The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s Petition for Relief should be dismissed for failure to allege facts sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the “FCHR”) under section 760.10, Florida Statutes.1 1 Citations shall be to Florida Statutes (2020) unless otherwise specified. Section 760.10 has been unchanged since 1992, save for a 2015 amendment adding pregnancy to the list of classifications protected from discriminatory employment practices. Ch. 2015-68, § 6, Laws of Fla.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). The Petition for Relief alleges the following ultimate facts, which are accepted as true for purposes of ruling on the Motion: I believe I have been discriminated against based on my race (Black), sex (male), and age (over 40). I also believe I am being retaliated against for filing a complaint with Florida Commission on Human Relations and in Federal Court. I have been working within the Gadsden County School system since January 2008 as a substitute teacher and have teaching experience. Around or on October 2020, I applied for a Social Studies position and was not offered an interview by the principal because DOE deliberately and maliciously held clearance letter to deny employment. Section 760.10 titled “Unlawful employment practices,” is the statute under which the FCHR exercises jurisdiction of the Petition for Relief. Section 760.10(1)(a) states that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual “with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.” The Motion states that Petitioner is not, and never has been, an employee of the Department. Respondent’s Chief of Human Resource Management, David Dawkins, conducted a system-wide search and verified that Petitioner has never been employed by the Department. Mr. Dawkins’s affidavit to that effect was attached to the Motion. Mr. Jones did not contest the contents of Mr. Dawkins’s affidavit. The Motion also references section 760.10(5) as a possible avenue under which Mr. Jones might seek relief against the Department. Section 760.10(5) provides: Whenever, in order to engage in a profession, occupation, or trade, it is required that a person receive a license, certification, or other credential, become a member or an associate of any club, association, or other organization, or pass any examination, it is an unlawful employment practice for any person to discriminate against any other person seeking such license, certification, or other credential, seeking to become a member or associate of such club, association, or other organization, or seeking to take or pass such examination, because of such other person’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. In theory, the Department’s alleged “deliberate and malicious” withholding of Mr. Jones’s “clearance letter,” i.e., a Temporary Certificate to teach, could constitute a violation of section 760.10(5). However, the Department pointed out that after Mr. Jones applied for a Florida Educator Certificate, the Department sent him an “Official Statement of Status of Eligibility” on October 12, 2017. A copy of the Department’s letter to Mr. Jones was attached to the Motion. The letter informed Mr. Jones that he was eligible for a Temporary Certificate covering Social Science (Grades 6-12), if he completed the following requirements and documented them to the Bureau of Educator Certification (“BOE”): verification of employment and request for issuance of certificate on the appropriate certification form from a Florida public, state supported, or nonpublic school which has an approved Professional Education Competence Program. results of your fingerprint processing from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the FBI. Your employer will assist you in completing the fingerprint process. If your application or fingerprint report reflects a criminal offense or suspension/revocation record, your file will be referred to Professional Practices Services for further review. Issuance of your certificate will be contingent upon the results of this review. The Motion states that Mr. Jones submitted only the results of his fingerprint processing to BOE. Therefore, BOE was legally precluded from issuing a Temporary Certificate to Petitioner. Attached to the Motion was the affidavit of Daniel Moore, Chief of BOE, attesting to the fact that a request for issuance from a Florida public, state supported, or nonpublic school which has an approved Professional Education Competence Program is required in order for BOE to issue a Temporary Certificate. Mr. Moore’s affidavit is confirmed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-4.004(1)(a)2., requiring verification of full-time employment by a Florida school district before a Temporary Certificate may be issued. Mr. Jones did not contest the contents of Mr. Moore’s affidavit. Based on the foregoing, the Motion requests entry of a summary recommended order of dismissal because Mr. Jones’s pleadings and admissions of fact, including those in his response to the Motion, are facially and conclusively insufficient to prove that he was ever an employee of the Department, or that the Department’s failure to issue a teaching certificate to Mr. Jones was based on anything more than the ministerial operation of the Department’s own rule. Mr. Jones’s response to the Motion does not address, and therefore appears to concede, the Department’s statement that he is not and has never been an employee of the Department. Mr. Jones did not allege that he has ever been an employee of, or an applicant for employment by, the Department. Mr. Jones’s response does not address the fact that the Department’s rule forbids it to issue a Temporary Certificate without verification of full- time employment. Rather, Mr. Jones pursues an argument alleging that the denial was somehow based on his criminal record and that denial on that basis is discriminatory because of the disproportionate percentage of African American and Latino citizens who have criminal records in comparison to Caucasians. Mr. Jones claims that the Department’s stated reason for denying him a Temporary Certificate was pretextual and that the actual reason was racial discrimination premised on his criminal record. In a related case, Mr. Jones has alleged that the Gadsden County School Board declined to hire him because of his criminal record, and that this declination was a pretext for discrimination based on race, age, and/or sex. The merits of Mr. Jones’s case against the local school board and its subsidiary institutions are not at issue here. The question in this case is whether the Department had anything to do with Mr. Jones’s failure to gain employment by the Gadsden County School Board. The undisputed facts establish that the Department’s role in this process was purely ministerial. Had Mr. Jones secured employment, the school that hired him would have requested the issuance of a Temporary Certificate by the Department. By operation of rule 6A-4.004(1)(a)2., the Department would have issued the Temporary Certificate. The Department had no role in the decisions of the local school officials to hire or not hire Mr. Jones. It is found that Mr. Jones has not alleged facts sufficient to state a case against the Department under section 760.10, and that he would not be able to prove at hearing that he was ever an employee of the Department, or that the failure to issue a Temporary Certificate to Mr. Jones was anything more than the Department’s following the requirements of its own rule.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Department of Education did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 13th day of July, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Dan Saunders Florida Department of Education Turlington Building, Room 101 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ronald David Jones 1821 McKelvy Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Paula Harrigan, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1544 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(3)(a), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796, Florida Statutes (2016). § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 962539, covering the areas of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Middle Grades Integrated Curriculum, and Reading, which is valid through June 30, 2017. During the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Sims Middle. He continued teaching at Sims Middle for the 2014- 2015 school year, and currently teaches at Woodham Middle School in Escambia County. Among his teaching assignments, Respondent taught an eighth-grade honors science class during the school day’s first period. Among his students in that class was T.L. T.L had, in 2010, been diagnosed with Type I diabetes. By her eighth-grade year, T.L. was an “independent diabetic,” using an insulin pump and capable of carrying her meter and lancing device with her. On March 6, 2014, during a discussion of the consequences of the failure of various organs, Respondent made a comment that was substantially similar to that alleged in the Administrative Complaint, i.e., “Your pancreas can die and you could go into sugar shock; go into a coma and die, like (T.L.) could.” Respondent was standing in front of T.L.’s desk at the time. His position meant that the students were, or should have had their attention directed to Respondent. Thus, his statement would have been obvious. The investigation performed by Mr. Stokes indicated that comments similar to that involving T.L. “are often made” by Respondent; that T.L. likely took the statement “the wrong way” due to Respondent’s “dry sense of humor”; that Respondent “often makes comments trying to be funny but it usually just makes people feel weird”; and that he has made similar comments regarding other students in the past. The statements contained in Mr. Stokes’ report are not accepted for the truth of the matters asserted, but are used herein as evidence of Respondent’s overly loose and unsuccessfully “funny” teaching style. The statements contained in Mr. Stokes’ report also support a finding, made herein, that Respondent did not single T.L. out for disparate treatment, but (misguidedly) used her condition, with benign intent, to reinforce the importance of his lesson plan. In that regard, even T.L.’s mother, who was aggravated by the incident, admitted that the instruction as to what can happen when one’s pancreas dies “would have been appropriate in the classroom,” with her concern being the personalization of the instruction. However, she acknowledged that Respondent’s “unprofessional” comments had previously been directed to other students, and were not restricted to T.L. The evidence suggests that T.L.’s diabetic condition was not unknown. T.L.’s close circle of friends knew, having been told by T.L. C.P. testified that T.L.’s diabetes was fairly common knowledge. On at least one occasion prior to Respondent’s statement, the alarm on T.L.’s insulin pump went off during class. Respondent asked the class whether the sound was a cell phone, to which T.L. replied “Oh, that is my pump, sorry,” and turned the alarm off. T.L. carried the pump in her pocket, and she testified that the other students “probably just thought I had something weird in my pocket, but didn’t really know what it was.” T.L.’s mother testified that “her tubing was usually visible, depending on what she was wearing.” Finally, the topic of T.L.’s award-winning science project was the effect of contaminants at the site of a finger stick when testing one’s blood for glucose. While there was no evidence that T.L.’s diabetes was the subject of a general announcement, or that it was a topic of particular concern amongst her peers, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that it was unlikely that her condition was unknown to those in her class. The comment that forms the basis for the Administrative Complaint, though related to the class lesson plan, was inappropriate and unnecessary. Despite the fact that T.L.’s diabetes was not unknown to her peers, Respondent’s act of using her as an example was embarrassing to her. Respondent’s testimony that his use of T.L. as an example of an unchecked diabetic reaction was purely happenstance is not plausible. The evidence is convincing that Respondent was well aware of T.L.’s diabetes, and used her as an example of someone who had the condition that was the topic of discussion. However, there was no evidence that Respondent made the statement maliciously, or with the intent to embarrass or humiliate T.L. Prior to the incident in question, T.L., along with other students, used her telephone with Respondent’s permission in his class after completing Florida Writes testing, and Snapchatted a video to a friend. That became known when the friend asked Respondent why students in her later class period could not use their phones in similar circumstances. Respondent verbally admonished both T.L. and her friend, with his primary concern seeming to be that he could get in trouble for having allowed his first-period students to use their phones in class. T.L. was not written up for the incident, and there was no adverse effect on her grades. On March 5, 2014, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from Sims Middle regarding the incident of allowing students to use telephones in class. Although the incident that forms the basis for the Administrative Complaint occurred on March 6, 2014, there is insufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between the two. The suggestion that the incident in question was retaliation, or was otherwise precipitated by the Snapchat incident, is not accepted. On March 28, 2014, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from Sims Middle for the incident in question. Other than the two reprimands described herein, both having been issued in the span of little more than three weeks, he had not been the subject of any previous disciplinary actions during his eleven-year period of employment with the Santa Rosa County School District. There was no evidence that T.L.’s mental health was actually affected by the incident. The testimony of T.L. and her mother is evidence that she was, and remains, a bright, articulate, well-adjusted, straight-A student. However, rule 6A-10.081(3)(a) “does not require evidence that Respondent actually harmed [T.L.]'s health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm’r of Educ. vs. William Randall Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL ¶ 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; EPC Dec. 19, 2012). Under the circumstances described herein, Petitioner proved that Respondent, though without specific intent or malice, failed to make reasonable effort to protect T.L. from embarrassment, a condition reasonably contemplated to be harmful to her mental health pursuant to rule 6A-10.081(3)(a).
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent violated rule 6A-10.081(3)(a). It is further recommended that Respondent be issued a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 7th day of December, 2016.
