Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a Compensatory Education Teacher at Lake Butler Middle School. Additionally, he served as Assistant Football Coach and Junior Varsity Baseball Coach. The Petitioner is over the age of eighteen years. During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner possessed a temporary teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education (Certificate Number 562142) disclosing "Highest Acceptable Level of Training - Bachelor's Degree." The Petitioner also possesses a permanent teaching certificate with a validity period of July 1, 1987, through June 30, 1992. Superintendent of Schools, James H. Cason, III, met with M. H. Boyd, Principal, Lake Butler Middle School and Petitioner's principal, prior to formulating his decision to recommend Petitioner to Respondent for additional year of employment. Boyd advised Superintendent Cason that she was not entirely satisfied with Petitioner's performance but that she could "live with" Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason also conferred with the head coach, James F. Niblack, Petitioner's supervisor for the athletic duties performed by Petitioner, prior to formulating a recommendation to Respondent concerning Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Coach Niblack recommended Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason made a timely written nomination that Petitioner be reappointed by the Respondent in an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. On April 27, 1987, Respondent conducted a meeting for the purpose, inter alia, of acting upon the recommendation of Superintendent Cason for personnel appointments. The Respondent voted unanimously to reject the recommendation of Superintendent Cason that Petitioner be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. No reason for the rejection of the nomination of the Petitioner by the Respondent was verbally stated at the April 27, 1987, meeting nor spread upon the minutes of such meeting. During the hearing, and after conferring with the members of the board, counsel for Respondent stipulated that Petitioner met the statutory requirement to be eligible for appointment to a position with Respondent in that he is of good moral character, is over the age of eighteen (18) years and holds a certificate issued under the rules of the State Board of Education. School Board member, W. S. Howard, Jr., a cousin of Boyd, requested that Boyd prepare an evaluation of Petitioner. The record is not clear as to whether the evaluation was made before or after the Superintendent conferred with Boyd on Petitioner's reappointment. Petitioner was evaluated "satisfactory" in ten (10) of the eighteen (18) areas measured on the evaluation instrument that was utilized, "unsatisfactory" on two (2), "not applicable" was marked on two (2) criteria and four (4) were left unmarked by the evaluator. The evaluation instrument utilized by the Respondent in evaluating the Petitioner's performance was not the instrument which should have been utilized during the 1986-87 school year although such instrument was utilized by the principal for other employees at the Petitioner's school. The Respondent officially sponsors, maintains and funds the athletic programs in which the Petitioner rendered services during the 1986-87 school year. Such programs constitute an integral part of the overall educational program offered by the Respondent to children of Union County. The Petitioner's service to the athletic program conducted by the Respondent was rated satisfactory or above.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, School Board of Union County, enter a Final Order GRANTING the Petitioner an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year and reimbursing Petitioner for any loss of wages due to his non-pay status which resulted from Respondent's rejection of his nomination. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2536 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 11, respectively. 12.-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 through 16, respectively. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact and 6. The fact that Boyd had some reservations concerning Petitioner's abilities to teach the compensatory education class is adopted in Finding of Fact 5, the balance of paragraph 6 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Niblack recommended Petitioner for reappointment is adopted in Finding of Fact 6, the balance of Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the Union County School Board voted not to rehire Petitioner is adopted in Finding of Fact 9, the balance of paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the reason for Respondent's vote to reject Petitioner's reappointment was not verbally stated or spread in the minutes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10, the balance of paragraph 9 is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record in that the testimony of the individual School Board members lacked credibility. Rejected as being presented as an argument and not as a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bobby Lex Kirby, Esquire Route 2, Box 219 Lake Butler, Florida 32054 James H. Cason, III, Superintendent The School Board of Union Co. 55 Southwest Sixth Street Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent should be dismissed from his employment as a teacher. The Petitioner seeks such dismissal pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, on the basis of allegations that the Respondent is guilty of: (a) violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct, (b) immorality, (c) misconduct, (d) willful neglect of duties, and (e) moral turpitude. The Respondent denies any misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing and on the parties's stipulations, I make the following findings of fact: Facts stipulated to by the parties Virgil L. Morgan is the duly appointed Superintendent of Schools of Broward County, Florida, and is legally authorized to represent to the School Board of Broward County, Florida, pursuant to statute, that any member of the instructional and/or administrative staff be dismissed from or with the Broward County School System. The address of Virgil L. Morgan is 1320 Southwest Fourth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The address of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, is 1320 Southwest Fourth Street, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The Respondent, Marion Wright, is an employee of the School Board of Broward County, Florida, holding a continuing contract of employment since December 5, 1968, and has currently been employed at Nova High School, 3600 College Avenue, Davie, Broward County, Florida, as an American History and Geography teacher. The last known address of the Respondent is 151 Northwest 33rd Terrace, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Other general facts While employed at Nova High School, the Respondent was also the coach of the girls junior varsity basketball team. Facts regarding motor vehicle operations The Respondent's ex-students and assistant coaches often moved his car from one place to another on the Nova campus during the school day. These ex- students and assistant coaches were licensed drivers. The Respondent sometimes also permitted several students who were seniors and who were licensed drivers to move his car while it was on campus. It is not unusual for teachers at Nova High School to permit students to drive their cars. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent permitted unlicensed students to operate his motor vehicle. On January 22, 1988, Andrea Session and Kim Williams, both students at Nova High School who were also members of the girls basketball team, went to the Respondent's classroom shortly after first period began. Neither of the two girls had a driver license. Kim Williams asked the Respondent for the keys to his pickup truck in order to retrieve her school books which were locked in the truck. The Respondent gave the keys to the two girls and they left. It was not uncommon for the girls to leave their books in the Respondent's truck or car, because the Respondent would frequently drive these two girls (and others) from their home to early morning basketball practice before school. They would often leave their school books in the Respondent's vehicle during basketball practice and pick them up later. On January 22, 1988, while in possession of the keys to the Respondent's pickup, Kim Williams attempted to move the pickup and ran into a parked car in the school parking lot. The Respondent did not authorize Kim Williams to drive his pickup truck on January 22, 1988. Facts regarding taking students out of class The Respondent never requested that Kim Williams, Andrea Session, or any other student or member of his basketball team be excused from other classes, except as was consistent with being excused from class on game days. The Respondent did not write passes requesting that students be excused from other classes. Nor did he usually permit students without passes to remain in his classroom. When Kim or Andrea would come to the Respondent's class without a pass, the Respondent would usually ask them to return to their class. On occasion, Kim and Andrea would skip classes and not go to the Respondent's classroom. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent arranged for the unauthorized or illegal removal of any student from scheduled class periods. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent provided females students on his basketball team with passes to remove them from their regular scheduled classes on the days that basketball games were scheduled in order for them to rest or relax for the game. Facts regarding transportation of students off campus and to liquor stores The Respondent frequently transported students from their homes to early morning basketball practice. The Respondent has taken adult female assistant coaches to the Double Feature Liquor Store, and to other liquor stores, and has purchased beer for them on occasion. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent took students to a liquor store, bought alcoholic beverages, and consumed alcoholic beverages with students. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent took students off campus on personal errands during the students' scheduled class periods. Facts regarding soliciting false statements and submitting a false affidavit After the Respondent became aware that he was being accused of providing alcoholic beverages to two students, he went to see Ms. Bonnie Session, the mother of one of the students. The Respondent told Bonnie Session about the situation he was in and asked her to sign a statement on his behalf. Thereafter, Adrienne Session, an older daughter of Ms. Session, called the Respondent and told him she had something for him from her mother. Adrienne gave the Respondent a written statement that purported to be signed by Bonnie Session. The Respondent took the statement to a notary public and asked that it be notarized. The notary called on the telephone and spoke to someone she believed to be Bonnie Session. The person to whom the notary spoke acknowledged having signed the statement. The notary then notarized the document and gave it back to the Respondent. At a later date, under circumstances that are not at all clear, Bonnie Session and her two daughters went to the same notary, after having been guided there by the Respondent, and had some additional documents notarized. The Respondent made some efforts, directly and indirectly, to obtain exculpatory statements from several people, but the nature of those efforts cannot be discerned from the credible evidence in this case. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent encouraged any students to falsify their accounts of any matters related to the issues in this case. There is no credible competent substantial evidence in this case that the Respondent intentionally distorted, or caused to be misrepresented, any facts regarding an affidavit that was purportedly signed by Bonnie Session.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order in this case dismissing all administrative charges against the Respondent, Marion Wright, and reinstating him with full back pay. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June 1989. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 30th day of June 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4734 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. To facilitate an understanding of the rulings which follow, attention is directed to the fact that, for the most part, the testimony of the two principal witnesses against the Respondent has been found to be unworthy of belief and to be an insufficient basis for findings of fact. The two principal accusers have both, while under oath, changed major portions of their stories on more than one occasion. The credibility of their stories is also impaired in large part by the fact that the stories told by the two principal witnesses are inconsistent in a number of telling details, and those stories also conflict with the testimony of other witnesses who are much more worthy of belief. It is also noted that the candor of Respondent's testimony was not without its own tarnish in places. While the Respondent's denial of the charges against him has been accepted in substance, this is largely because of the absence of believable evidence in support of the charges rather than because of any great reliance on the Respondent's candor. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Paragraph 3: First sentence rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Second sentence accepted. Paragraph 4: For the most part, rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. It is accepted that there was an on-campus accident involving Respondent's vehicle. Paragraph 5: Rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. Paragraph 6: Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 7: Rejected as irrelevant. [The presentation of the testimony of the Assistant State Attorney appears to have been primarily for the purpose of vouching for the truthfulness of the other witnesses against Respondent. Such vouching is an inappropriate form of proof. See Fuller v. State, 450 So.2d 182, 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).] Paragraph 8: Rejected as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the believable evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraph 1: First sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Remainder accepted in substance with a few unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 2 and 3: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 5 and 6: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than proposed findings of fact. In any event, the subject matter of the summary consists of subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 14 and 15: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 16 through 30: Rejected as constituting, for the most part, a summary of the history of many of the reasons for not making findings of fact rather than actual proposed findings. (Many of the details in this summary form the basis for the conclusion that the testimony of the two principal witnesses against the Respondent is unreliable.). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Moldof 1311 Southeast Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire General Counsel, FEA/United 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent held a Florida Teaching Certificate number 541001, covering the areas of Physical Education and Driver's Education. Respondent was employed by the Dixie County School District at Dixie County High School in Cross City, Florida, from the spring of 1983 through late November, 1985. During the period of time Respondent was employed by the Dixie County School Board (Board), he was married to Tina Bailey, with whom he had two children. He was divorced from Tina Bailey in July, 1986. Respondent was employed in the positions of athletic director, head football coach, and also had some duties teaching physical education. During the fall semester of 1985, respondent spent his mornings at Anderson Elementary School and was on the high school campus at Dixie County High School from 11:15 a.m. through the remainder of the day. During the Respondent's fifth hour he taught physical education, and during his sixth period he was involved in being the varsity coach for boys' football. Dixie County High School, which is located in Cross City, is the only public high school in the County. The population of Cross City is 3,000. The position of head football coach at Dixie County High School is a "spotlight figure," a visible position with a great deal of influence or contact with young people. A valid teaching certificate is necessary to hold the position of football coach at a public high school. During the late summer of 1985, Respondent attempted to use his influence as head football coach to intercede and possibly prevent an impasse in the contract negotiation between the teachers and the Board. Respondent's action resulted in members of the football team, and possibly some of their parents, putting pressure on the Superintendent of Schools to call a Board meeting. The student aides assigned to the Physical Education Department for fifth period of the 1985-1986 school year were Mary Cravey and Trina Fletcher. Trina was a senior during the 1985-1986 school year and head cheerleader. She had been a cheerleader since the seventh grade. Due to Trina's head cheerleading responsibilities and being a teacher's aide in the same period Respondent taught physical education, she had more contact than usual with the head football coach in her senior year. During the fall semester of 1985, toward the end of October, School Principal Kenneth Baumer was advised by Cynthia Wells, an English teacher, that Trina was romantically involved with Respondent. Upon Baumer questioning the Respondent and Trina, both denied any improper conduct and there was insufficient evidence to show any improper conduct prior to this date. However, in effort to quiet any rumors, Baumer transferred Trina across campus under the supervisor of her aunt, Cherie Norton. Sometime after Trina was placed under the supervision of her aunt, Trina became attracted to Respondent, and Respondent later became attracted to Trina, and they began to discuss their personal problems with each other. Later on, subsequent to the discussion with Baumer but before Respondent resigned his position, their relationship became more personal and progressed to the point of physical contact such as hugging and kissing on possibly one or two occasions off campus and out of Dixie County. After Respondent resigned in late November, 1985, his relationship with Trina continued, but it was not until after her eighteenth birthday that the relationship progressed to the point of being physical and sexual. Also, they dated more openly after Trina's eighteenth birthday. It was not until Respondent resigned that Trina's parents became fully aware of the relationship. Trina's parents were bitterly opposed to Trina dating or seeing Respondent and, as a result, on her 18th birthday, January 23, 1986, Trina moved in with her Aunt, Cherie Norton. After moving out of her parents' home, Trina received very little financial support from her parents. The relationship between Trina and her parents was very poor during the spring of 1986. Trina did not go to the senior prom, although she did go for pictures, nor did she go on the senior trip. Trina decided against going to these events because she was dating Respondent. There was no evidence that Respondent encouraged Trina not to attend these events. Trina was a straight "A" student which did not change as a result of her relationship with Respondent. Trina had a standing academic scholarship to attend Lake City Junior College. Trina did not attend college, although she was encouraged by Respondent to attend college, and, in fact, offered financial assistance through his uncle. In a small community such as Cross City, rumors, whether true or untrue, affect an individual's reputation and could damage the effectiveness of teachers in a classroom. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's effectiveness as a classroom teacher was adversely affected by any rumors before or after he had resigned. Respondent was aware after the discussion with Baumer that getting involved with a female student, particularly while employed by the Board, was inappropriate. There was insufficient evidence that Trina suffered any damaging consequences as a result of her relationship with Respondent, particularly prior to his resignation. Trina was a "loner"; her friends were limited and she did not mix well with her peers. This was true before and after she became involved with Respondent, and there is insufficient evidence to show that Trina was treated any differently by her peers or the public at large in Dixie County after she became involved with Respondent, particularly before his resignation. Although, as a rule, high school students may be sensitive to what is said about them by their classmates, there was insufficient evidence to show that any derogatory remarks were made to or about Trina, directly or "behind her back," concerning her relationship with Respondent that resulted in Trina being embarrassed or hurt, being isolated from, or treated differently by her peers or suffering any damaging consequences. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's relationship adversely affected or seriously reduced his effectiveness as a teacher and an employee of the Board, notwithstanding the testimony of Principal Baumer and Superintendent Hardin in this regard, particularly their concern about the political implication of any Board member's thinking or theories in recommending Respondent for re-employment as a teacher in Dixie County, Florida. It is clear that there was a strong mutual affection between Respondent and Trina, in spite of the age difference, that lasted for a period approximately 1 1/2 years, long after Respondent had resigned and Trina had graduated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practice Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent in violation of Section 231.28(1)(c), Florida Statutes, for conduct constituting "gross immorality" and suspending Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of (1) year, subject to reinstatement in accordance with Section 231.28(4)(6), Florida Statutes. It is further Recommended that Petitioner's Final Order dismiss all other charges relating to a violation of Section 231.28(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6D-1.006(3)(e) and (h) and Rule 6B-1.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 14th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4782 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-12, respectfully. The first sentence is immaterial. The second sentence is adopted in Finding of Fact 14. The first sentence is immaterial. The second sentence is adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 16.-17. Adopted Findings of Fact 15 and 16, respectively. 18.-23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 17, respectively. 24.-26. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 20 and 22, respectively. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 15 and 16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 16. Rejected as being argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as being argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Steffens, Esquire Nabors, Giblin, Steffens & Nickerson, P.A. 106 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Bailey, Pro Se Post Office Box 1482 Cross City, Florida 32628 Martin B. Schapp, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 418 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 =================================================================
The Issue Did Respondent Siebelts commit the offenses set forth in the petition for dismissal (Case No. 88-4697) and the amended administrative complaint (Case No. 89-0189) filed against her? If so, what discipline should she receive?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Karen Siebelts has held a State of Florida teaching certificate since 1976. Her current certificate was issued May 1, 1986, and covers the areas of elementary education, elementary and secondary reading, and secondary social studies and psychology. For the past thirteen years Siebelts has been employed by the School Board of Broward County as a classroom teacher. During the early stages of her employment, she taught at Melrose Park Middle School. She then moved to Perry Middle School, where she taught a class of emotionally disturbed sixth graders. Her performance at these two schools was rated as acceptable. In November, 1979, Siebelts was assigned to teach at Charles Drew Elementary School, a neighborhood school located in the predominantly black Collier city area of Pompano Beach. The charges lodged against Siebelts are based on specific acts she allegedly committed while she was a Chapter I Reading/Math and Computer teacher at Charles Drew providing remedial instruction to students whose test scores reflected a need for such special assistance. On January 22, 1985, while seated with her fifth grade students at a table during a reading lesson, Siebelts inadvertently kicked one of the students in the shin. The incident occurred as Siebelts was moving her legs to a more comfortable position. The force involved was minimal and produced no visible injuries. The student immediately demanded an apology from Siebelts. Siebelts responded to this demand with silence. She neither apologized nor said anything to suggest that she had intended to kick the student. Earlier in the lesson, Siebelts had directed the student to stop talking. The student had defied the directive and continued to talk. It was not until approximately three minutes after the student's initial defiance of the directive, however, that the kicking incident occurred. Nonetheless, the student suspected that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her because of her failure to obey Siebelts' order that she not talk. When the student came home from school that day she told her mother that Siebelts had intentionally kicked her during class. The mother immediately reported the incident to the principal of the school, Hubert Lee. The matter was referred to the School Board's Internal Affairs Unit for investigation. The requested investigation was conducted. Following the completion of the investigation, a written report of the investigator's findings was submitted to the administration. No further action was taken regarding this incident until approximately three and a half years later when the instant petition for dismissal was issued. Siebelts was annoyed when she learned that the student and her mother had accused her of wrongdoing in connection with the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. On February 19, 1985, she expressed her annoyance in front of her fifth grade class and in their presence threatened to take legal action against those students and parents who had made libelous or slanderous statements about her or had otherwise verbally abused her. She told the students that they and their parents would be subpoenaed to court and if they did not appear they would be incarcerated. The principal of the school was informed of these remarks shortly after they were made, but it was not until the instant petition for dismissal was issued on August 22, 1988, that Siebelts was first formally charged with having made the remarks. Before coming to work on January 28 1986, Siebelts took a codeine pain medication that her physician had prescribed. When classes started that morning she was still under the influence of the medication. She was listless and drowsy. Her speech was slurred and she appeared incoherent at times. She also had difficulty maintaining her balance when she walked. Because Siebelts had been taking this medication "on and off" since 1979, she had been aware of these potential side effects of the medication when ingesting it on this particular occasion. A teacher's aide in Siebelts' classroom concerned about Siebelts' condition summoned the principal, Hubert Lee, to the classroom. When he arrived, Lee observed Siebelts seated at her desk. She was just staring and seemed "to be almost falling asleep." The students were out of control. They were laughing and making fun of Siebelts. After questioning Siebelts and receiving an answer that was not at all responsive to the question he had asked, Lee instructed Siebelts to come to his office. Siebelts complied, displaying an unsteady gait as she walked to Lee's office. In Lee's office, Siebelts insisted that she was fine, but conceded that she was "on" prescribed pain medication. Throughout their conversation, Siebelts continued to slur her words and it was difficult for Lee to understand her. Pursuant to Lee's request, Dr. Lorette David, Lee's immediate supervisor, and Nat Stokes, a School Board investigator, came to Lee's office to observe and assess Siebelts' condition. A determination was thereafter made that Siebelts was not capable of performing her instructional duties that day, which was an accurate assessment. She therefore was sent home for the day. Because of her impaired condition, rather than driving herself home, she was driven to her residence by Dr. David. Although she believed that she was not suffering from any impairment, Siebelts did not protest the decision to relieve her of her duties because she felt that any such protest would have fallen on deaf ears. Following this incident, Siebelts was issued a letter of reprimand by Lee. She also was referred to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because it was felt that she might have a substance abuse problem. Siebelts agreed to participate in the program and received counselling. At no time subsequent to January 28, 1986, did Siebelts report to work under the influence of her pain medication or any other drug. During the 1987-1988 school year, Siebelts and two other Chapter I teachers, Rosa Moses and Mary Cooper, occupied space in Charles Drew's Chapter I reading and math laboratory. Their classrooms were located in the same large room and were separated by makeshift partitions. Siebelts is white. Moses and Cooper, as well as the aides who were assigned to the laboratory during that school year, are black. In October, 1987, Moses complained to Principal Lee that Siebelts was not teaching her students, but rather was constantly engaging in loud verbal confrontations with them that disrupted Moses' lessons. Lee had received similar complaints about Siebelts from others. He therefore asked Moses to advise him in writing of any future classroom misconduct on Siebelts' part. Siebelts continued to engage in conduct in her classroom which Moses deemed inappropriate and disruptive. On November 4, 1987, for the last five minutes of one of her classes, she loudly exchanged verbal barbs with her students. Her yelling made it difficult for Moses and Cooper to teach their lessons. On November 5, 1987, throughout an entire 45-minute class period, Siebelts was embroiled in a verbal battle with a student during which she made derogatory remarks about the student's size. She called the student "fat" and told her that she "shake[d] like jelly." The student, in turn, called Siebelts "fruity" and likened her to a "scarecrow." On that same day during a later class period, Siebelts took a student by the arm and, following a tussle with the student, placed him in his seat. Thereafter, she made belittling remarks to the other students in the class. She said that they were "stupid" and "belonged in a freak show." She also referred to them as "imbeciles." Siebelts further told her students that their "mothers eat dog food." On November 25, 1987, Siebelts commented to the students in one of her classes that they would be able to move around the classroom with greater ease if they were not so fat. As she had been asked to do, Moses provided Lee with a written account of these November, 1987, encounters between Siebelts and her students, but Lee did not take any immediate action to initiate disciplinary action against Siebelts. Although she did not so indicate in her report, Moses believed that the unflattering remarks that Siebelts had made to the students on these occasions constituted racial slurs inasmuch as all of the students to whom the remarks had been addressed were black and in addressing these remarks to the students as a group she had referred to them as "you people." Moses thought that "you people" had meant black people in general, whereas Siebelts had intended the phrase to refer to just the students in the classroom. At no time during any of these reported incidents did Siebelts make specific reference to the students' race, nor did she specifically attack black people in general. The target of her demeaning and insulting remarks were those of her students whose unruly and disrespectful behavior she was unable to control. Her efforts to maintain discipline and promote learning in the classroom had failed. She had become frustrated with the situation and verbally lashed out at her students. Unfortunately, these outbursts only served to further reduce her effectiveness as a teacher. On March 1, 1988, Siebelts was involved in an incident similar to the one which had occurred more than three years earlier on January 22, 1985. As on the prior occasion, Siebelts was sitting at a classroom table with her students. Her legs were crossed. When she repositioned her legs, her foot inadvertently came in contact with the top of the head of a student who was crawling under the table to retrieve a pencil the student had dropped. The student had been told by Siebelts not to go under the table but had disobeyed the instruction. She had been under the table for approximately a minute and a half before being struck by Siebelts foot. The blow to the student's head was a light one and produced only a slight bump. Nonetheless, after getting up from under the table, the student, a brash fourth grader who had had confrontations with Siebelts in the past, threatened to physically retaliate against Siebelts. Siebelts did not say anything to the student and the class ended without the student following through on her threat. Following this incident, Siebelts telephoned the student's mother at home to discuss the student's classroom behavior. The call was placed sometime before 9:00 p.m. The conversation between Siebelts and the mother soon degenerated into an argument. They terminated the discussion without settling their differences. Lee subsequently met with the mother. He suggested that a meeting with Siebelts at the school be arranged. The mother indicated to Lee that she would not attend such a meeting unless school security was present. She explained that she was so angry at Siebelts that she was afraid that she would lose her composure and physically attack Siebelts if they were in the same room together.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order suspending Karen Siebelts' teaching certificate for two years and that the School Board of Broward County issue a final order suspending Siebelts until the reinstatement of her teaching certificate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of June, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 88-4687 AND 89-0189 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Commisioner of Education's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance in the Findings of Fact portion of this Recommended Order. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Siebelts was not charged with having made threatening remarks the day after the January 22, 1985, kicking incident. These threats were allegedly made, according to the charging documents, on February 19, 1985. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts engaged in name-calling on dates other than those specfied in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint otherwise, it is accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Furthermore, the witness whose testimony is recited in this proposed finding later clarified her testimony and conceded that Siebelts did not use the precise words quoted in this proposed finding. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts made "racial comments" on the dates specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint. Insofar as it states that such comments were made on other occasions, it is rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. According to the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, Siebelts threatened her students with legal action on February 19, 1985. This proposed finding, however, relates to alleged threats of legal action made by Siebelts during the 1987-1988 school year. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Siebelts' Proposed Findings of Fact First unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Second unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and :incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Third unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fourth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as more in the nature of a statement of opposing parties' position than a finding of fact; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Fifth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; sixth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; seventh sentence: Rejected as subordinate; eighth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; ninth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; tenth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; eleventh sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; twelfth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Sixth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Seventh unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony (The exculpatory testimony of Siebelts which is summarized in the first three sentences of this paragraph has not been credited because it is contrary to the more credible testimony of other witnesses) fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Eighth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as subordinate; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; fifth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; sixth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; seventh sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; eighth sentence: Rejected as subordinate; ninth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Ninth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fifth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Tenth unnumbered paragraph, first sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; fourth sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Superintendent of School's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the fourth sentence, which has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance except to the extent that it asserts that Siebelts "advised the students that they and their parents would be placed in jail because of the lies and the slander." The preponderance of the evidence reveals that she actually told them that they and their parents would be incarcerated if they did not appear in court when summoned. First sentence: Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony; second sentence: Rejected as subordinate. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument concerning relatively insignificant matters than findings of fact addressing necessary and vital issues. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that Siebelts had alcohol on her breath. Any such suggestion has been rejected because it is contrary to the testimony of Investigator Stokes. Stokes, who has been employed by the School Board as an investigator for the past 20 years, testified that he was standing one or two feet away from Siebelts and did not detect the odor of alcohol on her breath. In view of his experience regarding the investigation of these matters, his testimony has been credited. Rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Accepted and incorporated in substance. To the extent that this proposed finding states that Siebelts made inappropriate remarks regarding the students' clothing or other matters on dates other than those specified in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint, it has been rejected as outside the scope of the charges. Insofar as it asserts that Siebelts made derogatory remarks about black people in general on the dates specified in these charging documents, it has been rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding indicates that Siebelts otherwise insulted the students in her class on the dates specified in the charging documents, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "disparaging remarks" which are the subject of this proposed finding were purportedly made during the 1984-1985 school year. The "disparaging remarks" referenced in the petition for dismissal and amended administrative complaint were allegedly made, according to these charging documents, during the 1987-1988 school year, more specifically, on November 4, 5, and 25, 1987. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. The "critical" remarks referred to in this proposed finding were allegedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. First sentence: Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the extent it references reactions to "disparaging" and "critical" remarks that were purportedly made prior to the 1987-1988 school year. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as a summary of the testimony of Siebelts' former students and colleagues rather than a finding of fact based on such testimony. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it reflects that Moses actively monitored Siebelts classroom conduct "through December of 1987." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that such active monitoring actually ceased November 25, 1987; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent it indicates that Noses heard Siebelts tell her students that they "were dirty and needed baths." This comment was purportedly overheard, not by Moses, but by Margaret Cameron, a teacher's aide who had left Charles Drew prior to the commencement of the 1987- 1988 school year; fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. These proposed findings are based on Cameron's testimony regarding offensive comments she had allegedly overheard while an aide in Siebelts' classroom. These pre-1987-1988 school year comments, however, are not mentioned in either the petition for dismissal or the amended administrative complaint. First sentence: As this proposed finding correctly points out, Siebelts' insulting comments only served to heighten the students' hostility and anger toward her. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence, though, to support the further finding that these comments "resulted in several physical altercations between the students;" second sentence: Rejected inasmuch as there no persuasive competent substantial evidence that there was any "heated verbal exchange" on November 5, 1987, between Siebelts and the student which preceded their "altercation." The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the verbal battle with her students occurred immediately after this incident; third sentence: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although she may used physical force during her encounter with this student, it is unlikely that she actually "tossed" him into his seat. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges. Rejected inasmuch as there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to support a finding that Siebelts telephoned the student's mother as a result of the incident near the air-conditioner. The preponderance of the evidence does establish that Siebelts did telephone the mother on a subsequent occasion, but there is no indication that Siebelts threatened the mother or otherwise acted inappropriately during this telephone conversation. Although the mother asked to have security personnel present during a parent-teacher conference with Siebelts, the preponderance of the evidence reveals that this request was not the product of any threats that Siebelts had made against the mother. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Siebelts' testimony that the contact was unintentional is plausible and has been credited. The circumstantial evidence presented by Petitioners (including evidence of prior confrontations between Siebelts and the student) raises some questions regarding the veracity of Siebelts' testimony on this point, but such evidence is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the discrediting this testimony. Given her penchant for verbalizing to her students her thoughts about them, had Siebelts intended to kick the student as a disciplinary measure, she undoubtedly would have made this known to the student, rather than remain silent as she did; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it suggests that immediately after kicking the student, Siebelts had a "smirk on her face." To this limited extent, this proposed finding is not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; fourth sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Rejected as not supported by any persuasive competent substantial evidence; second, third, fourth and fifth sentences: Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. Rejected as more in the nature of argument and a summary of testimony than a finding of fact based on such testimony. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Siebelts' behavior at school on January 28, 1986, and her verbal attack of her students on November 4, 5, and 25, 198', reduced her effectiveness as a teacher, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Insofar as it indicates that other conduct in which she engaged resulted in a reduction or loss of effectiveness, it has been rejected as either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence (other conduct specified in charging documents) or beyond the scope of the charges (other conduct not specified in charging documents). COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Whitelock, Esquire 1311 S.E. 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 322, Bayview Building 4,1040 Bayview Drive Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Thomas P. Johnson, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent Human Resources Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Craig R. Wilson, Esquire Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway One North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 Karen B. Wilde Robert F. McRee, Esquire Executive Director Post Office Box 75638 Education Practices Commission Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The complaint alleges that on or about September 7, 1998, Respondent, Glenn L. Marsh, failed to properly supervise a football practice and care for the safety of the students under his supervision in that Glenn L. Marsh failed to provide the students water during the practice, causing the students to become dehydrated and causing one student (S.J.) to collapse and require hospitalization for severe dehydration. Essentially, the factual issue in this case is whether during a two and one-half hour football practice session on September 7, 1998, Glenn L. Marsh, head football coach of Atlantic High school, who did not give a team water breaks to all 40 players at any one time, but instead gave his three assistants coaches unilateral authority to give groups of players under their individual supervision water breaks as they deemed necessary, caused students to become dehydrated and caused one student to become dehydrated and hospitalized, and thereby violated Sections 231.28(1)(f) and 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a)and 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state agency charged with the regulation of the teaching profession pursuant to Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, Glenn L. Marsh, is a certified teacher in the State of Florida, having been issued Teaching Certificate No. 702169 on July 1, 1990. At all times material hereto, Glenn L. Marsh was employed by the Volusia County School Board and assigned to Atlantic High School as teacher/head football coach and continued these dual duties until resigning on or about September 24, 1998. At all times material hereto, Glenn Marsh, head coach, was responsible for establishing policy governing training and operations of varsity football at Atlantic High School. Under Coach Marsh's direct supervision were three assistant teachers/coaches, Ron Grayton, Jim Longerbeam, and Steve Lawson. Substantial and competent evidence establishes that each assistant coach understood his responsibility, when students were under his individual supervision and control, for the care and safety of students in his charge. The Assistant coach's responsibilities included but were not limited to, training and conditioning of players, evaluation of players' strength and weaknesses, and other coaching assignments during training and during the playing of varsity football games. At all times material hereto, Volusia county policy required every male or female student, prior to participation in sport activities, to undergo a physical examination at Halifax Medical Center. A list of students who were medically approved to participate in sports was provided to the high school's Athletic Director, who in turn gave this information to the high school head coach. Student S.J. underwent the required 1998 medical examination, was approved and permitted to participate in sport activities at Atlantic High School. At all times material hereto, S.J. was a student attending Atlantic High School and a member of the Atlantic High School varsity football team. The parties stipulated, with confirmation by S.J., and by his mother, Joy James, that S.J. is a carrier of the sickle cell trait.1 Upon the testimony of the parties, it is established that S.J.'s medical condition, sickle cell trait, was not made known to Duane R. Busse, Investigator, Volusia County Schools, Office of Professional Standards, nor to the Halifax Medical Center during S.J.'s physical examination, nor to Coach Glenn Marsh nor to any other member of the coaching staff at Atlantic High School. From or about 9:00 a.m. to 11:30-12:00 p.m., during the course of his employment, Glenn Marsh was primarily responsible for supervising the varsity football practice at Atlantic High School, Titusville, Florida. On the morning of Monday, September 7, 1998 (Labor Day), at approximately 9:00-9:15 a.m., S.J. and approximately 39 other members of Atlantic High School football team reported to Atlantic High School athletic fields for a routine football practice session for approximately two and one-half hours. Credible evidence shows that players, at their option, dressed in shorts, tee shirts, and helmets for the morning practice. Some players elected to wear girdles.2 Of the players wearing girdles, some inserted padding in the inner girdle pockets and other did not. This early morning practice was a no-contact session.3 The testimony of the witnesses establishes that the weather condition on the morning of September 7, 1998, was normal in Florida for that time of the year, hot and humid, no rain with temperatures in the high 80 to 90 degrees. Credible evidence shows that on September 7, 1998, the no-contact practice session consisted of specific physical activities wherein players were grouped according the their positions on the team. Those physical activities scheduled by Coach Marsh were of limited duration and consisted basically of the following: Starting time: 9:30 AM Stretching 10-15 min. (9:30-9:45) warm ups 45 min (9:45-10:30) special teams 25-30 min (10:30-11:00) defense air 25-30 min (11:00-11:30) offense air 10 min (11:30-11:40) Conditioning runs 10 min (11:40-11:50) knee down review 5 min (11:50-11:55) Locker dress out 5 min (11:55-12:00). Stretching consisted of wind-mills, jumping jacks and in-place running, followed by special teams4 (punt return, offense, defense, wide receivers and running backs, etc.) against air (phantom team) which begins with players doing a walk-through against an air opponent. All players who were not playing on the team engaged in practice were required to kneel on one knee and observe but could not sit down. Conditioning practice, which followed special team practice, consists of running laps up and down the football field with one coach positioned in one end zone, another coach at mid-field to time players, and Head Coach Marsh in the other end zone, directing runs. Credible evidence establishes that the head coach, Glenn Marsh, determines the numbers of laps team members are required to run. On the day in question, Coach Marsh recalled that players ran six 100-yard sprints and two 40-yard sprints and the September 7, 1998, practice session which followed an established routine and pattern of prior practice sessions. Prior to the date in question, team members had undergone some two-a-day practice sessions but at least one practice session had been held every week since the beginning of the 1998 football season without incident of any nature. On September 7, 1998, at or near the conclusion of players running conditioning laps, S.J. experienced a near sycopal episode. S.J. was assisted into the locker room by other students and was treated by coaches and teammates who undressed him, iced him down, and attempted to get him to drink liquids. S.J. was subsequently transported by EVAC to Halifax Hospital, Daytona Beach, Florida, for treatment. Medical evaluation of S.J. by Halifax Hospital staff reported a history consistent with heat exhaustion, dehydration, and a mild renal failure. Follow-up treatment by Dr. Norman D. Pryor, Division of Nephrology, from September 9, 1998 through July 30, 1999, at Nemours Children's Clinic, Orlando, Florida, revealed S.J. had sustained no permanent impairment of his renal function. On January 25, 1999, Dr. Pryor reported S.J.'s renal process resolved and released S.J. to resume sports activities with no anticipated residual over time. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On September 7, 1998, Coach Ronald Graydon, in charge of the offense and wide receivers which included S.J., testified that he distinctly recalled giving his group of skilled players a water break: "Okay guys, let's pride it out and go to the trough -- or let's pride it out and get some water, which means break out of a huddle and go get some water." He knows that the water trough was turned on and water was available to players. He does not, however, recall who went to the water trough nor does he recall who drank water at the water trough.5 S.J. testified to the contrary. He recalls that he was never offered water by any of the coaches on September 7, 1998. On cross-examination, S.J. admitted he does not remember how much water he drank on Saturday or on Sunday before the Monday morning football practice session. However, on redirect examination, S.J. remembered, "I had only one cup of water or two cups of water before I went to practice. I thought like they'll have water out there, you know. I wouldn't have liked, you know, chug down like a gallon before I went out there". S.J. testified that though he did not personally go to the water trough (although he remembered that the water trough was not turned on that day), the water trough was not hooked up that day and was not running and that the only source of water they (team) had out there (the practice fields) was a water fountain6 that barely put out any water. S.J. further testified that throughout the entire two and one-half hours of practice session he did not have a drop of water or a chance to get water. According to S.J., as he was down on all fours at about the 10-yard line preparing for conditioning sprints, he asked Coach Marsh, who was standing about 10 to 20 yards away, for water and was told "No." S.J. does not recall if Coach Marsh heard his request. S.J. did not repeat his request to Coach Marsh, other coaches, or fellow students. No witness was presented to corroborate S.J.'s recollection of his being on his knees asking for water. Michael Beauregard, a special team running back player who was in S.J.'s skills group and who, prior to Coach Marsh's becoming head coach, was the starting quarterback for the team, testified from a confused memory of events on September 7, 1998. Initially, Michael Beauregard recalled that practice began in the afternoon. When asked the same question a second time, Mr. Beauregard testified, "I have to say the morning, chances are." Mr. Beauregard testified that to his knowledge, it was Coach Marsh's policy during practice sessions that assistant coaches would gave their individual player groups water breaks. However, on September 7, 1998, as he recalls, assistant coach Jim Longerbeam never gave his group (running backs and wide receivers, including S.J.) a water break. The inconsistencies, contradictions and confusion in Michael Beauregard's testimony render it less than precise and explicit, not the result of distinct memory, confusing as to facts in issue, and therefore, it does not produce a firm belief of conviction. Assistant Coach James Longerbeam, with a master's degree in education and bachelor's degree in physical education and health, took control and supervision of the offensive line, tight ends, and wide receiver players (including Beauregard and S.J.) during the practice session. During these individual skills sessions, Coach Longerbeam distinctly recalls giving his players a water break because he even went over and got water himself from the water trough. The totality of Coach Longerbeam's testimony demonstrated an understanding by assistant coaches of Coach Marsh's policy and methods regarding water breaks during football practice. Assistant coaches understood it was their individual responsibility to send players for water when they were under their personal supervision and in fact, they routinely did so. Further, they understood that when on team breaks between offense and defense team practice sessions, should Coach Marsh blow his whistle, all players would be free to get water at that time, that is, a full-team water break. Coach Longerbeam testified that during the September 7, 1998, football practice every player was in a group under an assistant coach at some point in time, but he does not recall when the other assistant coaches sent their players on water breaks. Joe Hampton, with bachelor and master degrees in physical education, teacher/coach for 32 years, currently employed at Estero High School, Ft. Myers, Florida, and a year officer of the Florida High School Athletic Association gave the following opinion testimony: His studies in conditioning and effects of physical exercise on the human has lead him to conclude that it is important to maintain proper hydration for varsity students; It is vitally important to drink the right kind of fluids, (non-caffeine), water primarily, and lots of it before engaging in physical exercise; If one is not properly hydrated prior to practice requiring physical exercises, what you drink at or during practice will not be sufficient to hydrate you; it may maintain you, but not hydrate you; Varsity students lose weight during varsity football practice and games, from one or two to seven or eight pounds, which is mainly water loss. It takes an average of 24 hours to replace water weight loss through hydration by constant hydration; In his 32 years of experience it is very rare for varsity players to become dehydrated; he has experienced one of two; but it's most unusual; Water breaks are routinely determined by the head coach and usually follow a simple pattern; i.e. one after teams and skills portion of a two and one-half hour practice; another after a time interval determined by the coach who knows the weather conditions, type of practice and knowledge of his kids; He is not aware of any rule or anything that says it is mandatory to have team water breaks. Water breaks are discretionary with each head coach; Varsity players' complaints of hot, tired, hurting, dying, can't make another step, etc. are common players' complaints when players are being pushed by their coaches to reach a higher performance level and to enhance their physical capabilities; He was not present at Atlantic High on September 7, 1998; He had had one and one-half hour walk through sessions where no water breaks were given; but, he had never been in a two and one-half hour practice session where no water breaks were given, and He opined that if a group of players were engaged in a two and one-half hour practice session and no water was made available, it would be inappropriate conduct on behalf of the coaches. Respondent, Glenn L. Marsh, with a bachelor's degree (1990) in exceptional education and eight years' classroom teaching experience prior to accepting the teacher/coach position as Atlantic High School, received the highest rating on his assessment evaluations at each high school by which he has been employed.7 Coach Marsh testified that there were approximately 40 varsity players at the practice on September 7, 1998. Practice began at 9:00 a.m. in the morning, it was a light no-contact practice with helmets only, and no student other than S.J. suffered dehydration or collapsed. Coach Marsh further testified that the entire team, including S.J., endured two-a-day practice sessions beginning in August of 1998 until playing the first varsity game; that thereafter, one-a-day practice sessions were the usual pattern; that during the weeks of two-a-day practice sessions, no student suffered any problems, including dehydration, other than normal bumps and bruises associated with playing the game of football. Coach Marsh's confirmed that his policy and method of supervision was to give his assistant coaches individual authority to give water breaks to students when in individual training/practice sessions. He recalls that during individual groups, Assistant Coach Longerbeam was in charge of managerial things while he, Coach Marsh, was coaching and teaching, and Coach Longerbeam sent those players on water breaks.8 Coach Marsh recalled offering team water breaks during practice in his usual manner of a general statement to all, "Guys, anybody that needs water, get it," which would normally be echoed by assistant coaches. On the day in question Coach Marsh recalls he offered a "guys, anybody need water, get it" team water break before the start of the conditioning exercise phase of the practice. Coach Marsh does not recall any player personally asking him for water or a water break and heard no complaints from players about a lack of available water; nor does he recall seeing any group, other than the group of which he was in charge, actually going for water. Coach Marsh testified that his general group response/comment, given to no one student in particular and given many times in the past to all players, when players would complain about running laps, that is, "I am tired," "golly coach I am dying," was, in effect, "Guys you are not dying. You will pass out before you die." This statement is his general motivational response to players' gripes when running. He does not specifically recall, however, if he made that statement on September 7, 1998, but, admitted on cross-examination that he may have. Coach Marsh testified that his water availability policy change, removing the plastic water bottles and cups from the practice field and replacing them with the single-source water trough, was based upon several concerns: 1) students were distracted by playing and squirting each other; 2) not- withstanding his constant instructions against it, students continued to drink directly from the bottle, thereby increasing the health risk of passing colds, etc.; and 3) there was a lack of accessibility between the two practice fields. Following the September 7, 1998, incident and before September 24, 1998, Coach Marsh testified he met with Ron Pagano, principal of Atlantic High School. Mr. Pagano informed Coach Marsh during that meeting that Atlantic High School's water policy would be "get water every ten minutes no matter what the amount of physical activity, whether running, sitting, or standing, every ten minutes." There was no evidence proffered addressing whether Atlantic High School or Volusia County established, published or made known policy, standards, or guidelines regarding mandatory water breaks for students engaged in high school varsity sports, prior to and on September 7, 1998. Based upon evidence of record and at all times material hereto, Atlantic High School did not have in place a policy, principle, or guideline relating to the issue of water for student athletics engaged in physical activities. When questioned by Petitioner's attorney about newspaper articles containing allegations leveled against him, that players had not been provided with an adequate supply of water, Coach Marsh response was that he took the position that those allegations were untrue and unworthy of his making a public response.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it recommended that State of Florida Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding Respondent, Glenn L. Marsh, not guilty of violation of Section 231.28(1)(f) and Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 January, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent may be dismissed from employment with Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) for violation of FAMU Regulation 10.111.
Findings Of Fact FAMU Regulation 10.111, a duly promulgated regulation, was in effect at all times relevant hereto. (Stipulation 5.) FAMU Regulation 10.206, a duly promulgated regulation, was in effect at all times relevant hereto. (Stipulation 6.) 3. FAMU Regulations 10.100, 10.101, 10.105, 10.106, and 10.120, all duly promulgated regulations, were in effect at all times material. At all times material, Dr. Cynthia Hughes-Harris served as FAMU’s Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs. On May 6, 2008, Dr. James H. Ammons, in his capacity as President of FAMU, had delegated to Dr. Hughes-Harris authority to administer all applicable FAMU regulations, policies, and procedures. (Stipulation 9.) The incident that gave rise to FAMU's letter of termination to Respondent occurred in the FAMU football stadium’s field house during the FAMU homecoming game on November 1, 2008. As of November 1, 2008, Respondent had been employed in the football program at FAMU since 1997. He had served successfully under five athletic directors without receiving a bad employment rating. On June 28, 2008, he had received the American Football Coaches Association’s Outstanding Equipment Manager of the Year Award. On November 1, 2008, and at the time of his termination, Respondent was employed by Petitioner FAMU as Coordinator, Intercollegiate Athletics. The contract period for Respondent’s employment in effect at the time covered July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. (Stipulation 1.) As Coordinator, Intercollegiate Athletics, Respondent worked as the equipment manager for the FAMU football program. (Stipulation 2.) At all times material, Respondent’s employment classification was Administrative and Professional (A&P), with a regular appointment status. As such, Respondent was not a FAMU employee with “permanent status” as contemplated by FAMU Regulation 10.206. (Stipulation 3.) At all times material, William Lewis Hayes, Sr., was employed by FAMU as Director of Athletics. (Stipulation 4.) As such, Mr. Hayes had oversight of FAMU’s Department of Athletics, including 18 intercollegiate sports teams, and supervisory responsibility for approximately 67 employees, including Respondent. Not the least among Mr. Hayes’ many responsibilities was to act as head coach. As a result, Mr. Hayes was often referred to as “Coach Hayes.” At all times material, Respondent was subordinate to Coach Hayes. Upon his arrival and assumption of his duties at FAMU, in January 2008, Coach Hayes had become aware that scheduled intercollegiate football games played in the FAMU stadium were losing money. He also became aware that during home games, a significant number of people were entering the football stadium, its field, and its out-buildings without a game ticket. Coach Hayes regarded all non-paying attendees for both home and away games as gatecrashers and freeloaders. He reasonably believed that if all non-paying attendees were denied entrance, or if their number were at least reduced, the same people would pay the cost of admission; FAMU would increase its game receipts accordingly; FAMU’s $4,000,000, deficit would be eliminated; and the significant number of athletic scholarships which he administered would be on firmer financial ground. On November 1, 2008, Coach Hayes was 65 years old. He had successfully worked in athletics for 50 years and had coached football for 39 of those years. He had the reputation of being large and loud, and of occasionally emitting some of the verbal belligerency characteristic of male athletics generally, and of a “coach in charge” specifically. However, at all times material, he was the “coach in charge,” and the record is devoid of any evidence that he has ever been physically violent to employees or co-workers. In an attempt to reduce the Athletic Department’s financial deficit, Coach Hayes started, in March 2008, to hold weekly “game operations meetings” with mandatory attendance of most of his staff. At these meetings, he explained his reasons for tightening up on the number of non-paying game attendees; pointed out problems encountered at the last game; and asked security personnel and his subordinates to “brainstorm” ways to keep people from getting into games without paying for a ticket. Respondent attended at least some of these meetings. At one of the game operations meetings, Sgt. Beverly Stephens of the FAMU Police Department explained that the field house at FAMU’s Stadium had been identified as a significant, even the primary, entry point for non-paying attendees to get into home games and that some people were using Respondent’s name in their request for entry. Respondent was present at that meeting. Respondent was not the only FAMU employee assigned to the athletic field house, but Respondent’s office, equipment room, and general operating area were located in the field house. During the meeting with Sgt. Stephens, Respondent became visibly agitated by Sgt. Stephens’ remarks and stood up, loudly challenging her statements. He was either cajoled into calmness or physically restrained by a member of the group. Respondent explained his out-of-proportion reaction to Sgt. Stephens as “feeling disrespected” by her or because he was not familiar with Sgt. Stephens’ way of speaking or doing things. Prior to November 1, 2008, Respondent knew that one of the ways Coach Hayes planned to thwart non-paying game attendees was to retract entry credentials from everyone except absolutely necessary game personnel. For purposes of this case, the term “credentials” encompasses FAMU printed materials, FAMU paraphernalia such as items to carry balls, and FAMU football jerseys. Willie J. Pettigrew had been FAMU’s Athletic Transportation Officer for the 14 years preceding the material time frame and held that position at all times material hereto. Mr. Pettigrew had attended one or more of the game operations meetings and knew Coach Hayes wanted to keep unauthorized people out of the field house. At the commencement of the homecoming game on November 1, 2008, Mr. Pettigrew observed a bunch of people in the equipment room and told Respondent that he needed to get them out. As the first half of the homecoming game was ending, Mr. Pettigrew told Coach Hayes that he had seen a bunch of people in the field house; that the people had been gotten out of there; and that Coach Hayes should go check out the equipment room himself. Mr. Pettigrew was not specific as to why Coach Hayes should check out the equipment room, but his inference was that there continued to be unauthorized people in the equipment room. Most football games require only one or two ball boys for each side of the field for a total of four ball boys per game. At some point in time, possibly as Coach Hayes was making his way towards the field house at half time on November 1, 2008, Coach Hayes told Respondent to clear out, from the end zone near the field house, 6-to-12 boys who had failed to get appointed as official ball boys but to whom Respondent had given identifying jerseys, anyway. Respondent got the jerseys back from the boys, but Respondent considered Coach Hayes’ directive to him with regard to the ball boy “wantabees” to be Coach Hayes’ first of three “disrespectful” actions towards Respondent. Respondent felt Coach Hayes had hurt and disappointed boys whom Respondent had been mentoring, but there is no credible evidence that the boys reacted in the same way as did Respondent, and the boys were not ejected from the game, but were asked to go sit in the stadium. At half time on November 1, 2008, Respondent proceeded to the equipment room inside the field house and closed the door behind him. Coach Hayes came immediately behind Respondent, but he reached the door to the equipment room after it closed, and the equipment room door was locked when he tried to open it. Coach Hayes twice knocked loudly on the door to the equipment room, and when no one opened the door, Coach Hayes used his all- access key to enter the equipment room. Respondent considered the loud knocking to be the second of three disrespectful things Coach Hayes did to him. Apparently, when Coach Hayes unlocked the door and entered the equipment room, an 18-year-old, very tall ball boy and Respondent’s adult brother were with Respondent in Respondent's office, and in the equipment room, or in another equipment room office there was an adult ball boy "wantabee." As soon as Coach Hayes entered the equipment room, he observed an individual he did not recognize. He then passed on to Respondent’s office within the equipment room, where he observed Respondent and two other individuals. He demanded to know who the two people in Respondent’s office were. Precisely what Coach Hayes said in Respondent’s office is in dispute, as is whether Coach Hayes went out into the equipment room and came back into Respondent's office again, but the evidence is clear that what Coach Hayes did and said amounted to shaking his finger at Respondent and saying something to the effect of “You know we have talked about unauthorized people being in the field house. Why are you trying me? Who are these people?” Respondent considered Coach Hayes' inquiry to be the third instance of Coach Hayes “disrespecting” him, and Respondent further felt Coach Hayes was “harassing” him. One of the two people in Respondent's equipment room office with Respondent was Respondent’s brother. Coach Hayes did not recognize the brother or the other person in Respondent's office when he asked Respondent who they were. Coach Hayes had given Football Coach Taylor permission to have one or two people enter the fence around the field house and set up a grill near the field house to cook for some of Coach Taylor’s family. Respondent’s brother was one of these cooks. Coach Hayes had authorized Coach Taylor’s group to enter and leave the field house by a particular outside door so as to use the restrooms near that door. Coach Hayes also was aware that someone was cooking and preparing to serve food to the football team in another room of the field house. However, at the time Coach Hayes asked Respondent to identify the people in Respondent’s office and to explain what they were doing there, neither of them was cooking outside, using the restroom near the appropriate doorway, or distributing food to football players. At the time Coach Hayes asked Respondent who Respondent’s brother and the tall ball boy were and what they were doing in the equipment room’s office, both visitors were sitting in Respondent’s office watching the game on television. Upon Coach Hayes’ inquiry, Respondent informed him that one person was a ball boy and one “the cook,” but Respondent did not volunteer that the cook was also his brother. Nobody showed Coach Hayes an admission ticket. Respondent then advanced upon Coach Hayes, yelling loudly that Coach Hayes should let Respondent do his job and that Coach Hayes should stop “disrespecting” Respondent. Respondent screamed at Coach Hayes that he would not respect Coach Hayes or tolerate Coach Hayes’ treatment any longer. Respondent got his own face within six-to-eight inches of Coach Hayes’ face, and Coach Hayes began to back out of the doorway into the hall. Respondent continued to loudly threaten to get Coach Hayes fired and advanced on him in the hallway in such a way that Tight End Coach Edwin Pata was attracted to the scene by Respondent's yelling and recognized the situation as "serious" and needing intervention. Coach Pata described Respondent as being so far "in Coach Hayes’ face" that they could have “kissed.” Coach Hayes testified credibly that Respondent was using profanity and making oral threats of physical violence against him as he backed away from Respondent and Respondent continued to advance upon him. Respondent denied both using profanity and making threats. Although other witnesses waffled as to whether Respondent used profanity at this time, Coach Hayes is the more credible witness over Respondent on the profanity issue. Regardless of what Respondent said, the volume and tone of his voice, his demeanor, and his proximity to Coach Hayes was physically threatening to Coach Hayes. No credible witness heard Coach Hayes saying anything, as he backed away from Respondent into the hallway, which amounted to more than “I’m just trying to do my job.” Once in the hallway, the noise and threatened violence from Respondent was serious enough that Coach Pata grabbed Respondent from behind and pulled him away from Coach Hayes. Respondent then broke away from Coach Pata and pushed himself into Coach Hayes’ face again, all the time screaming at Coach Hayes. At that point, Coach Pata grabbed Respondent from behind a second time and “handed off” Respondent to William Bennett, FAMU’s Videography Coordinator, who forcibly removed Respondent from the hallway into another room. Neither Coach Pata nor Mr. Bennett felt physically threatened by Respondent. Coach Hayes was initially “stunned” by the sudden and intense aggression of Respondent, who, though smaller than Coach Hayes, was also approximately 35 years' younger, fitter, and overwrought. When the second half of the game began, Coach Hayes was still so shaken by the incident with Respondent that he had to sit down outside the field house. He sat there for the entire second half of the game, unable to proceed with his usual second half activities. As early as FAMU’s Human Resources Office opened on Monday, November 3, 2008, Coach Hayes went there to ask what to do about Respondent. He was told to report the incident to the FAMU Police Department, which he did. A FAMU police officer interviewed Coach Hayes and Respondent. He got a signed, written statement from Coach Hayes and one from Respondent that day. In his written statement, Respondent admitted that he “went off” on Coach Hayes. Other potential witnesses could not be contacted on November 3, 2008, so the FAMU Police Department did not get written statements from other potential witnesses until much later. However, on the basis of what he had heard that day, Officer Darren Folsom concluded that Respondent should be charged with simple assault. Later on Monday, November 3, 2008, Respondent accosted Willie J. Pettigrew and threatened to “bar [his] ass from the field house” for telling Coach Hayes to check out the equipment room the previous Saturday, November 1, 2008. Still later on Monday, November 3, 2008, a representative of FAMU’s General Counsel’s Office physically presented Respondent with a termination letter signed by Dr. Hughes-Harris which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Pursuant to Florida A & M University (FAMU or University) Regulation 10.111, you are hereby notified that your employment with the University is terminated effective immediately. This employment action is taken against you for your disruptive conduct on November 1, 2008. Please see the enclosed copy of the police report filed on November 3, 2008, as documentation in support of this employment action. After that, Respondent was escorted off campus by a member of FAMU’s legal staff and one of its police officers. Respondent has never been arrested for the alleged assault. The letter dated November 3, 2008, informed Respondent that his employment with the University was terminated “effective immediately.” (Stipulation 8.) He also received this correspondence on November 7, 2008, by certified mail, return receipt requested. (Stipulation 9.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University enter a Final Order ratifying its termination letter of November 3, 2008. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Linzie Bogan, Esquire, Avery McKnight, Esquire Florida A & M University Office of the General Counsel 300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307 Sha'Ron James, Esquire Monica Evans, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. 2618 Centennial Place Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent’s termination for alleged misconduct should be upheld based on the reasons stated in the termination letter dated July 25, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Gregory V. Black was employed as an assistant football coach at FAMU from July 1, 1998 to July 25, 2005. Head Football Coach William (Billie) Joe was Mr. Black’s supervisor. During his employment, Coach Black received excellent to superior evaluation ratings. Coach Black was employed under an annual contract with FAMU. Until his termination, Coach Black was paid his regular salary and received the normal and customary retirement benefits and perks for his position. The last fully executed contract with the University ran from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004. However, a printout generated from the University’s personnel department indicates a beginning date of August 8, 2004, and an ending date of August 7, 2005. Additionally, there was a partially executed contract signed by the University’s interim president, Castell Bryant. The term of the partially executed contract ran from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005. The contract incorporated NCAA regulation 11.2 regarding contractual agreements between coaches and an NCAA member institution. The incorporated provisions state, in relevant part: Stipulation That NCAA Enforcement Provisions Apply. Contractual agreements . . . shall include the stipulation that a coach who is found in violation of NCAA regulations shall be subject to disciplinary or corrective action as set forth in the provisions of the NCAA enforcement procedures. Termination of Employment. Contractual agreements . . . shall include the stipulation that the coach may be suspended for a period of time, without pay, or that the coach’s employment may be terminated if the coach is found to be involved in deliberate and serious violations of the NCAA regulations. FAMU is a member of the NCAA. Member institutions of the NCAA are obligated to apply and enforce NCAA regulations and are responsible for operating their intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the regulations of the NCAA. As part of that responsibility, FAMU has adopted the NCAA By-Laws as part of its rules and regulations governing the University. Member institutions also are responsible for governing staff members involved with athletics. Penalties for violations of NCAA regulations generally apply to member institutions and their programs. Occasionally penalties can apply to individual staff members who are directly involved in violations of NCAA regulations. In cases where an individual is the subject of an NCAA investigation, the NCAA issues a Notice of Allegations. In this case no Notice of Allegations was issued to Coach Black or any other member of the football coaching staff. In fact, the NCAA did not conclude or find that Coach Black committed any NCAA rule violation and the NCAA report only mentions his name in reference to being interviewed. There is no mention of Coach Black in reference to being involved in or knowing about any of the NCAA violations referenced in the report. Indeed Coach Black has never been the subject of an NCAA rule violation. Coach Black was primarily responsible for coaching and developing the offensive line. He ran practices and monitored the progress of his players. Coach Black did not generally monitor his player’s academics, unless the athletic office advised him of a problem. Likewise, Coach Black was not generally responsible for ensuring various student eligibility forms were completed and on file with the University. Nor was he generally responsible for recruitment activities. He was required to have general knowledge of NCAA regulations and responsible for reporting any violations of those regulations that he had knowledge of to the proper authorities at the University. The evidence showed that Coach Black did have such knowledge of the NCAA regulations and that he understood the reporting requirements of those regulations. It was Coach Black’s practice to be present when the offensive line was practicing. Generally, if he was on the field, the offensive line was out there with him. At some point FAMU became aware that their were allegations of NCAA violations at FAMU and that an NCAA investigation might occur. In light of those allegations, FAMU completed a Self-Report concerning violations of NCAA regulations. The Self-Report identified multiple alleged violations, of which the University’s football program allegedly constituted the bulk of the violations. No one who was involved with the Self-Report testified at the hearing. There was no competent evidence introduced at the hearing corroborating the allegations of the report. Uncorroborated hearsay statements made in the report about alleged violations cannot be used to prove that Coach Black violated NCAA regulations or knew about such alleged violations and failed to report those violations. In addition to the Self-Report, the NCAA conducted an investigation and issued a report concerning such alleged violations. The NCAA investigated numerous violations of NCAA regulations, including exceeding the daily practice time limitation, exceeding the weekly practice time limitation and not observing the day-off requirement regarding its football program. No NCAA official or investigator testified at the hearing. No corroborating evidence was offered at the hearing. As with the Self-Report, uncorroborated hearsay statements made in the report about alleged violations cannot be used to prove that Coach Black violated NCAA regulations or knew about such alleged violations and failed to report those violations. As a result of the NCAA conducting an investigation, the University retained a consultant, Mr. Nelson Townsend, to assist in interpreting exactly what the NCAA findings meant to the University. Mr. Townsend generally recommended the University make staff changes in the football program. There was no evidence that Mr. Townsend considered The University’s personnel rules in making his recommendation. On July 25, 2006, FAMU issued a letter of termination to Coach Black terminating his employment “contract” with FAMU. The termination was based on alleged NCAA violations regarding daily and weekly hours of practice, not permitting a day off to the players and failure to report such violations. The letter treated Coach Black as if he had a contract with FAMU and provided him rights under FAMU’s personnel rules regarding just cause and a right to a hearing. The letter, also, clearly had the effect of stigmatizing Coach Black in his profession as an assistant football coach. The allegations and termination were on the news. Indeed, Coach Black had difficulty finding suitable employment equivalent to what he possessed at FAMU after his termination. However, FAMU, in this proceeding, has admitted that Coach Black did not commit any NCAA violations. Indeed, there was no competent evidence that Coach Black was aware of or should have been aware of any alleged violations. Given this lack of evidence FAMU has failed to establish just cause for terminating Coach Black, and he is entitled to be reinstated for the remaining term of his contract, if any. The University’s interim president decided to withhold the employment contracts of all of the assistant football coaches. The evidence showed that there were many times that Coach Black’s employment contracts were executed after the start date of the contract period. However, the employment contract clearly states: . . . Neither this employment contract nor any action or commitment taken pursuant to it, is final or binding upon the parties until, and unless, the signature of the University President or President’s designee, . . . and the signature of the employee have been affixed and the employment contract has been returned to the appropriate authority . . . . Irrespective of the language and terms of the contract, FAMU treated this matter as one arising under employment that can only be terminated for just cause. For purposes of this action, FAMU is estopped from claiming that Coach Black was an at-will employee. Additionally, the issue of whether Coach Black had an employment contract with FAMU need not be addressed since Coach Black was not terminated based on the expiration or absence of his contract. It is the reasons regarding NCAA violations stated in the termination letter that are at issue here. As noted, there was an absence of proof to support those allegations. Therefore, Coach Black is entitled to reinstatement and to have his name cleared of the stigma that termination for those allegations have caused.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by FAMU reinstating Respondent and clearing his name from the allegations made in the termination letter. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 24th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire H. Richard Bisbee, P.A. 1882 Capital Circle Northeast, Suite 206 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Antoneia L. Roe, Esquire Florida A&M University Office of the General Counsel Lee Hall, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32307 Robert E. Larkin, III Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elizabeth T. McBride, Esquire Florida A & M University Office of the General Counsel 300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Dr. Castell V. Bryant, Interim President Florida A & M University 400 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 1012.795(1)(g) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4.; and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses who testified, the evidence admitted in the record at the final hearing, and the documents officially recognized, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is the agency head of the Florida Department of Education. Petitioner is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct against individuals holding Florida educator certificates. Upon a finding of probable cause, Petitioner is responsible for filing an administrative complaint, and prosecuting the case in an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, if the educator disputes the allegations. Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 878903, covering the areas of Athletic Coaching and Physical Education, which is valid through June 30, 2025. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as the athletic director at Evans High School (Evans) in the Orange County School District (District). Respondent was first employed by the District from 2004 to 2008, when he worked at Evans as a basketball coach and physical education teacher. He was re-employed by the District from 2014 until late in the 2017-2018 school year. He worked at Freedom High School (Freedom) as a physical education teacher and assistant athletic director through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. He then was employed at Evans as athletic director for most of the 2017-2018 school year. He resigned on April 5, 2018, pursuant to a settlement agreement with the School Board of Orange County (School Board), which is the District's governing body. Rolando Bailey was the assistant principal at Evans when Respondent was first employed there, and Mr. Bailey was the principal at Freedom when Respondent worked there through the end of the 2016-2017 school year. Mr. Bailey acknowledged "situations" during Respondent's earlier time at Evans and while at Freedom that involved "conflict" and "communications" issues with Respondent and required administrative intervention, but these problems were handled without involving the Employee Relations office (now called the Employee Standards office) to impose discipline. Mr. Bailey left Freedom to become principal at Evans beginning in the 2017-2018 school year. He thought Respondent would be a good candidate for the athletic director position at Evans, because Respondent was familiar with the community and Mr. Bailey thought he would be good at program building, which is what Mr. Bailey thought the athletic department needed. When Mr. Bailey made the move from Freedom to Evans, he brought not only Respondent with him, but also, at least 15 other administrators and teachers. This set a bit of an "us against them" tone between the existing faculty and staff at Evans and the Freedom transplants. Respondent and Mr. Bailey had a close working relationship. The perception among Evans personnel, based on observed interactions between Respondent and Mr. Bailey, was that they were also close personal friends. At the hearing, Mr. Bailey and Respondent both denied being close personal friends, but they were alumni of the same college, members of the same fraternity, and would frequently meet after regular school working hours. Mr. Bailey acknowledged these frequent meetings, although he said that they were work-related: "The role itself gave us the opportunity to talk outside of hours." (Tr. 200-01). These meetings did nothing to dispel the perception among Evans personnel that Mr. Bailey and Respondent were close personal friends. Evans presented challenges for Mr. Bailey as incoming principal. The school had not been performing well academically, with a "D" rating by the state, and he was intent on improving that performance. As for the athletic department, Mr. Bailey saw the need for "program building," noting that facilities were in disrepair and resources such as uniforms and equipment were scarce, resulting in a lack of school pride. Respondent's objective was to turn the Evans sports teams into winning programs. Respondent's charge was to "lead and direct" the athletic department and allow Mr. Bailey to focus on academics. However, Mr. Bailey made a commitment to the Evans coaches who were already in place when Mr. Bailey came over from Freedom. Mr. Bailey told the Evans coaches that the 2017- 2018 school year would be an evaluative year, and there would not be any changes made until after the end of the year. Mr. Bailey committed to personally participating in each coach's evaluation at year-end, along with Respondent, and Mr. Bailey would make the decision then regarding whether changes were needed to move in a different direction. Mr. Bailey was of the view that certain changes would be needed after the evaluative year. For example, he noted that several coaches held more than one head coaching position, which he generally disagreed with except for certain "related" sports, such as cross-country and track, which had separate seasons so one individual could be head coach of both. Mr. Bailey also was of the view that an individual should probably not serve as both a head coach and an administrative dean, although exceptions could be allowed and Mr. Bailey was willing to wait and see if individuals at Evans were handling it well.2 For the 2017-2018 "evaluative" school year, Mr. Bailey was willing— and had committed—to not make changes to conform the staffing to his views, and instead, to await year-end evaluations to make these decisions. Respondent expressed a different view, stating that if it had been up to him, he would have terminated all existing coaches when he started at Evans and he would have made them all reapply. But it was not up to Respondent, and Mr. Bailey's commitment stood. Respondent started working at Evans during the last few days of July 2017. He immediately implemented some changes in how the athletic 2 For example, Mr. Thompson was an administrative dean and head football coach at Evans for years before Mr. Bailey became principal and he remained in both positions after Mr. Bailey became principal. department was run. One change involved employing Ms. Woodard, who came over from Freedom with Mr. Bailey and the others, as assistant athletic director with the responsibility for inputting team roster information, including documenting compliant physicals and grade point averages (GPAs) for the students on the roster. This apparently had the effect of revealing students who were disqualified because they did not meet the minimum requirement of a 2.0 GPA. Previously, coaches were responsible for inputting their own team rosters. The claim asserted at hearing was that coaches were "padding" their rosters with disqualified students3 or inactive students.4 The motive suggested for "padding" a roster would be that for "minor" sports like cross-country, track, swimming, golf, and others, higher roster numbers could result in supplements being authorized for assistant coaching positions. A reduction in roster numbers could mean a reduction or loss of supplements, which could mean that assistant coaches would have to coach on a volunteer basis, or a head coach might have to do without, or without as many, assistant coaches. There was no competent credible evidence proving specific instances of wrongful or inappropriate roster padding.5 3 Respondent explained how students without qualifying GPAs might have been mistakenly listed on rosters showing qualifying GPAs. He acknowledged that coaches did not have access to detailed GPA data, and instead, might input a student's cumulative GPA as shown on the prior year's report card. However, that GPA might include grades for classes that were not eligible for purposes of meeting the minimum GPA required to participate in sports. 4 Ms. Bellamy, the girls' basketball head coach, said she discouraged "her" girls from going out for cross-country, because they "probably" would not be allowed to compete in meets. Her comments were more suggestive of a turf war than credible evidence of roster padding. 5 Several witnesses who were not at Evans until 2017-2018 offered their belief that roster padding occurred before the 2017-2018 school year. The credible testimony established only that when rosters were prepared or updated under Respondent's system beginning in August 2017, inputting updated GPAs resulted in some students being disqualified. Ms. Woodard, who implemented the new system, admitted she was not sure how many supplements were lost or in which sport. She thought cross-country may have lost supplements, but then said the sport previously had four or six supplements and that it had four supplements after she updated the rosters. Whitney Poole claimed that rosters had been padded the previous year, but she did not explain how she could have known that, since she was not at Evans before August 2017, and then was only a math teacher. She did not have any position in the athletic department before January 2018 when she became an assistant coach. In general, Ms. Poole was not a credible witness, and with one exception, her testimony was not credited. Sheree Carter Sheree Carter was a coach and administrative dean at Evans in 2017- 2018, when Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and others came to Evans from Freedom. She had been employed at Evans since 2012. She remains employed at Evans to this day. During the 2016-2017 school year, Ms. Carter held the following positions at Evans: administrative dean over attendance; head coach of girls' cross-country and girls' track; and assistant coach for girls' weightlifting. Ms. Carter was slated for those same positions headed into the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Carter took comfort from Mr. Bailey's assurance that no changes would be made until he made the decisions after personally participating in the year-end evaluations. Ms. Carter testified that she met Respondent at the end of July, during the two-week pre-planning period before classes started. Within a week or two after they met, Respondent started saying things to let her know that he was interested in her. He made her uncomfortable, and she rebuffed his advances. But rather than discouraging his comments, the intensity and frequency of Respondent's advances escalated. Ms. Carter testified that Respondent would walk by her office, which was at the back of the front office, and he would poke his head in to see if anyone else was with her. Respondent never came into her office if someone else was with her; he waited until she was alone, and then he would come in. His conversation opener was that he was recently divorced and was trying to get his feet wet getting back into the dating game. She responded by saying okay, cool, good luck with that. Respondent then started coming by Ms. Carter's office to ask if she wanted to grab lunch together or come eat lunch in his office. She declined each time he asked. After the rebuffed lunch offers, Respondent started asking Ms. Carter if she wanted to go to the movies with him or grab drinks after work. Again, she turned him down each time. Respondent's next approach was to let Ms. Carter know that he had a sofa in his office, followed by repeated invitations to Ms. Carter to hang out and chill with him on the sofa in his office. These invitations were conveyed with a personal, intimate air. Ms. Carter always turned down these advances and let Respondent know she was uncomfortable with what he was asking. Respondent approached Ms. Carter with these advances not only when she was alone in her office, but also, on the practice fields and in the hallways or courtyard, if she was alone. Respondent only approached Ms. Carter to make these advances when no one else was around.6 Ms. Carter described it as "creepy," like "in a stalking type of way. Like he would just wait for that right moment to approach you when you're by yourself and then throw these advances at me." (Tr. 74). Respondent's stalking-type behavior and frequent approaches affected Ms. Carter's ability to do her job. She delayed or avoided communicating with Respondent about coaching matters, despite needing to communicate with the athletic director. She would check hallways before freely moving around to make sure Respondent was not present, and she took to closing her office door to give the impression she was not there. Ms. Carter's testimony was credible and clear. Her demeanor was earnest and believable. In contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the advances claimed by Ms. Carter lacked credibility. Respondent was evasive. He frequently avoiding a direct answer to the question, as illustrated by the following: Q: And did you invite her to your office to chill? A: I was hardly ever in the office. I mean, so, it's very hard to chill in there. I was very, very on the go. I was very, very on the go. You know, Mr. Bailey was big on the look and appearance. So there was stuff always that needed to be done with the field and 6 Mr. Bailey testified that he never observed Respondent engage in sexual harassment, but conceded that sexual harassment is not normally something that he sees people doing out in the open. with the cosmetics. So I was hardly ever in the office. The only time I was in the office if I had to be [sic]. But I was hardly ever in the office, so I definitely couldn't be there just to chill because it was just too much work to do. (Tr. 324). * * * Q: Did you ever invite her to eat lunch in your office? A: I never ate lunch. It's hard for me to eat lunch because I had lunch duty and we had three lunches. So, when am I going to eat lunch when I'm constantly being fussed at by Mr. Bailey about not answering e-mails. Because I was never in my office so my e-mails were forwarded to Ms. Woodard so I didn't have to hear from him about why I don't answer e-mails. So I never ate lunch during the day. (Tr. 327). Respondent avoided answering the questions posed—whether he ever invited Ms. Carter to chill or eat lunch in his office. Respondent danced around the subject, never denying or refuting Ms. Carter's clear testimony that he had, in fact, invited her multiple times to eat lunch in his office and to chill on the sofa in his office, but she turned him down each time. Respondent did deny that he had asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies7 or out for drinks with him, but he offered weak explanations, which were not persuasive, for why he would not have extended these invitations. When asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter to go to the movies with him, he responded: "No. I was too busy to be trying to go to the movies and live in a whole different county and try to work. You know, Evans was an hour and 20 minutes away. Freedom was 38. So there's no time to go to the movies. Especially with a person you don't know, you know." (Tr. 325-26). And when 7 Ms. Poole, a witness for Respondent who generally went out of her way attempting to testify favorably for Respondent, said that she had been friendly with Ms. Carter at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. Ms. Poole admitted that during this time, Ms. Carter told Ms. Poole that Respondent had asked her out to the movies. To that extent, Ms. Poole's testimony was credible, and it corroborated Ms. Carter's testimony. asked if he ever asked Ms. Carter out for a drink, he said: "No, because I don't drink. … I just never had a drink, never smoked. So I don't drink. And because I don't drink, I'm not going to invite somebody out to watch them drink. So." (Tr. 326-27). Respondent's testimony on these points was less credible than Ms. Carter's testimony, and her testimony is credited. Ms. Carter testified that her discomfort with Respondent's advances came to a head at a soccer game, when he approached her and once again asked her out for drinks, and she got upset. She said that she blew up, emphatically reiterating (punctuated with curse words) that she had told him before she was not interested and expressing her frustration that he had not yet accepted the message that she wanted him to stop making advances at her. This was on a weeknight during the week of December 4, 2017. On Friday, December 8, 2017, Respondent went to Ms. Carter's office and told her: (1) that she was immediately removed, mid-season, from the assistant coach position for weightlifting, though she could keep the supplement; (2) that they would be moving in a different direction and she would no longer be head coach for girls' cross-country (which had ended its season one month earlier); and (3) that they would evaluate her position as head coach for girl's track after the spring. Respondent told Ms. Carter that he and Mr. Bailey had made these decisions because Mr. Bailey did not want her coaching and serving as an administrative dean at the same time.8 Ms. Carter was very upset because she loves coaching. She broke down crying and was so distraught, she was unable to perform her job duties to supervise during either lunch periods that day. Ms. Carter believed that 8 Respondent admitted to delivering this news to Ms. Carter, although he said it was in a routine meeting in his office that he had scheduled to give Ms. Carter her end-of-season evaluation for coaching girls' cross-country (conflicting with Mr. Bailey's clear testimony that he always participated in evaluations, which were done at the end of the year). Curiously, Respondent testified that his evaluation had no meaning, and its only purpose was to give coaches something for possible future employers wanting to see evaluations. Respondent failed to explain, if the meeting was only to address a meaningless end-of-season evaluation for one sport, why he used the occasion to deliver meaningful consequences or why he addressed more than that one sport. Respondent took this action to retaliate against her because she had rebuffed his advances, particularly after her strong rebuke of him earlier that week. Up to this point, Ms. Carter had confided in two different colleagues regarding Respondent's advances and her discomfort with them, but she had not lodged a formal complaint against Respondent with Mr. Bailey. She was concerned that Mr. Bailey would take Respondent's side in a dispute because of their longstanding relationship and apparent close personal friendship. Previously, when she had confided in Mr. Thompson, he had told her she should talk to Respondent regarding her discomfort, but she had tried that repeatedly. When she confided again in Mr. Thompson upon being reduced to tears on December 8, 2017, this time he told her she should not be talking with colleagues rather than going through proper channels, and he urged her to file a complaint. Ms. Carter followed that advice, submitting a complaint in an email to Mr. Bailey, which she sent to him just after midnight, very early on Monday morning, December 11, 2017. She asked if she could meet with Mr. Bailey to discuss what Respondent had told her regarding her coaching responsibilities and her concern that Respondent had taken this action because she had turned down his advances. Directly contradicting Respondent's claim, Mr. Bailey testified that he did not make the decision to remove Ms. Carter from her coaching duties during the 2017-2018 school year, nor did he direct Respondent to tell Ms. Carter in December—in the middle of the "evaluative year"—that she could not remain as coach and administrative dean.9 Instead, as he had committed to do at the beginning of the year, Mr. Bailey waited until the end of the school year to have the conversation with Ms. Carter about changes going forward. At that time, he informed her that he did not want her to continue in the dual roles of coaching and administrative dean in the 2018- 9 When Mr. Bailey found out that Respondent had that conversation with Ms. Carter on December 8, 2017, he had a meeting with Respondent to find out why he did that. 2019 school year. Ms. Carter wanted to remain in coaching to continue building her programs. With Mr. Bailey's agreement, she gave up the administrative dean position and returned to classroom teaching the next school year so she could continue coaching. Mr. Bailey was a witness for Respondent and he attempted to be supportive of Respondent in his testimony. However, Mr. Bailey clearly and directly contradicted Respondent's claim that he had instructed Respondent to remove Ms. Carter from coaching on December 8, 2017. Mr. Bailey was surprised by Ms. Carter's email reporting that Respondent had done so and had attributed the decision to Mr. Bailey. After meeting with Ms. Carter, Mr. Bailey reported Ms. Carter's complaint to the Employee Relations office for investigation.10 In contrast to the "situations" involving Respondent when he was first at Evans and again while at Freedom, which were handled by administrative interventions without involving Employee Relations, this time Mr. Bailey found it necessary to involve Employee Relations. Jamila Mitchell Jamila Mitchell, Ph.D., also provided testimony regarding inappropriate statements and conduct by Respondent that made her feel very uncomfortable and that interfered with her doing her job. Dr. Mitchell has been working at Evans since 2014. Her doctorate degree is in computer science. She has been the computer science instructor at Evans and the sports media sponsor. She held those two positions during the 2017-2018 school year. She was not a coach or assistant coach. As sports media sponsor, Dr. Mitchell is involved in all sports-related media, including film, photography, social media, and the school's website. 10 Two separate investigations were initiated: the first addressed alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by Respondent, pursuant to the District's responsibilities under civil rights laws as Ms. Carter's employer not to commit unlawful employment practices. When that investigation was completed with a finding of probable cause to believe there was sexual harassment, Mr. Ganio, then-manager of the District's Employee Relations office, completed an investigation into whether Respondent had engaged in misconduct, which would provide just cause for the School Board to take action against him as a District employee. Her responsibilities include managing sports-related website content and ensuring information is disseminated for all sports-related events. She must keep up with schedules, rosters, college recruiting activities, and events such as college scholarship signing days and awards banquets. Frequent communications with the Evans athletic director are essential to her job duties, at least by the time sports activities are in full swing after the first couple of weeks of each school year. Dr. Mitchell testified that beginning in September 2017, when her job required her to be in frequent communications with Respondent, he started saying and doing things that made Dr. Mitchell uncomfortable. On several occasions, Respondent referred to Dr. Mitchell as his "little Mexican." Dr. Mitchell is not Mexican. Respondent would say this when passing her in the hallway, if they were both at a game or event, or when he came to her classroom. Sometimes she was alone when he said this, but sometimes other people overheard what Respondent said. She was offended by Respondent's words, and also, uncomfortable having to explain to others who heard Respondent call her his little Mexican that she was not Mexican, but was biracial. Despite taking offense, she tried to ignore it or laugh it off. Respondent frequently came by Dr. Mitchell's classroom during her planning period when she was the only one there. At least initially, they would discuss sports media matters. But then the conversations would turn to Respondent telling Dr. Mitchell that he "liked the way her butt looked" in the pants she was wearing that day, or how whatever she was wearing accentuated some part of her body. She tried to change the subject back to work, but his comments made her feel weird and "creeped out." Respondent's frequent comments about her clothing and body impeded communications regarding sports media issues. Respondent's comments also caused Dr. Mitchell to stop wearing form-fitting clothing, pants that were a little bit tight, or shirts cut a little bit low.11 She began wearing loose clothing and when Respondent came by her classroom, she stayed seated behind her desk so he would not comment on "how her butt looked." Her discomfort and worries distracted from needed communications and interfered with getting the job done. It got to the point where Dr. Mitchell avoided communicating in person with Respondent, resorting to communicating by text or phone call. Dr. Mitchell described the "tipping point" for her was when she was walking through a courtyard to go to the front office and Respondent was coming out of the front office. Dr. Mitchell was wearing her hair down (loose), which she rarely did. When they passed in the courtyard, Respondent commented that he liked it when she wore her hair down because it gave him something to grab onto. There were other people in the courtyard—teachers and students—and Dr. Mitchell testified that she just prayed that nobody heard what Respondent said to her. She was highly embarrassed by what she reasonably interpreted as a sexual reference. Dr. Mitchell did not immediately complain about Respondent's inappropriate conduct, in part because she was embarrassed, but also, because she did not know to whom she could complain. She had seen how Mr. Bailey interacted with Respondent, and observed that they seemed to have a very friendly, personal relationship. She was concerned that if she said anything, it would be her job on the line. But when she was contacted by an investigator looking into Sheree Carter's complaint, who had been told that Respondent may have also harassed Dr. Mitchell, she spoke with the 11 Respondent suggested in his PRO that Dr. Mitchell should be faulted for her choice of attire in a school "full of hormonal high school students that most likely has a dress code, stated or implied, for teachers." (Resp. PRO at 28). No credible evidence supports a finding that Dr. Mitchell's attire was provocative, inappropriate, or contrary to any dress code, and none was cited. Respondent's argument is, in effect, that Dr. Mitchell "asked for it"—a classic means to deflect blame and excuse inappropriate sexual conduct, which is, or should be, a relic of the past. Respondent's veiled hint that Dr. Mitchell asked for it is tantamount to a concession that "it" occurred, necessitating an excuse for his behavior. There is no excuse. investigator and provided the same information about Respondent's offensive conduct to which she testified at the hearing. Dr. Mitchell was very credible and genuinely distraught as she described these uncomfortable encounters with Respondent. As with Ms. Carter's specific complaints, Respondent denied (or gave evasive, less-than-clear answers) that he said or did the things described by Dr. Mitchell.12 Respondent's testimony was not as credible as Dr. Mitchell's testimony. Dr. Mitchell's testimony is credited. Jessica Kendrick Jessica Kendrick was the head swim coach at Evans, coaching both the boys' and girls' swim teams, from 2013 through the 2018-2019 school year. Her testimony was fairly narrow in scope, but clear and to the point: when Respondent was the head of the athletics department in the 2017-2018 school year, he made her uncomfortable by standing very close whenever they talked with no one else nearby—that is, when there were no witnesses. Ms. Kendrick is five feet, eight inches in height. Respondent is six feet, one inch tall. He used his height advantage to intimidate Ms. Kendrick, making her feel like he was towering over her when he stood very close and looked down at her. Ms. Kendrick's vivid description was that Respondent would be standing so close to her that she could tell what he had for lunch. Ms. Kendrick's reaction to these close encounters was to back up to create space between Respondent and herself. But Respondent would quickly move forward to close the space she had created. She would inch back again; he would inch toward her to close the gap again. Respondent made Ms. Kendrick feel very uncomfortable. 12 In contrast, the investigative summary of the District's investigation into Ms. Carter's sexual harassment complaint reported that Respondent stated he "does not recall if he made inappropriate comments to [Dr.] Mitchell." (Pet. Ex. 14, Bates p. 35). Although statements of non-party witnesses reported in the investigative summary are hearsay, and thereby limited in use to supplementing or explaining competent evidence, Respondent's statements reported in the investigative summary that was offered against him are party admissions, excepted from hearsay, and admissible for all purposes. See § 90.803(18)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Kendrick had been the head swim head coach at Evans for four years before Respondent became athletic director. He made her so uncomfortable when they spoke in person that she went out of her way to avoid him. She told the two assistant swim coaches, Mr. Rivers and Mr. Ross, about her discomfort with Respondent. She asked her assistants to take her place for in-person meetings or discussions with Respondent so she could avoid any more uncomfortable close encounters with Respondent. It affected her job; communications with the athletic director were necessary for her to function effectively as head coach. Ms. Kendrick testified that rather than having to interact with Respondent, if Respondent had continued on as athletic director at Evans, she would have given up the head coaching position. Instead, Respondent resigned, and Ms. Kendrick decided to remain head swim coach at Evans for the 2018-2019 school year. Respondent testified that he had no idea what Ms. Kendrick was talking about. Ms. Kendrick's testimony was more credible than Respondent's and is credited. At the hearing, Respondent made the blanket statement that all the witnesses testifying against him were lying. He claimed that Ms. Carter and Ms. Kendrick were lying to get back at him for changing the procedures to prevent roster padding and costing them coaching supplements.13 He claimed that their colleagues, in whom they had confided and who corroborated their testimony, were also lying. Respondent's attempted attacks on the credibility 13 Ironically, the suggestion that Ms. Carter was mad because she lost supplements as a result of the changed roster procedures was contradicted by Respondent's own testimony. As for her head coaching positions, Respondent testified that head coaches receive supplemental pay irrespective of roster numbers. Ms. Carter might have lost those supplements as a result of Respondent's unauthorized attempt to remove Ms. Carter from cross-country head coach and to threaten removal from track, had those actions stood, but they were reversed by Mr. Bailey. As for the supplement Ms. Carter received as assistant weightlifting coach, Respondent admitted that when he told Ms. Carter she was relieved of her assistant coaching duties mid-season, he told her she could retain the supplement. Respondent's actions had nothing to do with supplements or rosters; Respondent acted to retaliate against Ms. Carter for rebuffing his repeated advances. of the witnesses testifying against him were not persuasive and did not undermine their clear, credible testimony. Most notably, although Respondent claimed some witnesses had a motive to lie to get back at him because of lost coaching supplements, no such motive was or could be attributed to Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell was not a coach or an assistant coach. Respondent offered no cogent theory to explain why Dr. Mitchell would fabricate her testimony. Respondent's accusation that Dr. Mitchell's testimony was invented does not square with her display of emotions at the hearing. She was visibly shaken and crying when she described her embarrassment with Respondent's sexual innuendos, and when she explained why she did not complain about Respondent at the time. Ulunda Frazier The pattern of behavior evident from the complaints of Ms. Carter, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Kendrick is further buttressed, at least generally, by court records regarding Ulunda Frazier and Respondent. Ms. Frazier is a teacher. At the time pertinent to this case, she taught at Oak Ridge High School (Oak Ridge), within the District. At the hearing, Respondent described Ms. Frazier as a longtime personal friend he has known for 15 or 16 years. He said Ms. Frazier used to babysit for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant and toddler. Respondent admitted that his personal relationship with Ms. Frazier had turned "toxic." He did not offer any details to explain in what way the relationship turned toxic. Instead, alluding to a close intimate relationship gone bad, he said only that his relationship with Ms. Frazier "had become toxic and out of control that was actually birthed out of both of our pains. We -- she was going through an ugly divorce and I was going through my treatments and stuff. And so the relationship had just got toxic and it had -- it was no longer a friendly environment." (Tr. 351). Court records in Frazier v. Crawford, Case No. 48-2018-DR-000923-O, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, were officially recognized. The records reflect that on January 24, 2018, Ms. Frazier filed a Petition for Injunction Against Stalking under section 784.0485, Florida Statutes, seeking to enjoin Respondent from stalking her. That same day, the court issued a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Stalking. On January 25, 2018, the Polk County Sheriff's Office served the Temporary Injunction, Ms. Frazier's Petition, and a Notice of Hearing on Respondent at his residence. The hearing was scheduled for February 6, 2018, and was held as noticed. Both Ms. Frazier and Respondent attended. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Stalking (Stalking Injunction). Respondent received a copy by hand delivery in open court, as acknowledged by his signature on the Stalking Injunction. He is therefore "deemed to have knowledge of and to be bound by all matters occurring at the hearing and on the face of" the Stalking Injunction. (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 51-52). The Stalking Injunction contains the following finding: "After hearing the testimony of each party present and of any witnesses, or upon consent of Respondent, the Court finds, based on the specific facts of this case, that Petitioner is a victim of stalking."14 (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 47). On that basis, the Stalking Injunction ordered as follows: "Respondent shall not commit, or cause any other person to commit, any acts of stalking against Petitioner, including stalking, cyberstalking, aggravated stalking, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death. Respondent shall not commit any other violation of the injunction through an intentional unlawful threat, word or act to do violence to Petitioner." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 50). The Stalking Injunction is in effect until February 26, 2021. 14 "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree[.]" § 784.048(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). Section 784.0485 creates a cause of action for a person who is a victim of stalking to obtain an injunction for protection against stalking. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Stalking Injunction "reduced Respondent's effectiveness as an athletic director because it limited his ability to travel to that school and perform his duties." The terms of the Stalking Injunction do not support this allegation. While the Stalking Injunction generally and broadly prohibited Respondent from having any contact with Ms. Frazier, including at Oak Ridge where she worked and at her residence (both of which were in Orlando), there is an express exception to the no-contact prohibition, as follows: "The Respondent may go to Oakridge [sic] High School only for a valid business reason. If any contact occurs, it shall be non-hostile contact." (Pet. Ex. 18, Bates p. 49). In several respects, however, the Stalking Injunction contradicts Respondent's testimony. Respondent denied that he would have made advances on Ms. Carter because he was married and had been married to the same woman since 2010. Yet his close personal relationship with Ms. Frazier predated his marriage by five or six years. Respondent testified that Ms. Frazier babysat for Respondent's 15-year-old son when the teenager was an infant. The fact that Respondent got married to someone else five years later did not prevent Respondent from engaging in a first "friendly" and then "toxic" close relationship with Ms. Frazier, or from stalking Ms. Frazier before the Stalking Injunction was issued against him on February 6, 2018. Whatever the details may be regarding Respondent's stalking of Ms. Frazier, it is noteworthy that she lived and worked in Orlando. This belies Respondent's claim that he could not have harassed Ms. Carter with the repeated advances she described, because he would not have had time to go to the movies or out for drinks near where he worked in Orange County. He attempted to paint the picture that he spent every moment in Orange County working or commuting to and from his home in distant Polk County. The Stalking Injunction stands as evidence that, contrary to Respondent's claim, in addition to working at Evans and commuting to and from Polk County, Respondent found time to have a first friendly, then toxic relationship with Ms. Frazier and to stalk Ms. Frazier where she lived and worked in Orange County. Respondent's Separation from the District The investigation into Ms. Carter's complaint identified individuals who were potential witnesses with relevant information or possible victims. After conducting interviews, the District held a pre-determination meeting on March 7, 2018, to share with Respondent the information learned during the investigation and give him an opportunity to respond. Respondent appeared with a union representative, who instructed him not to respond. On March 27, 2018, Respondent was suspended from work with pay while the District completed its investigation. This "Relief of Duty" status is employed when warranted by the seriousness of the allegations. "Relief of Duty" included an immediate suspension of network access, including email. During the process of completing the investigation, the District discovered a new allegation of inappropriate conduct by Respondent. The District learned of Ms. Frazier's Petition and the resulting Stalking Injunction. It held a second pre-determination meeting on April 3, 2018, to inform Respondent that it had learned about the Stalking Injunction. Again, Respondent was given the chance to respond, but again, he refused to say anything on advice of his union representative. On the same day as the second pre-determination meeting, Barbara Jenkins, the District Superintendent, issued a memorandum to the School Board, transmitting a complaint charging Respondent with misconduct in office and conduct unbecoming a public employee, and recommending that Respondent be terminated from employment for the charged violations. Immediately after the complaint and recommendation for termination were released, Respondent negotiated and finalized a Settlement Agreement and General Release (Agreement) with the School Board. The Agreement expressly stated that it was not to be construed as an admission by Respondent or the District of any wrongdoing. Nonetheless, pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent was required to resign as of April 5, 2018, and to tender a written letter of resignation. Pursuant to the Agreement, Respondent agreed "he will not reapply for or accept employment [at a District school] at any time in the future." Respondent also acknowledged that the District would be submitting its investigation into Respondent's alleged misconduct to the Department of Education Professional Practices Commission, as required by section 1012.796(1)(d), Florida Statutes. In form and substance, the Agreement is a common vehicle utilized for resignation of an employee in lieu of the employee having to answer to charges and face the prospect of termination. Respondent attempted to suggest that his resignation was purely voluntary, based on his decision that he did not want to work in a place where people would lie about him. His claim was not credible. Respondent fully understood when he took the position at Evans, along with at least 15 others brought over from Freedom by Mr. Bailey, that there would be an "us against them" air that he would have to overcome. Mr. Bailey attempted to set the stage for developing good relationships with existing Evans coaches and other staff, by deeming the first year an "evaluative year" in which there would not be any position changes until the evaluative year was discussed with Mr. Bailey, Respondent, and the coach at the end of the year. Respondent knew that Evans had challenging problems to overcome, with scarce resources in terms of facilities, equipment, and uniforms, and that he was expected to build winning programs and instill school pride. He knew he was expected to put in place the systems, policies, and procedures that would allow for program building, and he was well aware that his changes would be unpopular with some. It defies logic and credibility for Respondent to suggest that he chose to walk away from his commitment before completing one school year only because existing Evans coaches and assistant coaches were lying about him. Mr. Bailey acknowledged that, as principal, he was compelled to let the investigation process be carried out. As he put it: "[W]hat I performed is my role as a principal. That when there's conduct that's unbecoming of an employee, or an employee feeling as if they have been, in this case, harassed, I'm going to follow the guidance that has been presented to me in my role as the leader of the school." (Tr. 209). He acknowledged that at the culmination of that process, when it was reported to him, he followed the guidance that he was supposed to follow, and as a result, Respondent was no longer at his school.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 1012.795(1)(j) through a violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)4., and imposing the following as penalties: suspension of Respondent's educator's certificate for a period of three years from the date of the final order; probation for a period of three years after the suspension, with conditions to be determined by the Education Practices Commission, which should include a requirement that Respondent take two college level courses, one in professional ethics for educators and one related to women's rights in the workplace; and payment of a $750.00 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 1516 East Hillcrest Street, Suite 109 Orlando, Florida 32803 Ron Weaver, Esquire Post Office Box 770088 Ocala, Florida 34477-0088 S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 29th day of January, 2021. Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 316 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 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
Findings Of Fact Prior to the commencement of the 1977-78 school year, the position of Assistant Principal at Hardee High School became vacant. The vacancy was properly advertised, and very little interest was shown in the position. The Petitioner, Jerry Kapusta, was at that time employed at Hardee High School as a Physical Education teacher, Head Football Coach, and Head Track Coach. Kapusta applied for the vacant position. The Principal of Hardee High School recommended that Kapusta be hired as Assistant Principal. Acting in part on the basis of the Principal's recommendation, and in part upon his own independent examination of Kapusta's qualifications, the Superintendent of Public Instruction recommended to the School Board that Kapusta be hired as Assistant Principal at Hardee High School. A motion to approve the Superintendent's recommendation was defeated at a School Board meeting by a vote of 2 to 2. One member of the Commission was absent. Subsequently, the Superintendent made a decision to replace the position of Assistant Principal with the position of Dean of Students. The Superin tendent recommended that Kapusta be hired for this position. At a School Board meeting conducted approximately two weeks following the earlier meeting, the Board rejected the recommendation by a vote of 3 to 2. Members of the School Board who voted against the recommendation testified that they did so primarily because Kapusta was not properly certified by the State Board of Education in the fields of supervision and administration. School Board member Barlow testified that she voted against the recommendation because Kapusta was not certified, because she felt he was doing a good job as football coach, and that he should stay in that position, and because she felt that Kapusta's lack of certification would hinder the Board's efforts to get the schools accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. School Board member Knight testified that she voted against the recommendation because of Kapusta's lack of certification, and because he was doing a good job as football coach. School Board member Gilliard testified that he voted against the recommendation due to the lack of certification and because be wanted Kapusta to remain as football coach. Sometime during May, 1969, the School Board adopted policies which were included in the Board's policy book. The qualifications for the position of Assistant Principal were among the policies adopted. One of the qualifications was as follows: Candidates for assistant principalships. . . must hold a rank II or higher certificate covering administration and supervision at the level for which the applicant is to be employed or covered by a special permit. Similar qualifications were adopted for other administrative positions. This policy was readopted by the School Board each time that it readopted its policy manual. Since the policy was adopted the School Board has consistently ignored it. Joint exhibits 6 and 7 list persons who were hired by the Board to fill administrative positions since the policy was originally adopted. The overwhelming majority of persons hired for administrative positions since the policy was adopted were not properly certified according to the policy. Certification of administrative personnel as administrative personnel is not among the requirements for accreditation set out In the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' "Standards of the Commission on Secondary Schools." The Petitioner, Jerry Kapusta, has adequately performed his duties as Physical Education Teacher, Head Football Coach, and Head Track Coach at Hardee High School. Kapusta is certified as a physical education teacher and health instructor for Kindergarten through twelfth grade, and for junior colleges. He is not certified as a supervisor or administrator. He would require approximately twenty-one (21) hours of additional course work in order to obtain such certification. It is Kapusta's intention to enroll in courses that would lead to his certification as an administrator. Kapusta is the most qualified person to have applied for the position of Dean of Students at Hardee High School. Other than his lack of certification, and the desire that he remain as Head Football Coach, no testimony was presented which would establish that Kapusta is other than qualified for the position.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RRECOMENDED: That a final order be entered accepting the Superintendent's recommendation that the Petitioner/Appellant, Jerry Kapusta, be appointed to the position of Dean of Students of Hardee High School, and appointing him to that position. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Burton, Esquire Burton, Patarini & Collins, P.A. Post Office Box 420 and 605 Wauchula, Florida 33073 John J. Chamblee, Jr., Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Pinellas County School Board, should suspend the Respondent, Dawn McIntyre, from her employment as a teacher for three days without pay on charges contained in the July 11,1990, letter from the School Superintendent, Scott N. Rose. 1/ The letter charges: (1) that, on one occasion during the 1987-88 school year, the Respondent pushed a teacher aide; (2) that on May 9, 1990, the Respondent struck another teacher aide with a lamp; and (3) that the Respondent also handled two students in a rough, punitive manner during May and June, 1990. The charging letter asserts that the Respondent's alleged conduct constitutes misconduct in office.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dawn McIntyre, has been a teacher at Safety Harbor Elementary School since the 1984-85 school year. Until this year, she taught pre-kindergarten emotionally handicapped children. For the 1990-91 school year, she accepted a smaller class of children with varying exceptionalities. She has an annual professional service contract, not a continuing contract. She is certified to teach early childhood, mental retardation and special learning disabilies. During the 1987-88 school year, the Respondent became involved in a confrontation with an aide at school. The seeds of this confrontation were sown when the aide and the teacher with whom she worked presented flowers to the school principal in appreciation for the efforts of the principal in saving the aide's job, which was in jeopardy of being eliminated for budgetary reasons. Shortly afterwards, in conversation in the teacher's lounge, the Respondent labeled the aide as a "[expletive deleted] brown-nose." This comment was reported to the aide by a participant in the conversation, and the aide was upset by it. She decided to confront the Respondent and explain the circumstances to demonstrate that the label was unfair. When she confronted the Respondent, the Respondent did not give her an opportunity to explain but rather pushed the aide on the shoulder with the palm of her hand and rudely insisted that the label fit. In January, 1990, the Respondent began working with a new aide. Although the new aide was unfamiliar with the work and needed some on-the-job training, the Respondent worked reasonably well with the aide until, in late April or early May, the aide volunteered to help another teacher who did not have an aide and needed assistance. The Respondent objected, taking the position that the Respondent needed all of the aide's available time to help in the Respondent's class. The Respondent told the aide that the aide's volunteering for another teacher would have to be put on her evaluation as an adverse comment. From that point forward, the Respondent began to treat the aide more and more poorly, and the Respondent's working relationship with the aide quickly deteriorated to the point that the aide felt compelled to seek the advice of her union representative on how to handle the situation. While the aide's handling of the situation may have contributed marginally to the deterioration of the working relationship between the two, the breakdown would not have happened without the Respondent's inappropriate behavior. On or about May 9, 1990, the Respondent instructed the aide to take only half of the children's hour rest period for lunch and use the rest to do paperwork in the classroom. After her lunch, the aide began to arrange a place to do the paperwork. The Respondent objected to the way the aide set a desk lamp on the table the aide was going to work at, thinking it threw too much light on where some of the children were sleeping, and she told the aide to move the lamp. When the aide did not move fast enough for the Respondent's liking, the Respondent rushed over to the table in disgust and snatched the lamp off the table before the aide could move it. In the process, she shouldered and elbowed the aide out of the way, knocking her temporarily off balance and accidentally grazing the aide's elbow with the lamp. Greatly upset by the way in which the Respondent handled the situation, together with the cumulative effect of the Respondent's prior inappropriate behavior, the aide immediately left the classroom without saying anything to the Respondent and reported the incident to the administration, in accordance with the advice of her union representative. The aide refused to continue to work with the Respondent and was reassigned. Two of the three other available aides also refused to work with the Respondent. One was the aide whom the Respondent had pushed and called a "[expletive deleted] brown-nose," and she refused to work with the Respondent partly because of the pushing incident. The other had not been involved personally in any unpleasant confrontations with the Respondent but was uncomfortable working with the Respondent in light of the incidents involving others that had been related to her. The third aide was only part-time and was too new to be thrust into the gap, in the opinion of the school principal. The principal had to go to the aides' union to force one of the other aides to work with the Respondent for the rest of the school year. As it turned out, the aide forced to work with the Respondent used sick leave so as to work with the Respondent as little as possible, and aides had to be put in the classroom on a rotating basis. On or about May 10, 1990, while in the process of escorting her class from the lunchroom back to the classroom, the Respondent walked up to one of her more difficult pupils, who had just spent most of the lunch period in "time- out," grasped him around the chin, with her thumb on one cheek and her fingers on the other cheek, applying more pressure than necessary to merely get his attention, and spoke to him sternly. This was done in the presence of the other children in the class and within sight of other children and adults in the lunchroom. On or about June 5, 1990, while again in the lunchroom, the Respondent walked up to another pupil from her class, who was sitting at the "time-out table," and reprimanded him sternly for untruthfully having told her that he had eaten his lunch. As she reprimanded the pupil, she squeezed his ear between her fingers and twisted it as part of the discipline. This, too, was done within sight of the children and adults in the lunchroom. Although perhaps technically corporal punishment in violation of School Board policy, the facts described in Findings 6 and 7, above, can be described as minor, or even marginal, violations. Neither child was injured, and neither complained to any adult that the Respondent had hurt them. (The child involved in the June 5th incident said that his ear hurt a little, but that was only when directly asked by one of the adults who witnessed the incident.) The "punishment" was so minor as to leave question whether it was punishment or just a case of overdoing an effort to get and keep the children's attention. By the time of the final hearing, all of the adult witnesses to these incidents were feuding with the Respondent in some form or fashion, and their testimony describing the incidents could have been slanted by the animosity between them and the Respondent. The Respondent has been and continues to be an effective teacher of pre-kindergarten children with learning disabilities. However, as reflected in the preceding Findings, she unfortunately has been susceptible to improper and unprofessional behavior which has hampered her working relationships with a significant number of her teaching colleagues and has created difficulties for the administration of the school. This has reduced her effectiveness as a teacher. The parties stipulated on the record of the final hearing that, if the charges are proven, a three-day suspension would be the appropriate discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of misconduct in office and suspending her for three days without pay. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 17th day of December, 1990.
