The Issue The issue in this case is whether a schoolteacher physically assaulted three third-graders in his music class, thereby giving his employer, the district school board, just cause to terminate his employment.
Findings Of Fact Background The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Manuel Brenes ("Brenes") was a music teacher at Little River Elementary School ("Little River"), which is within the Miami-Dade County Public School System. The alleged events giving rise to this case allegedly occurred on November 18, 2005. The School Board alleges that on that date, Brenes lost his temper in the classroom and physically assaulted three students, each of whom was in the third grade at the time and about nine or 10 years old. More particularly, it is alleged that Brenes poked a boy named K. C. in the head several times; choked, slapped, and/or picked up and dropped another boy, K. M.; and threw a chair at a third boy, whose name is C. P. For his part, Brenes denies these charges, claiming that his interventions were neither assaultive nor potentially harmful, but rather were reasonably necessary either to protect students from harm or to maintain order. There is no question that an incident occurred in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005, and that the students K. C., K. M., and C. P. were involved. The evidence adduced at hearing, however, is conflicting, confusing, and often incredible, affording the fact-finder little more than a fuzzy picture, at best, of what actually happened. Five eyewitnesses to the disputed incident testified. These were four student-accusers (comprising the three alleged victims and one of their classmates, a girl named "Kate"1) plus the accused teacher himself. In addition, Pamela C. ("Ms. C."), who is the mother of K. C. and also a teacher at Little River, testified regarding her observations and impressions as the "first responder" to arrive on the scene after the disputed incident had taken place. (To be clear, Ms. C. did not see Brenes commit any wrongful act; she has maintained——and testified——that Brenes made incriminating admissions to her in the immediate aftermath of the events at issue.) None of these witnesses impressed the undersigned as wholly reliable; rather, each had credibility problems that have caused the undersigned to discount his or her testimony to some degree. For example, every eyewitness who testified at hearing had made at least one prior statement about the incident that differed in some unexpected way from his or her subsequent testimony. Moreover, to the extent sense can be made of any given eyewitness account, there exist material discrepancies between the witnesses' respective stories. The upshot is that the undersigned does not have much persuasive, coherent, consistent evidence upon which to make findings of fact. Given the generally poor quality of the evidence, which ultimately precludes the undersigned from making detailed findings of historical fact, a brief summary of the key witnesses' testimonies about the controversial event will next be provided. These summaries, it is believed, give context to the limited findings of historical fact that then follow; they also should help explain the determinations of ultimate fact derived from the findings. It is important to note, however, that the summaries below merely report what each witness said occurred; they do not necessarily, or even generally, correspond to the undersigned's findings about what likely took place in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005. K. C. K. C. testified that the incident began when one of the boys told a joke that made "the whole class" laugh. Brenes was teaching a lesson at the time, writing on the board. Whenever Brenes faced the board, this particular boy would make "funny faces behind ["Brenes's] back," and when Brenes turned around, the boy would sit down. One student, C. P., continued to laugh, and Brenes made him stand in the corner. Undeterred, C. P. kept laughing. Brenes grabbed the two front legs of a chair, lifted it over his head, and threw the chair at C. P., who "ducked to the ground" to avoid being hit. After that, C. P. was frightened and remained on the ground "for like five minutes." Brenes told the students to put their heads down. He walked over to K. C. and poked the boy in the head three times, apparently for no reason. Then Brenes grasped K. M. by the throat and lifted the student, with one arm, off the ground and over his (Brenes's) head. While holding K. M. in the air by his throat, Brenes shook and slapped the boy before using two arms to set him down. A short while later, Ms. C. entered the classroom, having been summoned by Brenes. K. C. told his mother what had just occurred. Their conversation, as Ms. C. remembers it, will be recounted below. Angered and upset by what her son had reported, Ms. C. removed K. C. from Brenes's classroom and took him back to her own room. There, on November 18, 2005, K. C. wrote the first of two statements about the incident. K. C.'s second statement, dated November 23, 2005, was written in his mother's classroom as well. The most noteworthy discrepancy between K. C.'s prior written statements and his testimony at hearing is the absence of any mention in the prior statements about Brenes having poked him in the head.2 Asked at hearing about this omission, K. C. testified that he had "forg[o]t[ten] that part" because Ms. Castillo (the principal) rushed him to complete his statements.3 K. M. K. M. testified that "everybody was laughing" because the classroom smelled bad. Brenes put C. P. in the corner and then threw a chair at him. C. P. moved or ducked, however, and hence he was not struck by the chair. Brenes hit K. C. on the head. Then Brenes caught K. M. laughing at him (Brenes). Consequently, Brenes grabbed K. M. by the throat with both hands, lifted him out of his seat, and held him in midair, so that his feet were off the ground. Brenes held K. M. at arm's length, with his arms straight out from his body, for about one "second" before setting the boy down. Brenes did not shake or slap K. M., who was able to breathe while Brenes held him by the neck, suspended off the ground; indeed, K. M. never felt as though he were choking, even as he was practically being hanged. Shortly thereafter, K. M. wrote a statement about the incident, which is dated November 22, 2005. In the statement, K. M. made no mention of Brenes's having thrown a chair, nor did he report that Brenes had hit K. C. in the head, as he would testify at hearing. C. P. According to C. P., the trouble began when K. M. made C. P. laugh, which was sufficiently disruptive that Brenes told C. P. to stand in the corner. This discipline proved to be ineffective, for C. P. continued to laugh. C. P.'s ongoing laughter caused Brenes to grab a chair and walk quickly ("a little bit running") towards C. P. The boy ducked, and the chair, which remained in Brenes's hands and was not thrown, struck the wall. C. P. was unable to give consistent testimony at hearing concerning the distance between his body and the spot where the chair hit the wall. In different answers he indicated that the chair struck as near to him as two or three feet, and as far away as 20 feet. Brenes put the chair down, nowhere close to any students, and told the children to put their heads down. C. P. finally stopped laughing. In a discovery deposition taken before hearing, C. P. had testified that he thought Brenes's use of the chair as a disciplinary tool was funny. At hearing, however, he claimed that he had "just made that up" and given false testimony at the deposition. C. P. testified that Brenes had swung him by the arm, but he could not keep straight when this had occurred. At first, C. P. said that Brenes had taken his arm and swung him after sending him (C. P.) to the corner, because C. P. had kept on laughing despite the mild punishment. Then, because C. P. "was still laughing," even after having been swung by the arm, Brenes had rushed at him with a chair, ultimately causing the boy to quit laughing. Later in the hearing, however, C. P. changed his story and explained that Brenes had grabbed his arm and swung him around after the "chair affair"——when C. P. was no longer laughing——for the purpose of leading him back to his seat. Yet another version of the "arm swinging" episode appears in a prior statement dated November 21, 2005, wherein C. P. wrote that after Brenes had threatened him with a chair, he (C. P.) "was still laughing so [Brenes] took my arm and he [swung] me." Testifying about what Brenes did to K. M., C. P. stated that the teacher had taken K. M. by the neck and shaken him, lifting the boy up from his chair and then putting him back down, all because K. M. had been laughing. This testimony corresponded fairly closely to C. P.'s statement of November 21, 2005. Interestingly, however, on December 13, 2005, C. P. had told the detective who was investigating the charges against Brenes that Brenes merely had grabbed K. M. by the shirt and placed him back on his chair because K. M. was "playing around." C. P. also informed the detective that "the class [had been] laughing and playing, and Mr. Brenes was trying to stop them." C. P. said nothing at hearing about Brenes's allegedly having struck K. C. on the head. Likewise, he did not mention, in his written statement of November 21, 2005, the alleged attack on K. C. However, C. P. did tell the detective on December 13, 2005, that he had seen Brenes "tap" K. C. on the head. Kate Kate was in the classroom when the disruption occurred, although she did not see "all of it, really." She testified that, at the beginning of class on November 18, 2005, while Brenes was calling the roll, some boys were talking and laughing, and they kept on laughing even after Brenes had instructed them to stop. C. P. was one of the laughers. Brenes made him stand in the corner. The laughter continued, so Brenes got up and threw the chair on which he had been sitting toward the wall where C. P. was standing. The chair flew across the room, in the air, and hit the wall. C. P. ducked and was not harmed. Meantime, K. M. was laughing. Brenes "grabbed him up" and talked to him. K. M. started to cry, and Brenes let him go. Kate did not see anything untoward happen to K. C. Rather, Brenes "just talk[ed] to him, because he was laughing, too." After the incident, Kate prepared a written statement, which is dated November 21, 2005. As far as it went, her hearing testimony was essentially consistent with her prior statement. The prior statement, however, contains an additional detail about which she said nothing at hearing. In her statement, Kate wrote that, after throwing a chair in C. P.'s direction, Brenes took a table and hit a desk with it, causing the desk to hit the wall. Ms. C. Ms. C. was at lunch on the day in question when two students approached her with a request from Brenes that she come to his classroom, where her son was presently supposed to be having a music lesson. Ms. C. told the students that she would be there in about five minutes. When Ms. C. arrived, Brenes's students were well- behaved and "sitting very quietly." Brenes informed Ms. C. that her son, K. C., had been disrespectful to him, in particular by laughing at Brenes as though he were "a stupid person." Upon learning of her son's misbehavior, Ms. C. was neither perturbed nor nonplussed, but skeptical; she immediately demanded an explanation from Brenes: "How do you know when someone is laughing at you as though you're a stupid person?" After being persuaded that her son had behaved badly, Ms. C. reprimanded him in front of the class. Brenes thanked Ms. C. for coming, and she turned to leave. Before taking his seat, K. C. said, "But mommy, that's not all that happened." "What happened?" she asked. "Mr. Brenes poked me in the head," replied K. C. Ms. C. asked Brenes if this were true, and Brenes admitted that he had "tapped" K. C., but not hard enough to cause pain. Ms. C. started to leave, but K. C. stopped her again: "But mommy, that's not all." Thereupon, an exchange ensued much like the one just described, except this time, K. C. reported that Brenes had thrown a chair at C. P. "Mr. Brenes, did you throw the chair?" Ms. C. asked. Again, Brenes admitted that the accusation was true, but denied endangering the children. Before Ms. C. could leave, K. C. stopped her for the third time, saying, once again, "But mommy, that's not it." This initiated the now-familiar pattern of dialogue. K. C. accused Brenes of having picked up K. M. and dropped the boy "hard." Ms. C. asked Brenes if he had done that. Brenes conceded that he had, yet he assured Ms. C. that the children had never been in danger. Ms. C. had heard enough. She instructed K. C. to leave the classroom with her, which he did. The two of them proceeded directly to the principal's office. Ms. C. reported the incident to the principal. After listening to Ms. C. and her son, the principal decided to have Brenes removed from his class, and she called the school police. (Evidently, it was not thought necessary to hear from Brenes before taking these actions.) Brenes was kept out his class for a day or two but then was allowed to return to his regular duties. This upset Ms. C., who felt that "nothing was being done." As a result, Ms. C. "took it upon [her]self" to call the School Board's "Region Office" and lodge a complaint in her capacity as parent. Ms. C. was told to prepare an "incident report," which she did, on November 22, 2005. She submitted the incident report the following day. Shortly thereafter, Brenes was removed from Little River and administratively reassigned to the Region Office pending the outcome of the investigation. Brenes On November 18, 2005, Brenes met a class of third- graders at the cafeteria and took the students to his music room for a lesson. At the time, his music classes were being held in a portable classroom because Brenes's regular room had been damaged in a hurricane. Brenes's temporary classroom had an unpleasant odor. The room's bad smell caused the children to go "berserk" upon arrival; many began running around and misbehaving. One of the boys, C. P., pushed another student to the floor. The tables in the room were on wheels, and some of the children were pushing a table toward the boy on the ground. Brenes pushed the table out of the way, so that the student would not be hurt.4 Meantime, K. M. was engaging in horseplay, throwing himself off his seat and landing on the floor. Brenes viewed this misbehavior as not just disruptive, but potentially dangerous, so he took hold of the naughty child at the waist, lifted him up off the floor, and placed him back on his seat where he belonged.5 The students continued to be disruptive, so Brenes tossed a chair toward the wall, away from all the students, to grab their attention and stop the rowdy behavior.6 This quieted the students down——except for K. M., who started running for the door, where C. P. was standing with his arm outstretched, blocking K. M.'s path. Brenes rushed over and pulled C. P. away from the door to prevent a dangerous collision.7 Brenes's disjointed testimony fails to give a cogent explanation for why C. P. had been standing next to the door in the first place.8 In a prior statement, however, Brenes reportedly had told the detective that, before having tossed the chair, he had taken C. P., who was misbehaving, by the arm and led him to the corner, where the student was to remain until he had calmed down. This prior statement finds ample corroboration in the students' respective accounts. While the commotion continued, K. C. was laughing at the situation. Walking past the student's desk, Brenes tapped K. C. gently on the head and told him to quit laughing. About this time, the students calmed down and became quiet. Brenes commenced teaching his lesson for the day, and thereafter the class paid attention and stayed on task. Near the end of the period, Ms. C. appeared in the classroom, having been summoned by Brenes earlier when her son (among others) was misbehaving. Brenes was not asked at hearing to recount the particulars of his conversation with Ms. C. Whatever was said, however, resulted in Ms. C.’s yelling at Brenes in front of the whole class. Brenes, trying to defuse this awkward situation, became apologetic and attempted to explain what had happened, but to no avail. Ms. C.——who took her little boy's word against Brenes's——would not let Brenes tell his side of the story. Resolutions of Evidential Conflict Regarding the Disputed Event It is not the School Board's burden to prove to a certainty that its allegations are true, but only that its allegations are most likely true; for dismissal to be warranted, in other words, no more (or less) must be shown than that there is a slightly better than 50 percent chance, at least, that the historical event in dispute actually happened as alleged. As the fact-finder, the undersigned therefore must consider how likely it is, based on the evidence presented, that the incident took place as alleged in the School Board's Notice of Specific Charges. Having carefully evaluated the conflicting accounts of the disputed event, the undersigned makes the following findings concerning what happened in Brenes's classroom on November 18, 2005. It is highly likely, and the undersigned finds with confidence, that the incident stemmed from the misbehavior of students who were cutting up in class and generally being disruptive. There were, however, neither allegations, nor proof, that Brenes was in any way responsible for this misbehavior. Rather, it is likely, and the undersigned finds, that the children became boisterous in consequence of the classroom's foul odor. The students K. C., K. M., and C. P. were the ringleaders of the rowdy students, and, in the course of the event, Brenes was compelled to redirect each of them. More likely than not, C. P. was the worst behaved of the three main offenders. Because C. P. was clowning around, Brenes placed him in the corner. It is likely that when he did this, Brenes took C. P. by the arm and led him to the spot where he was to stand. The evidence is insufficient to persuade the undersigned that Brenes touched C. P. in a manner that was intended, or reasonably would be expected, to cause harm or discomfort; it is possible that this occurred——the odds, on this record, being roughly in the range of 25 to 40 percent——but not likely. As for what exactly happened with K. M., the undersigned can only speculate. The undersigned believes that the likelier of the possibilities presented is that the boy was rolling off his chair and flopping to the ground, more or less as Brenes described K. M.'s disruptive activity (although Brenes probably exaggerated the risk of danger, if any, this misbehavior posed to the child). The likelier of the scenarios presented (having a probability somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 50 percent) is that Brenes physically returned the boy to his chair, picking him up in a reasonable, nonpunitive fashion and similarly setting him back down.9 The possibility that Brenes strangled the boy, as charged, is relatively low——between 15 and 30 percent——but nevertheless nontrivial and hence bothersome, given the seriousness of the accusation. That said, however, the undersigned is unable to find that any of the possibilities presented is more likely than not true. Therefore, the School Board's proof fails as a matter of fact on the allegation that Brenes choked, slapped, or otherwise assaulted K. M. Brenes admits having tossed a chair, a point that is corroborated (to some degree) by all of the eyewitnesses except, ironically, C. P., the student toward whom the chair was allegedly thrown. Brenes, however, denies having tossed a chair at any student, and the undersigned credits his denial. More likely than not, it is found, Brenes tossed a chair away from the students, as he initially claimed, to focus the students' attention on something other than the rambunctious boys who were creating a disturbance. (The undersigned doubts that the chair was tossed to prevent injury, as Brenes asserted at hearing.) Brenes also admits that he tapped K. C. on the head while urging the boy to be quiet. It is likely——and indeed Brenes effectively has admitted——that this was done as a disciplinary measure. Brenes denies, however, that he tapped the child in a manner intended, or as reasonably would be expected, to cause harm or discomfort. The undersigned credits Brenes's denial in this regard and therefore rejects as unproven by a preponderance of the evidence the charge that the teacher forcefully "poked" K. C. in or about the temple. Other Material Facts The evidence is undisputed that after Brenes had gotten the three rowdiest boys under control——which seems to have taken but a few minutes——the rest of the class fell in line and behaved for the balance of the period. It is reasonable to infer, and the undersigned does find, that whatever actions Brenes took were effective in restoring order to the class. That is to say, Brenes's conduct did not create chaos, but quelled a disturbance that, from every description, could have gotten out of hand. Such efficacy would not justify improper means, of course, but the results Brenes obtained counsel against any easy inference that his alleged misconduct impaired his effectiveness in the classroom. Continuing on the subject of Brenes's alleged ineffectiveness in consequence of his alleged misconduct, the undersigned is struck by the undisputed fact that, notwithstanding the accusations that had been lodged against Brenes, the principal of Little River allowed the teacher to return to his classroom after spending one day in the library. Thereafter, he taught his music classes, as usual, for five or six days before being administratively assigned to the Region Office effective on or about December 5, 2005. The significance of this fact (Brenes's post-incident return to the classroom) lies in the opportunity it afforded the School Board to observe whether Brenes's alleged misconduct actually had, in fact, impaired his effectiveness as a teacher. As the fact-finder, the undersigned cannot help but wonder: What happened in Brenes's classroom in the next two weeks after the incident? The School Board did not provide an answer. Instead, it presented the conclusory opinions of administrators who declared that Brenes could no longer be effective, which opinions were based on the assumption that all the factual allegations against Brenes were true. Because that underlying assumption was not validated by the evidence adduced in this proceeding, however, these opinions lacked an adequate factual foundation. Moreover, the undersigned infers from the absence of any direct proof of actual impairment that Brenes's effectiveness stayed the same after November 18, 2005.10 While Brenes was spending time at the Region Office pending the outcome of the investigation, another teacher who also was awaiting the results of an investigation began to pick on Brenes, ultimately provoking Brenes into an argument on a couple of occasions. During one of these arguments, Brenes responded to his antagonist by saying, "fuck you." While this profanity might have been overheard by other adults nearby (the evidence is inconclusive about that), it is clear that no students were around. Brenes was the only witness with personal knowledge of these arguments who testified at hearing; in lieu of firsthand evidence, the School Board offered mostly hearsay that failed to impress the fact-finder. In light of Brenes's uncontroverted testimony that the other man had been badgering him "for the longest time," the fact that Brenes lost his temper and used vulgar language, while unadmirable, is at least understandable. The bottom line is, this was a private dispute between adults, one of whom——the one not accused of wrongdoing as a result——was actually more at fault as the provocateur. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's corporal punishment policy. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of unseemly conduct. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Brenes is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's policy against violence in the workplace.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Brenes of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Brenes be reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Brenes back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2007.
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 Whether Respondent's employment as a teacher by the Indian River County School Board should be terminated for the reasons specified in the Charging Letter dated September 20, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Indian River County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at the Alternative Education Center, a public school in Indian River County, Florida. On October 16, 2012, Respondent was arrested and charged with purchase of marijuana and possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, both of which are third degree felonies. On March 6, 2013, Respondent entered a plea of no contest to the above-noted criminal charges and entered into the Drug Court Intervention Program. Pending the outcome of Respondent's criminal charges, on October 18, 2012, Respondent was reassigned to work at the Support Services Complex ("Complex"). Respondent was directed to report to Rick Chuma, Director of Purchasing for the District, on October 19, 2012, at 8:00 a.m. Mr. Chuma testified that individuals, such as Respondent, who are reassigned to the Complex are typically assigned menial tasks such as shredding paper or other minor projects. Specific to Respondent, Mr. Chuma recalled Respondent's duties as shredding paper and, on one occasion, working for Patrick McCarty, the Director of Food Services, cleaning the kitchen. Mr. Chuma conceded that there would be occasions where Respondent did not have any tasks to perform at the Complex; however, he noted that under such circumstances Respondent was not permitted to leave during his assigned hours (excepting breaks or lunch). Denise Roberts, the Executive Director of Human Resources, testified that Respondent was assigned to work at the Complex from approximately 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. or 12:00 p.m. At the Complex, individuals such as Respondent kept an accounting of their time by completing a "Personnel Time Sheet" on a daily basis. Margaret Irene Herman, Mr. Chuma's assistant, ensures personnel are signed in and out. The timesheets cover a two-week period and are maintained in a basket on her desk. Respondent had an individual time sheet and would document for each day when he arrived and left the Complex. Although personnel are expected to complete the form in real time, that is, sign in upon arrival, and sign out when departing, some personnel would sign in and out upon arrival at work. This was not a disciplinable offense if the employee worked during the documented time period. In February 2013, after approximately four months at the Complex, concerns arose regarding Respondent's whereabouts at the Complex during his assigned hours. On one occasion, Ms. Roberts received a call from Ms. Herman inquiring as to whether Respondent had requested and been authorized leave, because he could not be located. Mr. Chuma testified that, on one occasion, he was asked to locate Respondent at the Complex, and he could not be located. Patrick McCarty also testified that, on one occasion, he was asked to locate Respondent, but was unsuccessful.1/ On the above-noted occasions, Respondent had signed in and out on his timesheet as working a full day. Although Respondent continued to have access to and utilize his work email, and Petitioner had his phone number, Petitioner never attempted to locate Respondent via those channels. Instead, Petitioner contacted Kenneth Thompson, the plant manager of the Complex, to review video surveillance of the Complex. Ms. Roberts and Mr. McCarty recalled viewing one video surveillance clip that purportedly showed Respondent arriving at the Complex and then leaving the Complex several minutes later. Ms. Herman testified that she viewed approximately three separate video clips similarly showing Respondent arriving at work and then leaving several minutes later.2/ Respondent conceded that there were days when he arrived at the Complex, signed in and out as working his scheduled hours, and then left the Complex several minutes later for the entire day. On those occasions, Respondent did not notify anyone of his absence. There is no evidence that Respondent requested leave on those occasions. The evidence reveals that Respondent received his full pay for the days that he was willfully absent. At some point in time, Respondent was informed that he was required to sign in and out in the presence of Ms. Herman.3/ Thereafter, Respondent complied and there is no evidence of further incidents regarding Respondent being physically present at the Complex. On July 1, 2013, William Fritz was assigned as the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and Risk Management. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Fritz conducted an investigation regarding the above-noted conduct. At the conclusion of his investigation, Mr. Fritz recommended Respondent's termination, and the Superintendent ultimately supported that recommendation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board enter a final order finding William Howle guilty of misconduct in office, and terminating his employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 4th day of August, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was on an annual contract with the School Board of Pinellas County (Exhibit 5). On November 14, 1987, Respondent was arrested by the St. Petersburg police and charged with possession of cocaine (Exhibit 5). An Information was filed against Respondent in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County on December 24, 1987, charging her with possession of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. Case CR 87- 13779 CFANO-1 (Exhibit 2). On December 16, 1987, Respondent, by and through her attorney, entered a plea of not guilty to the charges under which she was arrested (Exhibit 3). A pre-trial hearing in Case 87-13779-CF is scheduled for February 15, 1988 (Exhibit 4).
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a veteran teacher should be dismissed for having drawn and displayed a kitchen knife while quieting a noisy class.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Lynn Deering ("Deering") had been a teacher for about 34 years. She holds a certificate to teach in Florida. During the 2004-05 school year, Deering was employed as a science teacher at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, which is a public school in Broward County. For reasons that will soon be apparent, it is pertinent to note that Deering contracted polio at a young age and as an adult has suffered from post-polio syndrome. As a result of these illnesses, Deering's upper-body is weak, the range of motion of her upper extremities is limited, and she has little grip strength in her right hand, which is dominant. Since 1985, Deering has been confined to a wheelchair.1 The incident giving rise to this case occurred on March 2, 2005. When the bell rang that day to start Deering's sixth period anatomy and physiology class, the students were excited and talkative. As was her practice, Deering raised her hand to signal that she was ready to begin teaching; this gesture usually quieted the class. This time, however, the students continued to talk, and the classroom was noisy——too noisy for Deering to be heard. So Deering, who was sitting (in her wheelchair) in front of a demonstration table located at the head of the classroom, hitched up her right shoulder, reached back behind her body, and grabbed a utensil from the top of the table. She then used the utensil to tap on a glass beaker——which was filled with water and flowers——to get the students' attention. The "utensil" in question happened to be a knife. It was a chef's knife,2 bearing the Chefmate™ brand on its blade. Measured from butt to point, the knife was approximately 10 and one-half inches long. From heel to point, the blade was roughly five and three-quarters inches in length; it was no wider than about three-quarters of an inch from edge to spine. The knife was in Deering's classroom at the time because she had been using it to slice flowers and potatoes for demonstrations in her biology class.3 Upon hearing the distinctive "tap, tap, tap" of blade on beaker, most of the students stopped talking. Some in the back of the room, however, perhaps being out of earshot, continued to converse. Two were especially oblivious. Presently, Deering wheeled over to their lab table, still holding the knife in her right hand, between her thumb and fingers. When she reached the students' table, Deering turned the knife over in her hand, so that the point was down and the edge faced away from the students (toward Deering herself). Deering leaned over the table, in front of the where the two students were sitting, raised the knife an inch or two above a couple of sheets of paper that were lying on the tabletop, and, loosening her grip, let gravity pull the knife down between her fingers.4 Driven by the knife's own weight, the point punched through the papers, leaving small slits in them, and scratched the surface of the tabletop. Now gripping the knife's handle more tightly (for had she let go the knife would have fallen), Deering said, "Hello!"——which she pronounced "Heh-LOW!"——"Do I have your attention?" She did. The students stopped talking. Some were startled or frightened; others were amused or nonplussed. None, however, reacted as one might when facing a genuine threat of harm, e.g. by screaming or fleeing. As she returned to the front of the classroom, Deering joked, "Don't mess with a postmenopausal woman . . . with a knife!" This was meant to be humorous and was not uttered in a threatening tone of voice. Following this incident, Deering taught her lesson as usual, and the class unfolded in routine fashion. Her use of the knife, in other words, produced no discernible immediate fallout. At least a few students, however, were sufficiently upset by Deering's conduct to report the matter to the administration, and they did.5 The students' report not only set in motion an internal investigation, but also prompted the administration to call the police. Somehow, as well, the incident rapidly made its way into the local news. At least one local TV station aired a brief, 35-second story on the incident, which was short on facts, long on sensationalism, and notably unbalanced, in that Deering's side was not shown. The undersigned cannot comment on the contents or accuracy of other media reports, for they are not in evidence. In due course, the Broward County Sheriff's Office commenced an investigation that brought forth a criminal charge against Deering, who found herself accused of having improperly exhibited a dangerous weapon. The crime of improper exhibition, which is a misdemeanor, is defined in Section 790.10, Florida Statutes, as follows: If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self- defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree[.] Deering ultimately pleaded no contest to the criminal charge and was sentenced by the county court to three months' probation and a $30 fine. Meantime, the School Board decided that Deering should be fired, voting at its regular meeting on August 2, 2005, to accept the superintendent's recommendation that she be suspended without pay pending termination of employment. Following her suspension, Deering accepted a teaching position at the Upper Room Christian Academy, where she was working as a science and math teacher at the time of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order (a) rescinding its previous decision to suspend Deering without pay pending dismissal and (b) awarding Deering the back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the administrative proceedings, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2006.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent's suspension should be upheld and whether his employment with Petitioner should be terminated, as set forth in Petitioner's action letter dated August 21, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board was 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 Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2002). At all times material hereto, Mr. Moore was employed full-time with the School Board as a paraprofessional at Robert Renick Educational Center (Renick) and subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board in accordance with Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2002). The UTD Contract, between the School Board and UTD, also governs the terms and conditions of Mr. Moore's employment. In April 1977, Mr. Moore began his employment with the School Board and was assigned to Renick. He remained at Renick as a paraprofessional through February 9, 2003. In December 1996, prior to beginning his employment with the School Board, Mr. Moore was charged with possession of stolen property and driving with a suspended license and an expired registration. A few months later, on February 20, 1997, Mr. Moore completed an application for employment with the School Board and indicated on the application that he had no criminal charges pending. However, at the time that he made application for employment, the charges of December 1996 were pending. Mr. Moore does not contest several performance problems and deficiencies for the period October 19, 1998 through March 10, 2002. By memorandum dated October 27, 1998, Mr. Moore was notified by the assistant principal, James DeWitt, that he violated School Board policy on October 19, 1998, by allowing a student to be in possession of the key to his classroom. Mr. DeWitt advised Mr. Moore that a reoccurrence of the violation would lead to a conference-for-the-record. By memorandum dated October 17, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that he had arrived late at school that same day without notifying the main office of his tardiness in accordance with the UTD Contract. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the established work hours and advised Mr. Moore that further failure to adhere to his work schedule would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated November 2, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 1, 2000, he (Mr. Moore) was playing a game on his computer while the students were taking a test even though he was required to monitor the test; and that his (Mr. Moore's) failure to supervise and monitor the test resulted in a student writing the answers in the wrong section of the test. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that, among other things, his lack of supervision would not be tolerated and that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 5, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by the principal, Eugenia Smith, that, among other things, he was on leave without authorization for 17 days of the 2000-2001 school year, from February 8, 2001 through March 5, 2001. Ms. Smith directed Mr. Moore to, within three (3) days of the date of the memorandum, provide his intended date of return or resign from employment with the School Board. By memorandum dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on December 5, 2001, because of his (Mr. Moore's) lack of supervision, a student pushed the emergency call button twice even though no emergency existed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 8, 2002, Ms. Smith notified Mr. Moore that he had been tardy for several days, specifying the days of tardiness. On March 8, 2002, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore to address his tardiness, including noncompliance with verbal and written directives regarding his tardiness. Also present were, Ms. Smith, Mr. DeWitt, and a UTD representative. At the conference-for-the-record Mr. Moore was given specific directives regarding future tardiness, which were to be to work on time and to adhere to procedures in the UTD contract. A summary of the conference-for-the-record dated March 10, 2002, was prepared and was subsequently signed by Mr. Moore. By memorandum dated November 8, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 7, 2002, Mr. Moore's personal telephone was confiscated because it had been used in the classroom as an extension of the school's telephone system. By memorandum dated November 13, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that his (Mr. Moore's) use of his personal telephone as an extension of the school's telephone system was a violation of the School Board's policy prohibiting telephones in the classroom unless approved by the administration. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to School Board policies and advised Mr. Moore that failure to do so would result in disciplinary action. Mr. Moore does not contest violating the School Board's policy regarding the use of his personal telephone in the classroom. By memorandum dated January 17, 2003, Mr. DeWitt notified Mr. Moore that, on January 22, 2003, he (Mr. Moore) left the school for approximately one and one-half hour, from approximately 11:50 a.m. to 2:20 a.m., without signing-out as required by the School Board's policy. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the scheduled work hours and advised (Mr. Moore) that his failure to so adhere would result in further disciplinary action. On January 22, 2003, Mr. Moore was arrested based on an outstanding warrant for the December 1996 charges previously indicated. Renick is a special center for emotionally handicapped and severely emotionally disturbed students. The student's have emotional problems, which interfere with their ability to learn. The teachers, including paraprofessionals, at Renick are specially trained to deal with the behavior problems of the students. The School Board adheres to a graduated system of discipline for students, which consists of the following: first, student conferences are held, then parent conferences, and then parent-teacher conferences; and after the conferences, indoor suspension, then detention, and, lastly, outdoor suspension. Also, located in each classroom is a call button to call security for assistance if needed. The use of profanity and corporal punishment is prohibited by School Board rules. As a paraprofessional with the School Board for several years, Mr. Moore knew or should have known the School Board's graduated system of discipline, rules, and policies. Training is provided for teachers, including paraprofessionals, in the management of students at Renick, who are misbehaving. Also, in-house workshops are provided. The training is "crisis management," which was formerly safe physical management. In crisis management, physical restraint is the last resort; interventions are used instead. A student's parent must consent in writing for the use of physical restraint; however, even without consent, physical restraint may be used for situations that do not de-escalate. If physical restraint is used, the situation must be documented and the student's parent must be notified. One intervention is a prearranged intervention in which the student and teacher agree on a technique to be used by the teacher to make the student aware that his/her behavior is escalating. The prearranged intervention may be, for instance, a pulling of the student's ear. If the prearrange intervention fails to de-escalate the student's behavior, another intervention referred to as proximity control may be used. In this technique, the student feels the teacher's presence by the teacher moving towards the student, which interrupts the student's behavior. If no interventions, whether verbal or non-verbal, de- escalates the student's behavior, which begins to get out-of- control, forms of physical restraint may be used, as a last resort. One form of physical restraint is for the teacher to hold the student with his/her hand to communicate to that student that his/her behavior is escalating, with safety being the primary issue. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may resort to a more restrictive restraint such as the cradle. In using this technique, both the student and teacher are standing, with the student having his/her back to the teacher, and the teacher holding the student, with safety being the primary issue. Again, the teacher is attempting to have the student realize that his/her behavior is escalating. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may take the student to the floor. One technique used is the cradle assist. In this technique, the student is brought to the floor by the teacher and the student is held by the teacher in a cradle-like position. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher, with the assistance of a colleague, may hold the student to the floor. Using a colleague, assists the student in calming down. Whenever physical restraint is used, the parents of the student are notified. Furthermore, the student is counseled, and the student's file must be documented regarding the use of physical restraint. Mr. Moore received the training as to the interventions and the physical restraints. Furthermore, he attended at least one in-house workshop. Therefore, Mr. Moore had knowledge of the behavior techniques. A past performance problem involving Mr. Moore and a student was documented by a memorandum dated July 24, 1998 from Mr. DeWitt to Mr. Moore. The memorandum addressed "alleged misconduct" by Mr. Moore committed on July 20, 1998, in which Mr. Moore allegedly choked a student, when he was putting the student in time-out, and used inappropriate language by calling the student a "faggot." Although the memorandum indicated that Mr. Moore stated that he may have grabbed the student's neck, the memorandum did not indicate that the allegation was confirmed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to "refrain from using inappropriate procedures and language" while performing his duties. The statement by Mr. Moore showed that he admitted, not denied, that he did take some action with the student. Regarding incidents with students, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges a specific incident, occurring on December 19, 2002, between Mr. Moore and a student, J. G. Allegedly, Mr. Moore told J. G. that he "was going to kill him" and "for him [J. G.] to meet him [Mr. Moore] at the store in five minutes since he [J. G.] was bad, so they could fight"; and that he "was going to make him [J. G.] his girl"; Furthermore, Mr. Moore allegedly called J. G. a "fat bitch." Additionally, Mr. Moore allegedly told another student, X. W., that he would "fuck X. W.'s mother in the grave" and called X. W. a "faggot." Also, Mr. Moore allegedly grabbed another student, I. J., and subsequently, another student, M. S., and pulled their arms behind their backs and pushed them against a wall. Further, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges contains a general allegation of how Mr. Moore treated students, i.e., "Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, pushed students to the ground, picked a student up and slammed him to the floor, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay." As to the general allegation, student D. J. testified regarding Mr. Moore pushing a student to the ground. D. J. testified that he did not want to do his work and attempted to leave the classroom without permission from Mr. Moore; that Mr. Moore would not allow him to leave the room; and that Mr. Moore placed him on the floor, face first, with his (D. J.'s) arms behind his back in a manner that hurt him (D. J.). No one else was in the classroom to witness the alleged incident. No specific time period was provided for the alleged incident. Mr. Moore's testimony did not address this particular incident. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. D. J.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find D. J.'s testimony convincing. Even if Mr. Moore engaged in the physical restraint of D. J., the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. D. J. was attempting to force his way out of the class. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the incident and notify D. J.'s parents that physical restraint was used. Also, as to the general allegation, student M. L. testified regarding picking a student up and slamming the student to the floor. M. L. testified that, except for him, all the other students in the class had completed their work and were in the rear of the classroom with the teacher; that he had just completed his work and was walking to the rear of the class when Mr. Moore walked into the classroom; that Mr. Moore told him that he was out of his seat without permission; and that Mr. Moore picked him up and slammed him to the floor, placing his (Mr. Moore's) knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore testified that M. L. was out of his seat without permission and that M. L. was running in the classroom and would not sit down even though Mr. Moore asked him to sit down and stop running. M. L. admitted that he had been disciplined before for running around in the classroom. Mr. Moore admits that he put M. L. to the floor, which de-escalated the situation, and that he then allowed M. L. to get up. Furthermore, Mr. Moore admits that he did not document the incident and did not notify the parents of M. L. that physical restraint had been used on M. L. No testimony was presented from Mr. Moore's supervising teacher, Jaime Calaf, regarding the incident with M. L. No other testimony was presented. As to the incident with M. L., the only witnesses testifying were M. L. and Mr. Moore. In considering M. L.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. M. L.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, and his admission that he had been disciplined for the same action previously detracted from the credibility of his testimony. Specifically, the undersigned is not convinced that M. L. had completed his work, that he was not disruptive, that Mr. Moore slammed M. L. to the floor, and that Mr. Moore put his knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore admits that he put, not slammed, M. L. to the floor. The undersigned does not find M. L.'s testimony convincing. The evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the situation and failed to notify the parents of M. L. as required that physical restraint had been used with M. L. Regarding the general allegation that Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay, M. L. testified as to Mr. Moore punching students in the arm, who were misbehaving, and O. B. testified as to Mr. Moore hitting students with a broom. M. L. testified that, at times, Mr. Moore punched him and other students in the arm when they were misbehaving. The undersigned's decision as to M. L.'s credibility remains the same. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore punched students who were misbehaving. O. B. testified that Mr. Moore attempted to hit him once with a broom when he was misbehaving and, at times, hit other students with a broom when they were misbehaving. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. O. B. testified that he did not consider J. B. to be a disruptive student; whereas, the evidence presented, regarding J. B., clearly indicates that J. B. is a disruptive student. O. B.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, together with his unsupported conclusion that J. B. was not a disruptive student, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find O. B.'s testimony convincing. Further, Mr. Calaf testified that, on occasions, he observed Mr. Moore grabbing students in the back and getting rough with them. Mr. Calaf did not testify that he reported his observations to the principal or other person who could exact discipline upon Mr. Moore. Moreover, Mr. Calaf did not testify that what he observed was inappropriate or contrary to the established crisis management training. Consequently, Mr. Calaf's observations cannot be used to support the alleged inappropriate conduct by Mr. Moore. Regarding the specific incident involving J. G. in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges, according to the principal of Renick, Eugenia Smith, she would not have recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore if it had not been for the incident on December 19, 2002, involving J. G., a middle school student at the time. No dispute exists that the School Board uses progressive discipline. For Ms. Smith, the incident involving J. G. was the incident that triggered the dismissal of Mr. Moore. As a result, this incident is the defining incident for Ms. Smith's decision to recommend dismissal of Mr. Moore and, therefore, if this incident is not proven, the basis for her recommendation of Mr. Moore's dismissal no longer exists. As to the specific incident involving J. G., the witnesses to the incident are J. G., other Renick students in the class, and Mr. Moore. No dispute in the testimony exists that, on December 19, 2002, Mr. Moore and J. G. got into a shouting match and that Mr. Moore never touched J. G. At Renick, J. G. was disruptive in his classes and had had many discipline problems. One psychologist at Renick, Joseph Strasko, described J. G. as physically disruptive and aggressive. Another psychologist at Renick, Theodore Cox, Jr., had observed J. G. engaging in inappropriate behavior. Also, Mr. Strasko described J. G. as a student who would not tell the truth when it was detrimental to him (J. G.); whereas, Mr. Cox had not known J. G. to tell an untruth. As to whether J. G. would tell the truth, the undersigned finds Mr. Strasko to be more credible and, therefore, finds that J. G. will not tell the truth when it is detrimental to him (J. G.). As to what lead to the shouting match, only Mr. Moore was certain as to what happened. The undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony credible regarding this aspect of the incident. J. G. was bullying a new student in the class and had physically moved toward the new student. Mr. Moore interceded to stop the bullying by J. G. and to protect the new student, requesting J. G. to take his seat but J. G. refused. Mr. Moore kept himself between J. G. and the new student, thereby, preventing J. G. from advancing upon the new student. What Mr. Moore said during the shouting match is where the testimony differs. However, no dispute exists as to certain aspects of the incident: that J. G. became angry and disrespectful toward Mr. Moore; that J. G. stated to Mr. Moore that, if Mr. Moore put his hands on him, he (J. G.) would bring his father and brother to Renick and they would deal with Mr. Moore; and that J. G. used profanity with Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore denies that he used profanity or disparaging remarks during the incident with J. G. The crisis management expert, Mr. Strasko,2 testified that it is not appropriate for a teacher to shout profanities at a student who is shouting profanities at the teacher; and that a teacher is required to be professional even when students are being disruptive. X. W., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that Mr. Moore called J. G. a "fat bitch" and called him (X. W.) a "punk." X. W. is J. G.'s cousin. D. J., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that he did not hear about what J. G. and Mr. Moore were arguing. However, D. J. testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother and that he (Mr. Moore) would "lay him on the ground." O. B. a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother to the store and that they would deal with it then. O. B. further testified that J. G. and Mr. Moore were calling each other gay and other derogatory names. Further, regarding the incident on December 19, 2002, Mr. Calaf did not witness the incident. Mr. Calaf returned to the class after the incident had occurred and observed J. G. crying and Mr. Moore and J. G. shouting at each other. Mr. Calaf did not testify as to what Mr. Moore and J. G. were shouting but did testify that he advised Mr. Moore that he (Mr. Moore) should not shout at students and should always remain professional, not getting on the level of the students. As to J. G.’s being disruptive in the class, Mr. Calaf testified that J. G. was generally disruptive and that usually Mr. Moore could calm J. G. down. The undersigned finds Mr. Calaf's testimony credible. In considering J. G.'s credibility, the aforementioned factors describing J. G. must be considered. In considering X. W.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but also that teachers are required not to use profanity and to be professional. Further, the undersigned must consider the fact that X. W. is J. G.'s cousin, which was unbeknownst to Ms. Smith. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider the factor that D. J. complained that Mr. Moore used physical restraint against him in an earlier incident in which the only witnesses were he and Mr. Moore. The incident and D. J.'s credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider that O. B. complained that he observed Mr. Moore hitting students at Renick with a broom. The incident and O. B's credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering Mr. Moore's credibility, the character testimony provided by Mr. Strasko and the character letters provided by Mr. Moore's colleagues must be considered. Mr. Strasko and Mr. Moore's colleagues address, among other things, what they consider the appropriate manner in which Mr. Moore handled students who were having behavior problems. Further, Mr. Moore's length of employment with the School Board, and his aforementioned past performance situations must be considered, including the one documented alleged inappropriate crisis management technique and language used by Mr. Moore in July 1998. Taking all of the aforementioned factors of credibility into consideration, the undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony more credible than the students, the character testimony and letters persuasive, and the lack of evidence, as to what was said, by a witness who was not involved in the incident, i.e., Mr. Calaf. Therefore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Moore did not use profanity during the incident of December 19, 2002. Mr. Moore did not report the incident involving J. G. Mr. Moore did not believe that the incident rose to the level that reporting was necessary. Moreover, no physical restraint was used. On May 1, 2003, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore by the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to review his employment history and future employment with the School Board. Among those in attendance with Mr. Moore were a UTD advocate, Ms. Smith, and the assistant superintendent for the Office of Exceptional Student Education and Student/Career Services. By a summary of the conference- for-the-record, dated June 6, 2003, the conference-for-the record was memoralized. By memorandum dated May 28, 2003, Ms. Smith and the assistant superintendent recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore. By letter dated August 21, 2003, the School Board notified Mr. Moore that at its meeting on August 20, 2003, it took action to suspend him and initiate dismissal proceedings against him from all employment with it.
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: Finding Algernon J. Moore, Jr. in violation of Counts I and IV in accordance with this Recommended Order. Dismissing Counts II and III. Upholding the suspension of Algernon J. Moore, Jr. Dismissing Algernon J. Moore, Jr. from all employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 30th day of December, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher pursuant to a continuing contract for approximately 15 years. He has a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in the area of education. During the 1988-89 school year Respondent was assigned as a teacher to Highland Oaks Middle School. Danielle Fisher was a student in Respondent's fifth period math class. On May 8, 1989, during math class, Dantelle Fisher became involved in a loud argument with one of her friends over which of the two girls was the owner of a "fucking lipstick." Fisher, who was also eating candy, kept proclaiming to the other girl, "Fuck you. It's mine." Fisher's argument disrupted Respondent's math class and the class next door. Respondent directed Fisher to be quiet, and Fisher refused. Respondent directed her again to be quiet, and again she refused. Respondent directed her to leave the room, and she refused. Respondent again directed her to leave the room, and she yelled at him "Fuck you. Screw you, asshole." Fisher continued yelling profanities, and Respondent went over to where she was sitting. He took her left arm to guide her out of her seat, and she resisted, refusing to move. He then exerted a small amount of force, pulling her up from her seat. Respondent gave her her books and her purse and led her by her left arm to the open classroom door, instructing her to report to the office. Respondent then closed the classroom boor. Fisher then opened the classroom door and screamed at Respondent, "Fuck you. I'm going to get you fired." She then yelled to her classmates, "Everybody, remember this." She then showed them her left arm which at that moment showed finger prints, i.e., the impression of where Respondent's fingers had been on her arm. She then left. By the time that Fisher reached the principal's office, she had red welts and scratches on her right arm. Respondent had not touched Fisher on her right arm. Fisher was not humiliated or embarrassed by the incident. She had been removed from Respondent's classroom on previous occasions for disruptive conduct and had been removed from her social studies class on a previous occasion for banging on the wall.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Specific Notice of Charges filed against Respondent and reinstating Respondent to his position as a classroom teacher with full back pay from the date of his suspension to the date of hid reinstatement. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER D0AH CASE NO. 89-6345 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact lumbered 2 and 3 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 7-12 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this proceeding. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 13 and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, conclusions of law, or argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 6 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: numbered 1-4 and both numbers 7 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument of counsel, or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne, Esquire DuFresne and Bradley 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Suite One Miami, Florida 33129 Jaime C. Bovell, Esquire 1401 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Paul W. Bell, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Jose R. Bustos (Respondent) committed the acts alleged in the Revised Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Miami-Dade County School Board (the School Board) on March 6, 2015, and whether the School Board has good cause to terminate Respondent’s employment as a school security monitor.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board has been the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Braddock High is a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The School Board hired Respondent on September 19, 2001, as a school security monitor assigned to Braddock High, the position Respondent continuously held until the date of the disciplinary action at issue. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment was governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade, the rules and regulations of the School Board, and Florida law. Braddock High is a large school in terms of student population and campus size. Braddock High employs 12 full-time security monitors. While it is common practice to hire a substitute for an absent teacher, Braddock High does not employ a substitute security monitor to replace an absent security monitor. If a security monitor is absent on any given day, the schedules of the other security monitors must be adjusted to avoid a breech in security. Respondent has been documented for poor attendance since April 2006. DECEMBER 4, 2009, MEMORANDUM Manuel S. Garcia has been the principal of Braddock High for the last 13 years. On December 4, 2009, Mr. Garcia issued to Respondent a memorandum on the subject “Absence from Worksite Directive.” From October 2009 to December 2009, Respondent accumulated 13.5 absences1/ of which 7.5 were unauthorized. The 7.5 unauthorized absences were categorized as “Leave Without Pay Unauthorized (LWOP-U)”. The memorandum issued by Mr. Garcia as Respondent’s supervisor, provided, in part, as follows: Because your absence from duties adversely impacts the work environment, particularly in the effective operation of this worksite, you are apprised of the following procedures concerning your future absences: Be in regular attendance and on time. Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to a designated site supervisor, Mr. Manuel S. Garcia, principal or Dr. Edward G. Robinson, assistant principal. Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written note presented to the designated site supervisor upon your return to the site. Your future absences will be reported as LWOU [sic] (unauthorized) until you provide the required documentation to show that you qualify for Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or other leave of absence. If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave just [sic] be requested and procedures for Board approved leave implemented, and the FMLA or ADA requirements, if applicable, must be complied with. These directives are in effect upon receipt of this notice and are necessary to prevent adverse impact to students and their academic progress and to ensure continuity of the educational program and to maintain effective worksite operations. Please be assured that assistance will continue to be provided to facilitate your regular attendance. Non-compliance with the directives will be considered a violation of professional responsibilities. APRIL 23, 2010, CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD On April 23, 2010, Respondent was required by Mr. Garcia to attend a Conference for the Record. The purposes of the conference were to address Respondent’s non-compliance with School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Responsibilities and Duties) and his insubordination to attendance directives. Between January 19, 2010, and April 6, 2010, Respondent was absent 14.5 days without communicating his intent to be absent to the principal or the assistant principal. As part of the conference, Mr. Garcia reiterated in writing to Respondent the directives pertaining to attendance set forth in the December 4, 2009, memorandum. Mr. Garcia advised Respondent that “[a]ny non-compliance with these directives will compel [sic] gross insubordination and will compel further disciplinary measures.” Mr. Garcia provided Respondent with a copy of School Board rules 6Gx13-4A.1.21 (Responsibilities and Duties) and 6Gx13-4E-1.01 (Absences and Leave). Mr. Garcia issued Respondent a referral to the School Board’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). There was no evidence that Respondent used that referral. For the 2009-2010 school year, Respondent was absent a total of 28.5 days of which 17.5 days were unauthorized. DECEMBER 8, 2011, MEMORANDUM OF CONCERN On December 8, 2011, Mr. Garcia issued to Respondent a Memorandum of Concern addressing his excessive absences. Within less than five months into the 2010-11 school year, Respondent had accumulated 15 absences of which 8 were unauthorized. Respondent was informed that he was in violation of School Board Policy 4430 - Leaves of Absence.2/ Additionally, he was directed to report any future absence to Mr. Medina, the assistant principal. DECEMBER 5, 2012, MEMORANDUM On December 5, 2012, Mr. Garcia issued Respondent another memorandum addressing his absences. Mr. Garcia noted that Respondent had been absent a total of 11 days during the 2012-2013 school year. Respondent’s absence on November 21, 2012, was unauthorized. Mr. Garcia reiterated the directives as to absenteeism he had given to Respondent on December 4, 2009, and April 23, 2010. SEPTEMBER 10, 2013, MEMORANDUM On September 10, 2013, Mr. Garcia issued Respondent another memorandum addressing his absences. Between September 27, 2012, and August 29, 2013, Respondent had 36.5 absences, 19.5 of which were unauthorized leave. Mr. Garcia reiterated the directives as to absenteeism he had given to Respondent on December 4, 2009; April 23, 2010; and December 12, 2012. Mr. Garcia stated to Respondent that he considered Respondent’s actions of failing to abide by the attendance directives to be insubordination. OCTOBER 16, 2013, CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD On October 16, 2013, Mr. Garcia conducted a Conference for the Record with Respondent to address Respondent’s attendance, his failure to abide by the previously issued directives, and his future employment with the School Board. Between September 30 and October 4, 2013, Respondent was absent without authorization. For three of those four days, Respondent did not notify anyone at Braddock High that he would be absent. Mr. Garcia reiterated the directives he had given to Respondent on December 4, 2009; April 23, 2010; December 12, 2012; and September 10, 2013. Mr. Garcia advised Respondent again that failure to comply with directives would be deemed gross insubordination. Mr. Garcia again provided Respondent with a copy of School Board Policy 4430 - Leaves of Absence. Mr. Garcia provided to Respondent a second referral to the EAP. In addition, Mr. Garcia gave Respondent contact information for four School Board Departments (including the name and telephone number of each department’s director). Those departments were Civil Rights Compliance; Leave, Retirement, and Unemployment; Human Resources – Americans with Disabilities Act; and EAP.3/ On October 18, 2013, Mr. Garcia issued a written reprimand to Respondent based on his absenteeism and his repeated failure to notify administrators in advance of absences. JANUARY 16, 2014, CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD On January 10, 2014, Mr. Garcia issued to Respondent a Notice of Abandonment based on Respondent’s absence from work for the workweek beginning January 6, 2014, and his failure to communicate in advance with any school administrator about the absences. On January 16, 2014, Mr. Garcia conducted a Conference for the Record to address Respondent’s attendance. Respondent’s unauthorized absence for an entire week and his failure to abide by the previously issued directives prompted the Conference for the Record. Mr. Garcia also discussed Respondent’s future employment with the School Board. Mr. Garcia advised Respondent that the directives that had been repeatedly reiterated to Respondent were still in full force and effect. Mr. Garcia advised Respondent that failure to adhere to those directives would be considered gross insubordination. Mr. Garcia gave Respondent copies of the applicable School Board policies, including a copy of School Board Policy 4430–Leaves of Absence, and 4210-Standards of Ethical Conduct. Mr. Garcia issued Respondent a letter of reprimand. MARCH 12, 2014, CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD Following the written reprimand in January 2014, Respondent was absent without authorization on six consecutive school days in February 2014. On March 12, 2014, Carmen Gutierrez, the district director of the Office of Professional Standards, conducted a Conference for the Record with Respondent because of Respondent’s history of absenteeism and his unauthorized absences in 2014. Ms. Gutierrez issued to Respondent the same directives Mr. Garcia had repeatedly issued to Respondent. Ms. Gutierrez informed Respondent that his failure to follow directives constituted gross insubordination. The Summary of the Conference for the Record contains the following: You were given the opportunity to respond to your excessive absenteeism. You stated that you had a family problem, a family member that was sick and you were helping them [sic] out. Ms. Hiralda Cruz-Ricot spoke on your behalf stating that you had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia and it impedes your ability to do things. She added that you were recently diagnosed and are not undergoing treatment. Ms. Cruz-Ricot said that you would be producing doctor’s notes since Mr. Garcia remarked that he had only received one doctor’s note dated October 18, 2013 from Broward Psychological Services. MAY 7, 2014, SUSPENSION At the School Board meeting on May 7, 2014, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent without pay for fifteen workdays for just cause, including, but not limited to: gross insubordination, excessive absenteeism, non-performance and deficient performance of job responsibilities, and violation of School Board Policies 4210-Standards of Ethical Conduct, 4210.01-Code of Ethics, 4230–Leaves of Absence. Respondent was notified of the Board’s action via a letter dated September 4, 2014. JUNE 3, 2014, NOTICE OF ABANDONMENT Respondent was due back from his suspension on May 29, 2014. Respondent failed to show up for work on May 29th, May 30th, June 2nd, and June 3rd. Respondent was mailed another Notice of Abandonment. Respondent provided no explanation for his leave. At the beginning of the following school year on August 19, 2014, Mr. Garcia reiterated the directives as to absenteeism that had been repeatedly given to Respondent by Ms. Gutierrez and by Mr. Garcia. OCTOBER 28, 2014, CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD Respondent failed to report to work for four consecutive school days beginning September 29, 2014. As a result, on October 28, 2014, Ms. Gutierrez conducted a Conference for the Record with Respondent to address Respondent’s absenteeism, gross insubordination, non-performance and deficient performance of job responsibilities and violation of School Board Policies 4210-Standards of Ethical Conduct, 4210.01-Code of Ethics, 4230–Leaves of Absence. On December 9, 2014, Respondent received a letter informing him that the Superintendent of Schools would be recommending that the School Board suspend Respondent’s employment without pay and initiate proceedings to terminate that employment. At its regularly scheduled meeting on December 10, 2014, the School Board suspended Respondent’s employment and instituted these proceedings to terminate his employment. FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE In addition to the excessive absenteeism set forth above, between October 2009 and December 2014, Respondent repeatedly failed to communicate in advance with any administrator that he would be absent on days he failed to appear for work. DEPRESSION Respondent’s only exhibit was a letter from Dr. Maribel Agullera, a psychiatrist. This letter confirms that Respondent has been diagnosed with “Mayor Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate” and “Alcohol Dependence.” The exhibit also confirms that Respondent is on medication. Respondent testified, credibly, that he was diagnosed with depression before 2001, the year he first started working at Braddock High. Respondent testified he has suffered from depression for most of his adult life and that all of his absences were related to depression. There was no other evidence to support the contention that Respondent’s repeated absences should be attributed to depression. In the absence of competent medical evidence to support Respondent’s contention, the undersigned declines to find that Respondent’s excessive absenteeism and his failure to appropriately communicate with school administrators over a five-year period was attributable to depression.4/
Recommendation The following recommendations are 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 adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate the employment of Jose R. Bustos. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida (including, among others, Ludlam Elementary School (Ludlam)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Respondent has approximately 30 years of teaching experience, and has been a classroom teacher for the School Board since December 1999. As a School Board employee, she has not been the subject of any disciplinary action aside from the 30-workday suspension that is being contested in the instant case. Respondent is currently co-teaching a kindergarten class at Ludlam, the only school at which she has taught during her employment with the School Board. For the eleven years she has been at Ludlam, Respondent has been a kindergarten teacher exclusively, except for the 2009-2010 school year, when she taught second grade. Among the second graders in her class that school year were A. H., A. P., and J. M.3 Dr. Georgette Menocal is now, and was during the 2009- 2010 school year, the principal of Ludlam. At a Ludlam faculty meeting, attended by Respondent, that was held at the beginning of the 2009-2010 school year, Dr. Menocal gave a PowerPoint presentation in which she reviewed, for those in attendance, key provisions of Ludlam's 2009-2010 Faculty/Staff Handbook (Handbook), including the following excerpt relating to "Classroom Management Procedures": CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES Teachers should make every effort to handle routine classroom discipline problems by conferring with the student, contacting parents, and referring the student to the counselor. If a serious violation of school rules has occurred, a "Student Case Management Referral Form" should be completed and forwarded to the administration. A response will be forthcoming. * * * It is the teacher's responsibility to manage his/her class and to follow the procedures outlined in the Code of Student Conduct. All level 1 behaviors are to be addressed by the teacher. Most level 2 behaviors can be addressed by the teacher and/or counselor. Level 3 (and above) behaviors require a referral to an administrator. Each student referral must be made on a Student Case Management (SCM) referral form. The disciplinary policies of the school should be administered on a consistent basis throughout the school. The CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT should be reviewed with students at the beginning of each school year. NEVER - Use corporal punishment of any kind (hitting, tapping or tying students, having students stand for long periods of time, etc.)[4] The School Board's Code of Student Conduct-Elementary (Code) (which Ludlam teachers were directed by the Handbook to "follow") provided, among other things, that "Level 3 . . . behaviors" included "Fighting (serious)" and that "Fighting (serious)": Occurs when two or more students engage in physical force or violence against each other and they become so enraged that they do not stop when given a verbal command to do so, OR physical restraint is required, AND/OR someone is injured to an extent that requires immediate first aid or medical attention. Any serious fighting incident that causes injury or requires medical attention would result in a suspension. If the principal or designee determines that one student or a group of students attacked someone who did not fight back, the aggressors should receive punishment for battery, aggravated battery, and/or bullying, depending on the facts, and will likely be arrested. Otherwise, administrators will report all other incidents involving mutual participation as Fighting (Serious) without regard to who was the original aggressor. On February 25, 2010, during a mathematics lesson Respondent was teaching, two female students in her class, A. H. and A. P., were involved in an altercation in the back of the classroom, during which A. H. hit A. P. with a book. Respondent intervened and separated the two girls by physically restraining A. H., who struggled to escape Respondent's grasp. As she was holding A. H., Respondent instructed A. P. to hit A. H. back. A. P. did as she was told, striking A. H.5 with a book.6 The incident (Incident), which lasted approximately a minute, was witnessed by J. M., who was in her seat and had turned around to observe the fracas.7 Notwithstanding that she had physically restrained A. H., Respondent did not report the Incident to the school administration (via submission of a completed Student Case Management referral form, as required by the Handbook, or through any other means).8 Following the Incident, the students in Respondent's class left her classroom and went to their Spanish class. Ludlam's assistant principal was subsequently called to the Spanish class. She removed A. H. and A. P. from the class and brought them to Dr. Menocal's office, where Dr. Menocal spoke to them separately. Both A. H. and A. P. told Dr. Menocal about their scuffle earlier that day in Respondent's classroom and how, during this tussle, Respondent had directed A. P. to hit A. H. while A. H. was being held by Respondent. A. H. and A. P. gave Dr. Menocal, at Dr. Menocal's request, the names of three other students who may have witnessed the Incident. The three students9 were brought, separately, to Dr. Menocal's office and questioned by her. Each of the three students confirmed what A. H. and A. P. had told Dr. Menocal. Dr. Menocal asked A. H., A. P., and two of the three other students to whom she had spoken to each write a statement in their own words describing what had happened in Respondent's classroom earlier that day.10 They wrote their statements, separately, in Dr. Menocal's presence. In her written statement, A. H. stated, in pertinent part, "Ms. Grey hold me and then Ms. Grey told her [A. P.] to hit me and then she hit me on my back . . . ." A. P. and the two other children each wrote that Respondent had "let" A. P. "hit" A. H., but they did not specifically state in their written statements that Respondent had told A. P. to strike A. H. After receiving these written statements from the students, Dr. Menocal contacted the School Board police and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to report what the students had related to her about the Incident. That same day, February 25, 2010, a School Board police officer, Officer San Antonio, was dispatched to Ludlam. Officer San Antonio first spoke with Dr. Menocal and then with various students and Respondent. The following morning, at around 9:00 a.m., Respondent's second grade class put on a performance in the school cafeteria as part of a black history month event attended by parents (Performance). Following the Performance, Respondent invited the parents of her students to follow her and the class back to her classroom so that she could have a brief meeting with them (Post-Performance Meeting). Respondent began the meeting by praising the students' Performance. This praise, however, was short-lived, as Respondent started to complain to the parents about the students' "misbehaving" and "acting up" in class. As an example, she cited the altercation the day before between A. H. and A. P. (without identifying them by name). Respondent told the parents that "two little girls" had "got[en] into a fight" and that she was being accused of and investigated by the police for having "held one of them and [having] told the other girl to hit [the girl being held]." Respondent then said, "And I wouldn't do that" (knowing full well that, in fact, she had done "that"), after which she asked her students (including A. H. and A. P.) who were present in the room with the parents, "Did Mrs. Grey do that?" The students responded, in unison, "No, no."11 Respondent informed the parents that, because she "gets in trouble" when she "gets involved," she no longer would hesitate, when a student misbehaved, to prepare and submit to the principal's office a written referral that would follow the misbehaving student "all the way through high school." Later that morning (on February 26, 2010), at approximately 11:15 a.m., a DCFS child protective investigator, Donald Machacon, arrived at Ludlam to investigate the Incident (which Dr. Menocal had reported to DCFS the day before). After first speaking with Dr. Menocal, Mr. Machacon spoke with A. H., A. P., and three other students in Respondent's class.12 The last person Mr. Machacon interviewed at the school that day was Respondent. During her interview with Mr. Machacon on February 26, 2010, A. P. stated that, although at the time of the Incident she had thought she had heard Respondent instruct her to hit A. H., she must not have heard correctly because Respondent, earlier on February 26th, had spoken to her about the matter and denied ever having had given her such an instruction.13 A. P. attributed her having had misunderstood Respondent to Respondent's having had had a "hoarse voice" the day of the Incident. None of the other children Mr. Machacon interviewed at the school on February 26, 2010, including A. H., claimed to have any recollection of Respondent's ever having had told A. P. to hit A. H. (although each of them did tell Mr. Machacon that A. P. had hit A. H. while A. H. was being held by Respondent). Respondent, in her interview, indicated that she had held A. H. in order to "break up a fight," but she denied having had told A. P. to hit A. H. during the altercation. She also denied having had spoken about the Incident earlier that day (February 26, 2010) with A. H. and A. P. She did acknowledge, however, that she had referenced the Incident in a talk she had had with a group of parents shortly after the Performance that morning. She further acknowledged that, the day before (February 25, 2010), she had been questioned about the Incident by Officer San Antonio, who was at the school investigating the matter. By letter dated February 26, 2010, and received by Respondent on March 1, 2010, Dr. Menocal formally informed Respondent, in writing, that "[a]n investigation [was] being conducted" of a complaint made by an unnamed "juvenile" complainant alleging that Respondent had "held" her "so that another student could hit her." Among the parents who had attended the Post- Performance Meeting on February 26, 2010, was M. M., J. M.'s mother. M. M. left the meeting concerned about the safety of her daughter in Respondent's classroom given what Respondent had told the parents, particularly about the fight between the "two little girls" that the police had been called to the school to investigate.14 Moreover, M. M. thought that it was inappropriate for Respondent to have discussed the matter at the meeting. The following week, M. M. made arrangements to meet with Dr. Menocal so that she could air her grievances about Respondent. (These grievances were not only about what had occurred at the Post- Performance Meeting. They also concerned "classroom management issues.") Sometime before this meeting between M. M. and Dr. Menocal took place, M. M. learned more about the Incident from J. M. during a discussion the two had following a physical altercation between J. M. and J. M.'s sister. M. M. had initiated the discussion by asking whether J. M. believed that J. M.'s sister had deserved to be hit by J. M., a question to which J. M. responded in the affirmative. When M. M. inquired as to why J. M. felt this way, J. M. answered, "Well, it's like in Mrs. Grey's class, when you get hit, you hit back." In response to her mother's request that she elaborate, J. M. told M. M. about the Incident and how, after A. H. had hit A. P., Respondent had grabbed ahold of A. H., told A. P. to hit A. H. back,15 and then announced to the class, "This is what happens in Mrs. Grey's class, when you hit; you get hit back." M. M. had her meeting with Dr. Menocal approximately a week after the Incident. During her audience with Dr. Menocal, M. M. raised a number of complaints that she had about Respondent. She talked about, among other things, the comments and remarks Respondent had made to the parents and students in attendance at the Post-Performance Meeting, including those relating to the Incident and its aftermath. On March 8, 2010, Respondent was temporarily reassigned, "until further notice," from Ludlam to the School Board's Region III Office, where she engaged in "professional development" activities. By letter dated May 18, 2010, which she received on May 19, 2010, Respondent was advised that the School Board police had completed its investigation of the Incident and found probable cause to believe that she had violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21. The letter further advised Respondent of her right "to file a written exception" with the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS).16 Respondent submitted to OPS her "written exception," by letter dated May 25, 2010. She subsequently sent to OPS a "[r]evised [v]ersion" of this letter, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Pursuant to your letter dated May 18, 2010, informing me of the outcome of your investigation (SPAR #R-09002), I wish to exercise my right to provide a written exception to your findings. I take exception to your findings of probable cause to the violation because no such violation occurred. My intervention was simply to stop the aggressing child from hitting the other child and preventing a fight, possibly leading to injuries, between the two children. Below please find specific items with which I take issue . . . . * * * Det. Torrens also states that two students who were interviewed as witnesses told him exactly the same thing which, significantly, was not that I told one child to hit the other as the information from the two combatants indicate. These children also provided him with previously written statements. I would like to see the original documents; to know who took the statements and who was present. I would also like the children to be interviewed on tape as to the veracity of the statements, being cognizant of the fact that these are eight year olds who often repeat what they hear or are told.[17] I did not tell the one child to hit the other, nor did I hold one child so that the other could hit her. I was merely holding back the very aggressive child, who was struggling with me to get loose so that she could attack the other child. It was at this time that the other child, who was free, hit the child I was holding. There were seventeen children in the class at the time I separated the two girls. All seventeen children saw what happened and they all heard what happened. I would like all seventeen children to be separately interviewed on tape. * * * I also wish to clarify the issue of the administrative letter and the suggestion that I discussed the investigation with the parents. This incident occurred on Thursday, February 25th 2010. Officer San Antonio asked me what happened in my classroom on the very same Thursday that it occurred, and I told her that I saw one child crying and I asked her what was the matter. She told me that the other child had hit her, so I separated them. The aggressing child then got angry and wanted to fight, so I held on to her, when the other child came over and tapped her on the back. The Black History function was held on the following Friday (2/26/10). I had no discussions with any parents about the incident. In fact I was not aware that there was an investigation until Mr. Machacon came to the school the afternoon of that same Friday, and told me there were these allegations against me. I certainly could not discuss an investigation that I did not know about.[18] Furthermore, Dr. Menocal did not give me the administrative letter until the following Monday afternoon (3/1/10) and I got assigned to the region the following Monday (3/8/10), eleven days after the incident. I hope this letter helps to provide additional information which will aid in a more comprehensive fact gathering process to enable a fair and just review, with the concomitant overturn of the probable cause findings. These charges I take very seriously as I have dedicated my entire adult life (over thirty years) to the vocation of educating young children without a single incident. I have assiduously guarded the propriety of this noble profession and will resist any attempt to impugn my integrity or besmirch my character. On June 2, 2010, OPS held a conference-for-the-record, at which Respondent had an opportunity to verbally respond to the probable cause finding made by the School Board police. By letter dated July 21, 2010, Assistant Superintendent Rojas advised Respondent that OPS had made a "recommendation that [she] be suspended without pay 30 workdays via an agenda item [that would] be presented to [the School Board] at the meeting scheduled for September 7, 2010." In a subsequent letter, dated August 26, 2010, Assistant Superintendent Rojas informed Respondent that the Superintendent would be recommending to the School Board, at its scheduled September 7, 2010, meeting, that Respondent receive a 30-workday suspension. The School Board followed the Superintendent's recommendation and suspended Respondent without pay from September 8, 2010, through October 19, 2010. Furthermore, it directed Respondent to report to duty at Ludlam on October 20, 2010. Respondent has served her suspension. By letter dated September 8, 2010, Respondent "request[ed] a hearing to be held before an administrative law judge" to contest her suspension. The matter was thereafter referred to DOAH. A. P.'s and A. H.'s depositions were taken in anticipation of the hearing. At her deposition, A. P. declined to answer any questions. A. H. was deposed on December 6, 2010. When asked about the Incident, she stated that she had been hit by A. P. while being held by Respondent. It was her testimony that Respondent was simply "trying [to] keep [her and A. P.] apart," and that Respondent did not tell A. P. to hit her, an assertion that was in direct conflict with what A. H. had related to Dr. Menocal the day of the Incident, when the matter was fresh in A. H.'s mind and she had not yet been exposed to the remarks that Respondent would make at the Post-Performance Meeting.19 A. H. further testified during her deposition that, after the altercation, Respondent "called the office and the office came."20
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board issue a final order upholding Respondent's 30-workday suspension for the reasons set forth above. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2011.
