The Issue Is Respondent school teacher guilty of violating Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, by failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety? Is Respondent guilty of violating Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office and/or willful neglect of duty?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Kelly L. Bradley, Florida Teaching Certificate 768569 (expiration date June 30, 2000), is a certificated teacher in the State of Florida and held a teaching certificate in 1998-1999. She taught at Lola M. Culver Elementary School during the 1998-1999 school year and was an employee of Petitioner Duval County School Board. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner from January 1996 through October 1996, as a substitute teacher at several elementary schools and was employed full time at Lola Culver commencing October 1996, teaching emotionally handicapped students. This was her first full-time job as a teacher. She received satisfactory evaluations with favorable comments for each of her three years at Lola Culver. She has no record of prior discipline. During most of the 1998-1999 school year, Respondent and Kristy L. James, another certificated teacher, were co-sponsors of the School Safety Patrol at Lola Culver. Respondent volunteered to replace another co-sponsor who left in mid-year. This was her first experience as a Safety Patrol co-sponsor. A "reward" trip near the end of each school year was traditional for Lola Culver's Safety Patrol members. Ms. James had been a co-sponsor of the Safety Patrol for the 1996-1997, 1997-1998, and 1998-1999 school years, but neither she nor Respondent had received any significant instruction in the duties and responsibilities of sponsors. Near the end of the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. James and Respondent planned an overnight trip to Orlando for Safety Patrol members for June 4-5, 1999, a Friday and a Saturday. Ms. James exclusively handled the paperwork for approval of the June 4-5, 1999, field trip by Lola Culver's current principal, Carolyn Davis. She also exclusively handled the permission slips and medical authorizations signed by parents and all arrangements for "chaperones." Swimming had been on the agenda sent home by Ms. James and approved by the prior principal in each of the previous school years. Swimming was also on the 1999 agenda, which instructed students to pack a swimsuit. For the 1999 trip, Ms. James also sent another document, outlining the cost of the field trip for students and soliciting chaperones, and permission slips/medical releases to all the children's parents. Only the agenda mentioned swimming. The permission slip did not expressly mention swimming or solicit information about a child's ability to swim. It solicited only health information and authority to treat in an emergency. Eight fifth grade students (boys and girls) went on the trip, including Litoria Gibson, a non-swimmer, who ultimately drowned while on the field trip. Nowhere on the signed permission slip returned to Ms. James did Litoria's parents state that she could not swim or should not swim. Unbeknownst to anyone concerned, Litoria's mother had instructed Litoria "not to get in the water" during the field trip.1 Respondent and Ms. James went on the trip as co- sponsors and as chaperones. Respondent invited a personal friend and substitute teacher, Eric Lee, to go on the trip as a chaperone. Ms. James' husband, Joey, came along in the same capacity, and two parents, Gail Brown and Hazel Morningstar, also went on the trip. Hazel Morningstar testified that she had considered herself present on the trip only to watch her own son and, based on an oral promise to Rita Whorten's parents, to watch Rita Whorten. In a conversation during the planning stages, Ms. James stated that Rita Whorten would be "with" Ms. Morningstar and her son. At no time material did Ms. Morningstar affirmatively notify anyone she would not act as a group chaperone. In fact, she considered herself to be a chaperone. Gail Brown is the mother of Marcus Brown, one of the Safety Patrol students. Ms. Brown testified that she only went on the trip because she does not allow her son to go on trips involving water by himself, even though Marcus knows how to swim. She further testified that she did not feel any chaperoning responsibility toward any child but her own. However, she knew the teachers would assume that she was going to chaperone all the children, and she never affirmatively notified anyone that she would not act as a group chaperone. The group traveled via a school bus, driven by Petitioner's approved bus driver, Patricia Benton. Ms. Benton was paid for driving the bus, but personally paid for her teenage son, whom she brought along on the trip. Ms. James had asked Ms. Benton to drive the bus, and Ms. Benton's son's inclusion in the trip was in the nature of a "perk" for Ms. Benton. Ms. Benton's son was never considered either a responsible adult or a chaperone. Ms. Benton had accompanied Ms. James and the Safety Patrol on a similar field trip at the end of the 1997-1998 school year and had participated in watching over the children at that time. However, herein, Ms. Benton testified that on the 1999 trip she considered herself only along to drive the bus and watch over her own son. Indeed, neither Ms. James nor Respondent counted Ms. Benton as a "chaperone" in calculating the "one chaperone per every ten children" that they understood to be Petitioner's requirement for field trips. Nonetheless, both teachers considered Ms. Benton to be another responsible adult. Ms. Benton admitted that at times on this trip she was prepared, if necessary, to discipline any disrespectful children. Neither teacher inquired of Ms. Benton if she could or would swim. Respondent and Ms. James considered themselves, Joey James, Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Morningstar to be chaperones. Neither teacher ever inquired of Mr. Lee, Ms. Brown, or Ms. Morningstar whether they could or would swim. This was Respondent's first overnight field trip. As teachers and Safety Patrol co-sponsors, Respondent and Ms. James regarded themselves as jointly responsible and in charge. Everyone else appears to have looked to Ms. James for leadership. The bus departed from Lola Culver Elementary School at 7:00 a.m., Friday, June 4, 1999. After arriving in Orlando, the group spent most of the day at Sea World. While the group was at Sea World, Respondent and Ms. James assigned responsibility for specific children to specific adults, except for the bus driver, Ms. Benton. No adult protested the assignments. At Sea World, Respondent and Eric Lee were responsible for Litoria Gibson and Makia Hicks. These assignments were essentially designed to keep everyone together and to keep the children under supervision in the amusement park, but they were not intended to last beyond the Sea World portion of the trip. However, no reassignment of responsibility for any child occurred after the group departed Sea World. In the late afternoon, the group was bused to Howard Johnson's South International, a motel. After they checked in, the students were allowed to go swimming in the motel pool. Upon arrival at the motel at approximately 5:45 p.m., room keys were distributed, and it was agreed that adults and children would meet by Ms. James' room, which fronted on the pool area. The children were instructed not to go to the pool until the adults were ready. The pool at the motel was a very large one located in an interior courtyard. The water was 3.5 feet deep at the shallow end and 5.5 feet deep at the deep end. No lifeguard was provided. Nonetheless, the pool had been used safely for the 1998 Safety Patrol field trip, and Ms. James and Ms. Benton were familiar with the motel layout and the pool. Ms. James considered herself a good swimmer, having been a swimmer since childhood. She was comfortable around water. Respondent was an experienced swimmer and athlete. She had learned to swim in early childhood, had had formal lessons during high school, and had done a lot of pool training in connection with playing college volleyball. She had continued to swim regularly in her adult life. She was trained in CPR. Some of the adults, including Respondent, and all of the children met as agreed and proceeded to the pool area. Prior to going to the pool, Respondent briefed all the children on not running or wrestling in the pool and pool area. Initially, Ms. James remained in her room to make a telephone report to Lola Culver's principal, Carolyn Davis. Joey James and Ms. Morningstar arrived at the pool dressed to swim. Litoria Gibson went to poolside wearing a red jumpsuit which would not be considered an unusual item for a child to wear to go swimming. The children entered the pool for the first time at approximately 6:00 p.m., under the direct supervision of Joey James and Ms. Morningstar, who got into the pool's shallow end with some of them. Ms. Morningstar asked who could not swim. Litoria Gibson and another girl raised their hands. Litoria said, "I can't swim." She never volunteered that she was not allowed in the water. Ms. Morningstar told the two girls that they should stay in the shallow end of the pool. Litoria Gibson was tall for her age, approximately the same height as Ms. Morningstar. Ms. Morningstar invited Litoria into the pool and spent 15-30 minutes with her in the pool's shallow end. They squatted to get wet and acclimated to the water. Ms. Morningstar showed Litoria how to stand so that the water only reached her chest and how to doggie paddle and told Litoria that if she got in trouble she could lie flat on her back and float. Litoria then felt comfortable in the water and, giggling happily, entered into dunking games with the other children. When Ms. Morningstar left the pool for the sauna, she warned Litoria to stay in the shallow end of the pool, only chest-high in the water, or get out of the pool altogether. Ms. Morningstar assumed that all the parents' respective permission slips would have alerted the teachers as to which children could or could not swim, so she did not tell anyone which students could not swim. At various times before 7:30 p.m., Joey James and Ms. Morningstar disciplined students by taking away water toys and calming rowdy behavior. Eric Lee arrived at the pool dressed to swim and able to swim shortly after the children entered the pool, but he stayed on the sidelines at the deep end and would not enter the pool. Respondent arrived at the pool dressed to swim and swam a little while Ms. Morningstar was in the shallow end and Joey James was in the deep end. Makia Hicks got into the pool with Respondent and said "Can you stand in here with me?" Respondent questioned Makia, and determining that Makia indeed could not swim, Respondent told her, "Well, you can come in here and I'll show you how to kick your feet." Respondent did not overhear the similar conversation between Litoria and Ms. Morningstar. (See Finding of Facts 33- 34). Later, Respondent got out of the pool and took Makia and Jessica Hayes to the hot tub. She made sure Makia got out of the pool at that time. Respondent, Makia, and Jessica then returned to the pool and were playing around. Ms. James, dressed to swim, arrived at the pool about the time Ms. Morningstar first went to the sauna. Mesdames Brown and Benton arrived poolside sometime after everyone else and remained there for most of the time until 7:30 p.m., in adjoining chairs and approximately midway between the deep and shallow ends of the pool. During this period, Ms. Benton made several trips to and from the jacuzzi and Ms. Brown made at least one trip to and from her room. Neither woman was dressed to swim. By their own accounts, both women were adequate but not trained swimmers, and neither of them intended to swim. When Ms. James arrived poolside, Respondent got out of the pool and she and Ms. James chatted in adjoining poolside chairs on the side opposite from Mesdames Brown and Benton. Makia sat on the edge of the pool with her feet in the water. Fifteen to 20 minutes after arriving poolside, Ms. Brown overheard that Litoria and one other child (she was not sure which child) could not swim. When Ms. Brown heard this, Litoria was already "walking the wall" (moving via her hands on the lip of the pool wall) into the deep end of the pool. Ms. Brown asked Litoria if she could swim and when Litoria said she could not swim, Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end of the pool. At least twice more before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown ordered Litoria back to the shallow end from the deep end, but Ms. Brown did not alert anyone else that Litoria was venturing into the deep end. She also assumed that Litoria's parents had informed the teachers that Litoria could not swim, so she did not tell anyone that information either. At approximately 6:30 p.m., Ms. Benton overheard or otherwise figured out that Litoria could not swim. She also assumed that Ms. James and Respondent knew Litoria could not swim and therefore, she did not mention it to them. After being poolside for awhile, Ms. James and Respondent went to Ms. James's room to telephone for pizza for everyone's dinner. Where, precisely, each of the other adults were during this brief period of time is in some dispute, and it may be that Ms. James and/or Respondent came and went from Ms. James's room more than once. Ms. James and Respondent did not specifically designate any adult to be in charge at the pool in their absence(s). Nonetheless, by all accounts, Mesdames Brown and Benton were fully dressed in poolside chairs most of this time and Joey James, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Morningstar were in and around the pool most of this period of time. Later, when it was anticipated that the pizza delivery man would be arriving, Ms. James and Respondent again left the poolside together. As they walked past Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton, Ms. James said, "We're going for the pizza." Neither Ms. James nor Respondent gave any specific instructions concerning the students. Ms. Brown and Ms. Benton acknowledged that they had heard Ms. James say that both teachers were leaving the pool area. Ms. James and Respondent left the pool area and entered a motel corridor off a door leading to the pool area. The children and pool area could not be adequately observed and monitored from this motel corridor. Joey James and Mr. Lee arrived in the corridor simultaneously with the two teachers. Ms. James gave the men instructions to go to the bus and retrieve a cooler of soft drinks and take the cooler to the picnic area at the far end of the pool. Ms. Morningstar arrived in the corridor in time to hear the foregoing instructions concerning the cooler. This meant there were now five adults not watching the children. Respondent then gave Ms. Morningstar enough specially-printed T-shirts for all members of the party, told her the T-shirts would be distributed during dinner, and asked her to take the T-shirts to the picnic area and set up for dinner. Respondent also asked Ms. Morningstar to "check on the kids."2 Ms. James and Respondent assumed the foregoing instruction meant that a third adult (Morningstar) would then be joining the two adults (Brown and Benton) already poolside to watch over and protect the eight students. Ms. Morningstar immediately went to the pool area, carrying the T-shirts. Ms. James, who had the money to pay the delivery man, and Respondent immediately went up an interior hallway toward the hotel lobby to await the pizza delivery man. The six pizzas Ms. James had ordered would require two people to carry them all, but additionally, Respondent wanted to talk to Ms. James alone because she had a concern and planned to defer to Ms. James's field trip experience as a long-time Safety Patrol sponsor.3 On her way to the picnic area, Ms. Morningstar found all the children, including Litoria, in the deep end of the pool. Most were playing dunking games. Apparently, Litoria sometimes participated in dunking, but when Ms. Morningstar spotted her, Litoria was holding onto the pool wall. She was blowing bubbles in the water between her outstretched arms and occasionally pushing off a few inches, floating on her face, and then grabbing the wall again. Ms. Morningstar said, "Litoria, are you sure you feel comfortable? Because you don't know how to swim." Litoria replied, "No, ma'am, I feel comfortable. I'm here with everybody and everybody's beside me." Ms. Morningstar did not consider Litoria in danger as close to the wall as she was, with children near her in the pool, and with Ms. Brown, Ms. Benton, and other adult strangers nearby. She proceeded to the picnic area, passing Brown and Benton in their chairs, and telling them she was going to set up for pizza. At about this time, a few minutes before 7:30 p.m., Ms. Brown was approached by a little girl who wanted to get her pool shoes from her room. Ms. Brown told the child to get her key and she would go with her so that the child would not be alone in a motel room. As they rounded a corner of the deep end of the pool, Ms. Brown spotted another little girl clinging to the side and sobbing, "She tried to drown me!" Then there was a clamor from the other children and Ms. Brown noticed that Litoria, in her red outfit, was floating face down, only inches from the edge of the pool. Just then, Ms. Benton approached and also saw Litoria. Both women screamed. Ms. Morningstar and Mr. Lee, who were in the picnic area, heard the screams and ran to the deep end of the pool to help. With the help of two of the boys and Eric Lee, Ms. Brown hauled Litoria out of the pool. The adults peeled away from Litoria's face a plastic mask designed to cover the wearer's eyes and nose, but not the mouth. The face mask's breathing tube had been lost. Blood came profusely from Litoria's mouth.4 The teachers were notified where they were waiting for pizza in the motel lobby. They returned immediately to render aid. A qualified bystander rendered CPR. Medical attention was summoned via "911." Although Litoria's pulse and breath sounds were revived at poolside, she ultimately died of drowning Christine Arab, General Director of Human Resources for the School Board, holds Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in Elementary Education, and is a doctoral student in curriculum and education. She has been a certified elementary and exceptional student education classroom teacher. In her opinion, Respondent did not take reasonable efforts to protect her students in that she failed to determine which children could and could not swim and left the pool area without making sure that at least one of the adults was prepared to be in the pool with the children, was able to rescue the children, and had agreed to accept the responsibility to oversee and rescue the children from the water if necessary. It was the absence of these precautions by Respondent that mattered to Ms. Arab, not the length of time that Respondent was absent from poolside. Ms. Arab stated, concerning the other adults' behavior on the field trip that, "[G]iven what they each understood their role to be or commitment to be - I think there's a lot of blame to go around . . .." She also described various acts and omissions of the other adults as either reasonable or unreasonable. However, I do not assign the weight to her personal opinions on these subjects that I do to her professional opinion as an educator concerning Respondent's duty of supervision and effectiveness as a teacher. There is no School Board policy defining the duties of "chaperones." The School Board did not prove that it had any specific written policy against swimming on field trips. Ms. Arab conceded that if Ms. James's prior principal had approved swimming for the previous year's field trip and the current principal, Ms. Davis, had not disapproved swimming in 1999, there was no way the teachers could have divined there was any "no swimming on field trips" policy. Principal Davis was disciplined by a 21-day suspension without pay for her flawed oversight of the field trip. This is a very severe penalty for an administrator. Ms. Arab had input into the School Board's decision to prosecute this case. In her opinion, the severity of a termination recommendation against Respondent was warranted because Respondent's flawed oversight of the field trip itself was such that the public and the School Board could have no future confidence in Respondent. Ms. Arab felt the only way the School Board could trust Respondent henceforth would be under the closest supervision and that would be ineffective teaching in the School system. However, Ms. Arab also conceded that had Litoria not drowned, Respondent's failures would not have risen to the level of a terminable offense.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, through her failure to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their physical safety, and of a violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by misconduct in office, suspending her without pay for six months, and requiring her to repeat her supervised one year of beginning teacher training upon her return to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 2000.
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact For approximately seven years, William Mitchell (Respondent) was employed as a custodian with the Monroe County School Board (Petitioner). Until 1997, Respondent worked at night at Horace Bryant Middle School, coming to work around 2:00 p.m. Respondent had very little contact with students during the school day at Horace Bryant Middle School. In or about 1997, Respondent voluntarily transferred to Key West High School and worked during the school day where he had contact with students on a regular basis. As a custodian, Respondent had no responsibility for student discipline at either school. At the time of the hearing Respondent was 53 years of age. He was described by his supervisor at Key West High School as a good employee. Respondent was considered hardworking and gentlemanly. Respondent was not known to be a violent man and had not exhibited any violent or aggressive behavior. Respondent's duties, as custodian at Key West High School, included replenishing the soda can machine and removing the money from the machine in the mornings. In the early part of March 1998, while Respondent was replenishing the machine with sodas, a student, Jerome Simmons,1 took one of the sodas from the machine. Respondent approached Simmons and questioned him regarding the soda, but Simmons denied taking the soda. Respondent believed that Simmons was not telling the truth. The soda was not in Simmons' possession and could not be found. Respondent was aware that it was appropriate for him to report misconduct by a student to the assistant principal or the school resource officer. Respondent reported the incident to the assistant principal, Robert Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher questioned Simmons who again denied taking the soda. Mr. Fletcher determined that nothing could be done because Simmons denied taking the soda and the soda was not in Simmons' possession. Simmons was an eighteen-year-old senior at Key West High School. He was stocky, well built, and muscular, having the appearance of someone who lifts weights. Simmons' tenure at Key West High School had not been without incident. He had been disruptive and been disciplined, which included suspension. John Welsh, an assistant principal, whose responsibilities included discipline of students, was very familiar with Simmons. Mr. Welsh observed, among other things, that Simmons was the kind of person who was likely to get the last word in an argument. A few weeks after the soda incident, on March 23, 1998, Simmons was returning from a meeting with his probation officer at the administrative office of Key West High School when he encountered Respondent who was going to the administrative office to obtain the key for the soda can machine. They were passing one another in a narrow hallway, and Simmons deliberately bumped Respondent; Simmons had sufficient room on his side of the hall to pass Respondent without bumping him. Respondent reacted to the deliberate bump by telling Simmons to look where he was going. Simmons mumbled something unintelligible to Respondent, who continued walking to the administrative office and obtained the key for the soda machine. Even though the assistant principal was located in the administrative office, Respondent did not report the incident. Based upon the last encounter with Simmons, Respondent believed that he needed more than an intentional bump and something mumbled unintelligible by Simmons to demonstrate misconduct by Simmons. After obtaining the key for the soda machine, Respondent proceeded to the soda machine to replenish it with sodas. While Respondent was filling the soda machine, Simmons approached Respondent from the side, staying approximately ten to fifteen feet away from Respondent, and again mumbled something unintelligible. Respondent did not want to stop his work and stated to Simmons that, if Simmons wanted somebody to play with, he'd better go home and play because he (Respondent) had children older than Simmons. Even though Respondent used the term play, Respondent did not believe that Simmons was playing. Respondent did not report this second encounter to the assistant principal or the school resource officer. Respondent again believed that he needed more than what had happened based upon the previous soda incident involving Simmons that he (Respondent) had reported. Simmons walked away from Respondent toward the gym and again mumbled something unintelligible. However, Simmons did clearly say to Respondent, "come on." Respondent followed Simmons in hopes of being able to decipher what Simmons was mumbling in order to report Simmons if Simmons was saying anything inappropriate, as Respondent believed. It was not inappropriate for Respondent to follow Simmons. When Simmons entered the gym, he approached a physical education teacher, Nancy Thiel, and informed her that a janitor wanted to fight him. Very shortly thereafter, Ms. Thiel saw Respondent at the doorway to the gym. Simmons knew that Ms. Thiel was conducting class in the gym because, approximately twenty minutes earlier, she had directed Simmons to leave the gym since he was not in her class. A finding of fact is made that Simmons' remark that a janitor wanted to fight him is untrustworthy and not made under the stress of excitement. Simmons was calm, not appearing excited, and was relaxed when he made the remark. A finding of fact is further made that Simmons made the remark to shield himself from any wrongdoing and to make it appear that Respondent was the aggressor. Ms. Thiel was standing next to Simmons when Respondent came to the doorway to the gym. Respondent appeared calm and relaxed, not angry. Respondent again stated to Simmons that, if Simmons wanted somebody to play with, he'd better go home and play because he (Respondent) had children older than Simmons. Simmons removed his shirt and remarked to Respondent, "You want some of this," and proceeded out of the gym to the walkway where Respondent was standing. Respondent knew when Simmons removed his shirt that he (Simmons) was serious and wanted to fight. Respondent remarked, "Let's go."2 When Respondent realized that Simmons was serious and wanted to fight, Respondent was presented with an opportunity, although of short duration, to remove himself from the confrontation. Respondent failed to leave the immediate area of the confrontation and report the incident to an assistant principal or to a school resource officer. Respondent and Simmons confronted one another. They glared at one another and, almost simultaneously, lunged at one another.3 Simmons grabbed Respondent at the bottom of both Respondent's legs; Respondent lowered his weight so as not to allow Simmons to pick him up and throw him to the ground on the concrete. They wrestled and both of them fell to the ground on the dirt and sand area, avoiding the concrete area, with Simmons landing on top of Respondent and being in control. The struggle was over very quickly. No punches were thrown by either Simmons or Respondent. No criminal charges were filed by either Simmons or Respondent against one another. Petitioner has a policy prohibiting fighting at the workplace. Petitioner's policy does not prevent an employee from acting in self-defense. Moreover, if an employee is defending himself or herself and fighting ensues, the employee would not be terminated for fighting. An employee is considered to have acted in self-defense if a student lunged at the employee and the employee held the student and, while holding the student, both the employee and the student wrestle to the ground. Respondent was not acting in self-defense. When Simmons removed his shirt and remarked whether Respondent wanted some of him, Respondent had an opportunity to remove himself from the confrontation and report the situation to an assistant principal or school resource officer. Instead, Respondent chose to continue with the confrontation which led to physical contact between Simmons and Respondent. According to the principal of Key West High School at the time of the incident, teachers receive training related to student behavior/relations as part of their professional training; and educators must adhere to the Florida Code of Ethics, which, among other things, governs their interaction with students. However, no such training and no information is disseminated to support personnel, such as Respondent, regarding standards of behavior between employees and students. Even though custodians are not licensed or trained educators, custodians, according to the principal, are held to the same level of behavior as educators. Furthermore, according to Petitioner's Director of Support Services, Robert Menendez, all school employees, including custodians, are held to a higher standard. Mr. Menendez also indicated that there is an implied code, which is a common sense approach, that employees do not confront students on school campus and create problems. This higher standard and implied code were not communicated to the custodians, including Respondent, and the custodians did not receive training regarding handling conflicts with students or aggressive students. If an employee is being held to a standard, the employee should be informed of the standard and, if required, receive appropriate training regarding the standard. Where there is an absence of communication or information or an absence of appropriate training regarding the standard, the employee cannot be held to the standard since the employee has no knowledge of the standard or has not received the appropriate training for the standard. However, in the instant case, although the higher standard and implied code were not communicated to Respondent and he did not receive training regarding handling conflicts with students or aggressive students, Respondent knew that he could report misconduct by a student to the assistant principal or school resource officer. Respondent failed to make such a report and, instead, chose to confront Simmons. Consequently, the absence of knowledge of a standard or the absence of training on the standard is of no consequence in the instant case. After an investigation, Mr. Menendez determined that Respondent had violated Petitioner's policy prohibiting fighting at the workplace and recommended to the Superintendent of Monroe County schools that Respondent be terminated from employment with Petitioner. Subsequent to Mr. Menendez's recommendation, a review of the incident was conducted by Petitioner's Director of Human Resources, Michael Wheeler, whose role was that of a hearing officer. Mr. Wheeler reviewed the allegations of misconduct against Respondent. Mr. Wheeler determined, based upon his review, that Respondent had violated Petitioner's policy against fighting at the workplace and recommended Respondent's termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Monroe County School Board enter a final order sustaining the dismissal of William Mitchell and terminating his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether the allegations contained in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner are true, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The School Board has employed Dr. Whalen since 1997. She first worked as a teacher at Gladys Morse Elementary School. When Morse closed she was transferred to Taylor Elementary School, a new school. She continued teaching at Taylor Elementary School until January 19, 2005. Her employment was pursuant to a professional services contract. Dr. Whalen holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 530568. Dr. Whalen has been confined to a wheelchair for almost 55 years. She cannot move her lower extremities and she is without feeling in her lower extremities. On January 19, 2005, she was approximately 58 years of age. During times pertinent Dr. Whalen taught a "varying exceptionalities" class. A "varying exceptionalities" class is provided for students who have a specific learning disability, or have emotional difficulties, or who have a physical handicap. She has been an exceptional student education teacher for about 20 years. She has never been disciplined by an employer during her career. In addition to her teaching activities she is also County Coordinator for the Special Olympics. The Commissioner of Education is the chief educational officer of the state and is responsible for giving full assistance to the State Board of Education in enforcing compliance with the mission and goals of the K-20 education system. The State Board of Education's mission includes the provision of certification requirements for all school-based personnel. The Education Practices Commission is appointed by the State Board of Education and has the authority to discipline teachers. Nonviolent Crisis Intervention Kathy Kriedler is currently a teacher at Taylor Elementary School. She is certified in teaching emotionally impaired children and has taught emotionally impaired children in Taylor County since 1983. She is an outstanding teacher who was recently named Taylor County Elementary School Teacher of the Year and Taylor County District Teacher of the Year. Ms. Kriedler is a master level instructor in Nonviolent Crisis Intervention, which is a program of the Crisis Prevention Institute. The use of skills associated with the program is generally referred to as CPI. CPI arms teachers with the skills necessary to de-escalate a crisis involving a student, or, in the event de-escalation fails, provides the skills necessary to physically control students. Ms. Kriedler has been the School Board's CPI teacher since 1987. CPI teaches that there are four stages of crisis development and provides four staff responses to each stage. These stages and responses are: (1) Anxiety-Supportive; (2) Defensive-Directive; (3) Acting Out Person-Nonviolent Physical Crisis Intervention; and (4) Tension Reduction- Therapeutic Rapport. The thrust of CPI is the avoidance of physical intervention when possible. The CPI Workbook notes that, "The crisis development model . . . is an extremely valuable tool that can be utilized to determine where a person is during an escalation process." It then notes, helpfully, "Granted, human behavior is not an orderly 1-4 progression." The CPI Workbook provides certain responses for a situation that has devolved into violence. CPI physical control techniques include the "children's control position" which is also referred to as the "basket hold." CPI also provides a maneuver called the "bite release" which is used when a child bites a teacher and the "choke release" which is used when a child chokes a teacher. CPI specifically forbids sitting or lying on a child who is lying on the floor because this could cause "positional asphyxia." In other words, an adult who lies upon a child could prevent a child from breathing. CPI holds are not to be used for punishment. The School Board encourages teachers to learn and apply CPI in their dealings with students. The use of CPI is not, however, mandatory School Board policy nor is it required by the State Board of Education. Dr. Whalen took and passed Ms. Kriedler's CPI course and took and passed her refresher course. She had at least 16 hours of instruction in CPI. She could not accomplish some of the holds taught because of her physical handicap. The alleged chain incident Ms. Amanda Colleen Fuquay taught with Dr. Whalen when both of them were teachers at Gladys Morse Elementary School. Ms. Fuquay, like Dr. Whalen, taught exceptional children. Ms. Fuquay's first teaching job after receipt of her bachelor's degree was at Morse Elementary School. At the time Ms. Fuquay began teaching, Dr. Whalen was also a teacher at Morse. The record does not reveal when Ms. Fuqua initially began teaching at Morse, but it was after 1997 and before August 2002, when Morse Elementary merged into the new Taylor Elementary School. During Ms. Fuqua's first year of teaching she entered Dr. Whalen's class. She testified that upon entry she observed a male student chained to a chair at his desk. The chain may have been about the size of a dog choker. She said that the chain ran through the student's belt loop and around the chair. Ms. Fuqua said that she inquired of Dr. Whalen as to the reason for the chain and she replied, in perhaps a joking way, that the student wouldn't sit down. The evidence does not reveal when this occurred or even in what year it occurred. The evidence does not reveal the name of the alleged victim. The evidence does not reveal the victim's response to being chained to the chair. The evidence does not reveal whether Dr. Whalen chained the child or if someone else chained the child or if it just appeared that the child was chained. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide for school years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001, and she testified at the hearing. She did not mention this incident. Ms. Fuqua could not discern if this was a serious matter or whether it was some sort of a joke. She said, "I didn't have a clue." Ms. Fuqua failed to report this incident because she was new to teaching and she had not, "learned the ropes." Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she had ever chained a student to a chair, and specifically denied that she had done it in 1999, which is within the time frame that Ms. Fuqua could have observed this. Moreover, she specifically denied having chains in her classroom. The Commissioner has the burden of proving the facts in this case, as will be discussed in detail below, by clear and convincing evidence. Undoubtedly, Ms. Fuqua saw a chain of some sort that appeared to be positioned in such a manner as to restrain the unidentified student. However, the lack of any corroborating evidence, the paucity of details, and the denial of wrong-doing by Dr. Whalen prevents a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, of maltreatment. The alleged incident involving S.A. On August 13, 1998, at Morse, Ms. Kriedler was called by Dr. Whalen to her class. When Ms. Kriedler entered the class she observed Dr. Whalen holding S.A.'s arms to his desk with her right hand and holding the hair of his head by her left hand. She stated to Ms. Kriedler that, "If he moves a quarter of an inch, I'm going to rip the hair out of his head." Dr. Whalen also related that S.A. had kicked her. Dr. Whalen also said to S.A., in the presence of Ms. Kriedler, "Go ahead and kick me because I can't feel it." This referred to her handicap. By this time S.A. was motionless. After a discussion with Ms. Kriedler, Dr. Whalen released S.A. and Ms. Kriedler took him to her classroom. Subsequently, Ms. Kriedler requested that he be transferred to her class and that request was granted. Ms. Kriedler reported this incident to Shona Murphy, the Taylor County School District Exceptional Student Education Administrator. Ms. Murphy stated that Ms. Kriedler reported to her that that S.A. was flailing about and kicking when Dr. Whalen threatened to pull his hair. Robin Whiddon was Dr. Whalen's aide on August 13, 1998. She recalls S.A. and described him as a troubled young man who was full of anger. He would sometimes come to school appearing disheveled. He had blond hair that was usually short. Ms. Whiddon has observed him lash out at others with his hands. Ms. Whiddon was not present in the classroom when the incident described by Ms. Kriedler occurred. However, upon her return to the classroom, Dr. Whalen informed her that she had grabbed S.A. by the hair until she could control him. Ms. Murphy discussed the incident with Principal Izell Montgomery and Superintendent Oscar Howard in late August 1998. As a result of the discussions, these officials decided to video-tape Dr. Whalen's classroom, and to take no other action. Dr. Whalen denied under oath that she grabbed S.A.'s hair. Despite Dr. Whalen's assertion to the contrary and upon consideration of all of the evidence, it has been proven by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Whalen grabbed and held S.A.'s hair and threatened to pull it out. Grabbing a student's hair is not an approved CPI hold. However, at the time this occurred Dr. Whalen was not required to use CPI methods. Grabbing a student's hair is generally unacceptable conduct unless, for instance, it is done in self- defense, or in order to protect the student or others. It has been not been proven by clear and convincing evidence that grabbing S.A.'s hair was impermissible. Dr. Whalen told Ms. Kriedler that S.A. had been kicking her. This statement raises the possibility that the action was initiated as a self-defense measure. When one considers that Dr. Whalen has limited mobility, and that her aide was not present, she was permitted to take reasonable actions to defend herself. Grabbing a student's hair may have been reasonable under the circumstances and, in the event, the record does not provide enough evidence to permit a determination. The video-tape of November 20, 2002 A video-tape, that included audio, and which was made part of the record of the case, portrays events on the morning of November 20, 2002. The video-tape was brought to the attention of the school administration by a parent who had received the video-tape from Dr. Whalen. The picture quality of the video is satisfactory but the audio is derived from a microphone near Dr. Whalen's desk. Therefore, it is clear that the microphone did not record all of the words spoken in the classroom at the time and date pertinent. Accordingly, facts found as a result of viewing the video-tape are limited to those which are clearly depicted by it. The School Board had discussed the wearing of apparel with representations of the Confederate battle flag on them in a meeting immediately prior to November 20, 2002. Early in the morning of November 20, 2002, there was a discussion with regard to the School Board deliberations among some of Dr. Whalen's students. The discussion came close to degenerating into physical conflict. This was reported to Dr. Whalen's aide, Ruth Ann Austin. It was further reported that some students called some of their fellow students "rebels," and others called other students "Yankees" and "gangsters." Assistant Principal Verges visited the classroom at the beginning of the school day, at Dr. Whalen's request, and he explained the matters discussed at the School Board meeting. Upon the departure of Assistant Principal Verges, Dr. Whalen unleashed a torrent of criticism upon her students addressing the subject of name-calling. Dr. Whalen spoke to the students in a loud and threatening tone of voice. While delivering this tirade, Dr. Whalen traveled to and fro in her motorized wheelchair. The video-tape revealed that this wheelchair was capable of rapid movement and that it was highly maneuverable. The lecture was delivered in a wholly confrontational and offensive manner. The lecture continued for more than 30 minutes. This behavior was the opposite of the de-escalating behavior that is suggested by CPI. However, Dr. Whalen had never been directed to employ CPI. S.O. was a student in Dr. Whalen's class and was present on November 20, 2002. He was a student of the Caucasian race who had, prior to this date, displayed aggressive and violent behavior toward Assistant Principal Verges and toward Ruth Ann Austin, Dr. Whalen's aide. Some on the school staff described him, charitably, as "non-compliant." S.O. was quick to curse and had in the past, directed racial slurs to Ms. Austin, who is an African-American. Because of his propensity to kick those to whom his anger was directed, his parents had been requested to ensure that he wear soft shoes while attending school. On November 20, 2002, S.O. was wearing cowboy boots and a Dixie Outfitters shirt with the Confederate battle flag emblazoned upon the front. Subsequent to Dr. Whalen's tirade, S.O. slid out of his chair onto the carpeted floor of the classroom. Dr. Whalen instructed him to get back in his chair, and when he did not, she tried to force him into the chair. She threatened S.O. by saying, "Do you want to do the floor thing?" When S.O., slid out of his chair again, Dr. Whalen forcibly removed S.O.'s jacket. Thereafter, Ms. Austin approached S.O. Ms. Austin is a large woman. Ms. Austin removed S.O.'s watch and yanked S.O.'s boots from his feet and threw them behind his chair. Dr. Whalen drove her wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair with substantial violence. Thereafter, Ms. Austin removed S.O. from the classroom. Removing S.O.'s jacket, watch, and boots was acceptable under the circumstances because they could have been used as weapons. The act of driving the wheelchair into the back of S.O.'s chair, however, was unnecessary and unhelpful. A memorandum of counseling was presented to Dr. Whalen by Principal Ivey on December 2, 2002, which addressed her behavior as portrayed by the video-tape. The S.O. and C.C. incidents Reports from time to time were made to Assistant Principal Verges, and others, that Dr. Whalen engaged in an activity commonly referred to as "kissing the carpet." This referred to physically taking children down to the floor and sitting on them. During April 2003, Dr. Whalen reported to Assistant Principal Verges and Ms. Kriedler that she had recently put two students on the carpet. During the four years Mr. Verges was Dr. Whalen's Assistant Principal, Dr. Whalen reported a total of only about four instances of having to physically restrain students. Dr. Whalen has never told Mr. Verges that she has regularly restrained children on the floor. Dr. Whalen's agent for using physical restraint is her aide, Ms. Austin, because Dr. Whalen's handicap does not permit her to easily engage in physical restraint. Ms. Austin physically restrained children five or six or seven times during the four years she was Dr. Whalen's aide. On four occasions a child actually went to the floor while being restrained by Ms. Austin. One of the two students who were reported to have been physically restrained during the April 2003, time frame was S.M. During this time frame S.M. became a new student in Dr. Whalen's class. S.M. was unhappy about being placed in a "slow" class. It was Ms. Austin's practice to meet Dr. Whalen's students when they exited the school bus in the morning. Accordingly, she met S.M., the new student. S.M. was "mouthy" when she exited the bus and would not get in line with the other children. S.M. and the rest of the children were taken to the lunch room in order to procure breakfast. While there, S.M. obtained a tray containing peaches and other food and threw the contents to the floor. Ms. Austin instructed S.M. to clean up the mess she made. S.M. responded by pushing Ms. Austin twice, and thereafter Ms. Austin put S.M. in a basket hold. S.M. struggled and they both fell on the floor. Ms. Austin called for assistance and someone named "Herb" arrived. Herb put a basket hold on S.M. while Ms. Austin tried to remove S.M.'s boots because S.M. was kicking her. S.M. was almost as tall as Ms. Austin and was very strong. At the end of the day, Ms. Austin was trying to "beat the rush" and to get her students on the school bus early. She was standing in the door to the classroom attempting to get her students to form a line. She and Dr. Whalen had planned for S.M., and another student, with whom she had engaged in an ongoing disagreement, to remain seated while the rest of their classmates got on the bus. While the line was being formed, S.M. and her fellow student had been directed to sit still. Instead, S.M. rose, said that she was not going to wait, and tried to push by Ms. Austin. Ms. Austin responded by asking her to sit down. S.M. said she would not sit down and pushed Ms. Austin yet again. Ms. Austin tried to restrain her and told the other students to get to the bus as best as they could because she was struggling with S.M. and was having substantial difficulty in restraining her. Ms. Austin asked for help. She and S.M. fell to the floor. S.M. was on the carpet. Dr. Whalen slid from her wheelchair and attempted to restrain the top part of S.M.'s body. Ms. Austin held the bottom part of her body and attempted to remove her boots with which S.M. was kicking. S.M. was cursing, screaming, and otherwise demonstrating her anger. Dr. Whalen talked to her until she calmed down. They then released S.M. The actions taken by Ms. Austin and Dr. Whalen were appropriate responses to S.M.'s behavior. The S.M. affair precipitated the C.C. incident. C.C. was a large male student who had no history of violence. C.C. teased S.M. about having been "taken down" by Ms. Austin. C.C., teasingly, told Ms. Austin, that he did not think Ms. Austin could take him down. Ms. Austin said she could put him in a basket hold which she did. C.C. challenged Ms. Austin to put him on the floor and she did. This was considered a joke by C.C. and Ms. Austin. This incident was nothing more than horseplay. As the result of the comments made by Dr. Whalen, addressing the S.M. and C.C. incidents, to Ms. Kriedler and to Assistant Principal Verges, a memorandum issued dated April 7, 2003. It was signed by Principal Sylvia Ivey. The memorandum recited that Dr. Whalen's comments raised concerns with regard to whether Dr. Whalen was using appropriate CPI techniques. The memorandum stated that Dr. Whalen's classroom would be video-taped for the remainder of the school year, that Dr. Whalen was to document each case of restraint used, that she should use proper CPI techniques, and that she should contact the office should a crisis situation arise in her classroom. The J.R. incident On January 19, 2005, J.R. was a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom. On that date, J.R. was a ten-year-old female and in the third grade. J.R. had been a student in Dr. Whalen's classroom only since about January 10, 2005. Dr. Whalen did not know much about J.R.'s history on January 19, 2005. At the hearing J.R. appeared physically to be approximately as large as Dr. Whalen. A determination as to exactly who was the larger could not be made because Dr. Whalen was seated in a wheelchair. Assistant Principal Verges found that J.R.'s physical strength was greater than average for an elementary school student on an occasion when he had to restrain her after she bit another person. J.R. brought a CD player to class on January 19, 2005, and after lunchtime, Dr. Whalen discovered it and confiscated it. Dr. Whalen took possession of the CD player because school rules forbid students to have CD players in class. Dr. Whalen put it in a drawer by her desk. When this happened, in J.R.'s words she, "Got mad." A heated discussion between Dr. Whalen and J.R., about the dispossession of the CD player ensued, but after a brief time, according to Dr. Whalen's aide, Angela Watford, "the argument settled." Even though Ms. Watford's lunch break had begun, she remained in the room, at Dr. Whalen's request, until she was satisfied that the dispute had calmed. Subsequent to the departure of Ms. Watford, J.R. approached Dr. Whalen, who was seated behind her desk working. The configuration of the desk and furniture used by Dr. Whalen was such that she was surrounded by furniture on three sides. In order to obtain the CD player, it was necessary for J.R. to enter this confined space. J.R. entered this space, moving behind Dr. Whalen, and reached for the drawer containing the CD player in an effort to retrieve it. When Dr. Whalen asked her what she was doing, J.R. said, "I am getting my CD player and getting out of this f class." Dr. Whalen told J.R. to return to her desk. J.R. continued in her effort to obtain the CD player and succeeded in opening the drawer and grasping the headset part of the CD player. Dr. Whalen attempted to close the drawer. J.R. reacted violently and this surprised Dr. Whalen. J.R. attempted to strike Dr. Whalen. Dr. Whalen reared back to avoid the blow and then put her arm around J.R. When J.R. pulled away, this caused Dr. Whalen to fall from her wheelchair on top of J.R.'s back at about a 45-degree angle. Immediately thereafter, J.R. bit Dr. Whalen several times. The bites broke Dr. Whalen's skin in three places and the pain caused her to cry. J.R. began cursing, screaming, and kicking. J.R. said she was going to "kick the s _ _ _" out of her teacher. In fact, while on the carpet, J.R. kicked Dr. Whalen numerous times. Dr. Whalen believed she would be in danger of additional harm if she allowed J.R. to regain her feet. This belief was reasonable. J.R. was in no danger of asphyxiation during this event because Dr. Whalen removed part of her weight from J.R. by extending her arms. Upon returning from lunch Ms. Watford spotted T.B., a boy who appears to be eight to ten years of age. T.B. was standing outside of Dr. Whalen's classroom and he calmly said to Ms. Watford, "Help." Ms. Watford entered the classroom and observed Dr. Whalen lying on top of and across J.R., who was face down on the carpeted floor, and who was cursing and kicking while Dr. Whalen tried to restrain her. Ms. Watford ran over to assist in restraining her by putting her legs between J.R.'s legs. J.R. thereafter tried to hit Ms. Watford with her right hand. Ms. Watford grabbed J.R.'s right arm and was severely bitten on the knuckle by J.R. The three of them ended up, Ms. Watford related, "in a wad." Within seconds of Ms. Watford's intervention, Frances Durden, an aide in the classroom next door came on the scene. She was followed by Takeisha McIntyre, the dean of the school, and Assistant Principal Verges. Ms. McIntyre and Mr. Verges were able to calm J.R. and safely separate her from Dr. Whalen. Then J.R. stated that Dr. Whalen had bitten her on the back. Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford went to the school's health clinic to have their wounds treated. The wounds were cleaned and Ms. Watford subsequently received an injection. While Dr. Whalen and Ms. Watford were at the health clinic, J.R. was ushered in by Ms. McIntyre. J.R.'s shirt was raised and the persons present observed two red marks between her shoulder blades. Dr. Whalen said that the marks must have been produced by her chin or that possibly her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. She said that she had forced her chin into J.R.'s back in an effort to stop J.R. from biting her. Ms. McIntyre took photographs of the marks. The photography was observed by Mr. Verges. The photographs reveal two red marks positioned between J.R.'s shoulder blades. The two marks are vertical, parallel, and aligned with the backbone. They are from one, to one and one half inches in length. The skin is not broken. There is no wound. Teeth marks are not discernible. A teacher who has many years of experience in the elementary or kindergarten education levels, and who has observed many bite marks, may offer an opinion as to whether a mark is a bite mark. Mr. Verges has the requisite experience to offer an opinion as to the nature of the marks on J.R.'s back and he observed the actual marks as well as the photographs. It is his opinion that the two marks were caused by a bite. Ms. McIntyre, who has also observed many bite marks in her career, and who observed the actual marks as well as the photographs, stated that the marks were consistent with a bite. Registered Nurse Cate Jacob, supervisor of the School Health Program observed Julia's back on January 19, 2005, and opined that the red marks on J.R.'s back were bite marks. J.R. reported via her mother, the day after the incident, that she had been bitten by a boy on the playground of Taylor Elementary School, by a black boy with baggy pants, possibly before the incident with Dr. Whalen. Facts presented at the hearing suggest that it is unlikely that J.R. was bitten on the playground under the circumstances described in this report. T.B. was the only nonparticipant close to the actual combat who was a neutral observer. He did not see Dr. Whalen bite J.R., but did see her chin contact J.R.'s back and he heard Dr. Whalen say words to the effect, "I am going to make you say 'ouch.'" Dr. Whalen denied biting J.R. She stated at the time of the event, and under oath at the hearing, that she forcibly contacted J.R.'s back with her chin. She stated that it was possible that in the heat of the struggle her teeth may have contacted J.R.'s back. The opinion of the school personnel as to the origin of the marks upon J.R.'s back is entitled to great weight. On the other hand, a study of the photographs exposed immediately after the incident, reveals no teeth marks and no broken skin. The marks could be consistent with pressing one's chin upon another's back or pressing one's teeth in one's back. In the latter case, whether J.R. was bitten may be a matter of definition. Generally, a bite occurs when the victim experiences a grip or would like that experienced by Ms. Watford or Dr. Whalen in this incident. Although J.R. asserted that the marks occurred because of the actions of, "a boy on the playground," given J.R.'s general lack of credibility, that explanation is of questionable reliability. The evidence, taken as a whole, does not lend itself to a finding of the origin of the marks on J.R.'s back. Because proof by clear and convincing evidence is required in this case, it is not found that Dr. Whalen bit J.R. Principal Ivey's memorandum of April 7, 2003, specified that ". . . Mr. Howard and I informed you that we will video-tape your classroom . . . ." Thus it is clear that it was not Dr. Whalen's duty to cause the classroom to be video-taped. It is clear that for many months Dr. Whalen's classroom was video-taped and until the November 20, 2003, incident, none of her actions caused attention to be drawn to her teaching methods. It is found that the assault on Dr. Whalen was sudden and unexpected. Any actions taken by Dr. Whalen were taken in permissible self-defense. J.R. was suspended from Taylor Elementary School for ten days following this incident. Miscellaneous Findings Sylvia Ivey has been the principal of Taylor Elementary for three years. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen three times. She has evaluated Dr. Whalen as "effective," which is the top mark that a teacher may receive. From approximately 1997, when the S.A. hair pulling allegedly occurred, until December 2, 2002, not a single document was created indicating dissatisfaction with Dr. Whalen's teaching methods. Dr. Whalen's normal voice volume is louder than average. She would often elevate her already loud voice, intimidate students and pound on her desk. The aforementioned activities are not part of CPI. On the other hand, these methods worked for Dr. Whalen for 20 years. She was not required to use CPI until subsequent to the memorandum of April 7, 2003. There is no evidence that she failed to use CPI once she was required to employ it. As revealed by the testimony of Dr. Whalen, Ms. Kriedler, Assistant Principal Verges, Ms. Austin, and others, some of these children would strike, kick, bite, throw objects, curse, and hurl racial epithets at their teachers. Teaching some of these children was difficult.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of Counts 3 and 4, that she be issued a reprimand, that she be placed on probation as that term is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.008, for a period of one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay from her employment as a teacher for 30 work days.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a teacher of emotionally/behaviorally disturbed ("E/BD") students at Jose de Diego Middle School, a middle school within the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, Petitioner's policies and rules, and Florida law. Background The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on or about January 12, 2012. On that day, three male students in Respondent's class engaged in play fighting and video-recorded their actions on cell phones and an MP-3 recording device. As a result, Mr. Fernandez, the principal of Jose de Diego Middle School, determined that Respondent did not follow established policies and procedures in stopping or attempting to stop the play fighting, and that her failure to do so endangered the safety of the students involved. Accordingly, he recommended that she be suspended from her employment for 30 work days without pay. On May 16, 2012, Petitioner suspended Respondent from her employment for 30 work days without pay. Incident Giving Rise to Charge The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred during the last instructional block of the day, while the students were engaged in language arts and reading. There were a total of eight or nine students in Respondent's classroom, and they were divided into two groups, consisting of four or five students each, for reading exercises. They were situated in the back of the classroom where they had access to computer terminals. Respondent and a paraprofessional, Ms. Larkin, were also situated in the back of the classroom, working with the students. During this instructional time, Respondent received three separate calls on the classroom telephone from her department head asking about paperwork on one of Respondent's students. The classroom phone is located in the front of the classroom. Each of these calls took Respondent away from her teaching and supervision of the students. Ms. Larkin continued to supervise the groups, but then excused herself to use the restroom. This left the students at least momentarily unsupervised. At this time, three male students, instigated by one student, began to play fight. The persuasive evidence indicates that the students engaged in three separate incidents of play fighting over a period of time lasting several minutes. The other students in the class looked on and did not engage in play fighting. Respondent credibly testified that as soon as she saw what was happening, she immediately hung up the phone and went to the back of the classroom to stop the play fighting, yelling at the students to stop and threatening to write disciplinary referrals to the office; however, they ignored her. Her testimony was closely corroborated by that of D.M., one of the students engaged in the play fighting. D.M. credibly testified that Respondent repeatedly attempted to get the students to stop by yelling at them and threatening to write referrals, but they ignored her. They continued to play fight and recorded the play fighting on two cell phones and an MP-3 device with the stated intention of posting the videos on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. Once Respondent saw that the students would not stop, she stepped into the hall to see if a security monitor was on the first floor, where her classroom was located. Seeing none, she called George Coakley, the Dean of Students, to come to her classroom. An emergency button is located in each classroom. This button transmits a call to the main office, which is responsible for responding to the call. Respondent did not use the emergency button to call for assistance because, in her experience, such calls often are not answered. Respondent used the classroom phone to call Mr. Coakley's cell phone. Mr. Coakley had given her and other teachers his cell phone number to, among other things, be used in such situations. At the time of Respondent's call, Mr. Coakley was involved with another matter, and said he would be there as soon as he was finished with that matter. He and Respondent both estimated it took approximately five minutes for him to arrive at Respondent's classroom. At that time, the students disengaged and ran to sit down as he entered the classroom. Before Mr. Coakley's arrival, Respondent wrote referrals on all of the students involved in the play fighting. These referrals were turned over to the main office for disciplinary purposes. Mr. Coakley took the students involved in the play fighting from Respondent's classroom to the main office and turned them over to Principal Fernandez, who confiscated the phones and MP-3 device and ultimately suspended the students from school. The persuasive evidence establishes that there were three separate videos of three discrete episodes of play fighting taken on three separate recording devices.2/ In one of the videos, Respondent and Ms. Larkin are seen sitting at the desk in the front of the classroom while the play fighting is taking place in the back of the classroom.3/ It is undisputed that the videos depict only a portion of the entire incident. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent first made efforts, not captured on the videos, to get the students to stop play fighting. Those efforts consisted of going to the back of the room and yelling at the students to stop fighting, then threatening to write and writing disciplinary referrals. She took these actions before looking for a security monitor, then calling Mr. Coakley and awaiting his arrival. Based on the video, Principal Fernandez concluded that Respondent's efforts to stop the play fighting did not conform to the E/BD Crisis Plan Jose de Diego Middle School 2011/2012 ("Crisis Management Plan") protocol applicable to student fights. The Crisis Management Plan requires, in pertinent part, that the teacher immediately contact security via emergency call button, the school administrator, and nearby staff. Principal Fernandez determined that Respondent did not comply with this requirement because she did not use the emergency call button to summon school security to her classroom. However, the persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did contact school administration——specifically, Mr. Coakley——as soon as she determined that she was unable to get the students to stop the play fighting. Respondent credibly testified that she contacted Mr. Coakley directly instead of using the call button specifically because, in her experience, school security often did not respond to the emergency call button. The Crisis Management Plan also requires the teacher to "separate and isolate" students involved. It does not specifically describe how this should or must be done. Respondent testified that she repeatedly attempted to get the students to stop play fighting by going to the back of the room where they were located, yelling at them to stop, and threatening to write referrals on them. Principal Fernandez testified that Respondent should have said "stop"——which Respondent did. He also testified that she should have "separated and isolated" the students but he did not articulate any specific means that Respondent should have employed short of physically intervening to break up the play fights——an action that arguably may itself have violated Petitioner's corporal punishment policies or may have resulted in Respondent herself being physically injured. Robin Morrison, an Instructional Supervisor with Petitioner's Division of Special Education, testified that Respondent could have used "proximity control" to separate the students, and that in her opinion, based on her viewing of the videos, Respondent did not do this and therefore did not respond appropriately in trying to break up the play fighting. However, as previously discussed, the videos do not depict the entire incident. Thus, Ms. Morrison's testimony is deemed unpersuasive. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did go to the back of the room where the play fighting was occurring and attempted to get the students to stop. Only after it became apparent that they would not comply did she go to the front of the room, where she looked down the hallway to see if a security monitor was immediately available, then called Mr. Coakley on the classroom phone. Findings of Ultimate Fact Misconduct in Office Petitioner has charged Respondent with committing misconduct in office. Misconduct in office is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(3)4/ as: violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system. The Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6B-1.001, provides: The educator values the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, and the nurture of a democratic citizenship. Essential to the achievement of these standards are the freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal opportunity for all. The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. The Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6B-1.006, provides in pertinent part: The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law. Obligation to the student requires that the individual: Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. * * * The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent made reasonable efforts to protect the students in her classroom from conditions harmful to learning and to their mental and physical health and safety. As addressed above, the persuasive evidence establishes that instead of doing nothing—— as the incomplete video record of the incident appears to depict——Respondent did, in fact, immediately attempt to stop the students from play fighting by going to the back of the room where they were located, ordering them to stop, and threatening to subject them to disciplinary action by referring them to the office. When it became apparent the students were not going to stop despite these measures, Respondent went to the front of the room and looked to see if a security monitor was immediately available. Seeing none, and based on her prior experience of emergency calls going unanswered, she elected to call the Dean of Students, who had given his cell phone number to her and to other teachers specifically for such use. Accordingly, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent did not violate rules 6B-1.006 or 6B-1.001, and, therefore, did not commit misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(3). Policy 3210 - Standards of Ethical Conduct School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, provides in relevant part: All employees are representatives of the District and shall conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. A. An instructional staff member shall: * * * 3. make a reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety[.] * * * As previously discussed, Respondent's actions in attempting to break up the play fighting and contacting the school administration constituted reasonable effort to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning and to their mental health and physical health and safety. Petitioner's sole evidence that Respondent sat by and did nothing consists of an incomplete video record of the incident that was contradicted by the persuasive, consistent testimony of Respondent and D.M., who were present when the incident occurred. Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent did not violate School Board Policy 3210. Policy 3210.01 - Code of Ethics School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics, provides in pertinent part: All members of the School Board, administrators, teachers and all other employees of the District, regardless of their position, because of their dual roles as public servants and educators are to be bound by the following Code of Ethics. Adherence to the Code of Ethics will create an environment of honesty and integrity and will aid in achieving the common mission of providing a safe and high quality education to all District students. As stated in the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (State Board of Education F.A.C. 6B-1.001): The educator values the worth and dignity of every person, the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of knowledge, and the nurture of democratic citizenship. Essential to the achievement of these standards are the freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal opportunity for all. The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, students, parents, and other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. * * * Fundamental Principles The fundamental principles upon which this Code of Ethics is predicated are as follows: * * * F. Kindness – Being sympathetic, helpful, compassionate, benevolent, agreeable, and gentle toward people and other living things. * * * Respect – Showing regard for the worth and dignity of someone or something, being courteous and polite, and judging all people on their merits. It takes three (3) major forms: respect for oneself, respect for other people, and respect for all forms of life and the environment. Responsibility – Thinking before acting and being accountable for their actions, paying attention to others and responding to their needs. Responsibility emphasizes our positive obligations to care for each other. Each employee agrees and pledges: To abide by this Code of Ethics, making the well-being of the students and the honest performance of professional duties core guiding principles. To obey local, State, and national laws, codes and regulations. To support the principles of due process to protect civil and human rights of all individuals. To treat all persons with respect and to strive to be fair in all matters. To take responsibility and be accountable for his/her actions. To avoid conflicts of interest or any appearance of impropriety. To cooperate with others to protect and advance the District and its students. To be efficient and effective in the performance of job duties. Conduct Regarding Students Each employee: A. shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety[.] Petitioner did not prove that Respondent violated Policy 3210.01. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent immediately responded to the play fighting by going to the back of the room and attempting to get the students to stop by yelling at them and threatening disciplinary action through office referrals. When these measures were not successful, Respondent followed proper protocol by expeditiously contacting the school administration regarding the matter. As previously discussed, Respondent's conduct did not violate Rule 6B-1.001, the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, or the pertinent Fundamental Principles set forth in Policy 3210.01. Also as previously discussed, Respondent's conduct constituted a reasonable effort to protect her students from conditions harmful to their learning and to their mental and physical health and safety. For these reasons, it is determined that Respondent did not violate Policy 3210.01, Petitioner's Code of Ethics. Accordingly, there is no just cause, as required by subsections 1012.33(1)(a) and (6),5/ for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from her employment as a teacher for 30 work days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a Final Order rescinding the suspension of Respondent, Thelma Mobley, from her employment as a teacher for 30 work days without pay, and paying Respondent's back salary for the 30-day period for which she was suspended. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s substantial interests are affected by the decision of the Nassau County School Board (School Board) to eliminate her paraprofessional position, and whether the School Board’s decision to terminate her was lawful.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of the parties, as recited in their Joint Pre-hearing Statement, and the Stipulated Record submitted by the parties, the following facts are found: Respondent was an educational support employee for Petitioner from the 1999-2000 school year through the 2017-2018 school year, during which time she received annual performance evaluations of satisfactory or higher. Her evaluation for the 2017-2018 school year, signed by her supervisor on April 6, 2018, recommended another evaluation in 12 months. Respondent’s position is covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the School Board of Nassau County, Florida, and the Nassau Educational Support Personnel Association (CBA), which provides in Article VII(C): “Upon completion of the probationary period as provided herein, and during the term of the employee’s normal work year, he/she shall not be terminated except for just cause.” Respondent became a post-probationary employee in August 2000. Respondent worked as a paraprofessional assigned to the guidance department of West Nassau High School (WNHS) from at least the 2011-2012 school year through the 2017-2018 school year, not as an instructional paraprofessional. In April 2018, WNHS Principal Curtis Gaus met with Respondent and told her that her position would be phased out as of the end of the 2017-2018 school year. Principal Gaus did not state that Respondent’s position was being terminated for a reason stated in the CBA, nor that Respondent’s employment was being terminated due to districtwide layoffs made for financial reasons. Respondent was not given written notice that her employment was being terminated for reasons outlined in the CBA, nor was she terminated for any such reason. Respondent was not relieved of her duties at the end of the 2017-2018 school year as part of a reduction in the number of employees on a districtwide basis for financial reasons. Superintendent Burns has never recommended to Petitioner that Respondent be terminated for just cause or for any other reason, nor has Petitioner itself taken official action to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner did not file a petition to terminate Respondent’s employment, stating the specific reasons Respondent was being terminated, or otherwise comply with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.2015. Respondent did not pursue arbitration or file a grievance, as permitted under the CBA. Petitioner has not identified what specific provision of the CBA Respondent could identify to support a grievance, if filed. The parties stipulated to the existence of certain portions of the CBA, but did not provide context that informs the scope of some of the provisions cited. Of particular relevance to this proceeding are the provisions contained in Article IV (Grievance Procedure); Article V (Vacancies, Transfers and Reduction of Personnel); and Article VII (Discipline of Employee). The pertinent portions of each are quoted below, with those portions to which the parties stipulated designated by italics, and those provision determined by the undersigned to be particularly relevant designated by being underscored. Article IV provides, in pertinent part: ARTICLE IV – GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE GENERAL The purpose of this procedure is to secure, at the lowest possible administrative level, resolution of any dispute which may arise concerning the proper interpretation and application of this contract. Both parties agree that these procedures will be kept as informal and confidential as may be appropriate at any level of the procedure. 1. Time limits. The time limits as called for herein shall be considered the maximum time limits to be used for grievance processing. Extensions may be granted by mutual agreement at level one or two. Each party shall attempt to expedite grievance processing. * * * 4. Processing. Grievances not timely filed or processed to the next step by the grievant, shall be considered settled. Grievances not timely responded to shall permit processing to the next step. * * * 6. Requirements. a. A grievance shall be filed in a timely manner and shall be an alleged violation, misapplication, or misinterpretation of a specific article or section of this Agreement. . . . * * * Procedures * * * 4. Step III Step III (Mediation of Termination) a. If the subject of the grievance is termination as the result of unsatisfactory evaluation [See Article VII section F] and the grievant is dissatisfied with the response at Step II or if no response is timely given, the grievant may, within ten (10) working days, notify the office of the Superintendent using the district’s grievance form, that s/he is requesting grievance mediation by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). * * * Restrictions and Limitations Evidence not produced in Step I or II by a party shall not be offered in mediation. The judgment of the evaluator leading to the rating shall not be mediated. However, the process may be subject to review. The mediator shall not have the power to recommend an addition to, subtraction from, or alteration of the terms of the agreement or to recommend the alteration of the evaluation results of the grievant. The mediator shall only have the authority to mediate the termination issue presented for mediation by the parties and shall not have the power or authority to create or alter the issue of the parties or the issue as perceived by each party. The employment of the grievant shall not be extended beyond the end of the contract year as the result of the time required for the grievance and mediation procedure. The final results of the mediation process shall be presented to the School Board for its final decision. The decision of the School Board shall be final unless appealed by the grievant to Step III B, Binding Arbitration. Step III b (Binding Arbitration) a. 1) If the grievant is dissatisfied with the response at Step II or if no response is timely given, the grievant may within ten (10) working days notify the Superintendent using the District’s grievance form, that the grievance is being arbitrated. * * * e. Restrictions and Limitations of Arbitration Evidence not produced in Step I or II by a party shall not be offered in Arbitration. The Arbitrator shall not have the power to add to, subtract from, or alter the terms of the grievant. In the case of a termination grievance the arbitrator shall not have the power to extend employment beyond the term of the affected employment year for the grievant’s classification. (emphasis added). Article V of the CBA addresses Vacancies, Transfers and Reduction of Personnel. The relevant sections provide as follows: F. Reduction in Personnel Reduction in force shall take place when the Superintendent of Schools: Announces that a reduction in force is to take place. Determines and announces the type of reduction to take place as: System-wide Building-wide Departmentally Any combination of 1), 2), and 3) herein by title and/or position Notifies any employee or employees that an employee or group of employees is being dismissed under this provision. Finally, Article VII of the CBA addresses discipline of employees. It provides in pertinent part: A person employed after the effective date of this Agreement shall serve a probationary period of 365 calendar days. During such probationary period he/she serves at the pleasure of the Board and may be disciplined and/or terminated at the discretion of the Board without further recourse. Upon completion of the probationary period and during the term of the employee’s normal work year, he/she shall not be terminated except for just cause. Provided that in lieu of termination and with the written consent of the employee, the employee may be returned to probationary status. The judgment of the evaluator in the performance appraisal of an employee shall not be subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement. In the event a non-probationary employee is terminated as a result of unsatisfactory evaluation, such termination shall be subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement. 1. The Board/Superintendent reserve the right to take disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal, against any employee based on the seriousness of the offense and the employee’s record. The CBA does not address non-renewal of year-to-year employees outside the context of discipline or a reduction in force announced by the Superintendent. Article XII of the CBA provides that the CBA “shall supersede any rules, regulations or practices of the Board which will be contrary to or inconsistent with the terms of this agreement.” It does not by its terms supersede any rights created by statute.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Nassau County School Board enter a final order reinstating Respondent to her prior status as a non-probationary educational support employee with back pay and all other lost benefits she would have received had she not been improperly terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 2019.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations treated herein, Respondent, William Wyche, held a Florida Teaching Certificate number 106113, issued on October 29, 1980, covering the area of industrial arts. Respondent applied for a Florida teaching certificate by submitting the required application form and documentation on or about October 20, 1980. At the time of submission, Respondent replied "no" to the question in Section V of the form which asks: "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation. . .?" This answer was false in that: On September 20, 1979, respondent was found guilty of driving while his license was suspended, and fined $50.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and fined $25.00; On March 20, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of driving with a suspended license and fined $100.00; On April 2, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00; and, On April 25, 1980, Respondent was found guilty of obtaining property by worthless check and was fined $25.00. On that same date, in a separate case involving an identical charge, adjudication was withheld but Respondent was placed on probation for sixty days. Respondent explains the check charges on the basis that at the time they took place, all within a few weeks of each other, his bank account had been garnished and because of that garnishment, though he had ample funds in his account to honor these checks, the bank did not honor them. There were quite a few checks dishonored for this reason-so many, in fact, that he lost track of some of them and though he redeemed most, he failed to redeem these. As to the convictions for driving with a suspended license, he thought these were minor traffic offenses that did not have to be listed. Respondent was employed as an industrial arts (IA) teacher at Kirby Smith Junior High School (KSJHS) in Jacksonville, Florida during the 1981-82 school year, teaching in the metal shop. During this period, he was evaluated on a regular basis, based on observations and evaluations by other school officials carried on at various times throughout the school year. During these evaluations, such things as classroom conditions, the instructor's presentations, the preparation of lesson plans, and the use of lesson plans as guidelines for in-class instruction were considered. Lonnie W. Davenport was assistant principal for curriculum at KSJHS during this period and had to insure that teaching was taking place properly in both form and substance. To do this, he contacted his teachers daily and also relied on observations such as described above, and reports submitted to him. These reports were regarding such things as student class size, grade reports by teachers, black/white student count in the homerooms, and teachers' lesson plans which were required from each teacher weekly. While he has no formal IA training, he has a lot of experience in the area. Mr. Davenport first took serious note of the Respondent in mid- December, 1981 when he noted that Respondent had not submitted complete lesson plans. There were holes in those submitted relating to time and quality. In addition, the principal had asked him to look into reported irregularities in Respondent's classroom. His examination of Respondent's lesson plans showed that they were inadequate because they: did not conform to the form required; did not cover the subject matter sufficiently; did not follow a time sequence properly; and, were not sufficiently specific. They should have broken down the instruction into segments for skill development on a step-by-step, day-by-day basis. In short, Respondent's plans did not adequately tell what he was intending to do in his classroom. As to Respondent's teaching, Davenport's observation showed that Respondent: had no plans to show what was expected of his students; maintained the shop in a depressing state. (Here, however, it was admitted that this school was old and the shop dingy, and Respondent could not control all of that. However, Respondent's teaching aids, such as posters, which were old, faded, and torn, added to the dinginess.) allowed shop metal to lay around the shop without being placed in stock storage, creating a safety hazard; failed to safeguard and neglected one student's artwork project, and other students' projects were left out and not placed in storage for the next class period; stored a large stack of sheet metal under a work bench with cutting corners end edges protruding (also a safety hazard) allowed equipment which should have been stored to remain out; failed to have safety lines placed on the floor around individual pieces of equipment; failed to insure that soldering forges were properly shielded or securely fastened down; and, failed to post safety rules prominently in the classroom. Respondent contends that he submitted purchase orders requesting corrections be made of these deficiencies. However, with the exception of several orders for paint, some of which may have been used for the safety lines and to brighten up the area, the remainder of the purchase orders he introduced into evidence (Respondent's Composite Exhibit E), were for metal stock and other pieces of new or replacement equipment. There was no evidence of work orders for correction of any of the cited defects. Mr. Davenport's observations as to Respondent's teaching ability were that: He sat at his desk in the classroom while his students were working in the shop behind his back. As a result, students with problems had to come out of the shop to him for help rather than him being available in the shop to help; students were not required to wear safety goggles while operating power equipment nor did Respondent use them while operating the equipment; The student projects assigned or approved by Respondent were too simple and provided no challenge; The quality of the finished product turned out by Respondent's students was poor; Grading of student projects was accomplished on the basis of negotiation with the student and not on accomplishment or work quality; Once the student had completed the basic project, Respondent had no follow-up projects for them to do to use up the remainder of the school year. He, allowing them to occupy themselves with "busy work," showed to Davenport a lack of commitment to planning; Respondent was observed and overheard by Davenport to chastise a student by threatening to destroy the student's project, resulting in failure. This observation, which Respondent admitted to Davenport, is contrary to a school policy which prevents discipline from affecting an academic grade; and, In one particular class observed, Respondent came to class late. He had allowed a student to take roll, a function required of the teacher, and evidence available to Davenport, led him to believe this was a repeated- occurrence; Respondent's absence allowed students to engage in horseplay and rowdy behavior and, even when Respondent came into class, he chastised the wrong student. As to the type of instruction Respondent was observed to give, when a student would bring a project to him and ask a question, he would answer. For the most part, however, he stayed at his desk while the students worked unsupervised in the shop. He showed no initiative and did not even require students to draw plans or prepare material lists before starting work on a project. On one occasion, a student was injured in the shop. Respondent merely washed the injury, wrapped it, and sent the student back to work. Davenport, who observed this incident, told Respondent on the spot that the student should go to the office for first aid and that Respondent should file an accident report on the incident. The report was not filed by Respondent and the student went to the office at the direction of Davenport, not Respondent. This showed a complete lack of concern, according to Davenport. Davenport counseled the Respondent on the above deficiencies but observed no immediate response. He went back to Respondent's class 5-7 times subsequently for follow-up visits of from 20 minutes to an hour in duration and found little change for the better. He repeatedly offered Respondent assistance in any area to correct the shortcomings and got no response until in March, 1982, when Respondent found out he was going to get an unsatisfactory rating. He had been notified in writing, on January 8 end again on February 5, 1982, by his principal Mr. Shanklin, in addition to others, including an evaluation on January 13, 1982 by Mr. Lowell T. Hudson, supervisor of industrial arts for the school board, that his performance was deficient. These warnings could have left little doubt as to the fact his performance was below standard. Finally, on March 15, 1982, Mr. Shanklin rendered an evaluation on Respondent which showed an overall rating of unsatisfactory. Of the six areas rated in classroom management, two were satisfactory and four were unsatisfactory. Of the twenty- one areas rated in teaching effectiveness, one was satisfactory, nine were rated as needing improvement, and eleven were rated unsatisfactory. Seven of the nine areas of professional/personal characteristics were rated satisfactory, one needed improvement, and one was unsatisfactory. Even after this unsatisfactory report, the school administrative staff still tried to help Respondent. They offered him direct help themselves and, in addition, the services of county in service resource personnel to help with planning. Respondent was receptive to this verbally, but never took any steps to use them. As a result, there was no improvement in Respondent's performance but merely a maintenance of the status quo. There were some minor improvements in the condition of the shop but these were merely cosmetic and did not, in any way, relate to the quality of instruction. In Davenport's opinion, Respondent does not meet the minimum standards of competency for teachers nor can he be trained to meet these standards. He is convinced, and it is so found that Respondent's race played no part in the evaluation process. The principal at KSJHS during this period, Mr. Jack H. Shanklin, agreed with and amplified on Davenport's analysis of Respondent. His first difficulty with Respondent came in October, 1981 when the Dean of Girls wrote him a memorandum stating that Respondent had struck a student with a dowel rod. This was not the first instance of Respondent's striking students. Since Respondent was not designated as one to administer corporal punishment, she had previously warned him to send all disciplinary problems to the office. When Shanklin discussed this with Respondent, he said he did it to control the class. Shanklin did not personally evaluate Respondent until early January, 1982, after Davenport's evaluation. Prior to going to the class, he reviewed Respondent's lesson plans and found them to be sketchy. In his opinion, a substitute teacher could not have taught from them and they were "totally unacceptable." When he went into the classroom, he found the Respondent lecturing end he could not understand what Respondent was trying to get across. Respondent mumbled, was hard to understand, and used few, if any, visual aids. It was obvious to him that the students were bored, confused, and were getting nothing from the presentation. In addition, he observed the shop and found it to be dingy, dirty, and a safety hazard. Mr. Shanklin discussed these deficiencies with Respondent a few days later when he gave him the letter regarding the observation. He went into these deficiencies, and recommendations to correct them, quite thoroughly. He made suggestions as to resource people available to help and pointed out specific references to the teachers' manual. In each case, Respondent always indicated he understood and would try to comply. However, in the succeeding month leading up to the February letter, there were no signs of improvement at all nor was there any indication he had utilized the resource people. Follow-up visits to the classroom showed no change and no indication Respondent was getting anything across to the students. After the February letter was given to Respondent by Mr. Shanklin personally, they had a conference in which Shanklin discussed Respondent's deficiencies and he was told what he had to change to get a favorable evaluation. The most critical areas for improvement identified were: lesson plans safety conditions, and classroom appearance, as well as Respondent's personal untidy and nonprofessional appearance. After this discussion, Shanklin made several visits to Respondent's classroom prior to the March evaluation and did note some improvements in classroom appearance and safety, but not in lesson planning or teaching. Even after the March evaluation, up to the end of the school term, he noted no improvement. On March 29, 1982, he gave Respondent a third letter outlining areas for improvement. Respondent finished out the 1981-82 school year but because of the unsatisfactory evaluation he received, requested a transfer to a different school for the 1982-83 school year. In Shanklin's opinion, Respondent did not meet minimum standards of competency nor could he achieve them because of a lack of effort to improve. Shanklin feels Respondent does not care about the education of children and would make only superficial efforts to be trained. Race is not a factor in this evaluation. At least 50 percent of Shanklin's staff is black. He has 85 teachers on his staff and in the last three years, he has rated 13 teachers unsatisfactory. Of these, 8 or 9 were black. Therefore, of the 255 teacher evaluations he has rendered in three years, 8 or 9 unsatisfactory's were given to black teachers. Dalton D. Epting, Director of Certified Personnel for the school board, talked with Respondent about his evaluation on several occasions when Respondent was at Wolfson High School. If a teacher is on tenure status and received an unsatisfactory evaluation, he may request a transfer to a different school for a second year during which efforts are made through counseling, training, and other assistance, to help him become satisfactory. When Respondent, due to his unsatisfactory evaluation at KSJHS requested a transfer, he was assigned for the second year, to Wolfson High where, for reasons cited below, he was rated unsatisfactory for the second year in a row. Respondent was sent to Wolfson for his second year because there was no vacancy for IA teachers in the system. Even though Wolfson was also full, rather than send Respondent back to KSJHS, they sent him to Wolfson, with all its teachers, so he could have the benefit of other good teachers. Race was not a factor in this decision. It is not automatic that a teacher who receives a second consecutive unsatisfactory rating is discharged. The system looks to see if the teacher was given every assistance to improve; to ensure that everything reasonable was done by way of counseling, resource help, training, and the like, to help him. If it was and the teacher did not improve, he is discharged. Here, school officials looked at all evaluations for both years, considered the discussions held with Respondent, and the input from cadre and resource personnel, and decided that Respondent was incompetent. The decision was made, therefore, to discharge the Respondent and this action was taken. During the 1982-83 school year, after his first unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent worked for David E. White, principal at Wolfson High School. Immediately White sat down with Respondent, along with the IA supervisor to let him know what was expected of him and what help was available to him. He observed Respondent in the classroom on several occasions and, based on these and other factors in accordance with school board rules, in an effort to let the teacher know how he or she is doing, rendered an unsatisfactory rating on Respondent on October 30, 1982. Among the examples of Respondent's incompetence which led up to this evaluation were progress reports, discipline referrals, notes, and tests prepared by Respondent, some of which went home to parents, that contained obvious spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors. At first, White became aware of concern by students and their parents about Respondent's performance. When these complaints first began, White called in the IA supervisor for the school district, Mr. Hudson, to evaluate Respondent. He began evaluating Respondent himself when the complaints continued. These complaints were to the effect, basically, that the students could not understand Respondent. (It is noted here that Respondent suffers from a slight speech impediment). He would merely read from the textbook with no teacher-student interaction. There was little lab work - mostly lecture or reading. This was not appropriate in the Graphic Arts area which consists of such skills as printing, photography, silk-screening, and the like. Consistent with the notes, reports, end referral slips prepared by Respondent, White noted a lack of grammatical correctness in his oral presentations as well. In addition, White observed that the Respondent's students were not being motivated by him and spent little time on their classroom tasks, and he also observed that Respondent's presentation was lacking in technological detail. For example, on one occasion, Respondent was discussing a box camera and failed to detail the advantages and disadvantages of this type of camera, the type of films available for it, and the merits of each. When the class period was over, White discussed the above with Respondent, suggesting how the lecture could be improved. The following day White came back to class to see how Respondent carried the discussion forward and it was as if White had not said anything. Respondent continued to omit from his lecture the substantive technological information White, as principal, felt should be taught. White concluded that Respondent was not at all familiar with the subject matter he was teaching. 1/ Respondent was also considered to be deficient in his administrative skills. He lost (or had stolen) his grade book as well as his computer worksheets twice during one 9 week period. This created seven extra hours work for the curriculum office, with 3 additional hours by Respondent, to reconstruct, his grades. The fact that Respondent had to help in this project meant someone had to cover his classes for him. It also created a lot of inquiry by parents who, on learning of the lost grade book, questioned the validity of grades given their children. In addition, Respondent's attendance registers were not turned in on time notwithstanding frequent reminders in advance of due dates. At the end of the first semester, White had a conference with Respondent about the above. Respondent began being absent due to sickness in January, 1983 and went on sick leave on 9 February, 1983 which extended through the remainder of the school year. It is important to note that Respondent's absence at this time was valid and there is no inference or insinuation to the contrary. While he was absent, on March 8, 1983, Respondent was given a notice of intent to render an unsatisfactory evaluation report which was, in fact, issued on April 15, 1983. Here it must be noted that there could have been no improvement in performance between the notice and the evaluation as Respondent was not present for duty but was on sick leave. In any event, White contends that as a result of Respondent's teaching, the school's IA program has been seriously damaged, but that has not been shown. While Respondent's classes did net prepare his students for the second year curriculum in those areas, there is no evidence that the school's program has been seriously damaged. Nonetheless, it was shown be that, as white contends, Respondent did not meet minimum county standards and could not be improved to meet them. Consequently, on August 15, 1983, the superintendent of the Duval County public schools, by certified letter, notified Respondent that because of the two years of unsatisfactory evaluations, indicating professional incompetence, he was recommending the School Board discharge Respondent from employment. Thereafter, on January 16, 1984, the Duval County School Board, by Final Order, sustained the charge of professional incompetence, and discharged Respondent as a teacher. Race was definitely not an issue in White's evaluation. In his school, at which the student body comes from the upper level socioeconomic group, and which has rated first in Area Scholastic Aptitude Test scores for the past five ears, White has no black administrators or department chairmen on his staff. One black former department chairman was promoted to vice-principal at another school. His choices for personnel are based on qualifications, not race. At the present time, 12 percent of the teachers on staff are black and over the six years White has been principal at Wolfson High, only 3 black teachers have transferred out. While at both KSJHS and Wolfson High, Respondent was encouraged to consult with Everett T. Hudson, IA supervisor for the school board, and was, in fact, evaluated by him in both settings. He evaluated Respondent first on January 14, 1982, at the request of the Principal at KSJHS end observed Respondent during his 8-9 a.m. first period class. His conclusions were: classroom and shop cleanliness were poor; it appeared that activities were winding down shop organization was poor (no clean-up schedule was posted and metal stock was laying everywhere; the students' projects were not meaningful or of a quality nature; respondent spent too much time lecturing and did not allow for sufficient shop time, and, respondent's lesson plans were not available. When seen, it was obvious Respondent had not used the curriculum guide to draft the few plans he had. When Respondent transferred to Wolfson High, the Principal there also asked Hudson to come out and evaluate Respondent on a more frequent basis. Consequently, because of this request and because of the fact that due to Respondent's previous unsatisfactory rating he was on probation, Hudson evaluated Respondent ten times, at least once in each month, between September 8, 1982 and January 5, 1983. As a result of these evaluations, it appeared to Hudson that Respondent did not know how to: plan a project; lay out equipment; identify woods and where they came from; use certain equipment. It further appeared to Hudson that Respondent's lectures were poor in that he mumbled and he didn't seem to know what he was talking about. Further, his lesson plans were poor, and he failed to keep up with an appropriate time schedule for class. As a result, Hudson ended up, himself, helping the students rather than evaluating. When these observations were made, Mr. Hudson would go over them with Respondent and give Respondent a copy. Notwithstanding he pointed out these deficiencies repeatedly, there appeared to be no improvement at all. The school system here has a remedial program for teachers to use to improve their performance. There are resource teachers to provide assistance and there are also "in service" programs for teachers. Mr. Hudson suggested Respondent take some, one of which he was teaching right at Respondent's school. As he recalls, Respondent came twice out of 15 sessions. As a result of the above, Hudson does not believe that Respondent meets minimum competency standards and could not meet them. In his opinion, Respondent: suffers from a lack of organizational ability; has lackadaisical attitude toward improving the program; would not spend the necessary time to upgrade his skills, and has a weak knowledge of the subject matter. Here again, race was not an issue in these evaluations. Hudson supervises 95 IA teachers in the Duval County school system and is the only administrator. Of these teachers, approximately 25 are black. Over 13 years, he has been called in to evaluate, like this, 5 or 6 teachers, only one of whom was black, and of this number, only 2 have been discharged. Respondent has a Bachelor of Science decree in Education and a Masters degree in Industrial Education, both from Florida A & M University. In addition, he has attended a leadership development course at Michigan State University, military classes in the same while in the army at Ft. Dix, New Jersey, and numerous workshops in Florida at his own expense. It was his hope, when he started working in Duval County, to develop some feel for the IA field in that school system As a result of his experience there, he is of the opinion that the entire IA program is underfunded. Students have to pay for the wood and metal materials they use to build a prefect. He urges that without materials and equipment, a teacher cannot teach, a point concerned by Mr. Davenport, and that was the reason he submitted the purchase orders he did at KSJHS. In that regard, it would appear that about the time Respondent was teaching at KSJHS in 1981, a report by an Inspector (Jenkins) from the school district offices, reflected that materials and equipment in Respondent's class area did not meet minimum state requirements. In addition, there was some problem regarding the excessive size of the class. This problem was immediately corrected end certification in this area was restored. He also contends that a teacher's teaching style may differ from that of his principal's and still be correct. With regard to the April 15, 1953 unsatisfactory evaluation, Respondent contends, in an attempt to contest his rating, that since he was out sick much of the month of January, 1983, and all of the time from February 9, 1983 to the end of the school year, a rating dated in mid April would cover as large a period of time when he was not there as when he was. The Teacher Tenure Act under which this system operates provides for a second full year of evaluation before discharge. Since he was sick for half the second year, he contends, his discharge was not valid. He wants to fulfill his probationary period to prove he is a worthy teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, William Wyche's teacher certificate issued by the State of Florida be revoked for a period of three years, with provision for reinstatement as provided for by statute. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk with the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1984.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent for 15 days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a social studies teacher at Palmetto Middle School (“Palmetto”), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”). The incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on March 18, 2014, during the 2013-2014 school year. On March 18, 2014, Respondent was co-teaching a seventh grade social studies class with Vivian Taylor. Ms. Taylor is another social studies teacher at Palmetto. K.W. was a female student in the class. At that time, K.W. was approximately five feet tall and weighed ninety pounds. Prior to March 18, 2014, K.W. sat in an assigned seat in the back of the classroom of the social studies class co- taught by Respondent and Ms. Taylor. On March 17, 2014, K.W. displayed disruptive behavior in the classroom. On March 18, 2014, as the bell rang to signal that class was about to begin, K.W. and other students entered Respondent’s and Ms. Taylor’s classroom. When K.W. entered the classroom on March 18, 2014, Respondent instructed K.W. that she could not sit at her seat in the back of the classroom, and that she needed to sit at a desk in the front of the classroom. Instead of walking toward her newly assigned seat in the front of the classroom, K.W. disregarded Respondent’s instructions and attempted to walk in the opposite direction toward her prior assigned seat in the back of the classroom. Respondent then stood in the aisle, stepped in front of K.W., and “blocked” her “path” toward the seat in the back of the classroom. Respondent blocked K.W.’s path in an attempt to re-direct her to her newly assigned seat in the front of the classroom. In his effort to block K.W.’s path of travel and re-direct her to her newly assigned seat in the front of the classroom, Respondent and K.W. made very slight physical contact with each other. The physical contact between Respondent and K.W. was minor, inadvertent, and lasted no more than one second. At hearing, Respondent denied that he ever made physical contact with K.W. Ms. Taylor, the only other purported eye-witness to the incident, who testified at the hearing on behalf of the School Board, was asked by the School Board’s counsel to describe whether Respondent and K.W. ever made physical contact. In response, Ms. Taylor testified: It was just their chest, just the top body, because Mr. Chandra-Das is a bit taller than her, so when he stepped up, that’s what touched. Ms. Taylor described the physical contact between Respondent and K.W. as very slight--“it was just a touch,” it lasted “[a] second, half a second.” After Respondent blocked K.W.’s path, K.W. stepped back and put her head down. Ms. Taylor testified that K.W. was visibly upset and crying. Ms. Taylor immediately told K.W. to leave the room and go directly to the assistant principal’s office. Respondent’s supervisor, Principal Lux, acknowledged at the final hearing that there is no written directive or School Board policy which forbids a teacher from blocking the path of a student. Principal Lux further testified that he has never “disciplined a teacher in the past for blocking the path of students and not letting the student go wherever they want,” and that he is unaware of any circumstance in his 15 years with the School Board in which the School Board has disciplined an employee for blocking the path of a student. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that there was, at most, very slight physical contact between K.W. and Respondent as Respondent attempted to block K.W.’s path of travel and re-direct her to her newly assigned seat in the front of the classroom. Respondent did not intend to make physical contact with K.W., and the physical contact between Respondent and K.W. was minor, inadvertent, and lasted no more than one second. The evidence does not establish that Respondent pressed his body against K.W., as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.2/ At no time did Respondent grab, push, shove, punch or place his hands on K.W. in any way. Respondent was justified and acted in an appropriate manner in blocking K.W.’s path in the manner that he did, which was in an effort to re-direct K.W. to her newly assigned seat. On March 20, 2014, Respondent was advised of an investigation with regard to the March 18, 2014, incident involving K.W. On that date, Respondent was specifically advised by his supervisor, Principal Lux, in a letter: You are prohibited from contacting any complainant(s) and/or witness(es), with the intent to interfere with the investigation of the above listed allegation(s). Subsequent to Respondent’s receipt of this directive, Respondent contacted Ms. Taylor and advised her that he was the subject of an investigation regarding the March 18, 2014, incident involving K.W. Respondent showed Ms. Taylor the letter, but he did not attempt to influence her in any way. Respondent did not violate the directive of Principal Lux, because Respondent did not contact Ms. Taylor “with the intent to interfere with the investigation.” In sum, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s conduct with regard to the incident in the classroom on March 18, 2014, involving K.W. constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of School Board policies. In sum, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent violated Principal Lux’s directive not to contact any witnesses “with the intent to interfere with the investigation.” Accordingly, the School Board failed to prove that Respondent’s communications with Ms. Taylor constitutes gross insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order rescinding the 15-day suspension of Respondent with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 17th day of November, 2014.
The Issue At issue is whether the Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated July 30, 2002, and if so, whether his employment should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact Mocombe has been employed by the School Board as a social studies teacher since 1997, when he graduated from Florida Atlantic University. He began his career substitute teaching at Sunrise Middle School (Sunrise), and later moved into a full-time position at Lauderhill Middle School (Lauderhill). In the years following graduation, while working as a teacher, Mocombe continued his studies at Florida Atlantic University and attained a master's degree and a Ph.D. He also received three formal reprimands, and a reputation as a person who could engage in adolescent behavior toward peers and insubordinate behavior to his principal without suffering any meaningful consequence. Mocombe calls himself a brilliant teacher, whose teaching philosophy is informed by his belief that "Revolution comes first. I'm a Marxist." Also a high priority for Mocombe is hedonism. Mocombe is known at Lauderhill as a "player," a term defined by one witness as "[S]omeone who has a lot of women and a lot of women [who] know about each other," a characterization which Mocombe embraces. Although married, Mocombe had a sexual relationship with a teaching colleague at Lauderhill by the name of Belinda Hope (Hope). He also was attracted to a first year teacher by the name of Kim Barnes (Barnes). Specifically, said he wanted to "get into her pants," during the 2000-2001 school year. Mocombe has no sense of boundaries in the workplace. He freely offers his opinions on religion, politics, and sex, some intended to be humorous, some not. Mocombe is aware of his need to be the center of attention and to shock people. He testified, "Even in school, I used to go walking around and said I was God just to get a reaction out of people." Most adults tread carefully, or not at all, around such deeply personal subjects. The training and ethics of the teaching profession emphasize respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, irrespective of his political and religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Teachers are educated to understand that sophomoric jokes about sex are not to be inflicted upon unwilling listeners. These lessons are reemphasized annually in sexual harassment training provided to all teachers employed by the School Board. Mocombe did not benefit from this training. He was known at Lauderhill for a constant stream of crude references to sex. He made no secret of his view that a woman's role is to have babies and serve men sexually. In addition, Mocombe would mock organized religion in the presence of colleagues who take their faith seriously. He often spoke of starting his own church, in which he would be known as Prophet Paul and the prerequisite for all women seeking to join the church would be to have his baby. Such comments, as well as his propensity to refer to women as "bitches" and "whores," were deeply offensive to some, but they kept silent. Lauderhill was an ideal environment for Mocombe. The atmosphere at the school is sexually charged to an extent inappropriate to the serious business of teaching children who are at a fragile stage of their own sexual development. Adolescent sexual banter consumes a great deal of time in and out of Lauderhill's teachers' lounge. At least in Mocombe's class, cursing and horseplay in the presence of the teacher-- even with the teacher--is acceptable. Unrebutted testimony placed an assistant principal in the main office discussing "sex, among other things," with Mocombe and other members of Lauderhill's staff in the main office at a time when at least one person not employed there could hear their discussion. Phillip Patton (Patton) was Mocombe's principal, first at Sunrise and later at Lauderhill. Patton's patience with Mocombe's behavior was seemingly boundless. In the lax atmosphere at Lauderhill, some of Mocombe's colleagues regarded his frequent references to sex, as well as to religion, politics, and the appearance of female colleagues, as harmless banter. Others, such as Marrisa Cooper (Cooper) who testified on Mocombe's behalf, felt that it was not the school's responsibility to deal with harassment; rather, the person at whom the harassment was directed should have the "balls" to deal with it. Cooper explained that it was understood at Lauderhill that Mocombe [believed] "that women are there to have children, which everyone always disagrees with statements because he always makes these general statements about women, and a lot of people take them as being belittling or degrading women. I don't take it personal because you are not talking to me, I know what I am made of and the way I am, so I never take them personally. But again, everybody maybe don't have the balls that I have." Others at Lauderhill were offended by Mocombe's conduct, but kept their silence, believing that Patton would not impose meaningful discipline on him. In fact, Patton's patience with Mocombe ran out only when Barnes and another teacher, Tracey Bryant (Bryant) put their complaints in writing, at which time Patton was required by School Board policies and procedures to forward the complaints for follow- up by trained investigators. The charges at issue here arise out of Mocombe's interaction with three individuals, student Hudson Mortimer (Mortimer), and the above-mentioned teachers Bryant and Barnes. Each situation is discussed separately in paragraphs 16 through 77, below. Hudson Mortimer: At the time of the incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint, Mortimer was a sixth grader at Lauderhill and a student of Mocombe's. Mortimer shares Mocombe's high opinion of himself as a teacher. Although Mortimer testified at the behest of the School Board, he volunteered, "I don't think he should get his license suspended." On October 11, 2001, Mocombe and Mortimer were "playing with each other." More particularly, Mortimer was "cracking" on his teacher, calling him "ugly and stuff." Mortimer's and Mocombe's accounts of the incident are consistent, and create a picture of two kids on the same level, playing together when they should be working. The incident began with Mortimer and Mocombe trading good natured insults, which included adolescent name-calling, using phrases such as "ugly-ass," while tossing whatever object was at hand at one another. Eventually Mocombe tossed a marking pen at Mortimer which hit the student over one eye, causing minor injury. The School Board contends that this incident constitutes the imposition of inappropriate discipline of sufficient severity to warrant termination. Pursuant to School Board rules and policies requiring that events which may give rise to litigation be documented, Patton, through a staff member, sent an accident report form to Mocombe for him to fill out. Mocombe refused, saying, "I'm not filling out anything, it was an accident. Patton wants to, he can fill it out himself." Patton took no disciplinary action against Mocombe for his refusal to comply with this routine and entirely appropriate request that he follow a reasonable School Board policy. This was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that Mocombe was given to understand that there would be no meaningful consequence to him for ignoring rules which he did not wish to follow. Tracey Bryant: Bryant is a 13-year teacher. Her complaint against Mocombe arises out of an incident which she characterizes as sexual harassment, and which occurred in the teachers' lounge at Lauderhill on April 5, 2001. At the time of the incident, Bryant was one of about a half dozen teachers present in the lounge. While conversing with a colleague, she was interrupted by Mocombe who asked, "Ms. Bryant are you pregnant?" Stunned, she coldly told him, "No." Referring to Bryant and to another teacher then present, Mocombe commented to the effect that their "butts were getting to be alike---hanging." Bryant quickly left the room. Here, as with the incident involving Mortimer, Mocombe and the alleged victim tell similar stories. Both agree that Mocombe was intending to be jocular in his interaction with them. But while Mocombe's alleged student victim supports the manner in which Mocombe interacts with him in general, and in particular is not offended by the allegedly inappropriate conduct set forth in the Administrative Complaint, Bryant felt "humiliated and disrespected" by Mocombe's comments about her size. In addition, Bryant was aware of Mocombe's history of making what she viewed as inappropriate comments about and to females. She had heard him make numerous comments she regarded as inappropriate in the workplace to Hope, a good friend of hers with whom Mocombe would eventually have an acrimonious break-up. When the offensive comment about Bryant's size was directed to her personally, she complained, in writing, to Patton. The conflict between Bryant and Mocombe continued at the hearing. At one point, Mocombe snickered during legal argument being made by the School Board attorney while Bryant was on the witness stand. Mocombe was provoked by a comment made to him by the School Board's attorney (who in turn was admonished to direct his comments to the tribunal, and not to parties or witnesses) and said of the School Board's charges against him, "I find it baffling and humorous, yes." Bryant immediately jumped in to say, "That's how he is, yes. No remorse or nothing." Bryant's reading of Mocombe's attitude is accurate. During his testimony, Mocombe supplied details of the incident which were not presented in the School Board's case, and which reflect a lack of understanding of why his conduct was so offensive. After having months to reflect on why Bryant brought these charges, Mocombe remains unembarrassed by his faux pas of assuming--and saying aloud to a roomful of colleagues--that Bryant's weight gain was due to pregnancy. He volunteered during his testimony that rather than drop the subject after Bryant made her displeasure clear, Mocombe persisted, discussing his exchange with Bryant about Bryant's weight with another colleague, Vicki Drane. While not denying the substance of Bryant's account of the incident in the teachers' lounge, Mocombe argues that Bryant is out to get him because of his break-up with Hope. However, neither Mocombe nor any of his witnesses offered any type of corroboration in support of his assertion that Bryant and others conspired to avenge his spurned lover by getting him fired. After carefully observing Bryant's demeanor under oath, and considering the entire record, the undersigned finds no evidence to suggest that Bryant's testimony was untruthful, or that her complaint was motivated by anything other than her own distress at Mocombe's callous behavior in calling attention to her weight gain, behavior which hurt and embarrassed her in front of her colleagues. Kim Barnes: Barnes met Mocombe in the office at Lauderhill, where she was being interviewed for what would become her first teaching job. As previously noted, the School Board provides annual training to its employees regarding sexual harassment and other types of conduct inappropriate in the workplace. But Barnes' first contact with Lauderhill employees in their main office, where the administrative staff, including the principal, have their offices, suggested an atmosphere inconsistent with what is to be expected in a well managed place of learning. Mocombe acknowledges that he wanted to "impress" Barnes in order to "get into her pants." This is his account of his first meeting with Barnes in the school office: The first -- the very first interaction I had with Ms. Barnes were the beginning of the last school year. We were in teacher planning. She came in for an interview and we were all in the student office discussing sex among other things. Q. Who was we? A. Ms. Cooper, Ms. Mayo, who was the office manager, the assistant principal at that time, Mr. King, myself, and Ms. Barnes. And I made the reference about I want six children. My actual reference was my goal is to have as many little Mocombes running around so I can start my own revolution, take over the world, my own Marxist revolution and indoctrinate them. And she made the reference that she wanted to have five children. I thought hey, we could work out if that's the case. (Transcript page 276, lines 2-19). In hindsight, it was a mistake for Barnes to tell Mocombe the number of children she might like to have. The above-mentioned defense witness, Cooper, was an office worker at Lauderhill and was present and participated in the discussion of "sex among other things." Cooper, knowing of Mocombe's obsession with sex, deemed that Barnes, having joined the discussion to the extent of remarking that she would like to have five children, had granted consent for Mocombe to make sexual advances. Barnes' account of the conversation is slightly different. She recalls telling Mocombe she might like to have five children in response to a direct question by him. Perhaps she voluntarily "made the reference," as Mocombe recalls. This is the type of minor discrepancy to be expected from witnesses asked to recall the details of an event which took place months ago. What is important is that Mocombe did not then and does not now see why the comments which he freely admits making are utterly inappropriate to the time and place where he made them. Although Cooper considers herself a friend of Mocombe, in giving testimony on his behalf, she volunteered that on the day of the Barnes' job interview, Cooper commented to Barnes that Mocombe was "no good." Counsel for Respondent did not suggest what issue this testimony goes to, but the testimony offered on Mocombe's behalf, taken together, suggests a belief by Mocombe and his friends that Barnes was on notice that as a "player," Mocombe was unable to relate to professional women in a professional way, and that he was not expected to do so by his colleagues or supervisors. Barnes was hired and began work at Lauderhill in the fall of the 2000-2001 school year. In the beginning, Mocombe confined his comments to Barnes to acknowledging her presence, usually in terms of her looks, such as, "Hi, sexy." Over time, the comments became more graphic. Mocombe would remark on the size of Barnes' breasts, her "phat (pretty hot and tender) ass" and would state his desire to have sex with her in stunningly offensive terms. In November 2000, Barnes expressed her distress about Mocombe's conduct to Reginald Edwards (Edwards), a substitute teacher who also works as a Baptist pastor. Edwards reported Barnes' concerns to principal Patton. Patton did nothing to follow up. Barnes also expressed her distress to her assigned teaching mentor, Arnetta Davis (Davis). Davis advised her that Mocombe was well known for this type of conduct, and recommended that she try to "nip it in the bud." Barnes is not an aggressive personality, but she tried to make Mocombe understand that she did not appreciate his comments. Mocombe was not deterred. Her efforts to nip Mocombe's conduct in the bud having failed, Barnes conferred again with Davis. Davis confirmed what Barnes had come to suspect: Mocombe conducted himself in this manner because he had been doing so for as long as he had been teaching, with no more than a wrist slap ever imposed. Barnes came to hold a reasonable belief that, in Davis' words, "apparently everyone knew about it, [Mocombe's inappropriate behavior] it was just how he was, and everyone just basically looked a blind eye about it." Davis could not provide Barnes with any assurance that if she complained to Patton, Mocombe would experience any meaningful consequence. Worse, Davis confirmed Barnes' fear that she, Barnes, might be deemed a troublemaker and be "blackballed" if she complained. Barnes was in no position to be blackballed. At the time she began her employment at Lauderhill, she had not yet received her permanent teacher's certificate. Moreover, she needed a summer teaching job and believed she was not likely to get one by being a "troublemaker." Based upon Davis' advice, and her own observation that Mocombe's constant sex talk was part of the landscape at Lauderhill, Barnes reasonably feared that Mocombe would continue to be protected by Patton, and that her own career might be seriously impaired if she sought to avail herself of School Board policies and procedures designed to provide employees recourse from sexual and other types of harassment. Davis' advice to Barnes was reasonable. Davis had witnessed Mocombe conduct himself in an unprofessional and disruptive manner at faculty meetings with no apparent consequences. Interestingly, at least by the time of the hearing, Mocombe's perception of his relationship with Patton differs from the perception shared by most of Lauderhill's professional staff. Mocombe came to feel that Patton would go out of his way to write [Mocombe] up for anything which Patton believed to be a challenge to his authority. But the totality of the evidence suggests that at all times material to this case, the belief widely held by Lauderhill staff that Patton's patience with Mocombe was practically unlimited, is closer to the truth. By March of 2001, Mocombe's conduct toward Barnes had escalated. One day, Barnes came in to the teachers' lounge to check mail. About a half dozen teachers were present. Mocombe freely--indeed proudly--described this incident: he said, for all to hear, "I can't stand up because my dick is hard, or I'm hard." Davis was coming to believe that she could no longer ethically ignore Mocombe's conduct toward Barnes. Around the time Bryant made her written complaint to Patton, Davis went to Patton on Barnes' behalf. Patton in turn went to Barnes and told her that she had to put her complaints about Mocombe into writing if anything was to be done. Barnes did so. By way of defense, Mocombe suggests that Barnes was the aggressor, pursuing him to consummate a physical relationship. Mocombe says he chose not to have sex with Barnes. This excerpt from Mocombe's testimony fairly summarizes his theory of the case: The same reason she was inquiring of Mr. Edwards about me, and she found out about my dealings with women. I turned her down, all right. If that's what you want to ask, we didn't have sex because I didn't want to have sex. Q. She wanted sex but you didn't? A. I didn't say that. I just said we didn't have sex. I chose not to have sex. I didn't say -- Q. Did you ask her? A. We came close a couple of times in the classroom. Q. To have sex with her? A. That's what you want. Yeah, we did. We came close a couple of times in the classroom. Every day for 20 to 25 days in the classroom with this woman, and you think -- maybe you [sic] blind. Yeah, I'm a good looking man. You must be out of your mind. (Transcript page 310, lines 6-24). Mocombe also claimed, with reference to Barnes, "This girl hugged me every morning in the lounge" and that on at least five occasions she voluntarily engaged with him in activities which, if done by teenagers, would be called "making out." Mocombe never attempted to reconcile this testimony with his admission that he wanted to "get into [Barnes'] pants." Moreover, there are numerous ways in which the colorful incidents recounted by Mocombe, if they occurred, could be corroborated. For example, Mocombe claims he said to Barnes in the presence of two teachers, one of whom testified at the hearing, that he confronted Barnes after learning she had filed a complaint. As he described the scene, "I was like, hell, no. I didn't do anything to this heifer. I was like just Friday you were kissing me." Leaving aside the use of Mocombe's highly derogatory term "heifer," had Mocombe said such a thing in the heat of this particular moment, it surely would have made an impression upon Barnes and the other witnesses. Yet none of them was questioned about it. Rather, Mocombe expects the trier of fact to accept his version because, as he put it, "Come on now. Hey, I'm a good looking man. Not only that, I'm intelligent too I don't know what [sic]. So she is ridiculous. But you know what, she got that off. They set me up. It's good. I like that." Upon receipt of the written complaints from Bryant and Barnes, Patton, in accordance with School Board procedure, informed Mocombe of the charges and instructed him not to contact either complainant. According to Patton, Mocombe's response to the accusations was nonchalant. In fact, Mocombe was enraged. He ignored Patton's no-contact directive and approached both Barnes and Bryant in an effort to convince them to drop their complaints. This is how Mocombe described the scenes when he made his unauthorized approaches to Barnes and Bryant: "You know what the fuck, I'm sorry whatever [sic], just cancel this shit. . . . And then I went over to Tracey Bryant, and I was like what, you were having a bad day. I was asking you are you pregnant. She was like, yeah, she was having a bad day. Ms. Russell asked me to apologize. I like apologized. And that was it. That was it. And Ms. Bryant said she was going to drop it, and then that was it. " Elsewhere in his testimony, Mocombe described the post-complaint encounter with Barnes in more detail: ". I walked to her classroom . . . I was like what the fuck is your problem. Are you a psycho. What's the [sic] fuck. You know what, I actually said you are a fucking nut bag. What the hell is this. She was like---she sat on the desk. She got on the desk and was like I'm afraid of you Mocombe. I was like what the fuck is wrong with you. I am like are you a psycho. I am like are you psychotic." Because Mocombe is not charged with insubordination or any other infraction based upon his disregard of the instruction that he not communicate with Barnes and Bryant, ordinarily testimony about these communications would be irrelevant and inadmissible. But, Mocombe did not object to testimony about these communications from School Board witnesses, and was eager to talk about these encounters himself. Mocombe appears to view his accounts of these incidents as exculpatory. To the contrary, if Barnes had ever pursued a sexual relationship with Mocombe, one would expect that his tirade about her complaint would have taken a very different form. Mocombe's testimony on cross-examination provides additional insight into Mocombe's sense of entitlement to disregard basic standards of civility and respect towards colleagues, and to view any attractive co-worker as a potential sex partner. This passage, which summarizes Mocombe's view of the charges against him, is instructive on that point, and also contains an additional admission that he was seeking to have sex with Barnes: Can you get to the real issue here? I don't believe Mortimer is the actual issue here. The actual issue is regarding Kim Barnes and Tracey Bryant. Simply add that on to show some kind of -- that I'm an ineffective teacher. I'm a brilliant teacher. Even Patton will admit to that fact, and nothing here has anything to do with my ability to teach. Because I'll be frank, I'm a brilliant teacher, I'm 27 years old. Continue. Q. Thank you. Let's then go on to the major issue. The heifer as you described Ms. Barnes, you were just seeking to have sex with her; is that right? A. For the most part, yes. (Transcript page 295, lines 11-24). On this and several other occasions during his testimony, Mocombe stated, "I'm 27," in contexts which suggested that in his view, his youth exempts him from standards of conduct which apply to older people. The law makes no such distinction. The common thread which runs through the testimony of witnesses for both sides is that Mocombe believes his youth, good looks and personality exempt him from the constraints of middle class morality, to the extent that it demands that teachers exhibit basic respect for all persons, whether or not, in the teacher's opinion, such respect is deserved. Mocombe is a young man of obvious intelligence and charisma, and Patton did him a disservice in turning a blind eye to his refusal to conform his conduct to the requirements of the standards of his profession. Even at the hearing, Mocombe was unable to control his desire to articulate, in crude terms, his contempt for those he disrespects. This exchange from Mocombe's cross-examination is illustrative: Q. All right. And you also touched her body parts; is that correct? A. Sure. Don't you touch your wife? (Transcript page 298, lines 6-8). Asked at the hearing if he acted inappropriately toward Barnes, Mocombe replied, "According to her I did. No, I honestly don't think so, no. I thought it was in jest. . . . I thought it was just we were something. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck for Christ's sake. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy. Anyway. No, I don't feel I acted inappropriately to Ms. Barnes." Mocombe has had months to think about it, but he continues to adhere to the belief that he is entitled to give free rein to his hedonistic impulses, and to express them in the crudest possible terms. Based upon the undersigned's careful observation of the parties and witnesses under oath, and throughout the hearing, and after careful consideration of the record as a whole, the suggestion by Mocombe and his witnesses that Barnes pursued Mocombe and was a willing participant in make-out sessions with him is expressly rejected. Neither has Mocombe proven a conspiracy by the friends of his former lover to destroy Mocombe's career. Even if School Board witnesses are motivated in whole or part by affection for Hope, and there was no competent evidence to support this view, the question of whether Mocombe may be lawfully terminated must be determined with reference to his conduct, and not the joy, or lack thereof, which witnesses may feel at the outcome. Prior disciplinary history: There is a theme which runs through the incidents which give rise to Mocombe's current difficulties. The common denominator is immaturity. Mocombe does not have an adult understanding of how his behavior offends contemporary standards of appropriate workplace behavior, and the corrosive impact of his coarse language and preoccupation with sex upon the professional environment which the public has a right to expect in its schools. In his short teaching career, he has received three reprimands, all relating to incidents in which he was unable to follow well known rules of acceptable workplace communication. Mocombe received his first reprimand while still a substitute teacher at Sunrise, where Patton was principal. He was reprimanded for using inappropriate language in the presence of students. The reprimand, dated January 5, 1999, included a directive requiring him to enroll in a teacher training class. On April 11, 2000, Mocombe was reprimanded for unprofessional and profane comments made toward his former lover, Hope. Mocombe's tirade occurred in Patton's presence. Mocombe screamed at Hope such comments as, "Fuck you, you bitch--yeah I fucked you, you ain't nothing but a damn whore; you're nothing but a good fuck; I am gonna put my foot up your ass." The letter of reprimand regarding this incident cited Rule 6B-1.006 which requires that educators refrain from engaging in "harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance or professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly process of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment. " The letter specifically warned that further misconduct of any nature could result in termination of employment. On January 10, 2001, Mocombe received a letter of reprimand for sending a chain letter to all of his teaching colleagues at Lauderhill in violation of well-established school board policy prohibiting the use of the in-house email system for communications unrelated to work. Mocombe's testimony revealed a complete lack of understanding that he has done anything wrong. Instead, he believes he is being "railroaded" in these proceedings. Based upon his prior disciplinary history, and the manner in which his defense was conducted, the conclusion is inescapable that if reinstated, Mocombe would continue to exhibit, during working hours, his passion for "revolution, education, and hedonism" in whatever manner he pleases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order discharging Mocombe from further employment in the Broward County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 14th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly & McKee 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316-1924 Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
