Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
SCHOOL BOARD OF BROWARD COUNTY AND WILLIAM T. MCFATTE vs. FRANCIS J. SORTINO, 82-000250 (1982)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-000250 Latest Update: May 24, 1982

Findings Of Fact Respondent Francis J. Sortino has been employed by the School Board of Broward County at Deerfield Beach High School in Deerfield Beach, Florida, since 1970 when the school opened. For ten years, he served as the school's planetarium director. In 1979 or 1980, he returned to teaching science in the classroom. In the fall of 1981, he taught a third-hour science class in which Thomas Bates, Debbie Landoskey, Lonnie McKever, Ricky Huntley, Steve Santiago, and Joe Sawyer, among others, were enrolled. On October 28, 1981, Joe Sawyer took the seat near the back of the class to which he had been assigned at the beginning of the school year, even though he had been subsequently reassigned to a seat in the front of the class. When Joe Sawyer and Steven Santiago began talking to each other, Mr. Sortino directed Joe Sawyer to take the seat at the front of the class. Joe Sawyer, who stood five feet one inch, weighed 97 or 98 pounds, and was 15 years old at the time of the hearing, complied with this request, but soon struck up a conversation with Thomas Bates. Thereupon Mr. Sortino told Joe Sawyer to move again, over near Debbie Peck. Joe Sawyer stood up, began moving in the direction Mr. Sortino had indicated (T. 293), and asked, "Where do you want me to move?" at least once. Mr. Sortino then picked up an empty desk, threw it so that it slid some ten feet across the floor and stopped against the wall, grabbed Joe Sawyer by the nape of the neck, forcibly set him down in the desk, and struck him with his open hand, using first his palm and then the back of his hand. These cuffs, no more than four in all, were not administered with Mr. Sortino's full strength; they fell on Joe Sawyer's shoulder or on the back of his neck. All this occurred in the presence of some 30 classmates, a few of whom called out urging Joe Sawyer to go to the school office to report the incident. Joe Sawyer did not cry, call out or resist. His face reddened and he laid his head down on his desk, but he was not seriously hurt. He did not require medical assistance or sustain any permanent injury. Aside from Mr. Sortino, no adult was present when respondent struck Sawyer. Mr. Sortino made no effort during third-hour science class on October 28, 1981, to secure the presence of another adult. The school principal, Rosa J. Lawson, had not delegated to respondent or any other teacher the authority to administer corporal punishment. On October 28, 1981, the School Board of Broward County had in force the following policy, No. 5301: Discipline - Corporal Punishment The principal, or in his/her absence, the person in charge of the school, shall have the responsibility for maintaining overall disci- pline within the school setting. The principal shall share with the teacher the responsibility for maintaining proper school conduct and morale. Further, he/she may delegate to the teachers such responsibility for control and direction of the students as he/she considers desirable. When and where such responsibility has been delegated the teachers shall be sup- ported in any reasonable action they may take. Each pupil enrolled in a school shall, during the time he/she is being transported to or from school at public expense, during the time he/ she is attending school, and during the time he/she is on the school premises, be under the authority of the principal or teacher in charge of the school, and under the immediate control and direction of the teacher or other member of the instructional staff or of the bus driver to whom such responsibility may be assigned by the principal. The board shall do everything within its legal power to protect and support the principal and teachers in their disciplinary role. This shall include legal support in accordance with Florida Statutes, Section 230.234. In addition, the board shall assist the principal, teacher, bus driver and/or other school staff members in bringing about penalties for the disruption of school functions or assault upon the instruc- tional staff as set forth under Florida Statutes, Section[s] 231.06 and 231.07. Corporal punishment may be administered at the discretion of the principal or his/her designated representative. Normally this should be done only after other corrective measures have been tried without success. A teacher shall not inflict corporal punish- ment except upon approval of the principal and only then in the presence of another adult who is informed beforehand, and in the student's presence, of the reason for the punishment. Such punishment may not be degrading or unduly severe in its nature. (For clarification, see Florida Statutes, Section 232.27) All suspensions or expulsions shall be made in accordance with Florida Statutes and board policy 5006. Rules When corporal punishment is administered, the following rules shall be observed: The punishment shall be administered by the principal or by some other member of the professional staff designated by him/ her. Under no circumstances shall a stu- dent be struck about the head or shoulders. The punishment shall be administered poste- riorly by striking the student below the waist and above the knees. The administration of corporal pun- ishment shall be witnessed by at least one (1) other member of the staff. Corporal punishment shall not be administered in the presence of other students. When disciplinary action is taken by the principal and/or his/her designee the teacher referring the disciplinary case will be advised in writing of the action taken. A teacher may not suspend a child from school or class. However, in cases where an emergency situation develops, the teacher shall take such steps as are rea- sonably necessary to protect the students. The use of reasonable force necessary to isolate the disruptive student from the classroom shall not constitute corporal punishment as defined in accordance with Section 232.27, Florida Statute[s] , and shall not be used as a basis for the sus- pension of any member of the school staff nor for holding anyone liable for such an act unless the force used is degrading or unduly severe as to its nature. The designated member of the pro- fessional staff or principal who has admin- istered punishment shall provide the pupil's parent or guardian with a written explana- tion of the reason for the punishment and the name of the other adult who was present. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. The substance of this policy was fully explicated in the Deerfield Beach High School Teachers' Handbook at pp. 16, et seq., Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. The policy of the School Board of Broward County with respect to corporal punishment has not changed, in substance, for a decade or more. Respondent was furnished a copy of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9 at the beginning of the 1981-1982 school year. The Deerfield Beach High School Teachers' Guidebook also contained the following: Referrals to the Administrative Assistants The control of students is not something that can be achieved by so many rules or by the work of a few individuals, but rather by sincere and cooperative effort on the part of the entire faculty and staff to understand pupils and their problems. Teachers are encouraged to handle their own disciplinary problems whenever possible. Adequate lesson planning and consistancy [sic] of discipline are probably the best means of avoiding disciplinary difficulties. However, when a student becomes persistently unmanageable in the classroom to the detriment of the learn- ing situation or when his offense is of such a nature that he should be referred to some- one else, the teacher should write to the Administrative Assistant. This should be done only after the teacher has exhausted every means at his disposal to corre[c]t that student's conduct. In cases of EMERGENCY nature, the teacher should use the BUZZER to summon an Administrative Assistant to accompany the student to the office. When a referral becomes necessary, please use the three-part referral provided by the Administrative Assistant's office. Give as much information as possible about the reason for the referral in order to help the Administrative Assistant determine the measures to be taken. If the referral form is not adequate, please feel free to use an attachment. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. Respondent Sortino's own personal approach to discipline problems in the classroom is, he testified, fully consistent with the foregoing: If I have a child that's, you know, a minor infraction, the first thing I do is ask him to write a composition, have him take it home and get it signed by his parents. Then they bring the composition back to me. This way I ask the child to do something on why--let's say, for instance, he's just talking in class, or chewing gum, whatever it is. Whatever the infraction, I ask the student to write me a one page composition as to why they shouldn't do that in school, to take it home and have it signed by the parents, and bring it back to me. If they do it again, they write another composition. Generally, I ask them to write three compo- sitions. Generally, after three compositions, what I do is call home. That is not always successful, but I have made phone calls to parents at home. In many cases they tell me, I can't control him at home, can't you. At that point, then I would give detentions, which is school policy to give a student detentions. If he fails to serve detentions, I would write a referral on that student and send him to an adminis- trative assistant, and then they're supposed to take care of it from there. And that's the policy I've been follow- ing, as far as administering discipline in the classroom. (T. 302-303.) Even though he could not remember ever asking Joe Sawyer to write a composition, and never telephoned his parents, Mr. Sortino thought, at the time of the hearing, that his striking Joe Sawyer on October 28, 1981, "was proper." (T. 282.) This episode "was a second occurrence of this type incident." (T. 221.) Mr. Sortino did not refer Joe Sawyer to the school administration for discipline on October 28, 1981, or at any other time, although he did make several other such referrals of students in the fall of 1981. On October 28, 1981, he referred a student named Donald Evans to Rubin C. Ransaw, Jr., an administrative assistant at Deerfield Beach High School, for disciplinary action after Evans, in the presence of Mr. Sortino and other students, said, "Sortino sucks," twice. Petitioner's closing argument was made in written form and filed on May 11, 1982, Respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order were filed on May 13, 1982. These submissions were considered in preparation of the recommended order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, for the most part. To the extent they have not been adopted they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence or immaterial to this cause.

# 1
TOM GALLAGHER, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs CLIFFORD H. DURDEN, JR., 00-000391 (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:West Palm Beach, Florida Jan. 24, 2000 Number: 00-000391 Latest Update: Oct. 25, 2000

The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged and if so what penalty should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case the Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School District and was assigned as principal at John F. Kennedy Middle School (JFK). On or about March 9, 1998, a guidance counselor at JFK spoke with the Respondent regarding a complaint from a female student that she had been inappropriately touched by a male teacher at the school. Given the casual nature of the complaint, the Respondent believed the matter to be a "rumor" and made a note to himself to "check on" the allegation. The Respondent did not follow up on the allegation and did not "check on" the rumor. The Respondent also did not verify whether or not the guidance counselor investigated the allegation. Subsequently the Respondent became aware of other allegations involving the same teacher. The complaints alleged inappropriate acts with students. At least one of the incidents was witnessed by a student who supported the complainant's allegation. All of the incidents involving the teacher occurred before a criminal complaint was filed by a parent. It is undisputed that the Respondent knew of one or more of the alleged complaints. At no time prior to the teacher's arrest did the Respondent notify school authorities or the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) of the allegations previously made against the teacher. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Palm Beach County School District had a policy in effect that required the Respondent to notify HRS and school district authorities regarding the types of complaints involved in this case. Such policy is set forth in its entirety within the Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Respondent did not view the incidents complained of as sufficiently serious to merit notification of authorities, as he maintained he did not have a reasonable cause to suspect that a child had been abused. Notwithstanding this position, the Respondent did nothing to confirm or disprove the allegations. At least one female student complainant continued to be enrolled in the alleged perpetrator's class before the arrest of the suspect. The failure of the Respondent to report the incidents seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the Palm Beach School District. As a result, the Respondent was relieved of his position as principal at JFK and reassigned to another position.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Sammy Berry, Jr., Esquire 516 South Dixie Highway, Suite 1 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education Education Practices Commission 325 West Gaines Street Florida Education Center, Room 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

# 2
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. WALTER PRESSLEY, 86-001206 (1986)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 86-001206 Latest Update: Jun. 11, 1986

The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent, Walter Pressley, should be expelled as a student from the Palm Beach County Public School System.

Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Walter Pressley, whose date of birth is August 6, 1970, was enrolled as a ninth grader at Lake Worth High School during the 1985-86 school year. On February 12, 1986, Respondent Pressley was suspended from Lake Worth Community High School for violation of Student Conduct Code 5.18 possession and selling drugs on campus. During January, 1986, Officer Jay Spencer was assigned by Lieutenant Ericson as an undercover officer and he (Spencer) was enrolled as a twelfth grade student for the Lake Worth Police Department at Lake Worth High School. On Monday, January 27, 1986, at approximately 11:40 a.m., Officer Spencer asked Respondent if he knew where he could get some "sensebud" (street name for a particular kind of marijuana). Respondent advised Officer Spencer that he did not have any on his person, but offered to take him to someone who did. Officer Spencer and Respondent attempted to locate the other student who supposedly had the sensebud but he could not be found. The time was drawing near for Officer Spencer's fifth period class to begin and he told Respondent that if he found any sensebud that he would be in his fifth period class whereupon Respondent asked him where was his fifth period class. Approximately fifteen minutes later, Respondent appeared at Officer Spencer's class and beckoned for him to come outside into the hallway. Once out in the hallway, Respondent told him that he had some sensebud. Officer Spencer and Respondent went to a bathroom located on the second floor of the south building at the school and Respondent presented a clear sandwich bag containing suspected marijuana. Officer Spencer conducted a field test of the substance which tested positive for the drug marijuana. Respondent told Officer Spencer that "he could have it for free" inasmuch as he was just establishing a business and he wanted to form a good reputation among other students and build a clientele. Officer Spencer refused to accept the suspected marijuana without payment and asked Respondent if $2.00 would cover it. Respondent agreed and Officer Spencer gave him $2.00 in U.S. currency in return for the marijuana. Officer Spencer then left the Lake Worth High School campus and returned to his home with the suspected marijuana. Once at home, Officer Spencer tested the suspected marijuana for the presence of Delta 9-THC with the Duguenois Reagent Test. After testing the suspected marijuana, it was positive for the presence of Delta 9-THC. At approximately 8:00, Officer Spencer met with Lieutenant Ericson at the Lake Worth Police Department and gave him the suspected marijuana which was thereafter placed into the evidence locker. On February 12, 1986, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Officer Spencer and Lieutenant Ericson arrested Respondent at the Lake Worth High School for the sale of 1.25 grams of marijuana. After Respondent was arrested, he was taken to the Lake Worth Police Department for processing and thereafter transported to the Division of Youth Services (DYS). Respondent was found guilty on March 25, in juvenile court, on a charge of sale and possession of a controlled substance; was placed on probation and given 50 hours of community service. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). Richard Cahill is a guidance counselor at Lake Worth Community High School. Counselor Cahill reviewed Respondent's achievement record and noted that Respondent performed satisfactorily during his eighth grade, passing all of his classes (during the eighth grade) except math. During his first semester of ninth grade, Respondent again passed all of his classes except math. However, during the second semester, he only passed one subject and in all of his remaining classes Respondent earned F's and one incomplete grade. Once Respondent was enrolled in tenth grade, he commenced compiling a record of excessive absences and he was counseled by Counselor Cahill. Counselor Cahill spoke to Respondent's teachers who related that Respondent expended some effort during the first nine weeks of tenth grade, however, during the second semester, Respondent put forth very little effort and began to be disruptive in class. On November 1, 1983, Respondent was suspended for two days for using abusive language. On February 21, 1984, Respondent was suspended for three days for chronic tardiness. On March 27, 1984, Respondent was suspended for three days for excessively reporting tardy to class. On March 7, 1985, Respondent was suspended for seven days for being an accomplice to a robbery of another student. Finally, Respondent was initially suspended on February 12, 1986 based on the instant charge of possession and selling drugs on the campus of Lake Worth Community High School. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). David Cantley is the principal at Lake Worth. Principal Cantley provides all students at Lake Worth with a copy of the student handbook at the beginning of each school year. Petitioner goes to great pains to advise students of the ill-effects resulting from the usage of drugs. The student handbook contains Petitioner's disciplinary procedures for the possession or sale of mood altering drugs. Petitioner considers the possession and/or selling of drugs on campus to be a serious infraction of the code of student conduct. (Student Code of Conduct, Section 5.18). Students found guilty of either possession, use or sale of drugs on campus are subject to disciplinary measures including expulsion. (Page 66, Student Handbook). Rich Mooney, an intake counselor for Youth and Family Services, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, has been involved in assisting the Respondent since March of 1985 when Respondent was charged with being an accessory to the robbery of another student at Lake Worth Community High School. Since the more recent charge of the sale and possession of marijuana while on the campus of Lake Worth Community High School, Counselor Mooney has enrolled Respondent at the Tri-Center Training and Rehabilitation Day Program (Tri- Center) which is a rehabilitation program operating Monday through Friday during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. under the auspices of Petitioner's Alternative School System. Respondent has been enrolled at Tri-Center since he was recommended for suspension on February 12, 1986. During the first week of Respondent's enrollment at Tri-Center, he presented a few problems adjusting to the structured environment at Tri-Center, however, he is conforming and Counselor Mooney has expressed his opinion that Respondent should do well during the remainder of his enrollment at Tri-Center. Respondent's mother, Mrs. Ryna Pressley, has diligently tried to curb Respondent's disruptive conduct since he has been enrolled at Lake Worth Community High School. Her efforts appear to have failed based on the numerous suspensions of Respondent from Lake Worth commencing in November, 1983 through February, 1986.

Conclusions The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties thereto. The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, has reviewed and adopts the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law, Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), Florida Statutes, and also adopts the recommendation for expulsion but only in conformance with School Board Policy, D-5.241 (3) which states: "Expulsion prevents a student from enrolling in any school programs offered by the school system for the effective date of the expulsion." and rejects the Hearing Officer's suggestion that an alternative program be provided during expulsion. This Order may be appealed within thirty days by filing a notice of appeal with the district court of appeal. Except in cases of indigency, the court will require a filing fee and payment for preparing the record on appeal. For further explanation of the right to appeal, refer to Section 120.63, Florida Statutes (1985), and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Respondent, Walter Pressley, is hereby expelled effective this date, from attendance from all programs of the Palm Beach County School System through the end of the 1986/87 school year. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of July 1936. Louis J. Eassa Chairman School Board of Palm Beach County (SEAL) Filed with the Clerk of, the School Board this 23rd day of July, 1986. Clerk

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be expelled from the regular program at Petitioners School Board of Palm Beach County and that he be provided an education in Petitioner's alternative educational program in an appropriate school setting such as the Tri-Center Training and Rehabilitation Day Program. Recommended this 11th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Bernard Shulman, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Mrs. Ryna Pressley 2073 N.W. Second Street Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner General Counsel Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 =================================================================

Florida Laws (2) 120.57120.63
# 3
JIM HORNE, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs MICHAEL BROOKS HOLLAND, 04-001725PL (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:West Palm Beach, Florida May 14, 2004 Number: 04-001725PL Latest Update: Jun. 15, 2005

The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held Florida Educator Certificate 477777, covering Physical Education and Social Sciences. Respondent’s certificate is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Palm Beach County School Board and assigned to a classroom at BRHS, where he taught psychology and history. In recent years, Respondent has taught advanced placement classes. The evidence established that Respondent is well-liked by students, parents, and faculty. The present principal of BRHS, who was not at the school during the 1985-86 or 2001-2002 school years, considers Respondent to be an asset to the school. FACTS PERTAINING TO K.P. AND B.K. Prior to the end of the 1985-86 school year, Respondent invited several female senior students to join him for dinner in celebration of their upcoming graduation. Respondent was 33 years old at that time. Each of these females was either 17 or 18-years-of-age. K.P. (now known as K.F.) was 17 and B.K. (now known as B.M.) was 18. K.P. and B.K. were invited to and attended the dinner and subsequent celebration. The dinner invitations were extended by Respondent, who was their teacher, during the school year. There was a conflict in the evidence as to when this dinner engagement occurred.2 That conflict is resolved by finding that the dinner engagement occurred at the Cork and Cleaver restaurant in Boca Raton prior to the graduation ceremonies for the class of 1986. At least four female seniors were invited to Respondent’s celebration. K.P., B.K., and two other female students attended the dinner. All four of the students consumed alcohol at the restaurant that was purchased by Respondent. Respondent knew that the drinking age was 21 and he knew that each of the girls was under that age. Respondent also consumed alcohol at the restaurant. Following the meal, K.P. and B.K. sat on a bench outside the restaurant and continued to drink alcoholic beverages with Respondent. After approximately five bottles of champagne and/or wine had been consumed, Respondent K.P. and B.K. went from the bench outside the restaurant to Respondent’s house. The three of them were alone in Respondent’s house for several hours. At Respondent’s house they drank four to five additional bottles of wine. The quantity of alcohol consumed by Respondent, B.K., and K.P. that evening impaired their judgment. By all accounts, K.P. was inebriated and incapable of consenting to the acts that followed. Both B.K. and K.P. were excellent students who had little or no experience with alcohol. During the 1985-86 school year, K.P. had been a member of BRHS’s varsity teams in basketball, volleyball, and softball. During that school year, B.K. had been a member of BRHS’s varsity tennis team. After K.P. became inebriated, Respondent and K.P. went to Respondent’s bedroom where Respondent had inappropriate sexual relations with her. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent had sexual intercourse with K.P. K.P. testified, credibly, that Respondent had sexual intercourse with her and that she suffered bleeding and discomfort the following day. K.P. also testified, credibly, that she had been a virgin up until that evening. Respondent admitted that K.P. was with him in his darkened bedroom with little or no clothes on, but he denied having sexual intercourse with her. Respondent admitted that he fondled K.P.’s breasts and engaged in what he described as “heavy petting.” The undersigned finds Respondent’s denial that he had sexual intercourse with K.P. also to be credible. In view of conflicting, credible testimony and the absence of corroborating evidence to substantiate the fact of sexual intercourse as opposed to the fact that there was the opportunity for sexual intercourse, the undersigned is constrained to conclude that Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with K.P. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that K.P. did not consent to Respondent’s inappropriate sexual behavior because she was too intoxicated and too young to do so. Respondent knew or should have known that K.P. was incapable of consenting to his behavior. After Respondent and K.P. entered Respondent’s bedroom, B.K. left Respondent’s house and drove around the block in her car for approximately 20 minutes. Because she was concerned about K.P., B.K. returned to Respondent’s house. When she returned to Respondent’s house, B.K. looked for K.P. She stepped into the doorway of Respondent’s bedroom and saw Respondent and K.P. in bed together. K.P. was not fully clothed, and the clothes she had on were in disarray. K.P. told B.K. to come in and get in the bed with them. K.P. grabbed B.K.’s arm and pulled her toward the bed. B.K. entered the bedroom and briefly lay on the bed with Respondent and K.P. Shortly thereafter, B.K. got up and left Respondent’s bedroom. Because she was feeling dizzy, B.K. lay down on a mattress in another bedroom. There was a conflict in the evidence as to what next occurred. It is clear that K.P. either intentionally cut herself or accidentally opened a cut on her hand. Respondent testified that K.P. accidentally opened up a cut on her finger while in his bedroom and then went to the kitchen. K.P. testified that she went from Respondent’s bedroom to the kitchen and intentionally cut herself in reaction to what had happened with Respondent. How the cut occurred is not relevant. It is relevant that Respondent went in the kitchen and helped K.P. stop the bleeding. After leaving the kitchen area, Respondent observed B.K. lying on the mattress in the second bedroom. He lay down on the mattress with B.K. with his body touching hers. He tried to kiss B.K., but she resisted his efforts. Respondent engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with B.K. by lying next to her with his body in contact with hers and trying to kiss her. Respondent was obviously attempting to sexually arouse B.K. When K.P. saw Respondent and B.K. together in the second bedroom, she yelled at B.K. that they needed to get out of Respondent’s house. B.K. and K.P. then exited Respondent’s house and they returned to their respective homes in B.K.’s car without further incident. The next day, Respondent contacted B.K. and K.P. separately and apologized to them for his conduct. Respondent also apologized to B.K. for his conduct with K.P. Respondent stated that he had been unable to resist their athletic bodies. Respondent gave each of these girls a pair of diamond earrings as a gift. K.P. and B.K. did not report these events to any authority figure until 1993.3 As a result of difficulties K.P. (then known as K.F.) was having with sex in her marriage, she and her husband underwent counseling. It was during a session she and her husband had with their therapist that she revealed the events of the evening in 1986. Her husband, a teacher, felt obliged to report the incident to the Palm Beach County School District, which he did without naming K.P. and B.K. as being the students involved. His wife became upset when she learned of the report. After further reflection, K.P. revealed to the Palm Beach County School District that she and B.K. were the students involved with Respondent on the evening in question. The Palm Beach School District investigated the allegations, but it did not report these allegations to Petitioner. Petitioner learned of these events during its investigation of the facts pertaining to K.S. FACTS PERTAINING TO L.E. L.E., a female, graduated from BRHS in 1986. Respondent met L.E. when she was a freshman at BRHS and he subsequently became attracted to her. During her senior year, Respondent offered tickets to a Miami Dolphins football game to L.E. and other students as a reward for helping him grade papers in the class they took from him. Before she graduated, Respondent told L.E. that after she graduated he wanted to take her to dinner. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with L.E. before she graduated. After she graduated, Respondent treated L.E. to dinner,4 gave her a pair of diamond earrings, and told her he wanted to be more than friends. Later during the summer of 1986, Respondent and L.E. went to Marathon, Florida, together and also traveled to San Francisco, California, at Respondent’s expense. DISCIPLINE PERTAINING TO K.S. K.S., a female, attended BRHS for her freshman through her senior years. She graduated in 2003. Respondent was K.S.’s history teacher in her junior year and her psychology teacher her senior year. During the 2001-2002 school year, K.S. confided certain personal family matters to Respondent. Thereafter, Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct toward K.S. On at least five occasions toward the end of the 2001-02 school year Respondent came to her place of employment (a Kmart) looking for her. On one occasion he left her a gift of a cheesecake and on another he left a bag of M & M candy as a gift. These visits upset and frightened K.S. At the beginning of the 2002-03 school year, Respondent physically hugged K.S. when he first saw her in his psychology class. On several occasions Respondent put his hands on K.S.’s shoulders and massaged them. On one occasion he rubbed her hair. This type physical contact continued even after K.S. told Respondent not to touch her. On one occasion Respondent referred to K.S. in front of her classmates as being his “baby.” Respondent’s conduct upset and embarrassed K.S. K.S. complained to Robert O’Leath, a dean of students at BRHS, about Respondent’s behavior. Following an investigation of these allegations, the School Board of Palm Beach County suspended Respondent’s employment without pay for a period of ten days and required him to attend diversity and sensitivity training. Respondent did not contest this discipline.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the final order permanently revoke Respondent’s educator certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 2005.

Florida Laws (4) 1012.011012.795120.56120.57
# 4
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs PAUL LOUD, 18-005020TTS (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:West Palm Beach, Florida Sep. 19, 2018 Number: 18-005020TTS Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2025
# 5
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs ISABEL BEACH, 07-003452TTS (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida Jul. 25, 2007 Number: 07-003452TTS Latest Update: Oct. 31, 2008

The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.

Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, the School Board was a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Broward County, Florida. In 2000, Ms. Beach was employed as a teacher with the School Board at Oriole Elementary School (Oriole), teaching the third grade. In 2001, she began teaching the first grade at Oriole and did so until her suspension by the School Board on July 24, 2007. During the 2006-2007 school year, Z. A. was a student in Ms. Beach’s first grade class. At the time of hearing, he was eight years of age. Z. A. testified that, at times, Ms. Beach would forcefully pull his chin and/or squeeze the cheeks of his face together with her hands; that she would pinch him on his arm; and that, a few times, she pushed his desk into his stomach. He testified that, some of the time when these incidents happened, he was laughing in class, but he did not consider his behavior to be disruptive. Ms. Beach admits that she physically touched Z. A., except for the desk incidents, and testified that her physical touching was intended to get Z. A. to focus on his work, not to embarrass or punish him. The undersigned finds the testimony of Z. A. more credible than Ms. Beach. Therefore, the undersigned makes a finding of fact that Ms. Beach, at times, forcefully pulled Z. A.’s chin and/or squeezed the cheeks of his face together with her hands; pinched his arm on occasion; and, a few times, pushed Z. A.’s desk into his stomach. A finding is further made that the physical touching of Z. A. by Ms. Beach and the pushing of the desk into Z. A.’s stomach by Ms. Beach was punishment. Additionally, prior to being assigned to Ms. Beach’s class, Z. A. had not had bladder problems at home, during bedtime, since he was three years of age. After being assigned to her class, he began to have bladder problems again at home, during bedtime. Also, after being assigned to Ms. Beach’s class, Z. A. began to have behavior problems and nightmares and did not wish to attend school. Z. A. informed his mother of what was happening at Oriole in Ms. Beach’s class. Z. A.’s mother met with Oriole’s Assistant Principal, Brian Reardon, and explained the situation to him and requested the removal of Z. A. from Ms. Beach’s classroom. Z. A. was re-assigned to another classroom. Since his move, Z. A.’s bladder problem and nightmares have ceased, he has had no discipline problems at school, and he wants to attend school. Z. A. also testified that he observed Ms. Beach pull the chin of other students and/or squeeze the cheeks on their face together with her hands. In particular, Z. A. testified that he observed Ms. Beach squeeze the cheeks on the face of D. B. together. Additionally, he testified that he saw Ms. Beach pinch other students on the arm. No other students testified at hearing. As to D. B., Ms. Beach testified that she did not squeeze the cheeks of D. B. together, but she may have placed her hand under his chin to get his attention. D. B. did not testify at hearing; however, D. B. did sign a statement that, on a specific date, Ms. Beach grabbed his face when he was talking. D. B. made no statement that he was injured or felt pain by the grabbing of his face by Ms. Beach or that Ms. Beach forcefully grabbed his chin. A finding of fact is made that Ms. Beach grabbed the chin of D. B. However, no finding of fact is made that D. B. suffered any injury as a result of Ms. Beach’s action or that Ms. Beach forcefully grabbed D. B.’s chin. Furthermore, at hearing, Z. A. testified that he signed a statement at Oriole, taken by Mr. Reardon, and confirmed that the statement was accurate. Included in Z. A.’s statement was an incident where Ms. Beach called him “dummy” when he was writing and grabbed him by his shoulder. At hearing, Z. A. testified that Ms. Beach referred to him as a “dummy” but gave no testimony that, when Ms. Beach grabbed his shoulder, she applied force. Z. A.’s testimony and statement are found to be credible. A finding of fact is made that Ms. Beach referred to Z. A. as a “dummy.” As to Ms. Beach putting her hands on the shoulders of students, she admits that, on occasion, she would put her hands on the shoulders of some of her students for the sole purpose of directing their attention to the blackboard. She denies that she applied any force when she touched the students on their shoulders. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Beach put her hands on the shoulders of some of her students, but fails to demonstrate that Ms. Beach applied force when she touched the students on their shoulders. However, as to the incident involving Z. A., taking the conduct of Ms. Beach as a whole (calling Z. A. a “dummy” and placing her hand on his shoulder), a finding of fact is made that Ms. Beach used force when she placed her hand on Z. A.’s shoulder to redirect him. The Administrative Complaint in this matter does not allege performance issues, regarding a formal performance plan, and, therefore, no finding of fact is made regarding performance. An investigation of the alleged conduct of Ms. Beach was performed by the Special Investigative Unit (SIU) of the School Board. No investigative issues are set forth in the Administrative Complaint in this matter, and Ms. Beach does not address any investigative issues in her post-hearing submission. Therefore, an inference is drawn that no investigative issues are before this Administrative Law Judge for determination; hence, no finding of fact is made regarding the investigative process of the School Board. Corporal punishment is not permitted in the Broward County school system and is not tolerated in Broward County schools. The School Board’s policies reiterate a strict no-corporal-punishment policy. Teachers employed with the School Board are not permitted to use physical force on students, except for teachers in cluster classes, who receive special training in restraining students in cluster classes. Teachers employed with the School Board are not permitted to physically put their hands on students other than in limited situations, such as defending themselves or in the instance of safety issues. Ms. Beach did not have a cluster class. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Beach was defending herself or that the situations involved a safety issue. Therefore, the limited situations are not applicable in this matter. The Principal of Oriole, Deborah Peeples, testified that the touching by Ms. Beach of grabbing a student by the chin, squeezing a student’s cheeks together on the face with her (Ms. Beach’s) hands, and pushing a desk into a student’s stomach are not authorized, are not appropriate conduct, and are improper touching. Further, Ms. Peeples testified that Ms. Beach’s referring to a student as dumb was not appropriate conduct and was embarrassing to a student. Ms. Peeples’ testimony is found to be credible. A finding of fact is made that Ms. Beach’s action of referring to Z. A. as a “dummy” was causing unnecessary embarrassment to Z. A. Furthermore, Ms. Peeples testified that School Board policy requires that, if corporal punishment is to be applied, specific guidelines must be followed, including pre-approval. Ms. Peeples testified that Ms. Beach did not have pre-approval for the physical touching of the students. Ms. Peeples’ testimony is found to be credible. Ms. Beach testified that, in her class, she had a disproportionate number of “problem students,” which caused her to have more behavioral problems in her class. However, Ms. Peeples testified that Ms. Beach’s class was no different in composition than any other first grade class at Oriole. Ms. Peeples’ testimony is found to be more credible than Ms. Beach’s. Specific procedures are available to a teacher who is having disciplinary issues with a student; the procedures are set forth in both the faculty handbook and the school discipline plan that teachers create themselves. Essentially, the procedures are as follows: When a teacher is unable to control the behavior of a student, the teacher calls the front office and requests assistance; and, when the request is received, assistance is provided. Furthermore, if the student needs to be removed from the classroom and/or has consequences assigned, such is recorded in the student’s file. These procedures are followed at Oriole, and assistance is provided to a teacher any time a teacher, who is unable to control a behavioral problem, calls the office requesting support for the behavioral problem. Further, at Oriole, assistance is provided to the teacher to learn how to prevent the behavior on a long term basis and to support the teacher as an individual, such as mentoring, modeling, workshops, and sending district-level personnel to the teacher for assistance. Permanently removing a student from the classroom is used only as a last resort. As a result, removal is warranted in those circumstances in which an occurrence exists that substantially affects the learning environment. During the 2006-2007 school year, only two or three situations warranted permanent removal from Ms. Beach’s classroom. The situation between Ms. Beach and the students was so severe that Ms. Peeples and Mr. Reardon saw no alternative but to remove the students from Ms. Beach’s classroom. Once removed, the students did not experience any further learning problems. A finding of fact is made that Ms. Beach engaged in corporal punishment when she would, at times, forcefully pull Z. A.’s chin and/or squeeze the cheeks of his face together with her hands, pinch his arm, push his desk into his stomach, and forcefully grab his shoulders to redirect his attention. No dispute exists that Ms. Beach was disciplined on two prior occasions. During the 2004-2005 school year, the School Board issued Ms. Beach a written reprimand for the offense of corporal punishment/inappropriate physical force—pulling a student harshly by the shoulder and grabbing the student by the back of the neck on three occasions. The incident occurred in December 2004. During the 2005-2006 school year, the School Board suspended Ms. Beach for three days, without pay, directed her to successfully complete an approved Classroom Management Program by the end of the 2005-2006 school year, and placed her on a Pre-Development Plan for the offense of harassment—grabbing a student’s shirt near the chest area and being verbally aggressive towards the student. The incident occurred in May 2005, and the School Board and Ms. Beach entered into an agreement of discipline, resolving the incident, in December 2005. The Executive Director of the School Board’s Office of Professional Standards in SIU testified that Ms. Beach has had numerous opportunities to understand that corporal punishment is not tolerated but that she has not understood that and that, because of her continuous inappropriate conduct, she “poses a danger to the physical, emotional, and mental well-being of the children . . . .” His testimony is found to be credible and a finding of fact is made that Ms. Beach is a danger to the students. Following the investigation of the instant matter by the SIU, the Professional Standards Committee (PSC) of the School Board reviewed the investigative report and Ms. Beach’s two prior disciplinary actions and determined that probable cause existed to support the charge of child abuse by Ms. Beach. The PSC recommended termination of Ms. Beach’s employment with the School Board. By letter dated June 5, 2007, Ms. Beach was notified that a recommendation would be made to the School Board on July 24, 2007, for her suspension, without pay, and dismissal from employment with the School Board. At its meeting on July 24, 2007, the School Board decided to suspend Ms. Beach, without pay, and begin dismissal proceedings.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order upholding the suspension, without pay, of Isabel Beach and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Emanuele, Esquire Hannah L. Kaplan, Esquire Panza, Maurer & Maynard, P.A. Bank of America Building, Third Floor 3600 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mr. James F. Notter, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Florida Laws (7) 1012.331012.391012.561012.57120.569120.57408.039 Florida Administrative Code (3) 6B-1.0016B-1.0066B-4.009
# 6
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY vs. BERNICE SCHLECKER, 78-001074 (1978)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 78-001074 Latest Update: Jan. 14, 1980

The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner, Dade County School Board (sometimes referred to as School Board or Board), carried its burden of proof to sustain its suspension and requested dismissal of the Respondent, Bernice Schlecker, on grounds of alleged incompetency, willful neglect of duty and/or gross insubordination as set forth and defined in Subsection 231.36(6), Florida Statutes. Also at issue is whether or not the Respondent breached her employment contract with the Petitioner and is therefore subject to dismissal based on her refusal to be examined by a psychiatrist approved by the School Board.

Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying and the arguments of counsel, 1/ the following relevant facts are found. Based upon a recommendation by the Superintendent, the School Board of Dade County, Florida, suspended the Respondent, Bernice Schlecker, from her employment as a teacher at Shadowlawn Elementary School on May 24, 1978. Respondent has been employed as a teacher for approximately seventeen (17) years. The Board further proposed to dismiss the Respondent based on its contention that she is unable to impart an education to her students; exhibited a lack of control over students during her classes; failed to prepare lesson plans; used poor judgment respecting the disciplining of students; failed to carry out School Beard plans and policies; failed to submit to a requested psychiatric examination and was excessively absent from her teaching position. This case was initiated with the Division of Administrative Hearings based on Respondent's request for a hearing on the matter of her suspension and the Petitioner's proposed dismissal. For the two school years immediately preceding her suspension, Mrs. Schlecker was absent from her duties with the School System more often than she was present. In this regard, answers to Interrogatories indicate that the Respondent was absent for a total of approximately twelve (12) days from August to January 3 during the 1976-77 school year and that she requested and was granted a leave of absence on January 4 through the end of the school year in June of 1977. During the 1977-78 school year, Respondent was absent a total of approximately one hundred (100) days. The testimony of several of Respondent's supervisors during the two- year period prior to her suspension indicates that Respondent often reported for work late; that she often left early or during the workday sometimes with and other times without permission from her supervisors. The primary causes of Respondent's absences during the two years prior to her suspension was back pain, anxiety and depression. Dr. Lester A. Russin, Respondent's orthopedic surgeon, testified that he did not foresee Respondent's back problem improving much because she refused to follow medical advice. Additionally, Respondent's personnel records reflect that she suffered from a psychiatric disorder which is of a long-standing nature. School System administrators testified during the hearing that Respondent's chronic absenteeism results in additional expenditures for the School System inasmuch as substitute teachers are needed when absences are occasioned by an illness warranting sick leave with pay. Additionally, the administrators indicated that the educational program is disrupted when the regular classroom teacher is absent. Respondent's co-workers testified that she was continuously unable to control her students' conduct during classes. Respondent's supervisors opined that this lack of control was in large part due to Respondent's lack of organization and failure to prepare lesson plans. Although required to prepare and follow lesson plans, evidence reveals that often Respondent prepared inadequate plans or no plans whatsoever. Efforts on the part of the School System to assist Respondent in her areas of weakness were unavailing. For example, during the 1977-78 school year up until her suspension, Respondent was assigned to Shadowlawn Elementary School. Dr. David Felton, Principal; Ms. America Bermudez, the Assistant Principal; and two teachers from the school testified that her classes were totally out of control most of the time. Testimony in the case indicates that students jumped in and out of windows and left the classroom at will. A group of students repeatedly crawled under Respondent's portable classroom and lit matches. Respondent often called upon other staff members to control her class or to supervise her class while she left, and the noise level emanating from Respondent's classroom was often loud enough to distract other teachers. In this regard, a faculty advisory committee made up of Respondent's coworkers vehemently complained about Respondent to the Principal. Members of the advisory committee voiced their concern that the students in Respondent's classroom were in physical jeopardy as well as being deprived of an education due to Respondent's lack of classroom control. During this period, Respondent requested assistance from the central office in bringing her class under control or to remove unruly students. Such requests were complied with by the administration. Additionally, the administration of Shadowlawn Elementary School attempted to assist Respondent by advising her of methods to improve her instruction and classroom control. To further this end, Respondent was requested to draft detailed plans and to submit these to Assistant Principal Bermudez for review. According to Ms. Bermudez, Respondent, although complying with her request to submit the plans, did not fully comply inasmuch as the plans were not at all detailed. Ms. Bermudez testified that several other recommendations made by her were met by tearfulness, hysteria and other nonproductive conduct and acts by Respondent. Nearing the end of the school year, Dr. Felton and Respondent agreed that she should receive assistance from an expert teacher. To achieve this, Ms. Evelyn Looney was called in to assist. Ms. Looney's testimony is that she found Respondent's classroom in total havoc and that Respondent often appeared "spaced out". Ms. Looney noted that Respondent left the classroom while she was showing her how to teach a lesson. Based on her observation and recommendations of Respondent, Ms. Looney opined that Respondent was an incompetent teacher and would not benefit from any amount of remediation. Subsequent visits to Respondent's classroom by Ms. Bermudez and Principal Felton revealed no improvement in Respondent's lesson presentation or classroom control. Approximately one-half of Respondent's first grade class at Shadowlawn were retained the following year. In this regard, Respondent contended that her class was larger then normal in the assignment of pupils with behavioral and other learning disabilities. However, first grade teacher Nancy Sturtz testified that when she taught the same students the following year, she found that although they were initially disruptive, they quickly calmed down and responded to instructions. For the three years preceding Respondent's assignment to Shadowlawn, she was employed at North Beach Elementary School. For the last two years of this period of time (1975-76 and 1976-77), her principal was Dr. Amy Dansky. Dr. Dansky initially assigned Mrs. Schlecker to assist other teachers by tutoring all groups rather than to teach an entire class. This tutorial function had been performed by Respondent during the 1974-75 school year. Respondent's fellow teachers unequivocally advised Dr. Dansky that Respondent was more disruptive than helpful and they refused offers of assistance from her. During the spring of 1976, a sixth grade teacher at North Beach became ill and requested leave. Respondent was assigned to take over her classroom. Dr. Dansky's testimony is that Respondent lacked any classroom control and that turmoil was rampart during the period in which Respondent stood in for the ill teacher. At the conclusion of the 1975-76 school year, Dr. Dansky had a conference with the Respondent and together they worked out a program whereby Respondent would improve her performance for the upcoming school year (1976-77). Respondent was assigned to the sixth grade class for this school year and Assistant Principal Gwendolyn Grant was assigned to assist her. Although Respondent was requested to submit lesson plans at North Beach, she often failed to do so and on those occasions when plans were submitted, they were often deficient. Respondent's behavior at North Beach was similar to her behavior at Shadowlawn and attempts to assist her were met with the same inappropriate, unproductive responses. Ms. Dena Feller, an instructor who was situated across the hall from Respondent, testified that Respondent's classroom was generally in havoc and that on two occasions she was required to run into Respondent's classroom and remove two different students from second story windows from which they were about to jump. Ms. Feller was also required to bring Respondent's class back under control on many occasions and finally complained to Dr. Dansky about the situation. In addition to the complaints by other teachers, parents of students at North Beach also complained and, based on such complaints, Dr. Dansky removed twelve (12) students from Respondent's classroom. Respondent also contends that at North Beach she was assigned a disproportionate number of students with discipline and other behavioral problems. In this regard, the testimony of other witnesses dispute Respondent's claim. During the preceding year, Respondent was assigned as a reading teacher under the supervision of Leonard Greenbaum. Respondent was assigned to work as a team teacher and during this time other team members complained to Mr. Greenbaum respecting Respondent's failure to carry her share of the workload. Based thereon, Respondent was assigned to tutor. Initially during the 1973-74 school year, Respondent was assigned to Floral Heights Elementary School. The Principal, Ms. Rowena Sutton, testified that Respondent worked well supervising small groups but that her absences and tardiness coupled with crying, inordinate amounts of time spent on the telephone resulted in her (Ms. Sutton's) request that Respondent be reassigned from Floral Heights. Respondent was next assigned to Flagler Elementary School although she failed to report on the designated date. Again, Respondent's work hours were erratic and she often reported tardy or left the building early, without permission. While at Flagler, Respondent failed to prepare lesson plans and while it was evident that she spent a great amount of time preparing to teach, she never was able to impart any instructions to students. Ms. Wood, the Principal at Flagler Elementary School, advised Mr. Greenbaum that Respondent was not considered an asset to the school. Respondent was next assigned to Douglas Elementary School. The Principal, Mr. Donald Oliver, observed Respondent's classroom on numerous occasions and he testified that Respondent's classroom was, in general, chaotic and that Respondent, while expressing familiarity with the materials, was never able to teach the students during his observance of her class. At the conclusion of the 1973-74 school year, Mr. Greenbaum did not recommend Respondent to continue as a reading teacher. Respondent's personnel file reflects that she has taught at approximately ten (10) schools during the seventeen (17) years that she has taught in Dade County, and her annual evaluations, on average, failed to meet the minimum passing level. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION The parties stipulated that the contract signed by Respondent in 1959 is the continuing contract in effect between the parties. Article 24, Section I, paragraph 4 of said contract provides as follows: The employee further agrees that the party of the first part shall have the right at any time during the term of this contract, to require that the party of the second part shall submit to either a physical or psychiatric examination by at least two qualified physicians or psychiatrists appointed by the party of the first part. The party of the second part agrees to submit to this examination, if requested, and to allow the report of the said physicians or psychiatrists to be submitted to the party of the first part. . .Failure of the employee to fulfill this contract, or to carry out the lawful provisions thereof, unless prevented from so doing by reason of personal illness or other just cause, or unless released from the contract by the county board, shall constitute sufficient grounds for the termination of the contract on the part of the county board. Additionally, the contract provides under Subsection (a) that: At all times the choice from among state licensed physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, shall be made by the employee from a list provided by the employer. No employee shall be compelled to submit to any test or examination not required of all employees of that classification without a written statement of the need for such examination. Petitioner, in its Notice of Charges, stated in writing that it was the Board's position that Respondent was emotionally unstable. Based thereon, it is found that such statement provides a need for the examination. Respondent failed and refused to submit for examination by a psychiatrist from the list provided by the School Board. Without question, the Respondent appears to be a very dedicated teacher and spends a great amount of time preparing for instruction. This preparation includes time spent preparing lesson plans at home. Additionally, the parents of numerous students which Respondent had taught expressed their belief that their children had progressed while they were students in Respondent's classroom. Respondent exemplified a great deal of care and concern for the well being and educational needs for students. Petitioner, by its administrative officials, does not contest Respondent's concern for the educational needs of her students. However, what is at issue, is Respondent's failure to impart, through a structured educational setting, a planned method for teaching students. In this regard, the evidence revealed that Respondent's efforts fall short of the mark required of teachers employed by Petitioner. For this reason, I am forced to recommend that the Petitioner's suspension of Respondent be upheld. Further, in view of Respondent's failure to submit to a psychiatric examination as requested by Petitioner, the Respondent breached her obligation to submit to psychiatric examination on request by the Petitioner. In view thereof, additional basis exists to support Petitioner's suspension of Respondent.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the suspension of Respondent, Bernice Schlecker, be SUSTAINED. Additionally, it is recommended that the Respondent be offered an option to resign from the School System within five (5) days from the entry of the Board's final order. Absent such resignation by Respondent, it is recommended that the Respondent be dismissed from her employment with the Dade County School Board. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of October, 1979, 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 25th day of October, 1979.

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 7
# 8
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. ALFRED HUNT AND MARY HAYES, 84-000391 (1984)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-000391 Latest Update: May 18, 1984

The Issue Whether respondent Alfred Hunt, a minor child, should be expelled from the Palm Beach County School System for misconduct and disruptive behavior as a student, including numerous physical assaults on other students. Background On February 2, 1984, Thomas J. Mills, Superintendent of Schools for Palm Beach County, Florida ("petitioner"), filed an administrative Petition for Expulsion seeking the expulsion of respondent Alfred Hunt from the Palm Beach County School System. The petition alleged that the respondent was guilty of violating the Student Conduct Code of the Palm Beach County School System, Section 5.18, arising out of his participation in an unprovoked gang assault upon another student, while on the campus of Carver Middle School. As a result of this incident, the respondent was suspended for a total of 40 days, and was recommended for expulsion by the Principal of Carver Middle School. The Superintendent concurred with the Principal's recommendation and notified Mary Hayes, respondent's mother, that a recommendation for expulsion would be submitted to the School Board of Palm Beach County at its February 1, 1984, public meeting. On January 29, 1984, respondent, Alfred Hunt, requested a hearing on his proposed expulsion. Subsequently, Mary Hayes joined in, and confirmed, her son's request for a hearing. The petitioner called four witnesses and offered ten exhibits, all of which were received in evidence. Respondent Mary Hayes testified on her son's behalf, and offered-no other witnesses or exhibits. Respondent, Alfred Bunt, did not attend the hearing. The transcript of the hearing and proposed findings of fact were filed on May 17, 1984. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined:

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Thomas J. Mills, as the Superintendent of Schools of Palm Beach County, Florida, has the authority to recommend to the School Board of Palm Beach County that respondent, Alfred Hunt, be expelled from the school system. Respondent, Alfred Bunt, is an eighth grade student in the Palm Beach County School System and is presently enrolled at Carver Middle School, Delray Beach, Florida. Respondent, Mary Hayes, is the mother of Alfred Hunt. Respondent, Alfred Hunt, has a past history of misconduct and disruptive behavior within the Palm Beach County School System. Specifically, while in attendance at Carver Middle School during the past year, he was disciplined for various offenses, including attacks on other students: DATE OFFENSE DISPOSITION 5/17/83 Using obscene and vulgar suspended 3 days language 5/24/83 Fighting suspended 5 days 8/17/83 Hitting, pushing, and suspended 10 days 9/13/83 chasing another student with an iron pole Constantly humming in paddled 9/16/83 class Constantly picking on paddled 9/19/83 another student Hitting another student suspended 3 days 9/27/83 9/27/83 Continual disruption of class Disrupting class suspended unknown 3 days 9/27/83 Disruption of class suspended 3 days 10/5/83 Punching another student suspended 5 days 10/13/83 10/17/83 Continual disruption of class Continual disruption of conference with student suspended 10 days class 11/3/83 Fighting suspended 3 days 11/17/83 Disrupting class paddled 11/18/83 Pushing another student paddled 12/1/83 Unprovoked attack upon suspended 10 days another student Kelly Brown, the Principal of Carver Middle School, and school counselors, tried to bring about changes in his behavior. He received special student counseling, in addition to disciplinary measures such as in-school suspensions, suspensions, and corporal punishment. For the past two years, he has been placed in Carver Middle School's Alternative Learning Lab, which provides special counseling and smaller classes for disruptive students. Despite these remedial actions, he continues to exhibit disruptive and violent behavior. All reasonable alternative measures to control or correct his behavior have been explored and exhausted by school officials. On December 2, 1983, he committed three separate acts of violence upon students at Carver Middle School. The first incident occurred at approximately 10:45 A.M. during change of classes when he, along with other students, participated in a gang-type assault upon Robert Fortner, another student. As a result of that incident, Alfred was notified that he was suspended from attending class A for 10 days. Later that day, Alfred assaulted Jay Winkler, another student, by striking him in the mouth--causing bleeding. While Principal Brown was investigating the Winkler incident, Alfred, together with several other students, assaulted Robert Fortner, another student, on the school gym field. As a result of this last assault, Principal Brown recommended that Alfred receive an additional 30-day suspension; Alfred waived his right to a hearing to contest the suspension. Because of Alfred's history of disciplinary infractions culminating in the three assaults which occurred on December 2, 1983, Mr. Brown recommended that he be permanently expelled from the Palm Beach County School System. The Superintendent of Schools subsequently concurred. Alfred's continued presence within the school system presents a threat to the safety of his fellow students and interferes with the educational process.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Alfred Hunt be expelled from the Palm Beach County School System for a period not to exceed the 1984-85 school year. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: JulieAnn Rico, Esquire 3323 Belvedere Road Building 503-Room 232 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Mary Frances Hayes 905 S.W. 11th Terrace Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas J. Mills, Superintendent of Schools for Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 9
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs PAUL LOUD, 21-001458TTS (2021)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:West Palm Beach, Florida May 04, 2021 Number: 21-001458TTS Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2025
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer