The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4.; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who testified, the evidence admitted in the record at the final hearing, and the documents officially recognized, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the agency head of the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is responsible for filing an administrative complaint, and prosecuting the case in an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, if the educator disputes the allegations. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 878903, covering the areas of Athletic Coaching and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2025. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as the athletic director at Evans High School (Evans) in the Orange County School District (District). Respondent was first employed by the District from 2004 to 2008, when he worked at Evans as a basketball coach and physical education teacher. He was re-employed by the District from 2014 until late in the 2017-2018 school year. He worked at Freedom High School (Freedom) as a physical education teacher and assistant athletic director through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. He then was employed at Evans as athletic director for most of the 2017-2018 school year. He resigned on April 5, 2018, pursuant to a settlement agreement with the School Board of Orange County (School Board), which is the District's governing body. Rolando Bailey was the assistant principal at Evans when Respondent was first employed there, and Mr. Bailey was the principal at Freedom when Respondent worked there through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. Mr. Bailey acknowledged "situations" during Respondent's earlier time at Evans and while at Freedom that involved "conflict" and "communications" issues with Respondent and required administrative intervention, but these problems were handled without involving the Employee Relations office (now called the Employee Standards office) to impose discipline. Mr. Bailey left Freedom to become principal at Evans beginning in the 2017-2018 school year. He thought Respondent would be a good candidate for the athletic director position at Evans, because Respondent was familiar with the community and Mr. Bailey thought he would be good at program building, which is what Mr. Bailey thought the athletic department needed. When Mr. Bailey made the move from Freedom to Evans, he brought not only Respondent with him, but also, at least 15 other administrators and teachers. This set a bit of an "us against them" tone between the existing faculty and staff at Evans and the Freedom transplants. Respondent and Mr. Bailey had a close working relationship. The perception among Evans personnel, based on observed interactions between Respondent and Mr. Bailey, was that they were also close personal friends. At the hearing, Mr. Bailey and Respondent both denied being close personal friends, but they were alumni of the same college, members of the same fraternity, and would frequently meet after regular school working hours. Mr. Bailey acknowledged these frequent meetings, although he said that they were work-related: "The role itself gave us the opportunity to talk outside of hours." (Tr. 200-01). These meetings did nothing to dispel the perception among Evans personnel that Mr. Bailey and Respondent were close personal friends. Evans presented challenges for Mr. Bailey as incoming principal. The school had not been performing well academically, with a "D" rating by the state, and he was intent on improving that performance. As for the athletic department, Mr. Bailey saw the need for "program building," noting that facilities were in disrepair and resources such as uniforms and equipment were scarce, resulting in a lack of school pride. Respondent's objective was to turn the Evans sports teams into winning programs. Respondent's charge was to "lead and direct" the athletic department and allow Mr. Bailey to focus on academics. However, Mr. Bailey made a commitment to the Evans coaches who were already in place when Mr. Bailey came over from Freedom. Mr. Bailey told the Evans coaches that the 2017- 2018 school year would be an evaluative year, and there would not be any changes made until after the end of the year. Mr. Bailey committed to personally participating in each coach's evaluation at year-end, along with Respondent, and Mr. Bailey would make the decision then regarding whether changes were needed to move in a different direction. Mr. Bailey was of the view that certain changes would be needed after the evaluative year. For example, he noted that several coaches held more than one head coaching position, which he generally disagreed with except for certain "related" sports, such as cross-country and track, which had separate seasons so one individual could be head coach of both. Mr. Bailey also was of the view that an individual should probably not serve as both a head coach and an administrative dean, although exceptions could be allowed and Mr. Bailey was willing to wait and see if individuals at Evans were handling it well.2 For the 2017-2018 "evaluative" school year, Mr. Bailey was willing— and had committed—to not make changes to conform the staffing to his views, and instead, to await year-end evaluations to make these decisions. Respondent expressed a different view, stating that if it had been up to him, he would have terminated all existing coaches when he started at Evans and he would have made them all reapply. But it was not up to Respondent, and Mr. Bailey's commitment stood. Respondent started working at Evans during the last few days of July 2017. He immediately implemented some changes in how the athletic 2 For example, Mr. Thompson was an administrative dean and head football coach at Evans for years before Mr. Bailey became principal and he remained in both positions after Mr. Bailey became principal. department was run. One change involved employing Ms. Woodard, who came over from Freedom with Mr. Bailey and the others, as assistant athletic director with the responsibility for inputting team roster information, including documenting compliant physicals and grade point averages (GPAs) for the students on the roster. This apparently had the effect of revealing students who were disqualified because they did not meet the minimum requirement of a 2.0 GPA. Previously, coaches were responsible for inputting their own team rosters. The claim asserted at hearing was that coaches were "padding" their rosters with disqualified students3 or inactive students.4 The motive suggested for "padding" a roster would be that for "minor" sports like cross-country, track, swimming, golf, and others, higher roster numbers could result in supplements being authorized for assistant coaching positions. A reduction in roster numbers could mean a reduction or loss of supplements, which could mean that assistant coaches would have to coach on a volunteer basis, or a head coach might have to do without, or without as many, assistant coaches. There was no competent credible evidence proving specific instances of wrongful or inappropriate roster padding.5 3 Respondent explained how students without qualifying GPAs might have been mistakenly listed on rosters showing qualifying GPAs. He acknowledged that coaches did not have access to detailed GPA data, and instead, might input a student's cumulative GPA as shown on the prior year's report card. However, that GPA might include grades for classes that were not eligible for purposes of meeting the minimum GPA required to participate in sports. 4 Ms. Bellamy, the girls' basketball head coach, said she discouraged "her" girls from going out for cross-country, because they "probably" would not be allowed to compete in meets. Her comments were more suggestive of a turf war than credible evidence of roster padding. 5 Several witnesses who were not at Evans until 2017-2018 offered their belief that roster padding occurred before the 2017-2018 school year. The credible testimony established only that when rosters were prepared or updated under Respondent's system beginning in August 2017, inputting updated GPAs resulted in some students being disqualified. Ms. Woodard, who implemented the new system, admitted she was not sure how many supplements were lost or in which sport. She thought cross-country may have lost supplements, but then said the sport previously had four or six supplements and that it had four supplements after she updated the rosters. Whitney Poole claimed that rosters had been padded the previous year, but she did not explain how she could have known that, since she was not at Evans before August 2017, and then was only a math teacher. She did not have any position in the athletic department before January 2018 when she became an assistant coach. In general, Ms. Poole was not a credible witness, and with one exception, her testimony was not credited. Sheree Carter Sheree Carter was a coach and administrative dean at Evans in 2017- 2018, when Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and others came to Evans from Freedom. She had been employed at Evans since 2012. She remains employed at Evans to this day. During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Carter held the following positions at Evans: administrative dean over attendance; head coach of girls' cross-country and girls' track; and assistant coach for girls' weightlifting. Ms. Carter was slated for those same positions headed into the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Carter took comfort from Mr. Bailey's assurance that no changes would be made until he made the decisions after personally participating in the year-end evaluations. Ms. Carter testified that she met Respondent at the end of July, during the two-week pre-planning period before classes started. Within a week or two after they met, Respondent started saying things to let her know that he was interested in her. He made her uncomfortable, and she rebuffed his advances. But rather than discouraging his comments, the intensity and frequency of Respondent's advances escalated. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent would walk by her office, which was at the back of the front office, and he would poke his head in to see if anyone else was with her. Respondent never came into her office if someone else was with her; he waited until she was alone, and then he would come in. His conversation opener was that he was recently divorced and was trying to get his feet wet getting back into the dating game. She responded by saying okay, cool, good luck with that. Respondent then started coming by Ms. Carter's office to ask if she wanted to grab lunch together or come eat lunch in his office. She declined each time he asked. After the rebuffed lunch offers, Respondent started asking Ms. Carter if she wanted to go to the movies with him or grab drinks after work. Again, she turned him down each time. Respondent's next approach was to let Ms. Carter know that he had a sofa in his office, followed by repeated invitations to Ms. Carter to hang out and chill with him on the sofa in his office. These invitations were conveyed with a personal, intimate air. Ms. Carter always turned down these advances and let Respondent know she was uncomfortable with what he was asking. Respondent approached Ms. Carter with these advances not only when she was alone in her office, but also, on the practice fields and in the hallways or courtyard, if she was alone. Respondent only approached Ms. Carter to make these advances when no one else was around.6 Ms. Carter described it as "creepy," like "in a stalking type of way. Like he would just wait for that right moment to approach you when you're by yourself and then throw these advances at me." (Tr. 74). Respondent's stalking-type behavior and frequent approaches affected Ms. Carter's ability to do her job. She delayed or avoided communicating with Respondent about coaching matters, despite needing to communicate with the athletic director. She would check hallways before freely moving around to make sure Respondent was not present, and she took to closing her office door to give the impression she was not there. Ms. Carter's testimony was credible and clear. Her demeanor was earnest and believable. In contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the advances claimed by Ms. Carter lacked credibility. Respondent was evasive. He frequently avoiding a direct answer to the question, as illustrated by the following: Q: And did you invite her to your office to chill? A: I was hardly ever in the office. I mean, so, it's very hard to chill in there. I was very, very on the go. I was very, very on the go. You know, Mr. Bailey was big on the look and appearance. So there was stuff always that needed to be done with the field and 6 Mr. Bailey testified that he never observed Respondent engage in sexual harassment, but conceded that sexual harassment is not normally something that he sees people doing out in the open. with the cosmetics. So I was hardly ever in the office. The only time I was in the office if I had to be [sic]. But I was hardly ever in the office, so I definitely couldn't be there just to chill because it was just too much work to do. (Tr. 324). * * * Q: Did you ever invite her to eat lunch in your office? A: I never ate lunch. It's hard for me to eat lunch because I had lunch duty and we had three lunches. So, when am I going to eat lunch when I'm constantly being fussed at by Mr. Bailey about not answering e-mails. Because I was never in my office so my e-mails were forwarded to Ms. Woodard so I didn't have to hear from him about why I don't answer e-mails. So I never ate lunch during the day. (Tr. 327). Respondent avoided answering the questions posed—whether he ever invited Ms. Carter to chill or eat lunch in his office. Respondent danced around the subject, never denying or refuting Ms. Carter's clear testimony that he had, in fact, invited her multiple times to eat lunch in his office and to chill on the sofa in his office, but she turned him down each time. Respondent did deny that he had asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies7 or out for drinks with him, but he offered weak explanations, which were not persuasive, for why he would not have extended these invitations. When asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies with him, he responded: "No. I was too busy to be trying to go to the movies and live in a whole different county and try to work. You know, Evans was an hour and 20 minutes away. Freedom was 38. So there's no time to go to the movies. Especially with a person you don't know, you know." (Tr. 325-26). And when 7 Ms. Poole, a witness for Respondent who generally went out of her way attempting to testify favorably for Respondent, said that she had been friendly with Ms. Carter at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Poole admitted that during this time, Ms. Carter told Ms. Poole that Respondent had asked her out to the movies. To that extent, Ms. Poole's testimony was credible, and it corroborated Ms. Carter's testimony. asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter out for a drink, he said: "No, because I don't drink. … I just never had a drink, never smoked. So I don't drink. And because I don't drink, I'm not going to invite somebody out to watch them drink. So." (Tr. 326-27). Respondent's testimony on these points was less credible than Ms. Carter's testimony, and her testimony is credited. Ms. Carter testified that her discomfort with Respondent's advances came to a head at a soccer game, when he approached her and once again asked her out for drinks, and she got upset. She said that she blew up, emphatically reiterating (punctuated with curse words) that she had told him before she was not interested and expressing her frustration that he had not yet accepted the message that she wanted him to stop making advances at her. This was on a weeknight during the week of December 4, 2017. On Friday, December 8, 2017, Respondent went to Ms. Carter's office and told her: (1) that she was immediately removed, mid-season, from the assistant coach position for weightlifting, though she could keep the supplement; (2) that they would be moving in a different direction and she would no longer be head coach for girls' cross-country (which had ended its season one month earlier); and (3) that they would evaluate her position as head coach for girl's track after the spring. Respondent told Ms. Carter that he and Mr. Bailey had made these decisions because Mr. Bailey did not want her coaching and serving as an administrative dean at the same time.8 Ms. Carter was very upset because she loves coaching. She broke down crying and was so distraught, she was unable to perform her job duties to supervise during either lunch periods that day. Ms. Carter believed that 8 Respondent admitted to delivering this news to Ms. Carter, although he said it was in a routine meeting in his office that he had scheduled to give Ms. Carter her end-of-season evaluation for coaching girls' cross-country (conflicting with Mr. Bailey's clear testimony that he always participated in evaluations, which were done at the end of the year). Curiously, Respondent testified that his evaluation had no meaning, and its only purpose was to give coaches something for possible future employers wanting to see evaluations. Respondent failed to explain, if the meeting was only to address a meaningless end-of-season evaluation for one sport, why he used the occasion to deliver meaningful consequences or why he addressed more than that one sport. Respondent took this action to retaliate against her because she had rebuffed his advances, particularly after her strong rebuke of him earlier that week. Up to this point, Ms. Carter had confided in two different colleagues regarding Respondent's advances and her discomfort with them, but she had not lodged a formal complaint against Respondent with Mr. Bailey. She was concerned that Mr. Bailey would take Respondent's side in a dispute because of their longstanding relationship and apparent close personal friendship. Previously, when she had confided in Mr. Thompson, he had told her she should talk to Respondent regarding her discomfort, but she had tried that repeatedly. When she confided again in Mr. Thompson upon being reduced to tears on December 8, 2017, this time he told her she should not be talking with colleagues rather than going through proper channels, and he urged her to file a complaint. Ms. Carter followed that advice, submitting a complaint in an email to Mr. Bailey, which she sent to him just after midnight, very early on Monday morning, December 11, 2017. She asked if she could meet with Mr. Bailey to discuss what Respondent had told her regarding her coaching responsibilities and her concern that Respondent had taken this action because she had turned down his advances. Directly contradicting Respondent's claim, Mr. Bailey testified that he did not make the decision to remove Ms. Carter from her coaching duties during the 2017-2018 school year, nor did he direct Respondent to tell Ms. Carter in December—in the middle of the "evaluative year"—that she could not remain as coach and administrative dean.9 Instead, as he had committed to do at the beginning of the year, Mr. Bailey waited until the end of the school year to have the conversation with Ms. Carter about changes going forward. At that time, he informed her that he did not want her to continue in the dual roles of coaching and administrative dean in the 2018- 9 When Mr. Bailey found out that Respondent had that conversation with Ms. Carter on December 8, 2017, he had a meeting with Respondent to find out why he did that. 2019 school year. Ms. Carter wanted to remain in coaching to continue building her programs. With Mr. Bailey's agreement, she gave up the administrative dean position and returned to classroom teaching the next school year so she could continue coaching. Mr. Bailey was a witness for Respondent and he attempted to be supportive of Respondent in his testimony. However, Mr. Bailey clearly and directly contradicted Respondent's claim that he had instructed Respondent to remove Ms. Carter from coaching on December 8, 2017. Mr. Bailey was surprised by Ms. Carter's email reporting that Respondent had done so and had attributed the decision to Mr. Bailey. After meeting with Ms. Carter, Mr. Bailey reported Ms. Carter's complaint to the Employee Relations office for investigation.10 In contrast to the "situations" involving Respondent when he was first at Evans and again while at Freedom, which were handled by administrative interventions without involving Employee Relations, this time Mr. Bailey found it necessary to involve Employee Relations. Jamila Mitchell Jamila Mitchell, Ph.D., also provided testimony regarding inappropriate statements and conduct by Respondent that made her feel very uncomfortable and that interfered with her doing her job. Dr. Mitchell has been working at Evans since 2014. Her doctorate degree is in computer science. She has been the computer science instructor at Evans and the sports media sponsor. She held those two positions during the 2017-2018 school year. She was not a coach or assistant coach. As sports media sponsor, Dr. Mitchell is involved in all sports-related media, including film, photography, social media, and the school's website. 10 Two separate investigations were initiated: the first addressed alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by Respondent, pursuant to the District's responsibilities under civil rights laws as Ms. Carter's employer not to commit unlawful employment practices. When that investigation was completed with a finding of probable cause to believe there was sexual harassment, Mr. Ganio, then-manager of the District's Employee Relations office, completed an investigation into whether Respondent had engaged in misconduct, which would provide just cause for the School Board to take action against him as a District employee. Her responsibilities include managing sports-related website content and ensuring information is disseminated for all sports-related events. She must keep up with schedules, rosters, college recruiting activities, and events such as college scholarship signing days and awards banquets. Frequent communications with the Evans athletic director are essential to her job duties, at least by the time sports activities are in full swing after the first couple of weeks of each school year. Dr. Mitchell testified that beginning in September 2017, when her job required her to be in frequent communications with Respondent, he started saying and doing things that made Dr. Mitchell uncomfortable. On several occasions, Respondent referred to Dr. Mitchell as his "little Mexican." Dr. Mitchell is not Mexican. Respondent would say this when passing her in the hallway, if they were both at a game or event, or when he came to her classroom. Sometimes she was alone when he said this, but sometimes other people overheard what Respondent said. She was offended by Respondent's words, and also, uncomfortable having to explain to others who heard Respondent call her his little Mexican that she was not Mexican, but was biracial. Despite taking offense, she tried to ignore it or laugh it off. Respondent frequently came by Dr. Mitchell's classroom during her planning period when she was the only one there. At least initially, they would discuss sports media matters. But then the conversations would turn to Respondent telling Dr. Mitchell that he "liked the way her butt looked" in the pants she was wearing that day, or how whatever she was wearing accentuated some part of her body. She tried to change the subject back to work, but his comments made her feel weird and "creeped out." Respondent's frequent comments about her clothing and body impeded communications regarding sports media issues. Respondent's comments also caused Dr. Mitchell to stop wearing form-fitting clothing, pants that were a little bit tight, or shirts cut a little bit low.11 She began wearing loose clothing and when Respondent came by her classroom, she stayed seated behind her desk so he would not comment on "how her butt looked." Her discomfort and worries distracted from needed communications and interfered with getting the job done. It got to the point where Dr. Mitchell avoided communicating in person with Respondent, resorting to communicating by text or phone call. Dr. Mitchell described the "tipping point" for her was when she was walking through a courtyard to go to the front office and Respondent was coming out of the front office. Dr. Mitchell was wearing her hair down (loose), which she rarely did. When they passed in the courtyard, Respondent commented that he liked it when she wore her hair down because it gave him something to grab onto. There were other people in the courtyard—teachers and students—and Dr. Mitchell testified that she just prayed that nobody heard what Respondent said to her. She was highly embarrassed by what she reasonably interpreted as a sexual reference. Dr. Mitchell did not immediately complain about Respondent's inappropriate conduct, in part because she was embarrassed, but also, because she did not know to whom she could complain. She had seen how Mr. Bailey interacted with Respondent, and observed that they seemed to have a very friendly, personal relationship. She was concerned that if she said anything, it would be her job on the line. But when she was contacted by an investigator looking into Sheree Carter's complaint, who had been told that Respondent may have also harassed Dr. Mitchell, she spoke with the 11 Respondent suggested in his PRO that Dr. Mitchell should be faulted for her choice of attire in a school "full of hormonal high school students that most likely has a dress code, stated or implied, for teachers." (Resp. PRO at 28). No credible evidence supports a finding that Dr. Mitchell's attire was provocative, inappropriate, or contrary to any dress code, and none was cited. Respondent's argument is, in effect, that Dr. Mitchell "asked for it"—a classic means to deflect blame and excuse inappropriate sexual conduct, which is, or should be, a relic of the past. Respondent's veiled hint that Dr. Mitchell asked for it is tantamount to a concession that "it" occurred, necessitating an excuse for his behavior. There is no excuse. investigator and provided the same information about Respondent's offensive conduct to which she testified at the hearing. Dr. Mitchell was very credible and genuinely distraught as she described these uncomfortable encounters with Respondent. As with Ms. Carter's specific complaints, Respondent denied (or gave evasive, less-than-clear answers) that he said or did the things described by Dr. Mitchell.12 Respondent's testimony was not as credible as Dr. Mitchell's testimony. Dr. Mitchell's testimony is credited. Jessica Kendrick Jessica Kendrick was the head swim coach at Evans, coaching both the boys' and girls' swim teams, from 2013 through the 2018-2019 school year. Her testimony was fairly narrow in scope, but clear and to the point: when Respondent was the head of the athletics department in the 2017-2018 school year, he made her uncomfortable by standing very close whenever they talked with no one else nearby—that is, when there were no witnesses. Ms. Kendrick is five feet, eight inches in height. Respondent is six feet, one inch tall. He used his height advantage to intimidate Ms. Kendrick, making her feel like he was towering over her when he stood very close and looked down at her. Ms. Kendrick's vivid description was that Respondent would be standing so close to her that she could tell what he had for lunch. Ms. Kendrick's reaction to these close encounters was to back up to create space between Respondent and herself. But Respondent would quickly move forward to close the space she had created. She would inch back again; he would inch toward her to close the gap again. Respondent made Ms. Kendrick feel very uncomfortable. 12 In contrast, the investigative summary of the District's investigation into Ms. Carter's sexual harassment complaint reported that Respondent stated he "does not recall if he made inappropriate comments to [Dr.] Mitchell." (Pet. Ex. 14, Bates p. 35). Although statements of non-party witnesses reported in the investigative summary are hearsay, and thereby limited in use to supplementing or explaining competent evidence, Respondent's statements reported in the investigative summary that was offered against him are party admissions, excepted from hearsay, and admissible for all purposes. See § 90.803(18)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Kendrick had been the head swim head coach at Evans for four years before Respondent became athletic director. He made her so uncomfortable when they spoke in person that she went out of her way to avoid him. She told the two assistant swim coaches, Mr. Rivers and Mr. Ross, about her discomfort with Respondent. She asked her assistants to take her place for in-person meetings or discussions with Respondent so she could avoid any more uncomfortable close encounters with Respondent. It affected her job; communications with the athletic director were necessary for her to function effectively as head coach. Ms. Kendrick testified that rather than having to interact with Respondent, if Respondent had continued on as athletic director at Evans, she would have given up the head coaching position. Instead, Respondent resigned, and Ms. Kendrick decided to remain head swim coach at Evans for the 2018-2019 school year. Respondent testified that he had no idea what Ms. Kendrick was talking about. Ms. Kendrick's testimony was more credible than Respondent's and is credited. At the hearing, Respondent made the blanket statement that all the witnesses testifying against him were lying. He claimed that Ms. Carter and Ms. Kendrick were lying to get back at him for changing the procedures to prevent roster padding and costing them coaching supplements.13 He claimed that their colleagues, in whom they had confided and who corroborated their testimony, were also lying. Respondent's attempted attacks on the credibility 13 Ironically, the suggestion that Ms. Carter was mad because she lost supplements as a result of the changed roster procedures was contradicted by Respondent's own testimony. As for her head coaching positions, Respondent testified that head coaches receive supplemental pay irrespective of roster numbers. Ms. Carter might have lost those supplements as a result of Respondent's unauthorized attempt to remove Ms. Carter from cross-country head coach and to threaten removal from track, had those actions stood, but they were reversed by Mr. Bailey. As for the supplement Ms. Carter received as assistant weightlifting coach, Respondent admitted that when he told Ms. Carter she was relieved of her assistant coaching duties mid-season, he told her she could retain the supplement. Respondent's actions had nothing to do with supplements or rosters; Respondent acted to retaliate against Ms. Carter for rebuffing his repeated advances. of the witnesses testifying against him were not persuasive and did not undermine their clear, credible testimony. Most notably, although Respondent claimed some witnesses had a motive to lie to get back at him because of lost coaching supplements, no such motive was or could be attributed to Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell was not a coach or an assistant coach. Respondent offered no cogent theory to explain why Dr. Mitchell would fabricate her testimony. Respondent's accusation that Dr. Mitchell's testimony was invented does not square with her display of emotions at the hearing. She was visibly shaken and crying when she described her embarrassment with Respondent's sexual innuendos, and when she explained why she did not complain about Respondent at the time. Ulunda Frazier The pattern of behavior evident from the complaints of Ms. Carter, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Kendrick is further buttressed, at least generally, by court records regarding Ulunda Frazier and Respondent. Ms. Frazier is a teacher. At the time pertinent to this case, she taught at Oak Ridge High School (Oak Ridge), within the District. At the hearing, Respondent described Ms. Frazier as a longtime personal friend he has known for 15 or 16 years. He said Ms. Frazier used to babysit for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant and toddler. Respondent admitted that his personal relationship with Ms. Frazier had turned "toxic." He did not offer any details to explain in what way the relationship turned toxic. Instead, alluding to a close intimate relationship gone bad, he said only that his relationship with Ms. Frazier "had become toxic and out of control that was actually birthed out of both of our pains. We -- she was going through an ugly divorce and I was going through my treatments and stuff. And so the relationship had just got toxic and it had -- it was no longer a friendly environment." (Tr. 351). Court records in Frazier v. Crawford, Case No. 48-2018-DR-000923-O, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, were officially recognized. The records reflect that on January 24, 2018, Ms. Frazier filed a Petition for Injunction Against Stalking under section 784.0485, Florida Statutes, seeking to enjoin Respondent from stalking her. That same day, the court issued a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Stalking. On January 25, 2018, the Polk County Sheriff's Office served the Temporary Injunction, Ms. Frazier's Petition, and a Notice of Hearing on Respondent at his residence. The hearing was scheduled for February 6, 2018, and was held as noticed. Both Ms. Frazier and Respondent attended. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking (Stalking Injunction). Respondent received a copy by hand delivery in open court, as acknowledged by his signature on the Stalking Injunction. He is therefore "deemed to have knowledge of and to be bound by all matters occurring at the hearing and on the face of" the Stalking Injunction. (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 51-52). The Stalking Injunction contains the following finding: "After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consent of Respondent, the Court finds, based on the specific facts of this case, that Petitioner is a victim of stalking."14 (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 47). On that basis, the Stalking Injunction ordered as follows: "Respondent shall not commit, or cause any other person to commit, any acts of stalking against Petitioner, including stalking, cyberstalking, aggravated stalking, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death. Respondent shall not commit any other violation of the injunction through an intentional unlawful threat, word or act to do violence to Petitioner." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 50). The Stalking Injunction is in effect until February 26, 2021. 14 "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree[.]" § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). Section 784.0485 creates a cause of action for a person who is a victim of stalking to obtain an injunction for protection against stalking. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Stalking Injunction "reduced Respondent's effectiveness as an athletic director because it limited his ability to travel to that school and perform his duties." The terms of the Stalking Injunction do not support this allegation. While the Stalking Injunction generally and broadly prohibited Respondent from having any contact with Ms. Frazier, including at Oak Ridge where she worked and at her residence (both of which were in Orlando), there is an express exception to the no-contact prohibition, as follows: "The Respondent may go to Oakridge [sic] High School only for a valid business reason. If any contact occurs, it shall be non-hostile contact." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 49). In several respects, however, the Stalking Injunction contradicts Respondent's testimony. Respondent denied that he would have made advances on Ms. Carter because he was married and had been married to the same woman since 2010. Yet his close personal relationship with Ms. Frazier predated his marriage by five or six years. Respondent testified that Ms. Frazier babysat for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant. The fact that Respondent got married to someone else five years later did not prevent Respondent from engaging in a first "friendly" and then "toxic" close relationship with Ms. Frazier, or from stalking Ms. Frazier before the Stalking Injunction was issued against him on February 6, 2018. Whatever the details may be regarding Respondent's stalking of Ms. Frazier, it is noteworthy that she lived and worked in Orlando. This belies Respondent's claim that he could not have harassed Ms. Carter with the repeated advances she described, because he would not have had time to go to the movies or out for drinks near where he worked in Orange County. He attempted to paint the picture that he spent every moment in Orange County working or commuting to and from his home in distant Polk County. The Stalking Injunction stands as evidence that, contrary to Respondent's claim, in addition to working at Evans and commuting to and from Polk County, Respondent found time to have a first friendly, then toxic relationship with Ms. Frazier and to stalk Ms. Frazier where she lived and worked in Orange County. Respondent's Separation from the District The investigation into Ms. Carter's complaint identified individuals who were potential witnesses with relevant information or possible victims. After conducting interviews, the District held a pre-determination meeting on March 7, 2018, to share with Respondent the information learned during the investigation and give him an opportunity to respond. Respondent appeared with a union representative, who instructed him not to respond. On March 27, 2018, Respondent was suspended from work with pay while the District completed its investigation. This "Relief of Duty" status is employed when warranted by the seriousness of the allegations. "Relief of Duty" included an immediate suspension of network access, including email. During the process of completing the investigation, the District discovered a new allegation of inappropriate conduct by Respondent. The District learned of Ms. Frazier's Petition and the resulting Stalking Injunction. It held a second pre-determination meeting on April 3, 2018, to inform Respondent that it had learned about the Stalking Injunction. Again, Respondent was given the chance to respond, but again, he refused to say anything on advice of his union representative. On the same day as the second pre-determination meeting, Barbara Jenkins, the District Superintendent, issued a memorandum to the School Board, transmitting a complaint charging Respondent with misconduct in office and conduct unbecoming a public employee, and recommending that Respondent be terminated from employment for the charged violations. Immediately after the complaint and recommendation for termination were released, Respondent negotiated and finalized a Settlement Agreement and General Release (Agreement) with the School Board. The Agreement expressly stated that it was not to be construed as an admission by Respondent or the District of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent was required to resign as of April 5, 2018, and to tender a written letter of resignation. Pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent agreed "he will not reapply for or accept employment [at a District school] at any time in the future." Respondent also acknowledged that the District would be submitting its investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct to the Department of Education Professional Practices Commission, as required by section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes. In form and substance, the Agreement is a common vehicle utilized for resignation of an employee in lieu of the employee having to answer to charges and face the prospect of termination. Respondent attempted to suggest that his resignation was purely voluntary, based on his decision that he did not want to work in a place where people would lie about him. His claim was not credible. Respondent fully understood when he took the position at Evans, along with at least 15 others brought over from Freedom by Mr. Bailey, that there would be an "us against them" air that he would have to overcome. Mr. Bailey attempted to set the stage for developing good relationships with existing Evans coaches and other staff, by deeming the first year an "evaluative year" in which there would not be any position changes until the evaluative year was discussed with Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and the coach at the end of the year. Respondent knew that Evans had challenging problems to overcome, with scarce resources in terms of facilities, equipment, and uniforms, and that he was expected to build winning programs and instill school pride. He knew he was expected to put in place the systems, policies, and procedures that would allow for program building, and he was well aware that his changes would be unpopular with some. It defies logic and credibility for Respondent to suggest that he chose to walk away from his commitment before completing one school year only because existing Evans coaches and assistant coaches were lying about him. Mr. Bailey acknowledged that, as principal, he was compelled to let the investigation process be carried out. As he put it: "[W]hat I performed is my role as a principal. That when there's conduct that's unbecoming of an employee, or an employee feeling as if they have been, in this case, harassed, I'm going to follow the guidance that has been presented to me in my role as the leader of the school." (Tr. 209). He acknowledged that at the culmination of that process, when it was reported to him, he followed the guidance that he was supposed to follow, and as a result, Respondent was no longer at his school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) through a violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., and imposing the following as penalties: suspension of Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of three years from the date of the final order; probation for a period of three years after the suspension, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission, which should include a requirement that Respondent take two college level courses, one in professional ethics for educators and one related to women's rights in the workplace; and payment of a $750.00 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2021. Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, as the district school board alleges, Respondent got into an altercation with a student which allegedly involved taunting, pushing, and yelling; and, if so, whether such contact or conduct constitutes just cause for Petitioner's dismissing Respondent from his position as a school teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Indian River County School Board ("School Board" or "District"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Indian River County Public School System. At all relevant times and as of the final hearing, the District employed Respondent Joseph Nathaniel ("Nathaniel" or "Coach Joe") as a teacher. Nathaniel was assigned to work at Sebastian River High School in Sebastian, Florida, for the 2015-16 school year. In previous years, though not that one, Nathaniel had been an assistant football coach, which is why Nathaniel is commonly known as Coach Joe. As an employee of the District for about 13 years before the events giving rise to this proceeding, Nathaniel had never been found to have committed a disciplinable offense. The events in dispute occurred on November 17, 2015. That morning, Nathaniel was on duty during the school's first lunch period (between, roughly, 11:00 a.m. and noon) as a hallway monitor, a task to which he and other suitable teachers were regularly assigned. Coach Joe was responsible for keeping those students not on their lunch break in class and the ones who were supposed to be at lunch out of trouble. When this period began, a man named Isaiah Speights, 18, was in class, as scheduled. His teacher, Cathy Bradshaw, had started working at Sebastian River High School only a few weeks earlier. At around 11:15 a.m., Isaiah asked Ms. Bradshaw for a hall pass so that he could use the bathroom, and she gave him permission to leave the classroom, which he did. Elsewhere, around the same time, Coach Joe was about to encounter a group of students loitering in the hallway. When he did a few minutes later, he posed to each student questions such as "Who are you?" and "Where are you supposed to be?" before sending them off to their respective classes. As this was taking place, Isaiah happened to be returning to his class on the hall pass Ms. Bradshaw had given him. He saw Nathaniel and the students and paused momentarily to survey the scene. Instead of walking on, Isaiah mimicked Nathaniel, who had not noticed Isaiah behind him, calling out: "Who the fuck are you, and where are you supposed to be?" thereby managing to be at once insolent, insubordinate, and foul-mouthed. (Incredibly, if sadly, the evidence suggests that students at Sebastian River High School commonly address teachers using similarly vulgar language——evidently because such verbal defiance is either not punished, or is not punished severely enough to stop it from being commonplace.) Coach Joe wheeled around to see who had mocked him, and he observed Isaiah——who had grabbed hold of an overhead door frame with one hand——dangling by an arm, swinging and twisting his body in a display that was the very picture of impertinence. Showing considerable self-restraint, Coach Joe asked Isaiah where he was supposed to be and, after seeing Isaiah's pass, told him to get back to class. Complying, Isaiah swung around and walked down the hall, away from Nathaniel, turning left to enter Ms. Bradshaw's classroom. Coach Joe's transactions with Isaiah and the other students having been completed, he started walking to his own classroom, which was located further down the same hall as Ms. Bradshaw's. This meant that, by coincidence, Coach Joe "followed" Isaiah——not in pursuit, but in the sense that he took the same route as the student had approximately ten seconds earlier. Coach Joe noticed that Isaiah had entered Ms. Bradshaw's room. Nathaniel knew Ms. Bradshaw was new to the school, and he decided to inform her that students should not routinely be allowed out of class on passes during lunch periods, when other students are on break. Nathaniel stuck his head in Ms. Bradshaw's room, or perhaps stood just inside the doorway (accounts differ), as he intended to make only a brief stop, and gave her a friendly reminder not to let students out of class.1/ Nathaniel's comment was directed to Ms. Bradshaw——he was not addressing (much less reprimanding) Isaiah. When Coach Joe arrived, Isaiah had been standing at the front of the class, joking around with Ms. Bradshaw. As soon as Nathaniel spoke to Ms. Bradshaw, Isaiah, with a smirk on his face, interjected, "Why the fuck are you behind me, nigger?"——and laughed. This astonishingly disrespectful and provocative challenge to Coach Joe's authority took place in front of the entire classroom of approximately two dozen students.2/ Isaiah's taunting predictably drew Coach Joe all the way into the classroom as he reasonably felt the need immediately to assert his control over the situation and the student. (Had Coach Joe simply walked away at this point, the incident probably would not have "escalated"——"escalation" being, in the School Board's view, something to be avoided at practically all costs——but then, such a submissive retreat in the face of the student's overt dominance display would have sent a clear message to everyone in the classroom that Isaiah possessed the power to make Coach Joe surrender.) Approaching Isaiah, Nathaniel instructed the student, firmly but not angrily, to give Ms. Bradshaw the hall pass and take his seat. Isaiah refused to give back the pass and sit down——this is undisputed. Had Isaiah simply given back the pass and sat down, the situation would have ended. Instead, Isaiah gave Nathaniel back talk and stood his ground, causing the situation to escalate. What happened next is hotly disputed, and there is conflicting evidence in the record relating to the ensuing few, crucial minutes. It is worth noting, however, that, to this point, Isaiah had been the only aggressor, while Nathaniel, the target of Isaiah's unprovoked verbal attacks, had done nothing to or affecting Isaiah that could reasonably be viewed as a provocation; if anything, Nathaniel's responses, so far, had been measured and lenient. Around this time, Isaiah began to clench his fists and posture in the manner of the cartoon character, the Hulk. Nathaniel interpreted Isaiah's pose as a form of agonistic behavior and felt that Isaiah was attempting to build momentum for a physical attack of some sort. In light of the events leading up to this moment, Nathaniel's interpretation was reasonable. Nathaniel asked Isaiah if he (Isaiah) was going to do something with his hands. By now, the confrontation between Isaiah and Coach Joe had attracted the attention of the students. One of them, S.H., began recording the incident using her cell phone's movie camera. She filmed about 39 seconds and stopped. After an indeterminate period, she resumed filming for about 12 seconds, and then stopped again. The District relies heavily upon the two video clips that this student made, especially the longer, first clip. The Cell Phone Movies Given the prominence of filmic evidence in this case, the undersigned will interrupt the narrative to discuss, briefly, his view of the role of a fact-finder in evaluating proof of this nature. It is tempting to assume that filmic evidence is, as the District believes, "objective and not biased" (Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order at 4); that it conveys the same, obvious meaning to every viewer and, being thus unambiguous, requires no interpretation; and that, rather than comprising a series of images that resemble reality, the moving pictures are reality, making every viewer an eyewitness to the scene. The undersigned rejects all of these premises. Aside from the intentional bias that might be introduced through editing or doctoring a film, of which there is no evidence here, video has inherent limitations that undermine its supposed objectivity. The most obvious is that all films have a point of view. The camera records from one angle to the exclusion of all others, tricking the viewer into thinking that the visual perspective of the movie is the only one that matters and constitutes the indisputable truth. In the instant case, the film was shot from the back of the classroom, giving the viewer the point of view of a student somewhat removed from the action. For the most part, Coach Joe is facing the camera, which means that the viewer gets a relatively good look at his face and movements, and can hear most of what he says. Isaiah, in contrast, has his back to the camera; the viewer cannot clearly see everything he does, and most of what he says is inaudible. The effect is to amplify Coach Joe's actions while minimizing Isaiah's. Imagine that, instead of providing a back-row seat perspective, the film had been shot from the front of the classroom, behind Coach Joe, so that Isaiah would be facing the camera, giving the viewer a point of view more closely resembling that of Nathaniel. This perspective would bring Isaiah's actions clearly into view and his words into the viewer's ears. The viewer would also be able to see——as Nathaniel himself could have——the other students, sitting in the background like an audience, watching to see who would prevail. Isaiah, not Coach Joe, would be the "star" of this hypothetical film, which, no doubt, would tell a different story from the one we have. Another limitation of the filmic evidence in this case is that it is not complete. The video begins in medias res, with Coach Joe reacting to Isaiah's agonistic behavior, which has taken place beforehand, off camera. Of course, the video tempts the viewer into believing that anything not shown in the film must not have happened——and that is a form of bias. Further, when the movie starts, Coach Joe already seems a little upset, his voice slightly raised as he says to the student (whose back is to the viewer): "You gonna do something with your hands? Are you about to do something with your hands?" The viewer really cannot see Isaiah's hands, and to the extent glimpses of them come into sight, no clearly threatening gestures are visible. The effect, right off the bat, is to represent Coach Joe as a man who, being unaccountably agitated, is berating a student for no apparent reason. This, too, is bias. Films tell stories. In this sense, video evidence is assertive in nature; it "speaks" to the viewer and——at least metaphorically——"testifies" to the fact-finder. The easy mistake is to assume that the narrative of the video is unambiguous. It is not. Viewers project onto the images their own interpretations of the meaning and significance of the conduct depicted. Some ambiguity in the film might arise from mechanical, technical, or production flaws. Here, S.H. shot her movies from a distance, on a cell phone, so that the orientation of the screen is a narrow, vertical window; consequently, while straining to see what is going on in the film, one gets the feeling of spying through a rectangular keyhole. The images are small, moreover, and magnification only reduces the resolution, degrading the quality of the picture. Because S.H. was so far back, students periodically move in front of the camera, blocking our view of Coach Joe and Isaiah at important moments. The sound quality is so-so; we can hear Coach Joe fairly well, but not Isaiah. All of these shortcomings add up to a general lack of clarity, creating uncertainty about what is being shown. Aside from the foregoing deficiencies, the narrative of the film is not clear and unambiguous; it is subject to different interpretations. Some viewers of the main video in this case, for example, perceive in Isaiah's actions an attempt on his part to retreat and deescalate the situation. The undersigned, in contrast, having watched the tape dozens of times, sees nothing of the sort. As the undersigned construes the film, Isaiah appears never to retreat, except tactically and then only as necessary; indeed, he seems always to be on the offensive, constantly looking for advantage in the scuffle that follows. The narrative of Isaiah the practically innocent bystander trying his best to defuse Coach Joe's inexplicable rage strikes the undersigned as laughable——but is one, he supposes, that a reasonable viewer might see in the video if that is what he wants to believe took place. Finally, there is the temptation to believe that the video is the event, rather than a representation of the event. This temptation tricks the viewer into thinking that, by watching the video, he has enjoyed unmediated access to the disputed event, becoming an eyewitness to the truth. But this is clearly not the case. The video is merely a medium of delivering content; it mediates some, but not nearly all, of the relevant data from the historical event at issue, in a manner that informs (and arguably entertains) rather than re-creates, and hence is neither infallible, unimpeachable, nor inerrant. In sum, video evidence has strengths and weaknesses that are different from those of, say, an eyewitness. Filmic evidence is potentially very strong evidence, to be sure, but moving pictures should not be considered inherently superior to other types of evidences, and video proof should not be accorded great deference or automatic credibility on the ground that film is special. Video evidence is especially useful in accurately conveying what someone said (where the audio is clear) and for establishing precise time frames. It might assist us in visualizing what occurred. But filmic proof is not helpful, or is at best of limited value, when it comes to making assertions about the significance, meaning, and story of the images captured therein; these require the application of human intelligence based upon a careful consideration of all the available evidence. Ultimately, the fact-finder must critically review video evidence, keeping in mind the limitations of this medium, and determine its relative persuasive value in the context of the entire record. That is what the undersigned has done in this case. Back to the Narrative "You gonna do something with your hands? . . . Are you about to do something with your hands? . . . I suggest you give the lady her pass, and go sit your behind down." These are first three sentences that Coach Joe utters in the video. It takes him about nine seconds to make these statements——nearly one-quarter of the main video. During this period, Isaiah is talking, but his words cannot clearly be heard. One thing is obvious and undisputed, however: Isaiah does not comply. The importance of this point must be emphasized. Up to now, the only directives that Coach Joe has given Isaiah are to return the pass and take his seat. Despite everything that has already happened, beginning in the hallway, Coach Joe has not reprimanded, scolded, or punished Isaiah. He has not ordered him to do anything unreasonable or unjustifiable, unlawful or demeaning. He has directed Isaiah to sit down. Isaiah has no reasonable grounds for disobeying this most basic of directives from a teacher to a student——none whatsoever. And yet Isaiah disobeyed. Instead of complying with the unambiguous command to sit down——a reasonable directive that Coach Joe clearly had the authority to give——instead of backing gracefully out of an increasingly tense situation that he himself had initiated without any reasonable cause; instead of simply taking his seat and submitting to the teacher's reasonable exercise of legitimate authority, Isaiah upped the ante: he mouthed off. "I'm telling you this right now . . . ," Isaiah started to say, as if he had the right to tell Nathaniel what would or should be done. Naturally, Nathaniel could not permit a student to tell him what to do, particularly in front of a roomful of students. He promptly set Isaiah straight: "You don't tell me nothing." Isaiah then jabbed Coach Joe in the stomach, which startled the teacher. "What?!" said Coach Joe, as his arms raised slightly in surprise before swiftly shooting forward to shove Isaiah back and out of striking range. Again, it is necessary to pause for elaboration. The School Board attempts to downplay the crucial fact that Isaiah escalated the situation, rapidly and dramatically, when he poked Coach Joe in the stomach, committing the first act of physical aggression, which constituted a battery. To be very clear, this was not an act of self-defense on Isaiah's part; no one, not even Isaiah, makes that claim. Before Isaiah struck him, Nathaniel had not touched Isaiah, or even threatened to touch the student; he had merely told him to sit down, which Isaiah unreasonably refused to do. The School Board refers to Isaiah's battery upon Coach Joe as incidental, de minimis contact, a "slight touch," but the undersigned rejects this characterization. Isaiah deliberately poked his fist into Coach Joe, leaning in to make the blow and pushing off from the teacher's stomach. The force of this blow——whether it was powerful enough to inflict pain or just annoyed Coach Joe——is irrelevant. The student crossed a bright, red line when he intentionally struck the teacher for no reason. Upon being pushed, Isaiah stumbled momentarily, involuntarily taking two or three steps backwards before regaining his balance and purposefully setting his feet. As this happened, Coach Joe said, "Don't use your hands on me, little boy!" Contrary to the notion that Isaiah retreated (which is false), Isaiah in fact squared off and then moved slightly toward Coach Joe. When Isaiah came forward, Nathaniel yelled at him: "Don't you ever put your hands on me!" As if to punctuate the point, Coach Joe pushed Isaiah's forehead with his right forefinger while articulating the word "ever," causing the student's head and shoulders to rock back, either from the force of the blow or because Isaiah simultaneously bent backwards in an evasive maneuver or from flinching——probably a combination of these. Still, Isaiah failed to heed Coach Joe's warning not to use his hands. He lunged at Nathaniel, striking the teacher around the shoulders and knocking him back. Coach Joe straightened up and pointed at Isaiah with his left index finger, shouting, "Do you understand that?" Obviously Isaiah did not understand that he was not to use his hands on the teacher, for he began slapping at Coach Joe's finger, pushing his arm down. Coach Joe, clearly angry now, yelled at Isaiah: "Don't you ever put your hands on me. Don't you ever——EVER——put your hands on me!" Isaiah screamed back, "Get the fuck off me man!" Ms. Bradshaw interjected at this point: "Sit down, Isaiah. Sit down." That, of course, would have been the sensible thing for Isaiah to do. Instead, removing an obstacle between himself and Coach Joe, Isaiah picked up a desk and hurled it, end-over-end, behind his body, towards his classmates, in reckless disregard of the harm this heavy object might cause if it struck someone, which fortunately did not happen, but easily could have. Once the desk was out of the way, Isaiah charged Coach Joe, and the two began to tussle. Coach Joe, who stands roughly six feet, four inches tall, has a height advantage of about four inches on Isaiah. At approximately 350 pounds, Nathaniel outweighed the younger man, too, by nearly 200 pounds, more or less. But Isaiah, trim and athletically built, had the advantages of speed and agility. Coach Joe could use his size advantage to subdue Isaiah if he could get his arms around the student. Nathaniel's concern——a reasonable one——was that Isaiah would scramble under him and knock him over; if Isaiah managed to get Nathaniel on his back, Nathaniel would lose most of the advantages his size gave him. At first, Isaiah kept free of Nathaniel's grasp. When the teacher grabbed Isaiah's shirt, Isaiah slipped out of the garment. Eventually, however, the two wound up in a boxers' clinch. The testimony is in conflict as to what transpired while the two men grappled, and the video evidence is inconclusive, the camera being too often either turned away from the action or prevented from taking a good shot by students getting in the way. Nathaniel testified that Isaiah had gotten a piece of his shirt in one hand and was choking him with it, while using his other hand to throw short punches at Nathaniel's jaw. Isaiah denied doing these things. Near the end of the main video, however, Coach Joe can clearly be heard saying several times: "Swing! Swing! Swing!" The School Board argues that Coach Joe was taunting Isaiah by urging him to take a swinging punch. Nathaniel testified that he wanted Isaiah to swing so that Isaiah would release the teacher's shirt, which was tugging against his throat and choking him——an explanation the School Board calls "absurd." But the undersigned finds Coach Joe's testimony to be credible. What makes little sense is the idea that Coach Joe was taunting Isaiah, for at that moment, Coach Joe did not yet have the upper hand, and he certainly had no need to encourage Isaiah to react violently, as Isaiah had already done so without provocation or reasonable cause. The motivation behind Coach Joe's egging Isaiah on to take a swing most likely was, as Nathaniel testified, to goad Isaiah into releasing his grip on Nathaniel's shirt. Whether this tactic worked is unclear, but Coach Joe eventually got his arms around Isaiah and wrapped him up in a bear hug so that the student could not break free. This enabled Nathaniel to wrestle Isaiah to the ground and pin him on his back. While the struggle was under way, another teacher, Chris Jefferson, had entered the room for reasons unrelated to Isaiah or Coach Joe. Mr. Jefferson saw that Isaiah needed to calm down before Nathaniel could release him because the student was twisting, squirming, and shouting uncontrollably, imploring Mr. Jefferson (or somebody) to "get this big motherfucker off of me!" Mr. Jefferson urged Isaiah to relax. When Isaiah finally stopped resisting, Mr. Jefferson said, "Coach Joe, let him up." Nathaniel let go of Isaiah and stood up. Isaiah remained in a rage. He flipped over another desk and tried to use the classroom telephone, but Nathaniel prevented him from making a call. Isaiah screamed at Ms. Bradshaw to call both his mom and an assistant principal named Dr. Keaton. As he did so, the school resource officer, Deputy Eric Sesack, and the school security officer, David Lunsford, entered the room. Deputy Sesack directed Isaiah to leave the classroom and go to the office. Isaiah stormed out, unaccompanied; that is, he was allowed to take off on his own. Deputy Sesack, Mr. Lunsford, Coach Joe, and Mr. Jefferson followed Isaiah——but at some distance. That Isaiah was permitted to stalk the hallways without escort is troubling, given that he had lost control of himself and was a danger to others. In the words of teacher Kendrick Willis, who was in the hallway and saw Isaiah, the student was "yelling and screaming" and "going crazy." The fact of Isaiah's meltdown cannot seriously be disputed, considering what he did next, which was, first, punch a metal locker and, second, kick a water fountain with enough force to knock it off the wall. Although this criminal act was committed in plain view of a law enforcement officer, Deputy Sesack did not arrest Isaiah because he felt that attempting to subdue the student at that point would be too risky. Moments later, Isaiah, agitated and shirtless, barged into the front office, where he demanded that he be allowed to use the telephone at the counter. The secretary on duty gave Isaiah "permission" to make a call, but it would probably be more accurate to say that she acceded to his demand. In any event, the secretary obviously had no idea that Isaiah had just recently committed a battery upon a teacher and vandalized school property, so her permission——if it can be called that—— was not predicated on knowledge of all the material facts. Coach Joe arrived in the office about 24 seconds behind Isaiah. Seeing Isaiah about to use the phone, Nathaniel abruptly revoked the privilege by grabbing the handset from Isaiah. The School Board contends that this action amounted to an unprovoked "escalation." The undersigned does not see it that way. The evidence shows, for one, that Coach Joe and others (Messrs. Jefferson and Willis) worried that Isaiah might use the phone to summon someone to the school to cause trouble. Whether or not this concern was well-founded the undersigned cannot determine, but it is noteworthy that, in fact, they all shared it. More important, Isaiah should not have been allowed to freely use the telephone at that moment, as though he were in the middle of an ordinary day, just minding his own business, innocent of any misconduct. Rather, Isaiah should have been treated as a suspect in at least two crimes (battery and criminal mischief) for which there was probable cause to believe he had recently committed during school hours, on school property. Based on the evidence of record, the undersigned determines that Coach Joe was one of the only adults present who seemed to understand that Isaiah should be detained, questioned, and perhaps arrested——not allowed to go on his merry way. Taking the telephone away from Isaiah was reasonable under the circumstances. As Coach Joe sensibly forbade Isaiah from using the telephone, Deputy Sesack arrived on the scene. The police officer removed Isaiah from the office and, once outside, gave the student a cell phone to use. Isaiah placed a call to a family member and soon thereafter left campus in a friend's car, since no one present saw fit to take him into custody. Later, Isaiah would be suspended for kicking the water fountain, but because he withdrew from Sebastian River High School, this suspension was never served. The District based its preliminary decision to terminate Nathaniel's employment on the grounds, at bottom, that he had unreasonably made physical contact with, taunted, and threatened Isaiah, all of which, together or individually, constituted a failure to protect the student from personal injury or conditions harmful to learning; an intentional infliction of unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and a disruption of the learning environment. The undersigned rejects these premises and determines as a matter of ultimate fact, based on the evidence adduced at hearing, that it was Isaiah who disrupted the learning environment; Isaiah who intentionally disparaged (and attacked) Coach Joe; and Isaiah who created conditions harmful to learning. Coach Joe's duty was to make reasonable efforts to protect students and himself from Isaiah. Coach Joe discharged his duty. Isaiah was way out of line, and somebody in authority needed to put the student in his place. It fell to Nathaniel to do so. Had Coach Joe been "nice" to Isaiah and let him have his way, as the District seems to believe would have been preferable, Isaiah's appalling behavior would have received positive reinforcement, making it more likely that Isaiah would act that way again. Other students would have been encouraged to emulate Isaiah's conduct. The learning environment would have suffered. Fortunately for Sebastian River High School, Coach Joe had the fortitude to stand tall, roll up his sleeves, and do the tough job of keeping a foul-mouthed, defiant, and violently aggressive student from causing further damage. For this he should be given a pat on the back, not a pink slip.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board enter a final order exonerating Nathaniel of all charges brought against him in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observations of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated October 1, 1980, Respondent's mother was advised by Gus Sakkis, Superintendent of Schools, that her son was being temporarily suspended from the Pinellas School System and that he (Sakkis), was further recommending that her son be expelled from the public schools for the remainder of the 1980/81 and the 1981/82 school years for the stated reason that Petitioner committed a battery while on school grounds on September 19, 1980 following a high school football game at Gibbs Senior High School. (Joint Exhibit 1) At that time, Ms. Wynn was also advised of the availability of counselling and alternative placement for Petitioner in an educational facility in Pinellas County. In support of the suspension, Respondent presented witness David Anderson, A fifteen year old student who attends Gibbs Senior High School. Anderson testified that following the football game on September 19, 1980, while leaving the area near the Band room, he was struck with a black umbrella on the back of his neck by Petitioner. There were no witnesses to this incident and Anderson has not been involved in other incidents with Petitioner. Paula Sitzelberger, a Detective with the St. Petersburg Police Department investigated the subject incident and interviewed Anderson to determine the sequence of events. Student Anderson reiterated the events as stated above and also noted that Petitioner was accompanied by a group of at least two other students. Detective Sitzelberger also interviewed Petitioner who denied any involvement with or commission of a battery upon their person of student Anderson and also related that Petitioner indicated that he left the game and attended a party. Petitioner, testifying on his own behalf, left the game in the company of Tondrea Givens and Leroy Jones. Petitioner attended a party on 12th Street immediately following the game and attended a party. Petitioner denied striking David Anderson with an umbrella, as charged. Hope Wynn, Petitioner's sister, also attended the subject game and observed that Petitioner was accompanied by Tondrea Givens and Leroy Jones. Ms. Wynn observed Petitioner leaving the game immediately following the end of the fourth quarter, and later witnessed Petitioner with Givens and Jones at a party on 12th Street. Ella Jones, the sister of Leroy Jones, also appeared at the hearing and indicated that Petitioner was with Tondrea Givens and her brother Leroy Jones during and immediately following the game. Tondrea Givens also appeared and confirmed that he accompanied Petitioner following the subject game to the 12th Street party following the game. Givens also denied that Petitioner was involved in any physical contact with David Anderson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's expulsion of Petitioner be revoked and the student be permitted and afforded an opportunity to make up the school work missed as provided for in Chapter 4(b) (1) (h), Code of Student Conduct, adopted by the Pinellas County School Board. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Margaline Wynn 1527 Scranton Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 William A. Borja, Esqiure Suite 204 501 South Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1981.
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be subject to discipline for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 13, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent, Mark D. Swanson (Coach Swanson), holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 585952, covering the areas of mathematics and business education, which was valid through June 30, 2003. At the hearing, Respondent testified that it was his intention to maintain his certification beyond June 30, 2003. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Coach Swanson was employed by the Collier County School District (the "District") and was assigned to Lely High School ("Lely") as a teacher and as head football coach. In 1995, Coach Swanson took over a Lely program that had fielded poor teams for several years. Within three years, Coach Swanson had guided the team to a district championship. In the 1999 season, despite a rash of injuries and discipline problems, Lely made the playoffs, though the team's performance declined after a 5-1 start. At the conclusion of the 1999 season, Lely's principal Roy Terry, himself a former high school football coach, sent Coach Swanson a memorandum expressing "concerns with the turn we took the last half of this past season." After reciting a list of the positive aspects of Coach Swanson's performance, Mr. Terry noted nine areas of concern, including "Continue to monitor language of staff with students." Coach Swanson's expectations for the 2000 season were not as high as in recent years past. He believed that a record of 6-4 would constitute a successful season. Summer practices had gone well. However, the team lost its first game to Barron Collier High School by a score of 24-0. To Coach Swanson, the manner of losing the Barron Collier game was more important than the loss itself. The game was a scoreless tie at half time, and Lely trailed only by 7-0 at the start of the fourth quarter. However, in Coach Swanson's view, the team quit in the fourth quarter and allowed Barron Collier to win the game going away. Lely's second game, on September 8, 2000, would be against Fort Myers High School. Fort Myers was one of the best teams in the area, and Coach Swanson did not seriously believe that Lely could win the game. Nonetheless, he believed that his team's effort in this game would determine the fate of the season. If his team played hard and did not give up against a clearly superior team, Coach Swanson could use that effort to motivate Lely in subsequent winnable games. Throughout the week's practices, the Lely coaching staff emphasized maximum effort and not quitting against Fort Myers. The Fort Myers game began relatively well for Lely. The team was behind only 14-0 near the end of the first half. Then, Fort Myers took over the ball on its own nine yard line and drove 91 yards to a touchdown in a little over one minute. Coach Swanson believed that his team "just laid down and quit" on that touchdown drive. On the touchdown play, Lely's defensive coordinator Steve Sapere called for a linebacker blitz. Linebacker Brandon Tyler, one of the best players on the Lely team, made a halfhearted effort on the play. As the defense came off the field, Coach Sapere told Brandon Tyler that he would not call any more blitzes unless Brandon's effort improved. Coach Sapere then walked away. William Sparacio, then the running backs coach at Lely, witnessed the scene between Coach Sapere and Brandon Tyler. After Coach Sapere walked away, Brandon told Coach Sparacio, "You better get that guy out of my face."2 After the ensuing kickoff, Coach Sparacio shouted to Brandon Tyler in an effort to get his attention, but Brandon ignored him. Coaches Sparacio and Sapere consulted and agreed that if Brandon would not accept coaching, he would not be put back into the game. Coach Sparacio reported the incident to Coach Swanson at the commencement of half time. Coach Swanson told Coach Sparacio that the decision whether to play Brandon Tyler in the second half would be left to Coaches Sapere and Sparacio, but that he would deal with Brandon during half time. Coach Swanson testified that, as the first half came to a close, he wondered what he could do to motivate his listless team. When apprised of the situation with Brandon Tyler, his first thought was that Brandon's insubordination would provide a perfect subject for a half time talk to the team. Coach Swanson thought that Brandon Tyler was the perfect person to criticize in front of the team because Brandon was one of his best players, and "calling out" a team leader would have more impact than picking on a lesser player. Brandon was a tough player, "very intense," and had always liked the fact that Coach Swanson was himself "fiery" and intense. Coach Swanson believed that Brandon would understand being used as an example in a half time speech and that Brandon would respond positively. Coach Swanson walked to the locker room with Heidi Roderick, the Lely team trainer. Ms. Roderick asked him what he was going to do about the team's performance. Coach Swanson responded that he was going to make a fool of himself and create a "spectacle" that might make the team mad enough to play hard. He told Ms. Roderick, "Maybe they'll picture my face on a guy across the line . . . and want to beat the crap out of him." He believed that the second half of this game was essential to the team's entire season and that he had to try something drastic to break the team out of its lethargy. The Lely locker room was not an open football locker room, but a typical high school locker room with rows of benches separated by rows of lockers. Thus, there was no central area where the team could gather during half time. The players would scatter throughout the locker room at half time. Coach Swanson decided that the only way to get the attention of all the players was to make a big noise and that the best way to do that was to bounce a football helmet off a metal locker. Coach Swanson took a helmet from a player and glanced down a row of lockers to make sure no one was in the line of fire, then skipped the helmet "off the floor so it'd go 'bing, bing, bing, bing,'" down the row of lockers. At the moment he let go of the helmet, Coach Swanson looked farther down the row of lockers and saw Fenwick Paul, a Lely player, sitting on a bench at the far end of the row. The helmet traveled about 40 feet down the row of lockers and struck Mr. Paul in the back. Mr. Paul was unharmed by the helmet glancing off his back. Coach Swanson apologized to Mr. Paul for hitting him with the helmet. Another player, Jim Muth, demanded to know who was throwing helmets. Coach Swanson said, "It's me. You got a problem with that?" Jim Muth, cowed, said, "No, coach." The weight of the evidence established that Coach Swanson did not push Jim Muth into a locker. Coach Swanson then loudly called for Brandon Tyler. When he found Brandon, Coach Swanson grabbed him by the shoulder pads and said, "Brandon, who the hell do you think you are talking to Coach Sapere like that?" Coach Swanson walked Brandon around the locker room by the shoulder pads, all the while shouting at the player. The weight of the evidence established that Coach Swanson did not throw Brandon Tyler into the bathroom, into walls, or down to the floor. Coach Swanson credibly testified that he held Brandon tightly by the shoulder pads both for the visual effect and to keep Brandon from slipping in his cleats on the tile floor of the locker room. He intended to intimidate the player while making an example of him in front of the team, but Coach Swanson had no intention of causing physical injury to Brandon Tyler. Coach Swanson admitted that he swore as he walked Brandon Tyler around the locker room. He admitted that he repeatedly used the word "fuck." When Coach Swanson accosted him, Brandon began shouting, "I didn't do it. Coach Sparacio, you better fix this, you better tell him," apparently meaning that Coach Sparacio should intervene on Brandon's behalf. In response, Coach Swanson told Brandon to "be a fucking man and own up to it, because that's what this game is about, is being honest and reasonable and owning up to when you make a mistake." At that point, Coach Swanson released Brandon Tyler. Coach Sparacio and Ms. Roderick heard Brandon Tyler say he was quitting the team during the altercation. Coach Swanson did not recall Brandon's saying he was quitting, but testified that "I could see myself" taking Brandon's statement to make the point to the team that its problem was quitting when the going gets tough. Coach Swanson testified that such a statement by Brandon would not have concerned him because "I knew Brandon wasn't going to quit." In fact, Brandon Tyler did not quit the football team. He played the entire second half of the Fort Myers game and played the rest of the season. After releasing Brandon, Coach Swanson spoke to the team as a whole, urging the players to fight to the end and give their best effort. He asked them, "Aren't you tired of this shit?" Some of the players chimed in their agreement. After completing his speech to the team, Coach Swanson walked into the coaches' office adjacent to the locker room. Several assistant coaches, but no players, were in the office. Coach Swanson saw two of his assistants, Kim Butts and Steven Pricer, drawing up blocking schemes on a hand-held dry-erase board. Coach Swanson took the board away from Coach Pricer, saying that the team's problem was not "X's and O's" but a lack of heart and will to win. He threw the board against a wall. The board bounced off the wall and nicked the hand of assistant coach Brian Wallace. Ms. Roderick testified that before the team left the locker room, Coach Wallace asked her to look at his hand. She stated that there was a small scratch on Coach Wallace's hand. It was not bleeding. Ms. Roderick testified that she would not have seen the mark on Coach Wallace's hand had he not shown her where it was. She gave Coach Wallace a band-aid in case the cut started bleeding during the second half. No players or students testified at the hearing. Coach Wallace did not testify. Assistant coaches Kim Butts, Steve Pricer, Jason Woodward, Steve Sapere, William Sparacio, and Mario Doria all testified as witnesses to some or all of the events in the locker room at half time of the Fort Myers game. Aside from Coach Doria, all the assistants generally agreed with the facts as set forth above. Coach Doria testified that Coach Swanson shoved Brandon Tyler into a locker and down to the ground. While Brandon lay on the ground, Coach Swanson told him to quit being "a fucking pussy," to get up and be a man. Brandon was crying and begging for help, but Coach Doria did not intervene for fear of creating a confrontation between himself and Coach Swanson. Coach Doria testified that when Coach Swanson took the dry-erase board from his assistants, he snapped it in half and threw one-half of the board across the room. Coach Doria's singular version of events cannot be credited. He was the sole testifying witness to claim that Coach Swanson shoved Brandon or called him names. His witness statement of October 24, 2000, did not mention Coach Swanson's calling Brandon a "fucking pussy." No other witness claimed to have seen Coach Swanson snap the dry-erase board in half. The board belonged to Coach Pricer, who testified that he still uses it, though it did receive a crack from Coach Swanson's toss. Whether they approved or disapproved of his actions, the assistant coaches agreed that Coach Swanson was engaged in an effort to motivate the team and that he was not out of control or acting in a blind rage. Coach Swanson himself testified that, while not scripted, his actions were a conscious effort to spark his team into giving a better effort in the second half of the Fort Myers game, which he believed key to the remainder of the season. All of the witnesses agreed that Coach Swanson's tirade began and ended in the locker room at half time. His behavior on the field during the second half indicated nothing out of the ordinary. Lely lost the game by a score of 35-0. In summary, the Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Coach Swanson threw a football helmet that struck Fenwick Paul; that Coach Swanson placed his hands on Brandon Tyler and cursed at the player while reprimanding him for his disrespectful comments to an assistant coach; and that Coach Swanson threw a dry-erase board that struck a fellow coach on the hand, causing a small cut. There were no allegations that Coach Swanson committed any improper act in his role as a classroom teacher. Roy Terry, the principal of Lely, described him as a "fine person," who did a "fine job" as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent did violate the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), but did not violate Section 231.2615(1)(c) or (i), Florida Statutes (2001). It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued providing that a written reprimand be placed in his certification file and placing him on a one-year period of probation subject to such conditions as the Commission may specify, to commence if and when Respondent again becomes an active teacher and/or football coach in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 2003.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to impose discipline on Respondent’s employment; and, if so, what is the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was a School Board employee. Respondent was employed as a custodian at Choctawhatchee High School (“Choctaw”) when he was terminated in 2017. As a custodial employee, Respondent was subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into between the School Board and the Okaloosa County Education Association. When he was terminated, Respondent had been employed by the School Board for approximately 24 to 26 years. Respondent was employed as a custodian at Choctaw beginning in 2015. Prior to that, Respondent was employed by the School Board as lead custodian at Choice School (“Choice”). Before that, at least five years before his employment at Choctaw, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a pre-K liaison at Edwins Elementary (“Edwins”). In addition, Respondent had been employed by the School Board over the years as a bus driver and in other custodial positions. The School Board's termination of Respondent's employment was based largely upon a formal equity complaint1/ (“Formal Complaint”) submitted on October 5, 2017, by Mrs. Williams, a volunteer at Choctaw, alleging harassment by Respondent with an attached email addressing her concerns regarding contacts by Respondent and a history of alleged harassment by Respondent. The email attached to Mrs. Williams' Formal Complaint is dated October 3, 2017, and states: Harassment has gone back to Edwins Elementary nearly 8 years ago. I was a parent as well as a PTO [parent teacher organization] Member/President for a few years at Edwins Elementary. There were constant unprofessional/vulgar comments made by Steve Hall in reference to my body and parts of my body, the way my clothing may fit certain areas of my body or his requesting to take photos of me. I think on occasion he may have taken some photos because as I would turn around and his phone was lifted in my direction to do so. On countless occasions employees would stand with me to hinder him hanging around and commenting. This frequently occurred during his employment at Edwins Elementary School. On one occasion my young high school age daughter, at the time, was at Edwins Elementary School with me during school hours. I was introducing my daughter to some people and Steve walked up so not to be rude I introduced her to him as well. Steve Hall's comment was not "hi" or "how are you?" it was "move over mom . . .!" As her mother I was disgusted! I told Mr. Farley but my daughter did not want to get into it or write a statement. I respected her wishes and just limited her presence on that campus. This entire time I have also been volunteering at Choctawhatchee High School. I found out that he was moved from Edwins to another school. I am still a full-time volunteer at CHS [Choctaw] and one day Steve Hall showed up at Choctaw's front desk. Knowing what actions I have seen from him I was extremely concerned finding out Steve is now an employee at Choctawhatchee High School. Approaching me at the front desk at Choctaw began to be a habit for Steve Hall. I called and met with Mr. Farley to work out a solution hoping this could be resolved professionally. The rule was Steve was not to be anywhere within the front office area to include the mail room. I have had to call Mr. Farley on multiple occasions because he continued to approach me in the front office. Currently he continues to try to communicate inappropriately with me at the football games or on campus, school events. Steve sits in the stands eating concession food and watching the football games for the most of the game. Steve tries to initiate conversation through my son who is special needs and only understands he is suppose to be nice to everyone. Not wanting/needing to explain this situation to my son. [sic] My son responds when spoken to by Steve because Steve is an adult and my son knows I require respect from him no matter who speaks to him. This makes football games and school events difficult every season with this year being no different! At the CHS vs. Tate game I was thankful there was a fence between the sections we were sitting in, so that he could not get closer without going all the way down and back up. I just turned away with no response. It is frustrating feeling like I have to hide to avoid Steve! This school year Steve has come to the front office area 3 times within the first month and a half of school. Each time I reported it and Steve was told to stay away from the front office. On one of the occasions I was in the back, in the mail room. Someone came to let me know Steve was up front looking for me. I tried to go out the back of the mailroom door to Mr. Snaith's office to get assistance and Steve walked in to confront me. The confrontation was extremely uncomfortable to say the least. About that time Mr. Snaith walked in and witnessed most of the confrontation escorting me away from Steve and we called Mr. Farley. Again! Steve was talked to about not coming to the front office for any reason. He has Ms. Liz's phone number (his supervisor) if he needs her. He has since come back to the front office again! He was told again not to come to the front office at all for any reason and it was discussed by Mr. Farley he needed to be more aware of his actions and the way they may be perceived. I am also the parent in charge of "Parents for Prior." After this years current situations, Steve was spoken to by Mr. Bill Smith. Steve Hall approached me at the Pryor Middle School football game held at Choctaw stadium. I was trying to work a table at the game, soon after the most recent issue. Steve approached my son first then walked closer to me requesting to speak to me for a "hot minute" in the alley between the touchdown shack and stadium. I'm sure it would be on the stadium cameras as stated in my statement to Bill Smith. I was unable to leave due to my possession of money and tickets. I glared at Steve and he stated I guess I should just keep walking. I nodded "yes"! This is only the most prominent on campus situations. I called Bill Smith and explained I should tell Steve to stay away. I feel we are past this due to this being years in the making. This has already been addressed and discussed with Steve on multiple occasions. Bill Smith stated I needed to send him an email statement and apologized he had not yet gotten with Mr. Chapman, from a week before, because of the hurricane. This was my second statement to Bill Smith this school year as well as one meeting with him. I enjoy volunteering my time at Choctawhatchee High School. Within a few years I'll be a Choctaw parent, unless I am required to move my son to another high school because of this. This is not what I want to do as a parent or volunteer. I do not feel it is fair I may need to remove myself and choose another high school for my son to attend because of an employee's unprofessional/vulgar behavior. Steve Hall repeatedly drives by my home. The latest time that I know of was within a week or so before school started this year 2017-2018. I was on the phone walking out of my home, I looked up and saw Steve sitting out in front of my home rolling down his window motioning me to come talk to him. I turned to return inside to get my husband, who is law enforcement, but Steve drove off in his green avalanche. I do not live on a main road nor have I given him my address. My street is not a road someone would just drive by on. If this continues I will file a restraining order. If there are any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint was assigned to Gary M. Marsh, investigator, Escambia County School District, on October 11, 2017, for investigation. Mr. Marsh conducted his investigation and submitted his investigative report dated October 31, 2017, to the School Board's superintendent. The investigative report was hand-delivered by Mr. Marsh and received by the superintendent on November 3, 2017. In a letter dated November 14, 2017, the School Board's assistant superintendent of human and resources advised Respondent that she was recommending to the superintendent that Respondent be suspended with pay, effective immediately, and further that his employment with Petitioner be terminated at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting. The letter states: Mr. Hall, An investigation has now been completed regarding the Formal Equity Complaint made against you on/or about October 5, 2017. A copy of the investigative report is attached for your information and review. This is the second formal investigation of an equity complaint against you since 2014. Based upon a culmination or multiple instances of harassment, misconduct in the workplace or gross insubordination, over the course of the last three years, I am recommending that the Superintendent suspend you with pay effective immediately and further that your employment with the School District be terminated at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting. The charges against you are based upon the finding of illicit material in your desk at Edwins Elementary School and repeated inappropriate comments leading to coworkers feeling harassed which led to your transfer in 2014 from Edwins Elementary School to Okaloosa Technical College (OTC); in late 2014, during your time at OTC, allegations of unwanted sexual behavior constituting sexual harassment on your part as confirmed in a formal investigation which led to your demotion and transfer from a lead custodian to a custodian at Choctaw High School (CHS). Additionally, while at CHS, new allegations of harassment have been made against you. Due to these allegations you were directed on multiple occasions by both your supervisor and a district administrator not to enter the CHS front office or mail room. As a result of a recent investigation it has been determined that you have continued to enter the school front office area in direct insubordination of your supervisor and a district administrator. Further, after review of the investigative report there is sufficient evidence to believe that harassment of a school volunteer did occur. Your conduct is considered to be gross insubordination, misconduct in office and harassment in direct violation of the following School Board policies: School Board Policy 07-03 Employment Conditions for Education Support Personnel School Board Policy 06-27 Equity Policy: Harassment on the Basis of Race, Color, National or Ethnic Origin, Sex, Age, Religious Beliefs, Marital Status, Pregnancy or Disabilty In accordance with both School Board policy 06-28 E(2) and Section K(a) of the OCESPA Master Contract you may file a written appeal to the Superintendent within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the enclosed investigative report and this recommendation. In a letter dated November 29, 2017, the assistant superintendent of human resources requested that the superintendent recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated for gross insubordination, misconduct, and harassment. The Superintendent notified Respondent in a letter dated November 29, 2017, that she would recommend his termination from employment at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting for gross insubordination, misconduct, and harassment. At its December 11, 2017, meeting, the School Board approved the superintendent’s recommendation, and Respondent was terminated from his custodian position. Neither Superintendent Mary Beth Jackson nor Assistant Superintendent Stacie Smith testified at the hearing. According to the November 14, 2017, letter from the assistant superintendent, quoted above, the recommendation for Respondent's termination is "[b]ased upon a culmination of multiple instances of harassment, misconduct in the workplace or gross insubordination, over the course of the last three years." [emphasis added]. The three allegations that form the basis of the recommended discipline against Respondent are analyzed below under headings derived from the November 14, 2017, letter as follows: 1) "finding of illicit material in your desk at Edwins Elementary School and repeated inappropriate comments leading to coworkers feeling harassed which led to your transfer in 2014 from Edwins Elementary School to Okaloosa Technical College (OTC)"; 2) "in late 2014, during your time at OTC, allegations of unwanted sexual behavior constituting sexual harassment on your part as confirmed in a formal investigation which led to your demotion and transfer from a lead custodian to a custodian at Choctaw High School"; and 3) "it has been determined that you have continued to enter the school front office area in direct insubordination of your supervisor and a district administrator. Further, after review of the investigative report there is sufficient evidence to believe that harassment of a school volunteer did occur." ILLICIT MATERIAL IN RESPONDENT'S DESK AT EDWINS AND REPEATED INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO COWORKERS LEADING TO A TRANSFER At the hearing, it was revealed that Respondent's employment at Edwins predated his employment at Choice. Respondent was employed at Choice during the 2013-2014 school year.2/ Therefore, the alleged illicit material and inappropriate comments that allegedly occurred at Edwins could not have taken place "over the course of the last three years," as alleged in the November 14, 2017, letter. Notwithstanding the fact that none of the alleged “Edwins events” could have taken place over the past three years as alleged, the School Board presented no testimony or documentary evidence to prove the underlying fact that Respondent had “illicit material” in his desk while employed at Edwins. In fact, there was no testimony at all concerning this alleged prior discipline. Mrs. Williams’ email attached to her Formal Complaint states that the alleged harassment "has gone back to Edwins Elementary nearly 8 years ago." In fact, Mrs. Williams first met Respondent at least seven years before she filed her Formal Complaint against Respondent referenced in this case. When they first met, Respondent worked with the in-school suspension and student training programs at Edwins and her son attended Edwins. Mrs. Williams was a volunteer with the parent-teacher organization. Her duties as a volunteer included fundraising. Mrs. Williams described her initial relationship with Respondent as a casual friendship. Mrs. Williams kept her parent-teacher organization materials in his office and would often call him to gain access to those materials. A self- described “hugger,” while at Edwins, Mrs. Williams used to initiate hugs with Respondent and others. Although not a part of the allegations against Respondent, the evidence shows that, on one occasion, while at Edwins, Respondent asked Ms. Williams “was [she] ever into blacks." Mrs. Williams responded, “No” and that she was married. Respondent asked if she knew anybody who was into blacks because he had a friend who was into “white chicks.” Mrs. Williams told him that she knew a secretary at Choctaw who dated “black guys.” There is no indication that Mrs. Williams considered this conversation with Respondent as offensive or harassment. Mrs. Williams’ email attached to her Formal Complaint alleges that, while at Edwins, Respondent made inappropriate comments to her about her body, parts of her body, the way her clothes fit and asked to photograph parts of her body. Mrs. Williams testified that she was dismayed by his comments but never told Respondent to stop or leave her alone. Regarding Respondent’s alleged request to photograph her, Mrs. Williams testified that he made the request only once; she shook her head "No," but did not verbalize any protests and walked away. Mrs. Williams also alleges that while working at Edwins, Respondent made her aware that he was interested in her by his eye gestures and other nonverbal cues, as well as sometimes saying “whoa” when he walked by her. Respondent denies making gestures or statements indicating that he was sexually interested in Mrs. Williams. There is no indication that Mrs. Williams ever told Respondent to stop his alleged behavior or that she reported the incidents at the time. Mrs. Williams does not recall whether she reported Respondent’s alleged comments or request to photograph her to anyone at the time. Respondent denies the allegations. No witnesses were called to corroborate Mrs. Williams' allegations, and Mrs. Williams testified that she could not “attest” to anyone who could corroborate her allegations. In her testimony, Mrs. Williams explained the reference in her email attached to her Formal Complaint about the occasion at Edwins when Respondent allegedly told her to “move over mom” after she had introduced her daughter. She testified that Respondent’s statement was very offensive and sexual in nature because she believed that Respondent was saying that he liked her but now that he saw her daughter “[he was] going to go after [her] daughter.” Mrs. Williams further testified that she believed that the incident was a reportable offense because her daughter was a minor at the time, but that her daughter did not want to report and she did not file a formal complaint. Mrs. Williams testified that that Respondent had referred to her by nicknames such as “baby,” “baby girl” and “sweetie,” which she found unprofessional and made her feel uncomfortable. While there is evidence that Respondent has used the term “baby girl” in his vernacular, he explained that he used the term as just another way for saying “how you doing.” Respondent explained in his testimony that it was just “[a]nother saying for saying hey, shortie, like they say. So you say, hey, baby girl, how are you doing today?” The context of Mrs. Williams' testimony on this point suggests that Respondent used the nicknames for Mrs. Williams while they were both at Edwins. There is no evidence, however, that Mrs. Williams reported these instances at the time. There is also no evidence that Mrs. Williams ever told Respondent not to call her nicknames, or that she reported Respondent’s use of nicknames. Remarkably, Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint does not even mention that Respondent called her by nicknames. Despite the allegations against him, there is no evidence that while at Edwins, or at any other time, Respondent asked Mrs. Williams for a date, out for drinks, suggested that they have sex, touched her inappropriately, talked to her on the phone outside of school, or interfered with Mrs. Williams’ ability to perform her volunteer duties or responsibilities. The allegations against Respondent, while he was at Edwins, do not fall within the “course of the last three years” as alleged in the charging document (the November 14, 2017, letter) and are, therefore, inconsistent with the reasons espoused by the School Board for the discipline sought in this case. Moreover, considering the fact that Mrs. Williams’ allegations against Respondent while he was at Edwins were not timely reported, that her allegations were uncorroborated, drew no protest from Mrs. Williams at the time, and were denied by Respondent, it is found that the evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent harassed Mrs. Williams, sexually or otherwise, while at Edwins. In sum, the evidence presented at the final hearing was insufficient to prove that Respondent made “repeated inappropriate comments,” which led to “coworkers feeling harassed” while he was at Edwins. The evidence also failed to show that Respondent was transferred because of those comments or because illicit material was found in his desk. LATE 2014 ALLEGATIONS OF UNWANTED SEXUAL BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT LEADING TO RESPONDENT’S DEMOTION AND TRANSFER FROM LEAD CUSTODIAN TO A CUSTODIAN AT CHOCTAW This allegation, as set forth in the November 1, 2017, letter from the assistant superintendent, refers to allegations of sexual harassment that occurred in 2014 when Respondent was a lead custodian at OTC, which is in the same facility as Choice. In 2014, Respondent began working at Choice as a lead custodian. The allegations arising from Respondent’s time at Choice are not included within Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint. The School Board presented no testimony or competent substantial evidence to prove the underlying facts that Respondent committed “unwanted sexual behavior constituting sexual harassment” while at Choice. Respondent testified concerning this alleged prior discipline, acknowledging that he allowed a teacher at Choice to listen to some rap music, that he used the term “baby girl,” and that the School Board considered the use of the term “baby girl” a form of sexual harassment. Respondent denied, however, that he engaged in inappropriate conduct or sexual harassment. Respondent testified that he accepted a transfer as a lead custodian at Choice to a Custodian II position at Choctaw. He further testified that he was advised by the School Board that he would be transferred back to a lead custodian when a position became available. The School Board presented its Exhibit P-8a as evidence of this alleged prior discipline, which was ultimately proffered and “admitted” as a proffered exhibit (Proffer P-8a). Upon reconsideration, while it lacks evidentiary value, Proffer P-8a is received into evidence. Proffer P-8a, entitled “Confidential Inquiry Summary,” is an investigative report purportedly authored by Arden E. Farley, as a contract investigator for the School Board. Proffer P-8a does not prove the underlying facts and does not constitute competent evidence in support of the discipline sought against Respondent in this case. No witnesses were called to prove the underlying discipline related to Respondent’s alleged demotion. Furthermore, Proffer P-8a is hearsay and does not corroborate direct testimony or any other competent evidence. Because Proffer P-8a references Respondent’s alleged use of the term “baby-girl,” the School Board, through counsel, argued that Proffer P-8a is evidence that Respondent was aware that the use of the term “baby-girl,” or similar terms, was improper and could subject him to discipline. This conclusion is contrary to the evidence presented at the hearing. Although Mrs. Williams testified that Mr. Hall used the term during their time at Edwins, Respondent and Mrs. Williams were at Edwins prior to Respondent’s time at Choice. Thus, Proffer P-8a could not have put Respondent on notice that it was inappropriate for him to refer to Mrs. Williams as “baby-girl” while at Edwins. There is otherwise no competent evidence that Respondent referred to Mrs. Williams, or any other complainant, as “baby-girl” or any other nickname while at Choctaw. ALLEGED HARASSMENT OF A SCHOOL VOLUNTEER AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES NOT TO ENTER THE SCHOOL FRONT OFFICE AT CHOCTAW Harassment is governed by the School Board’s equity policy. Respondent acknowledged that he received a copy of the then existing Equity Policy in 2009. No evidence was presented as to what the Equity Policy consisted of in 2009. The Equity Policies presented at the final hearing reveal that two of the policies were adopted in 2015 and a third Equity Policy was adopted at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting; the same School Board meeting where the superintendent’s recommendation to terminate Respondent was considered and approved. The alleged harassment of a school volunteer while at Choctaw appears to include encounters at football games, in the front office, and one time at Mrs. Williams’ home. Football Games The testimony at hearing revealed that Mrs. Williams was complaining about two encounters with Respondent at football games. Respondent’s duties at Choctaw required him to be present at football games. During the first encounter, Mrs. Williams and her son were in the stands watching a Choctaw football game. There is a fence that divides the stands. Respondent was on one side of the fence and he attempted to initiate a conversation with Mrs. Williams and her son. Respondent was saying “hello.” Mrs. Williams ignored Respondent and no conversation was undertaken. The second encounter occurred prior to a Pryor Middle School football game, which was taking place at Choctaw. Mrs. Williams, accompanied by her son, was setting up a parent- teacher organization table, and Respondent approached her and her son and initiated a conversation with her son. Mr. Hall knows Mrs. Williams’ son from his time at Edwins. Towards the end of the brief conversation, Respondent asked Mrs. Williams if he could speak with her for a “hot minute.” Mrs. Williams glared at him and then said “no,” and Respondent went about his way. Respondent presented credible testimony that a “hot minute” is slang for “a second” or “just for a minute.” There was no other evidence concerning the term “hot minute.” Front Office The email attached to Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint states that Respondent’s “approaching me at the front desk at Choctaw began to be a habit for Steve Hall.” The email further states that Mr. Hall was in the front office three times during the first month and a half of the 2017-2018 school year. In a separate email, Mrs. Williams documented an “encounter” that occurred on September 1, 2017. She does not indicate that Respondent had any contact with her, just that he was in the front office. In fact, on that occasion, Mrs. Williams turned her back to Respondent and Ms. Gloria Scaife, who was working in the front office, spoke with him. In an email, dated September 7, 2017, Ms. Scaife states that Respondent was in the office and asked her if she had seen Ms. Liz (who is the lead custodian). Respondent credibly explained that, on that occasion, he went to the front office to find his supervisor to obtain access to supplies. A second encounter in the 2017-2018 school year occurred in the mailroom. Mrs. Williams was in the mailroom when Respondent entered the room. Mrs. Williams testified that Respondent “cornered her in mailroom . . . that she couldn’t get around him . . . and that he was upset and very loud.” She further testified that she “could not move without touching [Respondent].” Mrs. Williams’ testimony conflicts with the other accounts of this encounter, which are more credible. Andy Snaith, dean of students for Choctaw, testified that there were other people in the mailroom and that he observed “what appeared to be a conversation with [Respondent] and Mrs. Williams. [Respondent's] back was to me. I believe he was doing the talking . . . .” When asked for more detail, Mr. Snaith stated: Q: And with other people in the mailroom, was there enough room, based on what you saw from Mrs. Williams, to back away from Mr. Hall? A: Yeah. It wasn't that crowded. Q: So there was plenty of room for her to move around? A: Yes. Q: Any idea what they were talking about? A: No. Q: How would Mrs. Williams get out of the mailroom, if she wanted to leave? A: There's two ways, I believe where she was standing, she could have gone to the left or to the right. The left is where the door that leads into the hallway, and then the other one leads to the main office. Consistent with the recollection of Mr. Snaith, Respondent testified that upon being told by Mrs. Sanders that Mrs. Williams was telling others that he was saying things to Mrs. Williams, he went to the office to ask Mrs. Williams if this was true. Respondent further testified: I asked [Mrs. Williams], calm and simple, [Mrs. Williams], have I talked to you, have I seen you? She said, no, I haven't seen you in three, four months. I said, that's all I wanted to know, because Liz is making a comment that I have said something to you and that was not true, and I walked away. It is unclear from the testimony as to exactly when this conversation took place, other than sometime early in the 2017-2018 school year. It is clear, however, that that occasion was the last time that Respondent was in the front office area at Choctaw. In her testimony, Mrs. Williams stated that she was not alleging or asserting that Mr. Hall had committed racial discrimination, nor that he made adverse remarks about her color, age, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, or marital status. And Mrs. Williams does not allege that Respondent made any comments about her body parts, the way her clothing fit, or asked to take photos of her while he was at Choctaw. Rather, those allegations allegedly occurred while Respondent was at Edwins, were unreported for years and could not be corroborated. There is no evidence that Respondent ever told Mrs. Williams to perform any improper act and then threatened her with consequences if she failed to comply. There is also no evidence that Respondent ever had authority to make employment decisions affecting Mrs. Williams. Mrs. Williams’ House Respondent first met Mrs. Williams prior to the time related in any of the allegations, when he went by her house to inquire about some tire rims that her husband had for sale. Mrs. Williams testified that in the summer of 2017, two weeks prior to the start of school, Respondent came by her house and parked at the curb. Her son alerted her that Respondent wanted to talk to her. She testified that she was upset because Respondent was there and she spoke with Respondent while he sat in his car. She could not recall what was discussed, but knows the conversation lasted only a couple of minutes, and that she then turned around and walked away.3/ Mrs. Williams stated that Respondent had been by her home on several different occasions but could not elaborate on any other incidents. Respondent acknowledged that he had gone by Mrs. Williams’ house because he does lawn service and was riding by her house. As he recalled, he noticed her son in the yard and asked him to get Mrs. Williams. Respondent and Mrs. Williams had a brief conversation. At no time during that conversation, or any other conversation, did Mrs. Williams tell Respondent to “stay away,” “leave me alone,” or make any other gesture or comment indicating that Respondent was to avoid her. Further, there is insufficient evidence to show that anyone from the School Board told Respondent to avoid contact with Mrs. Williams. Alleged Failure to Follow Directives Respondent acknowledged that shortly after starting at Choctaw, he had been verbally advised to avoid the front office. Mr. Mims, the School Board’s zone manager for custodial services, was the first person to advise Respondent to stay away from the front office. The Dean of Students Andy Snaith never told Respondent to avoid the front office. Even though told not to go to the front office, Respondent had to go by the front office every day. In that regard, Mr. Mims told Respondent that they could not keep him out of the school. Although Respondent understood that the request that he refrain from going to the front office may have been designed to minimize his contact with Mrs. Williams, there was no evidence or testimony presented by the School Board showing that Respondent was ever specifically told to avoid Mrs. Williams or why he was supposed to avoid the front office. Mr. Mims testified that he told Respondent to avoid the front office twice. He further testified that he was aware of Respondent being in the front office only three times over the course of three school years. When finding out about these situations, instead of having a face-to-face meeting, Mr. Mims would merely call Respondent on the phone. Respondent acknowledged going to the front office only twice in 2017, the first being while looking for Mrs. Sanders and the second being the conversation with Mrs. Williams when she was in the mailroom. There is no evidence of a written directive or other documentation advising Respondent to avoid the front office until a September 18, 2017, meeting between Respondent, Bill Smith, and Andy Mims. At that meeting, which was the first meeting between Mr. Smith and Respondent, Respondent was specifically advised to not go into the front office. Respondent has not been in the front office, nor has Bill Smith received a report that Respondent has been in the front office since their meeting in September 2017. Even though there were two instances where Respondent went to the the front office after speaking with Mr. Mims, Mr. Mims testified that while Respondent worked for him, he “met expectations as an employee.” Mr. Mims further testified that Respondent “did everything I asked him to do.” Mr. Mims statements are consistent with his written evaluations of Mr. Hall’s work performed in May 2017, May 2016, May 2015, and May 2014. The stated purpose of the evaluations is to “support decisions concerning employee discipline, promotion and improvement.” Respondent’s evaluations during the pertinent time period do not support the discipline sought in this case. To the contrary, they conclude that he is a hard worker and that he meets the expectations of his supervisors. Even when he allegedly received prior discipline while at Choice during the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was not placed on a “success plan” for improvement and, in fact, received a “meets expectations” evaluation. The evaluations written by Respondent’s supervisors conclude that Respondent “Demonstrates a willingness to accept authority and direction; Demonstrates appropriate interactions with staff, clients, students and/or parents; Demonstrates appropriate oral skills when communicating with others; [and] Demonstrates appropriate relations with supervisor and peers.” Recognizing that there were issues at Choctaw unrelated to Mrs. Williams, Respondent requested transfers to another school. These transfer requests began during the 2016-2017 school year and continued during the beginning of the 2017- 2018 school year. Even though there were positions available in the schools where Respondent desired to transfer, his supervisor, Mr. Mims, denied Respondent’s requests for transfers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Okaloosa County School Board: Dismissing the allegations against Respondent in this case and rescinding any discipline imposed thereby; Reinstating Respondent’s employment with the Okaloosa County School Board as though there was no break in service of his employment; Restoring all salary, benefits, and rights from the date of his last paid workday to the date of his reinstatement, plus interest from the date that any such pay or benefit was withheld, as appropriate under applicable law; less any earnings or benefits that Respondent received during the time between his termination and the time of his reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 9th day of November, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated October 1, 1980, Respondent, David K. Witherspoon, and his parents were advised by the Pinellas County Superintendent of Schools, Gus Sakkis, that he was being suspended from the public schools of Pinellas County for the remainder of the 1980/81 and 1981/82 school years based on an allegation that Respondent committed a battery while on school grounds on September 19, 1980, following a high school football game. (Joint Exhibit 1) Respondent is scheduled to graduate from high school at the end of the 1981/82 school year. Following the expulsion, Respondent has been assigned and is attending an evening alternative education school program sponsored by the Pinellas County School System. According to testimony, that a system provides two hours of instruction each week day evening. Respondent appealed the Superintendent's expulsion and the parties stipulated that the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to resolve this controversy. According to the Code of Student Conduct, students are expected to conduct themselves at all times in a manner that "shall [not] infringe on the rights of others. A battery, according to the Code of Student Conduct, is the unlawful, intentional touching . . . or force to another person, done in a rude, insolent and angry manner shall subject a student to disciplinary action which may include suspension or expulsion from school." Paragraph 3(a)2, Code of Student Conduct. The material allegations of this controversy are that following the football game at Gibbs Senior High School (Gibbs) on September 19, 1980, Respondent while in the company of four other black males struck Anthony Scott Taylor, a seventeen year old senior at Gibbs, his mother and his fiancee in the school's parking lot. Anthony Taylor charged that Respondent kicked him across his eye; struck him with his fist, bruising his nose and caused his eye to bleed. Taylor has know Respondent for more than two years and has had no prior run-ins or altercations with Respondent. Taylor alleges that approximately 20 or more black students encircled him during the altercation with Respondent. Taylor, while on his knees in a slouched position when he was allegedly hit an kicked by Respondent, glanced up to identify Respondent. Taylor admitted that he was preoccupied with ensuring that his fiancee and mother could leave the parking area without difficulty. He also commented that blood was streaming from his right eye from the blow he received. Ann Taylor, Anthony Taylor's mother, was also struck by a black male as she was leaving the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Mrs. Taylor testified that her son was knocked down he (Anthony) told one of the black males "that's my mother you knocked down." Mrs. Taylor testified that she was unable to identify any of the students involved in the altercation and noted that her son was dazed when he left the area where the fight occurred. Lori Bush, Respondent's fiancee, also accompanied the Taylors following the football game. Ms. Bush also could not identify any of the students involved in the altercation with them. Ms. Bush and Anthony Taylor's mother picked him up and carried him to their car. Ms. Bush did not recall having seen Respondent prior to the hearing in this cause. Paula Sitzelberger, a detective with the St. Petersburg Police Department investigated the subject incident which occurred at Gibbs on September 19, 1980. Detective Sitzelberger spoke to Respondent at school on September 23, 1980, and after questioning him, reported that Respondent denied striking Anthony Taylor following the game. Detective Sitzelberger noted that Respondent admitted to having shoved another white male whose identity is unknown in another area of the parking lot after the white male allegedly pulled or struck Respondent. Detective Sitzelberger was unable to locate any independent witnesses to the subject incident. Jerry Young, a witness called on behalf of Respondent, recalled the numerous fights which occurred following the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Young followed Respondent throughout the school ground area and denied that Respondent had any involvement in the subject incident. He corroborated Respondent's testimony to the effect that Respondent's hand was injured in another incident in another area of the school's parking area after Respondent was first enmeshed in an altercation with another white male. Respondent related the incident following the September 19, 1980, football game at Gibbs. Respondent has been attending evening sessions at Mirror Lake Adult High School since his expulsion from the regular public schools of Pinellas County. According to Respondent, Tony Taylor was struck by a group of other blacks and Respondent denied any involvement on his part in that incident. Respondent surmised that Tony Taylor shouted that he recognized him while he was being struck in an effort to gain some sympathy from the group that was striking him. Respondent, after hearing Tony Taylor shouted that he recognized him while he was being struck in an effort to gain some sympathy from the group that was striking him. Respondent, after hearing Tony Taylor repeatedly shout that he knew him, left the area with companion Young although he got involved in another altercation with another white male which resulted in an injury to his hand. Respondent first became aware of his alleged involvement in the Anthony Taylor incident the following Monday when he was questioned by Dean Jones and Detective Sitzelberger. 2/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be reinstated in the Pinellas County School System; that the suspension be revoked and that the student be permitted to make up the school work missed as provided in Chapter 4(b)1(h) of the Code of Student Conduct adopted by the Pinellas County School System. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1981.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner's, Orange County School Board, suspension without pay of Razzi Lee Smith from his position of classroom teacher is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, posthearing briefs and memoranda, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. During times material to the allocations herein, Respondent, Razzi Lee Smith, was employed by the Petitioner, School Board of Orange County, Florida, as a classroom teacher at Rock Lake Elementary School. On October 7, 1980, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay from his position as a teacher pending a hearing. Respondent requested a hearing pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 120.57(1) and 231.36, Florida Statutes (1979). The charges upon which the suspension is based are, in summary fashion, that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office. The specific charges are based upon the following grounds: On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent twice refused a lawful and reasonable order of his Principal. On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent threatened his Principal. During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent evidenced in the presence of others, a continuing belligerent and hostile attitude towards his Principal. During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent failed to follow the established written procedures for calling in if he was to be late or not present. 5. On September 2, 19, 22, 24 and 25, 1980, Respondent failed to report to the school by 8:00 o'clock a.m. as required in the Faculty Handbook. Additionally, Respondent was charged with misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty based upon the following grounds: On August 29, 1980, Respondent was absent from his assigned work location at Rock Lake Elementary School. On September 12, 1980, Respondent took sick leave for one half day claiming that he was too sick to finish the school day at Rock Lake Elementary School but later attended a football game in Tampa, Florida. On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave claiming to be too sick to teach at Rock Lake Elementary School but attended football practice at Jones High School as a coach. On September 26, 1980, Respondent provided the Superintendent with a false oral statement, to wit, that he did not leave to go to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, until approximately 7:00 o'clock p.m., arriving at the game around half time at 8:30 p.m., when in fact Ice left to go to the game with the Jones High School football team. Lois Begley has been the acting principal at Rock Lake Elementary School since approximately February, 1980. Upon assuming the duties of acting principal, Ms. Begley immediately advised teachers at Rock Lake to report for work at 8:00 o'clock a.m. and leave at 3:30 p.m. Petitioner has a policy whereby teachers who find it necessary to be absent must report such intentions by 6:30 a.m. by notifying either Ms. Begley or an office employee at Rock Lake, Caroline Johnson. Respondent was advised of this policy; was warned of his breach of said policy on two occasions during February and March of 1980, and admitted that he was aware of the policy. (Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4 and 5) Ms. Begley stressed the need to know of a teacher's intended absence prior to 7:00 o'clock a.m. in order to recruit a substitute teacher. Subsequent to March, 1980, Respondent was again advised of Petitioner's policy respecting timely reporting for duty at Rock Lake Elementary School. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6) During a faculty meeting held during the afternoon of the last day of preplanning, August 29, 1980, Ms. Begley observed that Respondent was not present. She inquired of Respondent's whereabouts and was advised by an office employee that Respondent had called and reported that he was experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley observed Respondent at Jones High School later that same afternoon. During the last week of August, 1980, Respondent advised Ms. Begley that he had been leaving Rock Lake approximately one hour early each day during the preplanning week to assume coaching duties at Jones High and that this was cleared prior to Ms. Begley's tenure as acting principal at Rock Lake. Ms. Begley reluctantly agreed to Respondent's early departure during that school year, however, she made clear to Respondent that he would be expected to teach a full day the following year. Respondent and Ms. Begley made an agreement whereby he would report to work one half hour early, i.e., at 7:30 a.m., in order to make up for one half of the time lost due to his early departure from Rock Lake to coach at Jones High School. Respondent failed to report for duty at 7:30 a.m. as was his agreement with Ms. Begley. September 2, 1980, was the first school day for students at Rock Lake. Respondent reported for work at approximately 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980, and several students were observed milling around in the hallways attempting to find Respondent to enter their homeroom class. Respondent called the office at Rock Lake at approximately 8:30 a.m. on September 2, and advised that he was again experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley offered to assist Respondent in getting a ride to school. Within minutes, Ms. Begley had located a ride for Respondent. Ms. Begley called to so advise Respondent, whereupon Respondent told Ms. Begley that he had found a ride. As stated, Respondent reported for duty at 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980. Ms. Begley counselled Respondent regarding his claimed transportation problems again and stressed the reasons for her need to be alerted when he would be reporting late for work. Respondent generally discussed his problems with Ms. Begley on September 12, indicating that he was encountering personal problems that he did not care to divulge and that there were rumors about him being circulated around the school amongst other faculty members. Ms. Begley later discussed the problem regarding that fact that he had failed to make up 150 of the 300 minutes that he owed the School due to his early departure to coach at Jones High Sclcool during the week of preplanning. Ms. Begley did not take disciplinary action against Respondent due to his lateness in reporting for duty on the first day of school. Respondent requested the services of a substitute teacher to "fill in" for him during the afternoon of September 12, 1980, because he was ill. Respondent initially refused to divulge to school officials the nature of his illness. He attended and coached a football game between Jones High School and a local high school in Tampa that night. On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. As late as 8:30 a.m. on that day, several students were unable to get in class and Respondent failed to call to advise Ms. Begley or the designated official that he would report for work late. When questioned as to the reason for his tardiness by Ms. Begley, Respondent replied that he had earlier advised her that he was having transportation problems. Ms. Begley again counselled Respondent regarding his continued tardiness in reporting to work. At that time, he was also directed not to use school supplies to photocopy football plays for use at Jones High School without proper authorization. On September 19, office aides, Ann Green and W. Oliver, work situs was in the immediate area where Respondent was counselled by Ms. Begley and were in earshot of the conversations. Respondent balked and became vocal about being counselled by Ms. Begley for reporting late. Ms. Begley reported the incident to Dr. Skaggs, Superintendent in charge of employee relations and Ron Blocker, Area Superintendent, who serves as a liaison between the superintendent and individual school principals. During the conference with Ms. Begley on September 19, Respondent voiced displeasure about the working conditions at Rock Lake and expressed a desire to transfer when Ms. Begley reported what she termed to be threatening remarks by Respondent to Dr. Skaggs. On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. and was summoned for a conference with Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. During the conference, Respondent expressed disagreement or displeasure regarding the atmosphere in which he was being questioned and indicated that he preferred to leave. Respondent was warned of the consequences that might flow from his acts and conduct which could include either disciplinary action by way of a suspension or a failure to be reappointed for another term should he not heed the advice and warnings given him by his Principal, Ms. Begley. 2/ On September 22, 1980, Respondent reported for duty at approximately 8:14 a.m. Respondent did not call to advise Ms. Begley or the other designated official. Ms. Begley spoke to Respondent about his reporting tardy at approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 22, 1980. Present during the conference were Respondent, Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. Respondent was invited to offer and explanation or statement with reference to his continued pattern of reporting for duty late, however, he refused to make any verbal response. Ms. Begley reduced the oral reprimand to writing and delivered it to Respondent who failed to accept or verify that he was issued a reprimand. On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave and, therefore, did not report for work at Rock Lake. On that same day, however, Ms. Begley observed respondent at the football field at Jones High School between the hours of 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. working with a small group of football players. On the following day, September 24, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:07 a.m. Ms. Begley summoned Respondent to a conference, explaining to him at the outset of the possible consequences that might result from the conference. Given the gravity of the possible consequences, Ms. Begley inquired if Respondent cared to bring a witness or other representatives to be present with him during the conference. During the conference, Ms. Begley advised Respondent that she regreted having to give him a written reprimand but that his acts and conduct gave her no alternative. A copy of a reprimand was then given Respondent which he refused to sign acknowledging acceptance (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7). The parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement requires that written reprimands respecting lateness or failure to report for work be documented by a letter to that effect (Petitioner's exhibits Nos. 8 and 9). Ms. Begley, then, during the conference, asked Respondent if she could be of any further assistance to him, whereupon, Respondent in a hostile manner advised that he did not need or want any assistance and began pointing his finger at Ms. Begley telling her to "leave him alone." Respondent was told by Ms. Begley that that kind of conduct (vocal and belligerent outbursts) could result in disciplinary action to him. Ms. Begley inquired of Respondent what type leave he took on September 23, 1980, whereupon, Respondent advised that he went to see a doctor. Ms. Begley then asked Respondent to provide her with a doctor's statement to document that claim. Respondent never provided Ms. Begley with a medical excuse for his absence as requested. Ms. Begley considered that Respondent's demeanor and mannerism during the conference of September 24, 1980, constituted a threat based on the tone of his voice and the message, i.e., "quit messing with me. Stop bothering me--I'll do more than threaten you" (when Ms. Begley asked Respondent if he was threatening her). She also considered that Respondent's failure to signify acceptance of the reprimand constituted a compromise of her authority. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, pages 22, 23). Respondent later discussed the decision to discipline Respondent and ultimately decided to recommend his dismissal to Superintendent Skaggs and Area Superintendent Blocker during the evening of September 25, 1980. The possibility of a transfer was considered by Ms. Begley but rejected inasmuch as she was of the opinion that a transfer would not serve any useful purpose in correcting the problems evidenced by Respondent's erratic work habits. Ms. Begley considered that her attempt to reprimand Respondent was ineffective and incomplete based on his refusal to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the reprimand plus the combination of the insubordinate attitude displayed by him in the presence of his peers, his neglect of duty and tardiness in reporting for work, when combined, warranted a recommendation to the Superintendent that Respondent be dismissed as opposed to a transfer or some other lesser form of reprimand or discipline. Ron Blocker, the area administrator and liaison between the Superintendent and the Principal were summoned to Rock Lake Elementary School to assist Ms. Begley in what was once thought to be a possible teacher resignation. During the conference on September 24, 1980, Administrator Blocker advised Respondent that his failure to sign for receipt of a written reprimand could have grave disciplinary consequences in view of the gravity of the charges and Respondent's hostile conduct as manifested throughout the conference. Administrator Blocker recalled the forceful tone used by Respondent in telling Ms. Begley that he was "doing more than threatening her." Administrator Blocker also recalled Respondent's refusal to advise Begley of the reason for his absence the day prior to the conference indicating instead that she would know at the end of the work day. During the conference, Administrator Blocker recalled that he twice cautioned Respondent that his (Respondent's) refusal to follow an administrative directive may be interpreted as "gross insubordination" which could lead to possible termination or failure to be reappointed (as a teacher) the following school year. Calvin Perry is Director of Drivers Education and is the head football coach at Jones High School. As head football coach, Coach Perry is familiar with the duties of Respondent, a paid assistant coach assigned to coach the defensive team at Jones High School. Coach Perry confirmed that Respondent was present at the September 12, 1980, game in Tampa indicating that Respondent was present during the pre-warm ups and was present throughout the entire game. Coach Perry credibly testified that Respondent was present for football practice on September 23, 1980, having reported at the start of practice at approximately 3:00 p.m. and remained throughout the practice session which lasted until approxiately 5:15 p.m. However, Coach Perry also acknowledged that Respondent indicated that Respondent was ill at the game in Tampa. James L. Schott, Petitioner's Superintendent was shown copies of the letters sent to Respondent bearing the dates September 26, and October 4, 1980, respecting his suspension of Respondent without pay. Superintendent Schott explained that a conference was called to hear the nature of the charges; to hear both sides; to evaluate the evidence and determine the nature of, if any, recommended penalty he would make to the School Board, prior to making any recommendation based on the subject charges. Superintendent Schott recalled that while Respondent explained that he was ill on September 12, 1980, he was able to attend a football game in Tampa although he arrived during halftime because he was not feeling well and was uncertain as to whether he would attend the game at all. Respondent maintained his "story" to Superintendent Schott about attending the Tampa game during halftime. When Respondent advised Superintendent Schott that he also took sick leave on September 23, 1980, Superintendent Schott reminded Respondent of the similar situation by him on September 12, and, therefore, asked that he bring any documentary evidence of illness that he had so that it could be considered prior to his making any decision on the pending charges against him. Therefore, Superintendent Schott counselled Respondent regarding his failure to follow what he considered to have been lawful and reasonable requests regarding his attendance and timely reporting to work. During the Superintendent's conference with Respondent on September 26, 1980, he determined that Respondent was late approximately 50 minutes on September 19; approximately 14 minutes on September 20th and several minutes late on September 21 and 22. On September 23, respondent was absent for work claiming sick leave. According to Superintendent Schott, Respondent acknowledged that he might have made a threat to Ms. Begley during the conference on September 24, 1980. Superintendent Schott was able to independently determine from an investigation of the charges that Respondent had offered false information regarding his attendance to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, inasmuch as other credible evidence indicated Respondent's presence at that game throughout its entirety. After considerable deliberation, Superintendent Schott determined that termination was the only appropriate remedy that he should recommend to the full School Board to discipline Respondent. In making this decision, Superintendent Schott reflected on the facts that Respondent had obviously been terminated for failure to report to work as assigned and that to transfer Respondent would merely pass the problem to another Administrator to grapple with. Superintendent Schott, after much consideration, made the decision to recommend Respondent's termination without animosity and with much sensitivity to the problem based on the rapport that Respondent appeared to have with the youth and his peers at Rock Lake Elementary School. Superintendent Schott offered that teaching was more by example than by class room actions and that the responsibility of a teacher included getting to work promptly and was more than the usual duties expected once a teacher gets to class such as adding columns, deciphering words, reading etc. RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE Respondent is a 1975 graduate of South Carolina State College and as stated, has been employed as a sixth grade teacher at Rock lake since the 1979- 80 school year. While so employed, Respondent has been involved in several school related activities outside his normal teaching duties, including Chairman of the Student Council; contact or liaison for Career Education; Chairman of the Safety Patrol; Scout leader and CTA representative. 3/ Respondent admits to not returning for duty on August 29, 1980, as charged. However, he exclaimed that he encountered car trouble enroute to his mother's home for lunch and consequently had to walk a distance of approximately two miles. Respondent also reported late for duty on September 2, due to transportation problems and did not arrive until approximately 8:45 a.m. Respondent also left school on September 12, 1990, at approximately 12:50 p.m. due to illness. Respondent admitted that he attended the game in Tampa on the evening of September 12, 1980. Respondent explains that this was possible because his health improved from the nauseated condition that he had suffered earlier during the day. Respondent rode to the game in Tampa with scouting coaches Smith and Robertson and arrived at the stadium in time for program warm-ups. 4/ Respondent also admitted reporting for work late on September 19 and 22, 1980. Respondent refused to sign a statement acknowledging acceptance of the written reprimand by Ms. Begley on September 24, 1980, based on his claimed "lack of trust" for Ms. Begley. In this regard, however, Respondent admits that Ms. Begley explained to him that signing the statement attached to the reprimand in no way signified agreement with the contents of the reprimand. Respondent claimed to have felt pressured to tell the Superintendent that he left Orlando at approximately 7:00 p.m. on the evening of September 12, 1980, and arrived at the game at halftime but that there was no willful attempt by him to misstate or otherwise misrepresent the facts to Superintendent Schott. The facts do not evidence a basis for Respondent's feeling. In this regard, Respondent admitted that he arrived at the game on September 12, 1980, before it started and remained for the duration of the game. Respondent did not verbally respond to inquiries by Ms. Begley during the conference with Ms. Begley and Area Superintendent Blocker because he considered Ms Begley's inquiry to be a form of harassment and an attempt by her to treat him as a "child." Finally, Respondent considered that by telling Ms. Begley that he was initially experiencing transportation problems excused his reporting requirements when he subsequently reported for work late.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be dismissed as an instructional employee of the Orange County School System. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
