The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Joan Bannister, has violated the provisions of section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a) and (e), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Joan Bannister is a licensed educator in the State of Florida, holding certificate number 893735. Her certificate covers biology and math, and is valid through June 2015. During the time period relevant to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent taught math at Eustis Middle School. On or about January 30, 2012, Respondent had a student in her first-period math class named B.T. B.T. came to school that morning in a tank top and a shirt. From the testimony provided, it is inferred that the shirt was worn unbuttoned, like a sweater or jacket, over the tank top, but with the tank top showing. As B.T. entered Ms. Bannister’s classroom that morning, Ms. Bannister noticed that B.T.’s stomach was showing below the tank top. Ms. Bannister asked B.T. to adjust her shirt so that her stomach would not show. B.T. pulled her tank top down as requested. The adjustment that B.T. made to her tank top resulted in a new problem: too much cleavage visible to comply with the school dress code. As B.T. and Ms. Bannister walked into the room, Ms. Bannister asked B.T. to adjust her shirt again, so that she did not show so much cleavage. B.T. did not appreciate the second request to adjust her shirt, but Respondent’s claim that B.T. engaged the class by asking them whether her shirt was too low is rejected. B.T. was, however, apparently visibly annoyed and did not think that her tank top was too low. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Respondent, Ms. Bannister picked up a ruler off a desk near her own and said, “well, we could always measure it.” There was conflicting testimony regarding what term Respondent used to describe B.T.’s exposed chest. Whether Respondent used the term “chest,” “cleavage,” or “boobage,” is irrelevant. What matters is that Respondent made a statement in front of the class suggesting that it would be appropriate to measure the amount of B.T.’s cleavage that was visible in order to make her point about the dress code violation. The statement was loud enough that other students in the classroom could hear it. Respondent did not actually approach B.T. with the ruler or attempt to measure her in any way. However, B.T. was very upset and embarrassed by the comment, picked up her books, and left the classroom. She did not seek permission before doing so. B.T. admitted at hearing that she never liked Ms. Bannister. However, her version of the incident is credible and corroborated in several key points by other students who were present that day. By contrast, Ms. Bannister’s testimony was internally contradictory and conflicts with the testimony of the students in many respects. B.T.’s testimony that she left the classroom immediately without getting a pass or asking permission to do so is credited. B.T. went to see Erin Porter, her guidance counselor. Initially, Ms. Porter was not in her office, so B.T. consulted with the school resource officer, Deputy King, and told him about the incident. While B.T. was in his office, Ms. Porter returned to her office and B.T. told her about the interaction with Ms. Bannister. Ms. Porter felt that the situation was more a teacher issue than a guidance issue, and reported it to administration. The school district conducted an investigation of the incident, and interviewed several students, Ms. Porter, and Ms. Bannister. Ms. Bannister was notified of the investigation by letter dated February 2, 2012. Ms. Bannister was removed from the classroom during the investigation and directed to work at the District Copy Center until a decision was reached. On February 6, 2012, Respondent was notified by the Superintendent of Schools, Susan Moxley, that Superintendent Moxley was recommending that she be suspended for five days without pay, and that she participate in a professional development practicum designed to assist teachers with classroom issues. The date of the suspension was to be determined once Respondent’s due process rights were satisfied. On February 8, 2012, Respondent was notified that the investigation was concluded and that she would return to her classroom effective February 9, 2012. B.T. was reassigned to another math class. The incident was publicized in the local community, through the internet, newspaper, and local television. Both Ms. Bannister and B.T. were embarrassed by the news coverage. B.T. was also embarrassed by the amount of attention the incident received at school, because other students talked about the incident and made fun of her. Respondent resigned from her position with the Lake County School District, effective March 30, 2012, in order to take a job in another school district. Respondent submitted her resignation with an effective date of April 6, 2012, but for reasons that are unclear, the effective date was changed to March 30, 2012.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 1012.795(1)(j) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 10.081(3)(a) and (e). It is further recommended that Respondent be issued a reprimand; be required to complete a three-hour college-level course on classroom management; and be placed on probation for a period of one year, subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission may require. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2014, 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 21st day of May, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Gretchen Kelley Brantley, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Joan Bannister 9256 New Orleans Drive Orlando, Florida 32818-9076 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 5675 Douglasville, Georgia 30154 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Matthew Carson, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in conduct that violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and/or Florida Administrative Code 1 All references to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, are to the 2020 codification. Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and if so, what is the appropriate penalty to be imposed against her Florida Educator's Certificate.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, is responsible for determining whether there is probable cause to warrant disciplinary action against an educator's certificate, and, if probable cause is found, for filing and prosecuting an administrative complaint pursuant to chapter 120. Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 717826, which is valid through June 30, 2025, and covers the area of physical education (PE"). As of February 28, 2018, the date on which the conduct giving rise to this proceeding occurred, Respondent was employed by Petitioner in a partial assignment as a PE teacher at Coral Gables Preparatory Academy ("CGPA"), formerly known as Coral Gables Elementary School, within the Miami-Dade County School District ("District"). Respondent was simultaneously employed in a partial teaching assignment at a different school in the District. The Administrative Complaint The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having engaged in inappropriate conduct on February 28, 2018, consisting of throwing students' book bags, resulting in damage to electronic devices that were in the book bags. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the damage to the electronic devices was over $2,000.00. Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated section 1012.795(1)(j)3 by having violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession adopted by the State Board of Education. Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1.,4 by having failed 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. Evidence Adduced at the Hearing As noted above, the incident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on February 28, 2018, at CGPA. At the time of the incident, some students were on their way out to the athletic field outside of the school for PE class, while others were on their way out to the field for recess. An indeterminate number of students left their bookbags in the walkway near the exit door to the field, despite previously having been told by Respondent to place their bookbags against a wall adjacent to the walkway in order to ensure that no one tripped over bookbags. Respondent moved the bookbags out of the walkway by "tossing" or "throwing" them.5 There is conflicting evidence regarding the force with which Respondent moved the bookbags. 3 All references to chapter 1012, Florida Statutes, are to the 2017 codification, which was in effect at the time of the alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding. See Orasan v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 668 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(law in effect at time of alleged violations applies in disciplinary proceedings). 4 The version of rule 6A-10.081 that was adopted by the State Board of Education on March 23, 2016, was in effect at the time of the conduct giving rise to this proceeding, and, therefore, applies to this proceeding. See Orasan, 668 So. 2d at 1063. 5 A key issue disputed by the parties is whether Respondent "tossed" or "threw" the bookbags. This dispute appears to center around Respondent's culpability because, presumably, if she "threw" them, she did so in anger, without regard to whether the contents would be damaged, thereby warranting a more severe penalty than if she had merely Student J.R. credibly testified that he saw Respondent "furiously" throwing the bookbags, including his bookbag. He testified that as a result of Respondent's actions, his iPhone, which was in the bookbag, was broken and had to be replaced. A photograph that was admitted as part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 depicts J.R.'s iPhone with the glass having been shattered. J.R.'s signature and "3/14/18," the date on which he was interviewed as part of the District's investigation of the incident, are written below the photograph. J.R. also testified that his glasses, which were in his bookbag, also were damaged as a result of Respondent's conduct.6 Another student, H.B., testified, credibly, that she witnessed Respondent throwing the bookbags "really hard." She testified that as a result, her iPad and her brother's iPad, both of which were in her bookbag, were broken. Two photographs that were admitted as part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 depict the damaged iPads. H.B.'s signature and the date of March 14, 2018, the date on which she was interviewed as part of the District's investigation of the incident, are written below the photographs. A.A. also testified that she saw Respondent throwing the bookbags, and that Respondent threw her bookbag with such force that it broke her water bottle, which was inside the bookbag. A.A. testified that this upset her, because the water bottle was her favorite one.7 Salvatore Schiavone, the former principal of Southside Elementary School ("SES"), testified on behalf of Respondent. Respondent is assigned to "tossed" them, and the damage to the electronics was accidental. The undersigned does not find this label dispositive of the penalty imposed in this proceeding. 6 Because the Administrative Complaint does not charge Respondent with having damaged students' property other than electronic devices, damage to J.R.'s glasses cannot form the basis of discipline in this proceeding. However, the fact that J.R.'s glasses were damaged is probative regarding the force with which Respondent threw the bookbags. 7 See footnote 3, above. Damage to A.A.'s water bottle cannot form the basis of discipline in this proceeding because it was not charged in the Administrative Complaint. However, the fact that her water bottle was broken as a result of Respondent having thrown her bookbag is probative regarding the force with which Respondent threw the bookbags. SES, and was so assigned during the time period of 2006 through 2017, when Schiavone was principal. Schiavone testified, credibly, that he viewed Respondent as "the consummate professional" and an outstanding teacher; that he had never observed her having anger issues or causing property damage; and that she was very well-liked by her students. Respondent testified that on the day of the incident, students from four classes were entering and exiting the sole doorway to and from the athletic field, and that many of them had thrown their bookbags in a pile in the walkway. She asked them more than once to move the bookbags, but most of them did not do so, so she, with help from a few students, moved them from the walkway to against the wall adjacent to the doorway exit to the athletic field. She testified, credibly, that she did not know electronic devices were in the bookbags. She denied smashing the bookbags on the ground and intentionally damaging students' property. Respondent entered into an agreement with the District under which she received a written reprimand and agreed to pay $558.00 in restitution for the damage to the electronic devices. Respondent has taught for over 27 years and has not previously been subjected to discipline. Findings of Ultimate Fact The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent threw some students' bookbags with sufficient force to damage electronic devices inside the bookbags. This determination is based on the credible testimony of the students who testified at the final hearing. Respondent moved the bookbags from the walkway, where students were entering through, and exiting from, a doorway between the inside corridor and the outside athletic field. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the bookbags had been piled in a location where they posed a potential tripping hazard. However, even if the bookbags were obstructing the walkway and presented a potential tripping hazard, and notwithstanding that Respondent had told the students to place their bookbags against the wall, that did not justify Respondent throwing the bookbags with the amount of force sufficient to damage the contents in some of the bags. Thus, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that in moving students' bookbags with sufficient force to damage electronic devices inside the bookbags, Respondent failed to make reasonable effort to protect the students from conditions harmful to students' mental health and safety. To this point, as discussed above, the evidence establishes that at least some of the students were distressed as a result of their electronic devices being damaged. Thus, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. As a result of having violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j). However, the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent did not know that students' electronic devices were in some of the bookbags that were thrown, and the evidence does not establish that Respondent intended to damage students' property. Additionally, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent's actions caused over $2,000.00 worth of damage to the electronic devices in students' bookbags. Although the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent's actions damaged some students' electronic devices, no competent evidence was presented regarding the value of the damaged electronic devices. There was no evidence presented showing that students' physical health or safety was in any way harmed or adversely affected by Respondent's actions in throwing the bookbags.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to section 1012.796, the Education Practices Commission issue a written reprimand to Respondent, with a copy placed in her certification file, pursuant to section 1012.796(7)(f). DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Forbess, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Peter Caldwell, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Charles T. Whitelock, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(h), and 6B-4.009(2), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Ruffin holds Florida Educator Certificate No. 893557 for teaching mathematics. His certificate is valid through June 30, 2010. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Ruffin was employed as a mathematics teacher at Dixie Hollands High School (Dixie Hollands) in the Pinellas County School District. During 2003, T.C. was an eleventh-grade student at Dixie Hollands. Mr. Ruffin tutored T.C. in mathematics over the summer of 2002 to prepare her for the Florida Achievement Test (FCAT). During the following school year, Mr. Ruffin developed a mentoring relationship with T.C., and T.C. became Mr. Ruffin's teaching assistant. Mr. Ruffin provided his cellular telephone number to all of his students, including T.C., in case they needed to contact him. On or about May 3, 2003, Mr. Ruffin was in his classroom with two other students during lunchtime. T.C. entered the room to speak to Mr. Ruffin because she was upset and sought advice. The other two students eventually left, and T.C. and Mr. Ruffin were in the room alone. T.C. shut the door, which contained a window covered by paper. School policy required that the doors remain locked, but propped open. After she shut the door, T.C. sat at the teaching assistant's desk, but soon started to cry and sat on Mr. Ruffin's lap. Mr. Ruffin and T.C. then hugged, and Respondent patted T.C. on her back. Both T.C. and Mr. Ruffin maintain that no other touching occurred during this incident and that T.C. was not on Mr. Ruffin's lap for more than 30 seconds. During the time period when T.C. was in the classroom with Mr. Ruffin, other students were looking into the classroom through a hole in the paper on the window. The hole in the paper was small, which allowed only one student at a time to look into the classroom through the hole. Approximately seven to nine students observed T.C. and Mr. Ruffin. The school has video cameras in the hallways, which recorded the students looking into the classroom for a period of several minutes. While observing from the hallway, the students witnessed T.C. sitting on Mr. Ruffin's lap behind the desk for several minutes. One student claimed she saw Mr. Ruffin rubbing T.C.'s leg; however, the student's testimony was not distinctly remembered and it was not precise and explicit. The students also saw T.C. going through some pictures from Mr. Ruffin's wallet. Mr. Ruffin acknowledged at the final hearing, that T.C. came around to his desk, sat on his knees, put her arm around his neck, and initiated a hug. He patted her on her back. At the final hearing, T.C. also acknowledged that she sat on Mr. Ruffin's knee and that he hugged her. T.C. denied that there was any inappropriate touching by Mr. Ruffin. One student, P.H., observed the encounter through the window. P.H. confronted T.C. about the incident and told T.C. that she could have gotten into trouble. T.C. told Respondent about the confrontation with P.H. P.H. then reported the incident to the School Resource Officer, Deputy Todd Pierce. Following the reporting of the events, Michael Bessette of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards investigated the incident. When Mr. Bessette spoke with Mr. Ruffin, Mr. Ruffin claimed that he did not have any other contact with T.C. after the incident and did not know whether or not the other students had confronted T.C. about it. Mr. Bessette then reported the incident to the principal, and the school district began an investigation. After speaking with all of the witnesses, T.C., and Mr. Ruffin, the School Board concluded that Mr. Ruffin acted inappropriately when he allowed T.C. to sit on his lap. Respondent's proper course of conduct when T.C. sat on his lap would have been to stand up and politely push T.C. away from him. Following the investigation, Mr. Ruffin signed a Stipulation Agreement with the school district where he agreed to a transfer to another school, a suspension without pay for 20 days, a retention of his annual contract for an additional year, and the designation of an "at will employee" for the 2004- 2005 school year. By signing the agreement, Mr. Ruffin also conceded that he was aware that his actions violated the Code of Ethics and the Principals of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Mr. Ruffin was transferred to Lakewood High School, where he is currently employed as a teacher. Mr. Ruffin has not been the subject of any other disciplinary proceedings since the incident giving rise to these allegations, and is an effective teacher at Lakewood High School.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Walter Ruffin violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(f), and 1012.795(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a); suspending his teaching certificate for 30 days; and placing him on probation for three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 19th day of April, 2006.
