The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher, for alleged violations of various School Board rules and policies, as outlined in the Superintendent’s letter to Respondent, dated June 15, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the School Board of Sarasota County, the entity responsible for operating, monitoring, staffing, and maintaining the public schools within Sarasota County, in accordance with Part II, Chapter 1001, Florida Statutes (2009). The School is a middle school operated by Petitioner. Petitioner employed Respondent, Brian Berry, as a teacher at the School for several years. Respondent taught students with ESE designation. Respondent is an “instructional employee” under the Instructional Bargaining Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Sarasota Classified/Teachers Association (“Union”), and Petitioner (July 1, 2006 – June 30, 2009, for the 2008-2009 year)(the “Collective Bargaining Agreement”). Article XXV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement governs disciplinary actions against teachers, including Respondent. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires there to be just cause for any discipline. Normally, the following progressive discipline steps are administered: (1) verbal reprimand; (2) written reprimand; (3) suspension and, (4) termination. Following progressive discipline is not required “in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or other flagrant violations.” During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent’s classroom was one of four classrooms arranged in a quadrant fashion around a center internal office that connects the four classrooms to each other. Respondent’s room was in the southwest quadrant. Holmes had the room in the northwest quadrant. Brooks had the room in the southeast quadrant. Like Respondent, Holmes and Brooks taught ESE students. Brooks and Respondent shared a paraprofessional, Collins. Bazenas became the School’s principal in April 2006, and has been its principal since that time. Before resorting to the progressive discipline system, School administration routinely counsel employees on an informal basis when there is a concern. Generally, the counseling occurs as a conversation between the administrator and instructor. This informal counseling is non-punitive. Administrators also use Memorandums of Instruction to clarify expectations. A Memorandum of Instruction is also non-punitive in nature; however, failing to abide by the expectation contained in a Memorandum of Instruction could warrant discipline. Respondent’s prior disciplinary history includes: Verbal Reprimand, dated December 17, 2007, for failing to monitor students. Verbal Reprimand, dated January 19, 2009, for failing to submit student attendance on 39 occasions during the 2008- 2009 school year through January 6, 2009. Written Reprimand, dated January 20, 2009, for failing to follow three separate Memorandums of Instruction concerning posting student attendance and for failing to report student attendance on January 7, 2009. Individual Education Plans During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent was the case manager responsible for drafting Individual Education Plans (“IEPs”) for several of his students. Under federal law, IEPs must be updated at least once each year. Failing to update an IEP by the time the prior IEP becomes out of date means such IEP is out of compliance. This jeopardizes ESE funding, which comes from state and federal sources. During the 2008-2009 school year, there was an ESE liaison (Cindy Lowery) at the School who routinely and timely reminded case managers, including Respondent, of their IEP responsibilities, important deadlines, and steps necessary to be taken by the case manager. At the beginning of the school year, Lowery explained the procedures to case managers, including Respondent. Respondent received numerous reminders prior to the expiration of each IEP for which he was responsible. The expectations relating to IEP completion were clear and known to case managers, including Respondent, at all relevant times. At all times during the 2008-2009 school year prior to his being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent had the ability to complete in a timely manner each IEP for which he was responsible. He also had access to all materials and assistance necessary to timely complete each of the IEPs. During school year 2008-2009, Respondent was the case manager and responsible for the IEPs of students A.M. (due 11/27/08; completed 12/1/08); J.G. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); U.S. (due 1/17/09; completed 2/25/09); J.C. (due 2/20/09; completed 2/25/09); N.C. (due 3/3/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009); B.B. (due 3/11/09; not completed prior to date Respondent was placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009). Reporting Attendance Teachers are required to take classroom attendance each period and timely post that attendance into the School’s computer program that tracks attendance. This expectation is contained in the School’s staff handbook, which is developed and reviewed annually by a shared-decision making team, composed of administrators, teachers, and community members. Reporting attendance each period is a safety and security matter. Reporting attendance also assists with accountability for funding purposes. During the 2008-2009 school year prior to being placed on administrative leave on March 17, 2009, Respondent failed to report attendance in at least one period on: August 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29; September 3, 4, 9 - 12, 15, 16, 22, 26, 30; October 1, 3, 7 - 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29; November 6, 7, 12, 18, 20, 21, 25; December 4, 5, 10; January 6, 7; February 19, 24; and March 3, 4, 10, 13, and 16. In all but six of those dates, Respondent failed to report attendance for multiple periods. On October 20, 2008, November 24, 2008, and January 7, 2009, administrators at the School provided Respondent with Memorandums of Instruction reminding Respondent of the need to submit attendance electronically each period. FCAT Proctoring On March 10 and 11, 2009, the FCAT was administered at the School. Respondent was assigned to proctor students who were permitted testing accommodations. Some permitted accommodations included extended testing time and having proctors read questions. Testing of these students occurred in the School’s media center. Another ESE teacher, Aisha Holmes, was also assigned to proctor similar students. Proctors were instructed that they needed to sign-in and sign-out upon entering and leaving the media center; that they could not engage in personal reading; and that they needed to actively supervise the students at all times. A preponderance of evidence supports the finding that Respondent engaged in the following activities contrary to his duties as proctor: Over the two-day proctoring session, Respondent failed to sign-in and sign-out every time that he took a break. Respondent engaged in personal reading and other non-proctoring activities when he was required to be actively proctoring the FCAT. Respondent stood over student S.L.’s shoulder for a time period exceeding two minutes. While Respondent contends that he was trying to determine if S.L. had finished, S.L. had not finished. Respondent’s actions were intimidating to S.L. On the second testing day, Respondent fell asleep on a couch in the media center for a period of time when he should have been actively proctoring. Respondent snored, causing a disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. While the length of time Respondent slept was in dispute, the evidence demonstrates that it was considerably longer than a brief moment as advanced by Respondent. On the second day of testing, a student spilled juice on that student’s reference sheet. Respondent placed the reference sheet in the microwave but did not monitor the drying process. The microwave scorched the reference sheet, resulting in a burnt smell invading the testing area and causing another disturbance to the students engaged in testing activities. Use of Video with No Learning Objective in Place In February 2009, Respondent showed the movie “Happy Feet” to his class. He concedes that he had no learning objective in mind in showing this video. Although Respondent explained that in his opinion, no learning could be accomplished that day due to the death of a co-teacher’s fiancé, Respondent conceded that he requested no assistance in addressing this situation despite such assistance being available to him. Lesson Plans Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans at least one week in advance. Teachers are also required to have the lesson plan on their desk and available for review. The lesson plan expectations are contained in the School’s staff handbook. The lesson plans are the guiding document for instruction, which requires teachers to give forethought as to the content of their lessons. It is used by teachers to focus their lessons, by administrators to ensure content aligns with teaching objectives, and by substitutes in the absence of the teacher. It is undisputed that the School’s administration repeatedly counseled Respondent to create and have lesson plans available. Respondent failed to have lesson plans completed and available for the week of October 6, November 17, and December 15, 2008, and January 5, January 20 and February 2, 2009. February 3, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On February 3, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for Students J.G. and U.S. That meeting also addressed Respondent’s continued failure to comply with school policy on maintaining lesson plans. It is undisputed that Respondent failed to timely complete the IEPs for students J.G. and U.S., and that he failed to comply with the lesson plan requirement. March 16, 2009 Weingarten Hearing On the afternoon of Monday, March 16, 2009, Bazenas and Respondent and others met in a formal, noticed meeting to discuss: (1) Respondent’s failure to complete IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. prior to their IEPs becoming out of compliance; (2) the FCAT proctoring matters; (3) use of the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective; (4) continued failure to comply with the lesson plan expectation; (5) tardiness on March 9, and March 10, 2009; and (6) use of the girls’ restroom.1 It is undisputed that Respondent failed to complete the IEPs for students N.C. and B.B. in a timely manner, and that he used the video “Happy Feet” with no learning objective in place. During the meeting, Bazenas presented Respondent with the summary of Holmes’ observations of Respondent’s conduct while proctoring the FCAT. Respondent conceded that he was inattentive at times during FCAT proctoring and did fall asleep for some period of time during the FCAT, although he disputes it was for 45 minutes. March 17, 2009, Confrontation On the morning of Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Respondent entered Holmes’ classroom to “discuss” Holmes’ summary of her observations of Respondent during the FCAT. A student, whom Holmes was tutoring, was present in Holmes’ room at the time. Holmes was uncomfortable with Respondent’s insistence on discussing the FCAT matter at that time in front of the student. Holmes advised Respondent that she would talk to him later. Respondent, however, persisted in continuing his challenge to Holmes’ FCAT proctoring observations in front of the student. At that point, Bazenas entered Holmes’s room. Bazenas observed that the situation was “tense” and that Holmes was backed into a corner of the room. Bazenas also observed that the student that was present looked very uncomfortable. At that point, Bazenas, in a reasonable voice, requested that Respondent return to his own classroom to supervise his students. Respondent immediately became upset and began yelling at Bazenas, telling Bazenas not to interrupt him. Respondent approached him and pointed his finger in Bazenas’ face. At that time, Collins was in Brooks’ room. Collins heard shouting coming from the direction of Holmes’ room. Collins proceeded into the center office of the quad. She observed Respondent shouting at Bazenas that he was a “liar” and that Respondent would see Bazenas “in court.” Collins did not hear Bazenas raise his voice. Collins was fearful of Respondent; she had never seen Respondent act in that way. She also testified that Bazenas looked fearful of Respondent. Respondent then proceeded into his classroom and Bazenas followed Respondent into the classroom. He put himself between Respondent and his students, permitting Collins to remove the students from Respondent’s classroom, taking them into Brooks’ classroom. Respondent continued with his emotional outburst during this time. When Bazenas requested that Respondent leave campus immediately, Respondent threatened Bazenas. Bazenas subjectively believed that Respondent’s agitated behavior and his statement to be a threat of violence. Respondent also directed inappropriate comments to his students about Bazenas during his outburst. As Collins brought Respondent’s students into Brooks’ classroom, Collins was shaking and looked very fearful. After all of Respondent’s students were in Brooks’ classroom, Brooks locked the doors. Locking the doors is an unusual occurrence; however, Respondent did leave campus voluntarily. Respondent was immediately placed on administrative leave. Shortly thereafter, a police officer went to Respondent’s house to advise Respondent to stay away from campus. Respondent complied with the request. Respondent’s outburst on March 17, 2009, constituted a real and immediate threat to the School administration, teachers and students and was a flagrant violation of school policies and the State Principles of Professional Conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Respondent from the date Respondent was placed on unpaid leave of absence. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent from his employment with the Sarasota County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Sarasota County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed by the Sarasota Board as a teacher. Respondent is certified to teach biological sciences grade 6 through 12. Respondent is not certified to teach reproductive health or health opportunities through physical education classes. Respondent was reassigned to the Landings,6/ the School Board’s administrative offices during the course of the investigation. On May 1, 2014, Superintendent White executed a letter to Respondent which provided in part: It has been reported to me by Dr. Rachel Shelley, Principal of Booker High School, that you have been insubordinate by not maintaining a professional learning environment with your students. It is reported that progressive discipline has occurred; however, these interventions have not been successful. You have grieved the initial proposed termination set for March 19, 2014 and on April 29, 2014; you were notified that this grievance was denied. Accordingly, I will recommend to the School board that it terminate your employment effective May 21, 2014. The School Board will vote to accept or reject my recommendation at its May 20, 2014 meeting. The meeting will be held at 1980 Landings Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida at 3:00 p.m. Background: Respondent was hired to teach integrated science to ninth-grade students at Booker High School (Booker) beginning in the 2001-2002 school year. Respondent taught at Booker for three years under Principal Jan Gibbs. At the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year, Respondent became the dean of a newly created middle school called Student Leadership Academy (SLA). Respondent worked at SLA for a year and a half. In the spring of 2006, Respondent transferred to and taught honors biology at Riverview High School. Respondent returned to Booker for the 2006-2007 school year under Principal Jill Dorsett. During the 2008 spring break, Principal Dorsett was reassigned to the Landings, and Constance White-Davis became Booker’s principal. Principal White-Davis served Booker for several years. During the 2008-2009 school year, Assistant Principal (AP) Edwina Oliver served as a teacher evaluator of Respondent. In April 2009, AP Oliver discussed with Respondent certain guidelines and expectations for teaching at Booker. AP Oliver reduced her comments to a memorandum of instruction (memo) to Respondent. This memo was not considered as discipline, but rather a reminder to Respondent of the guidelines and expectations for Booker teachers. The reminders included: responsibilities of assigned students according to Smartweb;7/ effective use of instructional time;8/ and consistent enforcement of policies related to student’s expectations.9/ In March 2010, AP Oliver issued a verbal reprimand to Respondent regarding his involvement in a Facebook exchange with a female student. During the Weingarten hearing,10/ Respondent admitted that R.P. was a student in his classroom, and it probably wasn’t the best idea that he responded to a female student’s Facebook posting by providing his cell phone number. Respondent was evasive in answering questions at the hearing regarding this incident; yet, he asserted that neither he nor R.P. contacted one another after Respondent supplied his cell number. Principal Rachel Shelly’s Tenure: When Ms. Shelley began her tenure as Booker’s principal, she devoted her first year to listening, watching, and meeting with administrators, lead teachers, teachers, parents, and community members. Principal Shelley found Respondent to be jovial, social, highly intelligent (in that he knew his curriculum), and very popular among the students. At some point AP Oliver shared with Principal Shelley her concerns regarding Respondent and his teaching style. AP Oliver was concerned that Respondent showed a lot of videos in his classroom, that he allowed students to come and go at will, and that he lacked high expectations for his students. Principal Shelley maintains high expectations for all Booker students and teachers. In order for Booker students to achieve their highest potential, Principal Shelley needs highly effective teachers who will “set and consistently maintain high expectation[s].” Booker (as all public schools in Florida) is mandated to teach to the Florida Education Accomplished Practice (FEAP) standards. FEAP requires that teachers must know how to do certain things and be able to teach those things to students. In order to meet these high standards, Principal Shelley tries to hire highly effective teachers in order for her students to advance. In April 2013, Respondent was placed on administrative leave while the school district conducted an investigation into an alleged battery of a student. A female student came forward and alleged that while she was alone in a classroom/preparation room grading papers for Respondent, Respondent brushed by her and grabbed her butt. The student reported the incident to Principal Shelley, who immediately instituted the district protocol by removing Respondent from the classroom environment. Respondent was instructed to wait for further instructions from Principal Shelley. Principal Shelley notified law enforcement via the Booker school resource officer, and a criminal investigation was conducted. For the remainder of the 2012-13 school year, Respondent worked at the Landings. Upon completion of the district’s investigation, it was determined that Respondent had violated two school policies: allowing a student to grade other students’ papers; and allowing a student to be alone in a classroom/preparation room. Respondent was suspended from the classroom for five days without pay. He served the suspension between October 16 and October 22, 2013. In late September 2013, the criminal charges against Respondent were dropped, and he was allowed to return to the classroom with specific expectations regarding his classroom teaching and management style. One specific instruction given to Respondent was that he was not to allow unassigned students in his classroom. The evidence clearly demonstrated that Respondent allowed a male student, K.C., who was not assigned to Respondent, to enter Respondent’s classroom during Respondent’s lunch/planning period. K.C. remained in Respondent’s classroom approximately 10-15 minutes. Respondent did not ask K.C. for a hall pass. Principal Shelley gave Respondent a verbal warning regarding his misrepresentation of the facts surrounding K.C.’s classroom visit. In November 2013, Principal Shelley conducted a walk- through of Respondent’s classroom. While there, Principal Shelley noted that Respondent’s lesson plans were not completed or available for viewing, and that students were eating in the classroom. Respondent was advised of these issues. In December 2013, Principal Shelley conducted a Weingarten hearing regarding the number of labs that Respondent was conducting in his classes. Principal Shelley directed Respondent to implement hands-on labs as required by the physical science curriculum, as she found that Respondent was not conducting the requisite number of labs. In January 2014, during Respondent’s marine science class, Respondent showed human pictures of male and female genitalia infected with the human papillomavirus (HPV). Respondent thought it was a “teachable moment” for juniors and seniors in high school. He continued to state something to the effect that if the students weren’t going to abstain from sex, they should use “condom sense.” Respondent admitted it was “a huge lapse in judgment,” “it was not in any way related to marine science” and he was “deeply sorry if [he] offended any student or parent.” Respondent admitted that he engaged in a conversation with students regarding “BJ’s and Costco.”11/ One student, K.S. (also known as K.L.R.S.), credibly testified that Respondent engaged in a conversation with students acknowledging that he (Respondent) liked Hispanic girls. K.S. was also distressed when Respondent winked at her following a comment about Respondent liking curly-haired Hispanics. Additionally, Respondent admitted to making sexually charged statements about his wife and/or his preference for Latin women. Even if those statements were taken out of context, Respondent should not have engaged in these conversations with students. A female student was offended by Respondent’s actions and reported them to a teacher, who in turn encouraged the student to report them to Principal Shelley. Once Principal Shelley heard the allegations, she immediately implemented the district protocol and relieved Respondent of his teaching responsibilities. After the district conducted another investigation, Superintendent White issued the termination letter to Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner terminate Respondent's employment as a classroom teacher for Sarasota County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2014.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Petitioner, Osceola County School Board (School Board or Petitioner), has just cause to terminate Respondents Mona Sagar and Kristie Gilmore from their employment contracts.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is duly constituted and charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Osceola County, Florida. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; ch. 1012, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore were employed by the School District. Ms. Sagar has been in the education field for years. She attended “teachers college” in Trinidad and taught school there for ten years. She was hired as a paraprofessional (para) by the School District in 2011. Ms. Sagar was assigned to an autistic classroom at Discovery Intermediate School (Discovery) and later switched to an “intellectually disabled mild” (InD mild) classroom. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. At the start of the 2013-2014 school year, Ms. Sagar was the para assigned to the “intellectually disabled severe” (InD severe) class. The InD severe class had a teacher and two paras,7/ and was composed of children who were mainly confined to wheelchairs or who needed special assistance to walk. Ms. Sagar completed the crisis prevention intervention (CPI) class, a class that instructs personnel on how to physically and verbally restrain, redirect, and prompt a child who is misbehaving. Ms. Gilmore became a para in exceptional student education (ESE) in 2005. She arrived at Discovery in August 2005. Ms. Gilmore worked with students with varying educational needs including: emotional behavior disorder (EBD); autism; InD mild; intellectually disabled moderate (InD moderate); intellectually disabled profound (InD profound); and regular educational students.8/ Ms. Gilmore had completed the CPI training twice before, but she was not re-certified at the start of the 2013-2014 school year. She has not been subject to any prior disciplinary action. Discovery had six self-contained ESE classrooms for the 2013-2014 school year. There were two autistic classrooms, one InD mild classroom, one InD moderate classroom, one InD severe classroom, and one EBD classroom. All six classrooms are located on the first floor of one of Discovery’s buildings, in close proximity to the office of the dean of students. Student safety is of paramount concern for School District employees. As such, every EBD classroom has a land-line telephone and a walkie-talkie for use to request assistance, to notify the appropriate office of a student’s unscheduled exit from the classroom and to provide other information. The telephone is primarily a school-based phone that has its own five-digit internal extension number.9/ In the event a walkie-talkie is not available, a teacher or para may use the telephone to communicate with other school personnel. The walkie-talkies are limited to the self-contained classrooms, guidance counselors, deans, school resource officer, administrators, principal’s secretary, academic coaches, athletic coaches, and maintenance staff. The walkie-talkies are on one channel or frequency, and when used, everyone who has a walkie- talkie can hear the conversation. Discipline referrals may be written by any adult at Discovery for any infraction in the student code of conduct. The referral form reflects the student’s name, identification number, the classroom, school, grade level, date of birth, race, sex, homeroom teacher, incident date and time, location of the incident, the problem or explanation of the problem, the action taken by the adult prior to the referral, the signature of the referring adult, and the date signed. The bottom of the referral form was for “administrative use only,” and reflects what if any action was taken. Ms. Gilmore, as the para in the EBD self- contained classroom, authored numerous discipline referrals for student J.G. During the 2013 summer, Ms. Chowdhary was notified that she would be re-assigned to Discovery’s EBD self-contained classroom for the 2013-2014 school year. Ms. Chowdhary did not want this assignment; however, Ms. Chowdhary contacted Ms. Gilmore and asked if she (Ms. Gilmore) would consent to be Ms. Chowdhary’s para in her EBD self-contained classroom. This request was based on their positive working relationship during the 2012-2013 school year in an autistic classroom. Ms. Gilmore agreed, the school administration concurred, and Ms. Gilmore was assigned to Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year there were ten male students in Ms. Chowdhary’s EBD self-contained classroom. This classroom had a walkie-talkie and telephone. Each student had an individual educational plan (IEP), a different EBD, and a medical condition. On the first day of school, each student was given a welcome packet that contained an emergency contact sheet and a health care report form. The parents are requested (but not required) to complete as much of the information as they wish, and return it to the classroom. Ms. Gilmore read the responses “thoroughly” regarding the medical conditions of students J.G. and J.C., as provided by their respective parents or guardians. In early December 2013, Ms. Gilmore was re-assigned to an InD moderate classroom as an accommodation for her pregnancy. Ms. Chowdhary requested a male para to replace Ms. Gilmore. Based on the support staff already engaged by Discovery, Ms. Sagar was transferred to work in Ms. Chowdhary’s self- contained classroom. Ms. Sagar observed and worked with Ms. Gilmore on two separate days for several hours prior to the actual transfer in mid-December. Approximately two weeks before the Christmas break, a female student, J.T., arrived in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. was taller and heavier than either Ms. Chowdhary or Ms. Sagar. J.T.’s language was loud and predominantly profanity-laced. J.T. did not complete her classroom assignments, and she did not follow the classroom rules regarding the use of her cellphone.10/ On January 9, 2014, Ms. Gilmore learned that Ms. Chowdhary was absent from school. Ms. Gilmore volunteered to be the substitute teacher in Ms. Chowdhary’s classroom.11/ In the early afternoon of January 9, two male students engaged in a physical altercation (Altercation No. 1) in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. took out her cellphone and recorded Altercation No. 1 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 6, Respondents’ Exhibit 21). That recording showed one student, J.G., standing over and taunting another student, J.C. J.G. called J.C. a “taco.” J.C. responded that J.G. should call J.C. “Taco Bell,” and added that J.G. was the dark meat in his taco. J.G. took J.C.’s remark to be a racist comment. J.C.12/ was crumpled on the floor behind a desk where J.G. grabbed J.C. by his warm-up jacket collar/shirt. J.G. pulled J.C. up by the collar/shirt and pushed J.C. into a chair at a computer cubby and small space near a wall. J.G. kept one hand on J.C. while pinning J.C. to the small space. J.G. continued to taunt J.C. and is heard to say: Next comment I’m gonna stomp on your [J.C.’s] heart, and I know you got a condition to where I stomp on it, you dead, and I don’t give a f . So you can’t keep making a racist joke. Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were both present and observed Altercation No. 1. Ms. Gilmore was sitting at the teacher’s desk in the front of the room when Altercation No. 1 started. When J.G. “dumped [J.C.] out of the chair,” [to start the altercation], [Ms. Gilmore] told J.G. to “knock it off,” and when J.G. had J.C. on the floor, she [Ms. Gilmore] “told him to quit.” Ms. Gilmore testified that she didn’t call for help because “It was over.” Her testimony is not credible because the recording shows that J.G. then pulled J.C. up to a standing position, and continued to taunt him. Further, Respondents’ Exhibit 16 is a discipline referral that Ms. Gilmore authored on January 9, the day of the altercations. Ms. Gilmore documented in this discipline referral the following “PROBLEM – EXPLAIN:” During Science class, 5th period, [J.G.] was talking about how he fights and got into an altercation with another student. Words were exchanged and [J.G.] didn’t like what the student [J.C.] said so he [J.G.] flipped him [J.C.] out of his chair, kicked him [J.C.] a couple times and threatened to kill the other student [J.C.] by stomping on his [J.C.’s] heart. Ms. Sagar was seated at a desk assisting another student, J.M., when Altercation No. 1 started. Ms. Sagar did not hear any loud shouting or threats at the beginning of Altercation No. 1, but it escalated to the point where she was “alarmed.” Ms. Sagar admitted that she got up to leave the room, then decided not to do so, telling herself: “I shouldn’t leave the class at this time.” The reason she did not leave the classroom was because the altercation “wasn’t settled like down, down, down. It still had like the talking and everybody, so I turned around and came back to my seat.” Ms. Sagar did not move to intervene or call for help. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar moved to intervene in Altercation No. 1, and neither used the walkie-talkie or the telephone to call for assistance or to alert the administration of the volatile situation. A few minutes later another altercation (Altercation No. 2) took place in the EBD self-contained classroom. J.T. also recorded Altercation No. 2 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 8) on her cellphone. J.G. was again taunting J.C. J.G. dared J.C. to “take a swing” at J.G. J.C. did not swing at J.G. J.G. proceeded to talk to the class about J.C. and other classmates. J.C. then expressed his desire to die because his life “sucks,” his father was dead, and his step-father didn’t love him. J.C. violently kicked/pushed a chair several feet away from himself, began to cry, stated that he’d be “happy if you [J.G.] kill me,” violently overturned a desk, and walked out of the EBD self- contained classroom. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the EBD self-contained classroom, and observed Altercation No. 2. During Altercation No. 2, Ms. Gilmore was at the front of the class at the teacher’s desk. Ms. Gilmore confirmed that J.C. “flipped a desk and walked out of class.” Ms. Gilmore testified she “opened the door, . . . and put myself at the doorway to get the rest of the kids out of the class if I had to get them out.” Ms. Gilmore is briefly partially seen in the recording, and she is heard asking J.C. to pick up the desk before he left the classroom. J.C. did not pick up the desk. The recording shows Ms. Sagar seated at a work table with J.M. At one point Ms. Sagar rises from her seat, walks to a counter with a microwave, stays at the counter for a short time, returns to her seat, and then eats something while Altercation No. 2 is on-going. Neither Ms. Gilmore nor Ms. Sagar used the walkie- talkie or telephone to obtain assistance or alert the administration of the continuing volatile situation. J.C. went to the dean of students (Ms. Rice’s) office after he walked out of the EBD self-contained classroom. Once there, he screamed at Ms. Rice about the events that had just taken place in his classroom. Ms. Rice observed J.C. to be distraught and angry. Based on J.C.’s comments, Ms. Rice understood that a recording of the classroom events was made. Ms. Rice requested the principal to obtain the recording. Between when J.C. left the EBD self-contained classroom and when the principal arrived at the EBD self-contained classroom to retrieve the recording, yet another altercation, Altercation No. 3, occurred. J.T. started recording Altercation No. 3 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 10) on her cellphone. Student W.F. held a chair over his head and threatened to throw it at another student, D.S. The other students in the classroom can be heard urging W.F. to throw it, but W.F. did not. J.G. can be seen standing behind D.S., and heard to say he’ll “make sure it hit[s] you [D.S.].” When it became apparent that W.F. was not going to throw the chair, J.T. handed her phone to W.F., who continued to record the action, and J.T. threw the chair. J.T. testified that she did not intend to hurt D.S., but she was not “play acting.” Ms. Gilmore testified she did not remember much of Altercation No. 3. She thought she might have been writing a referral at her desk, and did not call for help because the altercation was over so quickly. Again, Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar were present in the classroom, observed Altercation No. 3, and did nothing to radio or call for assistance or alert the administration of the volatile situation. There is no credible evidence that any of the altercations were pretend fights, or that they were staged for the benefit of the other students. Ms. Gilmore’s contention, that the altercations were staged, is not credible. This EBD self-contained classroom is a challenging class, one that should be closely monitored and adequately staffed to ensure learning can occur, and safety maintained. Respondents never attempted to gain control of the classroom or students. They never called for help or removed the other students from the area. Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of evidence that Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Ms. Gilmore and Ms. Sagar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Osceola County School Board, enter a final order finding that just cause exists for terminating the employment of Ms. Sagar and Ms. Gilmore. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the Respondent's employment as an educational support employee.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed as a behavioral interventionist with the Palm Beach County School District during the 2000-2001 school year. A behavioral interventionist is a non- instructional employee who works primarily with students receiving services through Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Programs. In addition to monitoring performance and behavior of ESE students, Respondent supervised regular education students who were serving in-house suspensions, performed bus and cafeteria duty, and helped maintain discipline throughout the campus. Respondent also served as an assistant football coach. Respondent received specialized training in order to perform his duties as a behavioral interventionist. He received child development training and attended approximately 12-13 workshops dealing with physical restraint and conflict resolution issues. Respondent is not a member of a collective bargaining unit. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Student 1, a male, was 17-years old and a junior at Forest Hill. Student 1 is 5'10" tall and weighs approximately 260 pounds. Respondent is 6'3" tall and weighs approximately 250 pounds. Respondent is a former professional football player who routinely lifts weights. On December 11, 2000, between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Student 1 was in the area of the outdoor basketball court watching a basketball game. Student 1 had permission to be on the campus of Forest Hill, but he should not have been in the area of the outdoor basketball court. Respondent was in the weight room at Forrest Hill that afternoon demonstrating weight lifting techniques to a group of his football players. After he completed his weight lifting workout, Respondent went to the outdoor basketball court to play basketball. Respondent began playing basketball with a group of students, including students who did not play football. Student 1 could have played if he had wanted to do so. Student 1 was not playing when the acts at issue in this proceeding occurred. Shortly after the game began, Student 1 was standing off the basketball court observing the game when the basketball ball was thrown out of bounds near him. Respondent walked up to Student 1 and said, "why don't you get the ball fat boy?" In response, Student 1 used profane language and was disrespectful towards Respondent. Respondent reacted by tapping Student 1 on the cheek with his open hand. Student 1 asked Respondent why he hit him, but received no response. As Student 1 attempted to walk away, Respondent tapped him again on the back of the head and the two exchanged words. Respondent was not justified in making physical contact with Student 1. Student 1 again addressed Respondent using profane language. Respondent reacted by taking Student 1 to the ground using a technique that he had been trained to use to restrain students. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent placed Student 1 in a chokehold when he took him to the ground. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Respondent did not use a chokehold on Student 1. There was also a conflict in the evidence as to whether Student 1 had become aggressive and whether Respondent was merely trying to restrain Student 1. The evidence is clear that Respondent physically restrained Student 1 because Student 1 had been disrespectful towards him, not because Student 1 had become combative. Respondent was not justified in physically restraining Student 1. Student 1 was on the ground when Respondent released him from the restraining hold. As Student 1 was attempting to rise, Respondent hit him with his forearm, which forced Student 1 back to the ground. Witnesses at the basketball court told Student 1 to stay down, but he attempted to rise and saw Respondent in a three-point position typically assumed by football linemen. Almost immediately, Respondent came at Student 1 again and forearmed him back to the ground. Student 1 fell back to the ground, biting his tongue as he went down. He then got up and began cursing. After an interval of a few minutes, Student 1 asked Respondent why he had hit him and began to spit in the general direction of Respondent. Respondent, believing that Student 1 was spitting at him, grabbed him in the area of the neck and forced him against the fence surrounding the basketball court. Respondent told Student 1, "Don't play with me boy, I'm not a kid." Respondent was not justified in that use of force against Student 1. The incident lasted over a period of several minutes. Student 2 was present during the entire incident and Student 3 was present during the latter part of the incident (when Respondent grabbed Student 1 by the neck and forced him against the fence). Both witnesses corroborated Student 1's version of the events. No other student witnesses testified at the final hearing. Student 1 complained that afternoon to a coach named Coleman about what had occurred and he also told his mother later that evening when he got home. Student 1 complained to his mother that his neck hurt and she took him to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with a sprained neck. On December 12, 2000, Student 1 and his mother returned to the school and complained to Assistant Principal Mark Sagovac, about what happened the afternoon before. Mr. Sagovac thereafter spoke with Respondent, who did not deny the incident had occurred. Respondent admitted to Mr. Sagovac that he called Student 1 a "fat boy" and asked him to get the ball, which had rolled out of bounds. Respondent further told Mr. Sagovac that he pushed Student 1 to the ground with his forearm and forced Student 1 up against the fence because he felt Student 1 was threatening him. After speaking with Respondent, Mr. Sagovac interviewed Student 1 again and spoke to other witnesses. Some time thereafter a meeting was held between Student 1, his mother, Respondent, Mr. Sagovac, and Assistant Principal Green, who is also an assistant principal assigned to Forest Hill. The incident was discussed again and at one point, Respondent apologized to Student 1 and his mother. After the meeting concluded, Mr. Sagovac issued to Respondent a verbal reprimand with written notation for the actions he took on December 11, 2000. Prior to serving the Respondent with the verbal reprimand with written notation, Sagovac did not consult with his principal or anyone in the Petitioner 's Personnel Office or Office of Professional Standards to determine if he was complying with policy or if he was following accepted personnel practice concerning the contemplated discipline. Mr. Sagovac was not complying with school policy when he issued the verbal reprimand with written notation. Mr. Sagovac did not have the authority to discipline Respondent. Shortly after the conclusion of the meeting attended by Student 1, his mother, Respondent, and Mr. Sagovac, a complaint was made to the school district's police department concerning the December 11, 2000, incident. Based upon the complaint, a criminal investigation into Respondent's actions was initiated. There was no evidence as to the status of any criminal charges presented at the final hearing. Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards received information concerning the criminal investigation, which caused it to open its own administrative investigation. After the Office of Professional Standards received the police report and the attached documents, the case was assigned to an investigator. During the Petitioner's investigation, Respondent was placed on administrative leave with pay and assigned to duty at his home. This assignment became effective February 1, 2001. After Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards completed its investigation, it prepared a report of the incident and, consistent with its rules, submitted the case for review to a case management committee. Case management review is a process whereby approximately a dozen high level employees working for the district meet at the direction of the Superintendent to review pending personnel cases which may result in the suspension of employment without pay or the termination of employment. Respondent's case management committee determined that probable cause existed to sustain the allegation Respondent used inappropriate physical force on the student in question. Once probable cause was found, it further determined that the level of the force used warranted a recommendation that Respondent's employment be terminated. Based upon the case management committee's recommendation to terminate Respondent for having engaged in inappropriate physical force on a student, Superintendent of Schools Arthur C. Johnson notified Respondent by letter dated May 8, 2001, that he would recommend to the School Board at its meeting to be held May 16, 2001, that Respondent's employment be terminated and that he be suspended without pay pending the completion of the proceedings to terminate his employment. On May 16, 2001, the School Board voted to accept the Superintendent's recommendation. It is the policy of the Petitioner that no employee is to use physical force with a student unless the employee is breaking up a fight, acting in self-defense, or protecting the student from hurting him or herself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of February, 2002.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether Respondent committed the offenses enumerated in the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a valid Florida Educator’s Certificate No. 514964, covering the area of elementary education, which is valid through June 30, 2007. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Moton Elementary School in the Hernando County School District. She is admired and respected within Moton Elementary and is considered by her principal to be an excellent teacher. Her performance evaluations consistently reflect that she exceeds expected performances levels in every category. Her honesty and integrity are unquestioned. Respondent is viewed as the quintessential teacher who teaches simply because she loves working with children, watching them learn and grow. Students in the State of Florida are administered a standardized test known as the FCAT. A portion of that test is known as the norm referenced test, or NRT. The NRT is used to compare students in Florida with the achievement of students in other states. It can also be used, as a secondary tool, in the placement of individual students. Teachers are forbidden to give direct assistance to students on the FCAT and the NRT portion of the FCAT, although they can give general encouragement to a group of students. Respondent’s practice, during normal testing in the course of the school year, is to circulate throughout the classroom. If she sees a student that has incorrectly dealt with a problem, she will direct the student to review the problem, and to think about the answer. Respondent was trained in how to administer the FCAT, including the NRT portion. Specifically, she was told she was not to give assistance to students as they were taking the test. On the afternoon of the day in March of 2002 when concerns were raised about Respondent having assisted at least three students on the NRT portion of the exam, Principal Donnie Moen summoned Respondent to his office to ask her if anything unusual had happened during the test. Respondent told him nothing unusual had happened. Later that evening, Respondent wondered out loud to her husband whether she had provided any assistance during the test. The next day, Respondent got the class together and asked the students whether she had provided any directions or assistance on any specific questions. Three students raised their hands and told Respondent she had provided assistance on a specific question. Respondent then realized and now concedes that during the test, while circulating throughout the class, she told K.M. to check her answer to a certain question; told S.H. to go back to a certain question she had skipped over and check the answers to the questions that followed; and told F.M. he needed to check the aquarium problem. When she realized she had given these students assistance on specific questions, she told the students she had to go to the principal to report what she had done. The students asked whether she would get in trouble. She reminded the students she had always thought that honesty was the best policy, no matter what happened. Respondent then reported to the principal to tell him she had provided some assistance to three different students on specific questions. While Respondent avows she did not intentionally provide assistance to any students, Respondent did fail to distinguish between normal classroom testing procedures and standardized testing procedures. Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has not been diminished by her actions. She continues to enjoy widespread support from staff, parents and school administration, although, as a result of the incidents in the NRT portion of the FCAT, Respondent accepted a "last chance agreement" with the local school district. Part of that agreement was a 10-working day suspension without pay, and probation for a period of one year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order retroactively suspending Respondent's certificate for a 10-working day period, coupled with probation for a period of one year. Such recommended penalty should run concurrently with discipline imposed by the Hernando County School District upon Respondent in April of 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2003, 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 29th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Bruce Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nancy S. Lowery ("Respondent"), violated Subsections 231.2615(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (2001),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Educator's Certificate No. 365470, issued by the Department of Education. The certificate covered the area of family and consumer science and was valid through June 30, 2002. During the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent was a teacher at Oakridge High School ("Oakridge"), a school in the Orange County School District ("School District"), and taught exceptional education students. On February 1, 2002, while employed as a teacher at Oakridge, Respondent showed the movie, "Jaws III," in her classroom to the students in her fourth-period class. That day there were about ten students in Respondent's fourth-period class. Prior to or soon after starting the movie, Respondent turned off the lights in the classroom, and the lights remained off while the movie was playing. While the movie was playing, the students in Respondent's class sat at their desks. However, at some point during the movie, D.C., a female student in the class, asked J.G., another student, if she (J.G.) gave "head." In response, J.G. answered in the affirmative. After J.G. responded, D.C. and G.J., a male student in the class, then coaxed J.G. to perform oral sex on G.J. Then, G.J. unzipped his pants and told J.G. to put her head "down there," and she did so. At or near the same time, G.J. put his hand in J.G.'s pants. For most of the class period, J.G.'s head was in G.J.'s lap. While J.G. was performing oral sex on G.J., some of the students in the class positioned their desks so that Respondent could not see what J.G. and G.J. were doing. At all times relevant to this proceeding, B.D. was about 16-years-old and a student at Oakridge. B.D. was in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, and observed the events and incident described in paragraphs four through six. Petitioner was in the classroom during the entire fourth period while "Jaws III" was playing. However, once the movie began playing, Petitioner was at the computer in the classroom "working on" or "typing" something. Petitioner was working at the computer most of the class period and did not see J.G. and G.J. engaging in the inappropriate sexual conduct described in paragraph five. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Kari Sperre was the chairman of the Exceptional Education Department at Oakridge, the department in which Respondent worked. On the morning of February 1, 2002, Ms. Sperre took her class on a field trip. Ms. Sperre and her class returned to the school during the fourth period. As Ms. Sperre walked by Respondent's classroom, she noticed that the lights in that classroom were out. Later that day, it was reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. had told another student, L.C., that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. Upon hearing this report, Ms. Sperre investigated the matter. Ms. Sperre first talked to L.C., a female student in the ninth grade at Oakridge. L.C., who was not in Respondent's fourth-period class, reported to Ms. Sperre that J.G. told her (L.C.) that she (J.G.) had performed oral sex on G.J. After she spoke with L.C., Ms. Sperre then talked to J.G. Although initially reluctant to talk to Ms. Sperre, J.G. eventually told Ms. Sperre what had happened that day in Respondent's class. J.G. told Ms. Sperre that she had only recently transferred to Oakridge, that she was in Petitioner's fourth-period class, and that the lights in the class were out during class that day. J.G. also reported to Ms. Sperre that two students in the class, D.C., a female student, and G.J., a male student, encouraged her to perform oral sex on G.J. According to J.G., D.C. and/or G.J. told her that all she had to do was put her head underneath G.J.'s jacket and nobody would know what was going on. J.G. also told Ms. Sperre that G.J.'s pants were open and admitted that, "I just bent down and did it." J.G. told Ms. Sperre that this incident occurred while the class was watching the movie and while Respondent was working on the computer. At all times relevant to this proceeding, J.G. was classified as an exceptional education student, having been classified as educable mentally handicapped. A student classified as educable mentally handicapped has an IQ of below 70, well below the average IQ of 100. After the February 1, 2002, incident that occurred in Respondent's class, J.G. was suspended from school for engaging in inappropriate conduct at school. Also, since the incident, J.G. withdrew from school and is no longer enrolled in the School District. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated several policies of the School District. First, the School District requires that teachers supervise their students at all times when they are in the classroom. In order to do this, the teacher should have the students within sight. This is especially important with regard to exceptional education students, who have special and unique challenges. Respondent did not supervise her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, although she was in the classroom. Instead of supervising her class, Respondent was working at the computer most of the class period and was unaware of what the students were doing. Clearly, Respondent was not supervising her students, as evidenced by her failure to ever notice or observe the sexually inappropriate conduct by students in her class. By failing to properly supervise her class on February 1, 2002, Respondent failed to protect her students from conditions harmful to their learning and/or physical health and/or safety. The incident that occurred on February 1, 2002, in Respondent's class could have a negative impact on both the students who observed the incident, as well as the student who was encouraged to perform oral sex on the male student. The educable mentally handicapped student who was coaxed into performing the act could be the victim of teasing as a result of her involvement in the incident. According to Ms. Sperre, those students who witnessed the incident could also be negatively impacted by being exposed to and observing the incident. For example, many of the students in the exceptional education class could also be encouraged to engage in the same type of activity that they witnessed in Respondent's fourth-period class on February 1, 2002. The School District has a policy that prohibits teachers from turning out all the lights in their classrooms during class time. This policy is for safety reasons and requires that even if there is a need to turn off the classroom lights, at least one "bank" of lights must remain on at all times. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy discussed in paragraph 22, by turning off all the lights at or near the beginning of the fourth period, and they remained off while the students were watching the movie. This violation contributed to Respondent's failure to supervise the students because with all the lights out, even though she was in the classroom, Respondent was unaware and unable to see what the students, including J.G. and G.J., were doing. During the 2001-2002 school year, Oakridge had a policy that allowed teachers to show only movies that were educational or had some relevance to the lesson being taught in the class. At the beginning of every school year, including the 2001-2002 school year, teachers at Oakridge are given faculty handbooks, which include various policies and procedures that they are required to read. In addition to these written policies and procedures, Oakridge administrators would "discuss" various "oral procedures" with teachers at facility meetings. It is unclear if the policies or procedures regarding the kinds of movies that could be shown at Oakridge and the prohibition against having all the lights off in classrooms at Oakridge were written or oral policies and/or procedures. On February 1, 2002, Respondent violated the policy related to the kind of movies that are allowed to be shown in the classroom by showing the movie, "Jaws III." "Jaws III" is not an educational movie, nor was it relevant to any lesson being taught by Respondent at or near the time it was being shown to the students. The School District investigated the February 1, 2002, incident, and thereafter, the committee reviewed the incident and voted unanimously to recommend that Respondent be terminated as a teacher in the School District. Despite the unanimous recommendation of termination, because Respondent's teaching contract for re-appointment was to be considered soon, instead of terminating Respondent, the School District decided that it would simply not recommend her for re-appointment for the 2002- 2003 school year. On February 20, 2002, after the February 1, 2002, incident was investigated, Oakridge's principal, J. Richard Damron, issued to Respondent a letter of reprimand and a letter of directives regarding the incident that occurred in Respondent's classroom on February 1, 2002. The letter of reprimand specifically referenced the February 1, 2002, incident and stated that Respondent had "failed to use reasonable care in supervising" the students in her class. Next, the letter of reprimand stated that a directive would be issued in a separate correspondence that outlines the School District's expectations regarding Respondent's conduct in the future. Finally, the letter of reprimand noted that "should there be another incident of a similar nature in the future[,] discipline, up to and including dismissal could be recommended." On February 20, 2002, Principal Damron issued written directives to Respondent which required her to do the following: (1) establish a safe, caring, and nurturing environment conducive to learning and the physical and psychological well- being of students; (2) refrain from showing films that are not directly associated with lessons that contribute to the education of children; (3) keep children under her [Petitioner's] direct supervision at all times and not leave students alone, with other teachers, or be absent from her duties unless she makes prior arrangements with the principal or one of the assistant principals; and (4) comply with all district and school directives, policies, rules, and procedures. Respondent's job performance as a teacher at Oakridge for the 2001-2002 school year was evaluated in March 2002. The results of the evaluation are reported on the School District's form entitled, Instructional Personnel Final Assessment Report ("Assessment Report"). The Assessment Report dated March 25, 2002, noted two areas in which Respondent "Needs Improvement": (1) Professional Responsibilities; and (2) Classroom Management and Discipline. Respondent was rated as "Effective" in four areas: (1) Curriculum Knowledge; (2) Planning and Delivering Instruction; (3) Assessment of Student Performance; (4) Development and Interpersonal Skills. On March 25, 2002, the same day the Assessment Report was completed, Principal Damron notified Respondent that he was not recommending her for re-appointment for the 2002-2003 school year. According to the letter, Principal Damron decided to not recommend Respondent for re-appointment "based upon performance- related reasons and the temporary contract" that she held at that time. Alfred Lopez, a senior manager with the Orange County School District, testified that by failing to supervise the students in her fourth-period class on February 1, 2002, Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher in the School District had "definitely" been reduced. Ms. Sperre testified that she would not ever want Respondent employed in a school in Orange County in which she (Ms. Sperre) was employed. Notwithstanding the beliefs of Mr. Lopez and Ms. Sperre, based on the letter of reprimand and the letter of directives issued on February 20, 2002, it appears that Respondent continued to teach at Oakridge after the February 2002 incident through the end of the school year. Furthermore, no evidence was presented which established that after the incident, Respondent was reassigned, relieved of, or otherwise removed from her position as an exceptional education teacher at Oakridge after the incident.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(a), but did not violate Subsections 231.2615(1)(a) and (f), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.006(3)(e). It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order impose the following administrative sanctions on Respondent: Upon employment in any public or private position requiring an educator's certificate, Respondent shall be placed on two years' probation with the conditions that during this period, she shall: Notify the Education Practices Commission, upon employment and immediately upon termination of employment in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator's certificate; Have her immediate supervisor submit annual performance reports to the Education Practices Commission; Violate no law and fully comply with all School District regulations, school rules, and the State Board of Education; Satisfactorily perform assigned duties in a competent, professional manner; and Bear all costs of complying with the terms of this probation. Enroll in and successfully complete a three-hour college course in classroom management within the first year of probation and submit to the Bureau of Education Standards an official college transcript verifying successful completion of the course with a grade of "B" or higher. This course must be taken in person, and a correspondence or on-line course will not satisfy this requirement. Issue a letter of reprimand, with a copy to be placed in Respondent's certification file. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 18th day of March, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of her handicap.
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that: Respondent is a public school district and is the employer of Petitioner at Terwilliger Elementary School in Gainesville, Florida. Petitioner has taught at Terwilliger for the past 12 years. Petitioner’s evaluations have consistently met or exceeded Respondent’s performance standards. For 11 years, until the 2008-2009 school year, her classroom was in Building Two, a multi-classroom structure on the northwest corner of the school. The instant controversy revolves around Petitioner's transfer to a detached, "portable" classroom for the 2008-2009 school year. The parties have stipulated that: Petitioner, a teacher of Pre-K Exceptional Student Education (ESE) special needs students, has 36 years experience. Her classes comprise from seven to 14 students, ages three, four, and five. She has mobility impairment and uses a wheelchair. Petitioner has post-polio syndrome, which limits her ability to walk. She uses a Pride Quantum 6,000 Power Chair, which the parties have stipulated is a rechargeable battery- powered wheelchair. The District is pro-active in hiring and retaining qualified teachers who happen to be handicapped, and makes efforts to accommodate those handicaps. The credible evidence is that while there may be more severely handicapped teachers employed by the District, there are no other permanently wheelchair-bound teachers at Terwilliger and no teacher in the District fits her limitations, qualifications, and assignments point-for-point. At the present time, Terwilliger has 89 employees, a faculty of 45 teachers and 560 students in Head Start and Pre-K through fifth grade, from age three through 13. Terwilliger has two Pre-K teachers, one of whom is Petitioner. The parties have stipulated that: Petitioner currently has an adult paraprofessional (aide) in the classroom with her. Petitioner sometimes has had two aides, depending on the needs of the children in her class. At the present time in the 2008-2009 school year, she has only eight students in the portable. If the enrollment in Petitioner's class reaches eight to 10 students, a second aide might be necessary. Aides work with Petitioner and assist Petitioner by helping the children during the school day. Sandra Medeiros, the principal at Terwilliger from 2000 through 2006, had planned to move both Petitioner and the other Pre-K teacher to self-contained portable classrooms 99-208L and 99-214L, in order for them to be nearer to the Head Start classrooms. The goal was to have the Head Start children interact more with the Pre-K children, so as to help the Pre-K students converse more (improve language skills) and so as to foster regular classroom behaviors. This process is called “inclusion” and is a respected educational goal on both the State and Federal levels. The move was planned for the 2006- 2007 school year. At some point, Ms. Medeiros discussed the move with Petitioner. In Spring 2006, Principal Medeiros had a ramp added to portable classroom 99-214L and had the bathroom enlarged with handrails, so as to render the new location accessible for Petitioner. Additional wiring was installed for a refrigerator and microwave. However, Ms. Medeiros was transferred from Terwilliger in June 2006. At that time, Petitioner had not yet moved to the portable. The new principal, Dr. Elizabeth LeClear, did not make any changes for her first school year at Terwilliger. At Petitioner's annual evaluation conference in May or June 2008, Dr. LeClear explained to Petitioner that Petitioner would be moving to self-contained portable classroom 99-214L, located on the central east side of campus. On June 20, 2008, Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination with FCHR, alleging a denial of reasonable accommodations and disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of employment. On July 10, 2008, Petitioner completed a self-referral form and submitted it to Respondent, suggesting as a reasonable accommodation that Petitioner be permitted to remain in her current classroom assignment in Building Two. Dr. LeClear relocated Petitioner and 25 other teachers in order to have the school organized by grade level, with every class in close proximity to the other classes and teachers of that grade level. She intended for the teacher "teams" to be together, in order to save time with student transitions to reading groups and to assist with teacher supervision. She also wanted the school to follow the District's Inclusion Model. Respondent District permits and expects principals to change the use of spaces to meet current needs of their school, including fluctuating enrollments and evolving programs. Terwilliger has six kindergarten classes. Those classes are now located in Building Two. The centrium, which is part of Building Two, is being converted to a computer and reading lab. The portable assigned to Petitioner and her current eight students meets all mandatory standards for Pre-K classrooms including, but not limited to, its providing 35 square feet per child. Other Florida school districts operate Pre-K classes in portables. There are portables in use all over the school district. Like Terwilliger, almost every school uses one or more portables. The pending move to the portable was stressful for Petitioner. Some of her stress and concern arose because she did not get written notification of the move until she had already left for vacation in June 2008. The parties have stipulated that: Petitioner was on approved medical leave from August 11, 2008, through January 4, 2009. She returned from such leave in January 2009. Not all the items Petitioner had acquired over the years and which had occupied parts of Building Two would fit in Petitioner's portable. Therefore, the move required that Petitioner select what she was taking with her and discard or store the remainder. During the summer and fall of 2008, Dr. LeClear offered the help of the custodial staff to assist Petitioner in packing for the move to the portable and in physically moving the boxes. Eventually, some of Petitioner’s items were taken to the portable; some were stored at Petitioner’s home; others were stored on Terwilliger’s campus; and still others were stored at another school. Petitioner has not specifically requested more storage space than is provided in her new portable classroom, but if her class size increases to ten children, the administration would be willing to work with her on some compromise regarding storage. Principal LeClear and Petitioner have had disagreements about what materials Petitioner may move from their ultimate storage spots into her portable classroom. At least once, the Principal has offered to go to the other school with Petitioner to reach a mutual agreement on those items, but Petitioner has not accepted her offer. At least once, the Principal did not respond to Petitioner’s written request concerning other items, and there is no clear explanation for the Principal's lack of response. However, these and similar situations are stressors amounting to simple miscommunications and misunderstandings but which do not reflect a deliberate failure of the Principal or the District to reasonably accommodate a handicap. Petitioner wants to return to her old classroom in Building Two and to use an area in Building Two called the "centrium" as she has done for 12 years. The crux of Petitioner’s position is that she feels the portable “houses” her, but does not accommodate her in providing the quality program for her special needs students that she has taken pride in providing throughout her previous years at Terwilliger. This concern was echoed by parents and others. Dr. Lise Fox, a professor in the College of Behavioral and Community Sciences at the University of South Florida, is a long-time friend of Petitioner. For years, Dr. Fox has used Petitioner and Petitioner’s Building Two classroom as exemplars for her students training to teach special needs children. Dr. Fox deposed that while Petitioner has run a model program for years, Petitioner’s new environment (the portable) could be deficient by national standards for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and ESE students. Specifically, Dr. Fox was concerned that without the centrium, Petitioner has no indoor play area for development of her students’ gross motor skills. Dr. Fox could not say that any Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements were not being fulfilled in the portable, but she opined that the difference between what Petitioner was able to do as a teacher in Building Two and what she is able to do as a teacher in the portable amounts to the difference between a high quality Pre-K ESE program based on national professional standards and a program that is merely adequate by Federal and State requirements/standards. However, neither Dr. Fox nor anyone else espousing the foregoing view, were able to credibly state that Petitioner would not be able to fulfill her job requirements or pass her professional evaluations under her changed circumstances. Building Two was in existence when Petitioner first came to Terwilliger. It was designed for early childhood education, which includes Pre-K and kindergarten. It is accessible under ADA standards. For several reasons, Petitioner considers Building Two more accommodating to her handicap and better for her ESE students than her portable. Building Two contains several classrooms plus the “centrium.” Petitioner’s classroom in Building Two had an area of 805 square feet. Petitioner's classroom in the portable has an area of 824 square feet. The centrium was next to Petitioner’s classroom in Building Two. Petitioner did not use the centrium for instruction, but she sometimes used it for occupational and physical therapy and as space where volunteers could work one- on-one with individual children. The other Pre-K teacher also used that area on occasion for similar projects. Sometime in the past, Petitioner had received a grant to acquire stimulating educational and play materials for her classes. Technically, the items acquired at that time belong to Respondent District, but Petitioner properly retained them in her Building Two classroom, in its storeroom, and in the centrium, and utilized them under the terms of the grant. She also received District commendations for her acquisition of these items. However, after the grant ended, she continued to acquire more and more items on her own, to the extent that she had to clear paths in her classroom for her wheelchair to move through. Her last year in Building Two, Petitioner used the centrium mostly for storing a myriad of Pre-K toys and plastic play equipment, many of which were not part of the curriculum, but all of which had been acquired by Petitioner through grants, garage sales, and donations. Some of the toys were dangerous, due to deterioration or breakage. The sheer quantity of the material in that space concerned two successive principals, and the fire inspector. A small office was next to Petitioner’s former classroom in Building Two, as was a storage room, but neither was being used for instructional purposes at the time Petitioner was relocated to the portable. A kitchen space was next to Petitioner’s former classroom, but its stove had been disconnected for safety reasons years before Petitioner’s 2008 transfer. It was not demonstrated that a working kitchen is necessary for any of the curricula Petitioner teaches. There is no reason Petitioner cannot “socialize” children through food preparation/play without actually cooking in either Building Two or her portable, but the portable has been wired for a microwave and refrigerator. The student restroom in Petitioner’s previous classroom had a shower area and a washer and dryer. The shower, washer, and dryer were certainly convenient for dealing with small children, but they are not required features of a Pre-K program. At Terwilliger, the nurse’s station has a tub and shower facility that can be used if one is needed. Petitioner’s Building Two classroom had a changing table; the portable does not. It is unclear whether Petitioner herself used the changing table in her old classroom. Pre-K students may be too large/heavy for that type of assistance. It is possible, but not proven, that Petitioner's paraprofessional could provide that type of assistance. Petitioner’s current class has smaller sized children than those in her team teacher’s Pre-K class, but Petitioner did not prove that she can lift a child of either size onto a changing table from her wheelchair. It is good practice to ask parents to provide a change of clothes for their Pre-K child to change into and for the school to send home the soiled clothes. It is not “best practice” to change a Pre-K child standing up, but it is a permissible practice. The Building Two classroom had a restroom with “itty bitty” child-sized facilities and mid-range facilities. That restroom also had bars for little and mid-size toilets. The portable does not have the foregoing accommodations. The State of Florida does not require that a Pre-K classroom have a restroom, but the National Association for the Education of Young Children has a standard for a restroom being available within 40 feet of a Pre-K classroom, and either child-sized fixtures or a stepstool for the children to use adult-sized features. The portable meets these requirements. Dr. Fox felt the potty-training facilities in the portable’s rest room were inferior to those in Building Two, but she acknowledged the portable’s restroom would serve if there were steps to the wash bowl, which there were, and if a child’s potty adapter were added. The distance from Petitioner’s Building Two classroom to an adult restroom is about 70 feet. The restroom within the portable to which Petitioner is now assigned is fully functional for Petitioner. It meets ADA standards, but the arrangement of one handrail is not optimal for Petitioner. Because Petitioner lifts with both arms instead of with her legs, a railing on each side of the toilet, instead of railings beside and behind the toilet, would be more convenient for her than the present railing arrangement. Rearrangement of the rear railing to one side of the toilet might be a formidable job, given the placement of the toilet, but that has yet to be determined, because Petitioner did not ask to have the rear railing moved from the back to the side prior to filing her Charge of Discrimination. Petitioner’s assertion or suggestion that, contrary to school policy and safety planning, when she worked in Building Two, she usually parked in an area to which she was not assigned is irrelevant to her allegations herein of disparate treatment and failure to accommodate. The distance from Petitioner’s former designated handicapped parking space to Petitioner’s former classroom in Building Two is 260 feet. The distance from Petitioner's current designated handicapped parking space to the portable she now occupies is 470 feet, but it connects directly, via sidewalks. Most, if not all, of these sidewalks are under cover. Sidewalks in the vicinity of Petitioner’s portable are arguably less smooth than those utilized around Building Two, but there is not a significant difference. Once, one of Petitioner's wheelchair wheels got caught on, or near, one of the sidewalks near the portable, and once Petitioner drove her wheelchair into a grate, but each time she was quickly extricated by other teachers and/or administrative staff. At the present time, Petitioner’s portable has two doors and two ramps, one of which is covered to protect her from inclement weather. The type of door handles on the portable were changed from knobs to levers. These handles meet ADA requirements. Petitioner thinks the doors would be more convenient for her if they opened in, rather than out. If they opened in, it is possible that teaching space would be lost, and it is unclear whether exterior doors opening inward could still meet both ADA and Fire Code standards. Respondent’s ADA expert, Dr. Kenneth J. Osfield, did a site evaluation and testified that there are two exits out of Petitioner’s portable for fire safety. This feature, the walkways to the ramps, the ramps with handrails, the entrances/exits, and the internal classroom space meet ADA requirements, and, as previously stated, the restroom is already handicapped-accessible for Petitioner per the ADA. Dr. Osfield agreed with one of Petitioner’s concerns which was also shared by Dr. Fox. Therefore, he suggested that Respondent place fencing around the base of each portable so that children could not crawl under them. He further suggested that Petitioner remove her decorative items from one ramp and the entrances/exits so that she could maneuver more easily. In assessing the interior teaching space, the ADA expert found that Petitioner’s space in the portable was nicely decorated and also was a nice learning environment, due to Petitioner’s decorations and its general set-up. However, while her arrangement is attractive and acceptable to the School and District administrations, it presents access problems which are not presented by the open floor plan utilized in Petitioner’s team teacher’s smaller portable. Petitioner’s placement or angling of a table in her classroom immediately outside the portable’s restroom, and her storage of other items in the restroom (large garbage cans, chairs, boxes, etc.), make it difficult for her to maneuver her wheelchair there. Dr. Osfield was able to suggest ways to solve these problems, but they would require Petitioner’s cooperation. Charles E. Levy, M.D., the parent of a child who had been one of Petitioner’s students seven years ago, deposed that, as a parent, he would be less comfortable and secure with regards to his child’s learning and safety if his child were educated in the current portable classroom than he had been when his child was educated in Building Two. However, Dr. Levy observed only Petitioner’s portable, not the other Pre-K portable, and even he attributed Petitioner’s mobility problems in her portable classroom to significant physical barriers caused by her arrangement of the furniture. Petitioner has chosen to retain more personal material and equipment than her team teacher has. The other Pre-K teacher has borrowed some of Petitioner’s toys and learning devices and found them useful over the years, but she has not consistently used the quantity of items that Petitioner has. Petitioner’s teaching/learning material and equipment appears to the administration to be more material and equipment than is reasonably necessary to teach her class. It exceeds published guidelines, which some educators, including Petitioner, think is good, and which other educators think is not so good. Recycling learning toys and equipment throughout the year and storing those not in use so as to keep children interested in them when they are brought out again has merit. Also, learning through new and innovative play has merit. However, there is no credible evidence that Petitioner’s handicap requires that she either store or display such a large quantity of toys and equipment as she has chosen to retain. Fewer items or storage of some of her items would increase her mobility and render her more comfortable in the portable. Petitioner’s team teacher in the other, smaller portable has a less stimulating classroom but it operates functionally, and she and her students have been successful.1 No standard tests suggest that the students taught in the clear and functional portable are any less successful than those taught by Petitioner in the decorative and cluttered portable or vice-versa. Petitioner’s 2008-2009 school year students in the portable have evidenced the same amount of overall educational growth as did her 2007-2008 class in Building Two. Terwilliger has several playgrounds. From Building Two, Petitioner regularly used the playground to the north of that building: North Play Area No. One. The paved area outside Building Two had been extended at Petitioner’s request several years before, so that it would be accessible to two children then enrolled who were wheelchair-bound. Petitioner also used this area. Petitioner received a grant to put certain play items, like riding toys, in the North Play Area, and apparently also was commended for that initiative. In the year immediately preceding the instant complaint, while in Building Two, Petitioner’s class used North Play Area No. One, up to five times per week, and used the Head Start Play Area No. Two, between two and three times per week as part of the inclusion program. That year, Petitioner’s class used each playground under the sole supervision of Petitioner’s paraprofessional or with the paraprofessional present in the sandy area with them and with Petitioner supervising from a nearby sidewalk or the paved area. Petitioner raised no complaints about this system before the move to the portable. Both playgrounds are appropriate for Petitioner’s students. However, the Head Start playground now assigned to her portable allows Petitioner’s students the interaction/inclusion that the School’s and District’s administration desire. The distance from Petitioner’s Building Two classroom to Head Start Play Area No. Two is 460 feet. From Petitioner’s portable classroom to the Head Start Play Area No. Two is 280 feet. Petitioner has access to a third playground, the “intermediate” or “school” playground, that has a sidewalk approach, where she can get closer to the children than she can at the Head Start Playground, but the more credible evidence supports her belief that she is now “assigned” to the Head Start Playground due to the administration’s desire to foster interaction between the two types of classes. Petitioner contended that her Head Start playground assignment is inaccessible for her wheelchair. In this regard, the greater weight of the evidence is that, using her wheelchair, Petitioner cannot get directly into the sandy area of either her old playground or the Head Start Playground. Dr. Levy has become Petitioner’s friend and adviser with regard to wheelchair functionality. He is the Chief of Rehabilitative Medicine at North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System. In his opinion, Petitioner’s Pride Quantum 6000 wheelchair should work adequately for Petitioner over most grassy areas in sunny weather, but it will become bogged down in sandy or boggy areas. On the date of hearing, Dr. LeClear also was temporarily using a power wheelchair due to a recent injury. In her wheelchair, she has reached the Head Start Playground on the grassy area and the hard sand, but she conceded that her wheelchair will not go through the soft sand. She feels the sidewalk edge is sufficiently near for Petitioner to instruct the students with a paraprofessional closer to them. The perimeter of the school grounds is fenced, so child escape is not a viable issue. Petitioner’s old playground had sidewalks surrounding it and a paved area that allowed Petitioner’s wheelchair to get closer to its outside play equipment, possibly at a better auditory angle, and the Head Start playground has a ring of grass between the sandy play area and the sidewalk where Petitioner must stop her wheelchair. However, in either location, Petitioner would have to rely on her paraprofessional to be with the children on the sandy surface that actually constitutes the playground area, because Petitioner's wheelchair does not move well through grass and/or sand. Dr. Fox and Petitioner deplored Petitioner’s inability to get within three feet of her students on the Head Start Playground. Although Petitioner particularly laments a loss of educational opportunity because she is not able to “pour sand” with her students under the new playground constrictions, it appears that there are sand and/or rice tables for pouring sand and/or rice located between two sidewalks near the base of one of the ramps leading to her portable and that Petitioner’s wheelchair can access children and pouring activities there. Any further modifications to either playground would change their character from “playground” to something else, and more concrete might create a danger for the children climbing on equipment near or above it. Terwilliger’s Head Start playground is superior to some of the Pre-K playgrounds at other schools because it has a cover from the sun and more activities. It is suitable for the children involved; meets Pre-K standards; has newer equipment than the other playground favored by Petitioner; has fewer “pinch points”; and can be used by the special needs children now enrolled. The very fact that it has a larger sandy area than Petitioner’s previous playground seems to be a safety factor for the children involved. The District had issued a February 6, 2007, written reprimand to Petitioner with regard to her having instructed a paraprofessional to allow a child with a traumatic brain injury to play on a jungle gym in one of the playgrounds. This reprimand was required by professional practices standards simply because a complaint had been made. The issue did not revolve around which playground Petitioner was using; it revolved around unfamiliarity of those on the scene with the particular child’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). It was an isolated incident and not representative of Petitioner’s general teaching abilities, personal responsibilities, or professional track record. However, the incident suggests that anything but sandy soil or rubber shreds for a playground can increase the danger inherent in any playground. Fire drills, tornado or inclement weather alerts, and any other untoward incident might require evacuation of the portable classroom. Such evacuations are possible for Petitioner in her wheelchair. Under fire evacuation circumstances, Petitioner may have to stay on a hard surface nearer to the school than her students do, because of her wheelchair. There is no credible evidence that this situation puts Petitioner's students, who are accompanied and overseen by a paraprofessional, or puts Petitioner, in greater danger than any of them were in whenever they had to evacuate from Building Two. Prior to litigation, Petitioner had never specifically requested that the sidewalks be extended closer to her new playground, that additional fencing be provided to keep children from “escaping” the school ground, that the District grade or otherwise alter the playground approaches for her, or that her evacuation routes be altered. Therefore, Respondent cannot be held liable for a failure to accommodate on these issues.
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 dismissing the Petition for Relief and its underlying Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's contract for immorality, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code; misconduct in office, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code; and incompetency, in violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent came to the United States from British Guyana in 1977. In 1988, Respondent obtained an educator's certificate and began teaching in Dade County. Petitioner hired him in 1992 and assigned him to Silver Lakes Middle School. For several years, Respondent taught language arts, which is the area in which he is certified, to all grades. Petitioner later assigned Respondent to teach students in the dropout prevention program at Silver Lakes Middle School. The students in the dropout prevention program typically represent greater academic challenges to a teacher than do their counterparts in regular education. For the past five or six years, Respondent taught dropout prevention at Silver Lakes Middle School. His teaching approach is to try to develop rapport with the students during the first nine weeks of the school year while, at the same time, identify specific areas of weakness within each student that may require attention during the school year. On October 17, 2001, Respondent administered a diagnostic test to identify areas in which students needed work. Unable to answer some of the questions, some students asked Respondent for help. Respondent declined to help because his assistance would destroy the purpose of the test. Some of the students began to misbehave. After several attempts by Respondent to control these students, they threatened to go to the office and complain about Respondent. Respondent invited the students to go to the office and complain about him. He wrote passes for several students, and several more students joined the others to visit the office, rather than take the test, and complain to an administrator about Respondent. The principal received the students in her office and listened to their complaints, which appear to have been the source of the allegations in this case. The principal took statements from the students and then returned with them to Respondent's classroom. While in the classroom, the principal helped the students with the diagnostic test that Respondent had been administering. Recognizing that the diagnostic value of his test was lost, Respondent then joined the principal in helping the students with their diagnostic test. Prominent among the students' complaints to the principal was that Respondent had struck a student, J. H. Petitioner produced little direct evidence supporting this allegation. Twice, J. H. ignored subpoenas to testify in this case. Respondent testified that J. H. later admitted to him that other boys in the class made him lie and say that Respondent hit him. J. H.'s failure to comply with subpoenas is consistent with Respondent's testimony. Absent J. H.'s testimony, it is difficult to determine exactly what, if anything, happened with him and Respondent. The most likely scenario is that J. H. succumbed to the pressures of other students in the class and lied that Respondent had hit him, knowing that the only contact that had taken place between Respondent and J. H. was incidental contact during a minor incident of horseplay. Three of the four student witnesses whom Petitioner called to substantiate the charges were unconvincing. The fourth--J. G.--was vague and unable or unwilling to supply evidence against Respondent, whom he described as "the nicest man." Student D. S. testified at the hearing that Respondent ignored the students' questions in class about classroom material, called J. H. "peanut head," called "Jarvis" "bumbleclot," told D. S. that he lacked motivation and was lazy, and told other students that they came to school looking like a "bum." "Bumbleclot" appears to be a derogatory term in a Jamaican patois, although the record does not establish the intended or actual effect that any use of the word would have in Respondent's class. When handed a previous statement, D. S. added to his complaints that Respondent often said "bloody" in class and would . . . like nudge [J. H.], like, hit him in the arm." D. S. also recalled that Respondent said "cock-eyed" in class. D. S. admitted that he never heard Respondent threaten to "pop" a student. Discrepancies exist between D. S.'s testimony and his prior statements. First, he initially omitted the most significant allegation--that Respondent struck J. H.--and, when he later mentioned it, he downplayed it to a "nudge." Likewise, D. S. initially omitted any mention of Respondent's use of "bloody." Also, D. S. never mentioned Respondent's use of "bumbleclot" in his previous statements. D. S.'s testimony establishes the unlikelihood that Respondent actually hit J. H. or that he ever threatened to "pop" a student in class. Student J. P. testified that she heard other students say that Respondent pushed D. V. out the door of the portable classroom after ejecting him from class. Due to J. P.'s admitted failure to have observed the incident, the Administrative Law Judge struck the testimony. However, despite admitting that she did not see this incident, J. P. stated that she went to the office with other students and informed the principal of the incident. J. P. also testified that Respondent often said "bloody" and refused to explain all of an assignment to her after she missed school, which she admitted happened frequently. Lastly, J. P. complained that Respondent issued her a referral for going to the bathroom. In addition to missing school, J. P. was often tardy when returning from various errands, and many times she did not do her work. J. P.'s testimony establishes only that Respondent may have said "bloody" a few times in class. Student J. G. testified that he recalled Respondent using "hell or damn" in class, although, on cross-examination, he denied any recollection of any use of either of these words. J. G. testified that he heard Respondent say something about knocking a student into next week, although he could not recall whether the latter comment was made in jest. J. G. added that he saw Respondent give J. H. "a little hit." Student D. V. testified that he saw Respondent hit J. H., although his description of the conversation accompanying the incident was materially different at the hearing than in a previous statement. D. V. testified that Respondent threatened to "pop" students and told them to "shut [their] bloody mouths." D. V. added that he asked Respondent one time if he could call his mother to bring his medication for attention deficit disorder, and Respondent denied him permission to make the call. D. V. also testified that Respondent, while sitting beside the door, pushed D. V. on the shoulder to get him out of the classroom, and D. V. responded by warning that he would get his sister to "kick [Respondent's] ass." Although D. V.'s testimony is not undermined by the inconsistencies plaguing the testimony of D. S. and J. P., D. V. shares the antipathy of these other two students for Respondent. Each of these students resented Respondent's efforts to discipline and teach them. Each of these students betrayed a desire to act in concert to get Respondent in trouble, as they felt he had gotten them into trouble. Respondent called as a witness one student, W. L., who testified forcefully that she heard the other students coercing J. H. to say falsely that Respondent had hit him. W. L. testified that the only improper word that she heard Respondent use was "bloody" and that Respondent and J. H. engaged in some horseplay in class. Perhaps the most useful witness was an assistant principal at Silver Lakes Middle School. At the end of the 2001-02 school year, the assistant principal completed an evaluation of Respondent in which he assigned him a satisfactory rating, which is the highest, in all categories, including classroom management. It is clear from the testimony of the assistant principal that he gave the complaints of Respondent's students exactly the weight that they deserved. Respondent admitted that he used "bloody" in class, but the record fails to develop the appreciation of his students for the intensity of this word in certain non-American cultures. Respondent admitted that he once used the phrase, "pop you one," but the record fails to develop the context so as to preclude the likelihood that Respondent said these words in jest. Respondent admitted that he used "cock-eyed," "skinny boy," and "bony boy," but, again, the record fails to establish a context as to permit a finding that these terms were abusive or disparaging. Respondent, who is black, mentioned that he had been called "black nugget" and "kiwi," but only as part of an effort to develop tolerance for names among students eager to take offense. Respondent ejected D. V. from the classroom for legitimate reasons. According to D. V. himself, any followup contact was with Respondent in the seated position, so as not likely to have been significant. According to another student, D. V. grabbed Respondent. At most, the record depicts an angry, disruptive student who has stubbornly refused to comply with his teacher's ejection of him from the classroom, so that other students have a chance to learn. Likewise, D. V.'s complaint that Respondent denied him the chance to call his mother for his attention deficit medication suffers for the lack of context. Undoubtedly, D. V. joined in ongoing efforts to disrupt the class and avoid receiving instruction. The only context for this request provided by the record is that D. V. asked for permission immediately after returning from lunch, when he would have had ample opportunity to call his mother. Although it is possible that D. V. first thought of the missing medication after lunch, it is at least as likely that he thought of the missing medication as a convenient excuse to extend his mid-day respite from learning. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent was guilty of misconduct in office, incompetency, or immorality.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Carmen M. Rodriguez Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, P.A. 9245 Southwest 157th Street Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33157 Mark F. Kelly Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638
The Issue Whether Respondent should be dismissed from her employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida, upon grounds of incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, misconduct in office and/or absence without leave. POST-HEARING PROCEDURE A transcript of the formal hearing was provided the undersigned on March 21, 1985, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were timely filed by both parties. A subsequently-filed revision of Respondent's initial proposal was accepted without objection and considered. When a party's proposed findings of fact were consistent with the weight of the credible evidence admitted, they were adopted and are reflected in the Recommended Order, but to the extent proposed findings of fact were not consistent with the weight of the credible evidence, they have been rejected or, where possible, modified to conform to the evidence. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with the findings herein, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has thereby been made either directly or indirectly except where the proposed finding of fact was cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary. Based upon observation of the witnesses and their candor and demeanor while testifying, all exhibits admitted in evidence, and the proposals and arguments of counsel, the following relevant facts are found:
Findings Of Fact Respondent was initially employed by Petitioner on November 15, 1982, at West Little River Elementary School. She suffered a non-school related accident and was absent approximately 121 days during the 1982-1983 school year. Observations of her teaching by her then-principal, John Johnson II, were unfavorable, but due to the prolonged absences, those observations did not result in any formal evaluations/recommendations. Respondent's requested leave for this period was granted and approved by Petitioner upon the basis of her severe electrical shock and back injury. Some of this period was classified as leave without pay. Petitioner also paid Respondent's insurance premiums for this period. Having thus condoned this absenteeism, Petitioner cannot now be heard to complain of it. (See allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Notice of Charges.) Principal Nicholas Rinaldi of Bay Harbor Elementary School hired Respondent as the teacher for its new "home-based" gifted program beginning there for the 1983-1984 school year. Although Principal Johnson would not have recommended Respondent for employment in the second year, he was not consulted by Principal Rinaldi. Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that she was limited to a $1,000.00 budget for purchasing materials for the program she was to develop. Principal Rinaldi understood that Respondent knew she was both to stay within this budget which is the standard limit at all home-based gifted programs and that she was required to get prior approval of her purchases from him. Apparently, Respondent grasped, the concept of a $1,000.00 "cap" but did not initially understand that she was to obtain prior written permission. After two orders were cancelled, she still had overspent by $60.00. She was then told specifically not to make any further purchases without the principal's permission. Thereafter, another order placed by Respondent was received at the school but Petitioner did not establish that Respondent placed the order after the cancellation of two prior orders and after Rinaldi's specific instruction not to order any more goods whatsoever. (See allegations of Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was clearly informed that she needed prior authorization for phone calls. She did not get prior permission for five long distance phone calls made personally or by students at her direction. The total cost of these calls is 8.56, which is very minimal. All calls were related to classwork with the exception of one call for $.44 and one call for $.25, which were admittedly of a personal nature. Respondent reimbursed the $.72 after the fact when notified of investigation into the phone bill. (See allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges.) Twenty-five students are required for a home-based gifted program. Bay Harbor was one of three North area schools piloting a home-based program in the 1983-1984 school year. In prior school years, gifted children from Bay Harbor attended a center program physically located elsewhere. A center program places a team of teachers of subjects from various schools in one physical location. Eligible students from various schools come to the center for two days a week for the gifted program and they receive their basic skills education at their respective home schools in the remaining three days per week. In a home-based program, a school which has enough gifted students elects to keep those students physically at the home school. They usually go into that program for two hours a day, every day. Some subject or subjects are used to deliver the gifted program. Those subjects are then graded by the home- based gifted teacher, who in this case was Respondent. When he hired her, Principal Rinaldi told Respondent that mathematics would be part of the new "home-based" gifted program, but math was essentially unstructured in the beginning. Thereafter, Principal Rinaldi instructed Respondent to utilize the standard Dade County "total math program, (TMP). When the TMP program was selected by Principal Rinaldi in approximately, December 1983, his motivation was that he understood TMP provided a structure for math that allows students to enter at the level that they are individually and moves each at a pace commensurate with his individual ability. Unfortunately, because a home-based program does not select its students on their specific giftedness in content area, some students in Bay- Harbor's 1983-1984 pilot program were lower than others in math. Some were even below their grade level. Those above the grade level were becoming bored with the program and those below the grade level were in a constant state of frustration struggling to keep up. A failure on Respondent's part to communicate surfaced, and misunderstandings arose between Respondent and parents and students as to the nature of projects, when projects were due and the reasonableness of homework. Problems concerning teacher absences also arose. The more academic and less "time-out-of-school" atmosphere of a home-based versus a center-based program also caused problems between the Respondent teacher and students/parents and between the Respondent and her principal. Upsets among the students and their parents resulted in many students being permanently removed from the gifted program. Over a period of time, the decrease in enrollment threatened to destroy the Bay Harbor gifted program, the survival of which required 25 students. On January 4, 1984, Principal Rinaldi observed Respondent's class for an hour for teacher evaluation purposes. This resulted in a basically good evaluation with some areas targeted for improvement (instructional planning and maintenance of student records [P-7]). The crux of this targeting was the principal's perception that Respondent did not record sufficient grades and her student files were not arranged alphabetically with papers arranged chronologically within each file. This standard of record-keeping is personal to Mr. Rinaldi and not uniform among other Dade County principals. At the standard post-observation conference, the two argued over the evaluation and the exactitude required by the principal, and Respondent refused to sign the evaluation to acknowledge that she had seen and received a copy of the document. As will be related infra, this refusal to sign or initial merely for acknowledgment of receipt of documents became a constant and continuing refusal on Respondent's part whenever the issue came up. Six days later she refused again; on January 17, 1984, Respondent responded in four written pages defending her methods. As events unfolded chronologically thereafter what started basically as a personality clash of the principal's "irresistible force" authoritarianism and the teacher's "immovable object" obstructionism mushroomed to affect students, parents, teachers, and administrators. In early January, Respondent complained concerning the inclusion of math in the gifted program to a higher outside administrator Dr. Agerwald. Mr. Rinaldi objected to this contact. On January 11, 1984, Mrs. Vickers, Petitioner's Director of Exceptional Students Program, arrived to observe Respondent's classes. She prepared a "School Visitation Report." The report is basically positive but does comment that the gifted classes are too big and current IEPs (records) were not and should have been available in the classroom. On February 2, 1984, Vickers issued a commendation to Hay Harbor on quality of cumulative records for exceptional children. Mr. Rinaldi passed this commendation (R-19) on to Respondent with the note, "Mrs. Burton, please continue this fine record 2/6/84." On 1/23/84, he also commended her on quick responses to the Miami Module records-keeping requests (R-20). Petitioner's advisor to gifted teachers, Richard Huffman, was assigned to assist Respondent at the beginning of the 1983-1984 school year. He testified that in his opinion she was a fit teacher, but he was removed as her advisor at the end of January or early February. February 24, 1984, Assistant Principal Vince Vignola observed Respondent in the classroom for a full hour and rated her overall acceptable except that she needed more grades in math and had, lost a student "contract" which had never been signed. Principal Rinaldi called in Gary Rito, Petitioner's Director of Academic Excellence for help resolving the gifted class problems. On March 2, 1984, Mr. Rito met with Respondent, Principal Rinaldi, and Mrs. Laurence, mother of a gifted student. Respondent and Laurence, who teaches elsewhere in Dade County, exchanged sharp words. It was agreed to meet again on March 8, 1984. At that time, James Miley, Petitioner's Supervisor of Gifted Programs, was present. Respondent was given written notice of the meeting one day in advance. Respondent elected to continue in this meeting at the conclusion of the school day. At this time most of her concerns, as expressed to all others present, were with the number of subjects she was required to cover and with the content of the mathematics curriculum in particular. Mr. Rito explained that "gifted" symbolizes a "technique" not a "subject," that Respondent was to use this technique for teaching subjects of math, science (which Respondent should be teaching anyway), and social studies, and for teaching a health and safety unit which was taught for only one or two grade units. Respondent strenuously objected to the use of the TMP math program. Rinaldi and Miley concurred that it was reasonable to include math in the gifted program. Math was, in fact, successfully used in the other two home-based programs beginning in Bay Harbor's Division that year, but the programs utilized may not have been the TMP. Nonetheless, the following adjustments were agreed upon among all those present at the March 8, 1984 meeting: Principal Rinaldi agreed to relieve the academic excellence program of the TMP math program and increased their enrichment activities; Ms. Thomas, Say Harbor's 6th Grade math teacher, was assigned by Principal Rinaldi to help Respondent in math. It was later Ms. Thomas' assessment that Respondent did not understand the TMP concept; and Respondent was directed and agreed to develop four units of study in botany (2 intermediate and 2 primary) to cover the rest of the school year (9 weeks). These plans were to cover instructional objectives, classroom activities, student evaluation methods and homework assignments on a time line. A preliminary plan was to be shown by Respondent to Mr. Miley on March 20. This assignment was primarily the result of a request by Ms. Laurence and other parents requesting to see a sets of plans for purposes of deciding whether to leave their children in the Respondent's class or return those who had already been withdrawn. Rinaldi, Rito, and Miley felt the plans required by the directive would ease the primary problems of implementing the program and of parent-teacher communications and misunderstandings which had been growing, and also felt they were reasonable and necessary. Everyone was aware that withdrawal of Mrs. Laurence's child could reduce program enrollment below the 25 student minimum required. However, no one clearly expressed the belief that this directive was a prescription to improve Respondent's teaching performance, which had been found basically sound up to this point. 1/ The direction itself was for a reasonable and necessary purpose (preserving and improving the gifted program). However, despite Mr. Miley's opinion that the plans as initially directed were reasonable and necessary and despite Respondent's failure to object to the direction at this point, the initial scope of the direction was actually unreasonable under the circumstances. Mr. Miley postponed his scheduled meeting with Respondent from March 20 to March 23, 1984. On that date, Respondent had nothing to show him with regard to the required botany units she had been asked to prepare. Mr. Miley met with Respondent anyway and reduced the required units from 4 to 2 and extended the time for preparation until April 12, 1984. He also gave her a document entitled "Standards of Excellence" for use in the units she was to prepare and agreed to let Respondent continue with her present evaluation system. This adjustment, made in consultation with Respondent also rendered the scope of the direction to prepare the units reasonable. 2/ On April 12, 1984, Mr. Miley asked for the required botany units and received nothing from Respondent. He returned to the school on April 13, and Respondent produced a series of goals and objectives essentially copied from the "Standards of Excellence" wherein she had identified part of a program for the primary students but none for the intermediate students. There were no classroom activities listed, no homework mentioned, and no time lines provided. Despite the extension of time, Respondent did not fulfill the required directive even in its reduced and consequently reasonable form. 3/ The units were not further amplified by Respondent before she left on April 20 and Mrs. Laurence's child was permanently removed from the gifted program. (See allegations of Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Notice of Charges). On March 12, 1984, Respondent called Principal Rinaldi a liar three times in the presence of two other school employees. 4/ (See allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent later informed Principal Rinaldi that she perceived the March 8 meeting as disciplinary in nature. He had not considered it so. He accordingly removed a request for her signature from a summary he had prepared of the March 8 meeting and scheduled a "conference-for-the-record" for March 16, 1984. Conferences-for-the record are disciplinary conferences. The March 16, 1984 meeting was postponed at the request of the Respondent's union representative. A second request for postponement for emergency reasons peculiar to the schedule of that particular union representative (Ms. Perez), was not granted and the conference-for-the-record went forward on March 20, 1984, with Respondent accompanied by her union steward, James Collings. At this conference, Rinaldi discussed the same matters that had been discussed at the March 8, 1984 meeting, the incident which had occurred March 12 when Respondent called him a "liar" three times, Respondent's unsatisfactory attendance record that year, and the fact that her absences were having an adverse effect on the program. Respondent was specifically instructed by her union advisers not to speak at this conference. Certainly she did not deny the March 12 "liar" incident. When she did not respond to Principal Rinaldi's accusations and inquiries, he became agitated. Respondent had received prior approval for a half-day in-service conference (8:30 a.m. to noon on March 21, 1984) with Mrs. Vickers, Director of Petitioner's Exceptional Student Education Program. When she did not report back to teach at Bay Harbor that afternoon, Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi made inquiries and Respondent's continued presence with Mrs. Vickers was confirmed, but not approved. This constitutes a 1/2 day's absence without leave. No substitute was procured since Respondent had been expected to teach her afternoon class. (See allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Notice of Charges.) On March 28, 1984, during a regularly scheduled parent meeting, the parents present expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the gifted program, particularly math. Principal Rinaldi publicly attributed the problems in the gifted program to Respondent and Respondent retaliated by publicly stating that she did not believe TMP math should ever have been included in the gifted program and that she had no control over the inclusion of the math. The majority of witnesses actually present at this meeting found its entire tone and nature informative prior to Principal Rinaldi's comment. Even then, Respondent's comments may have been less than tactful but were hardly untruthful, unprofessional, irresponsible, or incendiary. (See allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to the March 29, 1984 faculty meeting. Based on the contemporaneous memoranda and letter, Respondent's estimate of 3-4 minutes tardiness is accepted over Dr. Rinaldi's later estimate of 20 minutes. The causes related contemporaneously by Respondent are entirely reasonable. (See allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Notice of Charges.) At Principal Rinaldi's April 16, 1984 classroom observation of Respondent, he rated her teaching performance as unacceptable in 3 categories: preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility (P-18). Rinaldi testified that his negative ratings in preparation and planning were due to what were minor concerns on the January evaluation. However, as observed above in Fact Paragraph 6, the January evaluation actually concentrated on the principal's particularly harsh requirement that Respondent's student files must be arranged alphabetically with papers neatly arranged chronologically within each file. Since his perception of the adequacy of records is so intensely personal to Mr. Rinaldi and in light of interim commendations to Respondent for record-keeping, his April analysis of inadequate records of assessment renders the final evaluation "score" highly suspect. 5/ (See allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was tardy to work and failed to timely sign in on March 26, 27, 28, and April 20, 1984. (See allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Notice of Charges.) Respondent was absent on April 17, 18, and 19. She requested leave for April 17-18 late but it was approved and authorized in advance by Principal Rinaldi for participation in religious holidays. However, these were absences without pay and pushed Respondent over the number of personal leave days to which she was annually entitled. Respondent was absent without authorization on April 19; this was an absence without pay. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 20, 1984, Respondent protested, but finally agreed to meet with Principal Rinaldi in his office for a post-observation conference. Post- observation conferences are not normally considered disciplinary in nature. By this time, he had added Respondent's late notification of the 4/17-4/18 absence and her 4/19 absence to the prescription sheet as deficiencies. Respondent declined an oral dialogue with Rinaldi wherein she was invited to respond to the rating criticisms and prescriptions and offer alternatives and also refused to initial his notation that she insisted on responding in writing. Midway in this meeting, Respondent announced she was going to leave. Again, she would not sign to acknowledge receipt of the observation and prescriptions. Rinaldi instructed her that she was obligated to discuss the rating and if she left, he would consider it insubordination. Respondent left his office and the school and did not return to work as a teacher at Bay Harbor again. A formal reprimand issued partly as a result of this incident. (See allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Notice of Charges.) On April 23 and April 24 Respondent was absent without pay. April 23 was unauthorized leave. (See allegations of Paragraphs 14 and and 19 of the Notice of Charges.) With regard to the frequent' short absences, which total led 18 as of April 22, Respondent rarely if ever complied with the "Teachers' Handbook" guidelines for advance notification. Respondent originally felt that it did not matter what type of leave (personal or sick) was listed because she had no leave left anyway. Although many of these absences were for legitimate illnesses or injury of herself or a relative, there was either an on-going absence of lesson plans or a failure on Respondent's part to inform the principal that she had created plans since he last commented on there being none. Consequently, he often could not or did not secure substitutes. This resulted in wasted class time and interfered with classroom continuity. Some of Respondent's unauthorized absences were simply gifted programs she chose to attend without notifying the principal in advance. Respondent was also absent during the 1983-1984 school year for two lengthy periods, which, with all other absences, totalled 62 1/2 days. Medical narratives, admitted without objection, corroborate Respondent's testimony that the two lengthy absences were the result respectively of unanticipated allergic complications of a CAT scan (from January 30 to February 10, 1984,) and of surgery to correct acute sinusitis and recovery time from late April until release. One doctor released her from this last treatment On May 29, 1984; the other released her on June 8, 1984. During the period of time she was absent immediately following the April 20 "walkout" incident until approximately June 8, Respondent failed to adequately inform Petitioner of her proposed date of return. Certified letters sent to her post-office box were returned because Respondent did not pick them up and Petitioner could not send these to her by regular mail or by hand- delivery via a "visiting teacher" because Respondent had never informed Petitioner of her street address. The failure of Respondent to stay in touch, her failure to indicate when she could return to work, and her failure to indicate that her absence would be lengthy resulted in an inability of Petitioner to immediately hire a permanent substitute teacher. Therefore, the gifted classes had to "make-do" with a series of short term substitutes (4 or 5) until Mr. Rinaldi finally hired Mrs. Judith Dryanoff. This process created a lack of continuity in the classroom and more student withdrawals from the gifted program. The problem with multiple substitutes was compounded by Respondent's failure on April 24 and thereafter to have available substitute lesson plans. 6/ Because of Respondent's failure to leave any form of lesson plans or grade book, substitute Judith Dryanoff had to make up her own lesson plans for science and enlist the help of Janice Thomas for math plans. (See allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Notice of Charges.) On May 24, Principal Rinaldi signed Respondent's Annual Evaluation, not recommending her for employment in the next school year (P-22). When released by her doctors, Respondent was assigned by Administration to the North Area Office for June 11-15 and was expected by her principal to be at Bay Harbor simultaneously. She obviously could not do both. She was at the North Area Office for part of June 12 and at Bay Harbor for part of June 14. She was in neither location on June 11, 13, and 15. These days constitute absences without leave. (See allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Notice of Charges.) On June 12, 1984, James Monroes, a supervisor in Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, ordered Respondent to begin the 180 hour course, Beginning Teacher Program, to start at 10:00 a.m., June 14, 1984, at Bay Harbor Elementary School. 7/ At 7:20 a.m. that morning Respondent confronted Principal Rinaldi in his office and called him "malicious, devious, incompetent," and "a sorry excuse for a principal." She accused him of personally taking her personal items from her room and of attempting to get her fired. 8/ Although she initially refused to come back for the program, she returned at 10:00 a.m. and repeated essentially the same harangue in the presence of Mrs. Thomas, the peer teacher selected to oversee Respondent's Beginning Teacher Program. Mrs. Thomas was called in by Mr. Rinaldi who had anticipated that a scene would ensue. Thereafter, out of Mr. Rinaldi's presence, Respondent invited Mrs. Thomas to sign a petition "to get rid of Mr. Rinaldi". (See allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Notice of Charges.) Dr. Huffman testified that Respondent also frequently yelled at Mr. Rinaldi in Dr. Huffman's presence prior to Dr. Huffman's February reassignment, and Mrs. Macri, secretary to Principal Rinaldi testified that she had heard Respondent call Mr. Rinaldi a "bastard" or refer to him as a"bastard," but the date of this incident(s) was not proven. On August 29, 1984, Dr. Richard Artmeier, supervisor of Petitioner's Division of Personnel Control, directed Respondent to be psychiatrically evaluated the next day to determine if there were any mitigating circumstances for her June 14, 1984 behavior. Respondent is obligated to submit to such evaluation by terms of her employment. After vacillation, Respondent refused to sign the written directive indicating its receipt and adamantly refused to see a psychiatrist. Finally, Dr. Artmeier directed her instead to report to the North Area Office the next day. Respondent did, however, actually go the next day as originally directed for psychiatric evaluation to Dr. Gail Wainger. Dr. Wainger was on Petitioner's "approved" list. In so doing, Respondent could not immediately comply with the directive to report to the North Area Office. Respondent reported to the North Area Office later the same day after her psychiatric evaluation. Petitioner accepted Dr. Wainger's psychiatric evaluation of Respondent, paid for it, and it was admitted at hearing upon Petitioner's motion (P-38). Since Respondent could not be in two places at once, she fulfilled the alternative directives reasonably by fulfilling them sequentially even if she did initially refuse. (See allegations of Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Notice of Charges). The psychiatrist's evaluation is admissible under Section 231.291, Florida Statutes and has been considered. Upon that evidence, together with all other credible evidence adduced at formal hearing, Respondent was accountable for her actions. Respondent has never qualified for and has never been characterized as a teacher under continuing contract.
Recommendation It is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing Respondent from employment with the Dade County School Board and denying any claims for back pay. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Yvonne B. Eisenberg (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed on September 27, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted entity charged with the responsibility and authority to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within the Manatee County Public School District (School District). As such, it has the authority to regulate all personnel matters for the School District. See § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2012). Dr. Timothy McGonegal is the superintendent of the public schools for the School District. Dr. McGonegal has the authority to recommend suspension and/or termination of employees for alleged misconduct. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Yvonne B. Eisenberg was an employee of the School District assigned to teach profoundly mentally handicapped (PMH) students at Southeast High School. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Mr. Hall was an assistant principal at Southeast High School. Mr. Hall’s responsibilities included overseeing the exceptional student education (ESE) program at Southeast High School. Respondent’s PMH class fell within the purview of the ESE program. Ms. Toole, an ESE specialist at Southeast High School who is the ESE department chairperson, directly supervised Respondent’s class. PMH students require constant supervision and care. Respondent was assigned a full-time aide to assist her with the class. At times Respondent was assigned a second aide to help with students. Students in Respondent’s class were limited intellectually and physically. All required assistance with feeding, diaper changes, and mobility. It is undisputed that the challenges of managing Respondent’s classroom were daunting. No one disputes that Respondent’s daily work required physical and emotional strength. Cooperation between Respondent and others assigned to work in her classroom was important in order for the school day to run smoothly. Students in Respondent’s PMH class ranged in age and size. The eldest student could be 22 years old. It is undisputed that a 22-year-old might prove to be a physical burden for mobility and diaper changes. Respondent has received satisfactory performance evaluations in the past. Respondent is effective as an ESE teacher. Nevertheless, on November 12, 2010, Mr. Hall conducted a conference with Respondent to present, in writing, specific expectations for Respondent’s future job performance. Mr. Hall advised Respondent to follow the Code of Ethics and to speak civilly and professionally to staff and co-workers. On June 10, 2011, Mr. Hall gave Respondent a written reprimand for her actions during the 2010-2011 school year. More specifically, Mr. Hall cited Respondent’s failure to correct her unprofessional conduct toward staff and co-workers, and her willful neglect of duties. Among other items not pertinent here, Respondent was directed to complete sensitivity training and to promote a positive atmosphere in her classroom. Respondent denied the underlying facts that gave rise to the reprimand, but admitted to “yelling” at her aide. Speaking disrespectfully and loudly toward others was a chief component of Mr. Hall’s concern regarding Respondent’s behavior. On September 20, 2011, Respondent approached Mr. Hall at approximately 8:00 a.m. and asked to talk to him. Mr. Hall had a busy morning agenda but told Respondent he would talk to her later in the day. Respondent accepted the deferment of the talk and did not suggest an emergency situation that required more immediate attention. Later in the day, at approximately 10:30 a.m., Respondent returned to Mr. Hall’s office and asked for a meeting. In the interim between the first request for a talk and the second request, Respondent had sent Mr. Hall e-mails outlining a need for supplies, a request for input regarding an aide’s condition (whether the aide had been cleared to help lift students), and a need for gloves. Mr. Hall advised Respondent that she was not responsible for buying gloves and soap, and that those types of supplies for her students would be provided by the School District. Respondent claimed that a second aide was not needed in her classroom because she felt the two aides assigned to the PMH class were “against her.” Finally, Respondent asked about the status of any physical restrictions for a specifically named aide, Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Hall assured Respondent that the aide could lift as required by the job and had no restrictions. The meeting ended with Mr. Hall presuming he had addressed Respondent’s concerns. Mr. Hall also mentioned that Mr. Johnson, a substitute teacher at Southeast High School, could be made available to help lift Respondent’s students when needed. At approximately 1:15 p.m. the same day (September 20, 2011), Respondent approached Mr. Hall’s office with her fists clenched, her face red with anger, and yelled, “Am I going to get any help in here today?” Mr. Hall was surprised by the loud yelling and was taken aback for a moment. Since he did not understand her request he asked Respondent for a clarification. After a brief exchange, it became apparent to Mr. Hall that Respondent was upset because her students had not been changed all day and were sitting in dirty diapers. Mr. Hall maintained that Respondent had not clearly asked for assistance in changing the students during the two exchanges they had had during the school day. At that point, Respondent exited Mr. Hall’s office and slammed the door. Mr. Hall then telephoned an ESE classroom near Respondent’s room and directed Mr. Hubbard to report to Respondent’s classroom to assist her with changing the students. As Mr. Hall was completing that call, Respondent reappeared at his office and Mr. Hall asked her to step inside. At that time, Mr. Hall told Respondent she could not communicate with him as she had, that she must remain respectful and professional. Respondent then advised Mr. Hall that she was “pissed off.” Mr. Hall directed Respondent to return to his office at the end of the school day, and that Mr. Hubbard was in her classroom waiting to assist her with the diaper changes. Subsequently, Respondent told Ms. Toole that she yelled at Mr. Hall. Respondent maintains that the frustrations of her job and the events of the day supported her behavior. Moreover, Respondent asserts that her passion for the care of her students led to the emotional outburst. Respondent did not return to Mr. Hall’s office at the end of the school day. Mr. Hall reported the matter to his principal and to the District’s Office of Professional Standards. The Superintendent of schools recommended that Respondent receive a three-day suspension without pay for her conduct toward Mr. Hall and her failure to correct behaviors that had previously been identified. The requirement that Respondent show respect toward co-workers was not a new theme. Had Respondent exhibited patience and a professional demeanor, clearly articulated her need for assistance in lifting her students for diaper changes, and sought help in a timely manner (during any portion of the school day prior to 1:15 p.m.), she could have easily avoided disciplinary action. As soon as Mr. Hall was made aware of her need for lifting assistance, he directed additional help to Respondent’s classroom. Curiously, Respondent did not ask Ms. Toole, her ESE supervisor, for help.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be suspended for three days without pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Erin G. Jackson, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez and Hearing P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33602 Melissa C. Mihok, Esquire Kelly and McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Dr. David Gayler, Interim Superintendent Manatee County School Board 215 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205-9069 Dr. Tony Bennett, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lois Tepper, Interim General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
