Findings Of Fact Roland C. Foote, Respondent, holds Florida teaching certificate number 107445, Graduate, Rank II. He served as Principal of Webster Elementary School (formerly Webster Junior High), hereinafter called Webster, from 1968 until he was replaced in late 1978. He has been employed in the Florida school system for more than twenty-five years. On May 8, 1978, Respondent sent a letter (Exhibit 10) to the Sumter County School Superintendent recommending the suspension of James Constable, one of the teachers at Webster. This was referred to the PPC for investigation by the Superintendent. By letter dated May 16, 1978 (Exhibit 12) some 11 teachers at Webster signed a letter to Ms. Angela J. Peterson, an investigator for the PPC, requesting an audience to discuss several urgent matters relating to Webster. Constable was one of the signers of this letter. Some of those who signed were aware the purposes was to complain of the manner in which Respondent ran Webster; others thought the purpose was to assist Constable. The first meeting with the PPC representative was held on June 6, 1978. Some eight teachers attended this meeting, discussed with Ms. Peterson several situations of which they were aware involving possible improper conduct by Respondent, and agreed to provide PPC with testimony and facts necessary to prepare charges against Respondent. Numerous additional meetings were held by this group, some with PPC representatives and others without PPC representation, for the purpose of reconstructing the dates of the incidents complained of and to ascertain who had knowledge of the incidents. Prior to discussing the specific charges preferred against Respondent and the evidence relating thereto, additional background information gleaned from the testimony and the exhibits admitted into evidence is first presented. Sumter County is predominantly a small-farm agricultural area as opposed to an urban society, with the socioeconomic level below that of most of the larger counties in Florida. In addition to those permanent residents who live and work on farms, there are migrant workers who appear at harvest time. The population mix is about 1/3 black and that is also the school population mix. Several of these students are classified as educationally mentally retarded and qualify for supplemental education programs. About 7 of the 25 teacher faculty at Webster are black and no evidence of any faculty racial tensions or frictions was presented. Friction has existed at Webster between some faculty members and Respondent for a long time. In school year 1974-75 a special workshop was conducted at Webster to improve the communications between the faculty and the administration. The workshop met with mixed success. Some of the teachers at Webster mad minor complaints to various supervisors over the years but none was ever willing to reduced a complaint to writing and present it to the Superintendent. As a result, the Superintendent on one occasion told the faculty at Webster that he was tired of hearing complaints about Webster and for them to work out their problems at the school. The principal at smaller schools, where assistant principals or deans are not provided, is the primary as well as final, authority in the discipline of students and in particular in the administering of corporal punishment. In addition to a wooden paddle or two, Respondent had provided himself with a leather strap which he also used to administer corporal punishment. The strap used by Respondent was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 20. At the time it was used, a metal slat was inserted between the two pieces of leather comprising the strap to provide additional stiffness. The addition of this metal slat did not make the strap a more sinister punishment tool. Straps similar to Exhibit 20 are sold in tack shops and are called bats. They are approximately 18 inches long and are comprised of two pieces of leather one-eight inch thick, sewed together. The bat is about one inch wide through the first foot of its length and then flares out to two inches wide at the end. The two pieces of leather at the flared end are not sewn and they clap together making a louder noise when something is struck with the bat than would occur with only a single piece of leather. It is this flared part of the bat that contacts the backside of a pupil who is administered corporal punishment. This strap or bat will cause less injury to a student than a wooden paddle if each is used with the same degree of force. While the immediate sting from the bat may be as great as the sting from a paddle, the former is much less likely to bruise a child than is the paddle. Some of the implications of the material allegations, as well as the opinions of some witnesses, are that the use of a leather strap for administering corporal punishment is itself cruel and unusual. So long as corporal punishment is authorized, these implications and opinions are without foundation. The material allegations preferred against Respondent will be discussed in chronological order. It is to be noted that the two earliest incidents were familiar to many people at the time they occurred, but no action was taken until 1978. Material Allegation 3 alleges that on or about March 1, 1972 at 8:30 a.m. Larry James, a ten-year old black student at Webster, received an eye injury resulting in the loss of sight in the injured eye when a nail he was attempting to drive was deflected by the hammer and became impaled in his right eye. James was attempting to repair a loose leg on a chair which his teacher had told him to get the custodian to fix. While the teacher was out of the room, James attempted to repair the chair and the accident ensued. James pulled the nail from his eye and ran to the bathroom. His teacher, Mrs. Batten, took him to the office. Respondent was not at school on March 1, 1972 and did not see James until after James returned to school several days later. Petitioner presented five witnesses, including James, the doctor who treated him, his mother, and Mr. and Mrs. Donahue, who were teachers at Webster to whom James was taken by the teacher, Mrs. Batte. None of these witnesses saw Respondent on the day of the accident. James was not sent to a doctor and spent most of the day in Mrs. Donahue's class until the school bus took him home, presumably after 2:45 p.m. His mother testified she had James taken to a doctor that day, which she identified as 2 March, two days after her youngest child was born on 28 February 1972. 1972 was a leap year and February that year contained 29 days. James was referred to the hospital in Ocala by his family doctor, Dr. Wiley. The medical records show James was admitted at 3:56 p.m. on March 2, 1972. It is doubtful James could have reached home on the bus before 3:15 p.m. or reached Dr. Wiley's office before 4:00 p.m. The only time and date certain was the date and time admission to the hospital. The parties stipulated that school records would show Larry James was absent from school on March 2, 3 and 4, 1972. Accordingly, the accident obviously occurred March 1, 1972. The evidence was undisputed that on March 1, 1972, Respondent Foote was in Leesburg attending the closing on the residence he was purchasing. Respondent's testimony to this effect was corroborated by the bank closing officer and documents executed at closing (Exhibit 43). Respondent testified that he first learned of James' injury the following day when he returned to school. Material Allegation 11 alleges that in school year 1971-72 or 1972-73 Respondent struck Louise Weddell, a student, in the face knocking her to the ground. The date of the incident was not established with any degree of certainty. Louise Weddell, now 20 years old, testified that she was 15 and in the seventh grade when the incident occurred. According to Louise, she was fighting with another girl outside the building when Respondent came out with a paddle in his hand to break up the fight. Louise testified that Respondent slapped her with his left hand, knocking her to the ground; that she got up, called him a black mother fucker and ran away. She denied spitting in Respondent's face. For running away she was suspended for 10 days. Several witnesses observed the incident. All except Respondent testified to the slapping and one saw Foote wipe his face with his handkerchief after Louise ran away. Respondent's testimony was that while he was stopping the fight Louise called him the name and spit in his face. He admitted only "pushing" her in the face with his left hand. Material Allegation 10 alleges that during the 1974-75 school year Respondent paddled Gralyn Dorsy numerous times on the buttocks, legs, sides and hips while calling him "a sorry nigger on food stamps and welfare." The evidence is undisputed that Respondent paddled Dorsey several times during that school year (Exhibit 45). The incident leading to the allegation occurred on March 3 1975 when Dorsey was brought to Foote by Mrs. Jones for a discipline problem she did not know how to handle. It appears that the previous day while Foote was away from school Dorsey had committed some vulgar act, the nature of which was not disclosed at the hearing, with another boy in the bathroom. Mrs. Jones expected Respondent to counsel Dorsey. Instead, Dorsey was given a paddling. Mrs. Jones does not remember if James Constable was also present. She testified that she counted 13 licks. Exhibit 45, the paddle list, shows 5 licks given to Dorsey. James Constable testified he also observed the paddling of Dorsey and that after Dorsey had been given 2 or 3 hard licks he started to get up. Respondent pushed him back over the chair saying "I'm not through with you, boy", appeared to lose control and began flailing away while calling Dorsey a sorry nigger on food stamps and welfare. According to Constable, Dorsey received 12 or 13 licks and, while squirming around, some of the blow landed on the side of Dorsey's hip and one landed on his hand. Mrs. Jones was upset over the severity of the paddling. Neither she nor Constable made a complaint until after May, 1978. The school secretary, Doris Brank, whose desk was just outside Foote's office, recalls two paddlings of Dorsey, one at which he was given 3 licks. She never heard Respondent make racial slurs to children while disciplining them. Material Allegation 2 alleges that in the spring of 1976 Herbert Brown, a student, injured his ankle on the playground before school and Respondent wouldn't allow Mrs. Miriam Jones, his teacher, to take him home or to the doctor but required he remain in school. On 2 February 1976 Herbert Brown, a twelve-year old black student, injured his ankle while playing before school. Mrs. Jones took roll call in Herbert's room and learned his ankle was hurting him. She took him to Respondent and asked permission to take him home. Respondent examined the ankle, saw it was slightly swollen and had his secretary, Mrs. Branch, call the phone number on Herbert's records. No answer was received. Respondent refused Mrs. Jones' request to take Herbert home. The ankle continued to swell. Mrs. Branch also called the doctor, whose office was closed. When school was out, Mrs. Jones drove Herbert home. His mother took him to Dr. Lehrer, who examined Herbert's ankle in the emergency room at the hospital and diagnosed the injury as a sprain. No medication was prescribed, as the pain did not appear sufficient to warrant treatment. The doctor has no independent recollection of the incident but, because he prescribed no medication, would assume the sprain was not severe. Material Allegation 9 alleges that on or about January 6, 1977 Respondent paddled Greg Christian while stating that people in the "subs" did not tell "this white man" what to do. When taken to Respondent for disciplining by his teacher, Molly Jo Teters, Greg told Respondent his brothers said Foote was not to paddle him any more and to run home if he did. Mrs. Teters testified that Respondent, while paddling Greg, told him "people in the subs don't tell this white man what to do." Greg's testimony was that following his remarks about Foote not paddling him, Foote held up a clenched fist saying, "This is black power", covered it with his right hand and said, "This is white supremacy." Daniel Lee Christian, Greg's father, recalled Greg telling him of the paddling and of Foote's gestures and remarks about white power over black power. Foote denied all allegations of using racial slurs to students while disciplining them or otherwise. Material allegation 7 alleges that on May 13, 1977 Respondent paddled Joanne Williams with a leather strap, hitting her on her bottom and later on the front of her body as she turned; and that, during the paddling called her a nigger and made comments about welfare, free lunches and food stamps. Mrs. Simpson, Joanne's teacher, took Joanne to Foote for discipline because she had stolen money from another student, spent it and failed to repay the money as directed by Mrs. Simpson. Foote had her bend over a chair and paddled her with the leather strap. After the first blow, Mrs. Simpson testified Joanne turned over and Foote continued to strike her on the front portion of her body while appearing to lose control. During this time, Mrs. Simpson testified, he said Joanne's family was on food stamps, free lunches and had everything given to them and when not given, they stole. Exhibit 45 shows 4 licks awarded to Joanne by Foote. Foote denies making the remarks and Mrs. Branch, who was immediately outside the office, heard no such remarks made. Mrs. Simpson was upset following the incident and vowed never to take another child to Foote for discipline. However, on April 25, 1978, she sent one of her students, James Jackson, to Foote for discipline after Jackson had been paddled by her and continued his misconduct. Material Allegation 8 alleges that in the fall of 1977 Respondent paddled Bobby Clemons with a leather strap and, while so doing, called him a "no-good nigger". Nancy Gridley took Bobby Clemons to Foote for authority to discipline him for being a "smart-mouth". While talking to Bobby, a ten-year old black student whose mother is a teacher at Webster, Mrs. Gridley testified Foote became angry, picked up his strap and gave Bobby three licks while yelling that Bobby was a nigger who would end up in prison if he kept getting into trouble. Bobby confirmed that he was called a nigger by Foote and told he would end up in jail if his conduct didn't improve. Mrs. Clemons was told of the incident by Mrs. Gridley and when she asked Bobby about it, he confirmed the incident. All witnesses agreed that Bobby was a discipline problem. Respondent acknowledged the paddling, denied the racial slur and testified he told Bobby he needn't expect to get away with misbehavior because his mother was a teacher. Mrs. Branch confirmed Foote's testimony. Material Allegation 6 alleges that Respondent on February 22, 1978 paddled Jeannie Barnes, a fifth grade student, with a leather strap in the library in front of students. James Constable witnessed the paddling, which consisted of three blows with the leather strap. The paddling took place in the library which was serving as the temporary office while the old offices were being renovated. Constable's testimony that a class was being held in the library at the time constituted the only testimony that classes were held in the library. Respondent recalled no other student being present when this punishment was administered. Material Allegation 5 was that during February or March, 1978, Respondent paddled one of the Roper twins in the workroom of the library without an adult witness present, striking the student on the sides, back and legs. Mrs. Newell testified she came into the room while Respondent was paddling Landis Roper with a paddle. Landis was lying on the floor, Foote had hold of his wrist and blows were landing on back, legs and arm. She also testified that Roper was screaming his head off and threatening to kill himself if Foote didn't stop. As Mrs. Newell walked in, Mrs. Stevens and Mrs. Hodges were exiting the room. Mrs. Newell is the only witness to testify the other Roper twin was also present. Mrs. Newell took Landis outside after the paddling. Mrs. Stevens was in the library when Foote came in, got his paddle and paddled Roper. She was in the room while the paddling was going on but didn't watch. She was upset because so many licks (about 10) were given to a special education child. Mrs. Hodges did not testify that she was in the library at any time during the Roper incident. Both Respondent and Mrs. Branch recalled the paddling of Roper and that three licks were given. Landis had been reported for fighting in the cafeteria that morning by Mrs. Carter, whose glasses he had accidentally knocked off while swinging at his opponent. Mrs. Carter inquired later if Mr. Foote had seen Landis and was advised no. After lunch Foote sent for Landis, and after talking to him a short while started to paddle Roper. When several children appeared in the hall, Foote then took Roper into the workroom, leaving the door open while the paddling took place. Mrs. Branch testified no other child was present. Foote's testimony was that he gave Roper three licks with the paddle just inside the workroom door and that no other child was present. Material Allegation 4 alleges that on May 16, 1978 Respondent administered corporal punishment to Kenny Robertson with a leather strap without an adult witness present. Kenny Robertson testified that he was paddled with a leather strap by Foote for fighting, that nobody else was in the room, and that Mrs. Branch was at her desk just outside the door. Molly Jo Teters testified she was in outer office, did not see Mrs. Branch, but heard Foote yell at Kenny that he was not to pull girls off bars and to keep his shirt tucked in. Shortly after the last blow she walked by the door, saw Foote returning the strap to his desk and saw only Foote and Robertson. Mrs. Sellers had bus duty May 16, 1978 and saw a boy whose name she didn't know push a girl off the monkey bars. She took him to Foote and observed the paddling. Mrs. Branch testified that Mrs. Sellers brought Kenny Robertson to Foote because of some problem on the playground and that both she and Mrs. Sellers witnessed the paddling given Robertson. Mrs. Branch didn't see Mrs. Teters in the office at that time. Material Allegation 12 alleges that in May 1978 Respondent paddled Ronald Hise, using excessive force, in the lunchroom in front of second and third grade classes. Frances Simpson witnessed Foote paddle Ronnie Hise in the lunch room in May 1978 after a teacher had told Foote Ronnie was misbehaving in the lunch line. Foote picked up his paddle, pulled Ronnie out of the line and gave him three "hard" licks. Theresa Lee, another teacher, also witnessed the Hise paddling. Her version was that another teacher brought Ronald to Foote for discipline because he misbehaved in the lunch line and Foote paddled him there. She thought the blows "too severe" for the "very thin, pale child." Foote acknowledged that from time to time he has paddled children in the lunchroom because he found that this procedure often had a therapeutic effect in calming down a noisy lunchroom. Material Allegation 1 alleges that in May 1978 Herschell Bellamy seriously injured his eye during physical education in the afternoon, that his mother was notified and was coming to pick him up, but Respondent instructed he be put on the school bus to go home at the end of the day. Herschell Bellamy fell on the monkey bars near the end of his physical ed period and cut his eyelid. His P.E. teacher, James Constable, took him to his office, cleaned and bandaged the eye using a large eye patch. Constable then went to the office with Herschell, who remained there, got Herschell's folder and called the phone number there listed for emergencies, which phone belonged to the next-door neighbor. The neighbor advised that she would tell Herschell's mother to come for him. The neighbor later called back to the school office to advise that Herschell's mother was enroute to pick him up. James Constable, Patricia Newell, and Dorothy Stevens all testified that shortly before time for the buses to leave they were in the office with Herschell Bellamy and Foote, from his inner office, asked what the commotion was about. Someone advised him that Bellamy had hurt his eye. Foote then asked if he was white or black and when told Herschell was black, said "Put him on the bus". Foote's testimony, corroborated by Mrs. Branch, was that he returned to school from a meeting in the county office just at the bell was ringing to end the school day. As he entered the building he passed a lady taking a small boy with a bandage over his eye out of the building. He denied making any comment regarding Herschell's race. Herschell and his mother both testified. When Herschell fell on the monkey bar and hurt his eye, Coach Constable put a bandage on it and took him to the office where he waited a long time before his mother came to pick him up. He didn't hear Mr. Foote say anything but testified Foote was in the office when his mother came to pick him up. Herschell's mother testified she came to school in response to the message that her son had been hurt and that she arrived just as the children were about ready to get on the bus to go home. She saw Foote, but he said nothing to her or look at Herschell. She took Herschell to Dr. Wiley, who treated Herschell for a lacerated upper eyelid, a minor injury. Wayne Ham, a supervisor in the Sumter County school system, acknowledged that he had received complaints from Mrs. Simpson, Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Teter regarding Foote's use of the leather strap to discipline children. They considered use of the strap constituted too severe punishment. Ham doesn't recall if he passed these complaints to his superior. He denied telling Mrs. Teter not to show to anyone a written complaint she had prepared. Bernard Shelnutt, the other Sumter County supervisor, who functions similar to Ham, had never heard a complaint against Foote of brutality, failure to get medical attention for children, or use of racial slurs. In addition to denying the allegations preferred against him, Respondent presented numerous witnesses who testified to Foote's good reputation in the community, to their satisfaction with the job Foote was doing as principal, to Foote's administrative capabilities, and to lack of knowledge of any irregularities at Webster until the charges here considered were published in the newspaper. Two principals of Orange County schools, for whom Respondent had worked before coming to Webster, attested to his capability and competence as well as to their conclusion that the job of principal is the most difficult in the field of education. The principal is the one primarily responsible for the discipline in the school and the manner in which punishment is administered. Corporal punishment policy is usually left to the sound judgment of the principal at each school, subject however to statutory restrictions, and prescribed school board policies. None of the four elected Sumter County school board members who testified on behalf of Respondent had ever received any complaints against Respondent, prior to the investigation by the PPC, involving medical neglect, severe punishment or racial slurs, nor had complaints been received from the black community. They considered Respondent a good administrator with a good reputation. The only complaints they had received involved minor administrative matters such as school bus schedules, and teacher complaints that Respondent worked them too hard. Several witnesses for Petitioner admitted that they were not happy with Respondent's requirement that all teachers attend PTA meetings unless they had a good excuse for being unable to do so. Eighteen teachers, former teachers, substitute teachers, and speech clinician called by Respondent had never seen or heard Respondent medically neglect, abuse, or use racial slurs to students at Webster. Most, if not all of these witnesses, had never hear of the complaints against Respondent before reading them in the newspapers shortly before the fir trial. The chiefs of police of Webster and Center Hill attested to Respondent's good reputation in their communities and that they had never received a complaint that Respondent had abused a student. Five parents whose children now attend or had attended Webster testified that Respondent had provided proper treatment to their children, their children had never complained of medical or physical mistreatment or abuse by Respondent, and that when children had been neglected by other teachers a call to Respondent corrected the situation. Two employees, other than Mrs. Branch, who had worked at Webster for many years had never seen or heard Respondent medically neglect, physically abuse, or direct racial slurs towards children at Webster. They first became aware of complaints when they read in the news that charges had been preferred against Respondent. No direct testimony was presented that the misconduct here alleged to have been committed by Respondent seriously reduced his effectiveness in the school system. It is perhaps significant that approximately one week in May 1978 (May 8- 16) provided one-third of the twelve material allegations preferred against Respondent. Coincidentally, Respondent's letter recommending James Constable for dismissal was dated 8 May 1978 and the letter to the PPC signed by eleven teachers was dated May 15, 1978. It is further noted that two of the material allegations involve incidents occurring 6 or 7 years ago.
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.
The Issue The nature of the instant controversy is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent under section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ and whether Respondent's acts and/or omissions disqualify him from being employed in the Indian River County School District ("School District").
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, the undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: Respondent was employed by the School Board as a classroom teacher. As a teacher, Respondent was required to abide by all Florida Statutes which pertain to teachers, the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, and all School Board policies. Testimony of William Fritz William Fritz, assistant superintendent for Human Resources and Risk Management, testified for the School Board. One of his primary duties is to conduct employee disciplinary investigations for the School Board. He is considered the "point person" for such matters. Fritz was informed by the fingerprint specialist in his office that Respondent had been arrested for felony DWLS. Subsequently, the same person informed him that Respondent had been convicted of the felony DWLS on October 6, 2015. The felony designation for Respondent's DWLS was based on this being his third or subsequent DWLS offense. The Judgment of Conviction dated October 6, 2015, designated the crime as "Driving While License Revoked-Permanently Revoked." Pet.'s Ex. F. After learning of Respondent's felony conviction, Fritz conducted an internal investigation. He had an informal discussion with Respondent to discuss the matter. This occurred in November 2015. When they met, Respondent told Fritz that he felt he did not need to self-report the conviction because the School District was automatically notified by the court.2/ Respondent explained to Fritz that there were some extenuating circumstances for the car trip that day involving a visit to a very ill friend. As a follow-up to the meeting, Fritz reviewed the School Board policies pertaining to discipline. He concluded that the situation likely warranted termination. He requested to meet with Respondent again, but his invitation was declined by Respondent. During the course of his investigation and review of Respondent's personnel file, Fritz concluded that Respondent had been put on employment probation by EPC in 2012 and that the probation was still active when the 2014 arrest and subsequent conviction in 2015 occurred. The EPC order proscribed certain conduct by Respondent during probation. The EPC order provided that Respondent "violate no law and shall fully comply with all District School Board policies, school rules, and State Board of Education rules." Fritz concluded that the DWLS conviction violated that provision of the EPC order, as well as certain School Board employee rules and policies. Notably, Fritz concluded that Respondent's 2015 felony DWLS conviction was a Category 3 violation of School Board Policy 3121.01. Convictions for Category 3 offenses, by definition, expressly prevented the hiring or retention of an employee "under any circumstances." Pet.'s Ex. K.3/ After reviewing all of the relevant documents and concluding his investigation, Fritz met with the School Board superintendent and recommended that Respondent be terminated. In arriving at that recommendation, Fritz took into account the mitigating factors explained by Respondent during their first meeting, namely needing to visit a sick friend. Fritz noted during his investigation that another final order of EPC had also been entered in 2007, disciplining Respondent for a conviction for driving under the influence ("DUI"). Fritz testified that there had been a termination of another teacher in the School District for a felony offense. The termination occurred in 2013 and was referred to DOAH, which recommended that termination was appropriate. There was no suggestion or testimony during the course of Fritz's testimony that the recommendation to terminate Respondent was related in any manner to problems with Respondent's job performance or other conduct on the job. Rather, the felony conviction violated School Board policy requiring termination and also constituted violations of the EPC order and resulting EPC probation. On cross-examination, Fritz acknowledged that the most recent felony conviction in October 2015 had not yet been addressed or ruled on by EPC insofar as Respondent's teaching certificate was concerned. Fritz further testified that a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") exists which governs the discipline of teachers, including Respondent. Article 5.1, section (A) of the CBA, states as follows: Discipline of an MBU shall be progressive. Progression shall be as follows: documented verbal warning presented in a conference with the MBU, a letter of reprimand, suspension, termination. Serious first offenses may result in an immediate, strong consequence up to and including termination. Resp.'s Ex. 18. Fritz testified that Respondent's felony conviction for DWLS was a "serious first offense," which gave the School District the discretion to move directly to termination under Article 5.1, section (A) of the CBA.4/ When questioned by Respondent as to whether or not a felony conviction for a worthless check offense, for instance, could also result in a termination, Fritz pointed out Petitioner's Exhibit K, which specifically designated worthless check convictions as a different and separate "Category 5" offense. Category 5 offenses, by express definition and unlike Category 3 offenses, afforded the School District considerable leeway on discipline, on a case-by-case basis. Conversely, Fritz testified that a felony conviction for DWLS fell under a different category, "Category 3," and was considered significant and serious enough to warrant termination of the employee. Testimony of Brian Krystoforski Respondent started teaching in 1984 and is in his 24th year of teaching in the state of Florida. Respondent testified, and emphasized throughout the proceeding, that the School District was aware of a prior criminal traffic conviction and EPC sanctions in 2012 but, nonetheless, permitted Respondent to continue to teach in the School District.5/ Respondent testified that the 2012 EPC final order related, as well, to a prior DWLS felony conviction. Respondent testified that, on the date he was arrested for the 2015 DWLS conviction, he was driving to visit a good friend who had serious medical issues and was very depressed. However, he acknowledges his trip was a "bad decision." He characterized his plea of no contest on October 6, 2015, as more of a plea of convenience believing that his explanation for driving that day would mitigate the effect of the criminal plea and conviction before the circuit court judge. The undersigned has considered the collection of exhibits offered by the parties and admitted into evidence. The undersigned has also reviewed the plea colloquy from October 2015 before the circuit court judge who took Respondent's felony plea to DWLS.6/ Respondent emphasized that his felony conviction for DWLS should be evaluated using several mitigating factors found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B–11.007, Disciplinary Guidelines.7/ Insofar as the severity of this conviction is concerned, Respondent felt that he was just guilty of using "bad judgment." Furthermore, Respondent argues that he is not a danger to the public under one of the mitigating factors outlined in the Florida Administrative Code. Another mitigating factor Respondent felt should be considered is that he has been an educator for a long period of time. He felt that his commitment and participation as the football defensive coordinator at Vero Beach High School should also be considered a mitigating factor. Respondent felt that there had been no actual damage, physical or otherwise, caused by his driving while license suspended. Furthermore, in 24 years of teaching, he has never been considered for termination for any other conduct or offenses. Finally, he argues that the effect of termination on his livelihood and ability to earn a living warrants consideration. On cross-examination, the evidence revealed that Respondent had a conviction for DUI in 1988, a conviction for DUI in 1990, and a conviction for a DUI in 2002. In 2004, adjudication was withheld for driving while intoxicated on a revoked license. Respondent also conceded that EPC warned him that a permanent revocation of his educator certificate could occur under certain circumstances, particularly if the educator's certificate had been sanctioned by EPC on two or more previous occasions. Respondent testified that he had, indeed, been sanctioned by EPC on two previous occasions prior to this 2015 conviction for DWLS. There is also evidence to show that Respondent has been characterized as a "highly effective" teacher during recent evaluations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian River County School Board implement its preliminary decision to terminate the employment of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 2nd day of May, 2016.
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 May 11, 2006 and, more specifically, in the Notice of Specific Charges dated and filed May 30, 2006.
Findings Of Fact In 1983, Mr. Peraza, at 18 years of age, was arrested for strong-arm robbery. The case was nolle prossed, and the record was sealed. Almost 15 years later, in 1998, Mr. Peraza applied for an instructional position with the School Board. The 1983 arrest information became known to the School Board through this application process. In 1999, Mr. Peraza began his employment with the School Board as a teacher. At all times material hereto, he was assigned to Allapattah Middle School. While at Allapattah Middle School, Mr. Peraza taught Civics, Geography, and U.S. History. Also, at Allapattah Middle School, Mr. Peraza was the Department Chair and a Team Leader. Further, at Allapattah Middle School, Mr. Peraza received numerous awards from the school and the students, including Beginning Teacher of the Year and the student- nominated, Best Teacher. He was also twice nominated for Teacher of the Year. Additionally, Mr. Peraza was active in some of the student-oriented activities: participated in after school tutoring; assisted the Chess Club; and assisted wrestlers in achieving academic success. Since the beginning of his employment with the School Board, Mr. Peraza received outstanding performance evaluations. Mr. Peraza was well-liked by both parents and students. On or about March 12, 2004, Mr. Peraza was arrested for selling and felony dealing in a controlled substance, i.e., steroids. The arrest occurred on school property at the administration office. He was charged with selling a controlled substance, i.e., steroids, and with forgery (attempting to use the identification of another person without consent). The court's disposition of the charges was the withholding of adjudication and probation, with special conditions--probation for a year, with early termination after six months. After five months, Mr. Peraza probation was terminated due to his compliance with all the terms of his probation. At hearing, Mr. Peraza explained the circumstances surrounding the arrest, charge, and disposition. He explained that a man whom he had befriended at the gym inquired as to whether he (Mr. Peraza) would receive mail for him (the man) at his (Mr. Peraza’s) post office box because the man stated that he (the man) was unable to receive mail at his home; Mr. Peraza agreed to do so. A U.S. Postal inspector intercepted a packaged addressed to Mr. Peraza’s post office box, not to Mr. Peraza, which contained steroids. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Peraza denied having any knowledge of the package or of its contents. Mr. Peraza accepted a plea agreement of withholding adjudication and probation to avoid the possibility of being incarcerated so that he could support his two young daughters. The undersigned finds Mr. Peraza's testimony credible. Further, no evidence was presented as to whether Mr. Peraza actually pled nolo contendere to the charge. In as much as the evidence demonstrates that he accepted a plea agreement and that no objection was made to his explaining the charges and the court’s disposition, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that he pled nolo contendere to the charge. After the arrest of Mr. Peraza, the principal at Allapattah called a special faculty meeting. At the meeting, the principal informed the faculty of Mr. Peraza's arrest. No evidence was presented that the faculty would have known about the arrest had the principal not informed the faculty at the special meeting. The local newspaper, The Miami Herald, contained a report of the arrest. The newspaper’s report on Mr. Peraza’s arrest was found on page 47 of the paper amidst the paper’s report of the occurrence of numerous criminal actions. After this criminal incident, Mr. Peraza was returned to the classroom by the School Board. He had the understanding that no disciplinary action would result from the criminal incident although he did receive a verbal warning from the principal at Allapattah Middle School. On or about September 30, 2004, Mr. Peraza was arrested at Allapattah Middle School for probation violation. The charge was eventually dismissed. During the time that the School Board was reviewing the incident, he was given an alternate location assignment. The principal at Allapattah Middle School gave Mr. Peraza a verbal warning for the incident. When Mr. Peraza returned to Allapattah Middle School, he was welcomed back by his colleagues, the students, parents, and his administrator; and he received several letters of support from students and parents. Further, at a back-to-school gathering in October 2004, when Mr. Peraza was introduced, he received a standing ovation. On or about November 26, 2005, Mr. Peraza was arrested for and charged with aggravated battery and witness tampering/threatening, involving a domestic incident with his wife. The court's disposition of the charges was probation for five years. At the time of the hearing in the case at hand, he was still on probation. At hearing, Mr. Peraza and his wife explained the circumstances of the charges involving the domestic incident. Mrs. Peraza suffers from "night terrors," a condition in which she, during sleep, screams and acts violently but is not aware of what she is doing. Prior to the incident, neither Mr. Peraza nor his wife had informed Mr. Peraza's daughters of or explained to them his wife’s condition because she was embarrassed by her condition. At the time of the incident, Mrs. Peraza was suffering from an episode of a night terror, and Mr. Peraza was attempting to calm and restrain her to ensure her safety. Mr. Peraza's daughters saw him, and one of the daughters, fearing for the safety of Mrs. Peraza, but not aware that Mrs. Peraza was experiencing one of her episodes, called 911. Mrs. Peraza, because of her condition, was unaware of what had occurred prior to the arrival of the law enforcement officers. The law enforcement officers attempted to question Mr. Peraza’s daughters, but he intervened demanding that the officers not question and upset his daughters. Mr. and Mrs. Peraza are being seen by a therapist for her condition. The undersigned finds the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Peraza credible. Mr. Peraza explained the circumstances surrounding the plea agreement. At the time of the domestic incident and the ensuing charges, he was involved in a custody battle with his ex-wife over his daughters. Mr. Peraza was faced with expending funds for his criminal defense or his custody battle; he chose the custody battle. As a result, he accepted a plea agreement, which resulted in the five-year probation. The undersigned finds Mr. Peraza's testimony credible. Further, no evidence was presented as to whether Mr. Peraza actually pled nolo contendere to the charge. In as much as the evidence demonstrates that he accepted a plea agreement and that no objection was made to his explaining the charges and the court’s disposition, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that he pled nolo contendere to the charge. No testimony was presented that students, parents, or faculty had any knowledge of Mr. Peraza’s arrest involving the domestic incident. Mr. Peraza does not deny any of the foregoing arrests, charges, or court dispositions. Mr. Peraza has had no further arrests, charges or convictions. By letter dated May 11, 2006, the School Board notified Mr. Peraza that, at its meeting on May 10, 2006, 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: Dismissing Counts I and II; and Immediately reinstating Javier Peraza, with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February 2007, 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 1st day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School District 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John L. Winn, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed October 11, 2010, and, if so, the discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been on an annual contract that is subject to a professional service contract and collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools (hereinafter "M-DCPS") and the United Teachers of Dade (hereinafter "the UTD Contract"), applicable Florida Statutes, applicable rules adopted by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and Petitioner's adopted policies and procedures. Article XXI, Section 1.B(1)(a) of the UTD Contract provides that "Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Santa Clara Petitioner first employed Respondent as a classroom teacher beginning in 2004 and assigned him to teach fourth-grade math at Santa Clara Elementary School (Santa Clara). In May 2007, Petitioner's Civilian Investigative Unit (CIU) investigated an allegation that Respondent made verbal threats, using profane language, towards the principal at Santa Clara. Respondent was placed on alternate assignment at the Region 3 Office on May 3, 2007, pending the outcome of the case. The allegation was substantiated for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Responsibilities and Duties). During a Conference for the Record, written directives were issued to Respondent. On November 1, 2007, Respondent was issued a written reprimand which contained the following directives: Please abide by Miami-Dade County Schools (M-DCPS) School Board Rules at all times, specifically, School Board Rule, 6Gx13-4A- 1.21 Responsibilities and Duties; School Board Rule, 6Gx13-4-1.08, Violence in the Workplace; and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.23, Code of Ethics. Conduct yourself, both in your employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon yourself and M-DCPS. The Education Practices Commission filed a complaint against Respondent based on the incident at Santa Clara. That complaint was settled with Respondent receiving an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. As part of the settlement agreement, Respondent did not admit or deny the alleged facts of the Santa Clara incident. Turner Tech 2007-08 School Year Petitioner transferred Respondent to Turner Technical Senior High School (Turner Tech) in November 2007, where he taught math. There were no adverse incidents during the balance of the 2007-08 school year. Turner Tech 2008-09 School Year Valmarie Rhoden was the principal of Turner Tech during the 2008-09 school year and part of the 2009-10 school year. Phillipe Napoleon was an assistant principal at Turner Tech during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years.1 On November 18, 2008, one of Respondent's students told Respondent not to touch him and threatened to harm Respondent if he did so. Dr. Napoleon and Ms. Rhoden handled the situation for Respondent by giving the student two days of indoor suspension. Respondent became irate when he learned that the student was not to be more severely punished. After he learned of the student's punishment, Respondent yelled at Dr. Napoleon in the earshot of students and other school personnel. Respondent attempted to undermine Dr. Napoleon's authority. After that incident, Respondent and Dr. Napoleon had a very contentious relationship. On February 19, 2009, Ms. Rhoden issued Respondent a memorandum entitled "Responsibilities and Duties" along with the Board Rule for his review regarding his unprofessional behavior because he had made an unprofessional outburst during a faculty meeting that Ms. Rhoden conducted and because Respondent had made unprofessional comments to other administrators. That memorandum provided, in part, as follows: Please be reminded that it is your professional responsibility to conduct yourself in a manner that reflects credit upon yourself and the teaching profession. During the faculty meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, you made an inappropriate comment and noise while I was addressing the faculty on the respect shown teachers at the North Central Regional Center Teacher of the Year Breakfast. On December 18, 2008, I met with you; Mr. Hoffman (Lead Steward); Ms. Meyers (Steward); Mr. Mantilla, Vice Principal; and Mr. Napoleon, Assistant Principal, to discuss a series of verbal altercations you had with these administrators. We discussed the importance of being professional and respectful when addressing administrators and students. Please be advised that your conduct is a violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and is unacceptable. Please refrain from addressing others in a manner that may be deemed unprofessional. A copy of the Board Rule is attached for your review. If you need further clarification, please see me. Your cooperation is expected and appreciated. On April 27, 2009, Ms. Rhoden convened an Emergency Conference for the Record with Respondent to discuss reports of misconduct by Respondent during a UTD meeting that had occurred on April 23, 2009, and reports of inappropriate comments attributed to Respondent during a parent-teacher conference that occurred on April 24, 2009. Participants at the UTD meeting reported that Respondent became uncontrollable and made disparaging remarks against the union representative who conducted the meeting. Teachers reported to Ms. Rhoden that they left the meeting because they had become afraid of Respondent. The parent in the parent-teacher meeting reported that, in the presence of students, Respondent referred to Ms. Rhoden as a "bitch" and to administrators as "three blind mice." The parent reported that Respondent had said "screw" administrators. When Ms. Rhoden confronted Respondent about his behavior, he became enraged and engaged in an uncontrolled tirade. A Conference for the Record was conducted at the school on Monday, April 27, 2009, and Ms. Rhoden issued the following directives to Respondent: Adhere to all School Board rules, especially those related to Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to the Code of Ethics. Conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times with all school personnel, parents and other stakeholders. Do not use profanity in the presence of students, faculty, staff and other stakeholders. Do not disrespect your administrators in your manner of speech or physical approach. Do not use provocative language towards administrators, students, staff, or other stakeholders. Respondent was the subject of a separate investigation based on an incident of misconduct that occurred on April 13, 2009, first in the hallway outside of Respondent's classroom and later in or near Dr. Napoleon's office. The incident that triggered Respondent the confrontations on April 13, 2009, occurred when Dr. Napoleon, while conducting routine observations of classrooms, noticed that a student in Respondent's classroom was wearing headphones. Dr. Napoleon entered Respondent's classroom and removed the headphones from the student. Respondent confronted Dr. Napoleon outside his classroom and said "how dare you come into my classroom and disrupt my classroom" in a "profoundly loud" manner in the hallway within earshot of school personnel and students. Later in the day, Respondent confronted Dr. Napoleon in the office area. Respondent was upset and became aggressive towards Dr. Napoleon when he demanded an explanation of a memorandum relating to the earlier confrontation that Dr. Napoleon had issued to him. Ernesto Mantilla, a vice-principal at Turner Tech, stepped between Respondent and Dr. Napoleon because of Respondent's aggressive, threatening behavior. Mr. Mantilla, who has military training, put himself in what he referred to as "harm's way" because he felt it necessary to de- escalate the situation. During that incident, Respondent told Dr. Napoleon that he was a "joke" and that he should leave the administration's efforts to Ms. Rhoden and Mr. Mantilla. Respondent threatened to tear up Dr. Napoleon's memorandum in front of Dr. Napoleon. Respondent asserted that his contract did not mandate him to be professional. He taunted Dr. Napoleon by telling him that if Dr. Napoleon was going to fire him, to just go ahead and do it so he can collect a check and stay home. Respondent refused to provide a statement during the course of that investigation stating that "it will take a year and a half to go through the process", and he would be resigning anyway at the end of the year. On May 14, 2009, Ms. Rhoden issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for his behavior on April 13, 2009, which directed him to immediately refrain from displaying unprofessional, confrontational behavior. The letter of reprimand also directed Respondent to stop using abusive and profane language in the performance of his assigned duties. Ms. Rhoden testified, credibly, that she and many of the staff members were afraid at times when Respondent "would go into his rage." His conduct "disrupted the environment" and impeded the workings of the school. Turner Tech 2009-10 School Year In September 2009, Dr. Napoleon conducted a training session for faculty at Turner Tech referred to as IPEGS training. Respondent was required to complete that training to maintain his teaching certification. Respondent left the room in which the training occurred and was absent for over half of the training session. Dr. Napoleon refused to award Respondent credit for the IPEGS training. Respondent became irate when told he would not be given credit and believed that Dr. Napoleon was harassing him. Ms. Rhoden retired in October 2009, and Lavette Hunter became the principal of Turner Tech. On or about October 19, 2009, Respondent replied to a co-worker's email and sent it to all employees sarcastically commenting on the teacher's updating of the school on his involvement with a student internship program. Respondent stated, "please, no more e-mails about your presence. You're wonderful. Feel better?" The teacher complained to Ms. Vidal, and when she discussed the concern with Respondent, he was very irate and said that he was "tired of this bullshit" and was leaving for the day. Respondent told her to find coverage for his class and left school. On October 26, 2009, Respondent went into Dr. Napoleon's office "ranting and raving" because he said that Dr. Napoleon was talking about him. During that meeting, Respondent asked Dr. Napoleon whether he had gotten to be an assistant principal as a result of affirmative action. When Dr. Napoleon asked him to leave his office, Respondent refused, stating that he was going to leave when he got ready to leave. He thereafter left. Dr. Napoleon believed that Respondent's comment was a racial slur and, on October 27, 2009, filed a complaint with the M-DCPS Office of Civil Rights, which triggered an investigation (the civil rights investigation). Dr. Napoleon is African- American, and Respondent is Caucasian. Respondent disrupted a faculty meeting conducted by Dr. Napoleon on October 27, 2009, and stormed out of the meeting causing his co-workers to feel uneasy and unsafe. Respondent got upset when Dr. Napoleon declined to interrupt his presentation to answer Respondent's question. Respondent was loud and disruptive (Dr. Napoleon described it as "ranting and raving"). Respondent made a threatening gesture towards Dr. Napoleon as he left the room. Dr. Napoleon testified, credibly, that Respondent's conduct undermined his authority to lead and to provide a safe learning environment for students and for teachers. On October 28, 2009, Ms. Vidal (an assistant principal at Turner Tech) met with Respondent. During the course of the meeting, Respondent expressed that he thought he was being harassed and that he viewed himself as a disgruntled employee. He then made an implied threat that students would suffer on the FCAT because of the manner in which he was being treated. Ms. Vidal was so disturbed by Respondent's comments that she felt that she immediately contacted her principal and put the incident in writing. Respondent was removed from the school effective November 5, 2009 and placed on alternate assignment during the course of the civil rights investigation. On his last day at his worksite, Ms. Vidal and a security guard escorted Respondent to his classroom so he could collect his belongings before he was escorted out of the building. While in the classroom, in the presence of students, Respondent made demeaning comments to Ms. Vidal and told her that she and Ms. Hunter were responsible because they had not protected him from Dr. Napoleon. Respondent's demeanor and his outbursts caused Ms. Vidal to fear for her safety. Based on Respondent's conduct in October and November 2009, Ms. Hunter made a finding that "Probable Cause" existed that Respondent had violation of School Board Rule, 6Gx13- 4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. A Conference for the Record was conducted by Ms. Hunter on January 5, 2010, and Respondent was directed to "refrain from using inappropriate actions [sic] during the work day" and was issued copies of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.001, FAC, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006, FAC, The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession. He was also issued a letter of reprimand. Respondent was warned that "noncompliance with this directive will necessitate further review for the imposition of additional disciplinary measures" and "any recurrences of the above infraction will result in further disciplinary action." The matter was referred to the Regional Office to for further review (the conduct investigation). Administrative Placement Respondent remained out on Administrative Placement pending the disposition of the conduct investigation and the civil rights investigation. On March 16, 2010, the School Board's Office of Civil Rights Compliance closed its civil rights investigation, concluding that "No Probable Cause" existed that a violation had occurred. During his administrative placement for the civil rights investigation, Respondent was assigned to his residence and was not working. As part of his administrative placement, Respondent was instructed to call the Region Office twice each day at specific times, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. If he failed to call-in as instructed, he would not be entitled to payment for that day. Respondent did not call either morning or afternoon on seven days on which he was assigned to his residence and not working. On four days he called in the morning, but not in the afternoon. Petitioner initially withheld pay from Respondent for 11 days, but later issued him pay for the four days on which he called in the morning, but not the afternoon. During his administrative placement, Respondent again began to exhibit abusive behavior by making numerous and repeated harassing telephone calls to administrative offices. On March 17, 2010, at 1:00 p.m., M-DCPS Region I Secretary Maria Rosemond received a phone call from Respondent. Respondent asked to speak to Mr. Richard Vidal, who is the administrative director of Region I. Ms. Rosemond told Respondent that Mr. Vidal was not in. Mr. Cohen again asked to speak to Mr. Vidal, and Ms. Rosemond told him he was not there. Respondent then said, "I know Vidal is there. Tell him I will be there in half an hour to get his fucking ass out." Respondent then hung up the phone. Ms. Rosemond was afraid that he was going to actually come to region and harm Mr. Vidal or others at the Region I office. An hour later, Respondent called again and asked to speak to Mr. Vidal. Ms. Rosemond transferred the call to Jennifer Andreu, Administrative Director, and Respondent explained that he was upset about a situation at Turner Tech. Ms. Andreu told Respondent that she would speak to the principal and rectify the problem. Respondent cursed at her and called her incompetent. On March 4, 2010, Respondent called Turner Tech demanding to speak to Ms. Hunter. When the phone call was transferred to Dr. Napoleon, Respondent yelled out, "Why the fuck did they transfer the call to you. I want to speak with Ms. Hunter, not you." When he spoke to Ms. Hunter, Respondent became irate and very loud. Ms. Hunter disconnected the line and never spoke to Respondent again (until the formal hearing). During the call, Respondent referred to Dr. Napoleon as an idiot and demanded that personnel at Turner Tech inform any caller asking about Respondent to respond by informing the caller that that he works at the Region I office. He further threatened that his lawyer would be calling and that the calls would be recorded. Respondent does not dispute his confrontations on the phone with numerous secretaries with whom he spoke. Respondent admitted to the admissibility and the accuracy of the written statements from those secretaries taken during the course of the investigation(s). Respondent believed that he should have been reinstated to the classroom at the conclusion of the civil rights investigation. Because the conduct investigation was still pending, it was not appropriate to place Respondent back into a classroom while the additional issues concerning his conduct were being reviewed. As such, Respondent remained out on alternate assignment pending the disposition of this new investigation. On April 22, 2010, Dr. Marinelli, the Region I superintendent, met with Respondent to discuss his employment status. They reviewed the disposition of the civil rights complaint and formally informed Respondent that a CIU investigation was being conducted regarding his alleged violations of School Board Rules and misconduct. During the meeting, Respondent referred to Dr. Marinelli as "dear," told her to be careful when reading and if she was nervous to relax, and tried to speak over her as she read the allegations of misconduct to him. He further goaded her by telling her that the complaint should have been filed by Mr. Vidal and to get with his attorney because she was getting bad advice. When Dr. Marinelli read the allegation to him, he said "let me see that paper". She discussed the terms and conditions of his administrative placement and advised him that the conduct investigation was a separate proceeding than the civil rights case. Respondent became increasingly agitated as Dr. Marinelli read him his terms and conditions, and then yelled "just give me those papers". When she handed him the papers, he tore them in pieces and said in a loud voice "this is garbage, you are the queen of garbage". Respondent told Dr. Marinelli, "you may be able to click your fingers and your husband may do what you say, but I don't have to do what you say. I'm not afraid of you." Police came into the room due to his loud and disruptive behavior. During the course of the conduct investigation, Respondent was interviewed by CIU investigators. During his interview, he told one of the investigators to just fire him already, and he called the investigators liars. He took out his cell phone and represented that he was on the phone with an attorney and that he was recording their meeting. He even fabricated that one investigator was physically attacking him. Due to his belligerent and aggressive conduct and his verbal tirade, the meeting was terminated and a police officer was summoned to escort him out. On June 8, 2010, CIU issued a report that concluded that "Probable Cause" existed that Respondent had violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, 6Gx13-4A1.212, code of Ethics, and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4- 1.08, Violence in the Workplace. Before Respondent was administered disciplinary action as a result of the conduct investigation, he again engaged in additional misconduct toward Dr. Marinelli that led to a final investigation conducted by the School Police. On July 29, 2010, Dr. Marinelli received a phone call from Respondent wherein he was agitated and uttered profanity, including the "F" word, at her. He further yelled, "Don't think I'm afraid of you. What I'm afraid is if you would sit on me." That call was disconnected. He called again, and Dr. Marinelli took the call. Prior to her taking the call, Respondent had told a secretary that Dr. Marinelli could not hide behind a secretary. During that call Respondent continued to yell at Dr. Marinelli, stating "I dare you to do anything. You can't do anything to me." Dr. Marinelli told him to not call again, and he proceeded to call numerous times. When an investigator questioned Respondent during his investigation of the calls on July 29, 2010, Respondent told the investigator that he had called Dr. Marinelli a "fucking fat cow." That investigation was concluded with a finding of probable cause that Respondent had violated the rules cited in the Notice of Specific Charges. A Conference for the Record was held with Respondent on August 5, 2010, at the Office of Professional Standards. Following that conference, the superintendent of schools recommended to Petitioner that Respondent's employment be terminated. Petitioner, at its regularly scheduled meeting of September 7, 2010, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent for just cause, including but not limited to, misconduct in office, gross insubordination, violence in the workplace, and violation of the School Board Rules cited in the Notice of Specific Charges. Petitioner followed all relevant procedures in prosecuting this disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay and terminate that employment based on misconduct in office and gross insubordination. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2011, 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 8th day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Angel Guzman, committed the violations alleged in a Notice of Specific Charges filed by the Petitioner, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, on November 14, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Miami-Dade County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board"), is a duly- constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Angel Guzman was employed as a teacher by the School Board and assigned to Miami Edison Middle School (hereinafter referred to as "Edison"). Mr. Guzman is and has been employed by the School Board pursuant to an annual service contract. Prior to his employment by the School Board, Mr. Guzman was employed by New York City as a teacher assistant for three years and as a teacher for four years. He has been employed as a graphic communications teacher by the School Board since 1998, approximately two and a half years. Prior to the incidents that are the subject of this proceeding, Mr. Guzman had never been the subject of a School Board personnel investigation. The February 16, 2001, Incident On February 16, 2001, Mr. Guzman was handing out reading logs in a FCAT preparation class at Edison. The students in the class were seventh graders. Sherwin JeanPierre, a student in the class, and another student asked their fellow student, Maurice Barnhill to get their reading logs from Mr. Guzman. Maurice picked up the logs, but was confronted by Mr. Guzman who, when he learned that Maurice was picking up logs for others, snatched the logs out of his hands and told him to return to his seat. An argument between Mr. Guzman and Maurice ensued. The teacher and student yelled at each other, Mr. Guzman forcefully pushed Maurice on the shoulder, and Mr. Guzman said "coño" to Maurice, which means "damn" in Spanish. Mr. Guzman eventually became so angry that he grabbed a wooden stool located between him and Maurice, swung it toward Maurice, and hit Maurice on the leg with the stool. While the stool hurt Maurice, he suffered no significant injury. The Second February 2001 Incident Following the February 16, 2001, incident, Mr. Guzman and another student were involved in a verbal confrontation. The situation was defused by Theron Clark, an Assistant Principal at Edison, and a security monitor. Following the confrontation, Mr. Clark and Dr. Peggy Henderson Jones, another Assistant Principal, met with Mr. Guzman. At this meeting, Mr. Guzman indicated that he was very stressed and did not want to return to his class. Mr. Guzman was allowed to go home the day of the incident and was subsequently referred to the Employee Assistance Program. Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Guzman for the February 16, 2001, Incident A conference-for-the-record (hereinafter referred to as the "conference") was held with Mr. Guzman on March 6, 2001, by Ronald D. Major, the Principal at Edison. The conference was attended by Mr. Major, Mr. Theron, Eduardo Sacarello, a United Teachers of Dade representative, and Mr. Guzman. The purpose of the conference was to discuss Mr. Guzman's non-compliance, during the February 16, 2001, incident with Maurice Barnhill, with school rules, School Board Rules 6Gx13-5D-1.07, dealing with corporal punishment, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21, dealing with employee conduct, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade. During the conference, Mr. Guzman was advised that a letter of reprimand would be issued, and he was directed to immediately implement procedures for the removal of disruptive students consistent with the faculty handbook. Mr. Guzman was also warned that any recurrence of the type of violation committed by him during the February 16, 2001, incident would result in further disciplinary action. A written reprimand to Mr. Guzman was issued on March 7, 2001, by Mr. Major. In the reprimand, Mr. Major again warned Mr. Guzman that any recurrence of the infraction would result in additional disciplinary action. The April 25, 2001, Incident On April 25, 2001, during a class under Mr. Guzman's supervision, Mr. Guzman caused a document to be printed from a class computer. A student took the paper and gave it to another student in the class, Ian Lightbourne, who asked for the paper. Ian placed the paper, even though it did not belong to him, in his book bag. When Mr. Guzman came to retrieve the paper he had printed, found it was gone, and asked if anyone knew what had happened to it. Although no one answered, Mr. Guzman suspected Ian and asked him to open his book bag. Ian complied and Mr. Guzman found the paper. Mr. Guzman became irate and began yelling at Ian to "not touch my things." Mr. Guzman then grabbed Ian by the arm and started to pull him toward the front of the classroom. Ian, who was sitting on a stool, lost his balance and fell to his knees. Mr. Guzman continued to pull Ian, who began to cry and yell, "Let me go," the length of the classroom on his knees. Mr. Guzman pulled Ian to a corner of the classroom where he banged Ian's arm against a metal darkroom door. Ian had previously broken the arm that Mr. Guzman grabbed and had only recently had the cast removed. Although the incident did not result in any serious injury to Ian, it was painful and caused his mother to seek medical attention for her son. On April 27, 2001, as a result of the April 25, 2001, incident, Mr. Guzman was assigned to alternative work at his residence, with pay. Mr. Guzman was not allowed to have any contact in his assignment with students. On August 14, 2001, the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, entered a "Stay Away Order" in Case No. M0130143 requiring that Mr. Guzman stay away from, and have no contact with, Ian. Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Guzman for the April 25, 2001, Incident On August 29, 2001, another conference-for-the-record (hereinafter referred to as the "second conference") was held. The second conference was attended by Julia F. Menendez, Regional Director, Region IV Operations of the School Board; Sharon D. Jackson, District Director; and Mr. Guzman. The second conference was held at the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. The second conference was conducted to discuss Mr. Guzman's performance assessments, non-compliance with School Board policies and rules regarding violence in the workplace and corporal punishment, insubordination, noncompliance with site directives regarding appropriate use of discipline techniques, violation of the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities, and Mr. Guzman's future employment with the School Board. At the conclusion of the second conference, Mr. Guzman was informed that his alternative work assignment would be continued, that his actions would be reviewed with the Superintendent of Region IV Operations, the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, and Edison's principal, and he was directed to refrain from touching, grabbing, hitting, or dragging any student for any reason. Subsequent to the second conference, the School Board's Office of Professional Standards concluded that Mr. Guzman had violated School Board and state rules. Therefore, an agenda item recommending dismissal of Mr. Guzman was prepared for the School Board to consider. That agenda item was discussed with Mr. Guzman on October 16, 2001, and was considered at the School Board's meeting of October 24, 2001. At its October 24, 2001, meeting, the School Board suspended Mr. Guzman without pay and approved the initiation of dismissal proceedings against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the decision of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, suspending Angel Guzman without pay be sustained and that his employment with the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, be terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Frank E. Freeman, Esquire 666 Northeast 125th Street Suite 238 Miami, Florida 33161 Merrett R. Stierheim, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Respondent is entitled to back pay following reinstatement to employment after suspension without pay.
Findings Of Fact At the final hearing, the parties stipulated to adopting the Findings of Fact from DOAH Case No. 17-4220, which are incorporated herein as follows: Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the system of public schools in Escambia County, Florida. Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. The School Board has the statutory responsibility to prescribe qualifications for positions of employment and for the suspension and dismissal of employees subject to the requirements of chapter 1012. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent is a noninstructional support employee, who has been employed as a Custodial Worker I by the School Board since October 13, 2014. Mr. Warren worked 40 hours a week at Pine Forest High School. Mr. Warren’s position with the School Board is annual, rather than based on the academic school year calendar. During the regular school year, students are required to be on campus from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. After the school day, there are students who remain at the school for various activities with clubs and organizations. While students are present, custodial workers complete their duties and work assignments throughout the school. On a regular school day students may be present at the school for clubs and organizations until as late as 9:00 p.m. Respondent works the 2:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. shift and would be present when students are present. The background regarding Respondent’s arrest arises from a dispute where it was alleged that he forged a quitclaim deed, transferring property from his uncle to himself. On May 9, 2017, Respondent was arrested. Thereafter, an information was filed against Respondent by the State Attorney’s Office alleging that he knowingly obtained or endeavored to obtain certain property of another valued at $20,000.00 or more, but less than $100,000.00, in violation of section 812.014(1)(a) and (1)(b), and (2)(b)1., a second degree felony. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent’s criminal case was pending final disposition. On May 18, 2017, Superintendent of the School Board, Malcolm Thomas, provided written notice to Respondent that he was suspended “with pay effective immediately . . . pending the outcome of an arrest for §812.014.2b1 [sic], F.S., a disqualifying offense.” The Superintendent’s letter did not provide authority for the Superintendent’s action. The Superintendent also cited no authority for his position that the alleged offense was a “disqualifying offense.” Also, on May 18, 2017, the Superintendent notified Respondent of his intent to recommend to the School Board that Mr. Warren be placed on suspension without pay beginning June 21, 2017. In his request to the School Board, the Superintendent stated that his recommendation was “based on conduct as more specifically identified in the notice letter to the employee.” Similar to the notice regarding the intended recommendation, the Superintendent cited no authority for his recommendation, nor his position that the alleged offense was a “disqualifying offense.” By letter dated June 21, 2017, Dr. Scott advised Respondent that the School Board voted to accept the Superintendent’s recommendation placing him on suspension without pay, effective June 21, 2017. As cause for Mr. Warren’s suspension without pay, Dr. Scott’s letter stated that it is “based on conduct as more specifically identified in the [Superintendent’s] notice letter to the employee.” Dr. Scott’s letter did not use the term “disqualifying offense,” nor did it cite any authority for the School Board’s action. Respondent had no history of disciplinary action during his employment by the School Board. In addition, Ms. Touchstone testified that Respondent “has been a good employee for us.” Additional Findings of Fact While DOAH Case No. 17-4220 addressed the issue of whether the School Board had authority to suspend Mr. Warren without pay until final resolution of the criminal charge alleging a violation of section 812.014(2)(b)1., Florida Statutes, the issue of reinstatement and back pay were not at issue in that case. There was no evidence offered at hearing that the School Board offered Mr. Warren the opportunity to work in a location that does not have direct contact with students until the charges were resolved. Nearly five months after the Final Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 17-4220, the criminal charges, which served as the basis for Mr. Warren’s suspension without pay, were dismissed. As a result, the School Board reinstated Mr. Warren to his same position as a custodial worker, effective November 17, 2017. The School Board denied Mr. Warren back pay for the period he was suspended without pay. The School Board relied on its Rules and Procedure rule 2.04 (2017), when it approved the recommendation to suspend Mr. Warren without pay for the pending criminal charge. Rule 2.04 provides that “a record clear of disqualifying offenses as defined in section A . . . is required for employment or continued employment.” However, rule 2.04 fails to address the method of reinstatement or the condition upon which an employee would receive back pay if criminal allegations related to a potentially disqualifying offense were resolved favorably for the employee. The School Board has refused to award back pay to Mr. Warren on the basis that his criminal charges resulted from actions outside the scope of his employment. There is no written policy in rule 2.04 or otherwise that an existing employee who is suspended without pay for conduct that occurred outside the scope of his or her work environment is not entitled to back pay upon reinstatement. It is simply general practice. The assistant superintendent of human resources for the School District (Dr. Scott) and the general counsel (Ms. Waters) testified regarding the policy of not awarding back pay to reinstated employees after suspension without pay. Dr. Scott, who has served as the assistant superintendent of human resources for the School District since 2005, testified that “[g]enerally, if an employee is suspended without pay based on criminal charges or investigation of misconduct but in the scope of the employee’s position . . . and the employee is subsequently exonerated and reinstated, back pay will be awarded.” By contrast, “if an employee is suspended without pay pending criminal charges and/or investigation, potentially, unlawful conduct unrelated to the employee’s performance of their duties in his or employment, in the event the employee is reinstated, back pay is generally not award[ed].” Dr. Scott also testified that the District’s practice “can be a substitute” for a properly adopted rule. He acknowledged that the policy has not been approved by the School Board. Moreover, he acknowledged that the policy is not based on any adopted rule. Ms. Waters also testified about the policy of not awarding back pay. She testified that she “was not able to answer the question in the abstract” regarding whether the policy was generally applicable. She stated that it would be “a fact kind of question.” In this case, Mr. Warren was deprived of wages that he would have earned but for the suspension without pay for criminal charges that were later dismissed. There was much discussion at hearing regarding whether the School Board’s action of suspending Mr. Warren without pay should be considered discipline. Ms. Spika testified that the action of suspending Mr. Warren without pay is considered disciplinary action. Discipline is defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) as including suspension without pay. Discipline is also defined as corrective action to improve behavior. Here, the School Board did not consider Mr. Warren’s suspension without pay as disciplinary action as it was not intended to correct his work performance or work place conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that to the extent there is authority to do so, Mr. Warren should be reinstated and awarded full back pay and benefits. See Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty. v. Morgan, 582 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Brooks v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cnty., 419 So. 2d 659, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2019.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, St. Lucie County School Board, has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned credits and makes the following findings of material and relevant facts: Lockridge has been employed by the School Board and last worked as an ESE behavior technician at Northport K-8 School. Pet. Exh. 1. Lockridge is a continuing status employee covered under the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between the School Board and the Classroom Teachers' Association Classified Unit ("CTA/CU"). Resp. Exh. 6. The CTA/CU consists of behavior technicians, paraprofessionals, bus paraprofessionals, and clerical staff. Tr. II, p. 180, lines 10-14. During the 2014-2015 school year, Lockridge was assigned to Teacher Amber McDonald's self-contained classroom for intellectually disabled students at Floresta Elementary. The intellectually disabled classroom is for students with emotional disorders and students with an intelligence quotient ("IQ") under 69. Tr. I, p. 51, line 25-p. 52, line 2. For the 2014-2015 school year, there were five adults working in Ms. McDoanld's classroom: Randolph Lockridge, behavior technician; Sharon Koen, paraprofessional; Stephanie Ludwig, paraprofessional; Ms. McDonald, classroom teacher; and Deborah Ramsingh, student teacher. Tr. I, p. 52, line 24-p. 53, line 7. There were approximately 12 students in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 53, lines 8-10. Student D.S. was an eight-year-old ESE student whose primary disability is intellectual. D.S. is non-verbal and has Down's syndrome. Pet. Exh. 7. Because of his disability, D.S. is limited to two-word utterances "here and there." He has an IQ below 60 and intellectually he is on about a one and one-half- year-old level. Tr. I, p. 54, lines 10-17. September 8 and 9, 2014, Incidents with D.S. On September 8, 2014, Ms. Ramsingh was engaged in a lesson with the students on using crayons, teaching them how to hold the crayons and how to draw on the paper. D.S. kept taking his crayons and throwing them on the floor. She observed Lockridge take the student's hand and press his fingernail into the palm of D.S.'s hand. The student screamed "ow" and pulled his hand back. Tr. I, p. 34, lines 9-18. Lockridge looked at him and asked, "Why are you crying, what's wrong?" Tr. I, p. 35, lines 14-15. Ms. Ramsingh reported what she saw the following day to Ms. McDonald, the supervising teacher in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 35, line 25-p. 36, line 12. On September 9, 2014, when Lockridge and D.S. returned to the classroom from physical education ("PE"), Ms. Ramsingh observed another interaction between them. D.S. had his crayons, and he threw them on the floor again. Lockridge took his hand and pushed his fingernail into the palm of the student's hand again. He said "ow" again, but continued to throw his crayons on the floor. Lockridge pressed his finger into the student's hand a second time. The student said "ow" again. When Lockridge realized Ms. Ramsingh was looking at him, he commented, "I shouldn't do that, they don't like when I do that, some people think it is abuse." Tr. I, p. 36 line 22-p. 37 line 9. Ms. Ramsingh went to Ms. McDonald and told her that Lockridge put his fingernail in the student's hand two more times, and she told Ms. McDonald the statement that Lockridge made. Tr. I, p. 38, lines 12-18. Ms. McDonald left the classroom to report it. Tr. I, p. 38, lines 17- 20. Ms. Ludwig took D.S. into the restroom and yelled for Ms. Koen to come into the restroom. Tr. I, p. 39, lines 14-18. Ms. Koen told Lockridge to get Ms. McDonald. Tr. I, p. 40, lines 9-14. The staff had ice packs on D.S. Tr. I, p. 40, lines 21-23. Ms. Ramsingh observed the fingernail marks in D.S.'s hand and the ice that the staff was putting on D.S.'s wrist. Tr. I, p. 47, lines 5-9. Ms. Ramsingh gave a statement to law enforcement the following day. Tr. I, p. 41, lines 3-7; Pet. Exh. 4. She also provided a statement for the School Board's investigation. Pet. Exh. 7. Ms. McDonald testified about what she observed on D.S.'s body (after the student had returned from P.E.). She described it as a fresh bruise about three to four inches on both of D.S.'s wrists; it looked like he had a hand mark on both his wrists, and it was purplish already. Tr. I, p. 55, lines 5-11. D.S. did not have any bruises on his body before he went to PE. Ms. McDonald asked Lockridge what happened. Lockridge said he did not know, "maybe he fell." Tr. I, p. 56, lines 1-2. Lockridge said he had to help D.S. walk. Tr. I, p. 56, lines 5-6. D.S. did not have any bruising on his body when he left the classroom for PE. But, he returned with bruises on his wrist, and Lockridge was responsible for supervising D.S. while he was at PE. Tr. I, p. 73, lines 17-25. Ms. McDonald testified that her observation of Lockridge was that there were a lot of times he was loud and instead of de-escalating a situation, he would often escalate it. Tr. I, p. 59, lines 1-3. There were parents of children that Lockridge had worked with who had concerns about Lockridge. As a result, Ms. McDonald restricted him from working with specific students in the classroom. Tr. I, p. 58, lines 4-5 and lines 15-18. As a behavior technician, Lockridge was trained in Crisis Prevention Intervention (CPI). Pet. Exh. 20 and Exh. 23. The purpose of CPI is to de-escalate a situation before it ever comes to the point of having to restrain a child. Tr. I, p. 59, lines 4-8, and p. 59, lines 12-14. Ms. McDonald testified that de-escalation means to approach the student and get them to calm down, to breathe. Tr. I, p. 60, lines 1-6. Ms. McDonald also testified that it is not appropriate to restrain a child by the wrist where bruising would be caused. Tr. I, p. 62, lines 21-24. If the child begins to resist, "the teacher should not move, but should stand there until the child is ready to move." Tr. I, p. 64, lines 2-4. Lockridge provided a statement to the principal regarding the September 9, 2014, incident with D.S. Pet. Exh. 9. Law enforcement was contacted. Tr. I, p. 56, lines 14- 15; Pet. Exh. 4. On September 10, 2014, the school security officer, Frank Sisto, notified Maurice Bonner, executive director of Human Resources, of Ms. Ramsingh's report. Pet. Exh. 11. On September 10, 2014, Mr. Bonner hand-delivered a Formal Notice of Investigation and Temporary Duty Assignment to Lockridge and also verbally notified Lockridge of the allegations. Pet. Exh. 6; Tr. II, p. 171, lines 23–p. 172, line 11. Lockridge was temporarily assigned to the ESE office pending an investigation. On March 19, 2015, the School Board's internal investigation concluded. Pet. Exh. 7. On May 1, 2015, Mr. Lockridge received a Letter of Reprimand from Mr. Bonner and was reassigned to Northport K-8 School as a behavior technician. Pet. Exh. 15. Involvement by Mr. Maurice Bonner Mr. Bonner testified that he discussed Lockridge's conduct and his expectations concerning future conduct with Lockridge. Specifically, Mr. Bonner explained to Lockridge that inappropriate discipline of students was not acceptable behavior and that he was to cease and desist from any type of such discipline in the future. Tr. II, p. 174, line 15-21. As executive director of Human Resources for St. Lucie County Public Schools, Mr. Bonner is in charge of the hiring process for applicants, in charge of records for the school district employees, supports administrators in the discipline process, works with employees on leave, interprets School Board policy, and provides support to the superintendent and the School Board members. Tr. II, p. 168, lines 12-17. Mr. Bonner is responsible for applying and enforcing School Board Policy Chapter 6.00, Human Resources. Tr. II, p. 169, line 24–p. 170, line 4. When an allegation of inappropriate conduct or violation of School Board policy is made for an individual who interacts with students, and if it rises to the level of institutional abuse, the school district's protocol is for the School Board administrators to contact the Department of Children and Families, law enforcement, the human resources administrator, and then the parent. Tr. II, p. 171, lines 5-15. After Lockridge was assigned to Northport K-8 School on May 1, 2015, there was another incident involving Lockridge and a disabled student, V.S.I. Tr. II, p. 175, lines 14-18. On January 20, 2015, when Lockridge said he did not want to give any further statement, he and Victoria Rodriguez, his union representative, asked for a copy of the incident report from the law enforcement officer. Tr. II, p. 179, lines 21– p. 180, line 3. The School Board provided the incident report to Lockridge and Ms. Rodriguez, and Lockridge wrote a statement. Pet. Exh. 10. Lockridge said he was too nervous (about the meeting) and he did not want to sit down and answer questions. But, he eventually wrote his statement after reviewing law enforcement's incident report while his union representative was present. Pet. Exh. 10; Tr. II, p. 182, line 6. By letter dated June 29, 2015, Superintendent Genelle Yost informed Lockridge that she intended to recommend to the School Board that he be terminated. Pet. Exh. 22. Mr. Bonner, in his conversation with Lockridge regarding the first incident (with Student D.S.), warned and instructed Lockridge to not use inappropriate discipline on students. Despite this warning, a few weeks later at Northport K-8 School, Lockridge used inappropriate discipline on a student again. Mr. Bonner, as an administrator, had given Lockridge a previous directive that was not followed. In Mr. Bonner's professional opinion, that constituted insubordination. Tr. II, p. 185, lines 17–p. 186, line 1; Pet. Exh. 24. Mr. Bonner testified that sitting on a student's hands is not appropriate discipline. It is not an appropriate method of restraint of a student. Tr. II, p. 186, lines 5-9. In addition, it constitutes a violation of the code of ethics of the standards for employees in the education profession, putting students in danger of harm. Mr. Bonner stated that "We're in charge of their health, welfare and safety and that's not meeting that standard." Pet. Exh. 24; Tr. II, p. 186, lines 10-14. Commenting on the incident involved, Mr. Bonner felt that "sticking a thumb down in a student's palm" was indecent conduct and can be considered abusive to a student. Tr. II, p. 186, lines 21–p. 187, line 1; Pet. Exh. 24. In his opinion, Lockridge's conduct constituted unsatisfactory work performance since he had harmed a student. He also felt it constituted neglect of duty and violation of any rule, policy, or regulation. Tr. II, p. 187, lines 5-18; Pet. Exh. 24. Mr. Bonner explained how progressive discipline works: We have several steps that we can use as far as disciplining employees based on their conduct and based on the severity . . . if we believe that the incident or the behavior is severe enough, we can skip steps . . . we can start immediately with termination if it's severe enough. If we don't believe it is severe enough to go that way, then we go down that continuum--a letter of concern, letter of reprimand, suspension or termination. Tr. II, p. 191, lines 7-23. When you look at progressive discipline, you have to look at what the previous action is. If you're going to look at multiple offenses of the same nature, you can't discredit that. T. II, p. 193, line 23–p. 194, line 2. In Mr. Bonner's opinion, Lockridge's second incident of sitting on a child's hand is "also abusive and discourteous conduct, it's immoral and indecent, it's negligent because he was told not to use inappropriate discipline, it's unsatisfactory work performance, and it's a neglect of his duty because it's not proper protocol or training for restraint of a student. His conduct is also a violation of the rules, policies, and regulations." Tr. II, p. 194, lines 3-10; Pet. Exh. 24. Lockridge had a duty and responsibility, and he failed to discharge that duty knowingly, and that was negligence, in Mr. Bonner's opinion. Tr. II, p. 194, lines 23-25; Pet. Exh. 24. Lockridge knew that sitting on a child's hands was not a proper restraint technique under the CPI training that he has received as a behavior technician for the St. Lucie County Public School System. He was told, based on a previous instruction, that sticking his thumb down in the student's hand was not appropriate discipline or restraint of a student. He knew that what he was doing was not appropriate and that it did not meet the standards of the St. Lucie County Public School System nor the training he received. Tr. II, p. 195, lines 11-23. Mr. Bonner told Lockridge when he gave him the Letter of Reprimand that if Lockridge violated any of the School Board policies again, more severe disciplinary action could be taken. Tr. II, p. 197, lines 13-22. The standard for skipping steps in progressive discipline is based on the employee's behavior. Tr. II, p. 198, lines 12-15. "It is on a case by case basis . . . if you did something very egregious, we don't have to start at the beginning of that continuum. Based on the behavior of the employee then [sic] dictates where we go on to that continuum." Tr. II, p. 198, lines 17-23. May 19, 2015, Incident with V.S.I. Jennifer Staab was a behavior technician at Northport K-8 School. Tr. I, p. 80, lines 1-6. Ms. Staab was certified in CPI. Tr. I, p. 81, lines 5-9. She worked with students in an emotionally behaviorally disturbed ("EBD") classroom on May 19, 2015. It is a self- contained classroom. Tr. I, p. 82, lines 1-7. On May 19, 2015, there were eight or nine students in the EDB self-contained classroom. Tr. I, p. 82, lines 11-14. There was only one way into the desk; the desk was pushed up against the computers. Tr. I, p. 83, lines 11-15. Ms. Staab heard a slap and that drew her attention to that direction. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 5-8. Lockridge was sitting on the desk; his back was towards V.S.I. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 11-12. V.S.I. was sitting in the desk. Tr. I, p. 84, lines 14-18. When Lockridge got off of the desk, Ms. Staab noticed deep indentations, at least two or three of them, on the student's one arm. Tr. I, p. 85, lines 22–p. 86, line 5. Ms. Staab concluded that Lockridge had to have been sitting on V.S.I.'s hands. Tr. I, p. 86, lines 16-18. From the way behavior technicians are trained, Ms. Staab considered Lockridge being seated on the desk and trying to prevent the student from getting out of the desk, to be an inappropriate restraint. Tr. I, p. 87, lines 14-22. If the student is not a threat to themselves or others, then physical restraint is not appropriate. Tr. I, p. 89, lines 15-18. While doing a single-hold restraint, the adult is behind the child. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 1-4. Ms. Staab never observed Lockridge behind the child. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 5-7. Ms. Staab noticed two indentations on V.S.I.'s arm, about three inches long. Tr. I, p. 93, lines 8-19. Testimony of Randolph Lockridge Ms. Staab did not witness V.S.I. trying to elope or run from the classroom. Tr. I, p. 98, lines 22-24. Lockridge admitted that he took hold of V.S.I.'s wrists, causing bruising to her wrists. Pet. Exh. 16; Tr. II, p. 213, lines 6-9. From Lockridge's perspective, "it was crisis because she was not being safe . . . she was 'not complying' with his verbal direction." (emphasis added). Tr. II, p. 213, lines 19-23. Lockridge argued that V.S.I. exhibited behavior, i.e. her elopement, that might harm other students. Tr. II, p. 213, line 24–p. 214, line 5.1/ Lockridge testified, without specific detail, that V.S.I. "could have hit, kicked, maybe spit on somebody or something." Tr. II, p. 214, lines 7-10. Lockridge testified that he was holding V.S.I.'s wrists when he was sitting on them. Tr. II, p. 215, lines 4-6. Despite his training, Lockridge testified that he did not understand that it was an inappropriate method of discipline for him to be sitting on V.S.I.'s hands. Tr. II, p. 215, lines 11-13. Lockridge testified that he did not intentionally violate any School Board policies or intend to violate any directives that he was given. Tr. II, p. 220, line 24–p. 221, line 3. This appeared, in part, to be the crux of his defense to the charges brought. Lockridge testified that when the incident was happening at Northport K-8 School with V.S.I., he reverted to and used his "military restraint training," instead of his School Board restraint training. Tr. II, p. 222, lines 15-17. Lockridge testified that he did not bring up this issue of his military training "kicking in," as he put it, concerning the incident involving V.S.I. However, he discussed it before with a behavior analyst concerning another student. Tr. II, p. 230, lines 19-21, and p. 231, lines 18-20. Lockridge related an incident that had occurred in May 2015. Apparently, a student tried to assault him while he was walking back to the ESE office. His old military restraint training came into play, and he ended up having to put the student on the ground. He physically put the student on the ground. Tr. II, p. 232, lines 12-16, and p. 233, lines 4-11. In a candid admission, Lockridge testified that he does not believe that "at this moment" he could work with disabled students at the school district as a behavior technician. Pet. Exh. 12; Tr. II, p. 236, lines 21-24. Describing his military restraint training (that he sometimes reverts to), Lockridge testified that because he was going to be working with prison detainees, "They taught us various techniques to keep yourself safe and try not to do harm to the prisoners either." Tr. II, p. 237, lines 17-22. Lockridge testified that, unlike CPI training, military restraint training is not non-violent training. It could be violent. Because, as he put it, you are working with prison detainees. So, Lockridge could not say it was non-violent. Tr. II, p. 237, line 23–p. 238, line 3. When asked if it is foreseeable that he could become violent with a student, Lockridge answered, "I don't know. . . . I understand what I did was wrong. I don't know how I could have done some things differently. I don't know." Tr. II, p. 238, lines 4-8. When asked if he can say with any degree of certainty that he may not pose a danger to students, Lockridge testified that, "if I'm put in a stressful situation with a very aggressive student or that I perceive to be aggressive, I do what I think is best for my safety at the time. Or the student's safety too." Tr. II, p. 238, lines 14-24. Lockridge testified, frankly, that for him, it is sometimes more of an automatic response and that he cannot really control this military restraint training that kicks in. Tr. II, p. 238. line 25–p. 239, line 3. Testimony of Virginia Snyder Virginia Snyder works for the Department of Children and Families as a child protective investigator. Tr. I, p. 153, lines 6-8. She prepared a report of institutional abuse, an investigative summary. Pet. Exh. 2.; Tr. I, p. 153, lines 13-25. Her investigation and report involved Lockridge sitting on V.S.I.'s hands to restrain her in the classroom at Northport K-8 School. Tr. I, p. 154, lines 21-25. She went to the school, talked with administration, talked to witnesses, and talked to children involved on the report. Tr. I, p. 154, lines 3-9. Ms. Snyder made verified findings for "threatened harm of physical injury." Tr. I, p. 154, lines 11-16. Ms. Snyder concluded that Lockridge had in fact sat on the child's hand. Tr. I, p. 155, lines 2-4. She also made a finding that the school district's policies and practices were appropriate. Tr. I, p. 155, lines 15-17. "Threatened harm" means the possibility that the person's actions can cause an injury to the child. Tr. I, p. 155, line 23–p. 156, line 1. Ms. Snyder testified that the Department of Children and Families felt that a pattern was appearing due to a prior investigation that was closed without a substantiated finding. When the Department of Children and Families conducted an institutional staffing, the Department of Children and Families was concerned that there was a pattern starting. Tr. I, p. 157, lines 4-8. Specifically, Ms. Snyder "looked at how Lockridge restrained the child, was it appropriate or was it inappropriate . . . . And that is where we established that there was a type of behavior, a pattern starting." Tr. I, p. 157, line 20–p. 158, line 2. "We (DCF) don't make the recommendation. We make the report so that those involved can have a copy of an official report from the Department of Children and Families. We put the findings in there so that whoever administrative-wise is taking a look at it can make a decision, like the School Board, as to what penalty that staff member may face." Tr. I, p. 159, lines 17-24. Based on Department of Children and Families legislation, she felt that the two incidents are "a pattern" and are not reflective of just isolated events. Tr. I, p. 162, lines 1-5, 16-17. Testimony of William Tomlinson Bill Tomlinson is the executive director for Student Services and Exceptional Student Education. Tr. I, p.112, lines 4-5. He has worked for the School Board a total of 29 years. Tr. I, p. 112, lines 13-14. Tomlinson testified regarding whether behavior technicians are trained in any sort of restraint or CPI. He testified that the school district has two separate models that are used in the district. The first is non-violent crisis prevention intervention, better known as CPI. The second model the district uses, for more severe children that may be in a special day school, is professional crisis management. Non- violent CPI is a nationally recognized model that deals primarily with strategies to verbally de-escalate behavior. It employs different levels of strategies with students before getting into physical management of any type of behavior. The physical management piece is a part or a component of the training, but it is really the last resort. In his opinion, "that (i.e., physical management) should be last." Tr. I, p. 114, lines 4-21. It is meant to be a process in which the teacher tries to curtail the behavior of the student by working with them to help them self-regulate so that the student can take ownership of his/her behavior and get themselves under control without the teacher having to do any type of physical management. Tr. I, p. 115, lines 8-16. "Many teachers, many principals have all been trained in this method so that they understand how to de-escalate behavior verbally, how to work with students to offer choices that you can do, versus doing this." Tr. I, p. 115, line 24. Tomlinson noted that "restraint" is a term used "whenever we physically manage a person . . . the way we define it is if you have to immobilize someone's limbs and they're not free, they no longer have freedom of movement, that would be considered a restraint." Tr. I, p. 116, lines 5-10. In his opinion, restraint of anyone is the last resort. Tr. I, p. 117, line 7. He added that "if you see that the behavior is something that you can verbally begin to de-escalate, have conversation with the child, the child is able to understand rationally what it is that you're asking of them, then you're going to employ all of these strategies before you ever get to that last resort." Tr. I, p. 118, lines 4-9. Any time an employee in the district has involvement with a child and there is a report of suspected institutional abuse, Tomlinson is notified. Mr. Bonner (Human Resources) is notified, and he, law enforcement, and the Department of Children and Families all work through the process together. Tr. I, p. 122, lines 16-23. Lockridge was removed and placed in the ESE department, working in the reception area where there was no access to children while the investigation was ongoing. Tr. I, p. 123, lines 6-11. Freedom of movement is good (the child likes the freedom of running off and playing on a playground or during PE) as long as they are safe. Tr. I, p. 126, lines 19-23. "If we end up bruising the child in anything that means to us that we have applied the wrong process or the wrong procedure." Tr. I, p. 127, lines 4-8.2/ "If the child starts fighting back in the process where there is restraint used, they're trying to get out of that, you need to let them go. You may have to resume the restraint once it is safe to do so." Tr. I, p. 127, lines 9-11. "If the child isn't hurting anybody . . . from crawling under (the desk) or crawling out of their desk . . . then it would be appropriate to not bring attention or get attention from someone. Instead, praise another child for acting appropriately or remaining in their chair. This is an effective approach to use." Tr. I, p. 128, lines 3-25. It is "absolutely not appropriate," in terms of restraint, to sit on a child's hand. Tr. I, p. 129, lines 1-3. It is not appropriate to take a disabled child by the wrist to try to get them to go where you want them to. The first appropriate response is "take my hand and let's walk." Tr. I, p. 131, lines 17–p. 132, line 3. Tomlinson testified, "I may take a person simply by the elbow and follow me. . . . That . . . is after you have exhausted the verbal demand for this. Because it's unnatural to have to do that, to lead people or to pull them where you want them to go." Tr. I, p. 132, lines 14-24. The January 13, 2012, mid-year review for Lockridge shows improvement needed in job knowledge and skills and quality of work. Resp. Exh. 5; Tr. I, p. 143 line 25–p. 144, line 2. Listed on Lockridge's mid-year evaluation at the time was that he needed improvement in job knowledge and skills and the quality of work. The narrative indicated that he was required to work with the behavior analyst at Sam Gaines School to review the appropriate protocols to follow to gain compliance from the students with whom he is working. Lockridge was required to attend training offered behavior technicians on early release and professional development days. Tr. I, p. 149, lines 6-14; Pet. Exh. 19. Lockridge was directed to increase his knowledge of behavioral tools to verbally de-escalate a situation, as well as to remain objective instead of entering into a verbal disagreement with students. It means not getting into a verbal power struggle with the child. "Be calm, relaxed in the tone and tenor of your voice and, whenever you work with the individual, don't let that person bring you into the type of behavior that they're exhibiting." Tr. I, p. 149, line 4–p. 150, line 4; Pet. Exh. 19. Finally, Tomlinson testified that it would not be appropriate for a behavior technician to drive their fingernail into the palm of any child. Tr. I, p. 150 lines 5-9.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the St. Lucie County School Board terminating Respondent from his position as an ESE behavior technician. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 April, 2016.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
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 St. Lucie County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a music teacher at Manatee Academy K-8 School (“Manatee”), pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent’s employment with the School Board as a teacher began in 2006. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law and the School Board’s policies. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent was not the subject of any discipline. She had received overall ratings of “Exceptional” or “Above Expectation” on her teaching evaluation forms. The incidents giving rise to this proceeding occurred on October 18 and 19, 2012, during the 2012-2013 school year. October 18 and 19 Respondent awoke around 6:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 18, 2012, and reported to work at Manatee. That afternoon, Respondent finished her work day at Manatee and left the school sometime after 3:15 p.m. After running some errands, Respondent arrived at her single-family residential home in Fort Pierce, sometime after 5:00 p.m. Respondent shared the home with her long-time boyfriend and fiancé, Dominic Madison (“Madison”). Madison was also a teacher employed by the School Board. At that time, Madison was a band director at a local high school. By the time Respondent got home, Madison had not yet returned home from his work day at the high school. Shortly after arriving home, Respondent sat down at her personal laptop computer to check e-mails and do some work. The computer was connected to the home’s wi-fi network. While working on the computer, Respondent discovered an unfamiliar icon and link to a file on the home network. The icon peaked Respondent’s interest. Upon clicking on the icon, a video opened with Madison’s face. Respondent then observed Madison and a white female engaged in sexual activity in a room inside their home.1/ While Respondent was unsure, it appeared that the female might be a former student of Madison’s who might also be a minor. As she continued watching the video, Respondent recognized the female as one of Madison’s 17-year-old students, K.M. After watching the video, Respondent was devastated, upset, angry, and unable to process what she saw. She called Madison at 6:36 p.m., to confront him about the video and confirm her suspicions that he, in fact, engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. They spoke for approximately 36 minutes. During the call, they argued, and Madison neither admitted nor denied engaging in sexual activity with K.M. By this point, Respondent was in tears and so upset and completely devastated that she experienced chest pains. After getting off the phone with Madison and while still at home, Respondent called her pastor, Theodore Sanders, for guidance. They spoke around 7:13 p.m., for approximately 14 minutes. Pastor Sanders knew Madison because his children had been members of the band at Madison’s high school. Pastor Sanders was shocked by Respondent’s allegation that Madison had engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. Due to the ramifications of such a “huge allegation,” Pastor Sanders was cautious and wanted to make sure that Respondent was certain about what she saw on the video. It is understandable that Respondent needed some period of time in which to process the situation, given that Madison was her fiancé; they had a long relationship together; and she observed Madison on her personal computer engaging in sexual activity with a minor student in their home. Sometime after 7:30 p.m., Respondent left the home. At 7:26 p.m., Respondent and Madison spoke again on the phone for approximately 38 minutes. Respondent and Pastor Sanders spoke again on the phone at 8:03 p.m. and 8:45 p.m., with such calls lasting one minute and 10 minutes, respectively. In the interim, Respondent spoke again on the phone with Madison for 43 minutes starting at 8:03 p.m. As a teacher, Respondent is a mandatory reporter of child abuse under sections 39.201(2)(a) and 1006.061(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent clearly understood that she had a mandatory obligation to report the sexual activity she saw on the video between Madison and K.M.2/ Respondent and Pastor Sanders discussed the need to report what Respondent saw. There was never any doubt that the abuse needed to be reported. Because of Respondent’s distraught emotional state at the time, they agreed that Pastor Sanders would make the call. Pastor Sanders told Respondent to get off the road and go home. Pastor Sanders then called “911” at some point after they got off the phone at 8:55 p.m., to report the abuse. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that there was almost a four-hour gap from when she first saw the video until the time that Pastor Sanders stated he was going to report the abuse. Respondent further acknowledged that prior to 8:55 p.m., she had never made a phone call to report the abuse to 911, DCF, or her principal. However, given that Respondent had just recently seen a video on her personal computer of her fiancé engaged in sexual activity with a minor female student in their home, it was understandable that Respondent needed time to process the situation. A less than four-hour delay from when Respondent first saw the video to Pastor Sanders’ call to 911 was immediate, and not an unreasonable delay given the unique facts of this case. Sometime before 10:00 p.m., Respondent returned to her residence. She saw Madison’s vehicle and assumed he was inside the home. According to Respondent, she knew the police were on their way. Respondent nevertheless entered the home, but she did not approach Madison in any manner. At approximately 10:00 p.m., two St. Lucie County Sheriff’s deputies arrived at the home and rang the doorbell at the front door. Madison answered the door, and was told by one of the deputies that they were there to talk to Respondent. The officer asked Respondent to step outside to speak with them and Madison was directed to step back. Madison then went back inside the home and closed the door behind him. One of the deputies remained at the front porch area while Respondent and the other deputy began to discuss what Respondent had seen on the video. At this point, one of the deputies requested to see the video so Respondent and the deputies proceeded to attempt to go back inside the front door. However, they discovered that Madison had locked the door behind him when he re-entered the home. By this point, no law enforcement officer had explored the perimeter of the home to determine whether there were any other entrances or exists from the home. Nor was Respondent asked by either deputy if there were any other entrances or exits from the home. Respondent began ringing the doorbell and knocking on the front door. In the midst of Respondent ringing the doorbell, knocking on the door, and receiving no response from Madison, the deputies asked Respondent, for the first time, if there were any guns in the home and any other entrances and exits. Respondent advised the deputies that there was a back door. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison had snuck out the back door of the home to elude law enforcement. Respondent gave the deputies permission to enter and search the home. They entered through the open back door. Once the house was cleared by the officers, Respondent and the officers went inside the home. Respondent was cooperative during the search of the home and she consented to allowing the officers to look at the computer. Respondent attempted to show one of the deputies what she saw on the computer, but nothing would come up. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison took the evidence with him when he fled the home. When officers went into the front office and wanted to collect some items belonging to Madison, Respondent told the officers that she would prefer if they got a search warrant. The officers obtained a search warrant and stayed all night searching the home until approximately 5:00 a.m. Respondent did not sleep or eat while the officers were at the home and she was visibly “shaken-up” and crying at times during the evening and early morning hours of October 19. Detective Wentz was at the home and spoke with Respondent throughout the night and early morning of October 19. At some point, Detective Wentz “flat out asked” Respondent if she knew where Madison was located. Respondent responded, indicating she did not know where he fled to. Detective Wentz made it clear to Respondent on multiple occasions during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 that if she knew Madison’s whereabouts, she should let him know. Before he left the home on the morning of October 19, Detective Wentz reiterated to Respondent that she needed to contact law enforcement immediately if she had any information about Madison’s whereabouts. Respondent clearly understood this directive. At no time during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 did Respondent ever volunteer information as to where she thought Madison might be. On the other hand, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not know of Madison’s whereabouts at any time during the evening of October 18 and early hours of October 19 after he fled the home. However, by 11:45 a.m., on October 19, Respondent discovered that Madison might be staying at the local Holiday Inn Express, based on information she received from Madison’s father. Respondent called the front desk of the hotel at 11:47 a.m. and 12:01 p.m., in an effort to confirm that Madison was indeed at the Holiday Inn. Respondent and Madison spoke at 12:09 p.m., at which time Respondent knew Madison was still at the hotel, about to check-out of the hotel. At no time between 11:47 a.m. and 1:39 p.m., did Respondent make any calls to law enforcement to let them know that Madison might be at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz was at Respondent’s home before 1:39 p.m. However, Respondent failed to inform Master Deputy Horowitz that Madison was at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz specifically asked Respondent if she knew where Madison was. Respondent responded, stating that she “did not know where his whereabouts were at the time.” Respondent spoke with Master Deputy Horowitz by telephone on two or three occasions later that afternoon. Respondent’s testimony that she told Master Deputy during one of these telephone conversations that Madison had been at the Holiday Inn is not credited and is rejected as unpersuasive. Later that afternoon, Respondent was transported to the Sheriff’s Office for an interview. During the interview, Respondent admitted she failed to inform law enforcement that Respondent had been staying at the Holiday Inn: DETECTIVE NORMAN: I know you’ve talked to several detectives throughout yesterday evening, last night, this morning, this afternoon. Probably seen more faces that you want to see. Here’s--here’s what we’re trying to figure out, where your fiancé is. Do you know where he is? MISS THOMAS: And I understand that. And like I told the officers that came to the home, it was information that was left out. And it truly was not intentional. I know the way it looked, intentionally, it made me look bad, but I honestly do not know where he is. At the time when I did speak to him, he told me that’s where he was, that he was leaving that location so I haven’t a clue. He hasn’t contacted me since the last time I spoke with him today. * * * And I mean, I’m disappointed because I made a mistake. I did. I omitted something that I didn’t realize at the time and I don’t know if it was, you know, just, you know, just did it just because I guess deep down I was maybe trying--you know, I don’t know why I didn’t say, “Oh yea, by the way this.” I don’t know why. That was so stupid. Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, pp. 5-7. Following the interview, Respondent was placed under arrest and charged with one felony count of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, Florida Statutes, and one felony count of being an accessory after the fact, in violation of section 777.03(1)(c), Florida Statutes. After Respondent was arrested, she was placed on temporary duty assignment at home with pay. On Monday, October 22, Respondent self-reported her arrest and the abuse of K.M. by Madison to her principal and the District. Subsequently, the State Attorney charged Respondent in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for the felony charges of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, and for the felony charge of being an accessory after the fact in violation of section 777.03(1)(c). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not call Madison while he was at the Holiday Inn Express to warn him so that he could elude arrest. Nevertheless, Respondent knew Madison was at the Holiday Inn at least by 12:09 p.m. on October 19, when she spoke to Madison on the telephone. Respondent failed to inform law enforcement that he was at the Holiday Inn, or that he had been at the Holiday Inn, until her interview at the Sheriff’s office later that afternoon just prior to her arrest. After a 23-hour manhunt, law enforcement officers found and arrested Madison at the Holiday Inn Express around 7:00 p.m. Respondent’s delay in informing law enforcement of Madison’s whereabouts or that he had been at the Holiday Inn Express delayed his arrest by at most, approximately seven hours. Notably, the video was discovered by Respondent, reported by Respondent to law enforcement, and Madison was arrested, within the span of approximately 25 or 26 hours. Ultimately, it was Respondent who identified the victims of Madison’s crimes. It was Respondent’s discovery of the video, her immediate reporting of the abuse, and her later identification of the victims, which led to Madison’s arrest and his conviction on all charges. The State Attorney charged Madison in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit with 40 counts of criminal activity: 34 felony charges of sexual activity with a minor; five felony charges of sexual battery on a child in custodial relationship; and one felony charge of using a child in a sexual performance. On April 1, 2016, Madison was adjudicated guilty on five counts of sexual activity with a minor. Madison was sentenced to 15 years, consecutive, for each count. On August 7, 2013, Respondent pled no contest to both charges. On the plea form, Respondent checked section 25, which states: “I specifically believe the plea is in my best interest even though I am innocent of the charge, charges, or violations, or may have defenses to them.” After Madison was adjudicated guilty, all criminal charges against Respondent were Nolle Prossed. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 5.056(2)(d) or (e). The evidence does not establish that Respondent engaged in behavior that disrupted a student’s learning environment or reduced her ability or his or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health. Indeed, Respondent protected students from any further abuse by Madison. Respondent is responsible for Madison’s abuse of K.M. being brought to the attention of law enforcement immediately after she observed the video on her personal computer. Within about four hours after observing her fiancé engaging in sexual activity with a minor on her personal computer and processing the situation and speaking with her pastor, the matter was reported to 911, and law enforcement arrived at Respondent’s home. Madison was at the home when the deputies arrived. Notably, the deputies who arrived at Respondent’s home did not ask to speak with Madison first. Instead, they asked to speak with Respondent, and Respondent was asked to step outside the home. Madison, the alleged perpetrator of the sexual abuse, was ordered by one of the deputies to go back inside the home. Knowing full well that the suspect, Madison, went back inside the home through the front door, neither deputy undertook any efforts to determine whether Madison might have an escape route through another door. A perimeter was not established until after law enforcement officers discovered that Madison had fled the home. Respondent cooperated with law enforcement while they were at her home. She cooperated fully in the prosecution of Madison and she was instrumental in securing Madison’s criminal conviction for the abuse. Given the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s failure to inform law enforcement during the afternoon of October 19 of Madison’s whereabouts at the Holiday Inn, which delayed the arrest of Madison by seven hours, at most, does not rise to the level of conduct sufficient to support a finding of guilt in violation of rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated rule 6B-1.006(3)(n). Respondent reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when Pastor Sanders called 911. She also reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when deputies arrived at her home. Respondent also self-reported the incident to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of immorality in violation of rule 6A-5.056(1). Insufficient credible and persuasive evidence was adduced at hearing to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and that the conduct was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace or bring disrespect to Respondent or the teaching profession and impair Respondent’s service in the community. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 5.37(8)(a). Respondent “directly” reported her knowledge of Madison’s abuse of K.M. as required by the policy when Pastor Sanders called 911 within four hours of Respondent’s view of the video. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b). As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(viii), Respondent did not engage in immoral conduct, nor was it shown that Respondent’s conduct was “indecent.” As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx), the School Board failed to prove that Respondent engaged in off-duty conduct that does not promote the good will and favorable attitude of the public toward the School District, its programs, and policies. In reaching this conclusion, it is notable that the School Board did not call any members of the public or any administrators, teachers, or other personnel as witnesses to support this claim. Moreover, the School Board does not argue in its proposed recommended order that it proved that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). Paragraphs 71 through 73 refer to another specific subdivision within Policy 6.301(3)(b), 6.301(3)(b)(viii). However, there is no specific argument that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.94(2)(a). As detailed above, Respondent reported the abuse when Pastor Sanders called 911. Respondent also reported the incident to the deputies when they arrived at her home shortly after Pastor Sanders called 911, and when she self-reported the abuse to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order rescinding Respondent’s suspension without pay and termination, and reinstate her with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2017, 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 23rd day of May, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's conduct constitutes just cause for her dismissal from employment with Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ("Petitioner" or "School Board") is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Polk County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4, subsection (b) of the Florida Constitution and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Rosalinda Morales (Respondent) has been employed by the School Board for nine years and, concerning the matters at issue in this hearing, was a classroom teacher at Inwood Elementary School in Winter Haven, Florida. She was employed pursuant to terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Inwood Principal Amy Heiser-Meyers (the "Principal") issued a letter of concern to Respondent on September 28, 2011, in which she reminded Respondent of the importance of timely confirming her students' attendance each day. The Principal provided written confirmation of a verbal warning to Respondent by letter dated June 7, 2012, concerning Respondent's failure to advise the school she would be absent from work. The Principal provided written confirmation by letter dated November 27, 2012, of a second verbal warning for Respondent's failure to advise the school that she would not be present and for arriving late at work on another occasion. The Principal issued a written reprimand, following a conference with Respondent, by letter dated February 13, 2013. The written reprimand was the result of Respondent having failed to follow specific instructions and not properly handling student documentation. The Principal issued Respondent a second written reprimand by letter dated February 15, 2013, following a conference resulting from Respondent having submitted attendance records indicating that a student was present in class when, in fact, the student was absent. By letter dated February 28, 2013, the Principal requested that Superintendent John Stewart suspend Respondent without pay for several incidences of ongoing misconduct. These included Respondent's use of inappropriate and disparaging student behavior techniques; Respondent being unaware that two kindergarten students had walked out of her class without permission; and Respondent's repeated use of obscenities and disparaging comments regarding staff members while present at the school. Dennis F. Dunn, the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, issued a letter dated March 4, 2013, giving Respondent a three-day suspension without pay as a result of this ongoing misconduct. On July 10, 2013, the Principal wrote Superintendent Kathryn LeRoy again requesting a suspension without pay for Respondent as the result of Respondent's continued, ongoing misconduct in a number of incidences set forth in that letter involving failure to follow established school protocol, absence from work, and her lack of knowledge of the whereabouts of young students. Based upon that letter, the assistant superintendent for human resources issued a letter, dated July 18, 2013, suspending Respondent without pay for five days. Respondent never filed a grievance or any formal complaint contesting the above-described disciplinary actions taken as the result of her behavior. On May 8, 2013, Respondent was teaching her kindergarten class. She had 18 students in her classroom. She was being assisted in her classroom that day by Ms. Ellistine Smith, a retired principal. Near dismissal time, at approximately 2:30 p.m., D., a student in the classroom, became disruptive. D. had behavior problems throughout the school year. D. refused to stay in his assigned area and constantly disrupted lessons. D. is known as a "runner," meaning he would run away from teachers or the campus in general. Respondent regularly had to chase D. to try to catch him. She would never be able to catch him because whenever she got close, he would again run away. On that day, D. decided not to participate in class. He removed his shoes and threw them at other students, at the ground, and at Respondent. He took off his shirt and threw it at students. Respondent directed D. to go to time out, but he refused. Respondent asked Ms. Smith to keep an eye on the class while she removed D. from the classroom. Respondent looked outside the classroom for the paraeducator who normally sits in the hallway, but she was not present at that time. Respondent decided to take D. to the fifth grade building to have him stay with another paraeducator. D. voluntarily walked with Respondent down the hallway to the fifth grade building. She was holding him by the wrist. When they arrived at the fifth grade building, D. resisted going further and tried to pull away from Respondent. She maintained a stronger grip on his wrist to prevent him from running away. Respondent then opened the door to the fifth grade building, did not see anyone, but heard the copy machine running in the copy room. Respondent began to lead D. into the ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) room outside the copy room, but he let his body go limp. Respondent lifted him to carry him into the building and towards the copy room, but could not go very far due to her petite stature. She dragged him a short distance to the copy room where Venise Stinfil, a third grade teacher was working. Respondent left D. with Ms. Stinfil, stating that "[she] can't handle or deal with this at this time, because I'm being observed." Respondent dropped the student's arm and returned to her classroom. Ms. Stinfil noticed scuff marks on D.'s shirt and that the shirt was very dirty and the student distraught. Fifth grade teacher Erin Rodgers was also present at the time Respondent brought D. to Ms. Stinfil's room. She saw Respondent holding D. by his arm and dragging him a short distance into Ms. Stinfil's room. Respondent did not intend to injure D., and he did not appear to have any physical injuries as a result of being brought to Ms. Stinfil's room. Ms. Stinfil testified that her training would have led her to handle the situation with D. differently. When he went limp and laid on the floor, she would have talked with him to try and get him to stand up to move on to their destination rather than taking him by the wrist and pulling/dragging him along. If the student refused to get up, she would have called someone from administration, who was trained in handling such situations, to help talk the student into compliance or appropriately help him up and move to their destination. She had been trained to never put her hands on students. Respondent acknowledged that the procedures she used in taking D. from her classroom might not have been the preferred method in which other teachers had been trained, but it was a choice of handling such matters she had used before. Respondent received a letter from Mr. Dunn dated July 29, 2013, advising her that Superintendent LeRoy would recommend her termination from employment at the next meeting of the School Board on August 13, 2013. When Respondent requested a hearing concerning the termination, she was suspended without pay pending the outcome of this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 January, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell and Dunlap, LLP 245 South Central Avenue Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19, North Clearwater, Florida 33761 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4000 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4000 Kathryn LeRoy, Superintendent Polk County School District Post Office Box 391 Bartow, Florida 33831
