The Issue Whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Frank T. Brogan, as the Commissioner of Education, is the state official charged with investigating complaints against teachers and, upon a finding of probable cause, with filing formal administrative complaints against teachers' certificates. Section 231.262, Fla. Stat. The Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the responsibility for issuing final orders and imposing penalties. Id. At all times material to this case, Loretta L. Young held Florida Educator's Certificate 591375, covering the area of biology. Ms. Young currently holds this certificate, which is valid through June 30, 1999. During the 1993-1994 school year, Ms. Young was employed as a science teacher at North Dade Middle School in Dade County, Florida. During that school year, she taught a seventh-grade science class which consisted mostly of African-American children. A male student named C. M. was a member of this class. This seventh-grade science class was large, and the students were very unruly. Ms. Young had a very difficult time controlling the class, and she often became irritated with the students. In addition, the students used to ignore her when she told them to be quiet, and they would "pick at her" and make derogatory comments about her to one another in voices pitched loud enough for her to hear. On March 14, 1994, C. M. was in the back of the classroom playing cards and gambling with several other students. Ms. Young told C. M. to stop gambling. C. M., who was described as a bad student who was consistently disrespectful to Ms. Young and generally disruptive in her classroom, reacted to this order with anger. He walked to the front of the classroom and tapped her on the shoulder. She turned around quickly and struck C. M. in the stomach with her elbow. C. M. loudly accused her of hitting him and threatened to go to the office and tell what she had done. Ms. Young sent a student to summon security, and C. M. was removed from the classroom. Ms. Young consistently referred to the students in her class as "niggers." One of the students who testified at the hearing gave the following as an example of the remarks Ms. Young often made: "Ya'll niggers, ya'll niggers don't know how to act, ya'll don't have no home training." Although children sometimes refer to each other as "niggers," the use of such an epithet by a teacher when addressing students is unprofessional; it causes students to feel uncomfortable in the teacher's classroom, thereby diminishing the teacher's effectiveness. Even Ms. Young admitted that the term "nigger" is derogatory and degrading. It is not acceptable for a teacher to hit a student. Not only does such an act expose the student to physical harm, it diminishes the teacher's effectiveness in the classroom and is in violation of school board policy. There is, however, no violation of school board policy when a teacher inadvertently touches or bumps into a student. The evidence presented by the Commissioner is sufficient to establish that Ms. Young often addressed the students in the seventh-grade science class identified herein as "niggers." The evidence presented by the Commissioner is not, however, sufficient to establish that Ms. Young intentionally hit C. M. in the stomach with her elbow. The greater weight of the evidence presented by eyewitnesses to the event involving C. M. establishes that C. M. startled Ms. Young when he approached her from behind and tapped her on the shoulder, causing her to turn quickly and inadvertently strike him in the stomach.1
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 that Loretta L. Young violated section 231.28((1)(i), Florida Statutes, and rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and placing Ms. Young on probation for a period of three years, subject to such conditions as the Commission deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1997.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether just cause exists to discipline Respondent based on allegations that he used inappropriate language when talking to students, in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Woodard has worked in the Duval County public school system since 2002. There was no evidence presented of any prior incidents of inappropriate behavior, or of discipline being imposed upon Woodard by the School Board. During the 2014-2015 school year, Woodard was employed by Petitioner as an In-School Suspension (“ISSP”) teacher at Northwestern. The ISSP teacher is an instructional and leadership position, and the ISSP teacher is supposed to set an example for students and help them modify their behavior. The ISSP class was created to allow students who engage in disciplinary misconduct to remain in school rather than being removed from the classroom environment. The referral of students to ISSP can come from administrators, teachers, or any other employee who observes student misconduct. Although Woodard taught the ISSP class, he did not discipline students or assign them to ISSP, and he did not give students grades. During the 2014-2015 school year at Northwestern, Woodard was assigned to the gym in the mornings, where sixth- graders were directed to go after eating breakfast in the cafeteria, to wait for their teachers to pick them up and take them to class. On January 23, 2014, the Duval County School District’s (“District”) Office of Professional Standards opened an investigation of allegations that Woodard used inappropriate communications with and/or in the presence of students. The investigation, which was conducted by Investigator Reginald Johnson in the District’s Office of Professional Standards, sustained the allegations. On September 29, 2015, Woodard received a Step III Progressive Discipline – Reprimand and Suspension Without Pay (Revised 9/29/15) for conduct the District alleged violated the Florida Code of Ethics, rules 6A-10.080(2) and 6A-10.080(3) and the Principles of Professional Conduct, rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). The Step III Progressive Discipline alleged that Woodard used the term D.A.N. or DAN when talking to or referring to students at Northwestern, which the District alleged was an acronym for “dumb ass niggers.” In his defense, Woodard testified that in mentoring students, he shared stories from his childhood and his own life in order to be more relatable to students. According to Woodard, he used the story of his childhood friend Dan to impress upon students that it is not where you start, it is where you end up. Woodard’s friend Dan used to skip school, get to school late, fight, and disrespect authority, and Woodard urged his students not to be a Dan. As discussed below, Woodard’s testimony in this regard is not credible. Student D.M. testified that Woodard called students D.A.N.s in the gym and in ISSP class when the students were either acting up or in trouble. D.M. also testified Woodard wrote the word D.A.N. on the board in ISSP class with periods in the word, and the word stayed on the board in ISSP class. D.M. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. Student H.N.J. was in ISSP class with about seven other students when Woodard told them that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. said Woodard called students D.A.N.s when they were acting up and disrespectful, and that Woodard gave two meanings of the word D.A.N.-–“dumb and nobody” and “dumb ass niggers.” H.N.J. does not remember Woodard relating a story about a friend named Dan. Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward students made H.N.J. feel put down and “sad and mad at the same time,” and the fact that Woodard was a teacher made this worse. Student B.S. stated Woodard yelled at students and called them D.A.N.s in the gym whenever they were talking loud or would not listen. B.S. does not recall Woodard telling a story about a friend named Dan. B.S. learned that D.A.N. means “dumb ass niggers” from A.W., another student. Woodard’s reference to students as D.A.N.s made B.S. feel “sorry and mad,” and she began crying on the witness stand. Student K.H. testified that Woodard called her a D.A.N. when she stepped out of line in the gym and that he called other students D.A.N.s when they were misbehaving, fighting, or being loud. K.H.’s friend told her that D.A.N. means “dumb ass nigger.” K.H. never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. K.H. and her brother, student D.H., complained to their mother about Woodard calling students D.A.N.s. The mother of K.H. and D.H. contacted Northwestern and later the media after the school did not do anything about the complaint. Woodard’s use of the term D.A.N. made K.H. “feel disrespected and low life because it’s not supposed to be used towards children” and because Woodard is a teacher and the same race as K.H. During the 2014-2015 school year, student D.H., was in the seventh grade at Northwestern. D.H. heard his friends in math class calling each other D.A.N.s. So he asked one of his friends what D.A.N. meant. D.H.’s friend (a student named “J”) told D.H. that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers” and that Woodard called kids that word. D.H. was bothered that someone of his own race was calling him that, and also that it came from a teacher. The students’ descriptions of Woodard’s comments and behavior were fairly consistent. The things they reported hearing and observing were very similar to contemporaneously written statements from them and other students. The alleged remarks were similar in nature to one another but not exactly the same, so the comments did not seem rehearsed or planned. The students were very direct and unwavering when testifying at final hearing. The testimony of H.N.J. was particularly persuasive and clearly established that Woodard intended to use the term D.A.N. as a derogatory epithet: either “dumb and nobody”; or “dumb ass niggers.” Significantly, none of the students who appeared at hearing would have had a motive to testify falsely. As noted, Woodard did not assign grades to any of these students or assign them to ISSP, so none would have had an axe to grind with Woodard. The testimony of the students is credible. Teacher Linda Raggins testified that she heard Woodard tell students in the gym “to not act like Dan.” Toward the end of the school year, Raggins asked Woodard “who is Dan?” Woodard gave Raggins two explanations, the first of which she did not recall. The second explanation Woodard gave Raggins was that “some people use Dan to mean dumb ass niggers, but that’s not how I – that’s not what I’m talking about.” Raggins did not recall Woodard providing any other meaning for the word D.A.N. Raggins is a union representative and first agreed to provide a written statement, but then declined to provide a statement on the advice of counsel. Raggins did not tell Investigator Johnson that Woodard told a story about someone named Dan. Former teacher Jason Ludban heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. a handful of times. Ludban said that Woodard used the term D.A.N. “openly and loudly for all to hear,” which made Ludban believe it was acceptable. Ludban learned from a student that D.A.N. meant “dumb ass niggers.” Ludban never heard Woodard tell a story about a friend named Dan. If Ludban believed that Woodard was using the term D.A.N. to mean “dumb ass niggers,” Ludban would have had a duty to report it. Woodard gave Investigator Johnson the names of three additional student witnesses, whom Johnson interviewed. One of the students confirmed that Woodard wrote the word “D.A.N.” with periods on the board in ISSP class. Two of the students told Johnson that Woodard told them the story of a friend named Dan, but this occurred about two weeks prior to the date Johnson interviewed them, after the allegations were reported in the media and when Woodard was already facing discipline. Despite Woodard’s claim that Dan was a real person, Investigator Johnson does not recall Woodard telling him the last name of Dan or giving him any contact information for “Dan.” Johnson would have interviewed Dan if Woodard had provided that information. Woodard also did not provide Investigator Johnson with the names of any adults at Northwestern to whom Woodard told the Dan story. None of the witnesses Investigator Johnson interviewed--students or adults-- stated that Woodard told them a story about a friend named Dan. It is within management’s discretion to skip a step of progressive discipline if the conduct is severe. Assistant Superintendent Sonita Young recommended Step III discipline against Woodard because he was in a position of authority and his role was to provide support to students in terms of behavior modification, but Woodard used derogatory language that was offensive toward students. In deciding whether discipline is warranted, the District looks at the totality of the circumstances, including the number of times an incident occurred, how many witnesses there were to the incident, the severity of the incident, whether harm occurred to the child’s physical or mental well-being, whether the employee has been previously disciplined for the same conduct, and whether the employee acknowledged his behavior and is willing to modify his behavior. According to Assistant Superintendent Young, the factors supporting the Step III discipline were that Woodard said the derogatory word D.A.N. to multiple students, the students were middle school students, the student population was fragile and of very low socioeconomic status, and the conduct was repeated over a period of time rather than a singular incident. The fact that this language was used by a teacher, a person in a position of authority whom students have the right to feel “safe” around, were additional factors supporting the discipline. Young believes that Woodard’s use of the word D.A.N. toward or around students showed poor judgment and was damaging to them. Respondent called various character and fact witnesses (Jasmine Daniels, Tiffany Thomas, Tabitha Johnson, Pastor Fredrick Newbill, Niger Lambey, Ricky Stanford, and Daniel Drayton) who testified that Woodard told the story of his friend Dan at a church youth group, in his sermons, or that they knew the story from growing up with Woodard. However, none of the witnesses testified that they heard Woodard tell the Dan story to District students or in a District classroom. Pastor Newbill testified that in his community, D.A.N. has been used as a racial epithet for “dumb ass niggers” for at least the last 25 years. Dr. Arvin Johnson, the former principal of Northwestern, received a complaint about Woodard from a parent in May 2015, near the end of the 2014-2015 school year. Dr. Johnson, who is a friend of Woodard, heard Woodard use the term D.A.N. with students once or twice, but he never heard Woodard tell students a story about a friend named Dan. Although Dr. Johnson has known or worked with Woodard for approximately 12 years, the first time Woodard told Dr. Johnson the story of a friend named Dan was in connection with the parent’s complaint against Woodard in May 2015. Although Woodard has been employed with the District since 2002, he admitted that he did not tell the Dan story to students during the first 12 years of his employment. Woodard did not begin telling the Dan story to District students until the 2014-2015 school year. After not speaking to Daniel Drayton for several years, Woodard called Drayton in 2015 to remind him of the Dan story. Woodard stated that if he knew there was a negative interpretation of D.A.N. he would not have used the term, but his explanation to Ms. Raggins shows that he knew that a racially derogatory meaning of the word D.A.N. existed. Woodard claims that the students lied about him using D.A.N. as an acronym for “dumb ass niggers,” but he could not offer an explanation as to why students, whom he claims “loved” him, and were excited to attend his class, would lie about him. The greater weight of the evidence supports the contention that Woodard used the term D.A.N. in the presence of his ISSP students as a derogatory racial epithet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Duval County School Board, rescinding its suspension of the employment of Ernest Woodard and, instead, issuing a written reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 30th day of November, 2016.
The Issue The central issue in case no. 92-3138 is whether or not Respondent should be dismissed from his continuing contract as a teacher employed by the Orange County school district. The central issue in case no. 92-6637 is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate no. 427416, covering the areas of driver's education and physical education. Such certificate is valid through June 30, 1997. At all times material to this case, Respondent has been employed as a teacher for the Orange County School District. He has been so employed since approximately 1978. In the fall of 1987, Respondent was assigned to Carver where he taught physical education. He remained at Carver until he was relieved of duty on March 26, 1992. Prior to being assigned to Carver, Respondent was employed at Chickasaw Elementary School where he received satisfactory evaluations and did not have any problems with student discipline. After accepting the job at Carver, Respondent became one of four physical education teachers employed there. Respondent faced discipline problems at Carver he had not experienced during his elementary school tenure. Examples of the problems Respondent faced were: students showing disrespect; students teasing (such as name calling); or students being aggressive and argumentative. On March 7, 1989, Respondent received a written reprimand from the Assistant Principal at Carver, Fred Townsend, for inappropriately disciplining a student. The incident cited in the reprimand was directly related to Respondent's class management and the discipline of students. Mr. Townsend's letter instructed the Respondent to adequately supervise students and to use appropriate disciplinary techniques. Mr. Townsend verbally counselled the Respondent concerning appropriate disciplinary techniques. On April 7, 1989, Respondent was involved in an incident with one of the Carver students which resulted in Mr. Townsend issuing Respondent a written directive to refrain from shoving students, and to follow procedures outlined in the Carver Faculty Handbook and the "assertive discipline strategies" when disciplining students. The procedures for disciplining students as outlined in the Carver Faculty Handbook did not permit a teacher to push, shove, or physically discipline a student. Teachers are permitted to use force to intervene to protect students who may be fighting or to protect themselves if attacked. On October 24, 1989, Respondent was directed, in writing and verbally, by a senior manager of employee relations, John Hawco, not to take physical or disciplinary action against students but to follow school and Board rules pertaining to student discipline and control. The directive followed an incident where Respondent allegedly shoved or pushed a student. On or about March 1, 1990, Board staff gave Respondent a letter outlining sources of assistance available through the school system regarding appropriate means to control and discipline students. On March 2, 1990, Respondent received an oral and written directive together with a written letter of reprimand from Mr. Hawco. This written directive was issued after Respondent allegedly used physical force against two students. Such conduct would have been contrary to Mr. Hawco's earlier directive. The March 2, 1990, directive again advised Respondent not to use force or take physical disciplinary action against students. Mr. Hawco's letter urged Respondent to seek assistance and warned Respondent that if he failed to follow the directive, he could be recommended for dismissal. Respondent was also verbally advised at the time he received the March 2, 1990, directive that should similar incidents occur in the future a recommendation could be made for his dismissal. Despite the prior warnings and counselings, during the 1990-1991 school year, John Hawco was called to Carver to investigate several allegations against the Respondent. Such allegations involved inappropriate student discipline. One of the incidents involved a minor male student who allegedly hit the Respondent. In the Respondent's referral to the office, the Respondent stated that the student "hit me in the nose with his fist, so I hit him back". Although the incident caused Mr. Hawco to have concerns about the Respondent, after investigation, the Board took no formal action against the Respondent for this alleged incident. On or about March 13, 1992, the Respondent received a written directive from the Senior Manager of Employee Relations, Alice Tisdell. This directive advised Respondent not to take physical or disciplinary action against students, to exercise appropriate classroom management skills and to follow proper procedures for disciplining students. Ms. Tisdell issued this directive after she was called to investigate allegations that the Respondent continued to physically intervene with students contrary to prior directives to discontinue this type of discipline. On or about March 10, 1992, Ms. Tisdell advised Respondent, verbally and in writing, that should he continue to fail to comply with the directives, appropriate disciplinary action could be taken. Respondent was advised that such disciplinary action could include his dismissal. During the period from 1989 until he was recommended for dismissal in 1992, Respondent was verbally directed by the Carver principal, assistant principals, and Board management, to use appropriate classroom management techniques and to refrain from pushing, shoving, or using force when dealing with students. Despite the oral and written directives, on March 20, 1992, Respondent shoved a student, Johnny Wyatt, into a locker causing minor physical injury to that student. Such act occurred in connection with the discipline of the student, was contrary to the prior directives issued to Respondent, and resulted because Respondent had failed to maintain control of his assigned area. Wyatt is a minor male student at Carver who, at the time of hearing, was in the seventh grade. During the 1991/1992 school year, he was enrolled in Ms. Carry's sixth grade physical education class. The male students in Ms. Carry's class dressed out in the boy's locker room supervised by the Respondent and another male physical education teacher, Dennis Goldsmith. On March 20, 1992, Mr. Goldsmith was absent and Raymond Martin, a permanent substitute employed at Carver, was assigned to cover the locker room with Respondent. When sixth period began, students assembled at their assigned bench seats in order to dress out. Some students began to misbehave by shouting, running around, and engaging in horseplay. On two occasions, the light switches were turned off and on for several seconds. Wyatt came to the sixth period class and sat down after dressing out. With Mr. Martin's permission, he went to the restroom and returned to his seat. The Respondent accused Wyatt of talking. When the student protested that he had not misbehaved, the Respondent grabbed Wyatt by the arm and began to lead him to the locker room office. Wyatt continued to verbally protest while Respondent held his arm. When they reached a row of lockers, the Respondent pushed Wyatt causing his back to strike the lockers. This incident was witnessed from several different vantage points by other students who were in the locker room that day. When the Respondent pushed the student, Wyatt's back struck a metal clasp on the locker and an injury resulted. Contact with the metal clasp caused a one to two inch scrape located just slightly to the right of the student's spine. Approximately eleven months after the incident, a faint scar is still visible. Immediately following the incident, the Respondent ushered Wyatt to the locker room office and Assistant Principal, Richard Vail, was summoned to deal with the students. Mr. Vail arrived five to ten minutes after the beginning of sixth period. Mr. Vail spoke to the students about their misconduct, and sent them on to their respective class groups. Wyatt approached Mr. Vail, showed him the injury to his back, and told him that the Respondent had pushed him into a locker. Mr. Vail asked the student if he wanted to go to the clinic. When Wyatt declined, Mr. Vail sent him on to join his class. When Wyatt arrived at Ms. Carry's class she observed the injury and sent him to the office. Wyatt was subsequently sent to the clinic by Principal Ernest Bradley. When Wyatt went home after school, his parents learned of the incident. The student's father brought him back to school that same day and spoke to Mr. Bradley and the Respondent. Wyatt's parents were upset about the injury. The Respondent denies the incident entirely. He claims that he did not push or shove Wyatt in any way on March 20, 1992, and that he did not learn of the alleged incident until the end of the school day. The credible proof in this case is to the contrary. The Respondent had difficulties controlling the students in his physical education class. Students in his class frequently acted disrespectfully and failed to follow his instructions. Such students challenged Respondent's authority and were disruptive. Because of class rotation, the other physical education teachers had the same students at different times of the year. The other physical education teachers did not experience the difficulties with the frequency or the severity that the Respondent experienced. As a general rule, the students behaved themselves for Mr. Goldsmith, Ms. Pendergrast, and Ms. Carry. Of the four, only Respondent allowed the students to get out of control. Mr. Townsend formally evaluated Respondent during the 1987-88 school year. Mr. Townsend specifically recommended that the Respondent seek help in the areas of student relations and discipline, and that he enroll in workshops for help with management of student conduct. Mr. Townsend formally evaluated the Respondent during the 1988-1989 school year. Mr. Townsend's evaluation rated the Respondent "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the area of Classroom Management and Discipline. Respondent was again advised to enroll in training programs for management and discipline. Mr. Vail observed and evaluated the Respondent during the 1989-1990 school year. Mr. Vail observed the Respondent having difficulties in maintaining control of his class and supervising activities. Mr. Vail suggested methods of improving the structure of the class. He also suggested a different roll-taking method. Mr. Vail's 1989-90 evaluation rated the Respondent as "Needing Improvement" in the area of classroom management and discipline. The Respondent received a "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the areas of subject matter knowledge, planning and student relations. Mr. Vail also gave the Respondent verbal directives to exercise appropriate classroom management. Mr. Vail evaluated the Respondent for the 1991-1992 school year. He observed the Respondent on March 9, 1992, and found several deficiencies with the Respondent's performance. Mr. Vail rated the Respondent as "Needs Improvement" in the areas of classroom management and discipline, planning and delivering instruction, student relations, and professional responsibilities and ethics. Mr. Vail categorized the Respondent as "Satisfactory with Recommendation" in the areas of subject matter knowledge, evaluation of instructional needs, and methods and techniques. Throughout his tenure at Carver, the Respondent has been counseled concerning appropriate discipline techniques and given several opportunities to improve. The Respondent's ability to effectively manage the students did not improve. In short, he was unable to keep good order in his classroom. Respondent has received two reprimands and several directives regarding proper discipline of students. Respondent is required to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession of Florida. Further, teachers are expected to adhere to reasonable directives issued to them by their supervisors. The Respondent received numerous verbal and written directives concerning the appropriate discipline and management of student conduct. These directives were reasonable and were within the scope of the school's authority. Despite the directives, the opportunities to improve, and the offers of assistance, the Respondent did not improve in the areas of classroom management and student discipline. The Respondent was warned of the impropriety of physical contact with students, yet subsequently pushed and injured a student. The incident involving Wyatt was in violation of the prior directives, and constituted insubordination and misconduct. The Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Board has been substantially reduced. Despite several attempts to provide Respondent with assistance, he continued to use inappropriate discipline with students. Understandably, school personnel have lost confidence in Respondent's ability to manage a class, to the point where Respondent cannot return to the classroom. Although the Respondent did not intentionally injure Wyatt, his indifference to the situation placed the student in danger. Respondent failed to protect the student from an avoidable injury. Respondent's use of force was unwarranted as the student did not present a harm to others or to the Respondent. Assuming Wyatt was one of the misbehaving students (which the evidence in this case does not support), force would not have been necessary to discipline a talkative student.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: As to case no. 92-3138, that the School Board of Orange County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from his employment with the district. As to case no. 92-6637, that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order placing the Respondent on probation for a period of not less than three years, requiring Respondent to successfully complete some remedial course of instruction related to class management and discipline of students, and to receive a letter of reprimand for the conduct established by this record. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3138 and 92-6637 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Orange County School Board: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1 through 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18 through 33, 36 through 43, 45, 46, and 48. Paragraph 8 is accepted with the deletion of the last sentence which is not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that Respondent received the directive noted otherwise rejected and not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. With regard to paragraph 11, it is accepted Respondent was adequately apprised of the consequences should his conduct continue; it is not accepted that such warning was in the form of a formal reprimand. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of the last sentence which is rejected as irrelevant, paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 47 is rejected as vague or argument. Paragraphs 49 through 52 are rejected as argument or irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner, Betty Castor: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1, 3 through 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23 through 32, 34 through 38, 41 through 45, and 47. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 11 is not supported by direct evidence of the incident described; no finding is made as to the underlying facts related to prior directives which have not been supported by competent evidence or an admission by the Respondent. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of the last sentence of the paragraph which is rejected as irrelevant, paragraph 19 is accepted. With the deletion of the word "severely" which is rejected as vague or argumentative or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 40 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or vague. Paragraphs 48 through 51 are rejected as argument or irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: The following paragraphs are accepted: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 17, 21 and 22. Paragraph 3 is rejected as irrelevant. Respondent voluntarily accepted the position at Carver and was expected to fulfill his teaching responsibilities at that school. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence especially as to allegations that he "rarely reacted physically". The last sentence is accepted as accurate. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant; the discipline options available to Respondent did not include using force. Paragraph 9 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that Respondent was offered courses to improve and that he may have attended same, he just didn't comply with the directives or improve his skills either through indifference or otherwise. With regard to paragraph 11, it is accepted Respondent received a reprimand on the date in question for inappropriate discipline techniques; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 12, it is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. With the deletion of the last sentence which is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is rejected as repetitive, argumentative, or irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 18 to the extent that it suggests Respondent's action was in self-defense is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and otherwise rejected as comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as unnecessary comment. Paragraph 20 is rejected contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, argumentative, or irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Wyatt's account of the incident at the hearing has been deemed credible and wholly accurate as to the incident that transpired in the locker room that date. Respondent's account, on the other hand, was not. Paragraph 25 is rejected argumentative and contrary to the weight of credible evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 26 is accepted; the remainder rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 27 is rejected as speculative, irrelevant, or argumentative. With regard to paragraph 28, it is accepted that Respondent did not use inappropriate language; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. With the clarification that Wyatt did scrape his back on the locker and the rejection of the "allegedly" comment which is contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, paragraph 29 is accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argumentative and irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 32 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted to the extent is identifies Wyatt as the student injured by Respondent on March 20, 1992; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 35 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe Lev, Esq. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802-2231 Roseanna J. Lee, Esq. Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esq. HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN 390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801 Margaret E. O'Sullivan, Esq. Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde, Exec. Dir. 301 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Donald Shaw, Superintendent Orange County Shool Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
The Issue Whether respondent discriminated against petitioner on account of his age in terminating his employment, in violation of the Florida Human Relations Act, Section 760.10 et seq., Florida Statutes (1989)?
Findings Of Fact On July 3, 1989, when he was fired, Neal C. Currow, who was born on January 20, 1927, was by far the oldest employee (T.180) at the Panama City Marine Institute, (PCMI) a non-profit corporation that contracts with the Bay County School Board to provide alternative education programs; and with co- respondent Associated Marine Institutes, Inc. (AMI) to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents or furnish other services for young people. AMI "consists of" (T.225) or "operates" (T.226) 28 schools or institutes like PCMI, of which 13 are in Florida. AMI contracts with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to provide services, then subcontracts with its constituent schools. AMI has "central bookkeeping . . . all the payroll is done in Tampa." T.228. But AMI does not maintain complete personnel files on each employee centrally. A "40 year Water Safety Instructor Trainer with the American Red Cross," (T.181) Mr. Currow also holds a "100 ton Master's license for . . . Auxiliary Sail," id., issued by the U.S. Coast Guard. After 18 years as an independent building contractor, he became a junior college teacher and "started all of the building programs for the Gulf Coast [Junior] College." Id. Mr. Currow wears a hearing aid, but he still does aerobics five days a week. Before he went to work for PCMI as a paid employee on September 29, 1980, Mr. Currow had worked as a volunteer for approximately a year, donating money and the use of his motor home, as well as time. A "stable employee, he had all the knowledge . . . [and was] relied on for information . . . [about] how to do things." T.139. Other employees looked up to him and the children respected him more than most of the other teachers. Id. At PCMI, he suffered the gibes of Jack Ross, George M. "Mike" Larson, who was director of operations at the time, Mr. Larson's successor, with apparent good humor. In staff meetings, Messrs. Ross and Larson referred to him as "the old man" and "the old fossil." T.140-1. When Mr. Larson did "his hearing aid thing" (T.140), i.e., telling Mr. Currow to "turn it up Neal, or turn it down, Neal, or something referring to it . . . Jack would laugh." T.140. Danny Grizzard referred to Mr. Currow as "the old man" five or ten times a week, sometimes behind his back, and frequently asked questions like "Does Neal have his hearing aid turned up?" T.121. Danny Grizzard is "in his 40's" (5.12) and Jack Ross is "[m]aybe a couple of years younger." Id. As seamanship and vocational instructor at PCMI, Mr. Currow taught sailing and woodworking. T.30. He also had duties as a "Deep Sea Captain" (T.615) and "did all the training of the staff in aquatics." Id. He regularly took student teams to sailing regattas. Petitioner chaperoned "more student trips that anybody [else] in the institute. In fact, [he] taught about student trips at . . . staff conferences every year." T.172. On such trips and otherwise, PCMI students required supervision, an institute policy that was "stressed continually." T.221. The policy is that "[c]hildren should remain within the eyesight of the staff that they're assigned with," (T.17) but the policy was not always followed. T.105, 158. On overnight trips, official policy specified that the ratio of students to staff should not exceed 5 to 1. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, but compliance with this policy, too, was a sometimes thing. The Early Years As executive director of PCMI from March of 1983 to August of 1988, Larry Schmidt spoke to Mr. Currow about supervising children at least twice. Early on in this five-and-a-half-year period, on two occasions, students under petitioner's supervision reoprtedly misbehaved, both times at Etheridge Marina in Panama City. Once students smoked in the bathroom there and another time there "was a theft . . . [of] sodas or something," (T.221) or so Mr. Schmidt heard. Mike Larson, PCMI's Director of Operations for approximately a year ending in the middle of March 1989, testified that petitioner "would become insubordinate with me." T.214. He also testified: "[H]is students might be out on the dock and he would be in his classroom, okay, out of his supervision. There's other times, one case in memory, the students was in his classroom and he was next door at a business getting parts." T.213. (Of course, testimony that something "might be" cannot establish what in fact occurred.) Mr. Larson spoke to Mr. Currow about supervising the students on "several occasions." T.213. Jack K. Ross succeeded Mr. Schmidt as PCMI's Executive Director, approximately half way through Mr. Larson's tenure as operations director. Mr. Ross remembered an occasion in August of 1988 when Mr. Currow was in his classroom while "the kids were outside in the back yard without a staff member" (T.39) and another time when "there were kids out there on the dock . . . [and petitioner was in the seamanship] room getting fishing gear." T.39. On the latter occasion, Mr. Ross testified, he "walked into the seamanship room and I said, 'look Neal, you need to be with your kids', and he said, 'well, I can't be in two places at one time.' And I said, 'well then, you need to bring your kids with you in the class and do it as a group.' And at the staff meetings I reiterated the supervision on a couple of occasions." T.39. On at least one other occasion, Mr. Ross spoke to Mr. Currow individually about supervising children. Written Expectations Like Mr. Larson, Mr. Ross felt Mr. Currow was insubordinate at times. After Mr. Ross spoke to O.B. Standard, AMI's vice-president of operations, about petitioner, Mr. Standard visited PCMI, where he spoke further with Mr. Ross "worked with . . . [Mr. Larson] on his people skills" (T.51); and "had a nice conversation [with Mr. Currow] . . . for two or three hours . . . about supervision [and] everything else you could imagine." T.190. At Mr. Standard's suggestion, Mr. Ross then wrote Mr. Currow this memorandum, dated November 28, 1988: Neal, as a veteran staff member at PCMI, you are a vital part of a very elite team. Your commitment to PCMI and the kids over the past 10 years is of the finest standards. Your hard work and dedication has made you a legend within PCMI. As you are aware, there have been a few changes at PCMI over the previous months. As a professional, I am soliciting your help in supporting me with some of these often difficult changes. There comes a time in everyone's life when we have to stop and decide whether we can adapt and change, or whether we need to step down to reach a new personal challenge. Should you decide to remain with PCMI and continue using your expertise towards helping the troubled youth of Bay County, there are a few expectations I ask that you must consider. Below I have outlined what I expect from every member of the PCMI staff to continue to make PCMI a winning team. Supervision--a maximum of 7:1 ratio of students to staff member. You are to remain with the students you are assigned. Everything during the course of the day that you are involved with, should be done with every member of your class. Never separate the class and put yourself in a position where you cannot intervene with a situation. Negative comments--to display teamwork and integrity among the kids, we cannot expose ourselves as being negative around the students. Talking negative around the students about other staff members is not acceptable behavior. As a member of the PCMI team we are being observed the community 24 hours a day. When comments are made concerning the institute, they should always be made with PCMI's best interest at heart. Supporting the D.O.--The Director of Operations is the conductor of the orchestra. If he is not supported by the rest of the team, then the kids suffer. As the Executive Director I will not allow the kids to suffer. It is your responsibility to support the Operations Director if you are to remain a part of the team. Insubordination--insubordination is not accepting authority. As a captain you know that every member of your crew cannot give orders to control the boat. You expect every crew member to lend a hand and accept orders to ensure the success of the cruise. The same is true at PCMI. Insubordination is not acceptable at PCMI. These are the only changes I have made that I think you should re-evaluate. What I am talking about are values. Values are what we are trying to teach the kids. If we do not display them, then we are being hypocritical with the students. Neal, we need you at PCMI, and I sincerely hope you decide to personally accept these challenges and join the team again. Should you decide to continue with PCMI, and I hope you do, I and the rest of the PCMI team are willing to help you work on these problem areas. If this is asking too much, then I understand and I wish you the best of luck in the future. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Aside from this memorandum, no writing in respondent's personnel file made mention of any problems supervising students. T.50. Not long after the memorandum was written, PCMI sent Mr. Currow to Dallas with five or six students to pick up a sailboat. (T.193). Single Incident Next Year In years past staff and students alike had attended regattas on St. Andrew Bay as spectators when the PCMI team Mr. Currow coached participated. T.20. Again in 1989, the PCMI team won the regatta. But, when at least one instructor asked to take her students to watch, Danny Grizzard, who had taken over from Mr. Larson as operations director on March 6, 1989, had denied permission. Mr. Currow and seven PCMI students were together day and night during the regatta, which began on the last Monday in June and finished the following Thursday, June 29, 1989. At the banquet and awards ceremony with which the regatta concluded, Mr. Currow told Mr. Grizzard that "he and the kids were going out for ice cream with one of the other teams and that he was going to spend the night [with the students on a sailboat anchored] at the park." T.62. One of the young sailors in petitioner's charge that night, Shane Hernandez, lived on the same street as Fran, petitioner's "lady friend." At least as early as the banquet, there was talk of watching television at Shane's house. After the banquet and after ice cream, petitioner acquiesced, taking the students to Shane's house, where they found "the lights on . . . and the cars . . . there." T.171. While the others waited outside in the van, Shane went inside ostensibly to learn, as respondent had asked him to find out, if it would be "okay for [them] to watch TV." T.171. Shane reappeared saying it was "okay," and petitioner let the other students out of the van, saying he would be right back. Only later did Mr. Currow learn that neither Shane's parents nor any other adult had been at home when he left the children there. T.207. After dropping the students off at the Hernandezes', he drove "two doors down" "probably around 75 yards" (T.13) to his friend's house, parked and went inside. Before the awards banquet, Mr. Currow had gotten word that his mother was "in the hospital in Pensacola again, and . . . [had] a blood clot in her leg." T.170. Using Fran's telephone, he spoke to a hospital nurse in Pensacola. Fifteen or twenty minutes after dropping the children off, he started for the Hernandez home on foot. The students met him before he reached the house, asking for something to drink. Evidently Mr. Hernandez's girlfriend, who arrived at the Hernandez house shortly after the children did, (T.136) had nothing to offer. After Fran served the boys soft drinks, Mr. Currow drove them back to the sailboat where they all spent the night. Friday morning they returned to PCMI. Petitioner Discharged The next day Danny Grizzard telephoned Shane Hernandez. In response to his questions, Shane told him that the students had been unsupervised for 15 or 20 minutes. Immediately after talking to Shane, he telephoned Mr. Ross, and relayed the news. The next Monday, a day off for petitioner, Mr. Grizzard summoned him to PCMI's offices, where he and Jack Ross told him he no longer had a job. "Neal, you['ve] finally done it," (T.169) Mr. Ross said. Perplexed, Mr. Currow did not realize what he was talking about at first. Then he or Mr. Grizzard told him of the report that the children had been left unsupervised for 15 or 20 minutes, but nothing was said about his having sole supervision overnight of seven (rather than five or less) students, a ratio his supervisors had countenanced. Learning that Mr. Currow had resigned or been discharged, students prepared a petition which stated, in part: "We feel it is unfair that the most valued and loved instructor at PCMI be punished because he trusted us." Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. The petition was signed by 27 students, perhaps all of the students at PCMI. (Eric Hernandez, Shane's father, testified for petitioner at hearing.) Younger Men Hired The preceding Thursday (the day of the awards banquet), PCMI had hired Eddie Prevost, at the time 27 or 28 years old, to instruct in scuba diving and to do woodworking. "He did some vocational work, that was his background." T.34. Mr. Prevost, who, when hired, filled a newly created position, took over petitioner's duties as vocational instructor, after petitioner was discharged. The vacant slot created by petitioner's termination was filled by 25- year-old John Penland, who took over petitioner's duties as seamanship instructor. To the extent the place Mr. Currow had held in the organization was filled, younger men took his place. PCMI "had additional funding in July and . . . split the position into two positions . . .." T.74. PCMI "replaced [petitioner] with a vocational instructor and a seamanship instructor." Id. Some time after the discharge, PCMI proposed to petitioner that he continue training staff in aquatics on a contract basis, but petitioner turned down this offer to work two weeks a year for $75.00 a day. T.177. At no time after July 3, 1989, did AMI or PCMI offer petitioner any other employment. T.176. Nobody was hired to train staff in aquatics, as far as the evidence disclosed. Incident Was Pretext AMI and PCMI attach understandable importance to supervision of children for whom they are responsible. Yet, as far as the record shows, PCMI has never terminated any other employee for failure to supervise students. T.244. This is so even though it "was not unusual" (T.105) at PCMI for students to be out of sight of the instructors responsible for their supervision. T.158, 176. Sometimes as many as 14 students would be assigned clean-up out of doors (as punishment) and left without supervision, except for checks every 40 minutes or so. T. 106, 142. Certain staff members frequently permitted children to walk between the PCMI campus and the civic center unsupervised. These facts were known to some, probably all, supervisory personnel. Between November of 1988 and February 1, 1991, some of the 27 other schools that, together with PCMI, comprise AMI discharged a total of 43 employees citing problems supervising children. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. The severity and frequency of such problems are not a matter of record, however, and nobody who had worked nearly as long as petitioner had was terminated for this reason. Id. Respondents showed that, of the 44 people discharged for student supervision problems during this period by all 28 schools, petitioner was the oldest: eight others were over 40 years old and four of them were also over 50. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. The fact that Mr. Currow left the sailing team unsupervised for 15 or 20 minutes at the Hernandez house was not the real reason for his discharge, although, as petitioner himself conceded, Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, this lapse was a breach of institute policy for which discipline was appropriate. Messrs. Ross and Grizzard did not themselves view the incident as an adequate reason to discharge petitioner. Petitioner's dismissal was out of keeping with past practice at PCMI. His firing came as a genuine and understandable surprise to him and others, and was viewed by virtually everyone other than the decision-makers as an injustice. E.g., Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. The reaction to his discharge reflected how drastic the departure from ordinary practice was, and how implausible the reason assigned for the termination was.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter an order requiring respondents to reinstate petitioner (or make an appropriate award of front pay) and award back pay, attorney's fees and costs; and, in the event the parties cannot agree on the details of relief, that the Commission remand for further hearing as necessary. RECOMMENDED this 14th of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7301 With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Currow was a paid employee for less than nine years. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 5 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except for the date. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 8, somebody else was sent to help at one point. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16, no such termination occurred after November of 1988, except for Mr. Currow's. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19, the evidence did not show that the hearing impairment was age related. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3 and 33, numerous instances of students' going unsupervised were proven, including a 45-minute lapse by Mr. Grizzard. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, nobody present at the time testified to these events. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 16, the letter did not warn "that any further occurrence . . . would result in disciplinary action or termination." With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 17, it was not shown this was attributable to supervision as opposed to insubordination problems. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 19 through 23 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 29, petitioner was not offered work in a residential program. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 31, Prevost was hired before July 3, 1989. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 32, Penland assumed some of petitioner's duties. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald M. McElrath, Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Rhonda S. Clyatt, Esquire P.O. Box 2492 Panama City, FL 32402 E. John Dinkel, III, Esquire Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly P.O. Box 1531 Tampa, FL 32601 Dana Baird, Esquire Harden King, Esquire 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause to terminate Francis Madassery’s employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board based upon the allegations made in its Notice of Specific Charges filed on August 6, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Miami-Dade County Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Madassery started his employment with the School Board in 2004. He was employed pursuant to a professional services contract. From 2004-2011, Madassery taught Exceptional Student Education (“ESE”) at Norland Elementary School ("Norland"). He was not subject to any discipline while employed as an ESE teacher, and his tenure in that position was successful. During that period, he received exemplary or satisfactory evaluations. In October 2011, Norland Principal, Powers, moved Madassery from his ESE position to a regular mathematics second- grade education class after Norland lost an ESE teaching position because student enrollment declined. Throughout the rest of the 2011-2012 school year, Madassery co-taught with Shenika Uptgrow. Madassery received a satisfactory performance evaluation for the 2011-2012 school year. During the Norland 2012-2013 school year, Madassery expected to return to teaching ESE, but he was assigned to a second-grade regular mathematics classroom. Madassery co-taught with Johnson the same group of students in different subject areas. Madassery taught math, science, and social studies, and Johnson taught the same students reading and language arts. Madassery and Johnson’s second-grade class was challenging with approximately eight students out of the total 38 students with behavioral problems. Problems ranged from students unable to remain on task or complete assignments to students who disrupted the classroom. Even though Johnson had been teaching for seven years, she found it difficult to teach the second graders at times because of the behavioral problems. Occasionally, she had to spend part of the class period dealing with the behavioral issues. Madassery and Johnson discussed the behavioral problems of their students often and strategized on how to control their behavior. On October 15, 2012, Powers observed Respondent in his classroom for an hour and fifteen minutes. Powers documented her observations on the Observations of Standards Form-Teacher. During the observation, Respondent was deficient in the area of knowledge of learners, Performance Standard (“Standard”) 2, and the area of instructional delivery and engagement, Standard 4. Respondent failed to meet Standard 2 because Madassery instructed every student in the same manner as opposed to using the different types of instruction for varying ability levels. Respondent should have instructed the students in groups based on their performance level and their baseline scores. Madassery was deficient in Standard 4 because he failed to deliver a complete Go Math1/ lesson for the day by allowing students to work on problems by themselves without any instructions, not introducing the problem-solving or hot questions. Powers saw Respondent walk around and work with students individually during the observation but he did not teach each student how to work through the problems as required. Instead, he wrote the correct answers for each student. On October 17, 2012, Powers notified Madassery that a support dialogue meeting was being held to discuss the observation of October 15, 2012. During the meeting, Powers placed Madassery on a support dialog, a 21-day period wherein a math coach and another second-grade teacher were to provide assistance to Madassery so that he could improve his deficiencies. On November 13, 2012, Powers performed a second classroom observation of Madassery teaching math for an hour and 26 minutes. During the observation, Respondent was deficient in three standards. Respondent still did not meet Standard 2 because he did not separate students into small groups for instruction based on their specific learning needs. As in the first observation, Madassery still walked around the room again checking the students’ work and wrote correct answers in the workbooks instead of re-teaching the specific math skill to a small group of students. Students who finished their work had nothing to do because Respondent spent most of the 90-minute lesson correcting answers in the workbooks. Madassery was still deficient in Standard 4 because he presented information to his class that was unclear and not one of the 13 “students were able to break down the number to subtract into two numbers.” Furthermore, Respondent answered his own questions while teaching the lesson and taught part of the lesson at his computer with his back to the students. During the second observation, Madassery was also deficient of Standard 8 because he was unable to establish effective classroom management. Students got up to use the bathroom at will, two students fell out of their chairs, students were arguing with each other, and one student had his head down for approximately nine minutes. Respondent’s only responses to improper behavior were to bang on the desk and whisper in the students’ ears. On November 19, 2012, Powers held a Conference for the Record with Madassery regarding the November 13, 2012, observation. Powers discussed her observations and placed Respondent on a 90-Calendar Day Performance Probation, which was documented by an Improvement Plan (“IP”) for Respondent to follow. Madassery’s IP was designed to help improve his specified deficiencies and required that he complete six activities by December 19, 2012. As of January 17, 2013, Respondent had only shown two of the six requested activities to Powers. On January 17, 2013, Powers issued Respondent a written Professional Responsibilities memo. The memo dated January 17, 2013, stated: On November 28, 2012, you were given Improvement Plans (IP) for Performance Standards 2, 4, and 8 with specific activities to complete and submit by December 19, 2012. As of this date, you have shown two of the requested activities to this administrator. The following is a summary of the activities which still need to be submitted for each performance standard: Performance Standard 2: “Best Practice” summary from Ms. Fuller, Ms. Colbourne, and the UTD Mentor Performance Standard 4: Submit a revised mathematics lesson plan Summarize a “Best Practice” after observing Ms. Buchanan Performance Standard 8: Submit a parent communication log Please be reminded that during the 90- Calendar Day probationary period, it is your responsibility to submit the requested activities to this administrator on time. You are requested to submit the remaining items by January 25, 2013. Please see me if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Madassery submitted the remaining IP assignments that were originally due on December 19, 2012, to Powers on January 25, 2013. The third observation of Madassery was conducted by Assistant Principal Johnson-Brinson, on January 8, 2013. Johnson-Brinson observed Madassery teaching second-grade mathematics from 10:17 a.m. to 11:35 a.m. During the third observation, Madassery did not use the Go Math2/ curriculum. Instead, Respondent wrote on the smartboard and lectured his second graders throughout the math lesson without using any manipulatives3/ for the required objective of the math lesson taught for the day. Madassery was still deficient in Standards 2, 4, and 8. After the January 8, 2013, observation, a post- observation meeting was held on January 17, 2013. Madassery was placed on a revised IP to help him learn techniques and improve his deficiencies. In order to improve deficiency in Standard 2, Madassery was given the following IP assignments, due on February 16, 2013: to read an article on Identifying Students’ Learning Styles and then identify two strategies that he could use to address the learning styles of his students. Respondent was also required to attend a professional development session with his union mentor regarding differentiated instruction and summarize how he planned to implement differentiated instruction in his classroom after the session. In the IP for deficiency Standard 4, Respondent was assigned to observe the math coach teach a lesson utilizing manipulatives, teach a lesson as the math coach observed, and get feedback from the math coach. On February 14, 2013, Powers observed Respondent’s math class for one hour and 25 minutes. The subject for the lesson was the use of grams versus kilograms to weigh objects. Madassery was still deficient in Standard 2 because he taught the whole group of students by asking and answering his own questions and never separated the students into differentiated instructional groups. Madassery also demonstrated he was deficient in Standard 4 during the observation because he did not follow the Go Math curriculum by starting the lesson by explaining the purpose. Additionally, when Respondent used the smartboard, only two out of 17 students were paying attention. Of the remaining students, six were talking, three were out of their seats, three were on the computer, two had their heads down, and one was playing with a toy. Respondent also failed to teach the problem-solving portion of the Go Math lesson. Madassery was deficient in Standard 5 because his student folders were not maintained in a way to record how each child was performing in class. When Powers reviewed the student folders, they were dated from August through November 2012, even though it was the third grading period. None of the folders indicated how Respondent was evaluating grades for the second and third grading periods. Madassery provided Powers graded papers with smiley faces rather than the required letter grades. Additionally, there were two stacks of ungraded and undated math assignments in the classroom. Madassery also spent the majority of the 90-minute class trying to control his students’ behavior and Madassery failed to deal with the behavioral issues effectively. Therefore, Respondent was deficient in Standard 8. On February 21, 2013, a post-observation meeting was held with Madassery regarding the fourth observation on February 14, 2013. Madassery was deficient in four areas during the observation. Additionally, Respondent had failed to timely turn in his IP assignments a second time. The deadline was February 16, 2013. Powers issued Madassery a second professional responsibilities memo regarding following the IP and deadlines. During the meeting, Powers also provided Madassery another revised IP with assignments for him to complete to help improve the four February 14, 2013, observation deficiencies and gave a March 14, 2013, deadline. For deficiency of Standard 2, Madassery was to attend a professional development workshop on differentiated instruction and write a summary of how he implements differentiated instruction in his classroom, analyze his students’ data from the winter math interim test, and write a plan on how he will address his students’ strengths and weaknesses. For Standard 4, Respondent was assigned to watch the math coach model a math lesson and then submit an outline of a math lesson from start to finish. For Standard 5, Respondent was assigned to communicate with another teacher about how to organize the students’ folders and submit a summary on how he planned to implement an organizational plan, discuss grading papers with the math coach, and submit a procedure for how he planned to grade papers and place grades in the e-gradebook. The February 19, 2013, IP also required Respondent to revise his discipline plan, and outline a best practice to be utilized in his classroom based on the article, “The Well- Managed Classroom,” to help improve Respondent’s skills for Standard 8. Another evaluation was conducted by Powers on March 20, 2013. During the observation, Madassery displayed the same deficiencies as previous observations and no improvement had taken place despite all the assistance provided to Madassery. The observation lasted an hour and 10 minutes. Madassery still was deficient in Standard 2 because even though he separated the students into groups, the groups were not divided according to the students’ abilities. For example, three students needed math remediation but Respondent placed them at the computer to do a reading program. Also, he grouped two students together who understood the lesson and provided them remedial assistance even though they should have received enrichment activities. Madassery was still also deficient in Standard 4 because he did not begin the lesson by explaining its purpose and connecting it to the students’ prior knowledge. During the observation, Powers reviewed Madassery’s student folders to see if Respondent had brought them up to date as previously instructed. On March 20, 2013, the student folders still only contained papers dated from August 2012 to November 2012. Additionally, stacks of ungraded and undated papers were still located on a shelf behind Respondent’s desk. Madassery also still failed to manage the students’ behavior effectively during the observation. For example, four students were continuously walking around the classroom, six students were off-task, and the remaining seven students sat at desks without doing anything. After the observation, Powers determined that Respondent was incapable of effectively teaching in the classroom and recommended that Madassery’s employment contract be terminated. On April 17, 2013, Petitioner took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent for just cause, including, but not limited to, failure to correct noted performance deficiencies within the 90-calendar-day performance probation period and incompetency due to inefficiency. Petitioner ultimately charged Madassery with two counts in Notice of Specific Charges dated August 6, 2013, that included Count I, Failure to Correct Performance Deficiencies, and Count II, Incompetency Due to Inefficiency.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order that: Immediately reinstates Respondent Francis Madassery; and Issues Respondent back salary. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 30th day of December, 2013.
The Issue Whether the teaching certificate of Respondent John Eugene Armstrong should be suspended, revoked or annulled.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Professional Practices Council seeks to revoke Respondent John Eugene Armstrong's teaching certificate based on a recommendation filed September 20, 1976, by Hugh Ingram, Administrator of the Council. The Council alleges that the Respondent is guilty of gross immorality and that he failed to perform his duties as educator as required by Section 231.09, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the raising of the issue of fairness and constitutional guarantees by the hearing panel of the Professional Practices Council and without admitting the validity of the issue, the Council relinquished jurisdiction of the cause and requested that jurisdiction be assumed by a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petition for the Revocation of Teacher's Certificate filed by the Petitioner on October 7, 1976, contended that Respondent John Eugene Armstrong: "1. On August 16, 1967, at 4:00 p.m. made two threatening phone calls to Mr. Claude O. Hilliard, former principal, using pro- fane language; On or about January 14, 1975, made an obscene gesture with his fingers to Linda Rhodes, a student; On or about June 20, 1975, confronted Mrs. Marilyn H. Bagby, Coordinator EMR, in a classroom and made threatening remarks; On or about November 10, 1975, entered the girls' locker room when the girls were dressing out for class as observed by Coach Ruth Stevens and Coach Geraldine Williams; On or about November 10, 1975, in rela- tion to the incident in Number 4, threatened Ms. Ida L. Shellman, Administrative assistant; On or about December 10, 1975, fondled the upper portion of Gwendolyn Lowe's, a student's, body; On January 29, 1976, in the presence of Mr. R. L. Ballew, Director, Area I, made accusations against Mr. Milton Threadcraft, principal, in a threatening manner; On March 3, 1976, struck Lavern White, a student, on or about his neck causing bruises; On March 12, 1976, struck Johnny Hill, a student lacerating his upper lip; The Respondent Armstrong was first employed by the Board of Education in the public schools of Duval County, Florida, in 1952. He holds valid Florida Teaching Certificate Number 401436. In 1973 he was assigned to Northwestern High School to teach industrial arts and was assigned to teach classes of educable mentally retarded (EMR) students. He taught special education industrial arts classes consisting of seventh and eighth grade students. Respondent stated that he had attempted to obtain a transfer from the Northwestern School on a number of occasions both because of dissatisfaction with the facilities and because of harassment he received from the administration. He stated that discipline was a major problem among EMR students. Various witnesses were called to testify and findings in regard to the aforementioned charges are as follows: The charge that Respondent made threatening phone calls to Mr. Claude O. Hilliard, former principal, using profane language was not proved. The charge that Respondent made an obscene gesture with his fingers to Linda Rhodes, a student, was denied by the Respondent who stated that he did not know what an obscene gesture meant. The student testified that he "shot a bird" at her and demonstrated by position of her fingers. She was a member of Respondent Armstrong's class two years ago and was advised by her counselor, Mrs. Shellman, to write out a complaint against Respondent. Upon observing the demeanor of the witnesses, I find the Respondent did make such a gesture to Linda Rhodes, a sixteen year old student. Considering the testimony of the Respondent and of Mrs. Marilyn H. Bagby, the Hearing Officer finds that Respondent was upset and did in fact make remarks to her concerning a report she made subsequent to her observation of Respondent's teaching and room atmosphere which he had not received and that the witness Bagby was in fact frightened by the presence of the Respondent in her room alone, his close proximity and his tone of voice on or about June 20, 1975. She verbally reported the incident to her supervisors and later made a written report of the incident. Respondent testified that if he threatened her he did not recall it. The Respondent admitted that he did in fact enter the girls locker room when the girls were dressing out for class on or about November 10, 1975. The evidence does not show that the entrance into the girls locker room was for an immoral purpose although he knew or should have known he should not have entered when the girls were in various stages of undress. Considering the testimony of the Respondent and Mrs. Ida L. Shellman, Administrative Assistant, concerning the locker room incident, the Hearing Officer finds that by Respondent's presence with his hands in his pockets, his remarks and his general tone of voice, Mrs. Shellman was in fact threatened and frightened. Respondent testified that he did not recall his conversation relative to the incident as being threatening. The charge that on or about December 10, 1975, Respondent fondled the upper portion of Gwendolyn Lowe's, a student's, body was not proven by the evidence. The charge is that on January 29, 1976, in the presence of R. L. Ballew, Director, Area I, Respondent made accusations against Mr. Milton Threadcraft, the principal, in a threatening manner. The testimony of Mr. Threadcraft is believable when he testified that Respondent accused him of being incompetent and said that he, Respondent, was not going to put up with it. The remarks of Respondent were subsequent to a commotion in the school room in which wood was being thrown about and the Respondent had taken a student by the arms to discipline him. The principal, Threadcraft, was called by other students to witness the actions of Respondent. Respondent was relieved of his duties for the remainder of the day after a later confrontation with the principal and director. The testimony and evidence supports the charge. Charge Number 8 that Respondent struck Lavern White on March 3, 1976, on or about his neck causing bruises was proven by the testimony of the student, Lavern White, and also by a fellow student, Johnnie Hills. Sufficient evidence was not shown that Respondent in fact did strike Johnnie Hills on March 12, 1976, lacerating his lip although the evidence shows that Respondent did use corporal punishment by pushing the student against the wall to discipline him. Respondent attempted to discipline students through physical restraints. The Respondent was dissatisfied with his teaching position in the school to which he was assigned. He had asked to be transferred, he testified, about ten times in three years. The students were a discipline problem. The method of discipline of the students was to use force which, among other things, caused the students to be dissatisfied with their classwork. Order was not kept in the class and objects were thrown about the class from time to time. The Respondent was feared by some of the other teachers and by some of the students. From the general comments of the students of Respondent and the adult staff members, it is evident that the classes of Respondent did not reflect an atmosphere for optimum learning. Respondent appeared resentful of his professional status and uncooperative toward the other members of the educational community. He displayed no interest in the education of his students.
Recommendation Suspend the teaching certificate of the Respondent Armstrong for a period of time not to exceed three (3) years. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Barrett, Esquire Post Office Box 1501 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donald Nichols, Esquire 320 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a valid Florida teaching certificate, No. 150877. That certificate allows him to teach in the areas of business education, mathematics, social studies and vocational education and is valid through June :30, 1995-. Respondent has been an employee of the School Board of Nassau County since 1979. He teaches mathematics at West Nassau High School in Callahan, Florida where he also serves as the chairman of the mathematics department. Respondent taught general math to a male student, Joey Roundtree, in the school 1985-86. One day while the student was in class he stood at Respondent's desk. Respondent was to the right of the student seated his chair. The student laid a book or piece of paper down and the Respondent reached across to pick up the book or paper and the back of his hand touched the student in the area of his midsection or the zipper of his pants. Respondent's hand moved straight across. Nothing was said by Respondent to the student at that time nor did Respondent make any facial gestures at that time. The student said nothing to the Respondent about this and no other action of this nature occurred between the Respondent and the student on any other occasion. While the Administrative Complaint by the Commissioner describes it as inappropriate conduct in that the Respondent is alleged to have "reached across the desk and brushed against the student's lower midsection", this touching by the Respondent is not found to be inappropriate. It is also significant that counsel to the Commissioner in the proposed fact finding does not urge upon the fact finder that this touching was inappropriate. While Joey Roundtree was in Respondent's general math class in the school year 1985-86 he recalls Respondent making sexually suggestive comments or innuendoes from statements made by other students. While Roundtree can not recall specific statements as they were made he remembers that generally the nature of the exchange between Respondent and a student would be to the effect that the student would say something like, "this is a hard question" and Respondent would say "well it's extremely hard" and in doing so the Respondent would emphasize the word hard. Roundtree recalls walking between the desks on several occasions at which time the Respondent would stare below Roundtree's belt until Roundtree arrived at Respondent's desk at which time time Respondent would lick his lips and look above his glasses. On many occasions Roundtree observed, almost daily, that if a comment was made about length, size or shape that the Respondent would turn this around in a suggestive way that was sexual. Roundtree in his 1985-86 school year understood that the Respondent was referred to as "Dirty Rob" and after being in class Roundtree recognized that the basis for that name was associated with what Roundtree refers to as dirty and nasty and suggestive conduct by the Respondent. These terms by Roundtree equate to sexual innuendos by the Respondent. `This even extended to Respondent and his conduct involving sexual innuendos out of the classroom and in the hallway. Roundtree observed that the Respondent in emphasizing the word "hard" would make facial gestures by looking down above his glasses and licking his lips at Roundtree as a member of the class and smiling and laughing when he said the word "hard". Roundtree recalls Respondent making comments to female members of the class of a sexual nature in the school year 1985-86 but cannot specify what those comments were. He did observe that they were accompanied by liplicking and smiling. Those actions by the Respondent met with comments by some of the female students to the effect "you're being nasty" or "I know what your trying to say," to which the Respondent would reply that "well, your mind is in the gutter". Roundtree has no recollection that the female students appeared embarrassed by the actions of Respondent directed to them, actions which were an every day occurrence. Allegations in the Administrative Complaint and Statement of Charges concerning the school year 1989-90 as to inappropriate and unprofessional conduct involving the touching of the breast and buttocks of a female student, sexually suggestive comments to a female student, inappropriate comments to a female student about her appearance, touching a male student in the genital area, making innuendoes from statements made by students and the use of profanity in front of and directed at students were not proven except to this limited extent: Dana Kriete was a math student taught by the Respondent in the year 1989- She overheard the Respondent talk about a girl's breasts, how large they were. That girl was Dell Evans. More specifically Respondent commented that he wondered "what her boyfriend could do with them," referring to Evans' breast. This comment was made in the presence of other students and loud enough so that the other students could have heard the remarks. When the remarks were made about Dell Evans, Evans appeared upset. The general remarks about Dell Evans were made on approximately five occasions. Kriete also overheard the Respondent use profanity in the classroom, specifically the words "ass" and "damn." In the school year 1990-91 Respondent taught consumer math to Carla Bass, a female student. Bass routinely attended class which was held on each school day, five consecutive days. While attending class Bass overheard the Respondent make sexually suggestive comments. Most of these comments were directed to Sylvia Brantley, a female student, regarding the breasts of Ms. Brantley. Bass overheard Respondent describe how big Sylvia Brantley's breasts were. Bass also heard Respondent say in class that when Brantley was asleep that Respondent was going to "kiss Brantley and wake her up like they do in Snowwhite". These remarks by Respondent were stated loud enough for other students to hear them. In the school year 1990-91 Bass heard Respondent refer to a female student whose name is Christine Hughes as Christine "Huge" which was an innuendo having to do with the student's breasts. Bass observed that when Respondent would make remarks about Brantley and Hughes that Brantley and Hughes would appear embarrassed. In the school year 1990-91 Bass observed the Respondent while staring at her breasts lick his lips and roll his eyes. Bass observed the Respondent lick his lips and raise his eyebrows while looking at other female students in particular certain parts of their bodies. While Bass was in the Respondent's class in the school year 1990-91 she overheard Respondent make suggestive comments about a student Jason Englert whom Respondent referred to as "inch". Englert would be cheating in class and giving out answers to other students and would refer to a measurement associated with inches to which the Respondent said, "yeah, I heard that's how long it was" taken by the student Bass as a sexual connotation referring to Englert's genitals. That connotation could be drawn by Bass from the remarks made by Respondent concerning the student Englert. The use of sexual connotations in the classroom made Bass feel uncomfortable and embarrassed her. On one occasion in the school year 1990-91 Respondent told Bass to "get the hell out of his classroom." This had occurred at a time when Bass was disrupting the Respondent. As previously alluded to, Respondent taught math to Sylvia Brantley in the school 1990-91. At hearing Brantley described events in the Respondent's classroom. She recalled the sexually suggestive manner in which the Respondent spoke of Christine Hughes as being Christine "Huge." This was done in Brantley's presence while Respondent called the class attendance roll. This occurred throughout the time that Christine Hughes was in school in that academic year. In the school year 1990-91 Brantley overheard Jason Englert give answers out in class referring to "an inch" and the Respondent would say something that had a sexual connotation, to the effect, "is that all it is" or "I know that's how small it is". Brantley observed the Respondent roll his eyes and lick his lips after making statements in the class that had a sexual connotation. Brantley observed the Respondent look at the breasts and as she refers to it "the behind" (posterior) of a female student while rolling his eyes and licking his lips. Brantley also observed the Respondent roll his eyes and lick his lips while looking at male students. The class which Brantley attended in the school year 1990-91 had approximately 28 to 30 students. Sabrina Silcox was a female student in Respondent's math class in the school 1990-91. When the Respondent would refer to her name in class he would refer to her as Sabrina "Silcock." This was a reference which had a sexual connotation. Respondent made this reference twice during the school year. This reference was made in front of approximately 20 students. On one occasion someone came to the class to get Sabrina Silcox and asked for her by that name, to which Respondent said "do you mean Sabrina Silcock." The person who had called for the student in the class then said "no sir, Sabrina Silcox". Silcox recalls that in class she observed the Respondent "do a little smirk and then do his eyes or something like that, just look at us out of his eyes, the corner of his eyes funny and stuff". Silcox did not pay any attention when Respondent made these gestures. Silcox indicated that at times she was embarrassed by Respondent's mispronunciation of her name. When she observed Respondent make the gestured with his facial expressions the other students would laugh and she was unaware if any of those students were embarrassed by Respondent's actions. Stella Darlene Metts, a female student, was taught math by the Respondent in the school year 1990-91. While in the class she heard Respondent make sexually suggestive comments. She heard Respondent refer to Christine Hughes as Christine "Huge," seen as a sexual innuendo referring to the student Hughes's breasts. An innuendo which was correctly interpreted by Metts under the circumstances in which that reference was made by the Respondent. Respondent made these remarks about the student Hughes while looking at her in a manner which Metts describes as perverted. Metts also saw the Respondent look at Sylvia Brantley in that fashion. The looks made toward Hughes were to Hughes's breasts. Respondent then would look back at the rest of the class and laugh about the situation with Hughes. Christine Hughes had large breasts, as observed by Metts when commenting about the events in Respondent's classroom, and when Respondent would look at Hughes's breasts the male students in the class would think that these antics were funny because to looking at Hughes's breasts Respondent would gain the attention of the male students in the class and laugh. The male students would state, while the Respondent was looking at Hughes, "yeah look at Mr. Roberts looking at you you better not wear red". The reference to the color red had to do with Respondent's expressed fondness for that color. Crystal Hicks, a female student, was in a math class taught by the Respondent in the 1990-91 school year. In the class Respondent made sexual innuendo statements in front of Hicks. First, reference football players Respondent stated, "all they do is get out of class and get down and hut all day up the butt." In referring to the band members Respondent stated, "all they do is beat and blow all day." As Hicks established, these statements were made "every now and then". Hicks observed the Respondent raise his eyebrows and stick his tongue out, like licking his lips, when staring at female students in the class. She was unable to determine exactly where those stares were directed concerning the students' bodies. About the use of profanity, which Hicks described Respondent using in class, the swear words "damn" and "hell" are found to have been stated in the presence of that witness. Jennifer Yawn, a female student, was in Respondent's math class in the school year 1990-91. Yawn described how Respondent would act if Yawn were chewing gum, that Respondent would say to "quit advertising." Yawn described the sexual connotations behind the remarks of the Respondent as "he would just say it like you were doing something with a sucker", by which Yawn meant that Respondent was describing what the student was doing with a sucker. While making the remarks about advertising Yawn saw the Respondent raise his eyebrows and lick his lips. The comments about advertising with the gum had to do with the instances in which the student blew bubbles. This made Yawn uncomfortable. Yawn also heard the Respondent use profanity in class, the words "hell" and "damn." Jason Englert was a male math student taught by the Respondent in the school year 1990-91. He overheard Respondent talk about Sylvia Brantley's breasts in the classroom, in an instance in which Respondent called Sylvia Brantley's breasts "pillows." He recalls sexual gestures by the Respondent when he was talking to Ms. Brantley. Those gestures involve staring at Ms. Brantley's breasts, moving his eyebrows and licking his lips. In addition Respondent made a sexually suggestive comment to Englert while Englert was walking away from the Respondent's desk. Englert glanced back at the Respondent and Respondent was looking at Englert's "butt," (posterior) Englert put his hands over his posterior, to which Respondent said, "well, that's the part I want to see." There were other persons standing by the desk who could have heard the remarks by Respondent. Those persons looked at Englert and laughed. This circumstance did not bother Englert. Englert also overheard the Respondent speak of Carla Bass and her breasts as being "pillows." Students other than Joey Roundtree, (school year 1985-86), who were in the Respondent's classes in the school year 1990-91 and who testified at the hearing made mention of the Respondent's nicknames "Dirty Rob" and "Red Rob". These references have to do with perceived conduct by the Respondent leading to the impression that his personality was that of an individual who was perverse, having to do with his involvement with sexual innuendoes. The students knew of Respondent's reputation for sexual innuendos before entering the classroom. Such knowledge might influence their reaction to Respondent's conduct which they observed first hand. However the impression which the students gained from his actions in the classroom as reported in these facts were not so influenced by his prior reputation that the students are found to have misinterpreted Respondent's intentions by his remarks and facial expressions which had sexual connotations. In crediting the testimony by the students which pointed out the inappropriate conduct by Respondent in engaging in sexual innuendoes, some of the circumstances which the students identified as being in a similar category have been discounted and any doubt about Respondent's conduct in those instances resolved in his favor. Moreover the decision to favor the impression which the students had about some of these events recognizes that the classroom conduct by some of the students who testified at the hearing was less than commendable in its own right. The conduct by those students did not control or excuse Respondent's improprieties in engaging in sexual innuendoes. The fact that some students who had been in the Respondent's math classes at various years, after the school year 1985-86 but including the school years 1989-90 and 1996-91 did not observe the Respondent participate if any form of misconduct involving sexual innuendoes does not change the impression held about the testimony given by students who described those sexual innuendoes. This refers to testimony by Vicki Giveons and Bryan Hopkins who did not observe misconduct by the Respondent in their classes. The classes that they attended were different from the classes attended by witnesses who identified Respondent's sexual innuendoes. Finally, Respondent's testimony concerning these events in which he has been found to have acted inappropriately with regard to sexual innuendoes is rejected. Racial discussions were held in the Respondent's classes; however, the remarks which he made about racial issues were not biased when examined in the context of the testimony presented at hearing. Likewise the Respondent did not engage in any form of misconduct for which he is held accountable pertaining to the racially inflammatory notes, racially inflammatory replica of a grave site cross, racially inflammatory replica of a grave site tombstone, and racially inflammatory replica of a coffin and funeral carriage. Jeff Rieves, a male student in one of Respondent's math classes in the school year 1990-91 was responsible for producing the notes and other paraphernalia. Rieves contends these items were produced in an environment that was cordial or done in the way of a joke. Although the Respondent created the appearance that he was somewhat indulgent concerning the insensitive acts by the student, a stance taken by the Respondent to minimize the impact created by the correspondence and paraphernalia, Respondent did not believe that these incidents were intended to be all in good fun. It is not accepted that Rieves gave the notes and paraphernalia to the Respondent intending it wholly as a joke and that the Respondent perceived that these items were presented as a joke. Whether what extent Rieves intended his actions to have a more sinister influence, to the extent that you could say that Rieves intended racial harassment is less clear. Being uncertain concerning the student's intent, Respondent was prudent to make officials within the Nassau County School District aware that these circumstances existed and to be a willing participant in the investigation that ensued by the Nassau County Sheriff's Office. When interviewed by the principal at his school and officers from the Nassau County Sheriff's Office, both before and after the law enforcement officials had spoken to Jeff Rieves about this incident, Respondent did not name Rieves as the individual who had prepared the tombstone, coffin and funeral carriage. Whatever suspicions the Respondent may have had that Rieves was the person who had constructed these items, especially given the realization that Rieves had written notes with overtones that bore a racial threat, those notes having been sailed in Respondent's direction by Rieves as paper airplanes, Respondent did not know absolutely that Rieves had constructed the paraphernalia. Contrary to Rieves' assertion, the cross, headstone, coffin and funeral carriage were not handed overt directly to the Respondent as Rieves had told the law enforcement officers when interviewed. Respondent discovered these items where Rieves had left them in his class. Having held their conversation with Rieves, rather than confiding to the Respondent that the sheriff's office had ascertained who the culprit was, the officers for reasons that are not apparent, chose to believe Rieves' comment to the effect that Rieves had directly presented the paraphernalia to the Respondent and to confront the Respondent with this belief by asking the Respondent once again who the person was who had created the paraphernalia. When Respondent did not respond that Rieves was the person who had prepared the paraphernalia in a setting in which the sheriff's office was convinced that he did know, he was charged with giving false information to a police officer concerning the alleged commission of a crime by claiming that he had been harassed by persons not known to the Respondent when indeed he knew who the individual was who had constructed the paraphernalia. Under summons the State Attorney's Office for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida took action against the Respondent on the theory of the false reporting concerning the alleged commission of a crime in Case No: 91-301218, August 1, 1991. This matter was disposed of through the misdemeanor pretrial intervention program involving deferred prosecution. Respondent served the 40 hours of community service contemplated by the disposition in the case. He did this upon advice of counsel that if he went to a trial that he might not prevail in that case. Notwithstanding his decision to conclude the court action by subjecting himself to the requirements set forth in the pretrial intervention, for purposes of this hearing it is not found that the statements which Respondent made concerning his knowledge about the person who had constructed the paraphernalia were false, in that Respondent did not know with certainty who had prepared the paraphernalia. Although the sheriff's office interviewed Rieves and another individual Michael Lloyd who had been involved in the creation of the paraphernalia, neither the sheriff's office nor the administrative prosecutor sought to verify the information received from the culprits who had created the paraphernalia to determine from a more unimpeachable source that Respondent knew who had created the paraphernalia, in that the Respondent had been given the paraphernalia personally in the classroom as Rieves describes, before attributing false motives to the Respondent in complaining about the racial harassment. This could have been achieved by interviewing students who would have been in attendance at the time when Rieves purportedly presented the paraphernalia to the Respondent in the classroom. Absent that effort Respondent was charged upon information provided by a less than credible source and tried in the present case, leading to the impression that Respondent's explanation about this event is more compelling. Craig Marsh, Superintendent, Nassau County School District, a professional educator, was accepted as an expert in the field of education. As an expert Marsh expressed the opinion that the Respondent, based upon his participation in the sexual innuendos discussed in the fact finding, were matters so serious that they impaired Respondent's effectiveness in the school system. That opinion is accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Nassau County enter a final order which dismisses the Respondent from his employment as a continuing contract teacher based upon the violations found. That the Education Practices Commission suspend Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years during which time Respondent shall submit himself to evaluation by a qualified professional to ascertain the underlying causes for the conduct which has brought about this discipline. If the qualified professional believes that Respondent needs to participate in a program to gain insight and correct any underlying condition in the interest of the Respondent and his prospective students, then Respondent shall cooperate in that endeavor. If Respondent fulfills any necessary requirement for counseling or if counselling is not deemed necessary, then the last year in the suspension period shall be served in a probationary status during which time Respondent shall not engage in conduct which violates Chapter 231.28, Florida Statutes, and the associated rules found within Chapter 6B, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 91-6677 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner Castor Paragraphs 1 through 13 are subordinate to facts found, except the date in Paragraph 7 which should be 1989-90. Paragraphs 14 through 16 are rejected for reasons of credibility. Paragraphs 17 through 19 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 20 is rejected. Paragraphs 21 through 24 4re subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is rejected. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found with exception to the last phrase of profanity which is rejected. Paragraphs 27 through 42 are contrary to facts found in their suggestion that the Respondent acted in a racially biased manner or gave false information or reports as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 43 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 44 through 46 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 47 and 48 1 not necessary to the resolution of the dispute and are contrary to the legal conclusions drawn. Petitioner Marsh Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found.. Paragraph 2 see discussion of Paragraphs 1 through 26 for Petitioner Castor. Paragraph 27 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 28 and 29 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Respondent's Facts in the Prosecution by Commissioner Castor Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found.. Paragraphs 2 through 36 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 37 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 38 in its first two sentences are subordinate to facts found. The remaining sentence is rejected as it attempts to absolve the Respondent of his conduct. Paragraph 39 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 40 is consistent with the disposition of the case. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 44 is consistent with the disposition in the case as are Paragraphs 45 through 48. Paragraph 49 is subordinate to facts found where it describes use of profanity but conary to facts concerning the number of times. Paragraph 50 is rejected in its attempt to be persuasive in countering the notion that Respondent used profanity in the classroom more than an isolated incident. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 53 and 54 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 55 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Respondent's Facts in the Prosecution by Superintendent Marsh Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraphs 2 through 15, see discussion of facts in the Castor prosecution, Paragraphs 3-7 through 50. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Karen Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Lane Burnett, Esquire 331 East Union Street, Suite 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Brian T. Hayes, Esquire 245 East Washington Street Monticello, FL 32344 Craig Marsh, Superintendent Nassau County School Board 1201 Atlantic Avenue Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 Robert Johnson, Chairman Nassau County School Board Post Office Box 436 Callahan, FL 32011
The Issue Whether Petitioner demonstrated entitlement to a Florida educator’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, is authorized to issue Florida educator’s certificates to persons seeking certification to become school teachers in the state of Florida. Petitioner, Robert Grimsley, is a high school teacher who teaches liberal arts and algebra. He is in his first year of teaching and currently teaches at Washington High School in Pensacola, Florida. He seeks to obtain an educator’s certificate to continue teaching. On June 6, 2016, Petitioner submitted an on-line application for a Florida Educator’s Certificate in mathematics (grades 6-12). The application included a section for “Criminal offense record(s) (Report any record other than sealed or expunged in this section.)” Under that section, was the following question: “Have you ever entered into a pretrial diversion program or deferred prosecution program related to a criminal offense?” In his application, Petitioner answered affirmatively that he had entered into a pretrial diversion program related to a criminal offense. Based on the fields provided in the application, he disclosed the following criminal offense as indicated below: City Where Arrested State Date of Arrest Charge(s) Disposition Tallahassee FL 1/2015 Less Than 20 Grams Community Service Petitioner did not disclose any other offenses in the application. There was no definition of “arrest date” provided in the application. Mr. Kossec, program director of Professional Practices Services, testified that Petitioner could have included the dates for his Notice to Appear. However, the application did not indicate that such an option was available to applicants. On August 3, 2016, Professional Practices Services sent Petitioner a letter requesting additional information regarding his criminal offenses so it could conduct an investigation of his criminal history. He submitted documents reflecting two offenses for which he completed a pretrial diversion program. The submissions included the “No Information” for each offense, which disclosed the following: Case No. 14-000004MMA (related to January 31, 2013 offense); Disposition: No Information due to completed Misdemeanor Diversion Program (filed on February 24, 2014). Case No. 15MM00158 (related to January 20, 2015 offense); Disposition: No Information due to completed Diversion Program (filed on March 6, 2015). The parties stipulated to the following facts regarding Petitioner’s criminal history and application: On or about December 31, 2013, Applicant illegally possessed marijuana, as a result of the aforementioned conduct, the Applicant was issued a Notice to Appear by law enforcement for a criminal violation. Applicant was charged with Possession of Marijuana and entered into a pre-trial [sic] diversionary program. On or about January 20, 2015, Applicant illegally possessed marijuana, as a result of the aforementioned conduct, law enforcement arrested Applicant for possessing marijuana. Applicant was charged with Possession of Marijuana and entered into a pre-trial [sic] diversionary program. On or about June 6, 2016, Applicant submitted an application for an educator’s certificate. In said application, Applicant was asked the following question: “Have you ever entered into a pretrial diversion program or deferred prosecution program related to a criminal offense?” Applicant failed to disclose the fact that he entered into a pre-trial [sic] diversionary program for the December 31, 2013--Marijuana Possession arrest. There is no dispute that Petitioner had two criminal offenses for which he participated in a pretrial diversion program. At hearing, Petitioner testified that he did not list the December 2013 offense on the application because he received a Notice to Appear for that offense. Petitioner testified that he did not understand that being released with a Notice to Appear1/ was an arrest because he was not physically arrested. The two officers involved in the respective arrests testified at hearing and described their detainment of Petitioner. On December 31, 2013, Lt. King stopped Petitioner’s vehicle for driving in excess of the posted speed limit. He ultimately found marijuana in the vehicle. Lt. King read Petitioner his rights, issued him a Notice to Appear, and released him. Lt. King did not handcuff Petitioner at any point during the traffic stop. Lt. King testified that he explained to Petitioner that although he was not being physically handcuffed and transported to the local jail, he was placed under arrest. Petitioner did not recall any explanation that a Notice to Appear is still an arrest. Lt. King’s offense report, completed on the same date as the incident, did not reference any explanation to Petitioner that the Notice to Appear was an actual arrest. Petitioner’s testimony is found to be credible. The detainment for the second incident was different from the first. On January 20, 2015, Officer Andre Buckley, a FSU police officer, responded to a complaint of the smell of burnt marijuana coming from a restroom on the campus of FSU. Officer Buckley arrived at the suspected restroom and confirmed the smell of burnt marijuana. After discovering Petitioner in the restroom and in possession of marijuana, Officer Buckley placed Petitioner in handcuffs. Another officer transported Petitioner to the Leon County jail for booking. Despite Petitioner’s mistaken belief regarding the December 2013 arrest, he was indeed arrested. The facts here demonstrate that Petitioner did not understand that he was arrested for the December 2013 offense and, as a result, was confused regarding whether he should include the offense in the application. There was no effort to conceal his participation in the pretrial diversion program for the December 2013 offense because he submitted documents reflecting the information upon request. The undersigned finds that he simply made an error when completing the application. Both misdemeanor criminal offenses occurred while Petitioner was a college student. Since completing the diversion programs, he has earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Statistics. In his letter to the Professional Practice Services dated July 20, 2016, he indicated that he has discontinued using drugs. Further, he has taught for approximately one year without incident. Petitioner’s actions demonstrate that Petitioner had no intent to conceal his record, engaged in no fraudulent conduct in completing the application, and did not fail to maintain honesty in the submission of the application so as to warrant denial of an educator’s certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner, Robert Eugene Grimsley’s, application for a Florida educator’s certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 20th day of April, 2017.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a continuing contract teacher. Respondent was assigned as a math teacher to Miami Senior High School, one of the schools in the school District of Dade County, Florida. On March 20, 1989, Respondent and J.R., a 14 year old male who was one of Respondent's math students, entered into a discussion in Respondent's classroom regarding two musical keyboards that Respondent was trying to sell. J.R. Was interested in purchasing a musical keyboard and had been told by Respondent that he had at his home two musical keyboards that he wanted to sell. J.R. wanted to inspect the two keyboards to determine whether he might be interested in purchasing one of them, but he wanted to wait until the weekend to look at the keyboards so that his father could accompany him when he went to Respondent's house. Respondent had other commitments and advised the student on March 21, 1989, that he would have to look at the keyboards that afternoon. On March 21, 1989, Respondent drove J.R. to Respondent's home for the stated purpose of allowing J.R. to examine the two keyboards. No one else was present at Respondent's home. Respondent showed J.R. the keyboards and quoted J.R. a price for each. When J.R. inquired as to terms of payment, Respondent asked J.R. if he wanted to watch a video with him and stated that he wanted to watch a video so that he could think. Respondent then led J.R. into a darkened bedroom that had, in addition to video equipment, only a chair and a bed. Respondent lay down on the bed and J.R. sat in the chair. Respondent then asked J.R. if he talked a lot or whether he could keep a secret. After J.R. said he did not talk a lot, Respondent showed J.R. a pornographic movie that depicted nudity and sexual intercourse. While watching the movie, Respondent told J.R. that he had seen with a "hard on" during his math class. Respondent then asked J.R. if he had ever measured the size of his penis. When J.R. replied in the negative, Respondent told him that he should. Respondent then asked J.R. whether he "jerked off" often. J.R. replied in the negative and left the room because he was uncomfortable being with Respondent under those circumstances. During the course of the foregoing conversation, Respondent was lying on a bed in this darkened bedroom watching the pornographic movie with this 14 year old student. Respondent then drove J.R. to J.R.'s home after he asked to leave. J.R. immediately reported the incident to his parents when he returned to his home. J.R.'s parents notified the police that evening and reported the incident to the appropriate school officials the next day. This incident caused notoriety which has impaired Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher. Respondent testified that nothing inappropriate occurred when J.R. inspected the keyboards at his home on March 21, 1989. Respondent testified that he and J.R. drove to his house after school so that J.R. could inspect the keyboards, that while at the house he and J.R. drank a soft drink, looked at the keyboards, and discussed watching a video of a popular movie. Respondent contended that he drove J.R. to J.R.'s home and that nothing else occurred. Respondent denied that he showed J.R. a pornographic video or that he engaged in sexually explicit conversations with J.R. Respondent contended that J.R. fabricated part of his testimony and offered two motives for J.R. to lie. First, Respondent contended that J.R. may have seen this situation as a means to get one of the keyboards from Respondent without having to pay for it. Respondent did not explain how J.R. expected to accomplish this. Second, Respondent contended that J.R. may have fabricated the story to avoid getting into trouble with his parents because they did not know J.R.'s whereabouts during the time he was at Respondent's house on March 21, 1989. These proffered motives as to why J.R. would lie lack credibility and are rejected. J.R. is a good student who had no motive to fabricate his testimony as to the events that occurred at Respondent's house. Respondent's version of the events of March 21, 1989, insofar as that version conflicts with J.R.'s testimony, lacks credibility and is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County, Florida, enter a final order which finds Jimmie D. Harris guilty of immorality and of misconduct in office, which affirms the suspension of Jimmie D. Harris without pay, and which terminates the continuing contract of Jimmie D. Harris. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Jimmie D. Harris 13336 S.W. 112 Place Miami, Florida 33176 Frank R. Harder, Esquire Suite 100 - Twin Oaks Building 2780 Galloway Road Miami, Florida 33165 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools 1444 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 215 Miami, Florida 33132 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE 89-3691 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraphs 3-5 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4-6 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made and to the conclusions reached. There is no paragraph numbered in Petitioner's post-hearing submittal. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 1 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 2 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 1 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 4 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The remaining proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being unclear and as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 7-9 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are rejected as being conclusion of law.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has employed respondent for many years. For the six years ending in 1968, she taught biology at Stranahan High School, where Harold Mouser was principal. Later, she left off teaching science and began working as a librarian, or media specialist. In this capacity, respondent worked at Parkway Junior High School, at Deerfield and at a facility called Southside which housed a center for emotionally disturbed children, when she began working there. Three or four years later, after the 1975-76 school year, the program for emotionally disturbed children was moved elsewhere, but respondent was allowed to remain with her library at Southside. Beginning in 1976, Southside was used for petitioner's Cyesis program, a program of instruction for pregnant school girls. At all pertinent times, Lorene Lasher was principal of the Cyesis program. The first year that the Cyesis center was located at Southside, Ms. Lasher directed respondent to teach a science class, in addition to performing her duties as a librarian. The following school year, 1977-1978, Ms. Lasher closed the library and turned it into a physical education room. She assigned respondent to teach science and mathematics classes, for the 1977-1978 and 1978- 1979 school years. Almost from the time the Cyesis program moved to South side, there was friction between respondent and Ms. Lasher. Things came to a head on October 17, 1978. That morning, shortly before school began, Ms. Lasher entered respondent's classroom. She placed some students' papers on respondent's desk, and demanded that respondent explain how she had marked the papers. Respondent, who was standing behind the desk, asked whether the complaining students had had permission to leave her classroom to speak to Ms. Lasher about the papers. During the heated argument that ensued, Ms. Lasher and respondent came closer together and respondent struck Ms. Lasher, breaking the skin above the lip. Ms. Lasher called out, "You hit me," and respondent replied, "You've been hitting me below the belt for two years," or words to that effect. Ms. Lasher summoned Charles Ramsdell, the guidance counselor, who, once inside respondent's classroom, asked her why she had hit Ms. Lasher. Respondent answered to the effect that Ms. Lasher had been hitting her daily, although not in a physical way. Students at the Cyesis Center in grades seven through twelve were grouped together in the same classes. Because of the students' various levels of achievement, individual folders were kept containing a program of instruction for each student. In addition, respondent and the other teachers at the Cyesis program prepared lesson plans for the class as a whole, for their own use and for the use of substitute teachers, if necessary. The first time Marilyn Shaw substituted for respondent she was unable to find respondent's lesson plans, for reasons which are not clear from the evidence. Respondent had prepared the lesson plans, which a fellow teacher had seen the day before. On subsequent occasions, Ms. Shaw had no difficulty finding respondent's lesson plans, which gave adequate guidance for a substitute teacher. Respondent regularly prepared satisfactory lesson plans while she was teaching at the Cyesis center. Except for wine infrequently, respondent refrains from drinking alcohol. She has never drunk any alcoholic beverages on school grounds, nor appeared in her classroom under the influence of alcohol or any other drug that affected her behavior. Before the media center at Southside was closed down, representatives of firms selling audiovisual materials called on respondent to show their wares. On one such occasion, Ms. Lasher learned that a salesman was with respondent and told respondent to bring the salesman to Ms. Lasher's office. Thereafter he went directly to Ms. Lasher's office whenever he visited Southside. A Mr. Lipane once dropped off some keys in the teacher's lounge for respondent after her car had been repaired. At the end of the school year he and other friends of respondent helped respondent pick up some things. By this time, students were no longer in attendance. Except for this occasion, respondent never invited any man to visit her at work. Sometimes petitioner's maintenance personnel worked at Southside. Respondent excused individual students from her class who needed to see the school nurse, the guidance counselor or some other school official. In keeping with school policy, respondent issued passes on these occasions. Also in keeping with school policy, respondent excused individual students who needed to go to the bathroom; a reusable pass was available to one student at a time for this purpose. Frequently, respondent sent a group of students into the hall just outside her classroom to do make-up work. She persisted in this practice even after Ms. Lasher had directed her to desist. From time to time respondent borrowed a master key from Ms. Lasher's office which she sometimes lent to other teachers before it was returned to Ms. Lasher's office. Respondent never returned a key other than the one she had borrowed. She never caused the master key to be duplicated or used it to enter the school at an unauthorized time. On or about June 17, 1977, Ms. Lasher and two other employees of petitioner entered respondent's office, after the end of the school year and found empty bottles that had once contained whiskey and wine. Respondent maintained a collection of bottles to which other teachers also contributed. The bottles were available for use by the art teacher. An art teacher once used bottles respondent had collected to make wind chimes. The 1977-1978 school year was the first year petitioner had had a homeroom for some time. She was unaware of petitioner's policy requiring that homeroom teachers distribute interim report cards on October 6, 1977, as a prerequisite to giving students failing grades for the semester; and she distributed none. She learned of this requirement at the end of that semester and complied with it thereafter. A schedule was posted in the school office, but it was not established that the schedule indicated when interim report cards were to be sent out. Every fifth week during the school year respondent had "bus duty." She failed to appear for bus duty on the afternoon of September 12, 1977. Instead she went to a workshop, for which she had obtained approval from Ms. Lasher beforehand. As soon as she arrived at the site of the workshop she telephoned Ms. Lasher's office and was told that somebody else was covering for her. On one other occasion, respondent was a few minutes late for bus duty because she was talking to a student. By the time she stopped by the office to get the clipboard all teachers used for bus duty, somebody else had been sent to supervise students awaiting school buses. At Ms. Lasher's instance, on October 12, 1978, Larry Wantuck, petitioner's math coordinator, met with respondent and Mr. Ramsdell, the Cyesis center's guidance counselor, to arrange for respondent to administer a "profile analysis" test to her students. Respondent was to administer the test over a four day period, and to grade the test papers afterwards with Mr. Ramsdell's assistance. She finished administering the tests on October 16, 1978. The following day, after her run in with Ms. Lasher, she was instructed to leave the school premises. When she left, she took the students' test papers with her to the office of the Classroom Teachers' Association. There she finished grading them on October 18, 1978. On October 19, 1978, she reported to petitioner's Lincoln Park Complex, as she had been directed to do. She left the test results in Mr. Wantuck's office, which was located at the Lincoln Park Complex, on October 19, 1978. On October 26, 1978, respondent happened to see Mr. Wantuck and asked him if he had found the test results she had left in his office. When he answered that he had not, they went together to his office and found them on his desk where respondent had left them. At the end of the 1977-1978 school year, respondent turned in her grade book and lesson plans for filing, in accordance with a school policy designed to make them available for reference to teachers in succeeding years. In the fall of 1978, she requested and obtained her 1977-1978 plan book, for which she signed a receipt. She gave the book to a fellow teacher who took it to the Classroom Teachers' association to be copied, in preparation for filing harassment charges against Ms. Lasher. Ms. Lasher asked respondent to return the plan book, and respondent did so a few days later, promptly after regaining possession of the book herself. After she had handed out alternating tests to seven students in her fifth period class, on or about October 12, 1978, respondent started out of her classroom headed for the bathroom. She had not shut the door behind her when Ms. Lasher ordered her to stay to supervise the students' test taking, which she did. At the beginning of each school year, many teachers at the Cyesis Center began recording grades elsewhere than in the official roll book because class composition was particularly unstable then. In the fall of 1978, respondent recorded grades, including grades for the student Cecil Hunter, on index cards. Even after she had entered Cecil Hunter's name in her official roll book and begun noting her attendance there, she did not immediately transfer from the card the grades she had recorded there. Occasionally respondent left her students unsupervised for a minute or two to go to the bathroom or to get a drink of water. If she was going to be gone longer, she would ask Ms. Bracewell or another colleague to look in on her students.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is: RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent for the remainder of the 1979-1980 school year. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Warner S. Olds, Esq. Suite 200 3067 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 John L. Chamblee, Jr., Esq. 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
