brotherhood of Black Custodial and Food Service Workers v. Duval County School District v. Florida Public Employees Council 79 AFSCME 19 FPER ¶24067 (1993). In 1994 . . . the hearing officer disqualified Daniels as a lay-representative for creating and using false evidence, presenting false testimony, and engaging in ex parte communications with the Commission. Recognizing the gravity of Daniels' misconduct in the ACE case, the Commission stated that in future cases Daniels would be subject to a show cause order when he asks to serve as a lay-representative. See Association of City Employees v. City of Jacksonville, 22 FPER ¶27052 (1996) appeal dismissed, No. 96-168 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 30, 1996). In 1996, . . . [w]hen Daniels sought to act as JETs lay-representative, the hearing officer issued an order to show cause why he should not be disqualified. Jacksonville Employees Together (JET) v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME Case No. RC-96- 054 (Fla. PERC HOO Dec. 13, 1996). The hearing officer noted Daniels' flagrant misconduct in the ACE case and that Daniels' response only attacked Commissions ACE decision; thus, according to the hearing officer, Daniels failed to provide sufficient reasons why he should not be disqualified to serve as JET's lay- representative. Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, Case No. RC-96-054 (FLA. PERC H00 Dec. 19, 1996); see also Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, 23 FPER ¶28109 (1997). On appeal, the court affirmed the hearing officer. Jacksonville Employees Together v. Jacksonville Housing Authority, Case No. 97- 1784 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 19, 1998). In 1997, . . . the hearing officer disqualified Daniels as JET's lay- representative because he engaged in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 28- 106.107(3)(b) . . . See Jacksonville Employees Together v. City of Jacksonville v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Case No. RC-97-034 (Fla. PERC H00 July 24, 1998, appeal withdrawn, Case No. 98-0343 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 4, 1999); see also Jacksonville Employees Together v. City of Jacksonville v. Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, AFL- CIO, 25 FPER ¶30047 (1999). On August 31, 1998, . . . [t]he circuit court . . . adjudged Daniels in contempt for failing to honor a lawfully issued subpoena. . . . In re: The Petition of Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, Case No. 98- 4935-CA (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Nov. 16, 1998). [Bracketed material added for grammar and clarity.] The PERC Order gave Mr. Daniels 10 days in which to respond. TEA presented no evidence that the foregoing PERC Order to Show Cause had been responded to, reconsidered, vacated, set aside, or even appealed. Mr. Daniels testified, without refutation but also without any subsequent PERC Order to support his testimony, that, due to a change of PERC Commissioners, he has been re-admitted to practice before PERC. This evidence, even if believed, does not alter the facts as previously found by the PERC Order in evidence.2
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Duval County School District enter a final order denying Teachers Education Association's request for recognition pursuant to Section 231.6075, Florida Statutes, as of the date of the final order.5 DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2001.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary L. Martin, has been a Gadsden County school teacher with a continuing contract of employment since August 18, 1967. For almost all of her teaching career, the Respondent has been a full-time elementary school teacher. During a number of her years teaching, the Respondent also taught some evening adult education courses, but she has not done so since the 1983/1984 school year. Numbered paragraph 4 of the Respondent's Continuing Contract of Employment with the School Board provides in pertinent part: The County Board may, upon recommendation of the County Superintendent, transfer and assign the Teacher to a similar position in any other school of the county, provided that the duties shall be similar to the duties originally assigned and the salary shall be in accordance with the salary schedule. Gadsden County School Board Rule 4.113, provides in pertinent part: TRANSFERS.--The assignment of an employee shall be the responsibility of the Board upon recommendations of the Superintendent. Employees who desire a change in assignment involving a transfer to another school or position shall file a written statement of such desire . . .. * * * (2) In order to meet the staffing needs of the district, it is occasionally necessary to transfer an employee involuntarily. Such transfer shall be effective after consultation with and notice to the employee involved. Article VII, Section C., of the Collective Bargaining between the School Board and the Gadsden County Classroom Teachers Association in effect from 1992 through 1995, governing Transfer and Reassignment, provides in pertinent part: The Board and the GCCTA recognize that the transfer of employees shall be the responsibility of the Board upon recommendation of the Superintendent. Any teacher who desires a change in grade and/or subject assignment in the following year or who desires to transfer to another school in the following year shall file . . . a written request to that effect . . .. * * * In making transfers, the Board will first review requests of volunteers. . . .. During the 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 school years, the Respondent was teaching third grade at the Stewart Street Elementary School in Quincy. During those years, the Respondent suffered from a certain amount of stress, and she made her complaints of stress known to her principal, Douglas Black, as well as to some of her coworkers and, during the spring of 1992, to Harold Henderson, who was a member of the School Board at the time, but who also was running for election as School Superintendent. Henderson won the election and became the Gadsden County School Superintendent. From approximately the time that Harold Henderson became School Superintendent, Douglas Black began asking him to transfer the Respondent to another school in order to resolve certain difficulties he was having at the school that involved the Respondent. One less than satisfactory aspect of the Respondent's performance as an elementary school classroom teacher in recent years was that she frequently was tardy. Out of 196 work days in the school year, the Respondent was tardy 64 days in 1990/1991, 60 days in 1991/1992, and 105 days in 1992/1993. Since she had the key to her classroom, children in her class would have to wait in the hall for her to arrive, and other teachers would have to leave their classrooms unattended to either monitor the children in the hallway or to get a master key to let the children into the Respondent's classroom. The tardiness of course came to Black's attention, and conflicts developed between the Respondent and Black when Black tried to enforce his policies against tardiness. (These conflicts certainly also contributed to the Respondent's stress.) The Superintendent denied Black's initial requests that the Respondent be transferred, but major new problems developed during one lunch period in February, 1993, when a fellow teacher, Juanita Austin, attempted to prevent children from the Respondent's class from cutting in front of Austin's class in the lunch line. Accusations of misconduct flew between the Respondent and Austin, and at least the children from the Respondent's class became embroiled in the controversy. Unable to resolve the problem between the two teachers any other way, Black was reduced to having change the lunch schedules of the two teacher's classes. But, when he instructed Austin to take her class to lunch earlier than the Respondent's, the Respondent accused Black of favoritism. The principal thought that he was doing the best he could to deal with the problems the two teachers were having and felt that the Respondent was being obstinate and difficult in opposing his proposed solution to the problem. As a result of the lunchroom dispute and its aftermath, all three became embroiled in ongoing disputes and arguments that were disruptive and that detracted from their performance of their assigned work. In addition, the Respondent began to accuse Black of other misconduct, including the alleged use of vulgar language. 1/ The situation was brought to the attention of the Superintendent and his staff. By the end of the 1992/1993 school year, Superintendent Henderson decided that it would be best for all concerned if he transferred the Respondent out of Stewart Street Elementary. He approached Black and confirmed that Black still was interested in having the Respondent transferred. He had Black put the request in writing. Black put his request for the transfer in writing on June 3, 1993. The next day, Superintendent Henderson formally granted the request in writing and initiated the mechanics of a lateral transfer at the same salary as for her previous position as elementary school teacher. The first step the Superintendent's staff had to take to implement the transfer was to locate a position to which to transfer the Respondent. The staff was able to identify an opening in its Adult Education Program for a teacher to provide education services at the adult mental health services center operated by Apalachee Community Human Services at a facility near the Gadsden Memorial Hospital. There was no evidence of any other teachers volunteering to transfer to this position, and no special certifications were required for the position so that the Respondent's certifications for the position fully qualified her for the job. (As noted, she had taught in the School Board's adult education program in the past.) When the opening was brought to the Superintendent's attention, he approved it. The new position would entail only two or three hours of actual classroom teaching a day, and class size would average only approximately 15 students per class, instead of approximately 30 elementary school children in each of the Respondent's elementary school classes. The Superintendent felt those differences between the two positions would help reduce the Respondent's job stress. In addition, in the new position, the Respondent would work much more independently than as an elementary school teacher. No School Board supervisors or administrators are housed at the adult mental health services center, and the Respondent would not be monitored very closely. Since, during the course of a normal work day, the Respondent would encounter no School Board personnel other than possible the two part-time teachers, the Superintendent felt that the new position would help minimize the personality conflicts the Respondent was encountering at Stewart Street Elementary. Finally, if the Respondent is tardy for class in the new position, it would not cause the same kinds of discipline and administrative problems as it did at Stewart Street Elementary. The School Board would not even monitor the Respondent for attendance and timeliness at the adult mental health services center, which the Superintendent felt also would serve to reduce the Respondent's job stress. The preliminary steps having been taken, the Superintendent made the transfer official by including it in a July 20, 1993, list of recommended transfers to be presented to the School Board for consideration at its July 27, 1993, meeting. Meanwhile, the Assistant Superintendent, Corbin Scott, telephoned the Respondent and informed her the next day that the transfer had been recommended. The Respondent objected to the transfer. The transfer was considered at the July 27, 1993, meeting of the School Board. The Respondent appeared at the meeting and spoke in opposition to the transfer. Over the Respondent's objection, the School Board voted to transfer the Respondent, as recommended by the Superintendent, effective August 9, 1993. The Respondent's salary in the new position is the same as for her previous position as elementary school teacher. At her new position, the Respondent's "students" actually are clients of the mental health services center. Most suffer from a mental or emotional condition that debilitates them in some way and makes it difficult for them to achieve academically; some also suffer from drug or alcohol dependence. Based on the evidence, there does not seem to be much semblance of continuity in the course of instruction the Respondent is able to give. There does not necessarily seem to be any educational logic or continuity to when they begin the mental health center's education program or when they discontinue it (sometimes when they destabilize mentally and have to be institutionalized.) When students are "enrolled," neither the Respondent nor the Gadsden County School Board seems to have any control over whether the "students" attend the classes offered to them; control over is left to the mental health services center. Nor does the Respondent have any real control over her "students" while they are in class with her. While "class" is in session, the "students" are free to do as they choose. They can pay attention or ignore the Respondent, sit down or stand up, and come or go as they choose. The Respondent is instructed not to attempt to discipline the "students" for not attending to and participating in class, or to attempt to require them to attend to or participate in class, primarily because there is the risk that the Respondent's actions could cause them to destabilize while they are in class with the Respondent. The Respondent's new position as a teacher at the adult mental health services center certainly is not identical to her former position as an elementary school teacher. In some ways, the positions are similar, but there also are significant differences between the two positions. Whether the two positions are "similar" for purposes of this case is a mixed question of both fact and law. There was no direct testimony or evidence on the question whether the Respondent's new position as a teacher at the adult mental health services center has the same "professional prestige" as the position of elementary school teacher. The answer to the question has to be inferred from evidence as to the nature of the two positions. It is found that, as compared to the elementary school teaching position the Respondent had, the adult education teaching position to which the Respondent was transferred does not have "similar professional prestige."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Gadsden County enter a final order: (1) either reinstating the Respondent, Mary L. Martin, to her former position as elementary school teacher at Stewart Street Elementary School or transferring her to a similar position at the same salary; but (2) denying her claim for the award of attorney fees and costs. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1994.
