Findings Of Fact Background Respondent is a teacher certified in English, which he has taught while employed by Petitioner. He was first employed by Petitioner during the 1984-85 school year. In 1987, he was awarded a professional service contract. He has six years' teaching experience outside Highlands County. Principals or assistant principals routinely conduct annual teacher evaluations. The evaluation form contains two sections. Section 1 contains 14 categories that are marked based on one or more classroom observations. Section 2 contains 15 categories that are marked based on classroom observations and experience with the teacher. The back of the evaluation form explains the marks as follows: Mark Description Commendable (C) Indicates exceptional performance of the identified behavior(s). Satisfactory (S) Indicates satisfactory performance of the identified behavior(s) Needs Improvement (NI) Indicates a need for the employee to strengthen/improve performance of the identified behavior(s). Must Improve (MI) Indicates a need for the employee to remediate deficient behavior(s). If the deficiency is not corrected, the employee's contract status could be affected. The back of the evaluation form explains the "NEAT Procedure/Due Process": When an employee is evaluated as Must Improve, remediation procedures must be implemented as follows: Notice--The employee has the right to receive full written notification of the identified deficient behaviors. Explanation--The employee has the right to receive a full explanation for the reason behaviors are considered deficient. Assistance--The employee has the right to receive assistance in remediating the deficient behavior. Time--The employee has the right to a reasonable amount of time to achieve remediation. Various documents exist to normalize the evaluations of teachers. However, a degree of subjectivity necessarily remains in the evaluation process. Petitioner has prepared a booklet entitled, "Performance Appraisal System for Instructional Personnel" (Appraisal Booklet). The Appraisal Booklet introduced into evidence is dated October 5, 1992, but, judging from the cover letter from the superintendent, was in effect for the entire 1992-93 school year. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 12, a section describing the assessment process. The booklet states in part: When a competency or behavior is marked "NI-Needs Improvement," the appraiser shall provide counseling and/or resources whereby improvement may occur. For each competency or behavior which is marked "MI--Must Improve," a remediation procedure must be designed and implemented. The procedures will be described in a Professional Development Plan, as called for in the NEAT procedures. Each deficient item shall be addressed in a separate [Professional Development Plan]. The plan shall include the following: Area to be improved: specify the identified problem. Specific desired improvement: write as a measurable goal or objective. Action to be taken: describe action the involved parties will complete to achieve desired improvement. Assistance plan: List and describe who will provide assistance, showing role of each participant. Time line: specify dates for each activity to be completed and evaluated. Evaluation: describe how and when evaluation of progress or success will occur. Consequences: specify consequences if improvement is not achieved satisfactorily. The Appraisal Booklet contains, at page 15, a section entitled, "Use of Assessment Data for Personnel Decisions." This section requires written comments for every C, NI, or MI. Under a subsection entitled, "Unsatisfactory Ratings," the Appraisal Booklet states in its entirety: For every MI assigned, the assessor will conduct a follow-up of the Professional Development Plan to determine if the appraisee accomplished the required improvement and/or when that competency will be reassessed. Failure to improve within the expected time may be grounds for returning to annual contract for an employee holding a Professional Service Contract or a Continuing Contract. If the deficiency is not corrected during the second year, it may be grounds for non-renewal. (See NEAT) If the appraisee receives two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, the superintendent shall notify the Department of Education as required by statute. On [the evaluation form] three or more ratings of MI . . . will constitute an "unsatisfactory annual evaluation" for purposes of reporting to the DOE. The Appraisal Booklet discusses C's. Nothing in this section of the booklet explicitly addresses NI's except, as noted above, that comments must accompany each NI. The contract between Petitioner and the teachers discusses evaluations, but not in such detail as to address the meaning of NI's and MI's. Concerning remediation, the contract states: Where deficiencies are brought to the teacher's attention by his/her supervisor, the teacher shall be responsible for taking the necessary steps for improving his/her skills to an acceptable level as determined by the principal. Assistance shall be offered the employee and such assistance for improvement shall be noted in writing and a signed copy be retained by the appropriate supervisor and the employee. Following remediation, reassessment shall be accorded the employee in compliance with the procedures of Article XI. If the final assessment report fails to note specific deficiency, it shall be interpreted to mean adequate improvement has taken place. The professional judgment of the evaluator shall not be subject to the grievance procedure. The contract acknowledges that it shall not be interpreted to abridge or in any way usurp the authority or power of [Petitioner] as established by constitutional provisions or state Board of Education regulations or statutes existing at the time of the [contract]. And further, [Petitioner] shall be relieved of compliance with any term or condition of this [contract] if such compliance is contrary to any constitutional provision or state Board of Education regulation or statute in effect or enacted subsequent to the signing of this [contract]. Petitioner has no clear written or unwritten policy regarding whether a performance deficiency evidenced by an MI is corrected by an NI, rather than a C or an S. The determination whether a teacher has corrected performance deficiencies depends on the circumstances. The Lake Placid Teacher Handbook for the 1992-93 school year, a copy of which was given to Respondent at the beginning of the year, notes that teachers are to administer their assertive discipline plan and enforce all school rules. Regarding student control, "teachers must not argue with students, use profanity or sarcasm, and must keep hands off students." Petitioner's Code of Student Conduct for the 1992-93 school year describes the teacher's role in the maintenance of discipline as starting with the preparation of a classroom assertive discipline plan, which outlines a series of increasing consequences for disciplinary problems. Under the first step, the teacher will follow his or her plan, which may contain consequences such as withholding a privilege, isolation, counseling, detention, extra work, task assignment, or a parent conference. Under the second step, if the misconduct is repeated, the teacher shall try to contact the parent and record the result. Under the third step, the teacher will refer the matter to the social worker, school nurse, Guidance Committee, or School Attendance Review Committee for positive intervention. Under the fourth step, if the problem persists or the misconduct becomes a major disruption, the teacher will complete a student disciplinary referral form and a school administrator will determine the appropriate punishment. Evaluations Prior to 1991-92 School Year Respondent's evaluation dated November 13, 1985, contains all S's with the exception of an NI for circulating and assisting students. The evaluation was prepared by Donn Goodwin, an assistant principal at Sebring High School where Respondent was then teaching. Respondent's evaluation dated March 5, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating friendly, positive attitude toward all students; maintaining academic focus; using effective questioning techniques; providing for practice; dependability; and punctuality/attendance. The evaluation contains one NI for parent/community relations. The comment accompanying the NI is obscured, but suggests that Respondent did not schedule enough parent conferences, although he did a good job with those that he conducted. The evaluation was prepared by James Bible, the principal of Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated September 4, 1986, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, presenting subject matter effectively, maintaining academic focus, arranging physical features of the classroom for a safe learning environment, dependability, work attitude, and commitment. A note at the bottom of the evaluation states that Respondent maintained an "excellent class." The evaluation was prepared by Michael Agner, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 25, 1987, contains all S's except for C's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control and an NI in using specific academic praise. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated April 6, 1988, contains all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, having materials ready, maintaining academic focus, using effective questioning techniques, punctuality/attendance, quantity/quality of work, commitment, and professional behavior/ethics. The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated February 28, 1989, contains all S's. A comment under parent/community relations notes: "Need to continue working in this area. Parental support helps your teaching." A comment under student/staff relations adds: "Need to be mindful of backing students in corners with no alternatives." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. Respondent's evaluation dated October 17, 1989, was obscured in the copying process. It appears to contain all S's with some C's in Section 1. The evaluation was prepared by Thomas Knowles, an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated October 3, 1990, contains all S's. The evaluation was prepared by Ruth Hatfield, then an assistant principal at Sebring High School. Respondent's evaluation dated February 20, 1991, contains all S's except for C's in having materials ready and circulating and assisting students and NI's in punctuality/attendance, student/staff relations, personal appearance, and receptiveness. Among the comments under Section 1 is that the observer did not see Respondent's assertive discipline rules posted. Section 2 comments are that Respondent was often late and "very defensive--refuses criticism." Under student/staff relations, the comment is: "Alienates students. Backs up kids in corners. Need to be aware of this." Another comment suggests a need to dress more professionally. The final comment states: "Need to work on areas that deal with students and parents." The evaluation was prepared by Mr. Bible. A letter dated May 13, 1991, memorializes a conference that took place on May 9, 1991, between Respondent and Rebecca Clark, another assistant principal at Sebring High School. The letter states that Ms. Clark had noticed Respondent leaving his class while two guest speakers were making a presentation. Upon questioning, Respondent said that he had to run a quick errand and would be right back. Ms. Clark remained in the classroom until the end of the period, at which time Respondent returned. The letter warns Respondent that he must remain with his class and may not leave campus without prior authorization from an administrator. Evaluations During 1991-92 School Year A new principal, Calvin Smith, replaced Mr. Bible at Sebring High School for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Smith conducted Respondent's next evaluation, which was dated December 2, 1991. Based on an observation taking place during a 50- minute period on November 26, 1991, Respondent received all S's in Section 1 except for a C in presenting the subject matter effectively and an NI in using specific academic praise. In Section 2, Respondent received S's in only five categories: keeping accurate records, punctuality and attendance, initiative, student evaluation, and professional growth. Receiving no C's in Section 2, Respondent received three NI's in personal appearance, receptiveness, and commitment and seven MI's in dependability, work attitude, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, quantity/quality of work, planning, and professional behavior/ethics. The comments for the NI's are brief and in handwriting. Under receptiveness, the comment is: "seem[s] to be afraid of dealing with a problem. I am only trying to make you a better teacher." The comment under commitment states: "dedicate yourself to your job. You have too much talent to waste." Each MI is treated in a separate Professional Development Plan. The Professional Development Plans, which are attached to the December 2 evaluation, consist of several parts: "area to be improved," "desired improvement," "action to be taken," "who will provide assistance," "time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement," "evaluation process to determine improvement," and "consequences if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "When dealing with parents you must exhibit an air of professionalism but be understanding." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over with the situation." Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Should show he is able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Submit lesson plans on time. Supply I[n] S[chool] S[uspension] students with work when requested. Meet with parents without being directed to do so. Learn to deal with students as an adult rather than getting into shouting matches, etc." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Show you understand students by working with them in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Don't get in students['] faces and yell at them. Don't allow things to go on and then establish a rule of the next one goes to the office. Learn to deal with student problems rather than expecting the office to handle the problem." Under work attitude, the desired improvement is: "Show that you like what you do. Turn students on to your subject. Work on faculty relations." The action to be taken is: "Be cooperative in dealing with parents, students, and faculty members. Present an atmosphere of enthusiasm that is contagious and infectious to those around you." Each Professional Development Plan states that assistance or training would be provided if requested by Respondent. For student/staff relations, the plan states: "Inservice will be provided by administrators as requested and a workshop may be recommended." Similar language is contained in the plan for work attitude. Under time line for achieving objectives/goal, improvement, each Professional Development Plan states: "Should show some immediate improvement but enough improvement must be shown prior to evaluation in 92/93 school year to remove the MI." Each Professional Development Plan describes the evaluation process to determine improvement as: "List kept of ineffective behaviors. [Respondent] will be given a copy of each item placed in folder." Each Professional Development Plan warns that, "if improvement is not satisfactorily achieved," there will be a "recommendation to place [Respondent] back on annual contract." By letter dated December 16, 1991, Mr. Smith refers to the evaluation and the evaluation conference that took place on December 5, 1991. The letter notes that one of the Professional Development Plans required Respondent to supply in-school suspension students with work when requested. The letter acknowledges that Respondent had said at the conference that he would take care of all of the MI's. The December 16 letter notes that Respondent had already failed to provide make-up work for five named students who had been sent to in-school suspension. Students punished by in-school suspension are prohibited from attending their classes, but are sent to another part of the school. It is important for their teachers to provide their assignments, so the students can study the same materials that the teacher is presenting to their classes. The December 16 letter concludes: "Repeated cases of this problem will lead to my recommendation to the superintendent that you be suspended without pay for five (5) days for gross insubordination." Respondent received a second evaluation from Mr. Smith during the 1991-92 school year. Dated March 3, 1992, the second evaluation is slightly worse than the first. Section 1 contains the same C for the presentation of the subject matter and NI for using specific academic praise. A new NI appears in Section 1 for demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, and a new MI appears for maintaining effective classroom control. The new MI rating appears to be based in part on Respondent's allowing several students to have food and drink in the classroom after telling one student to dispose of his food or drink. In Section 2, Respondent received five S's, as he did in the first evaluation, as planning went from MI to S and punctuality/attendance went from S to NI. Work attitude improved from MI to NI, but personal appearance and receptiveness went from NI to MI. A written comment states that dependability improved some, but not enough to remove the MI. The MI's on the March 3 evaluation are again the subject of attached Professional Development Plans. Under dependability, the desired improvement is: "Show you are able to be counted on without constant badgering." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with students without being sarcastic or getting into shouting matches. Student and parent complaints are numerous." Under parent/community relations, the desired improvement is: "Exhibit an air of professionalism in meetings with parents." The action to be taken is: "Schedule parent conferences as needed to resolve situations with students. Apologize for your actions if need be and start over. Show parents you care about their child." Under student/staff relations, the desired improvement is: "Work with students in correcting deficiencies." The action to be taken is: "Learn to deal with student problems. Be more friendly. Be consistent in your discipline but be fair." Under receptiveness, the desired improvement is: "Be able to listen to constructive criticism and follow suggestions made by administration." the action to be taken is: "Follow rules and regulations established for personnel and students at Sebring High School rather than defying directions given by an administrator." Each of the Professional Development Plans states that the administration will provide assistance or training if requested to do so by Respondent. The time line for achieving objectives/goal/improvement is now "immediate" for the cited areas. There is no longer any mention of the removal of MI's, except that the Professional Development Plan for student/staff relations requires: "Immediate improvement--MI must be removed prior to October 92 visitation." The consequence of Respondent's failure to remove the MI's remains returning him to annual contract. The March 3 evaluation is followed by a letter dated March 9, 1992, from Mr. Smith to the superintendent. Mr. Smith writes that Respondent has not improved since the December 2 evaluation and recommends that Respondent be placed on annual contract for the following school year. The Grievance Process On March 13, 1992, Respondent filed a grievance seeking a list of specific remedies for each MI in the March 3 evaluation, adherence to the NEAT procedure, a reconfirmation of the deadline stated in the December 2 evaluation of 1992-93 "for remediation," withdrawal of the recommendation that Respondent be returned to annual contract, and transfer of Respondent to another position where he could be evaluated by someone not part of the current Sebring High School administration. Mr. Smith responded to the grievance with two documents, both dated April 7, 1992. In a three-page memorandum, Mr. Smith recounted the December 2 evaluation, noting that Respondent's "statement to all of this (as he signed the assessment and the PDP's) was, 'You mean all I have to do is correct these and I will get satisfactories?'" The April 7 memorandum notes that the March 3 evaluation was worse than the December 2 evaluation. Despite the fact that, with one exception, the March 3 evaluation did not equate correction with the removal of MI's, the April 7 memorandum states: "[Respondent] still has until the 1992-93 assessment to remove the MI's from his assessment. However, if he does not, he will be notified of non-renewal of a contract for 1993-94." Attached to the April 7 memorandum are "Specific Remedies for Must Improve." These remedies track the areas receiving MI's in the evaluations and discussion in the Professional Development Plans. Under maintaining effective classroom control, the April 7 attachment informs Respondent that he is to ensure that his students follow the rules. Under dependability, the April 7 attachment gives 12 examples of assignments that Respondent must perform. These include timely providing grades for meetings of the School Attendance Review Committee, remaining current with printed attendance sheets, submitting in-school suspension assignments when requested, arriving and leaving on time, not leaving the classroom unattended, and not allowing the students to break the rules. Under parent/community relations, the April 7 attachment states that Respondent should meet with parents at his initiative rather than waiting until irate parents demand a conference after hearing their child's complaints. Also, the attachment advises Respondent to be "gentle" with parents and not be negative. The attachment suggests that Respondent return parents' telephone calls. Under student/staff relations, the April 7 attachment warns Respondent not to back students into a corner. The attachment notes that many reports indicate that Respondent uses sarcasm with students and then disciplines them when they reciprocate with sarcasm. The attachment recommends, "Work on your personality to be more accepting and understanding of students." Under quantity/quality of work, the April 7 attachment suggests that Respondent spend more time on grammar rather than literature alone. The attachment suggests that Respondent should become involved with students' activities so that they know that he cares about them, as well as about what they learn. Under receptiveness, the April 7 attachment notes a lack of desire by Respondent to change his attitude about the providing in-school suspension assignments. Under professional behavior/ethics, the April 7 attachment recommends that Respondent not retaliate against students. It is unclear exactly what Mr. Smith means by "retaliate"; it may mean confront the students in class or respond to the students' sarcasm with sarcasm. By letter dated May 13, 1992, Deputy Superintendent John Martin decided the grievance by determining that Petitioner would grant Respondent a subsequent year of employment, under a subsequent year or annual contract, to correct the indicated deficiencies, and, if Respondent "corrects the indicated deficiencies," he would be given a new professional service contract. The May 13 letter also states that Respondent would be transferred, as he had requested. Respondent chose not to pursue additional grievance procedures available to him, so the grievance was resolved at this point. On May 15, 1992, Petitioner informed Respondent that he had been appointed for a "subsequent year of employment . . . on annual contract pursuant to Florida Statute 231.26(3)(e)." On June 23, 1992, Petitioner and Respondent executed a contract for a "'subsequent year of employment,' as that term is used in 231.36(3)(e), Florida Statutes . . .," for the 1992-93 school year. The 1991-92 School Year During the 1991-92 school year at Sebring High School, Respondent experienced problems in his relationship with the students and parents and in his inability to fulfill certain important responsibilities imposed on each teacher. With students, Respondent was often sarcastic. When the students returned in like kind, Respondent took offense and disciplined them, often with a disciplinary referral to the office. Mr. Smith witnessed a half dozen confrontations between Respondent and students in the main office where Respondent made derogatory remarks to the students. With parents, Respondent often failed to behave professionally in parent/teacher conferences. He walked out on one conference involving a parent who was also a teacher at Sebring High School. He often responded negatively to parents and sometimes failed to follow through on conferences or even return parents' telephone calls. Respondent was often late in fulfilling his duties. He was frequently late in getting his grades or attendance sheets to the Student Attendance Review Committee, which consisted of a guidance counsellor, an administrator, student's teachers, and student's parents who met periodically to discuss a student's attendance problems. Respondent consistently failed to submit assignments for students who had been assigned to in-school suspension. Each of the deficiencies described in the preceding paragraph interfered materially with Respondent's performance as a teacher. With respect to each of these deficiencies, Respondent was materially worse than his fellow teachers at Sebring High School. The resulting evaluations were the worst ever given by Mr. Smith, who describes himself as a hard evaluator. Evaluations During the 1992-93 School Year As Respondent demanded in the grievance, Petitioner transferred Respondent to Lake Placid High School for the 1992- 93 school year. He was assigned to teach English to all of the ninth grade students except those in honors and dropout prevention. On November 3, 1992, Respondent received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. He received all S's except for C's in demonstrating effective communication skills, and student evaluations and NI's in maintaining academic focus and maintaining effective classroom control. The evaluation was prepared by David Robinson, who was an assistant principal. On February 25, 1993, Respondent received a second evaluation for the 1992-93 school year. This evaluation, which was prepared by the principal, Roger Goddard, was worse than the first. There were no C's, and there were NI's in demonstrating friendly attitude toward all students, maintaining academic focus, parent/community relations, student/staff relations, receptiveness, and professional behavior/ethics. Under the comments in Section 1 of the February 25 evaluation, a note reads: "Needs skills in [knowing] when to use in-class discipline or office referral." The handwritten comments under Section 2 note that Respondent "had difficulty dealing with parents in conferences an/or returning phone calls" and "lack[s] rapport with students, staff, and administration." The handwritten comments state that Respondent is "many times defensive during conferences with administrators" and "needs a better procedure with make-up work utilizing school policy." By letter dated March 19, 1993, Dr. Goddard informed Respondent that he would be unable to reappoint Respondent for employment at Lake Placid High School for the following school year. Respondent asked Dr. Goddard to perform another evaluation, and Dr. Goddard did so on April 23, 1993. There were fewer NI's than in the February 25 evaluation, but the evaluation was not much better. Under Section 1, Respondent received all S's except for an NI in demonstrating a friendly attitude toward all students. An anecdotal comment adds: "There have been over 70 referrals for discipline during the year. This is as many as 20 other teachers combined." Under Section 2, Respondent received all S's except for three NI's in parent/community relations, student/staff relations, and receptiveness. Accompanying handwritten notes state that Respondent "still shows difficulty in dealing with parent conferences," "still lacks understanding of role of assistant principal [and] staff," and "many times still defensive regarding suggestions from administration." By letter dated April 26, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised Respondent that he could not change his original recommendation given on March 19. The letter states that the recommendation is based on the need for a change in the ability to handle discipline effectively within the classroom, handle parent conferences without conflict, and be receptive to administrative suggestions without a defensive attitude. By letter dated April 30, 1993, to Dr. Goddard, Respondent states, in part: . . . Some administrators are possessed by a sort of spectral indifference, and look at their fellow beings as ghosts. For them, teachers and other staff members are often merely vague shadowy forms, hardly distinct from the nebulous background of such a life, and easily blended with the invisible. But you, Dr. Goddard, are an honorable man and I believe, from our conversations, that you really care about the parents, staff, and students of our school. . . . Respondent's letter to Dr. Goddard discusses the preceding evaluation and asks for an opportunity to continue teaching. By letter dated May 25, 1993, Superintendent Richard Farmer states that Dr. Goddard had informed Mr. Farmer that Respondent had not successfully removed all deficiencies from his evaluation. The letter advises Respondent that his annual contract was expiring, Dr. Goddard had decided not to issue Respondent another annual contract, and, according to Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner would not issue him a new professional service contract. By notice to the Florida Department of Education dated June 2, 1993, Dr. Goddard advised that, after two consecutive unsatisfactory annual evaluations, Respondent's employment with Petitioner was being terminated or not renewed. The 1992-93 School Year Despite the absence of MI's on the 1992-93 evaluations, the problems Respondent had experienced with students, parents, and administrators in 1991-92 worsened in 1992-93. With respect to relations with students, the basic problem is that Respondent reverted to sarcasm at Lake Placid High School, and his students reciprocated, just as his students at Sebring High School had done the prior year. Sarcasm bred sarcasm, which bred disciplinary referrals--125 of them in fact. Respondent outdistanced his nearest competitor in disciplinary referrals by 2.5 times. On two separate days, Respondent submitted more than 10 disciplinary referrals--more than most teachers submitted all year. As Dr. Goddard's comment notes, Respondent issued more disciplinary referrals than a score of his colleagues. The huge number of disciplinary referrals did not mean that Respondent was maintaining firm control of his classes. To the contrary, he was not able to maintain firm control of his classes, partly due to the atmosphere of mutual disrespect that his sarcasm engendered. The number of disciplinary referrals indicated that Respondent had lost control of the situation and tried to shift to the administrators the job of regaining control of his classroom. A major part of the problem, in addition to Respondent's sarcasm, was his inability to adhere to his own assertive discipline plan. Respondent's assertive discipline plan, which was duly posted in his classroom, contains the following consequences in increasing order of severity: warning, contact parents, detention, and office referral. Sometime during the school year, Respondent switched the second and third consequences, so that he would place a student on detention before he would contact the parents. This change was duly posted in the classroom. Respondent's assertive discipline plan is satisfactory, but he never adhered to it. Sometimes he gave detentions, but then failed to appear at the location where the students were to serve the detentions. Sometimes Respondent simply placed the offending students in the hall where they remained, unsupervised, in violation of school rules. Sometimes Respondent gave warnings, and often he gave disciplinary referrals. But he displayed an aversion to parent/teacher conferences by almost invariably omitting the step that required him to contact a parent. Nearly all disciplinary referrals were made prior to this step taking place, and many were made prior to giving the student a detention. Respondent clung doggedly to his sarcasm despite all efforts to free him from this habitual behavior. Dr. Goddard intervened at one point during a parent/teacher conference and prevailed upon Respondent to stop using sarcasm against the student who was the subject of the conference. Respondent's response was to post a sign in his room indicating a "moratorium" in the use of sarcasm--intentionally implying that the cessation in sarcasm would be temporary. At times, Respondent lashed out at students with hurtful remarks lacking even the thin veneer of humor. He told one student that he would be a serial killer. He told another student that he would never be rich and successful. He repeatedly referred publicly to one student as a witch and asked if she had taken her Midol. In front of another student's mother, as well as other teachers and Mr. Robinson during a parent/teacher conference, Respondent referred to a girl as "bitchy." Respondent refused to accommodate valid student needs, such as the unusual demands placed on one child by a disabled brother. The regressive effect on students of Respondent's embittered and embittering classroom presence was unwittingly reflected in another student's class journal. His early entries demonstrated an emotional vulnerability as he depicted his simple, rural lifestyle; his later entries were defiantly copied out of textbooks, magazines, or encyclopedias. As a result of Respondent's poor relations with students, more than one student quit Respondent's class, even if it meant taking English in summer school or another school or dropping out of high school altogether. One parent checked her son out of school just long enough that he would not have to attend Respondent's class. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, morale among Respondent's students and their parents was a very serious problem. Respondent's relationship with parents was, if possible, even worse than his relationship with students, although his contact with parents was less frequent. During one meeting with a father in the main office, the parent and Respondent had a heated exchange. Mr. Robinson intervened and diplomatically tried to end the conference. After the parent had started to walk away, Respondent restarted the argument and approached the parent until their noses were touching. Mr. Robinson again broke up what had transformed from a conference into a confrontation, and again Respondent reinitiated the engagement. Again, Mr. Robinson had to break up the argument. Mr. Robinson attended another parent/teacher conference in which the mother, according to Respondent, looked at him with "eyes . . . like daggers." (Tr 541) The mother observed that her daughter had no problems in any other classes but Respondent's class. The parent charged that Respondent's class was out of control. Respondent saw that Mr. Robinson was not "going to fulfil his role as mediator," so Respondent got up, announced that "I'm not going to take this damn stuff anymore," and walked out of the conference. (Tr 542) At first glance, Respondent's relationship with the administrators seems better than his relationships with the students and parents, but this is due to the professionalism of Dr. Goddard, inexperience of Mr. Robertson, and uninvolvement of Ms. Hatfield. For different reasons, each administrator at the school responded differently to Respondent's increasingly bizarre behavior and in no case did any administrator at the school ever lose his or her composure in dealing with Respondent. Respondent believes that he has been unfairly treated by every administrator at Lake Placid High School, and at least two at Sebring High School. Interestingly, Ms. Hatfield had given Respondent his last evaluation-- in October, 1990--without an NI or MI. However, without any evident provocation, Respondent demanded that the other assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, handle Respondent's evaluations and disciplinary referrals. Respondent was apprehensive that Ms. Hatfield might be biased due to her past service at Sebring High School. In November, 1992, Ms. Hatfield had a conference with Respondent and cautioned him that she was receiving a number of student complaints about his use of sarcasm. Respondent's reaction was to request that he be evaluated by Mr. Robinson, who was in his first year of service as an assistant principal. In retrospect, Respondent's demand proved unwise. As evidenced by his treatment of another teacher, Mr. Robinson displayed a heightened sensitivity toward humor directed at students, even if the humor did not seem sarcastic at all. Thus, Mr. Robinson's concern about Respondent's sarcasm was not due to bias against Respondent, but was due to Mr. Robinson's concern that students be treated with dignity and respect. But, as noted above, even without Mr. Robinson's heightened concern about humor, Respondent's sarcasm exceeded the wildest imaginable limits. Dr. Goddard intervened after the first evaluation. Respondent's concern about bias defies reason and logic when applied to Dr. Goddard, who counselled Respondent and gave him an opportunity to discover for himself the shortcomings of his defensive style of dealing with students, parents, and administrators. To imply that Dr. Goddard's evaluations were orchestrated by individuals at Sebring High School or the district office is to ignore reality. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the very lack of coordination presents legal problems that could have easily been avoided with the smallest amount of coordination. Respondent had trouble with nearly every administrator. And Respondent consistently found himself the blameless target of unwarranted persecution. His paranoia interfered with his ability to do his job. This fact is best illustrated by the time that Dr. Goddard instructed the teachers to clean up their rooms in preparation for a visit that night by the school board. Respondent wrote the following on his chalkboard to be read by the school board members: "The fact that you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you." In addition to problems with students, parents, and administrators, Respondent continued to display an inability to fulfill his important responsibilities. He failed to appear at ninth grade orientation at the beginning of the school year, despite the fact that he was a new teacher at the school and taught most of the ninth graders. Respondent routinely failed to supply grades to students for whom guidance counsellors were trying to prepare weekly progress reports in order to monitor the students' progress more closely than is possible with report cards. Respondent was routinely resistant to assigning make- up work. Students would have to pursue him for days to get assignments, until finally Respondent decided to write these up on the chalkboard. On more than one occasion, Respondent's solution--when pushed by parents or administrators--was to avoid the extra work imposed upon him by grading additional materials; rather than assign make-up work or tests, Respondent would simply not penalize the student for the missed assignment, such as by doubling the weight of the next grade. There is no evidence that the administration at Lake Placid High School learned of Respondent's 1991-92 evaluations at Sebring High School until Respondent mentioned them when he received his first evaluation at Lake Placid High School. There is no evidence that the actions taken by the administration at Lake Placid High School were influenced by anything except the Respondent's performance during the 1992-93 school year. Respondent was warned about his problems in evaluations going as far back as the 1980's when Respondent was evaluated by Mr. Bible. The March, 1986 evaluation identifies Respondent's reluctance to deal with parents. The February, 1989 evaluation suggests that Respondent lacked the support of parents and was placing students on the defensive. In the February, 1991 evaluation, Mr. Bible warned Respondent that he needed to improve in several areas, including student/staff relations and receptiveness to criticism from administrators. Again, Mr. Bible pointed out that Respondent was alienating students. Respondent's problems, which culminated in the exceptionally bad evaluations during the 1991-92 school year, largely represented a continuation of problems that had been identified in one manner or another for the preceding five years. But instead of correcting the problems, Respondent had allowed them to get worse. These problems were described in greater detail in the 1991-92 and 1992-93 evaluations due to the deterioration of Respondent's behavior. Petitioner provided Respondent with reasonable assistance in remediating his performance deficiencies. Dr. Goddard made numerous additional visits to Respondent's classroom, and he and other administrators routinely talked to Respondent. After the first evaluation in November, 1992, Mr. Robinson twice recommended to Respondent that he rely on his assertive discipline plan because he was referring too many students to the office. After discovering how poorly Respondent handled parent conferences, administrators ensured that appropriate persons participated in Respondent's conferences to model suitable behavior. In early February, 1993, Mr. Robinson gave Respondent a set of assertive discipline tapes to view to assist in imposing proper discipline in his class. This intervention preceded the February 25 evaluation by almost three weeks. About one week prior to the February 25 evaluation, Mr. Robinson suggested that Respondent attend a workshop on parent/teacher conferences. Respondent attended the workshop. Evidently arranged prior to the February 25 evaluation, Respondent went to a high school in another district to observe a ninth-grade English teacher. The practical effect of this assistance is attenuated by the fact that the February 25 evaluation preceded the visit, although the visit preceded the March 19 non-appointment letter, April 23 follow-up evaluation, and April 26 follow-up letter. The extent of the assistance effectively offered Respondent must be evaluated in the context of Respondent's problems. He was not an ineffective teacher due to an inadequate grasp of the course material or inability to present material imaginatively. To the contrary, Respondent is a highly intelligent, literate individual who is intellectual capable of being an outstanding teacher. If his problems were in his understanding of the material or an inability to find the methods to convey the material to his students, a program of assistance and inservice workshops probably could be designed to provide meaningful help. Instead, Respondent needed to stop disparaging students. He needed to stop confronting parents. He needed to stop ignoring administrators who were trying to stop Respondent from disparaging students and confronting parents. But Respondent simply refused to change his ways, and no amount of videotapes, inservice workshops, school visits, evaluation follow-ups, and informal discussions were going to help. Respondent was given a second chance when he was transferred to Lake Placid High School. But instead of addressing the source of the problem-- himself--he attacked students, parents, and administrators. He avoided performing rigorously all of his teaching duties, such as enforcing his assertive disciplinary plan and its graduated response to misbehavior, promptly providing make-up work, and sending interim grades when needed. Instead, he inexplicably continued to bicker with the students, provoke the parents, and defy the legitimate demands of the administrators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Highlands County enter a final order not issuing Respondent a new professional service contract. ENTERED on January 13, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as irrelevant. 20-35: adopted or adopted in substance. 36: rejected as irrelevant. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 40: rejected as irrelevant. Nothing requires that Petitioner make "every effort" to help Respondent through the means cited. 41: adopted or adopted in substance. 42: rejected as subordinate. 43-44: adopted or adopted in substance. 45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-48 (first three sentences): rejected as irrelevant. 48 (last sentence)-53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54-56: rejected as irrelevant. 57-59: adopted or adopted in substance. 60-61: rejected as irrelevant. 62: adopted or adopted in substance. 63: rejected as irrelevant. 64-65: adopted or adopted in substance. 66: rejected as subordinate. 67-69: adopted or adopted in substance. 70: rejected as subordinate. 71-74: adopted or adopted in substance. 75-76: rejected as subordinate. 77-78: adopted or adopted in substance. 79: rejected as hearsay. 80-85: adopted or adopted in substance. 86: rejected as irrelevant. 87-92: adopted or adopted in substance. 93: rejected as subordinate. 94: rejected as irrelevant. 95-100: adopted or adopted in substance. 101: rejected as irrelevant. In fact, to permit either student to leave the classroom would violate Paragraph 11 of the Classroom Management section of the Teacher Handbook. 102: rejected as irrelevant. Mr. Smith wore sunglasses indoors during part of the hearing. 103-04: rejected as irrelevant. 105: rejected as subordinate. 106-17 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 117 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 118: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 119: rejected as hearsay. 120-34: adopted or adopted in substance. 135-37: rejected as irrelevant. 138: adopted or adopted in substance. 139: rejected as irrelevant. 140: adopted or adopted in substance. 141: rejected as irrelevant. 142-43: adopted or adopted in substance. 144: rejected as subordinate. 145-46: adopted or adopted in substance. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8-10: rejected as irrelevant. 11-14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 18-19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-22: rejected as subordinate. 23-24: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 25-26: rejected as subordinate. 27-28 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 28 (second sentence)-29: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as subordinate. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. This provision governs only when Petitioner must refer matters to the Department of Education. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 37-39: adopted or adopted in substance except as to meaningful follow-up conferences. 40-41: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 42: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Superintendent Richard Farmer Highlands County School District 426 School St. Sebring, FL 33870-4048 Commissioner Doug Jamerson Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 James F. McCollum James F. McCollum, P.A. 129 S. Commerce Ave. Sebring, FL 33870-3698 Anthony D. Demma Meyer and Brooks, P.A. P.O. Box 1547 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether there is just cause to terminate Mr. Altheim's employment.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Mr. Altheim has been employed with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools for 15 years. During the 1999-2000 school year, Mr. Altheim was a teacher at North Miami Middle School. He was involved in a conference-for-the-record; he was directed to follow all School Board rules and to conduct himself within the community in a proper manner. During the 2002-2003 school year, Mr. Altheim was still working at North Miami Middle School. He was involved in a conference-for-the-record, where he was again directed to adhere to all Miami-Dade County School Board rules and regulations. He was also directed to cease and desist from inappropriate contact with the students, and to conduct himself in a manner that would reflect credit upon himself and the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Ten years later, during the 2012-2013 school year, Mr. Altheim was employed as a civics teacher for John F. Kennedy Middle School. Karen Robinson was the Principal during this school year. On a school day in December 2012, Mr. Altheim took his class to the cafeteria for lunch. While in the cafeteria, he noticed three girls who were out of place; because he knew which students should be in the cafeteria during that time period, he concluded that the three girls should be elsewhere. Mr. Altheim took one student to Mr. Sanon's class, and informed Mr. Sanon that the student was attempting to skip his class. The other two he took to see the Assistant Principal, who was on the phone when the group arrived at his office. Mr. Altheim left the students in the Assistant Principal's office, shortly thereafter returning to check on the matter. The students were still waiting, and the Assistant Principal was still on the phone. Mr. Altheim told the Assistant Principal that the girls were "skipping" and started to walk away. He overheard one of the girls, N.S., tell the other girl that Mr. Altheim was a rapist, and that he touched people. Mr. Altheim told Ms. Robinson that N.S. had called him a rapist, and Ms. Robinson directed Mr. Altheim to write a referral for N.S., for using inappropriate language with a teacher. N.S. was described as a challenging student by both Ms. Robinson and Mr. Altheim. Prior to this incident, Mr. Altheim had written referrals for N.S. numerous times for behavioral problems. Ms. Robinson met with N.S., and asked her why she used the term "rapist" to refer to Mr. Altheim. N.S. accused Mr. Altheim of rubbing girls' necks and shoulders, including hers, and gave Ms. Robinson the names of three other girls who could corroborate her story. Ms. Robinson spoke to approximately five students, including the three girls that had been identified by N.S. Some of the girls accused Mr. Altheim of massaging their necks and shoulders, and one accused him of brushing her bangs away. According to Ms. Robinson, all of them reported feeling uncomfortable with the physical contact. None of these students' written statements or oral statements were entered into evidence. Instead, 13 other students testified by deposition. Twelve of them never saw Mr. Altheim touch any student inappropriately. Most of them saw Mr. Altheim pat students on the back or on the shoulder, or shake a student's hand, when congratulating a student for a job well done. They consistently testified that he did so in a congratulatory manner, but never in an inappropriate manner. One student, D.P., claimed that he had seen Mr. Altheim wrap his arm around a girl's waist, but added that no one else saw this occur, and admitted to being friends with N.S. and the other accusers. D.P.'s testimony was not corroborated by any other student's testimony, and is not found credible. Notably absent from the record is any alleged victim statement; not a single student testified that he or she had been inappropriately touched by Mr. Altheim. Mr. Altheim credibly testified that he never inappropriately touched any student, and that he never massaged student's necks or shoulders. He may have patted students on the shoulder or back, or shaken students' hands when congratulating them, but there was nothing inappropriate about the physical contact. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Mr. Altheim is not guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or of a violation of any School Board policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Mr. Altheim and reinstating him with full back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 22nd day of November, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides, P.A. Suite 110 29605 U.S. Highway 19, North Clearwater, Florida 33761 Heather L. Ward, Esquire Miami-Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Pam Stewart, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Alberto Carvalho, Superintendant Miami-Dade County Public Schools Suite 912 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Findings Of Fact This matter comes on before the undersigned for consideration following an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education for the State of Florida, against Robert J. Browne, Respondent. No genuine factual issue is in dispute because no communication, including an election of rights or an appearance from the Respondent, has ever been received. Pursuant to the above-cited rule, the matter was required to proceed to hearing before the undersigned for the presentation of a prima facie case by the Petitioner, regarding the establishment of the reputed facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint upon which the Petitioner seeks revocation of the Respondent's Certificate. The Administrative Complaint is dated July 1, 1981. After the Administrative Complaint was filed, various efforts were made to achieve service of the same on the Respondent. The Respondent never responded to the Administrative Complaint. Diligent search and inquiry failed to locate the Respondent, or a means or location whereby he might be served with the Complaint. Attempts to serve him at his last-known forwarding address resulted in the certi- fied mail being returned unclaimed and unforwardable. The undersigned attempted to serve notice of this proceeding itself upon the Respondent at the last known address with the same result. Service by publication of the Administrative Complaint was achieved by the Petitioner. The Respondent holds Florida Teaching Certificate Number 440435, Post Graduate, Rank II, which expires on June 30, 1998, authorizing him to engage in the profession of teaching in the areas of mental retardation, junior college, administration, and supervision. At all times pertinent hereto, he was employed at the Exceptional Student Educational Center in Broward County, Florida, at Eastside Elementary School. The Respondent's position was that of administrator or assistant principal at the school. The Respondent was employed at the school during the summer of 1980. Mrs. Annie Turner was employed at the school as the custodian during that same summer. She worked from the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the evening. She often took her son Ronnie, who was the youngest of seven children, to the school with her during her working hours. She did this in order for him to assist her in her job duties. On an early visit to the school, Ronnie met the Respondent, Mr. Browne. They met on frequent occasions thereafter, when Ronnie was at the school with his mother and talked of sports and other things of interest to Ronnie, and they ultimately struck up a friendship. Mrs. Turner began noticing that her son would go to a distant bathroom in the school and stay an inordinate period of time. This happened on a number of occasions and she noticed that Mr. Browne would follow her son into the mens' bathroom while she was engaged in cleaning another room nearby in the school. She did not feel anything was amiss until this happened on a regular basis. Finally, on a Thursday evening (she does not remember the date), in the summer of 1980, Mr. Browne and Ronnie entered the bathroom and stayed so long she opened the door to check on her son and observed the Respondent on his knees committing a homosexual act on the person of her son. She was not observed by Mr. Browne. She ultimately informed-the County Superintendent and Mr. Browne was confronted with the subject accusation by his superiors. Sometime thereafter the Respondent resigned his position at the school. Mrs. Turner no longer respects Mr. Browne and would not want one of her children in a school where he was principal or a teacher due to her apprehension regarding their physical and emotional welfare. The testimony of Ronnie Turner corroborates that of his mother, Annie Turner, and in addition, establishes that the homosexual act observed by Mrs. Turner occurred on three (3) other occasions in a substantially similar fashion and location. The occasion when Annie Turner discovered the Respondent committing a homosexual act on her son was the fourth and last of those occasions, all of which occurred during a three-week period during the summer of 1980. Ronnie Turner sougnt on several occasions to avoid association with the Respondent during this time after he became aware of the Respondent's intentions. He would not want to attend a school at which the Respondent was employed and fears that the same fate will befall other children at any school at which the Respondent should be employed. Ronnie Turner was fourteen years of age at the time the pertinent events occurred. After the Respondent resigned from his position with the Broward County School System, there ultimately ensued an Administrative Complaint brought by Ralph Turlington, Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida, seeking revocation of the Respondent's Florida Teacher's Certificate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel for the Petitioner, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Robert J. Browne, have his Teacher's Certificate in and for the State of Florida revoked permanently. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire BERG AND HOLDER 203-B South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Robert J. Browne 1771 Northeast 12th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Daniel Presmy, committed the violations alleged in the Recommendation for Suspension and Termination for Employment, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Daniel Presmy (hereinafter "Presmy" or "Respondent") has been a teacher for six years with Palm Beach County School Board (hereinafter "School Board"). He has always taught elementary students. Presmy has had no prior disciplinary action taken against him by the Superintendent of Palm Beach County School Board or the School Board. Presmy was a certified teacher in the School Board of Palm Beach County. On December 11, 2006, while in his classroom Presmy was teaching his third-grade class, and three students who were not students in his classroom showed up and disrupted the class. Presmy requested that the students leave his room. The students did not leave upon the initial request. One student informed Presmy that a student in the class had his eraser. Presmy then asked his class who had the eraser. Subsequently, an eraser flew to the front of the classroom and fell on the floor. Presmy picked up the eraser and handed the eraser to the student who had requested it. Presmy turned back to his class and was hit on the temple with the eraser. Presmy turned back around toward the student who he had given the eraser to and the student raised his hand. Again, Presmy told the student to leave. The student continued to stand in the middle of the doorway to Presmy's classroom and would not leave. While Presmy remained in his classroom, he used his fingertips to push the student's head and told the student (hereinafter "student victim") to "leave and don't come back here." Presmy "didn't think that [he] was doing anything wrong by telling him to leave with a gesture to leave." Presmy's reaction of touching the student was inappropriate. However, no evidence was demonstrated that the student was hurt during the incident. Presmy did not press the buzzer or contact and ask for any assistance regarding the incident because he didn't think it was necessary. On December 11, 2006, Officer Price was paged regarding the incident and she returned the call. She was informed that a student reported that he had been hit by a teacher at Roosevelt. Price interviewed the student victim and witnesses regarding the incident with Presmy. The School Board initiated an investigation into the incident. During the investigation, Respondent met with Detective Walton. Presmy told the investigator that he pushed the student victim in the head and told him to leave.2 The investigator concluded his investigation and presented the case to the State Attorney’s Office for review. As a result, Daniel Presmy was criminally charged with Battery as a violation of Florida Statutes. On August 2, 2007, Presmy pled guilty to the battery charge as a negotiated plea agreement so as not to put himself and his family through a lengthy trial and under the advice of his lawyer. His sentence was 45 hours community service, 12 weeks of anger management, 12 months of probation with early termination after six months and a $595 court fee. Petitioner alleges Respondent, by his conduct, violated School Board Policies 0.01, 1.013 and 3.12, and State Board of Education Rules 6B-1.001 and 6B-1.006. Subsequently, the School Board of West Palm Beach County at a meeting on October 24, 2007, voted to suspend Presmy without pay effective October 25, 2007, and initiated dismissal proceedings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Palm Beach County School Board find Presmy had inappropriate physical contact with a student but apply the progressive disciplinary policy to determine his punishment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2008.
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 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 Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a teacher pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board in July 2006 and assigned to teach at Horace Mann Middle School ("Horace Mann"). At all times material to this case, Respondent's employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board's policies, and the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD"). The 2010-2011 School Year During the 2010-2011 school year, Respondent was a teacher at Horace Mann. Dr. Carmen Jones-Carey, the principal at Horace Mann, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on May 23, 2011, concerning an alleged incident that occurred on April 27, 2011, involving Respondent "yelling," "throwing things around" in her classroom, and making an inappropriate comment to another employee. The reprimand directed Respondent to refrain from inappropriate emotional outbursts, losing control, and making inappropriate comments to or about staff members that may be interpreted as offensive or threatening. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213; (2) refrain from using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives may result in further disciplinary action. On May 25, 2011, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent regarding the April 27, 2011, incident, at which time Respondent was directed to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213; (2) refrain from using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives will be deemed as insubordination which may result in disciplinary action. The 2011-2012 School Year On April 13, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey and Paul J. Greenfield, administrative director for North Regional Center, held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident in the cafeteria involving Respondent yelling at and pulling a student by the bottom of her shirt, slinging the student around, and causing the student to fall into a metal counter. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) refrain from using physical means as a form of discipline; and (3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. As a result of the alleged incident, Respondent was suspended without pay for 17 days and informed that failure to comply with the directives may result in further disciplinary action. The 2012-2013 School Year On November 16, 2012, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident in Respondent's sixth-period class involving a verbal altercation between Respondent and a student during which Respondent used inappropriate language when addressing the student and the entire class. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. During the conference, Respondent was also informed of the issuance of a letter of reprimand and that failure to comply with the directives will result in disciplinary action. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on November 28, 2012, concerning the alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's sixth-period class. The reprimand directed Respondent to immediately refrain from getting involved in verbal confrontations with students, berating, taunting, and/or embarrassing students in class and/or in any public area. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that any recurrences of the above infraction would constitute gross insubordination and may result in further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from further employment with the School Board. On March 21, 2013, Dr. Jones-Carey held a conference for the record with Respondent concerning an alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's fifth-period class on February 8, 2013, in which Respondent yelled at the entire class and forcefully moved desks, which caused another desk to hit a student causing the student to lose her balance and injure her arm. During the conference, Respondent was directed to, among other things: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. During the conference, Respondent was also informed that failure to comply with the directives will constitute gross insubordination and result in disciplinary action. Dr. Jones-Carey issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on April 9, 2013, concerning the alleged incident that occurred in Respondent's fifth-period class on February 8, 2013. The reprimand directed Respondent to immediately refrain from losing her temper in class, getting involved in verbal confrontations with students, berating, taunting, and/or embarrassing students in class and/or in any public area. The reprimand further directed Respondent to: (1) adhere to all School Board policies, specifically, School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; (2) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board; (3) refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and (4) refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace. Dr. Jones-Carey informed Respondent that any recurrences of the above infraction would constitute gross insubordination and may result in further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from further employment with the School Board. On June 19, 2013, at its scheduled meeting, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher. Respondent timely requested a formal administrative hearing, and, on June 26, 2013, the School Board referred the matter to DOAH. The matter was styled Miami- Dade County School Board v. Shavonne Anderson, DOAH Case No. 13-2414TTS, and assigned to Administrative Law Judge Todd P. Resavage. 2013-2014 School Year On January 14, 2014, following an evidentiary hearing, Judge Resavage issued a Recommended Order finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination. Judge Resavage recommended that the School Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of gross insubordination, suspending her employment without pay for a period of 180 school days, and placing her on probation for a period of two years. On February 12, 2014, the School Board entered a Final Order adopting Judge Resavage's Recommended Order, imposing the suspension without pay for a period of 180 days. Respondent received credit for time served and was reinstated for the 2014-2015 school year. 2018-2019 School Year Respondent was re-assigned to Miami Beach Senior High School for the 2018-2019 school year, where she taught physical science. The proposed discipline is based on conduct occurring on January 31, 2019, during Respondent's fourth-period inclusion physical science class, co-taught by Respondent and another teacher, Joanna Semeniuk. On January 31, 2019, D.A. was a ninth-grade male special education student in the class. During class, D.A. questioned Respondent about the quality of his written work. Displeased with Respondent's answer, a verbal confrontation ensued between D.A. and Respondent. The argument escalated after D.A. stood up, threw his paper on the floor of the classroom, used profane language toward Respondent, and attempted to leave the room. In response to D.A.'s conduct, Respondent became irate, grabbed the paper off the floor, used profane language toward D.A., grabbed D.A. by his shirt, and shoved the piece of paper down his shirt. The incident was witnessed by Ms. Semeniuk and other students in the classroom. Respondent's conduct on January 31, 2019, was inappropriate, disparaging, reflected poorly upon herself and the School Board, and reduced Respondent's ability to effectively perform duties. Respondent could certainly have projected authority and addressed the student's behavior without escalating the situation and resorting to the profane and disparaging verbal attack and initiating inappropriate physical contact with D.A. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056. Through the profane and disparaging verbal tirade and inappropriate physical contact upon the student on January 31, 2019, Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 6., by failing to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety, intentionally exposing the student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and intentionally violating the student's rights. Respondent also violated School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, sections A.3., 7., and 8., and School Board Policy 3210.01, Code of Ethics, Conduct Regarding Students, sections A., E., and F., which mirror rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 6. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4) by intentionally refusing to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. By failing to comply with the specific directives detailed above to refrain from exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; refrain from using abusive and/or profane language or displaying unseemly conduct in the workplace; refrain from inappropriate emotional outbursts, losing control, and using inflammatory language in her role as a teacher; and conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board, Respondent intentionally refused a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. At hearing, Respondent acknowledged that her language and use of profanity toward her student in the classroom on January 31, 2019, was inappropriate. Specifically, Respondent acknowledged that during the incident she called D.A. a "faggot" and directed the word "shit" toward him. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of violating rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., or School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, sections A.9. and 22.
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 upholding the suspension and terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, 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 26th day of November, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Shavonne L. Anderson 2868 Northwest 197th Terrace Miami Gardens, Florida 33056 (eServed) Cristina Rivera, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 (eServed) Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430 Miami, Florida 33132-1308 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1308
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated section 1012.315, Florida Statutes; Florida Administrative Code Rules 6A-5.056 and 6A-10.081(1) through (5); and School Board Policies 6.30(2), (3)(b), and 6.301(2), as alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for Termination (Petition); and, if so, what penalty should be imposed for these violations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the St. Lucie County School System. The authority to supervise the school system includes the hiring, discipline, and termination of employees within the school district. Respondent was employed by the School Board as a teacher at Fort Pierce Westwood High School. He worked for the School Board since at least September 2007, albeit originally at a different school. Respondent signed a professional services contract with the School Board on or about February 12, 2010. He is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the St. Lucie County Classroom Teachers’ Association (CBA), as stated in Article I, section A of the CBA. On October 28, 2011, Respondent was advised of a meeting to take place on November 1, 2011, regarding a School Board investigation into alleged inappropriate contact with students. There is no indication in the record whether Respondent attended the meeting or gave any information. There is also no indication whether the investigation referenced in the October 28, 2011, letter is the same investigation giving rise to these proceedings. On March 3, 2014, Maurice Bonner, the Director of Personnel for the School Board, provided to Respondent a Notice of Investigation and Temporary Duty Assignment (Notice). The Notice advised that Respondent was being investigated regarding allegations of inappropriate contact with students, and that he was being placed on temporary duty assignment as assigned by the Personnel Office. Respondent signed the letter acknowledging its receipt on March 14, 2014. On April 1, 2014, Genelle Zoratti Yost, Superintendent of the School Board, wrote to Respondent with a reference line entitled Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment. The letter states, in pertinent part: On March 21, 2014 you were arrested for violating Section 800.04(6)(a)(b), Florida Statutes, “Lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age.”[1/] Pursuant to the Arrest Warrant issued on March 21, 2014 you are not to be within 100 feet of Fort Pierce Westwood High School or Harbor Branch. As a result, you are unavailable to work on campus so your temporary duty assignment outlined in the notice of Temporary Duty Assignment provided to you on March 3, 2014 shall remain in full force and effect until further notice. Furthermore, you have not reported your arrest to the Superintendent within 48 hours as required. . . . Based on the information available to the School District there is sufficient information to charge you with violating the following [list of State Board of Education rule violations and School Board Policy violations]. . . . The April 1, 2014, letter notified Respondent that the superintendent would be recommending to the School Board that it terminate his employment, and provided him with notice of how he could request a hearing on the proposed termination. The letter also advised that, should he seek a hearing, the superintendent would recommend that he be suspended without pay pending the outcome of the hearing. Respondent signed the letter acknowledging receipt of it on April 3, 2014. Respondent requested a hearing with respect to his termination and was notified by letter dated April 23, 2014, that he was suspended without pay. Respondent’s request for hearing was forwarded to the Division, and the case was docketed as Case No. 14-1978. Because of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against Respondent, at the request of the parties, on September 30, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Darren Schwartz entered an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction, which closed the file with leave to re-open. On a date that is not substantiated in this record,2/ Respondent was tried by jury and convicted of seven counts of lewd or lascivious conduct in violation of section 800.04(6)(a) and (b) and nine counts of lewd and lascivious molestation in violation of section 800.04(5)(c)2. All 16 counts were second- degree felonies. On July 29, 2016, counsel for the School Board wrote to then-counsel for Respondent, advising him that in light of the jury verdict, notice was being given that on August 9, 2016, the superintendent would be recommending Respondent’s termination from employment. The letter also provided Respondent notice of his rights to a hearing in accordance with section 1012.33(6)(a). Counsel for Respondent notified the superintendent that Respondent continued to request a hearing in accordance with the CBA. On October 31, 2016, a Judgment and Sentence was entered in the case of State of Florida v. Dan Allen Hussan, Case No. 562014CF000857A (19th Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County), adjudicating Respondent guilty of all 16 counts. Respondent was sentenced to 15 concurrent sentences of life in prison, with credit for 103 days served prior to sentencing. With respect to Count XVI, Respondent was sentenced to 15 years of sexual offender probation, consecutive to the sentence set forth in Count I. On November 7, 2016, Judge James McCann entered, nunc pro tunc to October 31, 2016, an Order of Sex Offender Probation with respect to Count XVI. The Order of Sex Offender Probation adjudicated Respondent guilty and set the terms for sexual offender probation following the life sentence. Respondent remains incarcerated. He also maintains that he is not guilty of the underlying charges. Petitioner contends that Respondent did not self-report his arrest as required by School Board policy. However, no competent, substantial evidence was presented to demonstrate Respondent’s failure to report. While a notice provided to him regarding this allegation was admitted into evidence, the accusation, standing alone, does not amount to evidence that the accusation is true.
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 terminating Respondent’s employment based on a finding of just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 2017.
The Issue Whether just cause exists to impose discipline on Respondent’s employment; and, if so, what is the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent was a School Board employee. Respondent was employed as a custodian at Choctawhatchee High School (“Choctaw”) when he was terminated in 2017. As a custodial employee, Respondent was subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into between the School Board and the Okaloosa County Education Association. When he was terminated, Respondent had been employed by the School Board for approximately 24 to 26 years. Respondent was employed as a custodian at Choctaw beginning in 2015. Prior to that, Respondent was employed by the School Board as lead custodian at Choice School (“Choice”). Before that, at least five years before his employment at Choctaw, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a pre-K liaison at Edwins Elementary (“Edwins”). In addition, Respondent had been employed by the School Board over the years as a bus driver and in other custodial positions. The School Board's termination of Respondent's employment was based largely upon a formal equity complaint1/ (“Formal Complaint”) submitted on October 5, 2017, by Mrs. Williams, a volunteer at Choctaw, alleging harassment by Respondent with an attached email addressing her concerns regarding contacts by Respondent and a history of alleged harassment by Respondent. The email attached to Mrs. Williams' Formal Complaint is dated October 3, 2017, and states: Harassment has gone back to Edwins Elementary nearly 8 years ago. I was a parent as well as a PTO [parent teacher organization] Member/President for a few years at Edwins Elementary. There were constant unprofessional/vulgar comments made by Steve Hall in reference to my body and parts of my body, the way my clothing may fit certain areas of my body or his requesting to take photos of me. I think on occasion he may have taken some photos because as I would turn around and his phone was lifted in my direction to do so. On countless occasions employees would stand with me to hinder him hanging around and commenting. This frequently occurred during his employment at Edwins Elementary School. On one occasion my young high school age daughter, at the time, was at Edwins Elementary School with me during school hours. I was introducing my daughter to some people and Steve walked up so not to be rude I introduced her to him as well. Steve Hall's comment was not "hi" or "how are you?" it was "move over mom . . .!" As her mother I was disgusted! I told Mr. Farley but my daughter did not want to get into it or write a statement. I respected her wishes and just limited her presence on that campus. This entire time I have also been volunteering at Choctawhatchee High School. I found out that he was moved from Edwins to another school. I am still a full-time volunteer at CHS [Choctaw] and one day Steve Hall showed up at Choctaw's front desk. Knowing what actions I have seen from him I was extremely concerned finding out Steve is now an employee at Choctawhatchee High School. Approaching me at the front desk at Choctaw began to be a habit for Steve Hall. I called and met with Mr. Farley to work out a solution hoping this could be resolved professionally. The rule was Steve was not to be anywhere within the front office area to include the mail room. I have had to call Mr. Farley on multiple occasions because he continued to approach me in the front office. Currently he continues to try to communicate inappropriately with me at the football games or on campus, school events. Steve sits in the stands eating concession food and watching the football games for the most of the game. Steve tries to initiate conversation through my son who is special needs and only understands he is suppose to be nice to everyone. Not wanting/needing to explain this situation to my son. [sic] My son responds when spoken to by Steve because Steve is an adult and my son knows I require respect from him no matter who speaks to him. This makes football games and school events difficult every season with this year being no different! At the CHS vs. Tate game I was thankful there was a fence between the sections we were sitting in, so that he could not get closer without going all the way down and back up. I just turned away with no response. It is frustrating feeling like I have to hide to avoid Steve! This school year Steve has come to the front office area 3 times within the first month and a half of school. Each time I reported it and Steve was told to stay away from the front office. On one of the occasions I was in the back, in the mail room. Someone came to let me know Steve was up front looking for me. I tried to go out the back of the mailroom door to Mr. Snaith's office to get assistance and Steve walked in to confront me. The confrontation was extremely uncomfortable to say the least. About that time Mr. Snaith walked in and witnessed most of the confrontation escorting me away from Steve and we called Mr. Farley. Again! Steve was talked to about not coming to the front office for any reason. He has Ms. Liz's phone number (his supervisor) if he needs her. He has since come back to the front office again! He was told again not to come to the front office at all for any reason and it was discussed by Mr. Farley he needed to be more aware of his actions and the way they may be perceived. I am also the parent in charge of "Parents for Prior." After this years current situations, Steve was spoken to by Mr. Bill Smith. Steve Hall approached me at the Pryor Middle School football game held at Choctaw stadium. I was trying to work a table at the game, soon after the most recent issue. Steve approached my son first then walked closer to me requesting to speak to me for a "hot minute" in the alley between the touchdown shack and stadium. I'm sure it would be on the stadium cameras as stated in my statement to Bill Smith. I was unable to leave due to my possession of money and tickets. I glared at Steve and he stated I guess I should just keep walking. I nodded "yes"! This is only the most prominent on campus situations. I called Bill Smith and explained I should tell Steve to stay away. I feel we are past this due to this being years in the making. This has already been addressed and discussed with Steve on multiple occasions. Bill Smith stated I needed to send him an email statement and apologized he had not yet gotten with Mr. Chapman, from a week before, because of the hurricane. This was my second statement to Bill Smith this school year as well as one meeting with him. I enjoy volunteering my time at Choctawhatchee High School. Within a few years I'll be a Choctaw parent, unless I am required to move my son to another high school because of this. This is not what I want to do as a parent or volunteer. I do not feel it is fair I may need to remove myself and choose another high school for my son to attend because of an employee's unprofessional/vulgar behavior. Steve Hall repeatedly drives by my home. The latest time that I know of was within a week or so before school started this year 2017-2018. I was on the phone walking out of my home, I looked up and saw Steve sitting out in front of my home rolling down his window motioning me to come talk to him. I turned to return inside to get my husband, who is law enforcement, but Steve drove off in his green avalanche. I do not live on a main road nor have I given him my address. My street is not a road someone would just drive by on. If this continues I will file a restraining order. If there are any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint was assigned to Gary M. Marsh, investigator, Escambia County School District, on October 11, 2017, for investigation. Mr. Marsh conducted his investigation and submitted his investigative report dated October 31, 2017, to the School Board's superintendent. The investigative report was hand-delivered by Mr. Marsh and received by the superintendent on November 3, 2017. In a letter dated November 14, 2017, the School Board's assistant superintendent of human and resources advised Respondent that she was recommending to the superintendent that Respondent be suspended with pay, effective immediately, and further that his employment with Petitioner be terminated at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting. The letter states: Mr. Hall, An investigation has now been completed regarding the Formal Equity Complaint made against you on/or about October 5, 2017. A copy of the investigative report is attached for your information and review. This is the second formal investigation of an equity complaint against you since 2014. Based upon a culmination or multiple instances of harassment, misconduct in the workplace or gross insubordination, over the course of the last three years, I am recommending that the Superintendent suspend you with pay effective immediately and further that your employment with the School District be terminated at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting. The charges against you are based upon the finding of illicit material in your desk at Edwins Elementary School and repeated inappropriate comments leading to coworkers feeling harassed which led to your transfer in 2014 from Edwins Elementary School to Okaloosa Technical College (OTC); in late 2014, during your time at OTC, allegations of unwanted sexual behavior constituting sexual harassment on your part as confirmed in a formal investigation which led to your demotion and transfer from a lead custodian to a custodian at Choctaw High School (CHS). Additionally, while at CHS, new allegations of harassment have been made against you. Due to these allegations you were directed on multiple occasions by both your supervisor and a district administrator not to enter the CHS front office or mail room. As a result of a recent investigation it has been determined that you have continued to enter the school front office area in direct insubordination of your supervisor and a district administrator. Further, after review of the investigative report there is sufficient evidence to believe that harassment of a school volunteer did occur. Your conduct is considered to be gross insubordination, misconduct in office and harassment in direct violation of the following School Board policies: School Board Policy 07-03 Employment Conditions for Education Support Personnel School Board Policy 06-27 Equity Policy: Harassment on the Basis of Race, Color, National or Ethnic Origin, Sex, Age, Religious Beliefs, Marital Status, Pregnancy or Disabilty In accordance with both School Board policy 06-28 E(2) and Section K(a) of the OCESPA Master Contract you may file a written appeal to the Superintendent within ten (10) calendar days of receipt of the enclosed investigative report and this recommendation. In a letter dated November 29, 2017, the assistant superintendent of human resources requested that the superintendent recommend to the School Board that Respondent be terminated for gross insubordination, misconduct, and harassment. The Superintendent notified Respondent in a letter dated November 29, 2017, that she would recommend his termination from employment at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting for gross insubordination, misconduct, and harassment. At its December 11, 2017, meeting, the School Board approved the superintendent’s recommendation, and Respondent was terminated from his custodian position. Neither Superintendent Mary Beth Jackson nor Assistant Superintendent Stacie Smith testified at the hearing. According to the November 14, 2017, letter from the assistant superintendent, quoted above, the recommendation for Respondent's termination is "[b]ased upon a culmination of multiple instances of harassment, misconduct in the workplace or gross insubordination, over the course of the last three years." [emphasis added]. The three allegations that form the basis of the recommended discipline against Respondent are analyzed below under headings derived from the November 14, 2017, letter as follows: 1) "finding of illicit material in your desk at Edwins Elementary School and repeated inappropriate comments leading to coworkers feeling harassed which led to your transfer in 2014 from Edwins Elementary School to Okaloosa Technical College (OTC)"; 2) "in late 2014, during your time at OTC, allegations of unwanted sexual behavior constituting sexual harassment on your part as confirmed in a formal investigation which led to your demotion and transfer from a lead custodian to a custodian at Choctaw High School"; and 3) "it has been determined that you have continued to enter the school front office area in direct insubordination of your supervisor and a district administrator. Further, after review of the investigative report there is sufficient evidence to believe that harassment of a school volunteer did occur." ILLICIT MATERIAL IN RESPONDENT'S DESK AT EDWINS AND REPEATED INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO COWORKERS LEADING TO A TRANSFER At the hearing, it was revealed that Respondent's employment at Edwins predated his employment at Choice. Respondent was employed at Choice during the 2013-2014 school year.2/ Therefore, the alleged illicit material and inappropriate comments that allegedly occurred at Edwins could not have taken place "over the course of the last three years," as alleged in the November 14, 2017, letter. Notwithstanding the fact that none of the alleged “Edwins events” could have taken place over the past three years as alleged, the School Board presented no testimony or documentary evidence to prove the underlying fact that Respondent had “illicit material” in his desk while employed at Edwins. In fact, there was no testimony at all concerning this alleged prior discipline. Mrs. Williams’ email attached to her Formal Complaint states that the alleged harassment "has gone back to Edwins Elementary nearly 8 years ago." In fact, Mrs. Williams first met Respondent at least seven years before she filed her Formal Complaint against Respondent referenced in this case. When they first met, Respondent worked with the in-school suspension and student training programs at Edwins and her son attended Edwins. Mrs. Williams was a volunteer with the parent-teacher organization. Her duties as a volunteer included fundraising. Mrs. Williams described her initial relationship with Respondent as a casual friendship. Mrs. Williams kept her parent-teacher organization materials in his office and would often call him to gain access to those materials. A self- described “hugger,” while at Edwins, Mrs. Williams used to initiate hugs with Respondent and others. Although not a part of the allegations against Respondent, the evidence shows that, on one occasion, while at Edwins, Respondent asked Ms. Williams “was [she] ever into blacks." Mrs. Williams responded, “No” and that she was married. Respondent asked if she knew anybody who was into blacks because he had a friend who was into “white chicks.” Mrs. Williams told him that she knew a secretary at Choctaw who dated “black guys.” There is no indication that Mrs. Williams considered this conversation with Respondent as offensive or harassment. Mrs. Williams’ email attached to her Formal Complaint alleges that, while at Edwins, Respondent made inappropriate comments to her about her body, parts of her body, the way her clothes fit and asked to photograph parts of her body. Mrs. Williams testified that she was dismayed by his comments but never told Respondent to stop or leave her alone. Regarding Respondent’s alleged request to photograph her, Mrs. Williams testified that he made the request only once; she shook her head "No," but did not verbalize any protests and walked away. Mrs. Williams also alleges that while working at Edwins, Respondent made her aware that he was interested in her by his eye gestures and other nonverbal cues, as well as sometimes saying “whoa” when he walked by her. Respondent denies making gestures or statements indicating that he was sexually interested in Mrs. Williams. There is no indication that Mrs. Williams ever told Respondent to stop his alleged behavior or that she reported the incidents at the time. Mrs. Williams does not recall whether she reported Respondent’s alleged comments or request to photograph her to anyone at the time. Respondent denies the allegations. No witnesses were called to corroborate Mrs. Williams' allegations, and Mrs. Williams testified that she could not “attest” to anyone who could corroborate her allegations. In her testimony, Mrs. Williams explained the reference in her email attached to her Formal Complaint about the occasion at Edwins when Respondent allegedly told her to “move over mom” after she had introduced her daughter. She testified that Respondent’s statement was very offensive and sexual in nature because she believed that Respondent was saying that he liked her but now that he saw her daughter “[he was] going to go after [her] daughter.” Mrs. Williams further testified that she believed that the incident was a reportable offense because her daughter was a minor at the time, but that her daughter did not want to report and she did not file a formal complaint. Mrs. Williams testified that that Respondent had referred to her by nicknames such as “baby,” “baby girl” and “sweetie,” which she found unprofessional and made her feel uncomfortable. While there is evidence that Respondent has used the term “baby girl” in his vernacular, he explained that he used the term as just another way for saying “how you doing.” Respondent explained in his testimony that it was just “[a]nother saying for saying hey, shortie, like they say. So you say, hey, baby girl, how are you doing today?” The context of Mrs. Williams' testimony on this point suggests that Respondent used the nicknames for Mrs. Williams while they were both at Edwins. There is no evidence, however, that Mrs. Williams reported these instances at the time. There is also no evidence that Mrs. Williams ever told Respondent not to call her nicknames, or that she reported Respondent’s use of nicknames. Remarkably, Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint does not even mention that Respondent called her by nicknames. Despite the allegations against him, there is no evidence that while at Edwins, or at any other time, Respondent asked Mrs. Williams for a date, out for drinks, suggested that they have sex, touched her inappropriately, talked to her on the phone outside of school, or interfered with Mrs. Williams’ ability to perform her volunteer duties or responsibilities. The allegations against Respondent, while he was at Edwins, do not fall within the “course of the last three years” as alleged in the charging document (the November 14, 2017, letter) and are, therefore, inconsistent with the reasons espoused by the School Board for the discipline sought in this case. Moreover, considering the fact that Mrs. Williams’ allegations against Respondent while he was at Edwins were not timely reported, that her allegations were uncorroborated, drew no protest from Mrs. Williams at the time, and were denied by Respondent, it is found that the evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent harassed Mrs. Williams, sexually or otherwise, while at Edwins. In sum, the evidence presented at the final hearing was insufficient to prove that Respondent made “repeated inappropriate comments,” which led to “coworkers feeling harassed” while he was at Edwins. The evidence also failed to show that Respondent was transferred because of those comments or because illicit material was found in his desk. LATE 2014 ALLEGATIONS OF UNWANTED SEXUAL BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT LEADING TO RESPONDENT’S DEMOTION AND TRANSFER FROM LEAD CUSTODIAN TO A CUSTODIAN AT CHOCTAW This allegation, as set forth in the November 1, 2017, letter from the assistant superintendent, refers to allegations of sexual harassment that occurred in 2014 when Respondent was a lead custodian at OTC, which is in the same facility as Choice. In 2014, Respondent began working at Choice as a lead custodian. The allegations arising from Respondent’s time at Choice are not included within Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint. The School Board presented no testimony or competent substantial evidence to prove the underlying facts that Respondent committed “unwanted sexual behavior constituting sexual harassment” while at Choice. Respondent testified concerning this alleged prior discipline, acknowledging that he allowed a teacher at Choice to listen to some rap music, that he used the term “baby girl,” and that the School Board considered the use of the term “baby girl” a form of sexual harassment. Respondent denied, however, that he engaged in inappropriate conduct or sexual harassment. Respondent testified that he accepted a transfer as a lead custodian at Choice to a Custodian II position at Choctaw. He further testified that he was advised by the School Board that he would be transferred back to a lead custodian when a position became available. The School Board presented its Exhibit P-8a as evidence of this alleged prior discipline, which was ultimately proffered and “admitted” as a proffered exhibit (Proffer P-8a). Upon reconsideration, while it lacks evidentiary value, Proffer P-8a is received into evidence. Proffer P-8a, entitled “Confidential Inquiry Summary,” is an investigative report purportedly authored by Arden E. Farley, as a contract investigator for the School Board. Proffer P-8a does not prove the underlying facts and does not constitute competent evidence in support of the discipline sought against Respondent in this case. No witnesses were called to prove the underlying discipline related to Respondent’s alleged demotion. Furthermore, Proffer P-8a is hearsay and does not corroborate direct testimony or any other competent evidence. Because Proffer P-8a references Respondent’s alleged use of the term “baby-girl,” the School Board, through counsel, argued that Proffer P-8a is evidence that Respondent was aware that the use of the term “baby-girl,” or similar terms, was improper and could subject him to discipline. This conclusion is contrary to the evidence presented at the hearing. Although Mrs. Williams testified that Mr. Hall used the term during their time at Edwins, Respondent and Mrs. Williams were at Edwins prior to Respondent’s time at Choice. Thus, Proffer P-8a could not have put Respondent on notice that it was inappropriate for him to refer to Mrs. Williams as “baby-girl” while at Edwins. There is otherwise no competent evidence that Respondent referred to Mrs. Williams, or any other complainant, as “baby-girl” or any other nickname while at Choctaw. ALLEGED HARASSMENT OF A SCHOOL VOLUNTEER AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES NOT TO ENTER THE SCHOOL FRONT OFFICE AT CHOCTAW Harassment is governed by the School Board’s equity policy. Respondent acknowledged that he received a copy of the then existing Equity Policy in 2009. No evidence was presented as to what the Equity Policy consisted of in 2009. The Equity Policies presented at the final hearing reveal that two of the policies were adopted in 2015 and a third Equity Policy was adopted at the December 11, 2017, School Board meeting; the same School Board meeting where the superintendent’s recommendation to terminate Respondent was considered and approved. The alleged harassment of a school volunteer while at Choctaw appears to include encounters at football games, in the front office, and one time at Mrs. Williams’ home. Football Games The testimony at hearing revealed that Mrs. Williams was complaining about two encounters with Respondent at football games. Respondent’s duties at Choctaw required him to be present at football games. During the first encounter, Mrs. Williams and her son were in the stands watching a Choctaw football game. There is a fence that divides the stands. Respondent was on one side of the fence and he attempted to initiate a conversation with Mrs. Williams and her son. Respondent was saying “hello.” Mrs. Williams ignored Respondent and no conversation was undertaken. The second encounter occurred prior to a Pryor Middle School football game, which was taking place at Choctaw. Mrs. Williams, accompanied by her son, was setting up a parent- teacher organization table, and Respondent approached her and her son and initiated a conversation with her son. Mr. Hall knows Mrs. Williams’ son from his time at Edwins. Towards the end of the brief conversation, Respondent asked Mrs. Williams if he could speak with her for a “hot minute.” Mrs. Williams glared at him and then said “no,” and Respondent went about his way. Respondent presented credible testimony that a “hot minute” is slang for “a second” or “just for a minute.” There was no other evidence concerning the term “hot minute.” Front Office The email attached to Mrs. Williams’ Formal Complaint states that Respondent’s “approaching me at the front desk at Choctaw began to be a habit for Steve Hall.” The email further states that Mr. Hall was in the front office three times during the first month and a half of the 2017-2018 school year. In a separate email, Mrs. Williams documented an “encounter” that occurred on September 1, 2017. She does not indicate that Respondent had any contact with her, just that he was in the front office. In fact, on that occasion, Mrs. Williams turned her back to Respondent and Ms. Gloria Scaife, who was working in the front office, spoke with him. In an email, dated September 7, 2017, Ms. Scaife states that Respondent was in the office and asked her if she had seen Ms. Liz (who is the lead custodian). Respondent credibly explained that, on that occasion, he went to the front office to find his supervisor to obtain access to supplies. A second encounter in the 2017-2018 school year occurred in the mailroom. Mrs. Williams was in the mailroom when Respondent entered the room. Mrs. Williams testified that Respondent “cornered her in mailroom . . . that she couldn’t get around him . . . and that he was upset and very loud.” She further testified that she “could not move without touching [Respondent].” Mrs. Williams’ testimony conflicts with the other accounts of this encounter, which are more credible. Andy Snaith, dean of students for Choctaw, testified that there were other people in the mailroom and that he observed “what appeared to be a conversation with [Respondent] and Mrs. Williams. [Respondent's] back was to me. I believe he was doing the talking . . . .” When asked for more detail, Mr. Snaith stated: Q: And with other people in the mailroom, was there enough room, based on what you saw from Mrs. Williams, to back away from Mr. Hall? A: Yeah. It wasn't that crowded. Q: So there was plenty of room for her to move around? A: Yes. Q: Any idea what they were talking about? A: No. Q: How would Mrs. Williams get out of the mailroom, if she wanted to leave? A: There's two ways, I believe where she was standing, she could have gone to the left or to the right. The left is where the door that leads into the hallway, and then the other one leads to the main office. Consistent with the recollection of Mr. Snaith, Respondent testified that upon being told by Mrs. Sanders that Mrs. Williams was telling others that he was saying things to Mrs. Williams, he went to the office to ask Mrs. Williams if this was true. Respondent further testified: I asked [Mrs. Williams], calm and simple, [Mrs. Williams], have I talked to you, have I seen you? She said, no, I haven't seen you in three, four months. I said, that's all I wanted to know, because Liz is making a comment that I have said something to you and that was not true, and I walked away. It is unclear from the testimony as to exactly when this conversation took place, other than sometime early in the 2017-2018 school year. It is clear, however, that that occasion was the last time that Respondent was in the front office area at Choctaw. In her testimony, Mrs. Williams stated that she was not alleging or asserting that Mr. Hall had committed racial discrimination, nor that he made adverse remarks about her color, age, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, or marital status. And Mrs. Williams does not allege that Respondent made any comments about her body parts, the way her clothing fit, or asked to take photos of her while he was at Choctaw. Rather, those allegations allegedly occurred while Respondent was at Edwins, were unreported for years and could not be corroborated. There is no evidence that Respondent ever told Mrs. Williams to perform any improper act and then threatened her with consequences if she failed to comply. There is also no evidence that Respondent ever had authority to make employment decisions affecting Mrs. Williams. Mrs. Williams’ House Respondent first met Mrs. Williams prior to the time related in any of the allegations, when he went by her house to inquire about some tire rims that her husband had for sale. Mrs. Williams testified that in the summer of 2017, two weeks prior to the start of school, Respondent came by her house and parked at the curb. Her son alerted her that Respondent wanted to talk to her. She testified that she was upset because Respondent was there and she spoke with Respondent while he sat in his car. She could not recall what was discussed, but knows the conversation lasted only a couple of minutes, and that she then turned around and walked away.3/ Mrs. Williams stated that Respondent had been by her home on several different occasions but could not elaborate on any other incidents. Respondent acknowledged that he had gone by Mrs. Williams’ house because he does lawn service and was riding by her house. As he recalled, he noticed her son in the yard and asked him to get Mrs. Williams. Respondent and Mrs. Williams had a brief conversation. At no time during that conversation, or any other conversation, did Mrs. Williams tell Respondent to “stay away,” “leave me alone,” or make any other gesture or comment indicating that Respondent was to avoid her. Further, there is insufficient evidence to show that anyone from the School Board told Respondent to avoid contact with Mrs. Williams. Alleged Failure to Follow Directives Respondent acknowledged that shortly after starting at Choctaw, he had been verbally advised to avoid the front office. Mr. Mims, the School Board’s zone manager for custodial services, was the first person to advise Respondent to stay away from the front office. The Dean of Students Andy Snaith never told Respondent to avoid the front office. Even though told not to go to the front office, Respondent had to go by the front office every day. In that regard, Mr. Mims told Respondent that they could not keep him out of the school. Although Respondent understood that the request that he refrain from going to the front office may have been designed to minimize his contact with Mrs. Williams, there was no evidence or testimony presented by the School Board showing that Respondent was ever specifically told to avoid Mrs. Williams or why he was supposed to avoid the front office. Mr. Mims testified that he told Respondent to avoid the front office twice. He further testified that he was aware of Respondent being in the front office only three times over the course of three school years. When finding out about these situations, instead of having a face-to-face meeting, Mr. Mims would merely call Respondent on the phone. Respondent acknowledged going to the front office only twice in 2017, the first being while looking for Mrs. Sanders and the second being the conversation with Mrs. Williams when she was in the mailroom. There is no evidence of a written directive or other documentation advising Respondent to avoid the front office until a September 18, 2017, meeting between Respondent, Bill Smith, and Andy Mims. At that meeting, which was the first meeting between Mr. Smith and Respondent, Respondent was specifically advised to not go into the front office. Respondent has not been in the front office, nor has Bill Smith received a report that Respondent has been in the front office since their meeting in September 2017. Even though there were two instances where Respondent went to the the front office after speaking with Mr. Mims, Mr. Mims testified that while Respondent worked for him, he “met expectations as an employee.” Mr. Mims further testified that Respondent “did everything I asked him to do.” Mr. Mims statements are consistent with his written evaluations of Mr. Hall’s work performed in May 2017, May 2016, May 2015, and May 2014. The stated purpose of the evaluations is to “support decisions concerning employee discipline, promotion and improvement.” Respondent’s evaluations during the pertinent time period do not support the discipline sought in this case. To the contrary, they conclude that he is a hard worker and that he meets the expectations of his supervisors. Even when he allegedly received prior discipline while at Choice during the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent was not placed on a “success plan” for improvement and, in fact, received a “meets expectations” evaluation. The evaluations written by Respondent’s supervisors conclude that Respondent “Demonstrates a willingness to accept authority and direction; Demonstrates appropriate interactions with staff, clients, students and/or parents; Demonstrates appropriate oral skills when communicating with others; [and] Demonstrates appropriate relations with supervisor and peers.” Recognizing that there were issues at Choctaw unrelated to Mrs. Williams, Respondent requested transfers to another school. These transfer requests began during the 2016-2017 school year and continued during the beginning of the 2017- 2018 school year. Even though there were positions available in the schools where Respondent desired to transfer, his supervisor, Mr. Mims, denied Respondent’s requests for transfers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Okaloosa County School Board: Dismissing the allegations against Respondent in this case and rescinding any discipline imposed thereby; Reinstating Respondent’s employment with the Okaloosa County School Board as though there was no break in service of his employment; Restoring all salary, benefits, and rights from the date of his last paid workday to the date of his reinstatement, plus interest from the date that any such pay or benefit was withheld, as appropriate under applicable law; less any earnings or benefits that Respondent received during the time between his termination and the time of his reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2018.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Glover E. Jones, was licensed as a teacher in the State of Florida holding certificate number 556798, covering the area of mathematics, and was employed by the Madison County School Board as an adjunct instructor at Madison County High School, Madison, Florida. The uncontroverted facts in this case show that Pamela Ann Hale, the alleged recipient of the remarks in question here, was born on August 28, 1969. As of the date of the hearing, she was living with her mother in Live Oak, Florida, attending the 10th grade at Suwannee High School there. At the time of the alleged incident here, she was living with her father in Madison and attended Madison County High School. Her mother and father are divorced. While attending Madison County High School, Hale had the Respondent as her math teacher during the third period of the school day during the month of September 1984, at the beginning of the 1984-1985 school year. She did not have him for any other subjects nor did she know him prior to the beginning of the school year. This class was made up of students who required extra assistance and consisted of approximately 15 to 16 students in remedial math. On the day in question, Hale was selling candy during the class period to raise money for a school organization. She sold candy not only to her fellow students but also to the Respondent. At this point the stories told by Ms. Hale and by the Respondent begin to diverge. Ms. Hale contends that when she approached Jones on the date in question to buy candy he advised her to come back after class and she could sell him some. She contends, also, that she came back after the other students left even though she had another class (health) to attend, sat down at a student desk, and Respondent sat down facing her approximately three or four feet away. It is at this point that, she says, he asked her simple questions about herself and her family. When she answered, he then allegedly asked her if she had ever "fucked" a black man before. He allegedly told her she looked sexy that day. She says he asked her if she noticed that he "had a hard on" and touched himself in the genital area, asking her if she thought she could handle that. At no time, however, did Respondent ever touch the witness. She says he asked her if she had ever "fucked" anyone while someone else was in the room. She replied that she had not. He allegedly asked her if she had a boyfriend and when she said she did, he is alleged to have responded, "I'll bet you fuck him because he's not black." This conversation went on until about 10 or 15 minutes before the fourth period was over. As was stated previously, the witness had health the fourth period and cut the class because, as she tells it, Respondent asked her to stay. While she was in the room with Jones alone, a Mr. Alexander, also a math teacher, entered, along with two other students. While in the room, Alexander asked Respondent if the witness was having any trouble with her work to which Respondent replied that she was, but indicated he would take care of it. Alexander verifies this with the exception that according to his testimony, when he came into the room, Respondent was seated at his desk writing a note and Hale was standing in front of him. This is not a significant difference. After Alexander left, Respondent asked the witness several questions about her siblings including her sister who formerly went to Madison High, but who quit when she had difficulty with some black students the previous year. He asked her if she was going to go to the ball game the following Thursday and, when she replied that she was, she says he suggested that perhaps they could get together that night. Ms. Hale contends she was amazed that Respondent talked to her in this fashion but she also contends she did not leave because she was afraid of him, though he made no threats, either verbal or physical, toward her and made no effort to prevent her from leaving. She also made no comment to Alexander when he and the other students came into the room even though these suggestive statements had already been made. She finally terminated the conversation toward the end of the fourth period by stating she had to go to her next class. Before she left, she asked Respondent for a note, which he gave her and asked her not to repeat the conversation they had had. During fifth period, Hale had lunch scheduled and during lunch with Loretta Sealy, she related in general terms, to Sealy, what had happened. After lunch, she went to the remainder of her classes and went home but even that night, she failed to tell her father of the incident because she was afraid he might do something as a result of his hot temper. Sealy indicates that when she first saw Hale after the incident, when Hale came into the ladies' room, she appeared nervous, upset, and near tears. She said that Respondent had said things which upset her--in essence propositioning her. At first, Hale did not want to report the incident because she felt nobody would believe her. However, Sealy finally convinced her to do so and the two girls went to see the assistant principal, Ms. Miller, two days after the incident took place. Hale told Ms. Miller what had happened and signed the first of several written statements which was prepared for her signature by Miller based on the report given. Later on, she agreed to take a polygraph examination regarding her story. No evidence was presented as to whether the exam was given or not. Ms. Hale attended class with the Respondent during the several days between the time of the alleged incident and the report to Ms. Miller, but once the story came into the open, she was removed from his class. She talked with Miller rather than the principal because she had known Ms. Miller from her prior school. The fact that she did not talk with the principal had nothing to do with the fact that he is black. Respondent's version of the story differs from that of Hale in that he contends that at the end of the class period on the day in question, Hale asked him if she could stay after class. He contends that her remaining had nothing to do with buying candy because he bought candy from her when she came to class. He also claims that she did her homework during this fourth period when she and he were the only people in the room. While she was working, he was behind his desk and she was sitting at a student desk off to his left. Respondent contends that it was Hale who made the first non-business statement by asking him if she could go smoke. He told her that she could not since smoking was not allowed on campus. She responded that another teacher, Mr. Hendrix, had allowed her to smoke in the school building and then went on to indicate that she had "messed" with guys in their twenties when she was twelve. This statement, which came immediately after the comments about Mr. Hendrix and smoking, shocked him. The only reason he did not ask her to leave was because she appeared to have a problem and he thought he might be able to help her. During the course of the conversation she indicated that some blacks had attacked her sister the previous year on campus which had caused her sister to leave school and that, in general, all black students at Madison High were wild. Though Ms. Hale, in her testimony, indicated that when asked by Respondent if she had ever fucked a black man, she responded by asking him if he'd ever fucked a white woman, Respondent denies that Hale ever asked him this question nor did she mention drugs to him in any fashion. He denies making any of the comments attributed to him by Hale or any of the suggestive movements she claimed he made, though in the letter he submitted to the principal the morning after being confronted by the accusations against him, denials were not so strong or so widespread. In fact, in that written statement, he commented, "I'm not saying that the statement made is totally wrong, but there are two things that trouble me most about it." He then goes on to list these two troublesome areas as the statement makes it appear as though he is the culprit and that some things in it are either false or turned around. He then goes on to list the several things Hale is supposed to have said to him that were not included in her statement, such as her sexual activity and her obvious antipathy toward black men. When Hale finally went to see Miller, she appeared to be quite upset though she was not crying. She was somewhat reluctant to talk to Ms. Miller until finally Miller released Sealy to go back to class and after Sealy left, Hale told Miller her entire story. Once Hale had completed her version of the story, Miller asked her to wait and went to talk with the principal who returned to the office with her to talk with Hale. After discussing with the resource officer how to take a statement, Miller returned to the office and took a detailed statement from Hale a second time in the form suggested to her and had it signed by Hale and notarized. Later that morning, Ms. Miller, the principal, Mr. Yanessy, the resource officer, and Mr. Buchanan called Respondent into the principal's office and showed him a copy of Hale's signed statement. Respondent read it, handed it back, and said that the statement was not "exactly" true--that Hale had twisted a lot of things around. He contended that in reality it was Hale who asked a lot of the questions, not him, and that he would do anything to clear his name. Respondent contended he had no interest in either Hale or any other young girl. At this point the investigating group advised him that they would talk with him later and take a statement from him. About two hours later they did meet again and at this time, Respondent repeated his comments made earlier in the day to the extent that while a conversation took place, it did not happen as Hale said it did. At this point, though the school officials wanted to take Respondent's statement, Respondent did not want to speak on the record then. The following morning he gave the principal the letter which was referred to above. Based on an evaluation of the testimony of Ms. Hale, Ms. Sealy, the Respondent, and Ms. Miller, all of which bears on the credibility of the Respondent vis-a-vis his accuser, it becomes clear, and it is so found, that a conversation did take place in the classroom during the fourth period on September 10, 1984, between Respondent and Ms. Hale when the two of them were the only persons in the room. It most likely will never be determined exactly as to who said what to whom. There is no doubt, however, that the Respondent permitted a student who he knew had a class to attend, to remain in his classroom with him at the expense of her absence from that succeeding class. Though Respondent advised Mr. Alexander that he was helping Hale with her school work, there is no other evidence that he did so. Ms. Hale contends he did not and he admits he did not stating only that she did her homework while in the room with him. Whatever the conversation was, it is clear that it was sexually oriented and Respondent used extremely poor judgment in allowing the situation to develop as far as it did. The evidence establishes that Ms. Hale's background is not without cloud. At the age of sixteen she is admittedly sexually experienced and has experimented with various controlled substances such as marijuana and cocaine. Ms. Miller indicated that her academic background was marginal--that while she can do her work and can be an average student, she has, nonetheless, failed. The nature of her testimony on the stand was not so clear as to give a certain picture as to what happened. It is most likely that Ms. Hale herself does not recall the incident with certainty. What is clear is that aside from her discussion with Ms. Sealy over lunch, she failed to make any complaint to anyone with authority to do something about it until several days after the incident took place and then only upon the urging of her friend. In substance then, it is obvious that the truth no doubt lies somewhere between the two stories. When Respondent found out that Ms. Hale had no legitimate reason to be in his classroom, he allowed her to remain and engaged in a conversation with her that should not have taken place. While the exact words are in question, the subject matter is not. It was sexually oriented and the parties were a twenty-five-year-old male teacher and a fifteen- year-old female student. His judgment in allowing that to happen is abysmal and his professionalism in that instance was nonexistent especially in light of the fact that he was warned twice at the beginning of his employment with the school system by his principal, to be very careful of his conduct in dealing with female students. Mr. Ray, the principal, indicates that if the allegations against the Respondent are true, it would seriously reduce his effectiveness as a classroom teacher because of the need for a teacher to observe the strictest propriety in his relationships with students. Such conduct as alleged here would undoubtedly be harmful to the learning process and would create an embarrassment to the student. If the allegations are true he would not want Respondent back working for him. In his opinion, for a situation such as this, if established, there are no less drastic remedies than termination. He believes that there is no place in Madison County for a teacher guilty of these allegations and in addition to termination, revocation of the teaching certificate would be appropriate. On the other hand, if it were to be established that the allegation was not true, then Respondent's effectiveness would not be diminished and the credibility of the student would be damaged. However, in his experience it is very unusual for female students to make sexual advances toward teachers. While it could occur, in his opinion it is not likely and over the 19 years he has been in education, it has never happened to him. Mr. Buchanan, who has been in place as Superintendent of Schools in Madison County for over 8 years, is familiar with the allegations in this case and Respondent's denial. His analysis of the case resulted in his recommendation that the School Board suspend the Respondent from his teaching position and in addition, he reported Respondent to the Education Practices Commission. He took this step because he felt an obligation to report substandard conduct of an educator. Assuming that the allegations are true, in his view, the effectiveness of the Respondent is reduced because in a case like this the teacher loses credibility with his students. He feels that if true, Respondent's conduct would be harmful to the learning process and embarrassing to the student and would have an adverse impact on the relationship between the parents and the school system. Viewing the evidence in its totality and weighing the credibility of all witnesses, as alluded to before, it becomes clear that a one on one conversation took place between the Respondent and Ms. Hale. It is most likely that Respondent did not prompt the conversation and did not request that Ms. Hale remain after class. To the contrary, it would appear that she requested to remain after class. No doubt improper comments were made by both Ms. Hale and the Respondent and it makes no difference whether Ms. Hale or the Respondent initiated the colloquy. It is quite clear that subject matter improper for a conversation between a student and a teacher of opposite sexes, involving sexually suggestive comments took place and that both Respondent and Ms. Hale used language of this nature.
