The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to dismiss a teacher for just cause based principally upon the allegation that he failed to prevent or stop two students from engaging in oral sex in his classroom.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Ismael Delgado ("Delgado") had been employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for approximately 12 years. At all times relevant to this case, Williams was assigned to Booker T. Washington Senior High School, where he taught students with disabilities. The alleged events giving rise to this case allegedly occurred on December 6, 2004. The School Board alleges that on that date, during Delgado's fourth-period class, a female student named R. B. fellated a male student named D. B., while Delgado busied himself on the computer, paying no attention to the brazen carnality on display in his presence. The School Board charges that at about 11:15 a.m., a young man named K. M.——who was not a student of Delgado's——chanced to enter Delgado's locked classroom (somehow without attracting Delgado's attention) to check up on R. B. at precisely the moment she happened to be orally stimulating D. B.'s penis. K. M. was purportedly shocked to see this behavior——too shocked, evidently, to mention anything about it to Delgado, who allegedly remained glued to his computer, oblivious. K. M. later reported the alleged incident to another teacher, investigations ensued, and Delgado ended up being accused effectively of causing the students' sexual misconduct, for which the School Board now wants to fire him. Delgado consistently has maintained——and testified at hearing——that nothing extraordinary occurred in his classroom on December 6, 2004. He claims that he neither saw nor heard R. B. and D. B. engage in any sexual activity; indeed, Delgado insists that such behavior could not possibly have taken place in his presence. The undersigned fact-finder believes Delgado's testimony in this regard, which is more credible and persuasive than the evidence to the contrary, and finds, on the record as a whole, that the evidence is insufficient to establish that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's presence, as charged. Because Delgado witnessed nothing of the sort alleged, it is difficult to make affirmative findings concerning what, if anything unusual, occurred in Delgado's classroom on December 6, 2004. Compounding this difficulty, the students who testified were poor witnesses. The School Board called four purported eyewitnesses to the alleged sexual act: R. B. and D. B., the alleged participants; K. M., the student who serendipitously caught the two flagrante delicto; and A. S., another student in Delgado's class. Each one individually came across as an unreliable witness. None seemed to possess (or was able to articulate) a clear and precise memory of the remarkable alleged events, yet each recounted details that struck the undersigned as being implausible at best. Moreover, taken together, their stories are inconsistent and, in material respects, irreconcilable. In support of these general observations, the undersigned will add the following particular findings, to underscore the care with which the evidence has been weighed. As mentioned, the students who testified gave conflicting accounts about what occurred. The points in conflict are not mere minor details, as the School Board argues, but rather involve material facts, such as when the alleged sexual act took place and what Delgado was doing at that time. The details are critical because it is not enough for the School Board to prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex on December 6, 2004. In addition, the School Board alleged and must prove that the sex act took place in Delgado's classroom, while he was present; that Delgado knew or should have known what was going on; and that Delgado failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or stop the students from having oral sex. The following table presents a summary of the eyewitness testimony regarding six basic questions raised at hearing: R. B. D. B. A. S. K. M. When did act occur? In the morning, right before, and continuing after, the bell rang. In the middle of class. It was at the end of class, when the bell rings. Class was over. Before lunch; the bell rang at 11:50 a.m., so between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., but witness is unsure. Before the bell rang. Between 11 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. Before 12:15 p.m. K. M. came after the class was over. Where did At R. B.'s desk, in the At the front of At the At a desk. act occur? front of the class. the room. teacher's desk in the back. (A. S. had to turn around to see.) Where was Delgado? Before the bell rang, at his desk, in the back of the room. After the bell, he was in hallway. At the board, on one side of the classroom, facing away from the students. At the board. Behind the computer. What was Delgado doing? Before the bell, looking at "perfume" on the computer; he didn't see the act. After the bell, Delgado was in the hallway, watching students. Writing on the board with a marker; he didn't know that students were having sex. Not looking at the computer. Writing a science problem (or something) on the board. He didn't see what was happening. Busy looking at the computer. He didn't see any sexual activities. R. B. D. B. A. S. K. M. What did other students do? No one said anything. Students were standing up to shield R. B. and D. B., so Delgado couldn't see the act. Students were not standing up to block Delgado's view. They were playing cards or something. Were other Yes, K. W. & S. J. Yes. T. H. did Doesn't Didn't see that. students Their pants were down something remember; having sex at their ankles. They (unclear). didn't see too? stood by the wall, Also, K. W. that. having regular sex. "jacked" S. J. Students told hem to while they were stop. Delgado couldn’t sitting down at see the couple, but one of the heard the students and teacher's desks. told S. to get off K. No one said They ignored Delgado and continued. anything. Although many discrepancies are obvious, focus on the question of Delgado's whereabouts. Two students placed Delgado behind his computer at the relevant moment. Two others recalled that he was writing on the board. The School Board insists that Delgado was engrossed in his computer; it became invested in this theory during the investigative phase when an examination of the cookies on the hard drive of Delgado's classroom computer turned up electronic evidence that the Yahoo website might have been opened at 11:37 a.m.2 If Delgado were at the computer, however, then both D. B. and A. S. gave unreliable testimony on this significant point.3 Conversely, if D. B. and A. S. were believed, then the reliability of the accounts of R. B. and K. M. would be brought into question. The inconsistencies ultimately undermine the credibility of each of the student witnesses. Apart from the testimonial inconsistencies, none of the students, considered individually, impressed the undersigned as being a trustworthy witness. R. B.'s testimony was vague and childlike, offering little on which the fact-finder could get any traction. Her story, in a nutshell, is that D. B. and some other students goaded her into performing oral sex on D. B., to which she reluctantly consented in the vain hope that compliance would put an end to persistent prodding. R. B. also testified that while she was sucking on D. B.'s penis, two other students (S. J. and K. W., a male and female) were standing by the wall, their pants down at their ankles, having regular sex. This latter is beyond belief and suggests to the undersigned that R. B. has difficulty distinguishing fantasy from fact. That being the case, the undersigned considers her testimony unreliable and has discounted it accordingly. D. B.'s version of the alleged event differs from R. B.'s in one immediately apparent respect: as D. B. tells it, he was practically the victim, R. B. the aggressor who pulled down his pants and commenced sucking on his penis against his wishes. This is unlikely——almost absurd, the undersigned thinks——but D. B.'s testimony in this regard is notable insofar as it exposes a desire (also evident, incidentally, in R. B.'s testimony) to shift the blame——for whatever happened——to someone else. Like R. B., D. B. testified that other students also engaged in sexual activity that morning in Delgado's classroom. In particular, D. B. asserted that K. W. had "jacked" S. J. (i.e. masturbated his penis) while the couple had been sitting down at one of the teacher's desks. The undersigned believes that D. B.'s testimony about K. W. and S. J. is most likely a fabrication.4 Having given testimony that is probably untrue, D. B.'s credibility is suspect and his testimony as a whole must be discounted. A. S. testified that on the morning in question, he turned around and saw R. B. and D. B. at the teacher's desk in the back of room, R. B.'s mouth on D. B.'s penis. Apparently witnessing two classmates openly engaging in a sexual act was not a remarkable event for A. S., for he claims to have looked away and said nothing to the teacher (who was, according to A. S., writing a problem on the board at the time). The undersigned considers this to be implausible. He can scarcely believe that a student in A. S.'s supposed position would react in the blasé manner that A. S. described. The testimony as a whole is not credible. K. M.'s testimony is full of improbabilities. To begin, the undersigned is skeptical that K. M. just happened to be running an errand for his teacher in the middle of fourth period, allowing him to detour to Delgado's classroom to check up on R. B.——whom, he said, he treated "like a sister"——at the very moment she was performing fellatio on D. B. This is too contrived to be believable. Second, the undersigned does not believe that K. M. could have entered Delgado's classroom—— which, it is undisputed, was locked while class was in session—— without Delgado knowing about it, which is what K. M. claims occurred. Third, the undersigned rejects as incredible K. M.'s testimony that he stood watching R. B. suck on D. B.'s penis for a considerable period of time (several minutes), unobserved by Delgado, without saying anything to the teacher. Fourth, the undersigned disbelieves K. M.'s testimony that he slipped out of the secure classroom unnoticed by Delgado. Finally, K. M. testified at hearing with some certainty that he had reported the incident the next day, after carefully considering whether to do so. Yet, the contemporaneous written record reflects that he reported the matter within hours after its alleged occurrence. Standing alone, this latter would be a relatively minor discrepancy. But viewed in the light of other facially improbable details, this discrepancy is more troubling. All things considered, the undersigned harbors genuine doubt regarding K. M.'s reliability as a witness. The School Board offered the unsworn written statements of eight students, including the four who testified at hearing. These are hearsay and hence can be used, if at all, only to supplement or explain other admissible evidence.5 To give a flavor of the nature and quality of the evidence presented in support of the charges against Delgado, the undersigned will reproduce the statements of the non-testifying students below.6 S. J.7 gave a statement dated December 8, 2004, wherein he recounted:8 it happen when [R. B.] was siting between [D. B.] legs and when I went to get my paper from the printer and I turn around I seen [R. B.] sucking [D. B.] penis I was not the only one seen them [K. M.] seen them also this happen 2 minutes before the bell rang that how the other person which is [K. M.] seen them when he walk into the room and seen them thats how everything started. I was not involved with them. J. signed another statement, dated December 14, 2004, in which he wrote: When the problem happen the teacher was right in front of them but he told her to stop but she wouldnt. He told her plenty of times to go down stairs to see Ms. Thomas but she wouldnt. but when they were doing it in the corner in he see them crowed around he gets up to see what's going on thats the only time he gets up to see. the problem doesn't occur now scense she not in the class anymore. K. W.'s9 December 7, 2004, statement provides as follows: when she came in she started to play with [nickname deleted] and he said to leave him and still cap playing with and he got up side on the other side of the classroom and teacher her to stop she cap on playing with him and I when to sleep after that I does not know that they had sex or not. T. H. gave two written statements. The first, dated December 7, 2004, states: I was seating down on the char in I sha [D. B.] in [R. B.] [R. B.] was sukin [D. B.] penis two times. H.'s second statement is dated December 10, 2004. Therein he wrote: Mr. Dilgado trys to stop hus from having six bet we keep on going in he call ower house bet we cap on going. N. H. provided two statements, neither of which is dated. In one he wrote: [D. B.] in [R. B.] was having sex in the classroom. I was go to the computer lab. In the other, N. H. added: I feel I Mr. Delgado did not see [R. B.] in [D. B.] have sex in the class. These written statements do not explain or supplement the admissible evidence; to the contrary, if accepted they would create additional inconsistencies. Thus, the undersigned has not based any findings of fact on their contents. The undersigned has taken note, however, that out of 15-17 students in Delgado's fourth-period class, fewer than half (seven, to be exact) testified at hearing and/or signed a written statement about the alleged incident that was produced at hearing. This causes the undersigned to wonder what, if anything, the other 8- 10 students in the class witnessed on December 6, 2004. Given the paucity of persuasive evidence, the undersigned is better able to find what was not proved to have happened, than to find what likely happened in Delgado's classroom on December 6, 2004, if anything out of the ordinary. To repeat the key finding above, the School Board failed to prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's classroom while he was present. While these students probably did not engage in oral sex, the undersigned believes that there is a slightly better than even chance, and thus he finds, that D. B. briefly exposed his penis in Delgado's classroom after the bell had rung and class had been dismissed, when Delgado was outside of the room monitoring the hallway, which is what he was supposed to be doing at the time.10 The undersigned thinks, based on the evidence presented, that it is reasonably possible (the probability being between, roughly, 25 percent and 35 percent) that R. B. might have placed her mouth on D. B.'s penis, but he cannot make this finding because he is not persuaded that this likely occurred. What is likely, and what the undersigned finds, is that D. B.'s exhibition was a type of taunting, teasing, or sexually harassing behavior directed at R. B. It is found that K. M. likely did enter Delgado's classroom, not during the class period as K. M. claimed, but after fourth period had ended, when Delgado was properly in the hallway and the door to his room was unlocked. It is found that, more likely than not, K. M. then learned about D. B.'s harassment of R. B. It is possible that the incident was already being exaggerated in discussions about what had happened. At any rate, by the time K. M. reported the incident, the facts had become distorted. There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado saw or knew about, or reasonably should have seen or known about, D. B.'s misbehavior, which occurred while Delgado was properly monitoring the hallway between classes. There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado reasonably should have foreseen D. B.'s misconduct or that he reasonably could have stopped or prevented it.11 There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado was in any way the cause of, or responsible for, D. B.'s bad behavior. In sum, the undersigned determines as a matter of ultimate fact that, to the extent anything unusual occurred on December 6, 2004, in Delgado's classroom, it was student misbehavior that took place outside the teacher's presence and beyond the reach of his senses. Delgado neither knew nor should have known that anything untoward was occurring. The student or students who engaged in the misbehavior should have been punished, not the teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Delgado of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Delgado be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Delgado back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2006.
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 Did the actions of Respondent, Joy Thompson (Ms. Thompson), during an altercation with student V.G.1 on April 13, 2010, violate Rules 6GX13-4A-1.21, 6GX13-4A-1.213, and 6GX13-5D-1.07 of the Miami-Dade County School Board (School Board)? If Ms. Thompson's actions violated the School Board's Rules, do the violations constitute just cause for termination or other disciplinary action?
Findings Of Fact The School Board is the constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. Ms. Thompson has worked for the School Board for ten years. Throughout her employment she has worked at Ruth Owens Kruse School (Kruse) as a full-time School Security Monitor. This is a separate day school serving students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Ms. Thompson has been a satisfactory employee for the ten years of her employment, except for the incident involved in this proceeding. She has received only one verbal warning. Under School Board rules, the warning is not formal discipline. The incident resulting in the warning did not generate a finding of probable cause to believe that Ms. Thompson had violated School Board rules. The School Board and her principals have never disciplined her. The basic objectives of Ms. Thompson's position include monitoring student activity "in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment" and ensuring that appropriate standards of conduct are followed. Her job tasks and responsibilities include reporting serious disturbances and resolving minor altercations. The collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (Collective Bargaining Agreement), Florida Statutes, State Board of Education rules published in the Florida Administrative Code, and the policies and procedures of the School Board govern Ms. Thompson and establish the terms and conditions of her employment. Ms. Thompson is an "educational support employee," as defined by section 1012.40(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2010)2 and is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires "just cause" for the discipline of support personnel. The Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that: Just cause includes, but is not limited to misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board [of Education] Rule 6B-4.009. Rule 6B-4.009 of the State Board of Education defines incompetency, immorality, and gross insubordination. It defines willful neglect of duty continuing or constant intentional refusal to obey reasonable orders. The rule defines misconduct in office as violations of Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B- 1.001 and 6B-1.006 "so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system." The Collective Bargaining Agreement affirms that the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools have exclusive management authority of the total school system. They have the exclusive right to suspend or terminate employees. The Collective Bargaining Agreement recognizes that "special education students" may experience impaired impulse control of such severity that the use of physical restraint is necessary. It also states: "The purpose of physical restraint is to prevent injury to persons or destruction of property. It is not to be used to 'teach the child a lesson' or as punishment." The School Board provided Ms. Thompson its policies and procedures, including its Code of Ethics and all the rules that she is charged in this proceeding with violating. Ms. Thompson has reviewed those policies. Knowing and abiding by them is a requirement of her job. As a School Security Monitor at Kruse, Ms. Thompson's duties included ensuring that the school environment was safe for the employees and children. All Kruse staff members must be able to work with students having emotional and behavioral disabilities. The staff must be able to de-escalate situations, maintain order, maintain discipline, and serve as role models for the students. If attacked, employees may defend themselves. The School Board has provided Ms. Thompson initial training and refresher training in "Safe Crisis Management." The School Board has also provided Ms. Thompson training in appropriate physical restraint techniques. Twelve clinicians work full-time at Kruse with students. They are clinical psychologists, clinical social workers, or art therapists. Each student has a clinician case manager. Kruse protocols require employees to call a clinician for assistance with behavioral problems the employee cannot manage. Room 22 at Kruse is the designated "Calm Room." It is for students who are agitated, serving detention, or serving "timeout" in the least restrictive area outside the classroom. The adjoining room, with a connecting door, is designated as the "Timeout Room or Back Room," divided into two areas. The "Timeout Room or Back Room" is a state-approved, specifically designed, and padded room for use by students at extreme behavioral levels. On April 13, 2010, Ms. Thompson's security post was down the hall from Room 22. V.G., an 18-year-old tenth grade Kruse student, was in the "Calm Room" serving a one day detention because she had skipped school the day before. Other students, including V.G.'s friend L.D., were in the room. The morning of April 13, 2010, Ms. Thompson had escorted V.G. to the "Calm Room." Around noon, Ms. Thompson passed the open door of the "Calm Room." Mr. Villarreal, the teacher in the "Calm Room," asked Ms. Thompson to stay in the "Calm Room" while he stepped out for a few minutes. Ms. Thompson agreed and took a seat at a desk at the back of the room. V.G. was sitting near the front of the room. She was talking and misbehaving. She was not doing her work. V.G. was talking loudly to her friend L.D. across the room and to other students. There were three other School Security Guards in the room at the time. Ms. Thompson directed V.G. to turn around and be quiet. V.G. ignored her and continued talking across the room to L.D. She talked back to Ms. Thompson repeatedly and was verbally abusive. V.G. said, "Bitch, I am not doing it." V.G. continued to talk and be insulting and combative. Ms. Thompson continued to tell V.G. to be quiet and turn around. But as Ms. Thompson grew upset, she told V.G. that she had a "fat ass." Ms. Thompson also told V.G. "that's why your boyfriend doesn't love you and that's why; you're fat." The argument continued and escalated with V.G. and Ms. Thompson insulting each other. Each called the other a "fat bitch" and other names several times. Ms. Thompson grew increasingly upset and walked up to V.G. saying that she was taking V.G. to the "Back Room." Another School Security Guard, Mr. Rojas joined Ms. Thompson to escort V.G. to the "Back Room." At any time, Ms. Thompson could have disengaged from her argument with V.G. and let Mr. Rojas and the other School Security Guards in the room handle the problems V.G. was creating. She also could have called a clinician for assistance. She did neither. Ms. Thompson did not disengage. She continued yelling and arguing with V.G. and followed Mr. Rojas and V.G. into the "Back Room." She was upset by the insults and because students were seeing V.G. be disrespectful to her. Ms. Thompson did not need to follow V.G. and Mr. Rojas into the "Back Room." In her anger, Ms. Thompson pushed past Mr. Rojas and punched at V.G. She grabbed V.G.'s hair, and V.G. grabbed hers. They fought until the other School Security Guards separated them. In the struggle, Ms. Thompson scratched V.G.'s face and neck, leaving light marks. She also bruised V.G.'s arms. Ms. Thompson left the area. As she left, Ms. Thompson grabbed V.G.'s purse and threw it in the trash. Leaving the area of the "Calm Room," Ms. Thompson passed school psychologist Ana San Roman. Ms. Thompson was disheveled and visibly agitated. As the two passed each other, Ms. Thompson said to Ms. San Roman: "I finally got that bitch." Her exclamation demonstrated that the altercation involved personal feelings about V.G. not just the professional issues presented by the events of the day. Ms. Thompson's altercation with V.G. was not part of an effort to prevent injury to person or damage to property. It was the result of Ms. Thompson's frustration and anger and Ms. Thompson's desire to demonstrate to V.G. that she could not show Ms. Thompson disrespect. After the incident, Ms. Thompson completed a required form called a Student Case Management Referral. In the form Ms. Thompson stated that she attempted to perform an approved restraint on V.G. But, at the hearing, Ms. Thompson testified that V.G. attacked her. She did not claim to have attempted to perform an approved restraint. V.G.'s account of the fight on the day it occurred and at hearing are consistent, albeit more colorful in testimony. The inconsistency of Ms. Thompson's testimony with her report on April 13, the greater consistency of V.G.'s testimony with her report, and the testimony of Ms. San Roman are significant factors resulting in determining that Ms. Thompson's account is not as credible as V.G.'s. The "Do's and Dont's [sic]" list for interventions with students at Kruse identifies the following behaviors that escalate difficulties with students as "don'ts": raising voice, yelling, having the last word, using "put downs," and using physical force. In the course of her altercation with V.G., Ms. Thompson engaged in every one of the behaviors. After investigating the incident, the office of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Superintendent advised Ms. Thompson, by letter dated October 5, 2010, that it intended to recommend her suspension and termination to the School Board for violation of Rules 6GX13-4A-1.21, 6GX13-4A-1.213, and 6GX13- 5D-1.07 of the Miami-Dade County School Board. At its October 13, 2010, meeting the School Board suspended Ms. Thompson without pay and began dismissal proceedings against her for violation of the rules. The School Board's October 15, 2010, letter advising Ms. Thompson of the decision stated that it was "for just cause, including, but not limited to" violation of School Board Rules 6GX13-4A-1.21, 6GX13-4A-1.213, and 6GX13- 5D-1.07. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides in relevant part: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited. School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 provides in relevant part: The administration of corporal punishment in Miami-Dade County Public Schools is strictly prohibited. Miami-Dade County Public Schools has implemented comprehensive programs for the alternative control of discipline. These programs include, but are not limited to, counseling, timeout rooms, in-school suspension centers, student mediation and conflict resolution, parental involvement, alternative education programs, and other forms of positive reinforcement. In addition, suspensions and/or expulsions are available as administrative disciplinary actions depending upon the severity of the misconduct. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, provides in part: As stated in the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.001): * * * The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, students, parents, and other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. * * * Each employee agrees and pledges: To abide by this Code of Ethics, making the well-being of the students and the honest performance of professional duties core guiding principles. To obey local, state and national laws, codes and regulations. To support the principles of due process to protect the civil and human rights of all individuals. To treat all persons with respect and to strive to be fair in all matters. To take responsibility and be accountable for his or her actions. To avoid conflict of interest or any appearance of impropriety. To cooperate with others to protect and advance the District and its students. To be efficient and effective in the delivery of job duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final Order finding that there is just cause to terminate Ms. Thompson's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 29th day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's employment by the School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert F. Ward was employed by the School Board as a teacher and was assigned to Richmond Heights Middle School, pursuant to a professional service contract. Willie Harris was the principal of Richmond Heights from 1988 to 1995. During those years, Harris gave Respondent verbal directives to follow School Board rules concerning the discipline of students. As punishment, Respondent inappropriately used excessive writing and standing and inappropriately placed students outside the classroom. Each time Respondent was warned that he was violating School Board rules in his methods of disciplining students, he would stop using those methods for a while but would then return to those methods and be warned again. Harris found it necessary to counsel Respondent every year. Principal Harris learned that Respondent responded better to male authority figures than to female authority figures. He, therefore, gave Respondent directives himself or through male administrators. Mona Bethel Jackson became the principal of Richmond Heights in July 1997. On October 2, 1998, Denise Franze, a parent, submitted a written complaint to Principal Jackson concerning Respondent's behavior at the school's Open House because Respondent appeared to be a very angry person. He spent the entire time that he met with her and other parents complaining about the school. She requested that her child be transferred out of Respondent's class. Respondent wrote her a very insulting, unprofessional response letter. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On November 17, 1998, Respondent left his class unsupervised, and two students became involved in a fight. Respondent was directed to properly supervise his class and was directed not to place any students outside his class unsupervised. At a faculty meeting on January 13, 1999, Principal Jackson reviewed School Board policies prohibiting inappropriate language/teacher conduct. At a faculty meeting on February 16, 1999, Jackson reviewed School Board procedures regarding the supervision of students. On March 26, 1999, student D. L. was being disruptive. Respondent told her to go outside the classroom. Because it was raining, D. L. refused to leave. Respondent again ordered her to go outside and called her "dumb." He then left his class unsupervised to deliver a memorandum regarding D. L.'s behavior to the school administrators. An assistant principal directed Respondent not to leave his class unsupervised. On March 30, 1999, Respondent was inside his newly- assigned portable classroom, by himself, writing on the board. An assistant principal asked Respondent where his students were, and Respondent answered that he did not know. Some of Respondent's students were found outside the portable classroom unsupervised, and others were found in the auditorium also unsupervised. Also on March 30, Respondent used the words "hell" and "damn" while aggressively reprimanding D. L., shouting at her, and shaking his fingers in her face. Respondent was reminded that School Board rules prohibit unseemly conduct and the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students. On April 1, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was conducted with Respondent to address his failure to supervise his class, his inappropriate reprimand of a student, his lack of emergency lesson plans, and related matters. As a result of the conference, Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in professional responsibilities and was provided with a prescription to address his deficiencies. The prescription was to be completed by June 16, 1999. If done properly, the prescription should have taken no more than three weeks to complete. At the conference, Respondent was also directed to follow school procedures for the removal of disruptive students from class, to not leave students unsupervised at any time, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, to prepare lesson plans each day, to replenish emergency lesson plans, and to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. He was warned that failure to comply with these directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. Respondent was given a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. On April 22, 1999, Respondent failed to report to the media center at the conclusion of a teacher workshop as directed in writing prior to the workshop and, again, at the beginning of the workshop. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998/99 school year was unsatisfactory due to Respondent's deficiencies in the area of professional responsibility. On June 16, 1999, Respondent's prescriptive activities were deemed unacceptable because they were careless, sarcastic, and unprofessional. Respondent admits that the prescriptive work he turned in to Principal Jackson was inappropriate. Respondent did not take his prescriptive activities seriously and did not attempt to benefit from them. On June 18, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to re-do his prescriptive activities and turn them in by October 1, 1999. Because Respondent ended the school year in an unacceptable status, his salary was frozen and he was precluded from summer school employment. Respondent assigned two students to detentions to be served before school on September 15 and 16, 1999. The students arrived at approximately 7:15 a.m. both days. At 8:00 a.m., Respondent had not yet arrived to supervise them on either day. When the bell rang at 9:00 a.m. to begin the school day, Respondent was still not there. One child's grandmother, who was concerned about the children not being supervised, complained to the school administrators. September 20, 1999, was a teacher planning day. Respondent was not present during his assigned work hours, 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. An "all call" for him was made over the public address system at 9:28 a.m., which went throughout the school. Respondent did not respond. An assistant principal checked his classroom, but Respondent was not there. She was unable to locate his car in the parking lot, and he had not signed the attendance roster. When Respondent arrived at approximately 10:00 a.m., he told Principal Jackson that he was not in the building because he had stopped at Publix. At the final hearing, Respondent testified that he was probably in the wood shop working on a personal project during his work hours when the "all call" announcement was made for him. Respondent failed to complete his prescription by the October 1, 1999, deadline. A conference-for-the-record was held on that date to address parental complaints about Respondent. The complaints involved the unsupervised detentions, Respondent's requiring students to stand for almost two hours as punishment, and Respondent's requiring students to write essays as punishment. Parents also complained that Respondent punished the entire class when only one student misbehaved. Respondent admitted that he administered those punishments. Respondent was directed to refrain from having students write essays for punishment, to refrain from having students stand for punishment, to refrain from assigning detentions when students would not be supervised by Respondent, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and to follow all directives previously given to him. Since Respondent was already on prescription and had failed to complete the prescriptive activities by the October 1 deadline, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to complete his prescription by January 26, 2000. Respondent was warned that failure to comply with the directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. He was again provided with a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule. On October 13, 1999, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss complaints from three parents. The complaints were that Respondent did not give clear directions to the students, that he had humiliated a student, that he required students to write essays as punishment, and that he was assigning math as punishment to his social studies students. The parents complained that Respondent was using academics as punishment. Principal Jackson directed him to stop humiliating students, to stop intimidating students, and to provide in-class assistance. She also directed Respondent to stop assigning math and requiring students to write repetitive "lines" as punishment. She directed Respondent to correct his grading practices and to not retaliate against any students. Respondent was given copies of the letters from the parents. The math that was assigned by Respondent was not an appropriate assignment for a sixth-grade geography class. The interim progress reports Respondent gave to his students corroborate that Respondent was using essays as punishment. After the conference, Respondent informed secretarial staff that he would be absent the next day, which was the day of the school's open house. Teachers have a contractual requirement to attend the school's open house. Respondent was not absent as a result of an illness or an emergency; rather, he simply decided to take a personal holiday on that day. On October 19, 1999, Respondent responded to a parental complaint with a letter that was unprofessional, demeaning, and insulting. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On October 29, 1999, Respondent was directed to report for a conference-for-the-record in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards on November 4, 1999. On November 2, 1999, Respondent attended a round-table discussion with a counselor, the parents of a student, the student, and all of that student's teachers. Respondent was abrasive to the student, loud, and intimidating. The student, who was communicative and comfortable before Respondent arrived at the meeting, was uncomfortable and would not speak while Respondent was present. After Respondent arrived, the student "clammed up," and his eyes "teared up." The next day, the student's father brought a letter to school reciting what had happened at the meeting and requesting that the student be transferred out of Respondent's class. The father and Respondent encountered each other in the school office, and Respondent invited the father to his classroom. While there, Respondent asked the father which grade the father wanted him to change. The father was surprised at Respondent's offer and explained to Respondent that he only wanted his son to get the grades his son deserved. On November 4, 1999, Respondent requested to leave school for a dental emergency. Since his conference-for-the- record was scheduled for that day, an assistant principal directed Respondent to submit documentation from his dentist to her or to the principal's secretary. Respondent failed to follow this directive in a timely fashion. Respondent was subsequently directed to comply with all directives given by his immediate supervisors. At Respondent's request, the conference-for-the-record was re-scheduled for November 9, and Respondent was directed to attend. Respondent did not attend the November 9 conference, which was scheduled to discuss his non-compliance with site directives, his performance assessment, parental complaints, and student complaints. As a result of the conference-for-the- record, which consisted of a review of Respondent's file, Respondent was directed to comply with the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, to provide an educational environment free from harassment and intimidation for all students, to not intimidate staff and faculty members, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to use specific grading practices. He was warned that non-compliance with these directives could lead to further disciplinary measures. Respondent was provided with another copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule, the Code of Ethics, and the School Board's violence in the workplace rule. On December 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to review his performance assessments and future employment status. Respondent was reminded that he was in his second year of unacceptable performance status, which if not remedied, could lead to termination of his employment. He was also directed to comply with the directives previously given to him by the Office of Professional Standards. He was warned that non-compliance with the directives could result in disciplinary measures. Respondent failed to comply with his prescriptive activities by January 26, 2000. On February 7, 2000, at 3:39 p.m., Principal Jackson directed Respondent to submit his prescriptive activities directly to her within 24 hours. This directive was reasonable since the Principal had repeatedly directed Respondent to complete his prescriptive activities since April 1999. Respondent refused to sign that he had received a copy of the memorandum memorializing this directive even after being directed to sign it. On February 8 Respondent did not come to work. Another teacher gave Respondent's prescriptive activities to the principal's secretary after 5:00 p.m. The principal did not accept the activities because neither of her directives had been followed: the prescriptive activities were not given directly to her, and they were turned in late. On February 17, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with prescriptive deadlines and to review his record and his future employment status. Respondent was reminded that if his deficiencies were not remedied, he could lose his job. Respondent was told that his failure to comply with the directives concerning his prescription was considered gross insubordination. Respondent was directed to place his prescriptive activities in the principal's hand by 12:30 p.m. the next day, February 18. He was warned that non-compliance would result in further disciplinary action. Respondent was absent from work on February 18, 2000, and did not attempt to give the documents to his principal until February 24 at 3:30 p.m. His principal refused to accept the package because it was so overdue. On February 28, 2000, Respondent was directed to report to a conference-for-the-record at the Office of Professional Standards at 9:00 a.m. on March 14, 2000. On March 13, 2000, Respondent was accused of battery and administering physically-demanding punishments to students. The investigation revealed that Respondent was still using inappropriate punishment and profanity with his students. The incidents described in paragraphs numbered 40-48 below were discovered. On March 2, 2000, Respondent called A. W. a "dummy," told him to "shut up," and ordered him to pull a heavy cylinder across the physical education field. The cylinder is a piece of equipment that is pulled by a tractor and used to flatten pavement. A. W. tried but could not comply. He was crying when he went to the school office, complaining that his hands hurt. Respondent ordered other students to pull or push the cylinder as punishment. Respondent also ordered students to push volleyball poles, or standards, which have tires filled with cement at the bottom. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to administering this punishment one time. Respondent also ordered students to walk or run on the physical education field. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to ordering students to walk to the far fence. Respondent ordered students to do "push-ups." At the final hearing, Respondent admitted he used "push-ups" as punishment at the election of the student in lieu of other discipline. Respondent ordered his students to move rocks located around his portable classroom. Respondent called the students derogatory names, such as "stupid," "dumb, dumber, and dumbest," and "imbecile." He told them to "shut up." In speaking with a security monitor, Respondent referred to one of his students as "a piece of shit." Respondent required his students to write essays and repetitive "lines" as punishment, which he admitted at the final hearing. He made his students stand for lengthy periods of time as punishment. At the final hearing, Respondent asserted that he only made them stand for 30-45 minutes. Respondent claims he was sending his students to "time-out" on the physical education field. Even if true, sending the students to the physical education field is not an appropriate time-out. It is humiliating and demeaning to the students, the students were not properly supervised, the students were not being educated, and the students were at risk of injury. The procedure for disciplining students at Richmond Heights was to counsel the student after the first violation, make contact with the parents after the second violation, and write a referral to the administrators after the third time. The School Board does not permit the physical punishment of students. On March 14, 2000, Respondent was two hours late for the scheduled conference-for-the-record. By the time he arrived, the other participants had left. He was directed to report for a re-scheduled conference at the Office of Professional Standards on March 27, 2000. On March 27, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with site directives regarding prescription deadlines, student discipline, violation of the Code of Ethics and of professional responsibilities, violation of School Board rules, and his future employment status. Respondent was directed to comply with all previously-issued directives, to refrain from retaliating against students and staff, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to comply with all School Board rules, the Code of Ethics, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. On May 15, 2000, Principal Jackson observed Respondent outside of his classroom, with his back to his class, talking on the telephone. The class was noisy. No one was supervising his students. He was again directed not to leave his classes unsupervised. On May 22, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address the pending action by the School Board to take dismissal action at its meeting of June 21, 2000. On June 21, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay and initiated this dismissal proceeding against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges, affirming Respondent's suspension without pay, and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board effective June 21, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Stewart Lee Karlin, Esquire 400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her 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 as a science teacher at Thomas Jefferson Middle School (“Thomas Jefferson”), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board as a teacher in 1994. 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”). Maria Fernandez, the principal of Thomas Jefferson, was authorized to issue directives to her employees, including Respondent. The 2010-2011 School Year Principal Fernandez issued Respondent a letter of reprimand on February 8, 2011, concerning an alleged incident that occurred on January 4, 2011. The reprimand 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) cease and desist from engaging in any unprofessional conduct while serving as an employee of the School Board; (3) perform duties and responsibilities given to her by Principal Fernandez; and (4) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Principal Fernandez informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives would result in further disciplinary action. On February 8, 2011, Principal Fernandez held a Conference for the Record (“CFR”) with Respondent regarding this alleged incident. The 2011-2012 School Year On November 11, 2011, Principal Fernandez called Respondent into her office to speak with her about the School Board’s policy regarding the appropriate use of e-mail. Respondent allegedly stormed out of the meeting and, in the process of doing so, called Principal Fernandez a “racist pig.” As she was leaving the office, two other administrators were in the vicinity, and Respondent allegedly stated: “I’m tired of dealing with you three pigs.” During a teacher-of-the-year faculty meeting in November 2011, Respondent allegedly called the assistant principal a “bully” and allegedly refused to leave the meeting after being directed to do so by the assistant principal. Principal Fernandez held another CFR with Respondent on November 29, 2011. Furthermore, Principal Fernandez issued Respondent another letter of reprimand on November 29, 2011, concerning these incidents, which again 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) cease and desist from engaging in any unprofessional conduct while serving as an employee of the School Board; perform duties and responsibilities given to her by Principal Fernandez; and (4) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Principal Fernandez informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives would result in further disciplinary action. On May 24, 2012, Principal Fernandez observed Respondent in another teacher’s homeroom class. Principal Fernandez allegedly told Respondent she should not be in the other teacher’s class because she was interrupting that teacher’s supervisory duties of her students. In response, Respondent allegedly yelled, in a very loud voice, and in front of the students and teacher: “That’s what the grievance is all about. Get some dopamine.” Respondent then allegedly pulled her cellphone out of her pocket and said, “Here, let me record this.” As a result of this incident, Principal Fernandez held another CFR with Respondent on June 4, 2012. During the conference, Respondent chose to leave the meeting and walked out of the principal’s office. An employee is expected to remain in a CFR for the duration of the meeting. Principal Fernandez issued Respondent another letter of reprimand on June 4, 2012, concerning this incident and for gross insubordination, which directed Respondent to: (1) strictly adhere to all School Board rules and regulations, specifically, School Board Policy 3210 and 3210.01; (2) cease and desist from engaging in any unprofessional conduct while serving as an employee of the School Board; (3) perform duties and responsibilities given to her by Principal Fernandez; and (4) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Principal Fernandez informed Respondent that failure to comply with the directives would result in further disciplinary action. Because Respondent prematurely left the CFR, her UTD representatives signed the reprimand on her behalf. The 2012-2013 School Year On August 31, 2012, an Educational Excellence School Advisory Committee (“EESAC”) meeting was held in the media center at Thomas Jefferson. EESAC is an advisory committee comprised of parents, teachers, students, staff members, and business partners. The committee typically meets once a month at the school to review the school improvement plan and make decisions on how to improve the school. Respondent attended the meeting in her capacity as a representative of the UTD. During the meeting, Respondent told the chairperson that there was no quorum. Respondent then left the meeting. As she exited the meeting, Respondent stated: “This is why we’re an ETO school,” and she referred to the group as “fools.” A few minutes later, Respondent returned to the meeting, took the sign-out sheet with her without permission, and then left the meeting.1/ On September 20, 2012, Principal Fernandez met with the science department coach, Respondent, and two other science teachers to discuss ideas on how to improve the school. Principal Fernandez asked Respondent to share a document with the other teachers that Respondent said she had. Respondent became irate, refused Principal Fernandez’s request, and stated: “No, I’m not giving it to them. They can go to their own CRISS training like I did.” Respondent proceeded to stand up and threaten Principal Fernandez, stating: “Don’t worry, you’ll get yours.” Respondent then stormed out of the meeting. On September 20, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to MeShonika Green, another science teacher at Thomas Jefferson, regarding “Addressing your concerns.” In this e-mail, Respondent wrote: Ms. Green, Some of the members of the faculty have come to me to report that you were carrying on in the hall, claiming that you were in fear for your life because you thought I was going to come out and shoot up the school. I just wanted to put your fears to rest. Just because I speak my mind and am willing to stand up for what is right does not mean I will turn to physical violence. That is not me . . . I don’t believe in physical violence and have worked to promote that ideal. But from a psychological perspective it is the person that holds everything in that one day snaps and loses it. You know like tearing up a legal summons, throwing it in the face of a process server and becoming irate that they are arrested. I suppose that person could take it one step further and in what you said if the authorities did not intervene. But I only know what I’ve read in textbooks, I’ve never experienced it. But anyway I would appreciate if instead of you spreading this around the staff and faculty where students could hear you that you come and speak to me about any concerns you have with me, or at least talk to a therapist. Because your unsubstantiated remarks could be considered slander and as I am highly offended by your actions and they affect me professionally. If this were to happen again I would find it necessary to follow up through appropriate channels. Thank you in advance for understanding and acting accordingly [.] On September 24, 2012, Principal Fernandez met with Respondent to discuss the School Board’s e-mail policy, and Respondent’s inappropriate use of e-mails. At that time, Principal Fernandez provided Respondent with a memorandum regarding the appropriate use of e-mails. On September 27, 2012, Ms. Green sent Respondent an e-mail regarding “Addressing your concerns,” which states: “We are mature adults. You should not be listening to RUMORS or hear-say, especially when you see me almost everyday. This could be considered CYBER BULLYING. Thanks for your attention.” Shortly thereafter on September 27, 2012, Respondent responded to Ms. Green by e-mail as follows: Ms. Green, You are right chronologically we are two mature adults. This is in no way cyber bullying. This is me asking you to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior that slanders me, and me promising to take legal action if you don’t. So as a mature adult I am asking you to please stop and warning you of the consequences if you do not. Also there is no reason to yell (all caps), and it is not a rumor when three credible adults (as well as a number of less credible people) come to me at different times and state that they witnessed you doing this. Here say is when someone reports hearing that someone did something but did not see it. And yes I see you every day, and any attempt to communicate is met with negativity and usually ends in your saying “well you do what you want because I’m going to . . .” I hope this clears things up for you. Enjoy the rest of your day. On October 2, 2012, Respondent sent an e-mail to Mr. Yvetot Antoine, the science coach at Thomas Jefferson. As the science coach, Mr. Antoine assists all of the science teachers in implementing the science curriculum in their classrooms. The e-mail states: Mr. Antoine, Please stop sending me all these e-mails with attachments. I do not need my mailbox to go over its limit. I know you are just trying to do your job but as I already told you I already have my plan in place along with methods of assessment and analysis. I do not need to be bombarded with elementary solutions to a problem that you are only exasperating. The problem at TJ is that no one works together in the decision making process, decision are made that further divide the faculty and then they bring in people with little experience to cram their agenda down our throats. Most of us do what we need to and we do not need fixing. The fixing needs to start at the top and that is beyond both of our pay grades. If you need to send this stuff for your service log please use attachment manager. Mr. Antoine was offended and disheartened by this e-mail, because he did not believe that he was implementing elementary solutions or exacerbating a problem. Mr. Antoine forwarded the e-mail to Principal Fernandez. On October 11, 2012, Principal Fernandez met with Respondent to discuss the School Board’s e-mail policy, and Respondent’s inappropriate use of e-mails. At that time, Principal Fernandez provided Respondent with another memorandum regarding the appropriate use of e-mails. On October 18, 2012, Mr. Antoine entered Respondent’s classroom to conduct an informal observation. As the students entered the classroom, Mr. Antoine proceeded to the back of the room. Respondent appeared very serious and disturbed by Mr. Antoine’s presence in the classroom. As the students settled into their seats, Respondent asked the students to raise their hands if they felt that Mr. Antoine’s presence in the classroom was disturbing. In response, some of the students raised their hands. Shortly thereafter, Respondent asked the students again to raise their hands if they felt Mr. Antoine’s presence in the classroom was disturbing. In response, most of the students raised their hands. At this point, Respondent announced to the class that “she would not share her classroom in an oppressive environment where she feels like her civil rights were being violated.” By this time, Mr. Antoine was sitting at a table in the back of the classroom, and he had not said anything to Respondent. Respondent paced up and down the classroom and instructed the students to write definitions for six vocabulary words that were posted on the board. As she paced up and down the classroom, Respondent pulled out her cellphone and tried unsuccessfully to call someone. Respondent then returned to her seat and announced to the students that she has over 20 years of experience and that “I was teaching when this guy [Mr. Antoine] was still in high school.” At this point, the only instruction Respondent had given her students was to tell them to define six vocabulary words. As the class period progressed, Respondent did not give any further educational instruction to her students. Instead, Respondent proceeded to the back of the classroom where Mr. Antoine was sitting, pulled up a chair, and sat directly across from him. Respondent looked directly at Mr. Antoine and stated in front of the students: “I’m going to stare at those eyes that are observing me.” After a while, Respondent got up, went back to her desk, and was at her computer. Toward the end of the class period, Respondent handed a stack of papers to one of her students. The student walked to the back of the classroom and gave the stack of papers to Mr. Antoine. The papers were titled, ”Responsibilities of the Coach-Instructional Coach.”2/ As a result of these incidents from August through October 2012, Principal Fernandez held another CFR with Respondent at some point in October 2012. On November 7, 2012, Respondent encountered Eulalee Sleight, another teacher at Thomas Jefferson. On that date, Ms. Sleight was meeting with a student when Respondent commented, in front of the student, “Do you know I’m not going to be your teacher anymore?” “Because I’m making sure they follow rules. They don’t like to follow rules at this school.” At the end of this same school day, Respondent walked up to Ms. Sleight and took a picture of her and a student who was Ms. Sleight’s assistant. In the presence of the other student, Respondent stated: “This is to show the illegal things that’s happening at the school.”3/ On November 8, 2012, Respondent encountered Thomas Jefferson School Counselor Luis Chiles at Mr. Chiles’s office. On this occasion, Mr. Chiles was in a meeting with an ESOL (English speakers of other languages) teacher, conducting a review of students. Respondent had no business being in the meeting. Nevertheless, Respondent opened the door to Mr. Chiles’s office and stepped inside Mr. Chiles’s office. Respondent was agitated, very upset, and told Mr. Chiles that she hoped he was happy that she was going to lose her job. Mr. Chiles was dumbfounded and did not respond to Respondent’s comment. Respondent then exited the office. As a result of all the foregoing incidents, Principal Fernandez recommended to the School Board that Respondent’s employment be terminated. Thereafter, the School Board recommended that Respondent’s employment be suspended pending dismissal. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s conduct on June 4, 2012, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The School Board merely showed that Respondent chose to leave the CFR with Principal Fernandez, and that she was expected to stay for the duration of the meeting. Respondent’s conduct may have been inappropriate, but the School Board failed to show that the conduct violated School Board policies, and was “so serious as to impair the [Respondent’s] effectiveness in the school system,” so as to constitute misconduct in office. Furthermore, the School Board failed to show that Respondent’s conduct involved “a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority,” so as to rise to the level of gross insubordination. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s conduct at the EESAC meeting on August 31, 2012, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. Respondent attended the meeting in her capacity as a representative of UTD. Although Respondent may have been rude during the meeting, given the context in which this incident occurred (this was an EESAC meeting--not a classroom situation involving students), the School Board failed to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of School Board policies. The evidence at hearing showed that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2), and that she violated School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01. Respondent engaged in conduct which is unseemly in the workplace and reduces a teacher’s or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties when she met with Principal Fernandez, the science department coach, and two other science teachers on September 20, 2012, to discuss ideas on how to improve the school. When asked by Principal Fernandez to share a document with the other teachers, Respondent became irate and refused to do so. Respondent also violated this rule and School Board Policies 3210, 3210.01, and 3380, when she stood up during the meeting and threatened Principal Fernandez, stating: “Don’t worry, you’ll get yours,” and stormed out of the meeting. Such conduct created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment, and involved threatening behavior consisting of words that intimidated Principal Fernandez. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s conduct on September 20, 2012, constitutes 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. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s e-mails to Ms. Green on September 20 and 27, 2012, and Respondent’s e-mail to Mr. Antoine on October 2, 2012, constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The School Board failed to present its e-mail policy at the hearing. Given the context and nature of the emails (between adults and not involving students), and the fact that the School Board failed to present its e-mail policy at the hearing, the School Board failed to meet its burden to establish that the e-mails rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or constitute a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing showed that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2), and that she violated rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), (f), (5)(d), and School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01, by engaging in conduct which is unseemly in the workplace and disruptive to the students’ learning environment; failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning; violated the students’ legal right to an education; engaged in behavior that reduces her ability or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties or the orderly processes of education; and created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive work environment. Respondent violated these rules and policies when she: 1) asked students in the classroom on October 18, 2012, if they felt that Mr. Antoine’s presence in the classroom was disturbing, they should raise their hands; 2) announced to the students in the classroom that “she would not share her classroom in an oppressive environment where she feels like her civil rights were being violated”; 3) paced up and down the classroom and placed a personal telephone call during class while only instructing the students to write definitions for six vocabulary words that were posted on the board; 4) announced to her students that she has over 20 years of experience, and that “I was teaching when this guy [Mr. Antoine] was still in high school”; 5) proceeded to the back of the classroom, sat across from Mr. Antoine, and announced to the class: “I’m going to stare at those eyes that are observing me”; and 6) handed a stack of papers to one of her students titled, “Responsibilities of the Coach–Instructional Coach,” and had the student hand the stack of documents to Mr. Antoine. Respondent’s conduct on October 18, 2012, sought to advance her personal agenda, was not conducive to her students’ learning, and was harmful to the students’ learning. Respondent effectively used the students in her classroom as pawns in her personal battle against the administration and her colleagues. Rather than focusing on Mr. Antoine’s presence and her personal battle, Respondent should have focused on the students and teaching the students. Respondent’s conduct on October 18, 2012, has no place in a middle school science classroom. The evidence failed to show that Respondent’s conduct on October 18, 2012, rose to the level of gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4), in that the conduct did not involve the intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. The evidence at hearing showed that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2), and that she violated rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), (f), and (5)(d), and School Board Policies 3210 and 3210.01, by engaging in conduct which is unseemly in the workplace and disruptive to the students’ learning environment; failed to make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning; violated the students’ legal right to an education; engaged in behavior that reduces her ability or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties or the orderly processes of education; and created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive work environment. Respondent violated these rules and policies when she: 1) interrupted a meeting between Ms. Sleight and another student on November 7, 2012; 2) told the student “Do you know I’m not going to be your teacher anymore?” “Because I’m making sure they follow rules. They don’t like to follow rules at this school”; and 3) took a picture of a student who was Ms. Sleight’s assistant and stated: “This is to show the illegal things that’s happening at the school.” Through her conduct on November 7, 2012, Respondent again sought to advance her personal agenda, failed to engage in conduct conducive to the student’s learning, and engaged in conduct harmful to the students’ learning. Respondent effectively used the students as her pawns in her personal battle against the administration and her colleagues. Raising a legitimate complaint through the proper channels is one thing. However, a middle school teacher cannot use students as her pawns and air her personal battles to students in an effort to advance her personal agenda.4/ The evidence failed to show that Respondent’s conduct on November 7, 2012, rose to the level of gross insubordination in violation of rule 6A-5.056(4), in that the conduct did not involve the intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s encounter with Mr. Chiles on November 8, 2012, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence presented at hearing did not establish that Respondent knew Mr. Chiles was in a meeting when she opened the door. It would have been polite for Respondent to knock first. Nevertheless, merely opening a door that is not locked, and telling a colleague that she “hoped he was happy that she was going to lose her job,” and then turning around and leaving, does not rise to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, or a violation of School Board policies.
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 29th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2014.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board (School Board), had just cause to suspend Respondent, Harcourt I. Clark, for ten days without pay.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, and an evaluation of the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence presented, the following facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a school teacher within the School District of Miami-Dade County (School District). Respondent was a teacher in the School District, since approximately August of 1987 at various schools within the county, and also worked as a coach for 15 years of that tenure. At the time of the incident alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, Respondent was teaching at Shenandoah Middle School. Respondent has a disciplinary history with the School Board. In 1995 (23 years ago), Respondent was the subject of an administrative review at the individual school level, as a result of a complaint that alleged, in part, that Respondent was allowing students to massage his shoulders in class, and for showing movies unrelated to the curriculum. As a result, Respondent received an informal conference and a letter of written directives. The written directives included an admonition that Respondent refrain from “allowing students to massage your shoulders, neck, etc.,” and “any other physical contact with students.” No further action with respect to this complaint was taken at the district level. On October 2013, Respondent showed up to work under the influence of alcohol. He returned to work only after completing a rehabilitation program under the supervision of the District’s Support Agency. In September 23, 2016, Respondent was given a written reprimand for using profanity in the classroom. On November 21, 2016, later that same year, Respondent received a written Absence from Worksite Directive for having six unauthorized absences in November 2016. The incident giving rise to the discipline in this case took place on February 28, 2017, prior to the administration of an FSA examination to a group of sixth-grade students. The Notice of Specific Charges alleged that Respondent “walked around the classroom and slapped several students in the back of the head, grabbed others by the neck, and physically squeezed at least one student’s hands.” Respondent was to administer the FSA test with another instructor, Teresa Gonzalez. Before the start of the examination, Respondent walked around the classroom between the rows of student desks, gathering book bags, making sure that students had pencils for the test, and encouraging students to do their best. As he walked around the classroom, Ms. Gonzalez observed Respondent touch the back of several students’ necks or shoulders in what she described as correcting their posture. She also observed him “squash” a student’s fingers together in what she described as a prayer position. She could not, however, hear what Mr. Clark was saying to students because she was in the front of the room and Mr. Clark was in the back. Ms. Gonzalez could not identify the students who Mr. Clark touched because they were not her students. She also did not recall any comments by students, but stated at hearing that their facial expressions indicated that they did not like being touched by him.1/ Ms. Gonzalez also confirmed her statement to School District investigators that she did not believe Mr. Clark was angry with the students, and that it looked like his actions were a way of communicating and playing with the students. However, she was disturbed by Mr. Clark’s actions and reported them to her assistant principal. Two students testified regarding the February 28, 2017, incident. One of them, R.M., testified that before the exam, Mr. Clark grabbed his hands and squished them, and grabbed at the back of his neck, and stated that Mr. Clark also slapped another student on the back of the head. He testified that he was not hurt in any way by the action, but the other student said “ow” in response to Mr. Clark’s action. R.M. did not believe that Mr. Clark was trying to motivate the students. Student A.F. recalled Mr. Clark tapping the top of a student’s head and that the student just laughed. A.F. believed that Mr. Clark may have patted some kids on the back of the head before the test, but that he believed it was done to encourage the students, much like a coach would. Mr. Clark testified that he merely tapped students on the back of the head while telling them to do well on their test. He viewed the tap as similar to what a principal or school board attendee might do at a graduation or where a student was receiving a certificate. It was encouragement and not malicious, and not meant to hurt anyone. Mr. Clark acknowledged that he had been warned about harmful touching, and would not engage in that type of conduct, saying, “I wouldn’t want anybody hitting my kid. And for no way [sic] I would lose my pension for 31 years hitting a kid like that. That’s not my character.” Mr. Clark did not recall grabbing R.M.’s hand and testified that he generally stayed away from R.M. because R.M. was rude in his classroom, and they did not get along. Whatever the relationship between R.M. and Mr. Clark, it appeared from R.M.’s demeanor at hearing that he did not care for Mr. Clark, and that may have colored his testimony somewhat. It is found that Mr. Clark tapped several students on the back of the head or neck and squeezed at least one student’s hands together before the administration of the test. The gestures were meant to be an encouragement for the students to do well during the examination, and were not any form of punishment. Mr. Clark’s actions, based on the evidence presented, did not constitute corporal punishment, and did not rise to the level of use of force, much less excessive or unreasonable use of force. The Notice of Specific Charges also alleges that Respondent “used profanity towards at least one student, said other inappropriate things and also used the term ‘these/deez nuts’ prior to the start of the exam.” The only evidence presented regarding profanity during hearing was a statement by Ms. Gonzalez that an unidentified student stated that Mr. Clark was “cursing her.” There was no testimony from that student, and no description that is not hearsay describing what was allegedly said. While Petitioner attempted to characterize the hearsay statement of the student as an excited utterance, there was no evidence presented upon which to predicate that characterization. With respect to the use of the term “deez nuts,” Ms. Gonzalez did not hear Mr. Clark use the term. Both students testified that he did so, in response to a question asked by a student. R.M. testified that the term is slang for “I don’t know,” or “whatever,” and may refer loosely to a young man’s genitalia. A.F. also stated that Mr. Clark used the term “deez nuts” as sort of a joke, and said that use of the term used to be popular as sort of a joke. Both students’ description of the term was somewhat tentative. Mr. Clark testified that he had heard the term before from the students, but would not use it. The more persuasive testimony is that Mr. Clark used the term in response to a student in the classroom, but there was no compelling testimony that the term is anything more than rap- influenced slang. No evidence was presented to indicate whether the students found the term offensive or inappropriate, considered it to be profane, or that any student felt embarrassed or humiliated by its use. Further, the evidence was not persuasive that Mr. Clark intended by his use of the term to refer to genitalia. No evidence was presented regarding any other “inappropriate” comment made by Mr. Clark.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board rescind its order suspending Respondent without pay, and reimburse him for the period for which he was not paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2018, 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 13th day of August, 2018.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a music teacher at Manatee Academy K-8 School (“Manatee”), pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent’s employment with the School Board as a teacher began in 2006. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law and the School Board’s policies. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent was not the subject of any discipline. She had received overall ratings of “Exceptional” or “Above Expectation” on her teaching evaluation forms. The incidents giving rise to this proceeding occurred on October 18 and 19, 2012, during the 2012-2013 school year. October 18 and 19 Respondent awoke around 6:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 18, 2012, and reported to work at Manatee. That afternoon, Respondent finished her work day at Manatee and left the school sometime after 3:15 p.m. After running some errands, Respondent arrived at her single-family residential home in Fort Pierce, sometime after 5:00 p.m. Respondent shared the home with her long-time boyfriend and fiancé, Dominic Madison (“Madison”). Madison was also a teacher employed by the School Board. At that time, Madison was a band director at a local high school. By the time Respondent got home, Madison had not yet returned home from his work day at the high school. Shortly after arriving home, Respondent sat down at her personal laptop computer to check e-mails and do some work. The computer was connected to the home’s wi-fi network. While working on the computer, Respondent discovered an unfamiliar icon and link to a file on the home network. The icon peaked Respondent’s interest. Upon clicking on the icon, a video opened with Madison’s face. Respondent then observed Madison and a white female engaged in sexual activity in a room inside their home.1/ While Respondent was unsure, it appeared that the female might be a former student of Madison’s who might also be a minor. As she continued watching the video, Respondent recognized the female as one of Madison’s 17-year-old students, K.M. After watching the video, Respondent was devastated, upset, angry, and unable to process what she saw. She called Madison at 6:36 p.m., to confront him about the video and confirm her suspicions that he, in fact, engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. They spoke for approximately 36 minutes. During the call, they argued, and Madison neither admitted nor denied engaging in sexual activity with K.M. By this point, Respondent was in tears and so upset and completely devastated that she experienced chest pains. After getting off the phone with Madison and while still at home, Respondent called her pastor, Theodore Sanders, for guidance. They spoke around 7:13 p.m., for approximately 14 minutes. Pastor Sanders knew Madison because his children had been members of the band at Madison’s high school. Pastor Sanders was shocked by Respondent’s allegation that Madison had engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. Due to the ramifications of such a “huge allegation,” Pastor Sanders was cautious and wanted to make sure that Respondent was certain about what she saw on the video. It is understandable that Respondent needed some period of time in which to process the situation, given that Madison was her fiancé; they had a long relationship together; and she observed Madison on her personal computer engaging in sexual activity with a minor student in their home. Sometime after 7:30 p.m., Respondent left the home. At 7:26 p.m., Respondent and Madison spoke again on the phone for approximately 38 minutes. Respondent and Pastor Sanders spoke again on the phone at 8:03 p.m. and 8:45 p.m., with such calls lasting one minute and 10 minutes, respectively. In the interim, Respondent spoke again on the phone with Madison for 43 minutes starting at 8:03 p.m. As a teacher, Respondent is a mandatory reporter of child abuse under sections 39.201(2)(a) and 1006.061(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent clearly understood that she had a mandatory obligation to report the sexual activity she saw on the video between Madison and K.M.2/ Respondent and Pastor Sanders discussed the need to report what Respondent saw. There was never any doubt that the abuse needed to be reported. Because of Respondent’s distraught emotional state at the time, they agreed that Pastor Sanders would make the call. Pastor Sanders told Respondent to get off the road and go home. Pastor Sanders then called “911” at some point after they got off the phone at 8:55 p.m., to report the abuse. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that there was almost a four-hour gap from when she first saw the video until the time that Pastor Sanders stated he was going to report the abuse. Respondent further acknowledged that prior to 8:55 p.m., she had never made a phone call to report the abuse to 911, DCF, or her principal. However, given that Respondent had just recently seen a video on her personal computer of her fiancé engaged in sexual activity with a minor female student in their home, it was understandable that Respondent needed time to process the situation. A less than four-hour delay from when Respondent first saw the video to Pastor Sanders’ call to 911 was immediate, and not an unreasonable delay given the unique facts of this case. Sometime before 10:00 p.m., Respondent returned to her residence. She saw Madison’s vehicle and assumed he was inside the home. According to Respondent, she knew the police were on their way. Respondent nevertheless entered the home, but she did not approach Madison in any manner. At approximately 10:00 p.m., two St. Lucie County Sheriff’s deputies arrived at the home and rang the doorbell at the front door. Madison answered the door, and was told by one of the deputies that they were there to talk to Respondent. The officer asked Respondent to step outside to speak with them and Madison was directed to step back. Madison then went back inside the home and closed the door behind him. One of the deputies remained at the front porch area while Respondent and the other deputy began to discuss what Respondent had seen on the video. At this point, one of the deputies requested to see the video so Respondent and the deputies proceeded to attempt to go back inside the front door. However, they discovered that Madison had locked the door behind him when he re-entered the home. By this point, no law enforcement officer had explored the perimeter of the home to determine whether there were any other entrances or exists from the home. Nor was Respondent asked by either deputy if there were any other entrances or exits from the home. Respondent began ringing the doorbell and knocking on the front door. In the midst of Respondent ringing the doorbell, knocking on the door, and receiving no response from Madison, the deputies asked Respondent, for the first time, if there were any guns in the home and any other entrances and exits. Respondent advised the deputies that there was a back door. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison had snuck out the back door of the home to elude law enforcement. Respondent gave the deputies permission to enter and search the home. They entered through the open back door. Once the house was cleared by the officers, Respondent and the officers went inside the home. Respondent was cooperative during the search of the home and she consented to allowing the officers to look at the computer. Respondent attempted to show one of the deputies what she saw on the computer, but nothing would come up. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison took the evidence with him when he fled the home. When officers went into the front office and wanted to collect some items belonging to Madison, Respondent told the officers that she would prefer if they got a search warrant. The officers obtained a search warrant and stayed all night searching the home until approximately 5:00 a.m. Respondent did not sleep or eat while the officers were at the home and she was visibly “shaken-up” and crying at times during the evening and early morning hours of October 19. Detective Wentz was at the home and spoke with Respondent throughout the night and early morning of October 19. At some point, Detective Wentz “flat out asked” Respondent if she knew where Madison was located. Respondent responded, indicating she did not know where he fled to. Detective Wentz made it clear to Respondent on multiple occasions during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 that if she knew Madison’s whereabouts, she should let him know. Before he left the home on the morning of October 19, Detective Wentz reiterated to Respondent that she needed to contact law enforcement immediately if she had any information about Madison’s whereabouts. Respondent clearly understood this directive. At no time during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 did Respondent ever volunteer information as to where she thought Madison might be. On the other hand, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not know of Madison’s whereabouts at any time during the evening of October 18 and early hours of October 19 after he fled the home. However, by 11:45 a.m., on October 19, Respondent discovered that Madison might be staying at the local Holiday Inn Express, based on information she received from Madison’s father. Respondent called the front desk of the hotel at 11:47 a.m. and 12:01 p.m., in an effort to confirm that Madison was indeed at the Holiday Inn. Respondent and Madison spoke at 12:09 p.m., at which time Respondent knew Madison was still at the hotel, about to check-out of the hotel. At no time between 11:47 a.m. and 1:39 p.m., did Respondent make any calls to law enforcement to let them know that Madison might be at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz was at Respondent’s home before 1:39 p.m. However, Respondent failed to inform Master Deputy Horowitz that Madison was at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz specifically asked Respondent if she knew where Madison was. Respondent responded, stating that she “did not know where his whereabouts were at the time.” Respondent spoke with Master Deputy Horowitz by telephone on two or three occasions later that afternoon. Respondent’s testimony that she told Master Deputy during one of these telephone conversations that Madison had been at the Holiday Inn is not credited and is rejected as unpersuasive. Later that afternoon, Respondent was transported to the Sheriff’s Office for an interview. During the interview, Respondent admitted she failed to inform law enforcement that Respondent had been staying at the Holiday Inn: DETECTIVE NORMAN: I know you’ve talked to several detectives throughout yesterday evening, last night, this morning, this afternoon. Probably seen more faces that you want to see. Here’s--here’s what we’re trying to figure out, where your fiancé is. Do you know where he is? MISS THOMAS: And I understand that. And like I told the officers that came to the home, it was information that was left out. And it truly was not intentional. I know the way it looked, intentionally, it made me look bad, but I honestly do not know where he is. At the time when I did speak to him, he told me that’s where he was, that he was leaving that location so I haven’t a clue. He hasn’t contacted me since the last time I spoke with him today. * * * And I mean, I’m disappointed because I made a mistake. I did. I omitted something that I didn’t realize at the time and I don’t know if it was, you know, just, you know, just did it just because I guess deep down I was maybe trying--you know, I don’t know why I didn’t say, “Oh yea, by the way this.” I don’t know why. That was so stupid. Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, pp. 5-7. Following the interview, Respondent was placed under arrest and charged with one felony count of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, Florida Statutes, and one felony count of being an accessory after the fact, in violation of section 777.03(1)(c), Florida Statutes. After Respondent was arrested, she was placed on temporary duty assignment at home with pay. On Monday, October 22, Respondent self-reported her arrest and the abuse of K.M. by Madison to her principal and the District. Subsequently, the State Attorney charged Respondent in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for the felony charges of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, and for the felony charge of being an accessory after the fact in violation of section 777.03(1)(c). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not call Madison while he was at the Holiday Inn Express to warn him so that he could elude arrest. Nevertheless, Respondent knew Madison was at the Holiday Inn at least by 12:09 p.m. on October 19, when she spoke to Madison on the telephone. Respondent failed to inform law enforcement that he was at the Holiday Inn, or that he had been at the Holiday Inn, until her interview at the Sheriff’s office later that afternoon just prior to her arrest. After a 23-hour manhunt, law enforcement officers found and arrested Madison at the Holiday Inn Express around 7:00 p.m. Respondent’s delay in informing law enforcement of Madison’s whereabouts or that he had been at the Holiday Inn Express delayed his arrest by at most, approximately seven hours. Notably, the video was discovered by Respondent, reported by Respondent to law enforcement, and Madison was arrested, within the span of approximately 25 or 26 hours. Ultimately, it was Respondent who identified the victims of Madison’s crimes. It was Respondent’s discovery of the video, her immediate reporting of the abuse, and her later identification of the victims, which led to Madison’s arrest and his conviction on all charges. The State Attorney charged Madison in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit with 40 counts of criminal activity: 34 felony charges of sexual activity with a minor; five felony charges of sexual battery on a child in custodial relationship; and one felony charge of using a child in a sexual performance. On April 1, 2016, Madison was adjudicated guilty on five counts of sexual activity with a minor. Madison was sentenced to 15 years, consecutive, for each count. On August 7, 2013, Respondent pled no contest to both charges. On the plea form, Respondent checked section 25, which states: “I specifically believe the plea is in my best interest even though I am innocent of the charge, charges, or violations, or may have defenses to them.” After Madison was adjudicated guilty, all criminal charges against Respondent were Nolle Prossed. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 5.056(2)(d) or (e). The evidence does not establish that Respondent engaged in behavior that disrupted a student’s learning environment or reduced her ability or his or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health. Indeed, Respondent protected students from any further abuse by Madison. Respondent is responsible for Madison’s abuse of K.M. being brought to the attention of law enforcement immediately after she observed the video on her personal computer. Within about four hours after observing her fiancé engaging in sexual activity with a minor on her personal computer and processing the situation and speaking with her pastor, the matter was reported to 911, and law enforcement arrived at Respondent’s home. Madison was at the home when the deputies arrived. Notably, the deputies who arrived at Respondent’s home did not ask to speak with Madison first. Instead, they asked to speak with Respondent, and Respondent was asked to step outside the home. Madison, the alleged perpetrator of the sexual abuse, was ordered by one of the deputies to go back inside the home. Knowing full well that the suspect, Madison, went back inside the home through the front door, neither deputy undertook any efforts to determine whether Madison might have an escape route through another door. A perimeter was not established until after law enforcement officers discovered that Madison had fled the home. Respondent cooperated with law enforcement while they were at her home. She cooperated fully in the prosecution of Madison and she was instrumental in securing Madison’s criminal conviction for the abuse. Given the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s failure to inform law enforcement during the afternoon of October 19 of Madison’s whereabouts at the Holiday Inn, which delayed the arrest of Madison by seven hours, at most, does not rise to the level of conduct sufficient to support a finding of guilt in violation of rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated rule 6B-1.006(3)(n). Respondent reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when Pastor Sanders called 911. She also reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when deputies arrived at her home. Respondent also self-reported the incident to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of immorality in violation of rule 6A-5.056(1). Insufficient credible and persuasive evidence was adduced at hearing to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and that the conduct was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace or bring disrespect to Respondent or the teaching profession and impair Respondent’s service in the community. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 5.37(8)(a). Respondent “directly” reported her knowledge of Madison’s abuse of K.M. as required by the policy when Pastor Sanders called 911 within four hours of Respondent’s view of the video. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b). As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(viii), Respondent did not engage in immoral conduct, nor was it shown that Respondent’s conduct was “indecent.” As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx), the School Board failed to prove that Respondent engaged in off-duty conduct that does not promote the good will and favorable attitude of the public toward the School District, its programs, and policies. In reaching this conclusion, it is notable that the School Board did not call any members of the public or any administrators, teachers, or other personnel as witnesses to support this claim. Moreover, the School Board does not argue in its proposed recommended order that it proved that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). Paragraphs 71 through 73 refer to another specific subdivision within Policy 6.301(3)(b), 6.301(3)(b)(viii). However, there is no specific argument that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.94(2)(a). As detailed above, Respondent reported the abuse when Pastor Sanders called 911. Respondent also reported the incident to the deputies when they arrived at her home shortly after Pastor Sanders called 911, and when she self-reported the abuse to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order rescinding Respondent’s suspension without pay and termination, and reinstate her with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2017.
The Issue The issue 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 The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Lee County (School Board) should terminate the Respondent, Christel Freeman, for fighting with another school bus employee on School Board property.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Christel Freeman, has been a school bus driver employed by the School Board since 2002. There was no evidence that she was anything other than an exemplary employee until an incident that occurred at the School Board’s Leonard Street bus compound at the end of the work day. She and her boyfriend, Mike Ortes, were driving their personal vehicle from the back of the compound to the front, where the employees clock out and usually visit for a while before going home, when she spotted another employee, Ashley Thomas, who had just recently been transferred to Leonard Street. The Respondent approached Thomas, who was visiting with co-workers at a picnic table, because she suspected that Thomas was having sexual relations with her boyfriend and wanted to tell Thomas to stay away from her boyfriend, stop interfering with the Respondent’s family unit, and stop “talking trash about her.” When she got within earshot, the Respondent asked Thomas if they could talk in private. Thomas said, yes, and the two walked away from the co-workers at the picnic table. The Respondent began to tell Thomas what she wanted to talk about, and the conversation soon became heated. After they left the view of the co-workers at the picnic table, they passed another co-worker who was sitting in a vehicle and who said something to Thomas. As Thomas turned to respond to the speaker, the Respondent struck Thomas with her hand or fist on the side of the face, near the eye. Thomas was carrying her car keys, cell phone, and purse and was surprised by the blow. When the Respondent followed up with another blow, Thomas began to defend herself by hitting back. The nearby co-workers very quickly ran to the combatants to separate them. In the process, the combatants fell down, with the Respondent landing on top. The scuffling continued for a brief time until the combatants were separated. By this time, Thomas’s shirt had been torn open at the front buttons, her face was bruised and swelling, and her eye was hurt. The Respondent also had an eye injury from being hit with Thomas’s car keys. The police were called, but the Respondent left the scene with her boyfriend by the time the police arrived. After some leading questions by the Respondent, Ortes supported her testimony that they went to the hospital for emergency treatment for her eye and, once there, called the police, who responded to the hospital. After discussing the incident with the police, neither woman pressed charges. The Respondent’s primary defense is that after she called Thomas a “nasty bitch,” Thomas struck her first with the car keys, and the Respondent defended herself. However, the other witnesses to the incident saw it the other way around, with the Respondent hitting first without provocation. The Respondent attempted to undermine that testimony by saying those witnesses were family and friends of Thomas. To the contrary, the evidence was that the family and friends of Thomas were not the eyewitnesses who testified; rather, Thomas’s family and friends either did not testify or testified that they were not eyewitnesses to the incident. While the Respondent attempted to downplay the state of her emotions at the time of the incident, it is clear from the evidence that she was angry at Thomas and initiated the conversation in that state of mind. It is possible that what triggered the Respondent’s violence was Thomas saying the Respondent should ask her boyfriend for the answers to her questions, which the Respondent took as flaunting an admission that they were having sexual relations. According to the Respondent’s testimony, her job with the School Board is very important to her and her family. Notwithstanding that she has not admitted instigating the fight with Thomas and throwing the first blow, she understands that the consequences of engaging in similar conduct again would certainly be the permanent loss of her job. For that reason, it is unlikely that she would put herself in that position in the future. There is a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Support Personnel Association of Lee County (SPALC) that governs the Respondent’s employment. The procedure followed in the Respondent’s case is set out in sections 7.10 and 7.103 of the SPALC agreement. Section 7.10 of the SPALC agreement provides: The parties agree that dismissal is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee’s job seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary actions(s) taken against SPALC bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of the collective bargaining agreement and that in all instances the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee’s record. Any discipline during the contract year, that constitutes a verbal warning, letter of warning, letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination shall be for just cause. Section 7.10 also states that employee misconduct is a ground for suspension without pay or termination of employment. The SPALC agreement does not define misconduct. The School Board has policies that govern employee conduct. Policy 4.09 adopts a “zero tolerance” policy for threats of violence. It prohibits “any verbal, written or electronically communicated threat, suggestion or prediction of violence against any person.” Id. “Any serious threat of violence shall result in immediate disciplinary action and referral to the appropriate law enforcement agency.” Id. School Board Policy 5.29(1) states: “All employees are expected to exemplify conduct that is lawful and professional ” School Board Policy 2.02(2) describes and prohibits “unacceptable/disruptive behavior.” This includes “[u]sing unreasonable loud and/or offensive language, swearing, cursing, using profane language, or display of temper.” Id. at ¶ (b). It also includes “[t]hreatening to do bodily or physical harm to a . . . school employee . . . regardless of whether or not the behavior constitutes a criminal violation.” Id. at ¶ (c). It also includes “[a]ny other behavior which disrupts the orderly operation of a school, school classroom, or any other School District facility.” Id. at ¶ (e). Section 7.103 of the SPALC agreement allows an employee being terminated to either file a grievance under Article 5 or request a hearing before the School Board, but not both. Section 7.13 of the SPALC agreement provides that employees “shall not engage in speech, conduct, behavior (verbal or nonverbal), or commit any act of any type which is reasonably interpreted as abusive, profane, intolerant, menacing, intimidating, threatening, or harassing against any person in the workplace.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of employee misconduct and either terminating her employment, or suspending her without pay and reinstating her upon entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of June, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Pam Stewart, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 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 Dr. Nancy J. Graham Superintendent of Lee County Schools 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Robert Dodig, Jr., Esquire School District of Lee County 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Christel Freeman 2119 French Street Fort Myers, Florida 33916-4434
