Findings Of Fact Michael Douglas began the 1982-83 school year as a seventh grade student at South Miami Junior High School. Disciplinary measures were required on September 1, 10, 14, 17 and 29, 1982. The student refused to obey rules and instructions, and was generally incorrigible. On September 29, he threatened another student with assault. During September, school officials had several contacts with Michael's mother and his case was referred to the child study team. As a result of these conferences, he was assigned to a youth opportunity school on October 28, 1982.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner continue its placement of the student, Michael Douglas, in the Youth Opportunity School. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Valentine, Esquire 3000 Executive Plaza 3050 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33137 Dr. Leonard M. Britton, Superintendent Dade County Public Schools Administrative Office Lindsey Hopkins Building 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Ms. Lillie Mae Jordon 5920 Southwest 6th Street Miami, Florida 33143
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to dismiss a paraprofessional for just cause based principally upon the allegation that she struck a disabled student on the head with her elbows.
Findings Of Fact Background The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Cynthia Thompson ("Thompson") had worked in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for approximately 16 years. From August 2002 forward, and at all times relevant to this case, Thompson was employed as an education paraprofessional at Neva King Cooper Education Center, where she provided educational services to students having severe developmental disabilities. The alleged events giving rise to this case allegedly occurred on January 6, 2006. The School Board alleges that on that date, in the cafeteria at around 9:00 a.m., as a breakfast session was winding down, Thompson used her elbows to strike one of the students in her charge, a profoundly mentally handicapped, 15-year-old female named K. P., on the head. This allegation is based on the account of a single eyewitness—— Latanya Stephenson, the school's assistant registrar.1 Thompson consistently has maintained her innocence, denying that she hit K. P. as charged. She claims——and testified at hearing——that she merely used her arms to prevent K. P. from getting up to rummage through the garbage can in search of food and things to put in her mouth. This, then, is a "she said——she said" case that boils down to a credibility contest between Thompson and Ms. Stephenson. If Ms. Stephenson's account is truthful and accurate, then Thompson is guilty of at least one of the charges against her. On the other hand, if Thompson's account is believed, then she is not guilty of misconduct. Given that the credibility determination drives the outcome, the undersigned will first, as a predicate to evaluating the evidence, set forth the two material witness's respective accounts of the incident in question, and then make determinations, to the extent possible, as to what might have happened. It is important to note, however, that the findings in the next two sections merely report what each witness said occurred; these do not necessarily correspond to the undersigned's findings about what likely took place in the cafeteria at Neva King Cooper Education Center on January 6, 2006. Stephenson's Story Ms. Stephenson recounts that on the morning in question, while on break, she went to the cafeteria to get a snack. She went through the line, bought a cookie, and, before leaving the building, stopped to chat with two custodians who were sitting in a closet that holds supplies. As she leaned against a wall, listening to the custodians' conversation, Ms. Stephenson looked back into the cafeteria and, at a distance of about 10 to 12 feet, saw Thompson interact with K. P. K. P. was sitting at a table, her chair pushed in close, hands in her lap. Thompson, whose hands were clasped in front of her body, approached K. P. from behind and——after "scanning" the room——struck her twice in the head, first with her right elbow and then, rotating her body, with her left elbow. Ms. Stephenson heard the blows, saw K. P.'s head move, and heard K. P. moan. Ms. Stephenson called out Thompson's name, and Thompson, apologizing, explained that K. P. repeatedly had tried to pick through the garbage can in search of things to eat. Thompson told Ms. Stephenson that she would not hit K. P. again, but that striking the student was an effective means of getting her to stay put. Ms. Stephenson did not check on K. P. to see if she were injured or in need of assistance. According to Ms. Stephenson, there were about 40 to 50 students in the cafeteria at the time, ranging in age from three to 22 years. There were also approximately 12 to 15 members of the instructional staff (i.e. teachers and paraprofessionals) present, meaning that, besides Thompson and Ms. Stephenson, about a dozen responsible adults were on hand at the time of the incident in dispute. Ms. Stephenson did not bring the incident to the attention of any of the teachers or paralegals who were in the cafeteria at the time. Thompson's Testimony Thompson was responsible for three students at breakfast that morning. The teacher under whose supervision she worked, Mr. Ibarra, was watching the other five students in the class. Mr. Ibarra was on one side of the table, Thompson the other. Thompson was feeding one of her students, "R.", while watching K. P. and a third student. R. did not want to eat, so to coax him into opening his mouth, Thompson was playing an "airplane game" with him, trying to make the feeding fun. Thompson had a plastic utensil in her right hand, with which she was feeding R. some applesauce (or similar food); in her left hand was a toy. At the time of the alleged incident, some students had finished breakfast and been brought back to their classrooms. Still, there were quite a few people in the cafeteria, 60 to 80 by Thompson's reckoning, including adults.2 K. P. was sitting at the table, behind Thompson; they had their backs to one another. Consequently, while feeding R., Thompson needed to look over her shoulder to keep an eye on K. P. Suddenly, Thompson noticed K. P. starting to rise from her chair. (K. P. has a history of darting to the garbage can, grabbing food and trash, and putting these things in her mouth to eat.) Thompson reached back with her right arm and, placing her elbow on K. P.'s left shoulder, prevented the child from getting up. K. P. then tried slipping out to her (K. P.'s) right, whereupon Thompson swung around and, with her left arm, blocked K. P.'s escape. Right after this happened, Ms. Stephenson spoke to Thompson, criticizing her handling of K. P. Thompson explained to Ms. Stephenson (who, as an assistant registrar, does not work directly with the children) that she simply had prevented K. P. from getting into the trash can. Ms. Stephenson walked away. Soon thereafter, Mr. Ibarra said, "Let's go." The children were escorted back to the classroom. Resolutions of Evidential Conflict The competing accounts of what occurred are sufficiently in conflict as to the crucial points that both cannot simultaneously be considered fully accurate. The fact- finder's dilemma is that either of the two material witnesses possibly might have reported the incident faithfully to the truth, for neither witness's testimony is inherently incredible, impossible, or patently a fabrication. Having observed both witnesses on the stand, moreover, the undersigned discerned no telltale signs of deception in the demeanor of either witness. In short, neither of the competing accounts can be readily dismissed as false. Of course, it is not the School Board's burden to prove to a certainty that its allegations are true, but only that its allegations are most likely true. As the fact-finder, the undersigned therefore must consider how likely it is that the incident took place as described by the respective witnesses. In her testimony, Ms. Stephenson told of an unprovoked battery on a defenseless disabled person. It is an arresting story, shocking if true. Ms. Stephenson appeared to possess a clear memory of the event, and she spoke with confidence about it. Nothing in the evidence suggests that Ms. Stephenson had any reason to make up the testimony she has given against Thompson. Nevertheless, some aspects of Ms. Stephenson's testimony give the undersigned pause. There is, to start, the matter of the large number of persons——including at least a dozen responsible adults, not to mention about 50 students——who were on hand as potential witnesses to the alleged misdeed. The undersigned hesitates to believe that Thompson would attack a child in plain view of so many others, particularly in the absence of any provocation that might have caused her suddenly to snap.3 The cafeteria would not likely have afforded Thompson a favorable opportunity for hitting K. P., were she inclined to do so. Next, it puzzles the undersigned that Ms. Stephenson did not immediately signal to someone——anyone——in the cafeteria for help. The undersigned expects that a school employee witnessing the beating of a disabled child under the circumstances described by Ms. Stephenson would promptly enlist the aid of other responsible persons nearby. Indeed, the undersigned can think of no reason (none was given) for Ms. Stephenson's rather tepid response to a violent, despicable deed——other than that it did not happen exactly the way she described it. Finally, Ms. Stephenson's incuriosity about K. P.'s condition after the alleged beating is curious. Having, she says, witnessed Thompson twice strike K. P. in the head with enough force that the blows could be heard over the din of dozens of children, and having heard K. P. moan, presumably in pain, Ms. Stephenson by her own admission made no attempt to ascertain whether the child was hurt or in need of attention. This indifference to the welfare of the alleged victim strikes the undersigned as inconsistent with Ms. Stephenson's testimony that Thompson attacked the child. Turning to Thompson's testimony, she, like Ms. Stephenson, has not been shown to have a motive for lying about the incident in question——assuming she is innocent of the charges, which the undersigned must do unless and until the greater weight of the evidence proves otherwise. Thompson is, however, a convicted felon, which is a chink in her credibility's armor. That said, there is nothing obviously discordant about her account of the relevant events. Her testimony regarding K. P.'s proclivity for diving into trashcans is corroborated by other evidence in the record, and the undersigned accepts it as the truth. Her testimony about the feeding of R. was not rebutted and therefore is credited. Her explanation for having used her arms and elbows (while her hands were full) to block K. P. from racing to the garbage is believable.4 If there is anything eyebrow-raising about Thompson's testimony, it is that the blocking maneuver she described, quickly twisting her body around from right to left, elbows and arms in motion, seemingly posed the nontrivial risk of accidentally hitting the child, possibly in the head. One is tempted to speculate that Thompson unintentionally might have struck K. P. in the course of attempting to keep her from engaging in a potentially harmful behavior, namely eating refuse from the garbage can.5 The undersigned does not, however, think or find that this happened, more likely than not, because of the "dog that didn't bark"6——or, more particularly, the teachers and paraprofessionals who never spoke up. Most likely, if Thompson had struck K. P. in the manner that Ms. Stephenson described, then the noise and commotion would have attracted the attention of someone besides Ms. Stephenson. There were, after all, approximately 12 other members of the instructional staff nearby in the cafeteria when this alleged incident occurred. Yet, no one in a position to have witnessed the alleged attack——except Ms. Stephenson——has accused Thompson of wrongdoing, nor has anyone come forward to corroborate the testimony of Ms. Stephenson. This suggests that nothing occurred which the instructional personnel, who (unlike Ms. Stephenson) regularly work directly with this special student population, considered unusual or abnormal. Taken as a whole, the evidence is insufficient to establish that, more likely than not, Thompson struck K. P. as alleged. Based on the evidence, the undersigned believes that, as between the two scenarios presented, the incident more likely occurred as Thompson described it; in other words, relative to Stephenson's account, Thompson's is more likely true. Accordingly, the undersigned accepts and adopts, as findings of historical fact, the statements made in paragraphs 6 and 9-15 above. The upshot is that the School Board failed to carry its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Thompson committed a disciplinable offense. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Thompson is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Thompson is guilty of the offense of gross insubordination. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Thompson is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's corporal punishment policy. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Thompson is guilty of the offense of unseemly conduct. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Thompson is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's policy against violence in the workplace.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Thompson of all charges brought against her in this proceeding; (b) providing that Thompson be reinstated to the position from which she was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Thompson back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 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 22nd day of December, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code rules, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the Commissioner of Education, is responsible for determining whether there is probable cause to warrant disciplinary action against an educator's certificate and, if probable cause is found, for filing and prosecuting an administrative complaint pursuant to chapter 120. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 803275, valid through June 30, 2021, covering the areas of elementary education, exceptional student education, middle grades integrated curriculum, and social science. At the time of the final hearing in this proceeding, Respondent had taught for approximately 17 years. The Complaint The Complaint alleges that Respondent spoke ill of student E.J.'s work on an assignment in front of the whole class, including, but not limited to, calling it pathetic. As a result, E.J. was embarrassed. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Respondent spoke ill of student A.S.'s work on an assignment in front of the whole class, including, but not limited to, calling it pathetic. As a result, A.S. was embarrassed. The Complaint also alleges that Respondent criticized student J.P.'s work on an assignment, including, but not limited to, saying he had not put any work into it. As a result of this alleged conduct, the Complaint charges Respondent with having violated section 1012.795(1)(j), and rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 6A-10.081(2)(a)5. Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing Respondent began teaching in the St. Lucie County School District ("District") on August 1, 2016. At the time of Respondent's conduct that is alleged to violate section 1012.795 and rule 6A-10.081, Respondent was employed as an eighth grade social studies teacher at West Gate K-8 School ("West Gate"), in the District. The 2018-2019 school year for the District began on August 13, 2018. September 14, 2018, was Respondent's last day of employment with the District. The alleged conduct giving rise to this proceeding occurred at some point between August 13, 2018, and September 14, 2018. On or about September 14, 2018, the District initiated an investigation into Respondent's conduct while she had been employed at West Gate. E.J. was a student in Respondent's eighth grade history class. Respondent assigned the students to complete a history project. After E.J. turned in his project, Respondent called him up to her desk and told him, in the front of the class, that his work on the project was "lazy" and "pathetic." Other students in the class saw Respondent's conduct and heard her comments to E.J. E.J. testified, credibly and persuasively, that he was embarrassed and hurt by Respondent's comments, and that he went back to his desk in tears. The credible evidence establishes that after seeing E.J.'s reaction to her comments, Respondent called E.J. outside of the classroom and apologized. Respondent testified, credibly, that she felt "terrible" about making E.J. cry, and that she had made the comments because she was frustrated with the quality of the students' work on the project. E.J.'s father, Jermaine Jones, who had picked him up from school on the day of the incident, confirmed that E.J. was upset by Respondent's comments on his project. Jones immediately set up a meeting with Assistant Principal Guzman and Respondent for the following day. At that meeting, Respondent apologized to E.J.'s parents and said she was having a stressful day when she made the comments to E.J. According to Jones, the incident made E.J.—who normally is quiet— further withdrawn, and he became, in Jones's words, "a little depressed." According to Jones, following the incident, E.J. did not want to go to Respondent's class. Other student witnesses testified at the final hearing, credibly and consistently, that they saw and heard Respondent's comments directed at E.J., and that E.J. was upset by her comments and started to cry. Another student, J.P., testified that he had been unable to complete the project for Respondent's class because his grandfather was ill and had been hospitalized, and that he and his family had been spending time at the hospital. J.P. took a note from his mother, to Respondent, on the day the project was due, explaining the reason why J.P. had been unable to complete his project. J.P. testified, credibly, that Respondent told him, in front of the class, that she really did not care about the note, and if he did not turn in the completed project by the following day, he would receive a grade of "zero." J.P. credibly testified that other students in the class heard Respondent's comments to him, and that he was "very shocked" and felt "very embarrassed." J.P. did not turn in a project. Student A.S. testified, credibly, that Respondent told him that his work on the project was unacceptable and "pathetic." Respondent made these comments in front of the entire class. A.S. testified, credibly, that he felt "very embarrassed and upset." He testified, credibly, that Respondent did not apologize to him. Respondent testified on her own behalf. She acknowledged calling E.J.'s work "lazy" and "pathetic," but testified that she had not intended to hurt his feelings, and when she realized that she had, she "felt terrible about it." She acknowledged that she has "a deep voice, and I come off harsher than I mean to." She called E.J. outside to explain that she had not intended to hurt his feelings, and there would be other opportunities to make up the bad grade he received on the project. She testified that as a result of their talk, E.J. calmed down, and that she did not have any further issues with him in class. She confirmed that on the day following the incident with E.J., she met with E.J.'s parents to discuss the incident. She testified that the meeting was "civil," and that she left the meeting feeling like "it was taken care of." Regarding the incident with J.P., Respondent testified that the students had two weeks in which to complete the project, and that when J.P. approached her with the note regarding his grandfather's illness, she told him to turn in, the following day, what he had completed to that point. She confirmed that J.P. did not turn in a project. She also testified that she did not hear from J.P.'s mother regarding the project. Regarding student A.S., Respondent testified that she did not call his work "pathetic," and that, given E.J.'s reaction, she would not have used that word again.4 Respondent also presented the testimony of K.K., who also had been a 4 Respondent acknowledged that the alleged incidents with E.J., J.P., and A.S. involved the same project, and that E.J. and A.S. had turned the project in on the same day. Thus, the undersigned questions whether Respondent would have had sufficient time to reflect on the effect that the word "pathetic" had on E.J., such that she would not have used that word in speaking with A.S. on the same day. student in Respondent's eighth grade history class in the 2018-2019 school year. K.K. testified that Respondent discussed E.J.'s paper with the class because it was a good paper, and that she did not see anyone cry in Respondent's class. She also testified that Respondent did not speak in negative terms about anyone's project in front of the class. However, K.K.'s testimony and written statement are directly contradicted by the testimony of four other students, as well as by E.J.'s father and Respondent herself, who admitted having called E.J.'s work on the project "lazy" and "pathetic" in front of the class. Accordingly, K.K.'s testimony and statement are not deemed credible. Respondent has been a teacher for 17 years. She testified that her educator's certificate has never been subjected to discipline, and no evidence was presented showing that disciplinary action has ever been taken against her educator's certificate. Findings of Ultimate Fact Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Complaint. Whether particular conduct constitutes a violation of the applicable statutes and rules is a factual question to be decided in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Whether specific conduct constitutes a deviation from the required standard is an ultimate finding of fact. Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, requires a teacher to make reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and to the student's mental health. It is determined that by disparaging E.J.'s work in front of the entire class—which caused him to suffer distress, withdraw, and avoid going to Respondent's class—Respondent violated this rule. Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, requires a teacher to avoid intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. As found above, Respondent intentionally engaged in conduct that resulted in unnecessary embarrassment to students E.J., J.P., and A.S. Accordingly, it is determined that Respondent violated this rule. By violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j).
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 For Respondent: Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner and Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 1 All references to chapter 120 are to the 2020 version.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order placing Respondent's educator's certificate on probation for a period of one year from the date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief Office of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Diane Tirado 3502 Southwest Vollmer Street Port St. Lucie, Florida 34953 Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC 1200 Corporate Center Way, Suite 200 Wellington, Florida 33414-8594 Lisa Forbess, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and by doing so violated Sections 1012.795(1)(d), 1012.795(1)(g) and 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (e) and (f). If one or all of the violations alleged are proven, what penalty would be appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed as a teacher in Florida, and has been issued Florida Educator's Certificate 449960. Her certificate covers the area of mentally handicapped, and expires June 30, 2013. During the 2008-2009 school year, Respondent taught at Chaffee Trail in Duval County, Florida. She was assigned as an exceptional education teacher in a self-contained classroom for trainable mentally handicapped students in the first through third grades. Respondent generally had eight to eleven students in her class, and was aided by a paraprofessional, Julie Brooke. Respondent's classroom was on the first-grade hallway. One of Respondent's students was a nine-year-old named C.L. C.L. was a thin, frail, African-American student who, at the time of the incidents giving rise to these proceedings, was approximately four feet, four inches tall and weighed approximately 60 pounds. He was described as very low functioning, with an IQ in the 40's. Despite his significant limitations, C.L. was an active, friendly child who had a tendency to wander and needed redirection. His IEP included specific strategies for dealing with behavior problems in the classroom. Ms. Brooke worked with C.L. daily and he often sat at her desk to work on his assignments. They got along well together. November 18, 2008 On November 18, 2008, there were only four or five students in Respondent's class, because a number of students were absent. That morning, Ms. Brooke took another student to the office because he had been misbehaving. On her way back to Respondent's classroom, she heard loud voices and screaming coming from Respondent's classroom and recognized the voices as those of Respondent and C.L. When she entered the classroom, Ms. Brooke saw Respondent sitting in an office chair, holding C.L. face down on the floor with both of his arms twisted behind his back. Respondent appeared to be pushing C.L. down so that his face and body were pressed against the floor. C.L. was screaming and crying and appeared to be frightened. Ms. Brooke walked over to her desk and sat down. C.L. wanted to go over to Ms. Brooke, but was not allowed to do so. Respondent let him get up, but pinned him into the corner of the classroom near the door, by hemming him in with her chair. Respondent was facing C.L. and pressing the chair against his body, while he continued to scream and cry. About this same time, Assistant Principal Wanda Grondin received a call from a substitute teacher in another classroom on the first-grade hallway, complaining that there was yelling going on that was disturbing her classroom. Ms. Grondin went to the first-grade hallway, and could also hear yelling that was coming from Respondent's classroom. As Ms. Grondin approached the classroom, the yelling stopped. As she entered the room, she saw Respondent sitting in the office chair, with C.L. pinned in the corner of the room, held there by Respondent's chair. C.L. was crying and fighting back. Respondent indicated that he had refused to do something and she was trying to calm him down to give him options. Upon Ms. Grondin's arrival, Respondent slid her chair back, and C.L. fell into Ms. Grondin's arms, crying. Respondent told C.L. that he could now go to Ms. Brooke. C.L. went to Ms. Brooke and she comforted him and gave him some work to do. Later in the day, Ms. Brooke reported to Ms. Grondin that another child in the classroom, M.C., had reported to Ms. Brooke that Respondent had twisted C.L.'s arm and had locked him in the closet in the classroom. Although there was testimony presented regarding conversations that Ms. Grondin, the principal and the guidance counselor had with M.C., and his description of what allegedly happened to C.L., neither M.C. nor any other person who actually witnessed C.L. being locked in the closet testified at hearing. December 16, 2008 Brian Harvell is a first-grade teacher whose classroom is across the hall from Respondent's. On December 16, 2008, he was in his classroom when he heard loud voices and banging noises. Mr. Harvell walked out into the hallway and saw Respondent with C.L., struggling in the doorway. Respondent had her back against the doorframe, and one arm around D.L.'s torso and one of C.L.'s arms twisted behind his back. Mr. Harvell approached Respondent and C.L., and she stated, "Look what's happening in my classroom." When he looked past her, it appeared that a desk had been turned over. C.L. was squirming and crying out while Respondent restrained him. At that point, Mr. Harvell stated, "C.L., come to me." Respondent released C.L. and he walked over to Mr. Harvell, who took him to his classroom. In the classroom, he showed him a carpeted area and a toolbox full of cardboard books. C.L. sat and played quietly for approximately 15-20 minutes, until Ms. Brooke came for him. Mr. Harvell reported the incident to Ms. Grondin. It is not appropriate to control a student by twisting his arm behind his back, pinning him into a corner, or pushing his face toward the floor. It is especially inappropriate to subject a small, frail, mentally handicapped child of C.L.'s size and capacity to such methods of restraint. Respondent was removed from Chaffee Trail on December 19, 2008, as a result of the incidents involving C.L. Her employment with the Duval County School District was terminated in February 2009. The allegations against Respondent were reported in both the print and broadcast news media. The incidents in question also prompted complaints to be filed with the Department of Children and Family Services, and investigations were conducted by DCFS to determine whether there were indicators for child abuse. However, the investigations by DCFS do not address violations of professional standards governing teachers, and the findings are a result of evidence that is different from that presented at the hearing in this case.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(d),(g) and (j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-(3)(a),(e) and (f), and permanently revoking her certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2010, 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 24th day of November, 2010.
The Issue The first issue in this case is whether, as the district school board alleges, a teacher abused, mistreated, or otherwise behaved inappropriately towards one of his special-needs students; if the allegations of wrongdoing are proved to be true, then it will be necessary to decide whether the school board has just cause to terminate the teacher's employment.
Findings Of Fact The Broward County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Broward County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Edouard Jean ("Jean") was employed as an Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher in the Broward County public schools, a position which he had held for the preceding 16 years. During that period, Jean taught students with disabilities, who typically receive specially designed instruction and related services pursuant to individual educational plans. Ahead of the 2013-14 school year, Jean was transferred to Crystal Lake Middle School, where he had not previously worked. He was placed in an "SVE" class and assigned to teach ESE students having "varying exceptionalities." Jean's class contained a mix of high- and low-functioning students, about nine in number. Jean's colleague, Ray Montalbano, taught a similar SVE class in a nearby room. At the beginning of the school year, the two ESE teachers agreed to share responsibility for their respective students under an arrangement that separated the higher functioning students from the lower functioning students. Jean and Mr. Montalbano took turns teaching the two groups, exchanging one for the other at midday. In this way, each teacher spent roughly equal time with the respective sets of students. For the last hour of the day, they combined the two groups and jointly instructed the approximately 18 students in Mr. Montalbano's classroom, which was larger. There were two paraprofessionals, or teacher's assistants, working in Jean and Mr. Montalbano's SVE classes. One, named Lisa Phillips, was assigned to both teachers; she alternated between their classrooms during the day. The other, Donna Rollins, was assigned to Mr. Montalbano's class, where Jean spent an hour each afternoon. In view of the cooperative arrangement between Jean and Mr. Montalbano, both of the teacher's assistants regularly worked in the same classroom as Jean and assisted with the provision of instruction and services to the 18 students for whom Jean and Mr. Montalbano were responsible. On October 15, 2013, Jean was removed from his classroom and informed that he was the target of a criminal investigation arising from allegations that he recently had abused one of his pupils, a 13-year-old boy with Down Syndrome named Z.P., who was among the lower functioning students. Jean's accuser was an occupational therapist named Lisa Taormina, who at all relevant times worked as an independent contractor for the School Board, providing services to students at various public schools in Broward County. Jean consistently has denied Ms. Taormina's allegations, which shocked and surprised him. Ms. Taormina, who that year was seeing students at Crystal Lake Middle School once per week each Friday, reported having observed Jean mistreat Z.P. on October 4, 2013, and again on October 11, 2013. Ms. Taormina claimed that the alleged events of October 4 took place in Jean's classroom with Ms. Phillips in attendance. The alleged events of October 11, in contrast, purportedly took place in Mr. Montalbano's classroom during the hour when the two SVE classes were combined. Thus, the alleged abuse supposedly occurred in the presence of Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and a substitute teacher named Shirley Ashcroft who happened to be there that day. Ms. Taormina's allegations were investigated by the Broward County Sheriff's Office and the Broward District Schools Police Department. During these investigations, neither Z.P. nor any of the other students were interviewed, because most of them (including Z.P.) are either nonverbal or too intellectually limited to be reliable witnesses.1/ All of the adults were questioned, however, and none of them corroborated Ms. Taormina's allegations. Unsurprisingly, therefore, no criminal charges were brought against Jean. On the strength of Ms. Taormina's allegations, the School Board nevertheless determined that Jean had abused Z.P. and thus should be fired. As it happens, Ms. Taormina's final hearing testimony is the only direct evidence against Jean, whose colleagues Mr. Montalbano, Ms. Phillips, Ms. Rollins, and Ms. Ashcroft, to a person, credibly denied under oath having ever seen him mistreat Z.P. or any other student. The outcome of this case, therefore, depends on whether Ms. Taormina's testimony is believed likely to be an accurate account of the relevant historical events. In assessing Ms. Taormina's credibility, the undersigned finds it especially significant that Jean's co- workers, who were able to observe him for extended periods of time on a daily basis in the classroom, never witnessed him engage in any troubling or suspicious behavior during the roughly seven weeks he taught at Crystal Lake Middle School; to the contrary, everyone who testified (except Ms. Taormina) who had seen Jean in the classroom praised his performance generally, and his relationship with Z.P. in particular. The undersigned credits the consistent, mutually corroborative, and overwhelmingly favorable testimony about Jean's exemplary conduct. Because an isolated incident, however out of character, can be squared with evidence of otherwise superlative performance, the fact that Jean was well regarded by the employees with whom he closely worked does not exclude the possibility that Jean abused Z.P., but it does diminish the likelihood that he could have abused Z.P. on multiple occasions. For that reason, if Ms. Taormina claimed only to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P. once, her testimony likely would have been more believable. Ms. Taormina claims, however, to have seen Jean abuse Z.P. on two separate days——on consecutive weekly visits to the school, no less. If Ms. Taormina is to be believed, Jean's alleged abuse of Z.P. was not an isolated incident but was rather, if not necessarily part of a pattern of behavior, at least something Jean was capable of repeating. Here it bears emphasizing that Ms. Taormina saw Jean, at most, once per week for relatively brief periods of less than 30 minutes apiece. Within the context of this limited contact, Ms. Taormina (if she is believed) happened to witness Jean abuse Z.P. on back-to-back visits, while Jean's colleagues, who saw him every workday, never noticed anything amiss. Logically, there are, broadly speaking, two possible explanations for this anomalous situation. First, Jean might have abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was present in the classroom, which would explain why no one else ever saw him mistreat the student, so long as the failure of the four other adults in the room on October 11 to witness the alleged misconduct——a lack of attentiveness that defies reasonable expectations——is overlooked. Given that Ms. Taormina's brief weekly visits comprised such a tiny percentage of Jean's total time with the students, however, to abuse Z.P. only in her presence probably would have required Jean to act according to a plan, which beggars belief;2/ otherwise, Ms. Taormina's presence at the very moments that all such abuse occurred was a most remarkable coincidence. At any rate, while the probability that Jean abused Z.P. only when Ms. Taormina was around to witness his misdeeds is perhaps greater than zero percent, the undersigned regards this explanation as far too implausible to be considered likely. Alternatively, and likelier, Jean might have abused Z.P. not only in Ms. Taormina's presence, but also in her absence. Because Ms. Taormina is the only person who has ever claimed to have seen Jean mistreat Z.P., however, to accept this explanation requires believing that Jean's co-workers never saw him abusing Z.P., or that everyone who witnessed such abuse except Ms. Taormina resolved not to report it.3/ Yet both situations are unworthy of belief. More likely than not, if Jean were abusing Z.P. at times when Ms. Taormina was not in the room, which was most of the time, then at some point over the course of seven weeks Mr. Montalbano or one of the paraprofessionals would have noticed something wrong4/——and none of them did, as found above. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine——and impossible reasonably to infer in the absence of any supporting evidence——that another teacher or paraprofessional, or some combination of these employees, would fail to report suspected child abuse and lie under oath to protect Jean. In any event, the undersigned has found that Jean's fellow employees never saw Jean abuse Z.P., which means that, in all likelihood, Jean did not abuse Z.P. when Ms. Taormina was not in the room. In sum, it is unlikely that Jean repeatedly abused Z.P. only in Ms. Taormina's presence; and yet, it is unlikely that Jean ever abused Z.P. during the vast majority of the time when Ms. Taormina was not in the room (but another adult or adults typically were). Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Jean likely never abused Z.P. at all, contrary to Ms. Taormina's allegations. The foregoing reasons are sufficient for the undersigned to reject Ms. Taormina's testimony as ultimately unpersuasive and to find that the School Board has failed to prove its allegations against Jean. Nevertheless, Ms. Taormina was a good witness in many respects. Her story has been consistent, her recollection seemingly clear, her testimony vivid and detailed. Ms. Taormina is articulate and her demeanor at hearing suggested sincerity. She had barely known Jean before the events at issue and was not shown to have had grounds to dislike him or any other motive for damaging him with false allegations of misconduct. Thus, while not necessary to the disposition, it is desirable to examine Ms. Taormina's specific accusations in greater detail. Ms. Taormina claims that on October 4, 2013, while Z.P. was lying on his back on the floor, Jean spun Z.P. around, using the student's legs as a handle for twirling the boy's body. Then, she says, Jean tapped Z.P. with a ruler to prod him into getting up from the floor. Z.P. refused to rise, and Jean resumed spinning the student. Ms. Taormina recognized that Jean and Z.P. were "playing around" and concluded nothing "abusive" had occurred, but she deemed Jean's conduct "inappropriate." As mentioned, Z.P. is cognitively limited in consequence of Down syndrome. He was also, at the time of the events at issue, aggressive, sometimes mean and abusive towards teachers, including Jean, and known to bite, scratch, kick, and spit on others. Z.P., who was a big boy, could be difficult to redirect. By October 2013, however, Jean had established a rapport with Z.P. The student liked his teacher, and Jean and Z.P. would play with each other. One activity that they enjoyed entailed Jean spinning Z.P. around——which is what Ms. Taormina observed. Except for Ms. Taormina, no one who witnessed Jean playfully spinning Z.P.——which Jean admits doing——considered this activity to be inappropriate. There is no persuasive evidence in the record establishing an objective standard of conduct that Jean might have violated when he played with Z.P. in this manner. Striking Z.P. with a ruler would be another matter, of course. Jean denies ever having done that, however, and no one but Ms. Taormina claims to have observed Jean misbehave in such fashion. The undersigned finds, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean did not hit Z.P. with a ruler on October 4, 2013, as alleged, but rather tapped the floor with it, as he testified. According to Ms. Taormina, Jean's conduct the following week, on October 11, was worse. She testified that, upon arriving in the classroom, she noticed that Jean's fingers were resting on the back of Z.P.'s neck as he (Jean) moved the student around. To Ms. Taormina, "it looked . . . like [Jean] was searching for, like, a pressure point or tender point . . . ." In fact, Jean was not searching for a pressure point, and he did not dig his fingers into a tender spot on Z.P.'s neck, which explains why no one (including Ms. Taormina) saw or heard the student cry out or grimace in pain. The undersigned credits Jean's testimony that he touched Z.P.'s back and shoulders to guide or comfort him, not to hurt him. Ms. Taormina asserted that after putting his fingers on the back of Z.P.'s neck, Jean gave Z.P. a "violent shaking" which caused Z.P.'s head to rock up and down ("just flapping back and forth") so fast that Z.P.'s features were an unrecognizable blur, but only for "just a few seconds." Somewhat incongruously, however, she characterized this "mockery" as being "more, like, playing" and noted that Jean, who was smiling, did not appear to be acting out of anger. The behavior that Ms. Taormina recounted is indeed disturbing. Yet some of the details seem a bit off. For example, although no expert testimony was presented, the undersigned's rudimentary understanding of simple biomechanics makes him think that violently shaking a passive or helpless person so hard that his features become blurry (assuming this could be accomplished in just a few seconds' time) would cause the victim's dangling head, not to flap up and down (rapidly nodding), as Ms. Taormina described, but to rotate uncontrollably. The undersigned finds it difficult, too, to imagine that such abuse could ever look "like playing." Moreover, it seems peculiar, given the number of adults in the room, that Ms. Taormina did not immediately intervene or speak up to protect Z.P., if Jean were harming the student as she has stated. More important, it is likely that a vigorous physical battery such as the attack on Z.P. that Ms. Taormina recalls would have caused a considerable commotion. And yet, even though there were four other adults in the room besides Jean and Ms. Taormina, no one but the occupational therapist noticed Jean inflicting this alleged abuse. The undersigned cannot find, based on the greater weight of the evidence, that Jean violently shook Z.P. as alleged. This incident, therefore, was not proved. After Jean allegedly shook Z.P., according to Ms. Taormina, the student climbed up on a table, where he proceeded to eat a banana. Ms. Taormina testified that all of the students and adults in the room (except her) laughed at Z.P. when someone exclaimed that he looked like a monkey. She said that Jean then led Z.P. to a garbage can and made him spit out the piece of banana in his mouth. When Z.P. got down on the floor afterwards, said Ms. Taormina, Jean hit the student with a broom to compel him to stand and, having no success with that, lifted Z.P. by his shirt and pants and shook him a few times before standing the boy upright. Once on his feet, Z.P. wet his pants, Ms. Taormina stated. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the undersigned finds that Z.P. did, in fact, eat a banana while standing on a table. Further, Jean did hustle Z.P. to the garbage can to spit out the banana in his mouth because the boy was gagging on the fruit. The evidence does not support a finding that the adults laughed at Z.P., although one student did call him a monkey, which prompted Jean to reprimand the offender. The evidence does not support a finding that Jean struck Z.P. with a broom, an act of abuse which Jean credibly denied, or that Jean picked up Z.P. and shook him, a feat which likely could not be accomplished, given the student's size and weight, and which Jean credibly denied. Z.P. did urinate on himself, as Ms. Taormina reported, but the greater weight of the evidence establishes that this was not a response to stress, fright, or abuse, but a common occurrence. In sum, the evidence does not support a determination that Jean likely mistreated Z.P. as alleged. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of immorality as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(1).5/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of the offense of misconduct in office, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(2).6/ The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Jean is guilty of incompetency, which is defined in rule 6A-5.056(3).7/ It is undisputed that Jean was never charged with, much less found guilty of, any crime as a result of the events which gave rise to this proceeding. Therefore, the School Board does not have just cause to terminate his employment pursuant to section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for "being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order exonerating Jean of all charges brought against him in this proceeding, reinstating him as an ESE teacher, and awarding him back salary as required under section 1012.33(6)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2014, 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 23rd day of December, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 066623, covering the areas of Elementary Education, Junior College, Reading, Early Childhood Education and Administration and Supervision. She has earned a bachelor's and master's degree, and a doctorate. Until her suspension in August, 1982, she served as Principal of West Riviera Elementary School ("West Riviera") in the Palm Beach County School District. On January 24, 1983, a final order was entered by the Palm Beach County School Board dismissing her from her employment and cancelling her continuing contract with the district. During Respondent's tenure as Principal at West Riviera, (1973-1982) it was her policy to maintain and rigorously enforce strict discipline, or as she put it, "law and order." Her approach to maintaining "law and order" is illustrated by the following events. When Marie Rusch joined West Riviera as a substitute Kindergarten teacher in October of 1979, Respondent explained that she wanted Ms. Rusch to maintain law and order in the school: "I don't care if these children learn nothing, I want law and order." Ms. Rusch was surprised by Respondent's attitude, particularly with regard to kindergarten children. This was Ms. Rusch's first opportunity to teach in a public school. During a conference in 1973 with Nancy Pullam, (another kindergarten teacher) regarding student behavior, Respondent gave Ms. Pullam two or more rulers taped together with masking tape and told "her beat them and they will learn." Respondent passed out 18" rulers to each member of the teaching staff at West Riviera and told them that she expected them to use the rulers in administering corporal punishment. Until on or about May 7, 1980, Respondent permitted teachers to administer corporal punishment in their classrooms, contrary to Palm Beach County School Board Policy 5.18(9). She permitted teachers to administer corporal punishment for any type of misbehavior until she changed that policy on or about March 12, 1982. At that time, she advised her faculty that corporal punishment was to be administered only for fighting and foul language. Prior to March 12, 1982, Respondent failed to set any guidelines for the faculty at West Riviera concerning offenses or infractions for which corporal punishment was authorized. In her view, the only "offense" which did not warrant corporal punishment was the failure of a student to do his assigned classwork. The only alternatives to corporal punishment utilized at West Riviera were suspension from school or deprivation of a fun activity (including depriving a student of physical education or use of the library). If a child would not accept paddling, it was Respondent's policy that the student be automatically suspended for a period of five days. Respondent constantly emphasized her philosophy of strict law and order through her use of the expression "Your behind is mine," meaning that if a child misbehaved he or she would receive a paddling. Respondent repeatedly used this expression in addressing children, faculty and staff, both personally and over the school's public address system. Respondent's manner of administering West Riviera created a fearful and military-like atmosphere. She often told teachers that she wanted it so quiet in faculty meetings, and in classrooms, that she could "hear a rat piss on cotton." When Marjorie Russo was hired to teach third grade, Respondent told her that corporal punishment used at West Riviera. Respondent told the faculty at the beginning of each school year that they each had a paddle, and she expected them to keep law and order. It they didn't, they would be "blackballed" in the county. Respondent told substitute teachers that her primary concern was that they maintain law and order, that she didn't care whether the substitute taught the children anything. Dr. Howard Levarity, Assistant Principal at West Riviera, became concerned about the extent to which corporal punishment was utilized under Respondent's administration. He was so concerned that he tried to transfer to another school. He observed occasions when children were corporally punished without good reason. At West Riviera, teachers were given great latitude in administering corporal punishment so that "law and order" - as defined by respondent - could be maintained. As a result of Respondent's policies regarding the use of corporal punishment, there were 3,246 separate instances in which students were administered corporal punishment during the 1979-1980 school year. A total of 451 students (78% of the school's students, ranging in number from 576 to 607) received corporal punishment during that school year. During the 1980-1981 school year, there were 1,176 instances in which corporal punishment was administered to students. Out of a school population of 550 students, 290 (52.8%) received corporal punishment during that year. During the 1981-1982 school year, there were 560 separate instances of corporal punishment. Out of a school population of 537, 214 students (40.9%) received corporal punishment during that year. Although most of these punishments were not administered in Respondent's presence, their frequency was a direct result of her policy to encourage - even insist - that corporal punishment be applied to maintain law and order. During the 1979-1980 school year, fourth grade student Greg Aronson was corporally punished 59 times. Greg's mother was never notified by the school that he received corporal punishment on 70 different occasions. Second grade student Sterling DeShields received corporal punishment on 45 occasions. Fourth grade student Robert Duguette received corporal punishment on 61 occasions. Fourth grade student Steve Geck received corporal punishment on 43 occasions. Sixth grade student Thomas Gradison received corporal punishment on 48 occasions, four of which occurred within a one hour period of time on October 25, 1979. In each instance, Thomas received the maximum of 5 strokes, for a total of 20 strokes within one hour. Fourth grade student Keith Griffin received corporal punishment on 52 occasions. Lucius Jackson, a fifth grade student, received corporal punishment on 44 occasions, three of which occurred during the morning of December 6, 1979. In each of his 44 paddling, Lucius received the maximum of 5 strokes. Fourth grade student Mark Nunnally received corporal punishment on 41 occasions. David Pender, a fourth grade student, received corporal punishment 58 occasions. Second grade student Cameron Walker received corporal punishment on 38 occasions, with Respondent administering 17 of the paddling. Fourth grade student Elinor Williams received 34 paddling. Kindergarten student Leonard Williams received 31 paddling, three of which occurred within one and one-half hours on the morning of September 18, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) During the 1980-1981 school year, Greg Aronson received another 8 paddling, but again his parents were never notified. Lucius Jackson was corporally punished on 55 occasions. Lucius received 4 paddling on February 11, 1981, totaling 20 strokes. Fourth grade student Rufus Mitchell was administered corporal punishment on 25 occasions, two of which were eight minutes apart on October 15, 1980. Rufus received the maximum of 5 strokes during each of these paddling. Fourth grade student Lendrick McGrady was paddled 30 times. Sixth grade student Mark Oats received corporal punishment on 30 occasions. Sixth grade student Kenneth Studstill received corporal punishment on 28 occasions. Sixth grade student Hurie Whitfield received corporal punishment on 26 occasions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Although Respondent admitted that corporal punishment was ineffective for Lucius Jackson, he was paddled 44 times during the 1979-1980 school year, 55 times during the 1980-1981 school year. Respondent witnessed each of the 4 paddling which Lucius received on May 8, 1981, near the end of that school year. Although student William Dinkins was administered corporal punishment in 1979-1980, 1980-1981, 1981-1982 school years, his mother was never notified of the punishment, contrary to Administrative Directive D-5.35(9) of the Palm Beach County School Board. Respondent used excessive and unreasonable force on numerous occasions when she personally administered corporal punishment to elementary school students at West Riviera. Many times, she interrupted paddling which were being administered by teacher. She would take the paddle from the teacher and administer the punishment herself, because the teacher, in her view, was not striking the child hard enough. On one occasion, Respondent interrupted teacher Vickie Culton and took over the paddling because Ms. Culton was not hitting the child hard enough. When the child pulled away, Respondent followed him around the room, striking him repeatedly. The child received more than the maximum 5 strokes allowable under school board policy. In paddling another kindergarten child named Theron, Respondent pushed his head against a wall, causing him to scream and cry to such an extent that teachers stuck their heads into the hall to see what was happening. On another occasion, Respondent took Theron into a bathroom and paddled him while his classmates and teacher listened in the adjacent classroom. Respondent had just paddled Theron in her office and brought him back to the classroom. Since he continued to scream and cry, she administered the second paddling in the bathroom. Respondent interrupted Ms. Culton's paddling several times because Respondent felt she was not hitting the child hard enough. Teacher Joyce Wojtowicz had the same experience. On one occasion, she was paddling a third grade student named Carol, while Respondent observed a as a witness. Respondent interrupted the paddling and proceeded to give the girl a severe paddling, administering five strokes. In the meantime, another third grade student, Tammy was standing nearby watching. When Respondent finished paddling Carol, Tammy was shaking violently; terrified, she began to vomit. Ms. Wojtowicz was also shaken by the severity of the paddling. Respondent gave some tissue to Tammy, ordered her to clean up the vomit, and told her that she was not going to avoid paddling by throwing up. After cleaning up the vomit, Respondent paddled Tammy, giving her the maximum 5 strokes. On another occasion, Ms. Wojtowicz overheard Respondent administering corporal punishment to a child in the school clinic. As Respondent hit the child with the paddle, Ms. Wojtowicz heard Respondent say, "Are you going to piss on my carpet?" As the child was given another stroke, Respondent said, "Are you going to pee on my floor?" As Ms. Wojtowicz walked out of the bathroom, she saw that Respondent was paddling a small kindergarten child. With each stroke, the child's feet went out from under him. Another teacher, Leslie Smith, witnessed Respondent paddle a five year old kindergarten boy. Respondent hit the boy very hard on the first stroke causing him to fall on the floor, then struck him two or three times while he was on the floor. Another teacher, Marcie Ann Wolfe, sent a student with an emotional problem to the office for the purpose of having Respondent talk to him. Instead, the student returned with a disciplinary slip indicating that Respondent had paddled him. At that point, Ms. Wolfe resolved that she would no longer send students to the office for discipline. Teacher Lynne McDowell witnessed Respondent administer corporal punishment to third grade student Craig Griffin. Craig had never been paddled at school before, and he resisted Ms. McDowell's attempt to paddle him in the office. Respondent intervened, took the paddle from Ms. McDowell, and administered the paddling to Craig, striking him wherever the blows fell -- on his legs and hands. Ms. McDowell observed Respondent administer a severe paddling to another student, Shawn, with the strokes landing so hard that it "rang my ears." If a child moved or fidgeted while Respondent was paddling them, she would start over. Third grade teacher Marjorie Russo observed Respondent paddle a kindergarten or first grade boy so hard that he came up off the floor. The little boy managed to get away from Respondent and tried to go under her desk. Respondent kept hitting him while he was on the floor. In Ms. Russo's view, Respondent hit the child "ridiculously hard" for a boy that size. Kindergarten teacher Mary Rudin witnessed Respondent administer corporal punishment to kindergarten student James J. Martin in her class and in the presence of other students. Ms. Rudin had asked James to make some circles on a piece of paper, but he refused. So, Ms. Rudin asked Respondent to come to her class in an effort to get James to cooperate. Respondent then asked James to perform the task; again he refused. At that point, Respondent administered five strokes to James. She sat him down and again requested that he perform the task. Once again he refused, and once again, she stood him up and gave him five more strokes. She then made a third request for him to perform the task; he responded, "I'll do it if you get away from me." This angered Respondent. She picked him up again and paddled him a third time. After the third paddling, James performed the task. He never returned to his class after that day because he was withdrawn from school by his parents. His father, James Martin, a teacher at Suncoast High School removed James because of the severity of the paddling. Photographs taken two days after the paddling show pronounced red marks from the to of his buttocks half way down his legs to hi knees. When Mr. Martin and his wife first observed the marks, they called their doctor, who agreed to see them that evening. The doctor was shocked by what he saw, and advised that he would have to report the case as an incident of child abuse. He recommended that Mr. Martin consult an attorney. Mr. Martin spoke to Respondent the following day. She apologized, explaining that she "lost her cool." Mr. Martin went to James' classroom to get his belongings; however, James would not go inside. He remained outside in the hallway, visibly shaken. In addition to Mr. Martin, Barbara Wright and Betty Deurloo complained to the school about their children being subjected to excessive punishment. Like Mr. Martin, Ms. Wright and Ms. Deurloo removed their children from West Riviera. In Respondent's view, if a student constantly wet his pants, it was an offense warranting corporal punishment. Although Respondent testified that the only "offense" that did not justify corporal punishment was when a child refused to do his or her lesson, the testimony of Ms. Rudin and Mr. Martin indicates that Respondent did not follow her own guideline. On numerous occasions, Respondent used profanity and made inappropriate, improper, and unprofessional remarks to students at West Riviera. After paddling a student named Lawrence in her office on April 14, 1982, Respondent told Lawrence to sit down. She pointed to a heater cord and threatened to tie him up with the heater cord if he didn't sit still. Respondent told Leslie Smith's kindergarten class that if they didn't shut up she would "kick their butts through the ceiling and kill them all." Respondent referred to a female student in Ms. Wojtowicz's class named Carolyn as a "thug." Respondent told Janet Zendel's first grade students who were line up to go to the bathroom, "If you've got to piss, piss, but there's not going to be no line." Respondent asked one of Mary Rudin's kindergarten students, "What are you looking at me for? Do I have piss all over my face?" She used a loud and sarcastic tone of voice. On another occasion when a child apparently urinated in a stairwell, Respondent announced over the public address system at the school, in a loud, angry voice, "Someone peed in my stairwell. When I find out who it is, I am going to beat you bloody, bloody, bloody." Respondent repeated this several times, reiterating that when she found out who the offender was, she would beat them "bloody, bloody, bloody." Respondent also used profanity in addressing members of the faculty and staff at West Riviera. She often told faculty members, "Get your shit together," and "I want it so quiet that I can hear a rat piss on cotton." Respondent commented to Jill Proce that she wanted Ms. Proce to take her paycheck and "buy some damn pants." During the first faculty meeting of the 1981-1982 school year, Respondent discussed the possibility of angry parents using profanity toward teachers. Respondent made a remark to the effect that teachers might even be called "mother fuckers." Respondent then defined the term mother fucker, and asked a faculty member, "How do you know I didn't fuck my mother?" Teacher Roma Smith heard Respondent use profane words such as fuck, shit, piss and mother fucker, in faculty meetings at West Riviera. After accusing teacher Mary Rudin of being insubordinate for not setting up tables in the hallway for registration, Respondent told Ms. Rudin, "do you see that doorway there? Don't let it hit you on the ass on your way out, if you don't like it here at West Riviera." At a preschool meeting before the commencement of the 1975-1976 school year Respondent presided over a faculty meeting wearing a T-shirt with a picture of excrement on it and the caption, "Get your shit together." Respondent used improper, inappropriate and unprofessional language in addressing faculty members at West Riviera. AT the end of Jill Proce's first day as a teacher at West Riviera, Respondent called Ms. Proce into her office, pulled her (Respondent's) pants up tight between her legs and told Ms. Proce, "This is the way you look with the lips of your vagina hanging out." Respondent asked Ms. Proce what she was trying to do to the fourth grade boys, if she was trying to give them some ideas. Respondent then proceeded to tell Ms. Proce that if Respondent was a parent and she walked into Ms. Proce's classroom, she would think that her child was being taught by a prostitute. Ms. Proce's pants were not too tight, and she was dressed appropriately for an elementary school teacher. At the beginning of each year, Respondent issued handbooks to her teachers, with instructions that they had a paddle and respondent expected them to keep law and order. If they did not keep law and order, Respondent told them they could be "blackballed" in the county. After Respondent walked in Ms. McDowell's classroom one day and found the students noisy and disorganized, she told Ms. McDowell in a conference that Respondent had friends in high places; that if she did not shape up, she would have her blackballed in Palm Beach County and she would never teach there again. After buying new clothes in an effort to meet Respondent's criticisms regarding her attire, Ms. Proce approached Respondent one day and asked her if the clothes she was wearing were suitable. Respondent answered by saying that Ms. Proce wasn't there to suit her, she was there to suit her job, and if she didn't like it she could be blackballed of Palm Beach County. On another occasion, Respondent yelled at teacher Joyce Washington in front of Ms. Washington's class, accusing her of losing a student's medical form. Ms. Washington had not lost the student's medical form. Respondent told her if she could not get her act together, that she was going to lose her job, which she spelled out "J...O...B." During the 1981-1982 school year, primary resource teacher Patsy McClain received a telephone call from Respondent, who at the time was admitted to the Palm Beach Gardens Hospital. Respondent asked Ms. McClain to bring two students to the hospital for the purpose of braiding Respondent's hair. After getting the Assistant Principal's permission, Ms. McClain selected two girls, Elinor Williams and Jamilia Dailey. After getting permission from their parents, she drove them to Palm Beach Gardens Hospital. The girls were taken out of school in mid-morning and were gone approximately two hours. AT the hospital, they braided Respondent's hair. In November 1980, Respondent approached teacher Joyce Washington during an open house at West Riviera and instructed Ms. Washington to change student Joshua Logan's grades to all "S's." Ms. Washington had previously prepared her report cards, and had issued several "U's," indicating unsatisfactory, to Joshua. Respondent told Ms. Washington to change his grades to "S's" and to give Joshua all "S's," indicating satisfactory, on his report card for the remainder of the year. The reason given was that she did not want any more hassles from the child's parents. Although in Ms. Washington's opinion Joshua's work did not warrant all "S's," she nevertheless gave the child "S's" for the remainder of the school year. When the other students in Ms. Washington's class learned of Joshua's new grades, their grades started going down. Many teachers were frightened by Respondent and taught in an oppressive atmosphere of tension and intimidation. Jill Proce had begun to look for other employment in another county. Music could not be taught except at Christmas. Music books and instruments were removed from the classrooms. So were record players. Crayons were removed out of fear that students would get crayon marks on the floors. Joyce Washington intended to seek a transfer, but volunteered to leave West Riviera when an opening occurred elsewhere. Assistant Principal Levarity tried to get a transfer because of Respondent's heaving reliance on corporal punishment. During the fall of 1979, Fran Gill, North Area Superintendent for the Palm Beach County School District, spoke to Respondent about administration of corporal punishment at West Riviera. Ms. Gill had been advised that teachers were administering corporal punishment to student sin the classroom, in violation of school board policy and administrative directive. During that meeting, Ms. Gill explained to Respondent that she must follow the school board's Administrative Directive D5.35 and gave Respondent a copy. Among other things, this directive required that the Principal or his/her administrative designee must, in ever case, determine the necessity for corporal punishment and, in ever case, designate the time, place and member of the instructional staff who will administer the punishment. In addition, the directive provided that no teacher may be required to administer corporal punishment. Notwithstanding Ms. Gill's directive to comply with Administrative Directive D5.35, Respondent continued to require teachers to administer corporal punishment to students in the classroom in order to maintain law and order at West Riviera. When Ms. Gill again became aware in May 1980 of Respondent's noncompliance with the directive, she called her and asked whether students were still being paddled in the classroom. Respondent indicated that she was still permitting students to be paddled in the classroom by teachers. This conversation occurred on May 6, 1980. ON May 8, 1980, Ms. Gill confirmed their conversation in a written memorandum to Respondent, emphasizing her prior verbal instructions. In March of 1982, Ms. Gill again met with Respondent regarding concerns expressed to her by parents. Ms. Gill found that the directive was not being followed, and that the only change which had been made was that children were being brought to the office to be paddled. The teachers were still exercising their discretion as to whether or not corporal punishment would be administered, and parents were not being contacted beforehand. Ms. Gill expressed her concern to Respondent regarding her failure to follow the school board's administrative directive. Respondent sent a letter to Ms. Gill, date March 12, 1982, in response to Ms. Gill's concerns. In her letter, Respondent states, "I held a faculty meeting this morning and explained to teachers that we will no longer paddle students for every misbehavior." As a result of Respondent's failure to follow her specific instructions concerning adherence to school board policy and administrative directives relating to administration of corporal punishment, Ms. Gill prepared a list of fourteen specific questions for Respondent to answer regarding corporal punishment at West Riviera. Respondent received the written questions on March 18, 1982, and furnished her written responses on March 31, 1982. Respondent provided false answers to these questions. In response to question one, Respondent falsely stated that in each instance of inappropriate behavior the teacher brought the student to the office and conferred with the Principal or Assistant Principal prior to utilizing corporal punishment. In response to question three, Respondent falsely indicated that teachers were not required to paddle students. In response to question six, Respondent falsely indicated that whenever a student received corporal punishment for the first or second time, a copy of the student discipline referral slip was sent to their parents. In response to question seven, Respondent indicated that the alternatives to corporal punishment were in-house suspension or suspension from school, when in fact the alternatives utilized at West Riviera included depriving the student of attending physical education or utilizing the library. In response to question eleven, Respondent failed to indicate that alternative types of punishment included depriving the student of physical education or use of the library. In response to question thirteen concerning changes made in the administration of corporal punishment within the past three years, Respondent replied that she had complied with Ms. Gill's instructions on May 6, 1980, to refrain from allowing teachers to paddle students in their classroom. In fact, Respondent continued to permit teachers to determine whether corporal punishment was appropriate and to administer it at their discretion. Although Respondent testified that failing to do one's school work did not warrant corporal punishment, Respondent administered three consecutive paddling to kindergarten student J.J. Martin for failing to do a handwriting lesson. Although Respondent changed her policy in March, 1982 by restricting the use of corporal punishment to cases of fighting or foul language, she later administered corporal punishment to one of Ms. Wolfe's students for misbehaving in her class. Ms. Wolfe had specifically requested that Respondent talk to the student, not paddle him. Respondent admits that she did not follow Administrative Directive D5.35 prior to May 7, 1980. Yet Fran Gill had specifically directed her to comply with that directive and school board policy concerning corporal punishment in the Fall of 1979. Respondent failed to prepare guidelines for administering corporal punishment at West Riviera which identified the types of punishable offenses, the conditions under which the punishment would be administered and the specific personnel on the school staff authorized to administer the punishment, contrary to Section 232.27(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent ridiculed and humiliated children by paddling them in their classrooms in the presence of their classmates on several occasions, contrary to Administrative Directive D5.35(4). She used profane and abusive language with them. In the professional opinion of Kenneth Schrimsher, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Relations with the Palm Beach School Board, the number of incidents of corporal punishment administered at West Riviera during the 1979-1980 school year was excessive. In his view, Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the school board has been seriously reduced. His opinion is credible and accepted as persuasive. Despite the atmosphere of fear and intimidation that prevailed at West Riviera during Respondent's tenure, student achievement on standardized tests improved dramatically. When she arrived at West Riviera, it was among the five worst schools in the county, rated by test scores; when she left in 1982, it was among the top five, out of a total of more than 50 elementary schools. Her methods also caused West Riviera to become one of the cleanest and best maintained elementary schools in the county. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's teaching certificate be revoked for five (5) years (with opportunity for reapplication) for violation of Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.06, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 128 Salem Court Post Office Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William M. Holland, Esquire 605 Clematis Street Post Office Box 2648 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-2648 Donald Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph D. Turlington, Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issues presented for determination are the following: Whether Respondent has violated rules of the School Board of Palm Beach County so as to constitute misconduct in office. If Respondent has committed misconduct in office, what penalty is to be imposed, including whether Respondent is entitled to back pay and in what amount.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Dr. James McCabe, was employed by Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board, as the Assistant Principal for Student Services in charge of special education at Crestwood Community Middle School. In this capacity, Respondent's duties include the supervision of the students and teachers in special education. He is responsible for parent contact and involvement in addition to student discipline. He manages the dropout prevention and honors program. Additionally, he has other administrative duties which relate to the migrant and alternative education programs. Although he is primarily assigned to the special education program, he assists in other areas such as school-wide discipline. On December 14, 1989, in the early afternoon, Respondent was called to Mr. Mundt's shop class with Mrs. Satchel, another Assistant Principal for Student Services, by the school's walkie-talkies. Responden1t was informed by Mr. Mundt, the shop teacher, that a baseball card worth in excess of $50 was missing. The baseball card had been displayed in the same class during the beginning of the period. The period was split by a lunch break. It was after the students returned from lunch that Respondent and Ms. Satchel were called to investigate its loss. The parties stipulated that, "Presumably, it [the card] had been taken by someone in the class." According to Respondent, the card was owned by a student with cerebral palsy. The student was limited physically and could not participate in sports at the school. He collected baseball cards as his sport. When they arrived, Respondent took charge of the male students while Ms. Satchel assumed the responsibility for the female students, as the logical separation of duties. Respondent asked the boys to go to one side of the room and told them that he would like the baseball card to appear on the table. He told them he would turn his back to them, and that if the baseball card appeared, that would be the end of it. Respondent then turned his back, and the baseball card did not appear. Prior to this incident, thefts of other valuable merchandise had occurred around the area of the shop class. A wallet was stolen from a teacher's car which was parked immediately outside the shop class just a week prior to the incident at issue. Respondent did not think that a particular student had stolen the card. Instead, he reasonably suspected that someone in the group had taken it. The period was coming to an end and another class was due in the room. Respondent did not attempt a lesser method of searching the boys for the baseball card, nor was a lesser method of searching the boys proven at the hearing. Instead, Respondent, in accordance with the procedure at Crestwood, instructed the boys to all go down to the clinic which is not within the immediate vicinity of the shop class where they were temporarily detained. He chose to remove the boys from the classroom because he did not want to subject them to the confusion from the incoming class or to any unnecessary embarrassment which might be caused by questioning them in front of it. He also wished to protect the learning environment for the incoming students. The clinic is a three room complex. To avoid unnecessary embarrassment of the students, Respondent took one student at a time into one of the outer rooms of the complex. He then asked the student to remove his shirt. He felt the shirt and handed it back to the student. He then requested their shoes and socks and handed those back after searching them. He then asked for the students outer pants. He did not request that any student remove his undergarments; their underpants and undershirts or T-shirts, if any, remained on. As Respondent completed his check of each piece of clothing, he handed the article back to the student. If the student was slow in completing his dressing, he then asked that student to finish dressing in the back of the room. At times, while the slow student was completing his dressing, the next student was asked to come in and commence the disrobing procedures. At times, more than one student was in the room. One was tying his shoes while the other was handing his shirt to Respondent. Respondent believed that he had the right to search the students to the extent necessary after having received instruction to that effect from school security and after having read the school board rule on detention, search and seizure. He apologized to the group for having to perform the search in this manner which was necessary under the circumstances. According to Respondent, sometime during the search, a couple of boys came into the room and asserted that one of the boys, who had not been searched at the time, had the card. The boys suggested that Respondent search just this one student and stop the search of each student. In reply, Respondent said, "I don't want to embarrass him anymore than anybody else. I really don't want to put any suspicion on him. Let's just take him in the normal course of events, when his turn comes up," and continued the search of each student in his charge. Each student cooperated with Respondent. Out of the twelve or thirteen students involved, only one student objected to the search procedure. In response to the objection, Respondent gave the student the opportunity to call the school security or to call his mother and ask her to come to the school. The student chose neither option and participated in the search. As Respondent reached the last student, Mr. Hagan, the principal at Crestwood, came into the room and asked Respondent to step outside. He told Respondent that he did not see how the school could benefit from the search and told him to stop the search. The baseball card had not been located at that point. Respondent stopped immediately. If Mr. Hagan believes that a teacher or administrator is not effective at his school, there is a procedure for asking that teacher or person to be removed from the staff. Mr. Hagan chose not to commence the procedure in this instance. Prior to this incident, searches of students occurred at Crestwood, but no search had involved the removal of the students clothes. The guidelines for detention, search and seizure of students in the Palm Beach County School District is contained in Palm Beach County School Board Rule 5.18(5). The rule authorizes school personnel, such as Respondent, to temporarily detain students for questioning, upon reasonable indication of wrongdoing, and to search, to the extent necessary, students upon reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. The rule, however, does not establish the permissibility or impermissibility of any specific search procedure, i.e., pat down, strip search or other means of locating the missing items. Although the School Board gives periodic seminars, and Respondent has attended every seminar at which his attendance was required, no seminar has given specific instruction on the procedures to be used when searching students. Respondent had read the rule on detention, search and seizure prior to the December 14 incident. Also, prior to the incident, Respondent had requested the advice of the school security director assigned to Crestwood, Mr. Willie Noland, about his right to search and has discussed procedure relating to specific incidents with Mr. Noland. From Mr. Noland, Respondent was assured that he had the right to search students. One incident, in particular, on which Respondent sought Mr. Noland's advice involved a student who allegedly had threatened another student with a knife. Respondent was asked to look into the threat fifteen minutes prior to the end of the school day. When Respondent asked the student if he had a knife, he voluntarily emptied his pockets. Respondent did not ask him to remove his clothes. Unfortunately, the student did have a knife lodged in the mid-seam of his trousers. After that incident, Mr. Noland advised Respondent that students do not hide things in their pockets. Instead, Mr. Noland recommended checking down in the student's waistbands and in their shoes and socks for the missing items. Mr. Hagan had also informed the school personnel not to be alone with students and to avoid situations which could be embarrassing. His purpose in giving the admonition was to avoid the potential for child abuse allegations. It was with the direction given by Mr. Noland and Mr. Hagan, combined with Respondent's understanding of the governing rules, that he undertook the type of search he performed. With reasonable concern that he might be subjecting himself to a potential child abuse allegation and in a diligent attempt to locate the missing baseball card, Respondent chose to ask the students to remove their clothes, rather than search the clothes while on their bodies. Under the circumstances, the search procedure was necessary and reasonable. After the December 14 incident, Respondent, as was his usual behavior, cooperated completely with the directives of his superiors. He voluntarily completed an incident report in which he related the facts surrounding the search. An investigation into the incident by the School Board was performed, and a report from the investigation was given to the Superintendent of the Palm Beach County School District. Without performing a personal investigation, talking with Respondent or with Respondent's coworkers about the incident, the Superintendent suspended Respondent and recommended to the School Board that Respondent be suspended without pay and terminated. The Superintendent based his recommendation on his belief that Respondent's conduct violated the school board rule and the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct for educators in Florida to the extent that his effectiveness in the school system was impaired. The School Board accepted Respondent's recommendation and this proceeding ensued. At the time of the incident, Crestwood had four assistant principals in addition to Respondent. At the hearing, three of the four, each of whom had worked with Respondent, had observed Respondent and had shared responsibilities with him, unanimously agreed that his performance in the school system up to the time of the incident was effective and each agreed that they would not object to his return to the school. The fourth was not asked the questions at the hearing. Also, approximately eighty signatures appear on a petition in support of Respondent's effectiveness from the faculty and staff of Crestwood to Petitioner dated January 17, 1990. l6. Since 1964, except for a brief period, Respondent has been involved in education and primarily working with, teaching about or studying exceptional students. His tenure in the Palm Beach County School District began as Director of Special Education in September 1, 1981 where he was assigned until June 30, 1983. From August 1983 to June 1986, Respondent served in the capacity of a Specialist in Education. In July, 1986, Respondent was appointed as an Assistant Principal at Gove Elementary School. At the request of Mr. Hagan, Respondent was transferred to the Crestwood Community Middle School in January, 1987 and has served in his present capacity since then. While employed as an assistant principal, Respondent has received nothing but outstanding evaluations. Respondent holds a regular instructional certificate in the area of administration and supervision. Respondent is a credible individual, and an experienced educator who has the interest of his students as his main concern. At no time during the incident in question, did Respondent intend to embarrass or disparage any of the students. Instead, in his best professional judgment, under the circumstances, he attempted to protect the students from unnecessary embarrassment and made reasonable efforts to protect the learning environment of all the affected students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County issue a Final Order reinstating Respondent with full back pay and benefits retroactive to January 24, 1990. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of June, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 1990.
