The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, should be terminated from her employment as an instructional employee with the Broward County school system.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, post-hearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. By its six count Petition for Dismissal, Petitioner, through the person of its Superintendent of Schools, William T. McFatter, seeks to uphold its recommendation that Respondent, Alfreda Grady, be dismissed from employment in the Broward County school system. Respondent, Alfreda Grady, was an instructional employee at the School Board of Broward County until she was suspended with pay from her duties at the close of the workday on January 27, 1983. Respondent holds a continuing contract of employment and holds teaching certificates in both guidance and elementary education. During the course of the 1982-83 school year, Respondent was assigned to the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. This assignment was made by Mr. Thomas Wilson, Assistant to the south area Superintendent of the Broward County School Board. Ms. Grady was later assigned to teach sixth grade orientation and social studies. On January 27, 1983, Respondent was placed on emergency suspension and a PETITION FOR DISMISSAL from the Broward County school system was filed based on charges of incompetency, misconduct in office, immorality and gross insubordination. A request was made for a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was thereafter assigned to the undersigned hearing officer to conduct the instant hearing. On August 19, 1982, Respondent was assigned the position of guidance counselor at Attucks Middle School. Prior to this assignment, the position of guidance counselor had been assigned to Ms. Ricci Mandell, a teacher previously employed at Attucks. This assignment was made by Taft Green, principal at Attucks Middle School. Both Ms. Grady and Ms. Mandell were retained in the Guidance Department. Approximately two weeks into the school year, Respondent was assigned to teach one sixth grade orientation class. It is not unusual for a teacher to be assigned teaching duties in more than one subject area. (TR Volume 1, p. 193) By letter dated September 1, 1982, Mr. Green informed Respondent that she would begin teaching the orientation class on September 7, 1982. Respondent was also informed by Mr. Green that Ms. Friedman, a reading teacher at Attucks, would supply the necessary material and a course syllabus. Ms. Friedman had previously taught the orientation course during the 1981-82 school year. Respondent was advised that principal Green and the other instructional employees were available to assist her, as needed. Although Respondent never contacted Ms. Friedman for either assistance or to obtain the material, Ms. Friedman supplied the Respondent with a variety of materials to be used in teaching the orientation course including the course guide for middle school orientation and two instructional television books. (TR Volume 1, p. 166) Respondent refused to teach the orientation course. The class was used as either a study hall or the students watched programs such as "The Today Show" and "Good Morning America." On September 15, 1982, Respondent was assigned to teach two sixth grade social studies classes. A memo reflecting this assignment was sent both to Respondent and Ms. Mandell, dividing the guidance position between them and assigning them each three classes. (Petitioner's Exhibit P) Mr. Green divided the counselor duties between Respondent and Ms. Mandell based on budgetary considerations. That is, Attucks could not afford three guidance counselors and instead of terminating one instructional employee, the guidance counselor assignments were divided. (TP Volume 1, pp. 204 - 205) On November 3, 1982, Mr. Green began, via a memo, to change Respondent from a guidance position to a teaching position reciting in the memo that the change was based on a report from Rod Sasse, an educational guidance specialist for the Petitioner. Mr. Sasse conducted a study of the Attucks Guidance Department and determined that the Department needed to be restructured. He determined that two full-time counselors were more effective than one full-time and two part- time guidance counselors. Thus, Respondent was assigned a teaching position without any counseling duties. Respondent has refused to perform her assigned duties by Mr. Taft Green citing, inter alia, that the course materials provided her were inadequate or incomplete; that she was not educationally trained and therefore unqualified to teach the assigned duties; that she received no help or assistance from other instructional employees at Attucks and that she was not interested in taking the needed steps to either become qualified or otherwise competent to teach the assigned social studies and orientation classes. Prior to her November 10, 1982 assignment by principal Taft Green, Respondent was afforded one (1) week to prepare for the assigned classes. Additionally, she was given two TDA's (temporary duty assignments) to prepare for the social studies classes. Additionally, Respondent received a course syllabus and other material from other faculty and staff and offers of help from supervisory employees. (Testimony of Green; Carole Fischer, Social Studies Department Head; Mark Thomas, author of the course guide for middle school orientation and Dr. Benjamin Stephenson, Associate Superintendent for Personnel) Respondent made repeated statements, oral and written, to students, other instructional employees, supervisors, principal Green and the press evidencing her lack of interest in performing the assigned duties of teaching social studies and/or orientation. Respondent also cited as one of the reasons of her inability to teach the assigned classes was due to the fact that her students were not functioning at the same level of achievement and therefore it was impossible for her to teach students who are functioning at different progress levels. It is hereby found that it is indeed normal for students to function at varying progress levels and that teachers who are at all interested in performing the duties of an instructional employee, readily adjust to the varying progress levels of students and welcome the challenge of such an adjustment. As stated, Respondent repeatedly refused to perform her assigned duties as an instructional employee for the orientation and social studies classes. Based on this refusal to teach, Respondent assigned 148 out of 150 students a grade of incomplete or "I." Respondent was repeatedly directed to provide grades for her students by principal Green including written demands on January 19, 20, 21 and 25, 1983. On the last two demands on January 21 and 25, 1983, Respondent was further advised that her failure to assign grades to students would be regarded as gross insubordination. Respondent would not and, in fact, refused to teach her students any of the subject areas to which she was assigned by principal Taft Green. A typical day spent in the Respondent's classroom consisted primarily of the students either performing independent work which usually was in the form of preparing for other classes or doing homework which was assigned by other instructional staff or in the case of the orientation class, students would watch programs such as "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show." Respondent performed some minimal teaching including map and globe assignments. However, in the normal day, Respondent would permit students to perform either independent work or repeatedly view film strips. As a result of such repetition, students became bored. A number of Respondent's students expressed a desire to learn skills in the social studies classes which they were attending. It is also found that the Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been severely damaged due to the wide notoriety that this case has received, the public statements and/or admissions by the Respondent denoting her lack of interest in teaching the assigned classes and the expressed concern of other staff and parents concerned about entrusting their children to Respondent's class in view of her admitted lack of care and disregard for the educational and social welfare of the students in her class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, School Board of Broward County, enter a Final Order dismissing the Respondent, Alfreda Grady, from employment with the Broward County school system. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1983.
The Issue Whether the actions taken by the superintendent and staff of the Duval County School Board prior to December 1, 1974, were sufficient to achieve comparability pursuant to the provisions of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Congress amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by Public Law 91-230 instituting a project referred to as the Title I Program. The Respondent, Department of Education, has the responsibility of administering the Title I Program and dispensing federal funds to the various school districts throughout the State of Florida. Petitioner, Duval County School Board, is a large urban school district of some 112,000 students and 10,000 employees. There are 134 schools in the district of which 28 are designated as E.S.E.A. Title I Project Schools. The statute under consideration is 20 U.S.C.A. Sec. 241(e): "(a) A Local educational agency may receive a grant under this sub-chapter for any fiscal year only upon application therefore approved by the appropriate State educational agency, upon its determination (consistent with such basic criteria as the Commissioner may establish) . . . (3) That . . .(c) state and local funds be used in the District of such agencies to provide services in project areas which, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services being provided in areas in such districts which are not receiving funds under this sub-chapter: . . . provided further, That each local educational agency receiving funds under this sub-chapter shall report on or before July 1, 1971 and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter with respect to its compliance with this clause; . . ." The regulation under consideration which was promulgated to implement the statute is Regulation Sec. 116.26, a part of which reads: "(a) A state educational agency shall not approve an application of a local educational agency for a grant under section 141(a) of the Act, or make payments of Title I funds under a previously approved application of such agency, unless that local educational agency has demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, that services provided with State and local funds in title I project areas are at least comparable to the services being provided with State and local funds in school serving attendance areas not designated as Title I project areas. Such approval shall not be given unless the local educational agency also provides the assurances and the additional information required' by paragraph (e) of this section with respect to the maintenance of comparability. For the purpose of this section, State and local funds include those funds used in the determination of fiscal effort in accordance with Section 116.45." 116.26(c) "If any school serving a Title I Project Area is determined not to be comparable under this paragraph, no further payments of Title I funds shall be made to the local educational agency until that agency has taken the action required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section to overcome such lack of comparability." Regulation Sec. 116.26(k)(1) in part reads: "that such local educational agency has allocated or reallocated sufficient additional resources to Title I Project Areas so as to come into compliance with such requirements and has filed a revised comparability report reflecting such compliance." Petitioner, Duval County School Board, has been the recipient of Title I funds on a year to year basis since 1965, but was deemed by the Respondent to be in violation of the federal requirements from December 1, 1974 through January 2, 1975 for the reason that Petitioner had not "achieved comparability" for that period of time. Funds withheld from Petitioner, in excess of $325,000 are involved in this hearing. The following sequence of events are pertinent: On or about July 1, 1974, the Duval County application for Fiscal Year 1974 was filed and approved based on the assurance that comparability existed in Duval County and would be maintained throughout the 1974-75 school year. On or about September 27, 1974, the Respondent advised local school districts that October 1, 1974 was the date for collecting the data on which the comparability report for Fiscal Year 1975 would be based. On October 7 and 8, 1974, and again on November 7 and 8, 1974, conferences and meetings were held with representatives of various school boards, including those of the Petitioner. The purpose of these meetings and conferences was to inform these school boards concerning the requirements of achieving and maintaining comparability. On November 20, 1974, in a memorandum from Woodrow J. Darden marked "URGENT" the Respondent advised all Superintendents, the Finance Officers and Title I Coordinators that the comparability reports were due on or before December 1, 1974. A part of said memorandum stated: "If the comparability report submitted by your district did not meet the measures to determine comparability as outlined in the Federal Regulations, administrative or Board action for the purpose of reallocating resources should be taken on or before December 1, 1974, to bring the schools into compliance." The date of December 1, 1974 is established by Regulation 116.26(b)(7). On November 26 and 27, 1974, the Superintendent authorized a reallocation of instructional staff and authorized budgetary transfers to bring Petitioner up to the required level of comparability. On December 1, 1974, Petitioner filed its report. On December 17, 1974, the Director, Special Projects, received a copy from Department of Education of a MAILGRAM from Robert R. Wheeler, Acting Deputy Commissioner for School Systems, United States Office of Education to Honorable Ralph Turlington, stating: "this is to remind you that your agency is required under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act not to make any further payments as of December 1 to any local educational agency that has not as of that date complied with the comparability requirements in 45 CFR 116.26 and to notify each such agency not to obligate any Title I funds after that date. Compliance with this requirement is subject to Federal Audit. Your continued cooperation is appreciated." By a letter dated December 18, 1974, the Respondent notified Petitioner funds were being withheld for the period of December 1 through December 16, 1974. An audit was conducted by Petitioner following the withholding of funds of December 18, 1974, and this audit revealed that comparability had still not been achieved. A revised report dated December 27, 1974 indicated that additional personnel still were needed to meet comparability requirements. Pursuant thereto additional personnel reported to work on or about January 2, 1975. By a letter dated January 16, 1975, the Respondent rescinded the prior authorization that had permitted the resumption of the use of Title I funds as of December 16, 1974 and extended the period of withholding of Title I funds through January 1, 1975. Following the notification to Petitioner that the funds were being withheld, the Petitioner requested a hearing in order to appeal the withholding of the Title I funds for the period of December 1, 1974 through December 16, 1974. This request for a hearing was later amended to include the period of time from December 15, 1975 through January 1, 1975. Petitioner contends: That it complied with the requirements of the subject statute and regulation when it unconditionally committed itself on November 26, 1974 to the employment of necessary personnel by the establishment and budgeting of all necessary positions and direction that such positions be filled. Petitioner further contends that good faith on its part and substantial compliance is all that the statute and regulation require. Respondent contends: That the subject statute and regulation require that compliance with the comparability requirements is a continuing state of being and must be maintained throughout the year. Respondent further contends that the Federal statute and regulation require not only that the positions be budgeted and directions be given to employ but that the positions be actually filled and the personnel on the job on or before the filing of the report required by Regulation 116.26(b)(7). The Hearing Officer further finds: That both Petitioner and Respondent have demonstrated a dedication and concern for the schools within their respective jurisdictions; That both Petitioner and Respondent have been diligent in trying to act within the provisions of the subject statute and regulations; That the personnel of both the Petitioner and Respondent are familiar with the requirements of the statute and regulation but the federal requirements are subject to different interpretations by reasonable persons. There was no meeting of the minds of the parties from the federal, state and local governmental units as to the required method of compliance with the laws.
The Issue Whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes,2 to suspend Respondent from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay. 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2019 version. 2 All references to chapter 1012 are to the 2018 version, which was in effect at the time of the alleged misconduct at issue in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the credible and persuasive competent substantial evidence in the record, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise free public schools in Miami-Dade County pursuant to section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2018), and article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution. Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher since 2000. He has been employed as an art teacher at E.W.F. Stirrup Elementary School ("Stirrup") for the last 18 years, including when he is alleged to have engaged in the conduct that has given rise to this proceeding. Respondent is certified in art, graphic design, and vocational education. Notice of Specific Charges The Notice of Specific Charges ("NSC"), which constitutes the administrative complaint in this proceeding, alleges two instances of conduct on Respondent's part as the grounds for the proposed disciplinary action. Specifically, the NSC alleges that on or about September 27, 2018, Respondent told a female 5th grade student words to the effect of "get out here; I do not want you here," and forcibly pushed her away with his hand. The NSC also alleges that Respondent used profanity, spoken in Spanish— specifically, the words "mierda"3 and "pinga"4?while covering a class of kindergarten students. The complaint alleges that two adults witnessed Respondent's use of these words.5 This incident is alleged to have occurred on or about December 5, 2018. Based on this alleged conduct, the NSC charges Respondent with misconduct in office, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing The September 27, 2018 Incident 3 Translated into English, "mierda" means "shit." 4 Translated into English, "pinga," as used in the context pertinent to this proceeding, means "fuck." 5 As more fully discussed below, the NSC does not allege that Respondent's use of these words was directed at any students, or that any students saw or heard Respondent use these words. On September 27, 2018, S.D., a minor, was a student in Respondent's 5th grade art class. S.D. testified, credibly, that on that day, Respondent told her to "get out of his way," then pushed her away by placing his hands on her shoulders. She testified that Respondent's words and actions made her feel "embarrassed, or, like, weird." S.D. acknowledged that she had gone up to Respondent and tried to talk to him while he was talking to the president of the Parent Teacher Association ("PTA"). She tried to get hand sanitizer and Respondent said to her "not now, go away" because he was talking to the PTA president at that time. Respondent characterized S.D. as a child who "has a reputation for basically not obeying anything." He testified that when S.D. approached his desk, he was in a discussion with the PTA president, and he told S.D. to "get out of here" and "sit down." He did not recall touching her. He stated that from where he was standing, he doubted that he could have reached her to push her away, and that had he pushed her, she likely would have fallen. No other witnesses testified at the final hearing regarding this incident. The December 5, 2018 Incident On Wednesday, December 5, 2018, Respondent was assigned to cover another teacher's kindergarten class starting at 9:00 a.m., so that the teacher who regularly taught that class, Ms. Rivero, could attend an exceptional student education ("ESE") meeting regarding one of her students. For the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent was assigned a full day of planning each Wednesday. In addition, Respondent was assigned one hour of planning every other day of the school week, per the Miami-Dade School District ("District") policy of providing teachers a minimum of one hour of planning per day.6 6 Respondent was assigned a full day of planning on Wednesdays in the 2018-2019 school year. This was not a function of his having an extraordinary workload; rather, it was because on Wednesdays, the language arts classes were scheduled back-to-back and students were dismissed early, so that it was infeasible to schedule art classes on Wednesdays. As a result of this scheduling, Respondent enjoyed nearly four more hours of planning per week than the minimum planning time to which he was entitled under the District's planning policy. According to Smith-Moise, if a teacher's schedule provides more than an hour of planning per day, that teacher may be requested, from time to time, to use that additional planning time for involvement in other school activities, including covering other teachers' classes as necessary. The administration at Stirrup generally attempts to schedule substitute teachers to cover classes when a teacher is called away from his or her class; however, on December 5, 2018, another teacher's class already was being covered by a substitute teacher. Because Respondent had planning that entire day, he did not have classes, so was available to cover Rivero's class. The length of ESE meetings varies, depending on the type of ESE service being delivered and whether the students' parents agree with the school district regarding the ESE services proposed to be provided. This particular meeting was an initial ESE team staffing meeting; these types of meetings often are relatively long compared to other types of ESE meetings. Respondent covered Rivero's class on December 5, 2018, from approximately 8:35 a.m. until shortly after 1:00 p.m., when a substitute teacher was called to cover the class for the remainder of the ESE meeting. During the time he was covering Rivero's class, Respondent called the Stirrup administration office multiple times, and also called and sent text messages to a fellow teacher, Yvette Mestre, asking how long the ESE meeting would take and when it would be over. In response to Respondent's calls, Smith-Moise twice left the ESE meeting to speak to Respondent in Rivero's classroom. Both times, when she entered the classroom, she observed Respondent disengaged from the students and talking very loudly on his phone. Respondent made clear to Smith-Moise that he was very frustrated at having his planning time taken to cover Rivero's class when he had other responsibilities to attend to.7 7 Respondent testified that he had a great deal of work to do on a large mural project for his own classes that needed to be completed under a tight deadline. Shortly after the beginning of the school day on December 5, 2018, Smith- Moise had taken a student from Rivero's class to Mestre's classroom because the student was misbehaving in Rivero's classroom. A short time thereafter, Respondent began sending text messages to Mestre, asking when the ESE meeting was going to be over. Mestre, who was occupied with teaching her own class, responded that she did not know, and suggested that Respondent contact the administration office. Around 10:30 or 11:00 a.m., Respondent began calling Mestre, again asking about the length of the ESE meeting. Mestre testified that "he seemed upset because he had stuff that he wanted to plan." Mestre again responded that she did not know and suggested that Respondent contact the administration office. At some point, Mestre went to Rivero's classroom to retrieve a lunchbox for the student from Rivero's class whom she was supervising. When she entered the classroom, she observed Respondent on his phone. Respondent told Mestre that he was on the phone with his United Teachers of Dade ("UTD") representative and that he was upset at having to cover Rivero's class because it was his planning day. Mestre went to the administrative office and reported to Smith-Moise that Respondent was upset and needed assistance in Rivero's classroom. Smith-Moise directed Mestre to take Acevedo Molina, an office assistant, to the classroom so that she (Acevedo Molina) could assist Respondent. According to Mestre, when they entered the classroom, Respondent initially thought Acevedo Molina was going to take over supervision of the class; however, when Mestre informed him that Acevedo Molina was there to assist him but would not be taking over supervision of the class, Respondent became very irate, raised his voice, and used the words "mierda" and "pinga" in speaking to them.8 Acevedo Molina confirmed that Respondent used these words when he spoke to her and Mestre. Mestre and Acevedo Molina were, respectively, "shocked" and "surprised" at Respondent's use of these words. 8 Mestre testified that Respondent said, translated into English, "[t]he school doesn't understand the shit that I do," and "they don't give a fuck what I do in this school." Respondent testified that he does not recall having said those words when he spoke to Mestre and Acevedo Molina that day. There is conflicting evidence whether Respondent used those words inside the classroom, such that they were said within earshot of the students, or outside of the classroom, where the students would not be able to hear or see him use the words. Mestre and Acevedo Molina both testified that they had entered Rivero's classroom and were inside the classroom with Respondent when he used the words. Respondent claims that he had to have stepped outside of the classroom into the corridor to speak to Mestre and Acevedo Molina, because the door was locked and they would have been unable to open it and enter the classroom on their own. In any event, it is unnecessary to determine whether Respondent used these words in the classroom within the students' earshot, because the NSC only charges Respondent with having said "mierda" and "pinga" while "covering a class of kindergarten students for another teacher," and that Respondent's use of these words was "overheard by two adult witnesses." The NSC does not allege that Respondent directed the words toward any students or that any students saw or heard him use these words.9 No direct or persuasive circumstantial evidence was presented showing that any students saw or overheard Respondent use those words. Although Mestre and Acevedo Molina testified that Respondent was inside the classroom when he said the words, both testified that the words were not directed toward the students, and neither testified that any students heard or saw Respondent say those words. Thus, even if the evidence conclusively established that Respondent was inside the classroom when he said those words—which it does not—that does not prove that any students saw or heard Respondent use those words. To that point, Smith-Moise 9 Trevisani v. Dep't of Health, 908 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(a respondent cannot be disciplined for offenses not factually alleged in the administrative complaint); Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla 1st DCA 1996)(predicating disciplinary action on conduct never alleged in an administrative complaint or some comparable pleading violates the Administrative Procedure Act). See Hunter v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 842, 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(administrative complaint seeking to impose discipline must state, with specificity, the acts giving rise to the complaint). testified that the school had not received any complaints about Respondent's use of those words from any of the students or their parents. The UTD Contract establishes a policy of imposing progressive discipline ("Progressive Discipline Policy") when "the Board deems it appropriate, and . . . the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense." Neither the Progressive Discipline Policy nor Petitioner's adopted policies articulate a disciplinary "scale" or penalty categories applicable to specific types of conduct. There is no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Respondent previously has been subjected to disciplinary action by Petitioner. Petitioner did not present any competent substantial evidence establishing the factual basis for its proposal to suspend Respondent for ten days for the offenses charged in the NSC. Findings of Ultimate Fact As noted above, Petitioner has charged Respondent with misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2) for having violated specified provisions of rule 6A-10.081, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession; School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct; and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics. Whether an offense constitutes a violation of applicable statutes, rules, and policies is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each violation. McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether particular conduct violates a statute, rule, or policy is a factual question); Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(whether the conduct, as found, constitutes a violation of statutes, rules, or policies is a question of ultimate fact); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(whether there was a deviation from a standard of conduct is not a conclusion of law, but is instead an ultimate fact). Charged Conduct and Rule Violations The September 27, 2018 Incident Based on the foregoing, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent pushed S.D. on September 27, 2018. There was no justification for Respondent to place his hands on and push S.D., even if she interrupted him while he was speaking with another person. Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. constituted misconduct in office, as defined in rule 6A-5.056(2). Specifically, Respondent's conduct did not comport with rule 6A-10.081(1)(a), which provides that his primary professional concern must be for the student, and requires him to exercise best professional judgment. In pushing S.D., he did not treat her as his primary professional concern, and he did not exercise best professional judgment. Additionally, Respondent's conduct did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. or School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Specifically, in pushing S.D., Respondent did not make a reasonable effort to protect her from conditions harmful to her mental and physical health and safety. Although S.D. was not physically injured, she was embarrassed by Respondent's conduct in pushing her. Respondent's conduct also did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5. or School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. was intentional and it exposed her to embarrassment. Because Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. violated rules 6A- 10.081(1)(a)1. and (2)(a)1. and 5., and School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01, it is found, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent committed misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2). Pursuant to the UTD Progressive Discipline Policy, it is determined that Respondent's conduct in pushing S.D. was sufficiently serious to warrant suspending him without pay for five days. There was no justification for him having pushed her. Although S.D. was not physically injured as a result of Respondent's conduct, the potential existed for her to have been injured had she fallen, and, in any event, Respondent's intentional action subjected her to embarrassment. The December 5, 2018 Incident Based on the foregoing findings, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent used the words "mierda" and "pinga," which are profane words, when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina on December 5, 2018. However, for the reasons discussed above, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not direct those words toward the students or that any students heard or saw him use those words.10 Respondent's use of profanity in speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina did not comport with rule 6A-10.081(1)(c). In using profanity toward his colleagues, Respondent did not strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. Mestre and Acevedo Molina both testified to the effect that they viewed his conduct as inappropriate in that professional setting. Respondent's use of those words when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina did not comply with the requirement in School Board Policy 3210 to refrain from the use of profane or abusive language in the workplace. Respondent's use of those words when speaking with Mestre and Acevedo Molina also did not comply with the standard set forth in School Board Policy 3210.01, which requires the employee to show respect for other people. In sum, Respondent's conduct in saying "mierda" and "pinga" while speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina violated rules 6A-10.081(1)(c) and School Board policies 3210 and 3210.01. Accordingly, Respondent's conduct constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2). As discussed above, there is no competent substantial evidence establishing that Respondent has ever been subjected to discipline by Petitioner prior to this proceeding. Although Respondent's conduct in using profanity when speaking to two adult colleagues violates certain policies, in light of the UTD Progressive Discipline Policy, such violation is not sufficiently serious to warrant suspension without pay. Therefore, it is determined that, consistent with the concept of progressive 10 Further, as discussed above, the administrative complaint does not charge Respondent with using those words toward students or charge that any students saw or heard him use those words. discipline, Petitioner should issue a verbal reprimand to Respondent for his conduct in using profanity when speaking to his colleagues. Because Respondent was not charged with, and the evidence did not prove, that he directed profanity toward any students or that any students saw or heard him use profanity, Petitioner may not impose discipline on Respondent on that basis. Just Cause Based on the foregoing, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that just cause exists to suspend Respondent. Recommended Penalty Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent should be suspended for five days without pay for having pushed S.D. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent should be issued a verbal reprimand for using profanity when speaking to Mestre and Acevedo Molina and Respondent should receive five days of back pay for the balance of the ten-day period for which Petitioner proposed to suspend him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, consistent with the foregoing, Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent from his employment as a teacher for five days without pay, issuing a verbal reprimand to Respondent, and awarding Respondent back pay for five days. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761-1526 (eServed) Cristina Rivera, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132 (eServed) Carlos M. Sanjurjo Apartment 214 14907 Southwest 80th Street Miami, Florida 33193 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Lee County School Board (School Board), has established "just cause" to terminate the Respondent, Patricia Slade (Ms. Slade), as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Slade is a teacher at Lehigh Acres Elementary School and has worked for the Lee County School District since August 19, 1997. As a teacher, Ms. Slade is an instructional employee and her employment is governed, in part, by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Teachers Association of Lee County (TALC). The School Board is charged with the operation of the free public education in Lee County, Florida, and has the authority to terminate or suspend instructional employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f). The record shows by preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Slade has fallen asleep in her classroom during the school day on several instances and on one occasion left her classroom unattended. The record shows that for school year 2010-2011, Ms. Slade was a teacher for pre-kindergarten children, who are four-years-old. The School Board witnesses credibly testified that they had observed Ms. Slade asleep in the classroom on different dates. Ms. Sanchez, a grandmother of one of the students in Ms. Slade's classroom and school volunteer, credibly testified that she had observed Ms. Slade asleep three or four times during the school year. In one instance, Ms. Sanchez observed Ms. Slade asleep during the children's naptime for a period of approximately 30 minutes. Ms. Sanchez's testimony was corroborated by the credible testimony of Ms. Hicks, a former teacher and two teacher aides, Ms. Serrano and Ms. Kinney. Ms. Hicks credibly testified that she observed Ms. Slade on three occasions. Ms. Hicks described one of the occasions when she walked into Ms. Slade's classroom during the afternoon and found her asleep on the floor. Similarly, Ms. Serrano credibly testified that sometime in January 2011, during the students' naptime, Ms. Kinney had come to her classroom and asked Ms. Serrano to watch Ms. Slade's class while Ms. Kinney left to use the restroom. Upon entering Ms. Slade's classroom, Ms. Serrano found Ms. Slade asleep on the floor. Ms. Serrano credibly testified that she woke Ms. Slade up, because Ms. Serrano had to go back to her own classroom. Finally, Ms. Kinney, who was Ms. Slade's teacher aide, credibly testified that Ms. Slade had fallen asleep once before the winter break and more frequently after the winter break. In a written statement provided by Ms. Kinney to the school, Ms. Kinney indicated by February 2011, Ms. Slade was falling asleep in the classroom "once a week to every other week." During one of Ms. Slade's midday naps after the winter break, Ms. Kinney took a picture with a cell phone of Ms. Slade sleeping on the floor. The photograph, which was admitted into evidence, clearly shows Ms. Slade asleep on the floor of the classroom with the students asleep on their mats around her. The record also shows that on February 15, 2011, Ms. Slade fell asleep in the classroom. Mr. Dworzanski, assistant principal for the school, credibly testified that he went to Ms. Slade's classroom after being called by Ms. Kinney, because Ms. Slade was asleep. Mr. Dworzanski credibly testified that he found Ms. Slade "sitting underneath where the smart board was propped up against the wall and she was asleep." Mr. Dworzanski further testified that Ms. Slade was difficult to wake and that she was incoherent when she was finally aroused. Based on her incoherence, Ms. Slade was taken to the school nurse and paramedics were called. After this February 15, 2011, incident, Ms. Slade did not return to the class. Ms. Slade offered that she had "passed out" on the February 15, 2011, incident as the result of acute bronchitis. While Ms. Slade testified that she had acute bronchitis, her testimony was not credible for showing that her diagnosis of acute bronchitis was the cause for her being asleep or in an unconscious state on February 15, 2011. Therefore, the undersigned finds that there was no competent evidence to explain why Ms. Slade slept during the school day. Mr. Dworzanski credibly explained that a teacher is not permitted to sleep during the pre-kindergarten student's naptime, because the teacher must monitor the students and keep them safe. Apparently, not all four-year-old students sleep during naptime and the teacher needs to keep an eye on the students. Next, the record supports the finding that on one instance Ms. Slade left her class unattended. Ms. Kinney credibly testified that on one occasion Ms. Kinney went to the cafeteria to retrieve the school lunches. Upon returning to the classroom, Ms. Kinney did not see Ms. Slade in the classroom. Further, there was no adult supervision in the classroom when Ms. Kinney entered the class with the lunches. When asked by Ms. Kinney, the students informed her that Ms. Slade had gone to the bathroom. Ms. Slade returned "several minutes" after Ms. Kinney had returned to the classroom. Ms. Slade does not have any prior disciplinary record with the school, and was an effective teacher when she had been observed teaching.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order terminating the employment of Patricia Slade, as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 15th day of November, 2011.
The Issue Whether Lisa Parker (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Miami-Dade County School Board's (School Board) Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, the discipline that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has been employed by the School Board since 1986. During the time relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was the lead staffing specialist for the School Board's ESE program in Region I. During the 2008-2009 school year, Michael J. Krop Sr. High School (Krop) was a school for which Respondent had responsibility. The School Board's ESE program provides services to students who are determined eligible for such services. The eligibility determination is made by a staffing committee consisting of a minimum of three School Board professional employees. The School Board has adopted the following procedure pertaining to the eligibility staffing committee2/: A staffing committee, utilizing the process of reviewing student data including but not limited to diagnostic, evaluation, educational, or social data, determines a student's eligibility. A minimum of three (3) professional personnel, one (1) of whom is the district administrator of exceptional students or designee, meet as a staffing committee. For students being considered for eligibility as a student with a disability, the parent is invited to participate in this meeting . . . . If a student is determined to be eligible for services through the ESE program, an IEP team is assembled to conduct an IEP meeting and to prepare an IEP for the student. The parents of the student are entitled to attend the IEP meeting as part of the IEP team. A local education agency (LEA) representative is a required member of an IEP team. The other required members of the IEP are a general education teacher, a special education teacher, and an evaluation specialist.3/ Relevant to this proceeding, a general education teacher and an evaluation specialist can be excused from the IEP meeting before the close of the meeting. The members of a staffing committee that determines eligibility can also constitute the members of an IEP team. An eligibility determination is frequently made with an IEP team meeting ensuing immediately thereafter. There is nothing unusual about an eligibility determination and an initial IEP being accomplished on the same day. "Specific learning disability" and "other health impaired" are two categories that qualify a student for ESE services.4/ School-based staffing specialists are assigned to schools to hold staffing meetings to determine eligible for services from the ESE program, and to write an IEP for a student found to be eligible. Generally, a lead staffing specialist is a position of support for school-based staffing specialists in the areas of organization, scheduling, and compliance with relevant substantive and procedural requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Florida Statutes, and rules. A lead staffing specialist also provides professional development to school-based personnel through in- service training and individual support to schools. A lead staffing specialist is responsible for ensuring that eligibility determinations were based on adequate documentation in a timely fashion. On June 27, 2008, the School Board published a "Memorandum" that solicited applicants for the position of "lead staffing specialist." That Memorandum contained the following under the heading "Job Responsibilities Include": Serve as the Local Education Agency (LEA) Representative of the Multi-Disciplinary Team for eligibility, placement and dismissal decisions for students in the least restrictive environment. Collect and review staffing data and allocation of personnel to facilitate adherence to required procedures and timelines for staffings. Assist the SPED Instructional Supervisor in monitoring unit allocations, program enrollment and suspension and inclusion percentages. Demonstrate knowledge in procedural safeguards, due process and mediation procedures. Consult with the Regional Center SPED Instructional Supervisors to resolve issues related to the provision of programs and services to individual students. Provide on-site technical assistance to teachers, administrators and support personnel in areas involving program planning, curriculum and instructional techniques for students. Provide program assistance to parents and community agencies. Identify school needs regarding enrollment, unit allocation, equipment, materials and transportation. Plan and conduct regularly scheduled staff meetings to maintain communication and provide for the dissemination of information. Serve as the Region Center SPED Instructional Supervisor's designee in the identification and resolution of problems, issues and concerns related to special education services. When necessary, a lead staffing specialist is also expected to serve as the LEA representative at a school-based staffing to determine a student's eligibility for services from the ESE program and to participate in the preparation of an IEP as a member of the IEP team. A lead staffing specialist who serves as the LEA at an initial eligibility meeting or an IEP meeting is charged with ensuring that the School Board's policies are followed and that all necessary documentation is obtained. It is the School Board's responsibility to ensure that its policies comply with all applicable Federal and Florida statutes and rules. The LEA at an IEP meeting has the responsibility of preparing a Matrix of Services form based on the services provided by the IEP. The completion of the form results in the generation of a number that is used to determine the level of funding the School Board receives for the student. For ease of reference, that number will be referred to as the matrix number. A higher matrix number generates more funding than a lower number. A matrix number is also used to determine the level of funding for a McKay Scholarship. Again, a higher matrix number will result in greater funding. Respondent has been adequately trained in the procedures for determining eligibility for ESE program services, for the completion of IEPs, and for the completion of Matrix of Service forms. At the times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. S.-N. served as the School Board's Instructional Supervisor of ESE and was Respondent's direct supervisor. In addition to their professional relationship, Ms. S.-N. and Respondent had been close personal friends for over 25 years at the time of the formal hearing. S.N. is the daughter of Ms. S.-N.. At the request of Ms. S.-N., Respondent served as the LEA for the eligibility staffing and subsequent creation of an IEP for S.N. at Krop on October 15, 2008. Also at Ms. S.-N.'s request, Respondent served as the LEA on an IEP team that prepared a second IEP for S.N. on February 9, 2009. Prior to the eligibility determination on October 15, 2008, S.N. was a student at American Heritage Academy, a private school in Plantation, Broward County, Florida. Prior to the eligibility determination, Dr. Laurie Karpf, a psychiatrist, had diagnosed S.N. with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and mood disorder, NOS (not otherwise specified). Dr. Karpf prescribed for S.N. medication to treat ADHD.5/ Prior to the eligibility determination, Dr. Garnett Reynolds, a speech and language pathologist employed by the School Board, screened S.N. to determine whether S.N. had speech or hearing deficits. Dr. Reynolds determined that S.N. had no such deficits. Dr. Reynolds did not participate further in the eligibility determination or in drafting either IEP at issue. On August 22, 2008, Dr. Yolanda Sklar, a school psychologist employed by the School Board, evaluated S.N. at the request of Ms. S.-N. Because S.N. was enrolled in a private school in Broward County, Dr. Sklar conducted the evaluation in her capacity as a "clinical psychologist," using the DSM-IV model, as opposed to the capacity as a school psychologist using School Board protocols. Dr. Sklar's report stated the following as the "Reason for Referral": [S.N.] is a 15 year, nine month old female who was referred for a psychological evaluation for reasons of academic difficulties in school. [S.] is enrolled in tenth grade at American Heritage School. Information was requested regarding [S.'s] level of intellectual functioning, academic achievement, and her learning aptitude in order to address the possibility of learning disabilities. [S.] presents with a history of attentional difficulties and academic problems in school. She has struggled throughout her schooling years, but her difficulties in school have become more evident at the higher grades, with higher academic demands and expectations. [S.] also has Attention Deficit Disorder. She is currently on medication (Focalin) for treatment of attentional difficulties and she appears to be responding well to the medication. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide diagnostic clarification and assist with determination of [S.'s] educational needs. Recommendations are provided based on [S.'s] learning abilities and her instructional needs in order to insure her academic potential and her success in school. Ms. S.-N. had, at times, been Dr. Sklar's direct supervisor. Dr. Sklar felt intimated when Ms. S.-N. requested that she evaluate S.N. Nevertheless, Dr. Sklar's report and her testimony at the formal hearing established that she evaluated S.N. in a thorough and professional manner. Dr. Sklar administered to S.N. the following tests: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of Achievement Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of Cognitive Ability Beery Developmental Test of Visual- Motor Integration-V Behavior Assessment System for Children, Parent Rating Behavior Assessment System for Children, Self-Report Sentence Completion Test-Adolescent Clinical Interview and Observations Dr. Sklar's report contained the following "Summary and Conclusions": [S.N.] is a 15 year, nine month old female who is functioning within the Average range of intellectual classification. Assessment of learning aptitude indicates a learning disorder or learning disability in processing speed. Academically, [S.] is not performing to the best of her ability and not reaching her potential due to learning disabilities. She is achieving significantly below her level of expectancy in reading fluency. Psychometric findings strongly support evidence of a specific learning disability in processing speed. A childhood history of Attention Deficit Disorder is also supported. The overall implications are that [S.] will require accommodations in the classroom and in testing situations to fully utilize her intellectual potential. The failure to accommodate may lead to academic performance well below her expected ability. Based on findings, it is imperative that [S.] receive individualized instructional adjustments in the classroom and test accommodations in order to meet her educational goals. Results and clinical impressions are consistent with a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominately Inattentive Type, and Learning Disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified). Dr. Sklar's report contained the following under the heading "Diagnostic Impressions": The following diagnostic criteria is met in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV-TR), American Psychiatric Association: Axis I: 314.00 Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominately Inattentive Type Axis II: 315.9 Learning Disorder, NOS Dr. Sklar's report contained the following under the heading "Educational Strategies and Recommendations": [S.] would benefit from educational software programs that are multi-modal and emphasize visual skills, as her visual memory processing skills appear to be her strongest learning modality. Software programs, such as Talking Books would be beneficial. As [S.] has a history of Attention Deficit Disorder, it is imperative that directions be specific and given clearly. It may be necessary to repeat directions in order to assure attending skills and comprehension of instructions regarding the task at hand. In light of deficits in processing speed, it is imperative that [S.] receive time accommodations in classroom assignments, exams, and standardized tests. Restrict the amount of work required on a single page if possible. Teaching techniques should begin with identification of individual parts, moving to integrated wholes. Keep visually presented material simple in format and uncluttered by excessive stimuli. Classroom lectures may be taped in order of [S.] to play back lectures and take notes at her own pace. Strategies that may facilitate written tasks include providing outlines and visual cues such as color coding, numbering lines, etc. Educational materials and tools, such as a computer/word processor, calculator, tape recorder, spell-checker, ruler, etc., should be allowed as deemed necessary. Dr. Sklar's report does not reflect an opinion as to whether S.N. met the eligibility criteria for ESE services in Miami-Dade public schools. At the formal hearing Dr. Sklar testified that S.N. did not meet criteria for eligibility under the SLD category. The School Board uses a discrepancy model, which measures the statistical difference from IQ and level of academic functioning. The difference in S.N.'s evaluation was one-half point short of the differential required by the School Board, which determined that she was not eligible, but suggested that further testing was warranted. Prior to October 15, 2008, Ms. S.-N. instructed Respondent to determine S.N.'s eligibility for ESE services and to prepare an IEP for her daughter as soon as possible. Respondent could not remember the date that conversation took place, but it is clear that Respondent worked on very short notice. The School Board contends that Respondent acted to the detriment of other students who were waiting to be evaluated for eligibility of ESE services or for an IEP by giving S.N. priority over those other students. The School Board's contention is rejected because there was insufficient evidence to establish that any student's staffing was delayed by Respondent's actions. Ms. S.-N. enrolled S.N. as a student at Krop on October 15, 2008. The enrollment record reflected that S.N. resided at an address in Miami-Dade County, Florida, within the Krop school zone. That was a false address. Although Respondent utilized that false address on the October 15, 2008, IEP, Respondent testified, credibly, that she pulled the address from the school computer. Respondent had no duty to verify the accuracy of that address. There was no evidence that Respondent knew or should have known that the address was false. In response to Ms. S.-N.'s instruction, Respondent attempted to convene an eligibility team meeting and an IEP meeting at Krop on October 15, 2008. The meeting was held in the office of Elissa Rubinowitz, the Program Specialist (for ESE) at Krop. On October 15, 2008, Respondent generated an IEP for S.N. that reflected that S.N. had been determined eligible for the following ESE programs: "Specific Learning Disabilities" and "Other Health Impaired." Under the heading "Signatures and Positions of Persons Attending Conference [sic]", the following signatures appear with the positions of each signer in parenthesis: Ms. S.-N. (parent), S.N. (student), Respondent (LEA representative), Ms. Rubinowitz (ESE teacher), Dr. Richard Rosen (evaluation specialist), and Lawrence Davidson (general education teacher). Mr. Davidson was not at the staffing committee team meeting that determined S.N.'s eligibility for services, nor did he attend the IEP meeting at Krop on October 15, 2008. Mr. Davidson's office at Krop was next door to Ms. Rubinowitz's office. After Respondent completed the IEP without Mr. Davidson's presence or input, Ms. Rubinowitz went to Mr. Davidson's office, gave him the IEP, and asked him to sign the IEP as the general education teacher. Mr. Davidson signed the IEP as the general education teacher.6/ The IEP reflects that S.N. was to be placed in all general education classes at Krop. Consequently, a general education teacher should have been a participating member of the IEP team. Because there was no general education teacher, the IEP team was inappropriately composed. Similarly, Dr. Rosen was not at Krop on October 15, 2008. On the afternoon of October 15, 2008, Dr. Rosen happened to be at the Region I office when Ms. S.-N. asked him to come into her office to review Dr. Sklar's psychological report. The only persons present were Ms. S.-N., Respondent, and Dr. Rosen. Dr. Rosen has known Dr. Sklar for many years and quickly reviewed her report. Ms. S.-N. had no questions about the report. After his review, Dr. Rosen signed the IEP as the evaluation specialist. Although Dr. Sklar is a school psychologist employed by the School Board, her report pertaining to S.N. is properly considered as being a private psychological evaluation because Dr. Sklar's evaluation of S.N. was not prepared pursuant to School Board protocol. Either Dr. Rosen or Respondent should have signed a form styled "Receipt of Private Psychological Evaluation," which would have acknowledged receipt of the private evaluation from Ms. S.-N. The form contains the following caveat: "A copy of this form should be kept in the student's cumulative folder." Respondent failed to ensure that this form was signed and placed in S.N.'s cumulative folder. Dr. Rosen should have completed and signed a form styled "Review of Psychological Reports Originating Outside Miami-Dade County Public Schools." That form includes a section for the school psychologist to determine whether the report is sufficiently recent and whether the evaluator meets professional background criteria. At the bottom of the form is a note that "This form is required for all psychological evaluations originating outside M-DCPS." Respondent failed to ensure that Dr. Rosen completed and signed that form. The determination that S.N. met ESE eligibility was not made by a properly convened staffing committee. There were three persons employed by the School Board at the Krop meeting (Respondent, Ms. Rubinowitz, and Ms. S.-N.). Likewise, there were three persons employed by the School Board at the Region I office meeting (Respondent, Dr. Rosen, and Ms. S.-N.). Ms. S.- N. attended both meetings as a parent; not as a School Board professional. Ms. Rubinowitz and Dr. Rosen did not participate in the same meeting. Consequently, no staffing meeting as contemplated by the School Board's policies occurred because a minimum of three School Board professionals did not meet as a staffing committee to determine eligibility. There was a dispute as to whether the staffing committee had adequate information to determine that S.N. met the criteria for ESE services under the SLD category or under the OHI category. That dispute is resolved by finding that a properly convened staffing committee had the right to rely on Dr. Sklar's report, on Dr. Karpf's records, and on input from Ms. S.-N. in concluding that S.N. was eligible under both categories. Further, the available information would have been sufficient for a properly convened staffing committee to determine that S.N. was eligible for ESE services under both categories. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the substantive contents of the IEP developed October 15, 2008, were inappropriate.7/ The Matrix of Services form contains five "domains." Domain A relates to "Curriculum and Learning Environment." Domain B relates to "Social/Emotional Behavior." Domain C relates to "Independent Functioning." Domain D relates to "Health Care." Domain E relates to "Communication." Under each domain is a "Level of Service" that begins with Level 1 and ends with Level 5. There is a descriptor on the form and in a handbook as to what constitutes a level of service. The person completing the Matrix of Service form assigns a number to each domain based on the level of service provided in the IEP. The numbers for the five domains are added together to produce what is referred to as the "Cost Factor Scale," which is used to determine state funding to the School Board. The higher the Cost Factor Scale, the more state funding the School Board would receive for the student. The Cost Factor Scale is also utilized in determining the funding for McKay Scholarships. As part of the IEP process, Respondent completed a Matrix of Services form in conjunction with the October 15, 2008, IEP. Petitioner established that Respondent should have scored Domain A as a 3 as opposed to a 4. As scored by Respondent, the total domain rating was 12. If Respondent had correctly scored Domain A, the total domain rating would have been 11. Domain totals ranging from 10-13 produce a cost factor scale of 252. Because the Cost Factor Scale was not changed, this error did not become significant until Respondent completed the Matrix of Services form in conjunction with the February 2009 IEP. S.N. withdrew from Krop on October 23, 2008, and returned to her private school placement shortly thereafter. Between October 2008 and February 2009, S.N.'s negative behaviors escalated. On February 5, 2009, Ms. S.-N. re-enrolled S.N. at Krop. On the instructions of Ms. S.-N., Respondent convened an interim IEP meeting on February 9, 2009. The purpose of the meeting was to "review accommodations." An interim IEP coversheet was prepared by Respondent. Those purporting to sign the coversheet as having participated in the IEP team meeting and their positions were: Ms. S.-N. (parent), S.N. (student), Respondent (LEA), Ms. Rubinowitz (ESE teacher and evaluation specialist), and Mr. Davidson (general education teacher). As he did with the earlier IEP, Mr. Davidson signed the interim IEP coversheet on February 9, 2009, without having attended the IEP meeting or providing any input. No general education teacher participated in the IEP meeting. Consequently, this IEP team was not appropriately formed. Respondent failed to adhere to School Board procedures in assembling the IEP team. At that meeting, the level of counseling for S.N. was changed from weekly to daily, and a provision was added for the counselor to consult with the family on a monthly basis to monitor the status of S.N.'s focus on schoolwork. This change was based on input from Ms. S.-N. as to S.N.'s escalating behavior. The body of the IEP was not changed to reflect the change in counseling for S.N. from a weekly basis to a daily basis. That omission was an error by Respondent. A note was added to the IEP to reflect the added provision for family counseling. Respondent completed a Matrix of Service form on February 9, 2009, based on the interim IEP. Domain B was increased from a 3 to a 4 because of the change from weekly counseling to daily counseling. Domain D was increased from a 1 to a 2 because of the addition of monthly counseling with the student's family. The total domain rating increased from 12 to 14 based on the increases in Domains B and D. The Cost Factor Scale increased from a score of 252 to a score of 253. Petitioner established that Domain B should not have been increased because the IEP does not reflect that the student would begin receiving daily counseling. Because of Respondent's scoring errors, the final Cost Scale Factor was 253. Had Respondent correctly scored the Matrix of Services form, the final Cost Scale Factor would have been 252. Determining a level of service under a particular domain requires some subjectively. While Respondent made the scoring errors reflected above, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent deliberately "fudged" her scoring to benefit Ms. S.- N.8/ On February 20, 2009, S.N. was withdrawn from Krop by her father. Subsequent to that withdrawal, Ms. S.-N. applied for a McKay Scholarship for S.N. for the 2009-10 school year. The application included the two IEPs discussed herein and the two Matrix of Services forms completed by Respondent. Had Ms. S.-N. been successful in obtaining a McKay Scholarship, the amount of the scholarship would have been greater if it had been awarded on a Cost Factor Scale of 253 as compared to a Cost Factor Scale of 252. Respondent had no knowledge that Ms. S.-N. intended to apply for a McKay Scholarship on behalf of S.N. at any time relevant to this proceeding. S.N. has now graduated from a high school in Broward County, Florida. Until her graduation, S.N. received services and accommodations similar to those reflected on the IEPs at issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Lisa Parker guilty of the violations alleged in Count I (misconduct in office), Count (III) (Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21 relating to Responsibilities and Duties of School Board employees), and Count (IV) (Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213 relating to the Code of Ethics) of the Notice of Specific Charges and as found in this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the final order find Lisa Parker not guilty of the violations alleged in Count II (immorality) and (V) (Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.212 relating to Conflict of Interests). For the violations found, it is recommended that the final order suspend Lisa Parker's employment without pay for a period of 30 school days. Because Lisa Parker has been suspended for more than 30 school days, it is RECOMMENDED that her employment be reinstated with back pay. The calculation of back pay should not include pay for the 30- day suspension period. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2013, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February 2013.
Findings Of Fact During the 1977-78 school year, the Respondent, Erma Frederick, was employed as a classroom teacher in the Dade County Public School System, assigned to Buena Vista Elementary School. On October 10, 1977, a conference was scheduled between the Respondent, United Teachers of Dade, Representative, Ms. Mattie Squire and Ms. Linda E. Stuart, Principal of Buena Vista Elementary School. During the conference, Respondent was advised that based on two years of unsatisfactory evaluations (1973-74 and 1974-75) deficiencies in her teaching performance existed which, if not corrected by December 1, 1977, would affect her status as an employee in the Dade County Public School System and which, if not corrected by December 1, a complaint of incompetency would be filed seeking Respondent's dismissal. The substance of this conference was reduced to writing by letter dated October 10, 1977, and cited the following deficiencies: Failure to maintain pupil control by establishing and maintaining discipline. Failure to file instructional plans. Failure to implement lesson plans and to present materials correctly. Failure to correctly grade student papers and maintain accurate grade books. Failure to properly maintain cumulative records and to maintain attendance and other data entries on report cards. Failure to accurately take attendance. Failure to follow class schedules. Failure to maintain supervision of pupils at all times. Based on the Respondent's failure to otherwise remedy the above cited deficiencies to Petitioner's satisfaction, Petitioner suspended Respondent from her position as an instructional teacher on March 9, 1978. Respondent, although properly noticed, failed to appear at the hearing to refute the cited deficiencies relied on by Petitioner in suspending her as an instructional employee at Buena Vista Elementary School. Based thereon, and in the absence of any evidence having been offered by Respondent to refute or otherwise negate the above-cited deficiencies, they must be, and are, considered meritorious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's appeal of her suspension by Petitioner be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Lake County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondents for the reasons specified in the agency action letters dated April 17, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lake County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Lake County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Rosier has been employed at Groveland Elementary School (Groveland) in Lake County, Florida, for three years. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, Mr. Rosier was the Instructional Dean. One of Mr. Rosier’s duties was to assist teachers with students who have behavioral problems and liaison with parents of these students. Mr. Rosier also conducted in- school suspension of students. Mr. Rosier also had a contract supplement to assist with students who were on campus after school hours because they either missed the bus or were not picked up by their parent or guardian on time. Mr. Rosier assisted by keeping the student safe and contacting the emergency contact on file for the student to find a way to get the student home. Ms. Lassen has taught at Groveland for four years. She taught first grade during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Petitioner Lassen is an “inclusion teacher,” meaning her classroom is a combination of students receiving Exceptional Student Education (ESE) services and students with no need for services. Ms. Lassen has no special training in ESE services for children with behavioral challenges. ESE students in her classroom are “push in, pull out,” meaning an exceptional education teacher comes in to work with some of the students in the classroom, and other students are pulled out of the classroom to work with an exceptional education teacher. Ms. Lassen was not happy at Groveland. She enjoyed teaching and was passionate about her students achieving their learning potential. However, she was frustrated by what she saw as a lack of needed services for her ESE students. Ms. Lassen applied for a transfer during the 2016 school year, but the transfer was denied. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Lassen had eleven ESE students in her classroom, four of whom had severe behavioral issues. Some of her students were violent, even trying to harm themselves. She found it stressful to corral children who were throwing things in the classroom, especially at other children, while trying to teach the required lessons. She often found herself dealing with parents who were upset about their ESE child being disciplined for their behaviors, or who were upset about the treatment of their child by an ESE student. To address these concerns, Ms. Lassen frequently met with Mr. Rosier. Toward the end of the 2017-2018 school year--in March 2018 particularly--they met roughly twice a week. The two met once in Mr. Rosier’s office and sometimes in the portable where Mr. Rosier conducted in-school suspension; however, they met most frequently in Ms. Lassen’s classroom. The meetings usually occurred around 4:00 p.m., after students were dismissed at 3:30 p.m. and Mr. Rosier’s after- school responsibilities ended. Ms. Lassen usually left the school between 4:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to pick up her own children from school and daycare and take them to after-school activities. During the meetings, Ms. Lassen discussed with Mr. Rosier the behavioral challenges she faced with students in her classroom, as well as the issues with parents. Mr. Rosier had the responsibility to deal with parents, often conducting parent conferences to address issues arising in the classroom. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier became friends, and occasionally discussed personal matters, in addition to classroom and parent issues. Sometimes Ms. Lassen would become emotional. Mr. Rosier assured her he would work to get the help the students needed. Kimberly Sneed was the Groveland Principal during the 2017-2018 school year. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Sneed entered Ms. Lassen’s classroom shortly after 4:00 p.m. Assistant Principal Joseph Mabry had suggested to Ms. Sneed that she should look into why Mr. Rosier was in Ms. Lassen’s classroom at that time. When Ms. Sneed arrived, she observed that the lights were turned off and the classroom was empty. She walked to the classroom supply closet, inserted her key, and opened the door, which opens inward. Just as she was pushing the door open, Ms. Lassen pulled the door open to exit the closet with her purse and supply bag in hand. Ms. Sneed did not try the closet door handle first to determine whether the closet was locked. She simply inserted the key in the lock and pushed open the door. She testified that she was not certain the closet door was actually locked. The closet light was off when Ms. Lassen opened the closet. Ms. Lassen testified that she had just switched the light off before opening the door to exit the closet. Ms. Sneed turned the light switch on as she entered the closet. Ms. Lassen was surprised to see Ms. Sneed and asked if she could help her find something. Ms. Sneed asked Ms. Lassen why she had been in a dark closet. How Ms. Lassen replied to Ms. Sneed’s question was a disputed issue. Ms. Lassen maintains she said, “Ms. Sneed, you don’t understand, all it was, it was just a kiss, a kiss on the cheek, nothing more.” Ms. Sneed maintains Ms. Lassen said, “We were only kissing, we weren’t doing anything, no sex or nothing.” Ms. Lassen promptly left to pick up her children. Ms. Sneed entered the closet and observed Mr. Rosier standing at the back of the L-shaped closet, with his back to the door. Mr. Rosier was fully clothed, but his shirt was untucked and his glasses were off. Ms. Sneed did not question Mr. Rosier. Instead she quipped sarcastically, “Really, Mr. Rosier? Really?” Mr. Rosier did not turn toward Ms. Sneed or otherwise respond to her immediately. As Ms. Sneed exited the closet and proceeded to leave the classroom, Mr. Rosier called after her and asked if he could talk with her in her office. What else Mr. Rosier said to Ms. Sneed at that time was also a disputed issue. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier stated, “I’ll admit we were kissing, and it turned into touching, but nothing else.” Mr. Rosier was not certain what exactly he said, but admitted that he did use the word “kiss.” He testified that everything happened quickly. He was embarrassed and Ms. Sneed was angry. The following day, Ms. Sneed reported the incident to the School Board Employee Relations Supervisor Katherine Falcon. That same day, both Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier were interviewed separately by Ms. Falcon. Ms. Falcon drafted an interview questionnaire based solely on her telephone conversation with Ms. Sneed that morning. The questionnaire contained the following seven questions: For the record state your name. What is your current position? How long have you been in your current position? Yesterday, Ms. Sneed found you and another teacher in a locked dark closet. Can you explain? Is this the first time you have engaged in this activity on campus? Did you share any information about this incident with anyone else? Is there anything else you would like to say? Ms. Falcon asked the questions, and David Meyers, Employee Relations Manager, typed Respondents’ answers. Ms. Falcon printed the interview record on site and presented it to each respective Respondent to review and sign. The report states Ms. Lassen’s response to Question 4 as follows: The closet was unlocked. It is always unlocked. I just kissed him. It didn’t go any further. There was no touching or clothing off. Nothing exposed. Nothing like that has ever happened before. Yesterday was more, like a kiss goodbye. I was getting ready to leave and getting my stuff. He was standing by the door. He was standing by my filing cabinet. Nobody ever comes in there during the day. Sneed wanted to know what we were doing in there. We told her we were fooling around a little bit, kissing. Ms. Lassen signed her interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. Ms. Lassen testified that she did not review the interview report before signing, did not understand it to be any form of discipline, and was anxious to return to her classroom because her ESE students do not do well in her absence. At the final hearing, Ms. Lassen denied stating anything about “fooling around a little” with Mr. Rosier. In response to the same question, Mr. Rosier’s report states the following: The closet wasn’t locked. This teacher, Katie Lassen and I have become good friends. Yesterday we caught ourselves being too close, kissing, hugging . . . . We were first in the main classroom. When we began to kiss we went in the closet. There was a knock on the door. It was Ms. Sneed. My clothes were kind of wrangled. Mr. Rosier also signed his interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. At the final hearing, Mr. Rosier denied stating that he and Ms. Lassen were “kissing and hugging” or that “when we began to kiss we went into the closet.” As to his statement that “we caught ourselves becoming too close,” he testified that he meant they had begun discussing personal issues in addition to Ms. Lassen’s concerns with her ESE students. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier testified as follows: they were discussing her concerns about a particular ESE student who was very disruptive and threatened to harm himself. Ms. Lassen was emotional. Ms. Lassen proceeded into the closet to get her things so she could leave to pick up her children and get them to after-school activities. Just inside the closet, Ms. Lassen broke down crying again. Mr. Rosier entered the closet, closing the door behind him (allegedly to keep anyone from seeing Ms. Lassen cry), put his hands on her shoulders and told her to get herself together and not let anyone see her crying when she left the school. She collected herself, thanked him, gave him a hug and they exchanged kisses on the cheek. Respondents’ stories at final hearing were nearly identical, a little too well-rehearsed, and differed too much from the spontaneous statements made at the time of the incident, to be credible. Based on the totality of the evidence, and inferences drawn therefrom, the undersigned finds as follows: Mr. Rosier was consoling Ms. Lassen and the two adults became caught up in the moment, giving in to an attraction born from an initial respectful working relationship. The encounter was brief and there is no credible evidence that Respondents did anything other than kiss each other. Both Respondents regret it and had no intention to continue anything other than a professional relationship. This incident occurred after school hours, sometime between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on April 2, 2018. The only students on campus were at an after-school care program in a different building across campus. No one witnessed Respondents kissing or entering the closet together. Only Ms. Sneed witnessed Respondents emerging from the closet. Both Respondents were terminated effective April 23, 2018. Administrative Charges The school board’s administrative complaints suffer from a lack of specificity. Both employees are charged with “engaging in sexual misconduct on the school campus with another school board employee which is considered Misconduct in Office,” in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for Educators (Principles). The administrative complaints do not charge Respondents with any specific date, time, or place of particular conduct which constitutes “sexual misconduct.”2/ Moreover, the School Board introduced no definition of sexual misconduct. The School Board inquired about some specific conduct during the Employee Relations interviews with Respondents. Ms. Falcon asked Respondents about being found together in a “locked dark closet.” The School Board failed to prove that the closet was either locked or dark while Respondents were in the closet. It appears the School Board bases its charge of Misconduct in Office, in part, on an allegation that the Respondents had “engaged in this activity on campus” on dates other than April 2, 2018. When Ms. Sneed went to Ms. Lassen’s room on April 2, 2018, she was acting upon a report that Mr. Rosier went to Ms. Lassen’s room every day at 4:00 p.m. There is no reliable evidence in the record to support a finding to that effect. The report that Mr. Rosier “went to Ms. Lassen’s classroom every day at 4:00,” was hearsay to the 4th degree,3/ without any non-hearsay corroborating evidence. Petitioner did not prove Respondents were ever together in a closet, much less a dark closet, on campus any date other than April 2, 2018. Finally, it appears the School Board bases its charges, in part, on an allegation that Mr. Rosier was not fulfilling his after-school duties because he was spending too much time with Ms. Lassen. To that point, Petitioner introduced testimony that on the Friday after spring break in March, Mr. Rosier was not to be found when the administration had to deal with a student who had either missed the bus or was not picked up on time. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier came through the front office, observed the student there with herself and Mr. Mabry, and left through the front office. Ms. Sneed assumed Mr. Rosier had left for the day, but that when she left the school she saw his car in the parking lot. Mr. Rosier recalled that particular day, and testified that, as two administrators were attending to the student, he did not see the need for a third. He chose instead to keep his appointment with Ms. Lassen to discuss her difficult students. Petitioner did not prove that Mr. Rosier neglected either his after-school or any other duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondents Katie Lassen and Alan Rosier, and award back pay and benefits retroactive to April 23, 2018. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2018.
The Issue Does Petitioner, Lee County School Board (School Board), have just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, Adrian Allen?
Findings Of Fact The School Board owns and operates the public schools in Lee County, Florida. It is responsible for hiring, terminating, and overseeing all employees in the School District. At all times material to this case, the School Board employed Mr. Allen as a custodian at Lehigh Acres Middle School. He has worked for the School District since April 29, 2010. Mr. Allen is a member of the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC) and was a member during all times relevant to this matter. On October 15, 2014, the Lee County Sheriff's Office arrested Mr. Allen for one count of child abuse. The alleged victim is Mr. Allen's two-year-old son. Eventually the state attorney chose not to prosecute Mr. Allen. On October 10, 2014, Mr. Allen took the actions that led to his arrest. The same actions are the cause for his proposed dismissal. The morning of October 10, 2014, Mr. Allen was caring for his two-year-old son at home. Mr. Allen was hung over and irritable. He fed his son and watched cartoons with him. Mr. Allen and his wife were "potty" training the child. Sometime after lunch, in the early afternoon, the child defecated in his pull-ups, instead of telling Mr. Allen that he needed to use the bathroom. Mr. Allen lost his temper. He began "spanking" the small child. He struck the child at least ten times. Three or four of the blows were to the child's face and not "spanking" as normally understood. The others were to the child's buttocks and thighs. The blows bruised the child severely enough that they were visible four days later. Mr. Allen was immediately remorseful. Because he was upset and hung over, Mr. Allen called in sick to work, which started later that afternoon. When Mr. Allen's wife came home, he told her what he had done, and she observed the bruises. She took photographs of the bruises and made Mr. Allen leave the house. The photographs were not offered into evidence. After a few days, Mr. Allen and his wife talked, and she allowed him to return after he promised to change his behavior, including drinking and losing his temper. The bruises were discovered on October 14, 2014, when Mr. Allen left his child with the maternal grandparents. They called law enforcement. This led to a criminal investigation and Mr. Allen's arrest. During all his conversations with law enforcement officers, Mr. Allen was honest and remorseful. People outside the family, the school, and law enforcement became aware of the incident. Mr. Allen and his wife began receiving critical messages about it. When the School District learned of the charges, it began an investigation. In interviews with Andrew Brown, director of Professional Standards and Equity, Mr. Allen spoke truthfully and admitted what he had done. The School District determined that there was probable cause for disciplinary action. On November 21, 2014, it suspended Mr. Allen without pay and benefits. The Petition for Termination and this proceeding followed. Mr. Allen has never denied his actions. He did not testify about his remorse, the circumstances surrounding the event, or steps he has taken to prevent similar events. Mr. Allen provided a letter from SalusCare stating that he was enrolled in the Family Intensive Treatment Team. The letter says the program addresses substance abuse, mental health, and other concerns. It said Mr. Allen was making progress in his treatment plans. The letter is hearsay and cannot be the basis of a finding of fact. There is no testimony or other non-hearsay evidence to corroborate it. Consequently, it is not considered. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2014).1/ Similarly, Mr. Allen provided a Character Witness Reference form with positive statements about him from nine people. Its statements, too, are uncorroborated hearsay and will not be considered. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Mr. Allen physically abused his small child. He has provided no evidence to support mitigation of discipline, other than a stipulated absence of discipline during his career with the School District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order finding just cause to terminate the employment of Adrian Allen and dismissing him from his position with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2015.
