The Issue Whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct and/or immorality in office (in the nature of suggestive and degrading sexual innuendoes and remarks to several female students) pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a) F.S. and Rules 6B- 1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009 F.A.C. so as to be subject to dismissal by the Nassau County School Board. Although some evidence of other years was presented, the August 8, 1991 Statement of Charges herein covers only the 1990-1991 school year. Accordingly, only evidence from that school year may be considered for purposes of discipline in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was a teacher at the Hilliard Middle- Senior High School and the holder of a professional services contract with Petitioner Nassau County School Board. He is certified by the State of Florida in the areas of mathematics, psychology, and broad field social studies. Respondent had been employed by Petitioner for the nine years immediately preceding his suspension for the charges involved in this case. During the whole of that time he received good job evaluations. He has had no prior disciplinary charges against him. On or about May 9, 1991, Petitioner, pursuant to the recommendation of the Nassau County Superintendent of Schools, suspended Respondent without pay. This followed the Superintendent's suspension of Respondent with pay on May 2, 1991. During his employment with Petitioner, Respondent has taught geometry, algebra II, trigonometry, one class of general math, and a class of compensatory mathematics. Respondent has had a practice of greeting his students at random as they enter the classroom each day and while they are taking their seats and settling down to work. At all times material, these greetings were offered in the presence of students of both genders. Respondent teased the boys about sports and commented on the girls' appearance. The comments made most frequently by the Respondent to the football players were that they had not done well in the immediately preceding game. The comments made most frequently by the Respondent to all the female students were, "You're looking good; you're looking fine; you're looking hot;" or, more simply, "you're fine; you're hot." None of the comments were exclusive to any particular female student. All comments were made out in the open, without any physical touching or aggression on Respondent's part. He made these comments with no intended sexual connotation, and no female student ever expressed to him directly that she objected to these greetings either because they sounded sexual in nature, were too familiar, or were made in the presence of the female students' male peers. Generally, Respondent's comments were recognized as kidding and not taken seriously or considered objectionable by the students. There is no evidence that the Respondent's comments delayed the commencement of class, caused disruptive behavior on the part of either the male or the female students who heard them, or inhibited any student learning the academic material. One female student who testified that she found the foregoing practice objectionable was Shannon Lysitt, a student of Respondent's during both the 1989-1990 and the 1990-1991 school years. Ms. Lysitt testified at formal hearing that she "took [these comments] to be sexual but not as in a sexual manner." She considered the comments embarrassing and a display of inappropriate conduct by a teacher but knew Respondent was being friendly and joking. Ms. Lysitt admittedly never told Respondent she felt embarrassed or asked him to stop making such comments. Although she was used to his comments from the previous school year, Ms. Lysitt did not request to be assigned to another class for the 1990-1991 school year. In one isolated conversation, Respondent told Ms. Lysitt that, due to her poor math grades, she would probably wind up as a secretary being chased around a desk by her boss instead of achieving her desired career of psychiatrist. The Respondent denied making that comment specifically, but testified that he had made chiding or derrogatory comments about career plans of college preparatory students to motivate them to do better on tests when they had been doing poorly. By all accounts, Ms. Lysitt was doing all right in Respondent's course but could have done better. Ms. Lysitt's testimony was credible as to what was said, but Respondent's testimony was equally credible as to why he said it. Upon the evidence as a whole, it is found that the Respondent's comment may have been temporarily embarrassing to Ms. Lysitt, and may have, as she testified, made her feel bad or stupid for a short time, but that it did not degrade or humiliate her or adversely affect her classroom performance or overall self-image. Sherry Meziere was a student in Respondent's fourth period general math II class during the 1990-1991 school year. She also was embarrassed by Respondent's compliments to her, but she never told him so. When Ms. Meziere complained to Respondent that her semester grade was a "C" rather than the "B" she wanted, he told her she could stay after school and she would get her "B". Ms. Meziere is a particularly sensitive and shy teenager, and she took offense at the Respondent's comment because she interpreted it as a sexual come-on. Respondent denied having any sexual intent behind his comment to Ms. Meziere. At formal hearing, he explained that Ms. Meziere would have been entitled to a "B" if she had turned in all her homework, as required, but she had not. Because her grade was borderline due to the missing homework, Respondent had meant by his remark to Ms. Meziere that if she would come to the classroom after school and work the homework problems in his presence, he would retroactively give her credit for doing the homework and turning it in and this would accordingly alter her semester grade to a "B". Respondent's explanation for why he took this approach is reasonable: he would not accept students bringing in the homework later from home because it might be done anew or copied from someone else. Perhaps Respondent fell short in not clearly indicating all his reasoning and purpose to Ms. Meziere, but he also had no notice from her that she had misunderstood his offer. On balance, Ms. Meziere's explanation of why she took Respondent's neutral remark sexually is weak. She testified, A: I took it sexually. I don't know. Q: Why did you take it sexually? What is it about it that made you think that because you would agree, wouldn't you, that that could also be nonsexual the way you stated it, correct? A: Yes. Q: So what was it about the way he said it that made you think that it was sexual? A: I don't know. I just didn't feel comfortable with it. Q: But he didn't say anything explicit-- A: No. Q: --about sex or anything like that? A: No. (Exhibit P-2, page 10) Ms. Meziere considered Respondent a good teacher, not really strict, and pretty friendly. She felt he was giving her and one of her girl friends many more compliments of the nature described above in Finding of Fact 5 than he was giving other female students in their particular class. Respondent conceded that perhaps he had complimented Ms. Meziere more than some other female students in her class because he had tried to build up Ms. Meziere's self-esteem while the class was going to and from the cafeteria during the lunch recess which occurred in the middle of that class period, so that she would eat and not diet excessively. When she felt "uncomfortable" about Respondent's offering to see her after school, Ms. Meziere was not aware that Respondent frequently tutored students after school. Shanna Higginbotham, another one of Respondent's female students, confirmed that she had been tutored by him after school on several occasions, without any sexual innuendoes or overtures. Although what Respondent did not do with Ms. Higginbotham is not corroborative of Respondent's testimony that he did not intend his remark to Ms. Meziere to be sexual, it is supportive of his testimony that he was in the habit of having one or more students in his classroom after school. It also supports a reasonable inference that the Respondent's classroom was hardly the place for a private rendezvous. Respondent was approached during an inactive period in one of his classes by a senior mathematics student named Monica Adamczewski, who was simultaneously taking a college-level psychology class in child development at Florida Community College, Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Adamczewski, knowing of Respondent's background in psychology, addressed a question to Respondent involving Freudian theory and child psychology on the issue of whether or not little children have sexual feelings, as hypothesized by Freud. Respondent responded by describing how he had handled an incident involving his own four year child's masturbation. Although the conversation was conducted in low tones with Ms. Adamczewski and Respondent in their respective desks, another student, Darlene Kelly, came up to Respondent's desk in the course of the conversation and heard only part of the conversation. Ms. Kelly was not aware of the context in which the subject arose, did not approve of certain language Respondent employed in discussing his child's activity, and felt it was an inappropriate conversation for the classroom, but Ms. Kelly also testified that the conversation did not embarrass her. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the foregoing incident occurred during the period covered by the Statement of Charges in this case. It is found that it did not occur during the period of time covered by the charges and accordingly that it cannot constitute grounds for disciplining Respondent in this proceeding. Jessica Smith testified to three incidents that allegedly occurred during the 1989-1990 school year. Because the Statement of Charges against the Respondent is silent as to any allegations of misconduct or immorality that occurred other than during the 1990-1991 school year, these incidents may not be used to discipline Respondent in this proceeding. 1/ Tammy McClamma graduated from Hilliard Middle-Senior High School in May 1990. She was not one of Respondent's students in either her junior or senior year, but she knew him from being around school. The events she described also could not have occurred during the time frame set out in the Statement of Charges and therefore cannot be used to discipline the Respondent in this proceeding. 2/ Respondent acknowledged that he may have been careless and used poor judgment in some of the statements he made to his female students. However, he never intended to harm or embarrass any of them and was simply guilty of allowing himself to get too close to the students as friends rather than maintaining the appropriate distance required of the student-teacher relationship. All the student witnesses, including those who were offended by isolated remarks they regarded as inappropriate, agreed that Respondent has a friendly and jocular manner in and out of the classroom. Respondent's classroom clearly has a "laid back" style. Overall, his students seem to appreciate and enjoy his familiar manner and to learn well in his classes. The consistent testimony of the students was that he is generally well-regarded and "everybody's favorite teacher." Superintendent Marshall opined as a professional educator that the Respondent's effectiveness as an educator had been undermined and eliminated by a continuing pattern of serious misconduct. However, no evidence of lost effectiveness beyond the temporary embarrassment and self-doubt experienced by Ms. Lysitt appears of record, and Mr. Marshall's opinion as rendered at formal hearing was based in part upon incidents outside the dates alleged in the Statement of Charges and also based in part upon the total investigation of this case, which investigation clearly included material not in evidence here.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Nassau County enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondent and returning him to full duty with all back pay and benefits retroactive to May 9, 1991. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 5th day of March, 1992.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent, Jean- Baptiste Guerrier, made inappropriate comments to, or engaged in inappropriate conduct with, female students, or inappropriately discussed the topic of sex with his class, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what sanction is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals holding Florida educator's certificates. Mr. Guerrier held Florida Educator's Certificate 596926, covering the areas of English and middle grades, which was valid through June 30, 2015. At all times pertinent hereto, Mr. Guerrier was employed as a vocational education teacher at D.A. Dorsey Education Center School in the Miami-Dade County School District. Mr. Guerrier primarily taught English to students who had dropped out of school earlier and were returning for vocational education. Some of his students were adults, and some were still minors. On August 2, 2012, Ms. Ana Sanchez, an investigator for the Miami-Dade County School Board, received a case alleging that Mr. Guerrier had made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to his students and had inappropriately touched female students. Ms. Sanchez interviewed students and prepared an investigative report detailing what each student told her regarding Mr. Guerrier's conduct in class. She did not personally observe Mr. Guerrier's conduct in the classroom. On September 6, 2012, Mr. Guerrier wrote a letter to Ms. Anne-Marie DuBoulay, the district director of the Office of Professional Standards. In the letter, Mr. Guerrier indicated that he had read the allegations and that he denied them. On or about October 5, 2012, the Miami-Dade County School District notified Mr. Guerrier that he would be recommended for suspension without pay and dismissal. On or about October 8, 2012, Mr. Guerrier submitted his resignation from his position at the Miami-Dade County School District. On October 10, 2012, Ms. DuBoulay prepared a memorandum for the file indicating that Mr. Guerrier had resigned and that the investigative information had been transmitted to Professional Practices Services of the Florida Department of Education. On August 12, 2013, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Mr. Guerrier by the Commissioner. It was subsequently sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At hearing, Ms. Sanchez testified that she interviewed several students from Mr. Guerrier's classes. She testified that some students told her that Mr. Guerrier often made inappropriate comments about sex and female anatomy to his students. She testified that students told her that he inappropriately touched students. She testified that students told her that he had asked female students, "What would you do for a grade?" She testified that Elijah Del'Valle, a 21-year-old student, told her that he saw Mr. Guerrier pulling a female student's G-string, confirming the female student's statement to her. The investigative report prepared by Ms. Sanchez indicated that D.W., a 25-year-old female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier would make sexual comments to his female students on a daily basis. The report indicates that D.W. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier asked her in class if he could see her private parts and asked "what she would do for the grade." The report indicates that K.L., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier rubbed her stomach and asked her to kiss him. The report indicates that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told a story in class about a student who had reported him and that he told his class that the student was mad because he would not have sexual relations with her. The report indicates that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told K.L. that her boyfriend "could not handle her." The report says that K.L. told Ms. Sanchez that she witnessed Mr. Guerrier pull G.C.'s underwear in class. The report indicates that J.S., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier always used inappropriate slang terms for female anatomy in class and that she heard Mr. Guerrier ask K.L. to show him her private parts. The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that she saw Mr. Guerrier touching K.L.'s stomach. The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told one female student, "What if I turn off the lights and tell you to undress?" The report indicates that J.S. told Ms. Sanchez that she did not recall which student Mr. Guerrier made this comment to. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle, an adult male student, told Ms. Sanchez that he observed Mr. Guerrier flirting with female students and making sexual remarks in class. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier would ask his female students what they would do for a grade. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that he saw Mr. Guerrier pull a student's pants from behind during class and then ask the young lady where she was going. The report indicates that Mr. Del'Valle told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier was always looking at the female students when they walked by and would rub his shoulder and arm against them. The report indicates that G.C., a minor female student, told Ms. Sanchez that she saw Mr. Guerrier rub K.L.'s belly area and say, "let me lick that belly ring of yours." The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier is always brushing himself up against the female students. The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that Mr. Guerrier told a story in class about a student who had reported him and that that student was mad because he had not had sexual relations with her. The report indicates that G.C. told Ms. Sanchez that she once asked Mr. Guerrier for help with a lesson and that he pulled her G-string when she was getting up from the chair and pulled her back down. Mr. Guerrier testified at hearing that he did not do any of the things he was accused of. Mr. Guerrier said that his accusers had a motive to fabricate their stories because they were very poor students. He said that some of them slept in class, others texted throughout class, and others did not show up at all. He stated that some of them had no grades in his grading book and that he had no basis to give them a grade. He stated the students went to a counselor and fabricated the stories.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Jean-Baptiste Guerrier. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lawrence Brennan, holds Florida teaching certificate number 250648, issued by the State Department of Education. The Respondent is certified in the area of English and his certificate is valid through June 30, 1988. The Respondent is a tenured teacher in the Duval County School System in which he has taught since September 8, 1969. The Respondent has taught at Paxon Junior High School since 1984-84, and has taught compensatory education in Paxon Junior High School during school years 1984-85 and 1985-86. Compensatory education is a special program for children with low test scores. Many of the students also have disciplinary problems. The Respondent received satisfactory evaluations for the last three full years of his employment, to include his years at Paxon. The Respondent was removed from the classroom and Paxon Junior High School following the altercation with a student on February 27, 1986, which gave rise to these charges. The Respondent is currently assigned to one of the media centers of the Department of Education in Duval County. The Respondent was informed in writing of the various requirements and responsibilities of teachers in the Duval County School System. Bresha Woods was a student of the Respondent's in November 1985. Ms. Woods had received six to eight referrals to the Principal's office through November 1985 for disrupting class and for not performing assigned duties. Subsequent to the incident described here, Woods was suspended and transferred to the Darnell Cookman Alternative School in March of the 1985-86 school year. On November 7, 1985, the Respondent told Woods to take her things and to go to the Principal's office for not doing her work and disrupting class. Woods delayed, slowly gathering her books, purse and other belongings. The Respondent approached Woods from the rear as she was at her desk, grasped her by the shoulders, pulled her to her feet alongside the desk, turned her toward the door of the classroom and told her to go to the school office. Woods' statement that she was "marked up" is not credible and the fact that she visited a physician on March 29, 1987, is not relevant because of the passage of time. No report of the physician's findings was offered. Woods' report to Atkinson that Respondent had choked her was contrary to Woods' sworn testimony. Atkinson accepted Woods' version of events as opposed to the explanation of Respondent. See T 179, 180. In January 1986, Delilah Elliott, a new student at Paxon, was late for class and cut across a grassy area between the wings of the classroom building which was closed to walking students. Between classes the Respondent was performing monitoring duties outside the classroom as do many of the teachers and staff and observed Ms. Elliott crossing the prohibited area. The Respondent called for Elliott to stop. Although Elliott heard the Respondent call for her to stop, she ignored him, attempting to go to her next class. The Respondent approached her, grabbed her by the shoulders to restrain her, and pushed her toward the sidewalk. She attempted to walk around him and continue on to her class. Elliott refused to tell the Respondent her name. The Respondent herded Elliott to the Principal's office, sometimes pushing her in the back when she stopped walking. Ms. Atkinson, the Assistant Principal in charge of disciplining girls, having seen the incident, followed the Respondent to the office. Atkinson told the Respondent not to be so physical with the children. The Respondent advised Atkinson that he knew what the rules were. Atkinson advised the Respondent that she would take care of the problem, and that he should return to class. Atkinson took no action against Elliott because, according to Atkinson, walking on the grass was not a referral offense. As the Respondent exited the office, Atkinson heard the Respondent say to Elliott, "You little tramp." The Respondent was frequently in physical contact with students in his class. Craig Monasco and Frank Lane were students in the Respondent's class. The Respondent grabbed their buttocks on several occasions when they were leaning over getting books. This practice, called "scooping" by the students, was a form of horse play engaged in by the students. The students were embarrassed by this. On other occasions, the Respondent pulled students out of their seats in the process of disciplining them within the classroom. Leopolean Spikes was a 13 year old black student in the Respondent's 7th grade comp. ed. English class. Spikes had a history of disruptive behavior in class and had been sent to the Principal's office several times during the school year. On February 26, 1986, Spikes was disruptive in class and the Respondent escorted him to the Principal's office. On this occasion, Spikes had refused to accept the referral, and Spikes said he was going to have his father come out and talk with the Respondent. The Respondent added Spikes' additional comments to the referral regarding Spikes' behavior and escorted Spikes to the Principal's office. Upon re-entering the class, the Respondent stated to the class that had Spikes hit him, the Respondent would have knocked him through the wall. The Principal gave Spikes an in-school suspension for his conduct of February 26, 1986. However, based upon the general school policy, a child with the number of referrals that Spikes had had would have been subject to general suspension. On February 27, 1986, Spikes reported to the Respondent's first period comp. ed. class. Spikes exhibited additional disruptive behavior during the class period of approximately 50 minutes in length. During this time, the Respondent warned Spikes on several occasions that he was going to refer him again if his behavior did not change. Shortly before the class was over, Spikes' continued disruptive conduct caused the Respondent to write a referral of Spikes to the Principal. The Respondent told Spikes to go to the Principal's office. Spikes delayed in getting his personal effects together to go to the Principal's office, and the Respondent went over to Spikes and told him to hurry up and leave the class. Spikes told the Respondent that he would not go to the Principal's office. At this point, a conflict exists in testimony regarding what occurred next. The one non-involved adult observer, Ms. Morkin, the co-teacher, stated that she observed six "acts" to the incident: (1) Spikes stood around reading the referral and not doing anything; (2) Respondent guided Spikes to the door by the shoulder; (3) Spikes ran around her desk to his own desk by the windows and wall; (4) Books were thrown in the direction of her desk from the vicinity of Spikes' desk; and (5) A struggle ensued between Spikes and Respondent, which came to an end with the Respondent kneeling next to Spikes and restraining Spikes on the floor. The various student witnesses had more dramatic versions of the incident, but one can trace the activity by its location. Their versions began with: (1) Spikes refused to go and told Respondent that he was not going to the office at or around Spikes' desk; (2) Spikes or Respondent threw books; (3) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the desk; (4) Spikes threatened Respondent with a desk; (5) Spikes and Respondent fought in the area of the wall and Spikes' head hit against the wall; and (6) The fight ended with Respondent pinning Spikes to the floor. The following findings are based upon a most credible evidence and testimony presented: The Respondent was standing in the aisle alongside Spikes' desk and between Spikes' desk and the front of the room where Ms. Morkin's desk was located. Spikes, when confronted by the Respondent and told to hurry, told Respondent he refused to go, and threw his books at Respondent, who was standing between Spikes and Morkin. Spikes adopted a combative stance and the Respondent grabbed Spikes' arms, fearing that Spikes was going to strike him. Spikes began to struggle and both Spikes and the Respondent fell to the floor. Respondent let go of Spikes and regained his feet and Spikes pulled himself to his feet using the back of a school desk which he raised in front of him and advanced toward the Respondent saying, "I'm going to hit you with this desk. See T-70. The Respondent pushed the desk out of the way, grabbed the writing portion of the desk, then grabbed Spikes and a second struggle ensued, during which Spikes hit the Respondent, who grabbed Spikes in a bear hug. Spikes and the Respondent were by the windowed wall of the classroom, and the Respondent attempted to pin Spikes against the windowed wall to stop his struggling and prevent Spikes from hitting him. In doing so, Spikes' head was banged against the window once. Spikes continued to hit the Respondent all this time. The Respondent and Spikes again fell to the floor where Spikes ceased fighting after Respondent pinned him down. After the struggle ceased, Ms. Morkin left to seek assistance as the Respondent requested. After he was at the office, a knot came up on Spikes' head. Spikes parents were called and they took Spikes to the emergency room where he underwent a complete examination, to include X-rays of his head. This examination revealed no abnormal findings except tenderness and swelling in the left occipital area of the head. Subsequent medical problems which Spikes has suffered were related to an injury to the right occipital area. No evidence of such an injury was revealed in the examination or reported by Spikes. See Petitioner's Exhibit The Respondent is approximately 6' tall and weighs approximately 200 pounds. Spikes is approximately 4'6" tall and weighs 72 pounds. Mr. Randolph and Ms. Atkinson, the persons in charge of disciplining children at the school, gave their opinions concerning the appropriateness of the Respondent's actions. In their opinion, the Respondent's actions were inappropriate. The record reflects that both Atkinson and Randolph had failed to apply the requisite disciplinary standards to students by taking action to remove them from the school system permanently, based upon continued disciplinary problems. Atkinson, who observed the Elliott incident, described the Respondent as "striking the student" and was of the opinion that a person who touches another person with their hand is striking the person. Mr. Larry Paulk, Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Affairs for the Duval County Schools, interviewed the Respondent after the altercation. To Paulk, the Respondent appeared hostile and was sarcastic in his dealings and approach to students. Paulk offered his opinion that the Respondent's conduct regarding discipline and leadership was inappropriate. The Respondent has attended psychiatric counseling for the past year to deal with his hostility and to improve his effectiveness as a teacher. There is no evidence of the Respondent receiving progressive discipline for prior acts involving physical contact with students, although he received several written reprimands for inappropriate conduct towards students to include physical conduct, language, and attitude. Mr. Randolph, the principal in charge of boys, advised that the school's solution for the removal of an unwilling child from class was to call the Principal. The Principal would come to the room and ask the student to come out of the classroom and, if the student refused, the Principal would then call a uniformed policeman who would arrest the child for trespassing. In Randolph's experience they had never had to take the final step of calling for a uniformed policeman.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg Junior College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is an instructor in computer programming and networking at the College. Respondent has been an instructor at the College since 1983. Since the 1986-87 academic year, Respondent has worked under a continuing contract of employment. A continuing contract is tantamount to a tenured position, entitling the instructor to maintain his position from year-to-year unless terminated by mutual consent, by the instructor’s resignation, or by the suspension or removal of the instructor for cause pursuant to the statutes and rules of the State Board of Education. Respondent has received at least above-average evaluations of his job performance both from the institution and from his students during his tenure at the College. Respondent has not been subject to disciplinary proceedings of any kind prior to or since the incidents giving rise to this proceeding. Kimberly Zemola, a married woman in her late twenties, was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II and Session III of the 1994-95 academic year. In January 1995, while she was a student in Respondent’s class, Ms. Zemola wrote an anonymous note to Respondent suggesting that they commence a relationship and that Respondent should indicate his interest by wearing a certain sweater to class on a certain day. Respondent wore the sweater as suggested in the note. Respondent testified that his purpose in doing so was not to initiate a relationship, but to identify the author of the note, discover her problem, and direct her into obtaining assistance. Respondent and Ms. Zemola met. Their testimony was consistent in describing that they were both involved in troubled marriages, spent a great deal of time discussing their problems with each other, and, over a period of weeks, became close friends and confidants. During the period of January through May 1995, the relationship was not sexual, though there was some holding of hands and kissing during their meetings. During the summer session of 1995, while Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent's class, Respondent and Ms. Zemola engaged in consensual sex. Both Respondent and Ms. Zemola testified that this occurred on only one occasion, in June 1995. Respondent and Ms. Zemola continued their relationship until December 1995, at which point Ms. Zemola ended it. Ms. Zemola testified that in January 1996, after she ended the relationship with Respondent, she was diagnosed as clinically depressed. She testified that she believed Respondent took advantage of her depressed condition in pursuing a relationship with her. Respondent testified that Ms. Zemola mentioned suicidal thoughts on one occasion in late 1995, and that she revealed to him that she had been addicted to drugs and was a victim of child abuse. Nonetheless, Respondent testified that he had no knowledge Ms. Zemola was fighting depression during the period of their relationship. In January 1996, John Zemola, the husband of Kimberly Zemola, phoned Myrtle Williams, Associate Provost of the Gibbs Campus, to complain that Respondent had an affair with his wife. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated, so she invited him to her office to discuss the matter. Mr. Zemola met in person with Ms. Williams, and a little later in the day had a second meeting with both Ms. Williams and Charles Roberts, the Provost of the Gibbs Campus. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts testified that Mr. Zemola was very agitated and upset, expressing a great deal of anger toward Respondent. Mr. Zemola repeatedly demanded to know what the College was going to do about the situation. Shortly after his meeting with Mr. Zemola, Dr. Roberts called Respondent and asked him to come over to his office. Dr. Roberts testified that his main concern in calling Respondent was to warn him of Mr. Zemola’s angry and agitated state. Dr. Roberts also alerted campus security of the situation. At this meeting with Dr. Roberts, Respondent openly and voluntarily acknowledged his relationship with Ms. Zemola, including the romantic aspects thereof. The only discrepancy was that Respondent recalled the sexual encounter as having occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in his class, whereas Ms. Zemola recalled that it occurred when she was a student in Respondent’s class. Ms. Williams and Dr. Roberts investigated the matter further, attempting to set up a meeting with Ms. Zemola herself. It took them roughly ten days to two weeks to set up this meeting, which finally occurred in Dr. Roberts’ office. Present at the meeting were Dr. Roberts, Ms. Williams, and the Zemolas. At this meeting, Ms. Zemola acknowledged the relationship with Respondent, and acknowledged that it was she who initiated it. Both of the Zemolas were adamant that Respondent should not be permitted to continue teaching at the College. \ 18. Mr. Zemola in particular seemed intent on seeing Respondent punished. Ms. Williams testified that Mr. Zemola telephoned her “all the time talking about what are we going to do about Mr. Brooks.” Mr. Zemola’s threatening demeanor led Ms. Williams to move Ms. Zemola’s classes to a different campus, so that Respondent and Ms. Zemola would not be in each other’s presence. Ms. Williams testified that this precaution was taken, not because of Respondent or Ms. Zemola, but because of John Zemola. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever attempted to contact Ms. Zemola after she ended the relationship. In January 1996, Ms. Williams began attempting to get Ms. Zemola to sign an affidavit stating the facts of the situation. Ms. Zemola initially declined to do so, her stated reason being that she feared Respondent’s influence in the local market could jeopardize her academic future. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever took any action to adversely affect Ms. Zemola’s academic standing or career, either within or outside of the College setting. In a memorandum to Respondent, dated February 8, 1996, Dr. Roberts recounted the details of the charges leveled by the Zemolas, as well as Respondent’s admissions regarding his relationship with Ms. Zemola. The memorandum recited portions of the College’s “Sexual Harassment Policy and Definitions” (the “Policy”). Under the Policy, “sexual harassment” is defined as: An employee’s or a student’s unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, sexually related jokes, display of pornographic material in the workplace or an academic or student setting (An academic or student setting includes all settings on campus, off-campus clinical programs, off- campus courses, and off-campus college- sponsored events), when submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment or an individual’s treatment as a student; submission or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or the treatment of a student affecting such individual; or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work or a student’s academic performance or creating a sexually intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment. The definition quoted above does not apply to the conduct alleged against Respondent, though a later section of the Policy, labeled “Instructor-Student Relationships,” appears to broaden the definition, as indicated in the relevant portion quoted below: This rule applies to instructor-student relationships. In the instructor-student context, the term sexual harassment has a broader impact. The fundamental element of such behavior is the inappropriate personal attention, including romantic and sexual relationships with a student by an instructor or staff member who is in a position to determine a student’s grade or otherwise affects the student’s academic advancement. Because the instructor-student relationship is one of professional and client, the above inappropriate behavior is unacceptable in a college; it is a form of unprofessional behavior which seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic setting. Both President Kuttler and Dr. Roberts testified that, in their opinion, the language quoted in the preceding paragraph broadened the definition of “sexual harassment” as applied to the instructor-student relationship, such that any form of romantic or sexual relationship between an instructor and a student constitutes sexual harassment, at least when the instructor is in a position to determine the student’s grade or otherwise affect the student’s academic advancement. The Policy also forbids retaliation against any person who has filed a complaint or complained about sexual harassment. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent took any retaliatory action against Ms. Zemola. The Policy states that discipline for violation of its provisions “will depend on the nature of the incident,” but that the range of such discipline is from admonishment to dismissal. The February 8, 1996, memorandum goes on to state that, because of the seriousness of the alleged violations and because a violation of the Policy could lead to a recommendation of suspension or dismissal, Dr. Roberts was scheduling a meeting on February 13 with Ms. Williams, Martha Adkins, who was the Assistant Director of Business Technologies, and Nevis Herrington, Vice President of Human Resources, for the purpose of permitting Respondent to tell his side of the story in full. Ms. Williams was the only witness who testified as to the February 13 meeting, but her recollection was unclear as to the details of this meeting as distinguished from others involving Dr. Roberts, Respondent, and her. She recalled generally that Respondent was made aware of the Policy and potential penalties for violation thereof. Some delay ensued in the disciplinary process, because Dr. Roberts and Ms. Williams were waiting for the affidavit from Ms. Zemola, which was not forthcoming as spring turned into summer of 1996. At length, Dr. Roberts issued a memorandum to Respondent, dated August 13, 1996, and titled “Reprimand.” In the memorandum of reprimand, Dr. Roberts found that the facts to which Respondent had already admitted, characterized by Dr. Roberts as “a romantic relationship, including sexual relations, following the time that the student was a student in your class,” were sufficient to warrant a written admonishment. The memorandum stated that there were certain mitigating factors that caused Dr. Roberts not to recommend suspension or dismissal: that the student’s initiating the contact led to the relationship; that, according to Respondent, no romantic relationship or sexual relationship occurred while Ms. Zemola was Respondent’s student; and that Ms. Zemola had thus far refused or failed to provide her version of the facts in writing. However, Dr. Roberts’ memorandum went on to state: On the other hand, if the student had confirmed in an Affidavit what she originally advised us took place, I do not believe that I would have any choice but to consider recommending dismissal since such conduct would be a gross and direct violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy. Such conduct would not only be in violation of the College’s Sexual Harassment Rule and Procedure but it would be unprofessional, immoral and constitute misconduct in office. Should confirming or additional information come forward to support the verbal statements we were given by the student and her husband, further consideration of an additional discipline including up to dismissal will be necessary. (Emphasis added.) The August 13, 1996, memorandum placed dispositive emphasis on the timing of the romantic and/or sexual relationship between Respondent and Ms. Zemola. As of August 13, Dr. Roberts accepted Respondent’s version of the facts, i.e., that the romantic and sexual aspects of the relationship occurred after Ms. Zemola was a student in Respondent’s class. Dr. Roberts found that this version, while contrary to the spirit of the Policy, and constituting misconduct in office and immorality, merited only a written admonishment. Dr. Roberts testified that “the power relationship is there whether the student is a student in that individual’s class or not,” somewhat contradicting the distinction he drew in his memorandum regarding the timing of the affair and its impact on the proposed discipline. Dr. Roberts testified that the admonishment was based on his judgment that Respondent’s relationship with the student violated the Policy “in terms of creating a threatening or offensive or intimidating environment.” He testified that Ms. Zemola had clearly complained that she felt intimidated and reluctant to take classes. Dr. Roberts’ conclusion in this regard was based on Ms. Zemola’s subjective apprehensions. No evidence was produced, at any point in these proceedings, that Respondent engaged in any behavior that could have caused Ms. Zemola to feel “intimidated” or “reluctant to take classes.” Ms. Zemola testified that she heard students at other campuses discussing the incident, and that an instructor in one of her classes talked about the case in front of the class. She believed that Respondent was the source of these persons’ knowledge of the situation. Ms. Zemola offered nothing more than her suspicions in this regard, and Respondent resolutely and credibly denied having discussed the affair with students or fellow instructors. In fact, the weight of the credible evidence leads to the finding that John Zemola was the likely source of any campus gossip regarding the incident. On at least one occasion, Mr. Zemola disrupted a College class by writing accusations against Respondent on the blackboard. Dr. Roberts’ August 13 reprimand memorandum left open the possibility that further disciplinary measures might be taken, should Ms. Zemola come forward with a sworn affidavit confirming her version of the timing of the romantic and sexual aspects, i.e., that they occurred while she was a student in Respondent’s class. In a sworn affidavit dated October 24, 1996, Ms. Zemola attested that, while she was a student in Respondent’s classes during Session II, 1994-95, they had an affair which consisted of “a great amount of time talking, and some time kissing, hugging, and holding hands.” She attested that during Session III, 1994- 95, while she was still a student in Respondent’s class, Respondent told her that “if our affair did not go any further, then it had to end.” She attested that at this time she was constantly fighting suicidal thoughts, and believed that if she lost Respondent, the only person she could talk to, she might no longer be able to fight those thoughts. Therefore, during Session III, 1994-95, she engaged in a single sexual encounter with Respondent. By memorandum dated December 11, 1996, Dr. Roberts informed Respondent that the affidavit has been filed and offered Respondent an opportunity to meet with Dr. Roberts and two other officials “to respond to the allegations and share your side of the story.” There is no record evidence that this meeting ever took place. On May 8, 1997, the College filed the Petition. The essential allegation was framed as follows: The faculty member entertained romantic and sexual relations with a student while that student was in the faculty member’s class. This relationship continued after the student was no longer in the faculty member’s class for a period of several months while the student continued her course of education at the College. Such conduct therefore occurred during a time when the faculty member could influence and affect the student’s academic advancement. In addition to the allegations regarding Respondent’s romantic and/or sexual relationship with Ms. Zemola, the Petition alleged: The faculty member thereafter encouraged students of his to pressure the woman with whom he had had the romantic relationship to refrain from stating charges against him in order that it not jeopardize the faculty member’s career. Petitioner offered no evidence to support this allegation, and it is thus assumed that it has been dismissed. The remaining factual allegations contained in the Petition are for the most part conclusions alleged to arise from Respondent’s conduct: Said conduct seriously undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the student/instructor relationship, and further is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace the faculty member’s profession and impair the faculty member’s service to the community and to students. The faculty member’s conduct had serious adverse consequences upon the student, the student’s relationship with her husband, as well as adverse impact on other students, faculty, staff, and upon members of the community, impairing his effectiveness. The effect of the faculty member’s aforesaid conduct was the creation of an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others. No evidence was presented of any “adverse consequences” to other students, faculty, staff, or members of the community, caused by Respondent’s actions. None of the College administrators who testified could recall receiving any complaints regarding Respondent. Dr. Roberts recalled an inquiry from the campus newspaper, but testified that no article ever ran in that or any other newspaper regarding this situation. Ms. Zemola testified that she heard some gossip around the campus, though none of it mentioned the parties by name. Such talk naturally affected Ms. Zemola, but could not be said to have had any other adverse impact. Ms. Zemola’s relationship with her husband was plainly affected by this incident. However, testimony from both Respondent and Ms. Zemola indicated that neither of their marriages was happy at the outset of their relationship. In fact, their testimony indicated that mutual unhappiness in their marriages was one of the main reasons they were drawn together in the first place. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ms. Zemola’s grades or academic advancement were in any way compromised by her affair with Respondent. Ms. Zemola received grades of “A” in both classes she took from Respondent. Both Ms. Zemola and Respondent testified that these grades were earned by Ms. Zemola based entirely on her work in those classes. Respondent has continued to work as an instructor at the College since the affair and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. His work has been performed competently and completely without incident. The episodes of disruption and/or diminished effectiveness cited by the College’s administrators were in fact caused by John Zemola, not by Respondent. When asked for evidence that Respondent’s effectiveness as a teacher has been diminished as a result of the relationship, President Kuttler related an incident in which John Zemola disrupted a class to inform the students about Respondent’s situation, and another incident in which John Zemola harassed Respondent at his home, telling Respondent’s neighbors about the incident. President Kuttler concluded that Respondent’s effectiveness was diminished by the fact that it became known on the campus that there was a teacher/student sexual relationship. However, all the credible record evidence indicates no one involved in the incident or the subsequent disciplinary proceedings other than John Zemola ever publicly disclosed the relationship. Respondent cannot fairly be blamed for the actions of Mr. Zemola in publicizing the incident. Several of Respondent’s colleagues testified to attest to Respondent’s outstanding ability in the classroom. All opined, based on their experience as instructors at the College and their knowledge of Respondent’s character and abilities, that Respondent could continue to perform as an effective instructor at the College. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Respondent’s actions created “an intimidating, hostile and/or offensive educational environment for the student and others.” Respondent acknowledged the impropriety of his actions, and the impact they have had on his personal life, but testified that it has had no impact on his professional life.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated the “Instructor-Student Relationships” portion of the College’s Sexual Harassment Policy, and suspending Respondent from his position at the College for a period not to exceed one Session. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria N. Sorolis, Esquire Shannon Bream, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman and Sakellarides 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Tampa, Florida 34684 Charles L. Roberts, Provost St. Petersburg Junior College St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus Office of the Provost St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 District Board of Trustees St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Carl M. Kuttler, Jr., President St. Petersburg Junior College Post Office Box 13489 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Steven G. Miller, is a teaching veteran in excess of 20 years and holds Florida teaching certificate #524693, valid through June 30, 1995, covering the area of social science. During times material herein, Respondent was assigned as a teacher to St. Petersburg High School. During times material, Respondent's wife, Claudia Miller, was also a teacher at St. Petersburg High School and their daughter was a student there. During the 1989-90 school year, Respondent taught an African/American student, Leslie Kemp, in his sociology class. Kemp attended St. Petersburg High School for approximately six months. During Kemp's enrollment at St. Petersburg High School, Respondent told her he was attracted to her, asked if she had a boyfriend and inquired if he could get to know her outside school. These questions and statements were embarrassing to Kemp and as a result, she altered her schedule to avoid contact with Respondent. After Kemp graduated, Respondent called her at home and went uninvited to her home during the school day. During the occasion on which Respondent went uninvited to Kemp's home, Kemp called another teacher at St. Petersburg High School, Kenneth Jackson, and told him that Respondent was, at that point in time, returning to the school. Jackson, on receiving that phone call from Kemp during the morning hours of a school day, went into the parking lot of the school and observed Respondent walking from his van toward the school. As a result of Kemp's call to Jackson, and based on his belief that Respondent had been attempting to contact Kemp at home, Jackson approached a mutual acquaintance and teacher, Coach Al Davis, and advised Davis to "tell [your] boy to back off." Jackson referred to Respondent as "your boy" when speaking to Coach Davis and did not specifically identify Respondent otherwise. Because of the close relationship enjoyed between Miller and Davis, Jackson assumed that Coach Davis understood that he was talking about Miller. As Jackson in fact assumed, Coach Davis conveyed Jackson's message to Respondent. Respondent acknowledged receiving the message to "back off" from Coach Jackson through Coach Davis, but claimed never to have given it a thought or to have asked Coach Jackson what was meant. However, Coach Davis did not indicate any playfulness in his comments to Respondent. Thereafter, Kemp did not receive any further contacts, either by phone or personal visits at her home, from Respondent. During times material, another African/American student, Mackalia Hadley, also attended St. Petersburg High School. Hadley played varsity basketball and Respondent was her coach. While attending school, Hadley was told by Respondent that his fantasy was to have sex with a "black lady." Respondent asked Hadley if she ever had sex with an older white man and inquired of her preference about sexual positions, asking if she would rather be on top or the bottom. Respondent told Hadley that he was afraid of having sex with her as she could probably "handle him." Respondent would usually always preface his conversations with young female students by telling them that if the topic offended them, they should advise him and he would stop. On one occasion, Respondent patted Hadley on the "butt" as she exited his classroom. Ms. Hadley was not offended by Respondent's remarks to her or having touched her on the butt as she did not want him to be penalized on the basis of his actions towards her since she considered that Respondent was a friend. However, Hadley was led to believe that had she been so inclined, Respondent was available for sex with her. Hadley never affirmatively filed a complaint about Respondent's behavior, either while a student or afterwards. Hadley became aware of the disciplinary action against Respondent based on newspaper and other media coverage and during a counselling session with Ms. Christine Albino, Hadley's former "parenting" instructor, subsequent to graduation. Hadley did not want to be a witness in any disciplinary action against Respondent, although Ms. Albino advised Hadley that she would have to provide the information that she had about Respondent to Petitioner Board's personnel director, S. Crosby, who was investigating Respondent. Barbara Gamble, another African/American female student who attended St. Petersburg High School during the fall semester of 1991, was a student of Respondent. Respondent made frequent comments to Gamble, which she understood to be sexual. One such remark was "Oh Barbara, you're so fine. You turn me on. You have to stop doing this." Respondent inquired if Gamble would ever consider cheating on her boy friend. Respondent knows that Gamble had two children at the time of her enrollment in his class. On one occasion while in class, Respondent told her "If you ever want to have another kid, I'm always available." On one occasion, during his fourth period class, Respondent asked Gamble to come to his room during seventh period to review a test. Upon her arrival, Respondent placed the exam on his desk. He then told her that if anyone came into the room, they would pretend that the test was being reviewed, but he assured her that he had called her there for other reasons. Respondent told Gamble how physically attracted he was to her and asked if they could meet somewhere to be together. He also inquired of her if she had anything against him being white, older and married as far as the two of them being with each other was concerned. Shortly thereafter, Gamble withdrew from Respondent's class citing her fear of Respondent and of being alone with him. Gamble contacted Christine Albino who had been informed of Respondent's behavior toward Gamble through a conversation with another of Respondent's students, Janice Polk. Gamble's recall, which was confirmed by Principal Broughton after review of the official school records, indicates that she had no apparent problem with academics in Respondent's course. Janice Polk is also an African/American female student who was in Respondent's class from August 1991 through January 1992. Polk became acquainted with Respondent in his third period class, and as his teacher assistant during the sixth period. During the time when Respondent was Polk's instructor, he told her that he was physically attracted to her and asked her if she would consider cheating on her boy friend. Respondent cautioned Polk that his comments should not be disclosed because he could lose his job and his family. He also stressed that he would deny ever making any sexual comments to her if his remarks ever surfaced. On one occasion while Polk was working with Respondent alone as his assistant, during a Friday afternoon while most students at school were preparing for a football pep assembly, Respondent grabbed Polk from slightly to the side, put his arm around her waist and placed his hands on her butt and pulled her to him. Respondent grabbed Polk's breast, commenting that she was very "grown." He attempted to kiss Polk on the mouth and asked her if she wanted to touch him. Respondent told her that she didn't have to be afraid because he too was scared. Polk was in a position to notice that Respondent had an erection during their contact. Polk retracted and declined Respondent's advance. Respondent then let go of Polk without a physical struggle advising her not to tell anyone about the incident. Upon leaving Respondent's class, Polk encountered a friend, Alvie "Nikki" Poole, in the hallway. Poole observed that Polk was in a state of shock and she inquired if Polk had seen a ghost. Ms. Polk told Nikki about the incident and she (Polk) thereafter withdrew from Respondent's class and her assistantship as a result of Respondent's advances. Polk was afraid, embarrassed and felt disparaged based on Respondent's advances. Respondent's classroom, while situated in a relatively high student traffic area, and although his classroom was unlocked at the time of the encounter with Ms. Polk, was in a section of the building which was abnormally quiet and unoccupied since the pep assembly was ongoing. Students who did not attend the assembly were taking the opportunity to leave the campus early thereby significantly reducing the chances of a student unexpectedly entering Respondent's classroom and interrupting his encounter with Polk. The behavior engaged in by Respondent in relation to students Leslie Kemp, Hadley, Gamble and Polk included sexual innuendos, invitations, propositions, comments about physical attractiveness and attractions, and were laden with sexual implications. Respondent's conduct and behavior was therefore inappropriate and diminished his effectiveness as a School Board employee and a responsible instructional certificate holder. Respondent had been looked upon and has shown a sense of being sensitive to the needs and concerns of minority students who regarded him as their mentor. Respondent has, in the past, assisted a number of students become enrolled in college and was, indeed, in a position to be a role model for such students. Respondent was well respected by minorities, including Blacks and Asians, and they often turned to him for advice. A large number of the minority student population at St. Petersburg High School regarded Respondent as an informal counselor and he was universally regarded as such. Respondent was extremely popular with the student body and he spent a great deal of time shaping his students' lives. That fact, however, does not detract from the seriousness of the conduct which he engaged in relative to students Kemp, Hadley, Gamble and Polk. It is indeed unfortunate that a teacher of Respondent's caliber and ability to shape the lives of their vulnerable students 1/, would engage in acts of immortality as noted. Respondent's conduct toward these students cannot be overlooked. Respondent's contention that these students engaged in a plot to get back at him was considered and rejected. First, there was no showing that the students were motivated to devise such a scheme. A review of the students' academic transcripts indicated that, during times material, they were making satisfactory progress from an academic standpoint. In the one instance where it was shown that one student received an incomplete grade due to a failure to complete the required coursework, there was no nexus shown between the incomplete grade and Respondent's conduct which was inappropriate. Moreover, the transcripts fail to demonstrate that the students were receiving failing grades and therefore motivated to get rid of him (as a teacher). Finally, Respondent's contention that the order in which the complaints were filed against him evidenced a scheme by the Board to build a case to terminate him is likewise without basis in fact. The facts lend no support for Respondent's contention and more to the point, the evidence shows that the students, in the main, barely know each other and were reluctant to testify against Respondent. As to the Board's involvement, its agents were simply fulfilling their duties and responsibilities as school officials concerned about the well-being of its students.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner Pinellas County School Board enter a final order dismissing Respondent's employment as an instructor from the Pinellas County School System. Petitioner Commissioner enter a final order revoking Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of three years, followed by a two year probation upon re-entry, conditioned upon a psychiatric evaluation, clearance and counseling as well as appropriate remedial course work to be specified by the EPC. Additional specific terms and conditions of probation, including restrictions on student contact, should be determined as appropriate by the EPC. DONE and ORDERED this 3 day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3 day of September, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami- Dade County School Board enter a final order dismissing all charges against Carlos Legoas, rescinding his suspension, and awarding back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 1st day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 John L. Winn, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School District 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394
Findings Of Fact This matter concerns an incident which took place at Brownsville Junior High School on August 16, 1984, during the last week of the summer school session. The incident involved a female victim and several male students. It is undisputed that a sexual assault on a female student did take place. The only question involved here is what part, if any, the respondent played in this incident. The sexual assault was initiated by another male student John Felder. Essentially, Felder pulled the victim, Nettie Thomas, into room 101 at the school. That room contained a television set which also served as a computer monitor. After the victim was pulled into room 101, various attempts were made to remove her clothing and she was fondled and touched by Several male students. At one point during the victim's struggles, she was forced down on the teacher's desk and was held on top of the desk by her arms. While on the desk, she was assaulted by a male student who laid on top of her and made motions which simulated the motions made during sexual intercourse. At times, someone held his hand over her mouth so that she could not cry out for help. Additionally, during the time the incident occurred, the lights in the room were turned on and off on more than one occasion. The assault was stopped when the assistant principal walked up the hall to investigate the noises which were reported to be coming from room 101. The students involved in the assault fled the room. The assistant principal, Freddie Robinson, observed and identified five boys fleeing room 101. Specifically, he identified Darrien Byrd, John Felder, Anthony Dowdell, Richard Daniels, and Vernon Clark. The victim, Nettie Thomas, identified these same five, either in written or verbal statements made during the investigation of this incident. Nettie Thomas identified Richard Daniels as having served as a "look out" by looking out of the back door of the classroom toward the principal's office and as having warned the others during the assault that the assistant principal, Mr. Robinson, was coming. Richard Daniels was in room 101 when the sexual assault took place and he had been in the room before the female victim was pulled into the room. He was in the room in violation of rules and he had no valid purpose for being in the room. He was watching TV when he should have been in class. However, Richard Daniels denied having served as a lookout during the incident. In resolving this apparent conflict between the testimony of the victim and the testimony of Richard Daniels, substantial weight is given to the written statement of the victim which was made shortly after the incident. The written report does not specifically name Daniels by name as having been the lookout, but does indicate that a lookout warned that the assistant principal was coming. In light of this written statement and having judged the demeanor of the various witnesses, it is found that Richard Daniels did serve as a lookout and did warn the others during the sexual assault. Richard Daniels did not make any attempt to assist or rescue the victim during the assault nor did he leave the room to seek any assistance for her. Richard Daniels had an extensive record of misconduct at Brownsville Junior High School prior to this incident. Those incidents included fighting, disruptive behavior, disrespect to teachers, provocative language and threatening a teacher.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order assigning Richard Daniels to the McArthur Senior High School North. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: MS. NETTIE DANIELS PARENT OF RICHARD DANIELS 1924 N. W. 49TH STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33142 FRANK R. HARDER, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY TWIN OAKS BUILDING, SUITE 100 2780 GALLOWAY ROAD MIAMI, FLORIDA 33165 MS. MAEVA HIPPS SCHOOL BOARD CLERK SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY 1450 N. E. SECOND AVENUE SUITE 301 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 DR. LEONARD BRITTON SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1410 N. E. SECOND AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(f)1, 1012.795(1)(i), and 1012.795(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2002-2005),2 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(g), and 6B-1.006(3)(i), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. West holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 666407, which covers the area of physical education and is valid through June 30, 2012. She began her teaching career in 1990. At all times pertinent to this case, Ms. West was employed as a physical education teacher at Azalea Middle School in the Pinellas County School District. By Final Order dated February 20, 2004, the Education Practices Commission found Ms. West guilty of violating Subsection 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and 6B-1.006(3)(e), by, among other things, making derogatory remarks to students and disclosing students’ grades without their permission. The Education Practices Commission suspended Ms. West’s educator certificate for the summer session for 2004 and placed her on probation for two years, effective February 20, 2004. The violations for which Ms. West was disciplined occurred while Ms. West was a teacher at Gibbs High School. In an effort to give Ms. West a fresh start, she was administratively transferred from Gibbs High School to Azalea Middle School beginning August 2001. Ms. West was assigned to teach seventh-grade physical education. Connie Kolosey was the seventh-grade assistant principal at Azalea Middle School who was responsible for supervising everything having to do with the seventh grade, including the seventh-grade teachers. The principal at Azalea Middle School received an anonymous letter early in the 2001- 2002 school year complaining that Ms. West was using offensive language and making derogatory remarks to students. About the same time as the arrival of the anonymous letter, Ms. Kolosey became aware that Ms. West was using her cell phone in class to call parents to talk about students’ behavior. Ms. Kolosey met with Ms. West on September 7, 2001, to discuss these issues. Ms. West felt that the anonymous letter came from individuals who were involved in Ms. West’s problems at Gibbs High School. The use of the cell phone was discussed during the conference. Ms. West stated that when she was at Bay Pointe Middle School she had used the cell phone to call parents during class and found it to be an effective way to curb student misbehavior. Ms. West indicated that she would leave the gymnasium and make the cell phone calls in the hallway. Ms. Kolosey explained to Ms. West that the use of cell phones to call parents during class was not appropriate. Students could be embarrassed by having Ms. West discuss their discipline issues in front of the class or in the hallways. Additionally, it was not a safe practice to leave the students in the gymnasium while she went into the hall to make telephone calls. On February 8, 2002, Ms. Kolosey had another conference with Ms. West to discuss accusations which had been made by several students that Ms. West had been making derogatory remarks to them about their physical appearance. Ms. West denied making the comments. During the spring of 2002, the parents of one of Ms. West’s students demanded that their child be removed from Ms. West’s class for comments which Ms. West allegedly made to their child, S.B. Ms. Kolosey investigated the matter and could find no one to corroborate the allegations made by S.B. and her parents. Thus, Ms. Kolosey refused to remove the student from Ms. West’s class. The parents of S.B. continued to request that their child be removed from Ms. West’s class because S.B. had skipped Ms. West’s class, and they felt it was a result of the child having been traumatized by Ms. West’s actions. Ms. Kolosey discussed the issues concerning S.B. She specifically told Ms. West not to bring the issues up to S.B. in a negative way but to attempt to mend her relationship with S.B. On March 12, 2002, Ms. Kolosey received a telephone call from S.B.’s mother again demanding that S.B. be removed from Ms. West’s class. Ms. West had told S.B. in front of S.B.’s classmates that S.B. could not run to Ms. Kolosey about things that were said in private because she was saying it in front of the whole class. Ms. West admitted to Ms. Kolosey that she had made the remarks to S.B. Ms. Kolosey agreed to remove S.B. from Ms. West’s class. On May 16, 2002, Ms. Kolosey; Ms. West; Ms. Andrews, the principal at Azalea Middle School; and Mr. McNeil, a union representative, had a conference to discuss more allegations that Ms. West had made belittling remarks to some of her students. It was suggested to Ms. West that if she needed to discuss a student’s performance or behavior that she take the student aside rather than do it in front of other students. Ms. West was warned that her attitude needed to change and that she could not always say the first thing that came to her mind. During the last semester of the 2001-2002 school year, Ms. West’s daughter was seriously ill, and Ms. West missed a great deal of work because of her parenting responsibilities. The first semester of the 2002-2003 school year, Ms. West was absent most of the time because of her daughter’s illness. Ms. West returned to teach at Azalea Middle School in January 2003. After Ms. West’s return, complaints began to be made to the administration about inappropriate comments that Ms. West was alleged to have made during class. Ms. West denied making the comments. Again, Ms. West was cautioned to think about what she says to the students before she says it. Ms. West was under a great deal of stress during the early part of the second semester of the 2002-2003 school year because of her daughter’s illness. Her daughter passed away in March 2003. In March 2003, Ms. West received a written reprimand from the principal at Azalea Middle School for “failing to interact appropriately with students and making inappropriate remarks to students, and for insubordination in failing to follow a previous directive to refrain from such remarks.” Again, Ms. West was directed to refrain from making inappropriate remarks to students. Ms. Kolosey evaluated Ms. West for the 2002-2003 school year. Ms. West was rated ineffective for her instructional and non-instructional performance. It was noted that Ms. West’s judgment was a serious concern and that the numerous complaints which had been received regarding Ms. West’s negative interactions with students overshadowed an otherwise knowledgeable and organized classroom presentation. Ms. West appealed the evaluation, but the evaluation was upheld. Ms. West felt that Ms. Kolosey was being unfair to her and that she was taking the word of students over Ms. West’s denials. Ms. West felt that because Ms. Kolosey believed the allegations of some of the students, the students somehow felt they were empowered and made even more accusations. In order to give Ms. West another fresh start, Ms. West was transferred to sixth-grade classes for the 2003- 2004 school year. Dan Stevens was assigned as her supervisor, and Ms. Kolosey had no further dealings with complaints regarding Ms. West. Because of the evaluation which Ms. West received at the end of the 2002-2003 school year, she was given a performance improvement plan on August 12, 2003. Among other things, the plan called for Ms. West to “[a]void use of inappropriate comments to students that they may find humiliating or demeaning in nature.” Ms. West was told to “[u]se wait time before responding to students[’] inappropriate behavior” and to “[r]emember to always praise student publicly and to correct them privately.” On August 25, 2003, Mr. Stevens received an email from the Azalea Middle School sixth-grade guidance counselor, advising him that there had been a complaint by a student that Ms. West had disclosed his grade in class without his permission and that the parent of another student, E.M., had called to complain that her daughter’s grade had been revealed to the other students. E.M.’s mother also wrote a letter to Mr. Stevens regarding her allegations that Ms. West was disclosing her daughter’s grades to the class. Because E.M.’s mother felt that Ms. West was acting inappropriately, she refused to allow E.M. to attend Ms. West’s class. On October 7, 2003, a conference was held with Ms. West to discuss the allegations made by E.M.’s mother. Ms. West denied disclosing E.M.’s grade. E.M. was transferred from Ms. West’s class to another class. In late August 2005, J.T., a sixth-grader at Azalea Middle School, was transferred to Ms. West’s health class. On September 2, 2005, J.T. called his stepmother during class and handed the telephone to Ms. West so that she could talk to his stepmother. Ms. West discussed with the stepmother that J.T. had failed a test and that he had not returned the test to her with a signature of one of his parents. This conversation was held during class time and in a manner that the other students could hear Ms. West. Ms. West called L.D. about her son, T.D., during class hours to complain that T.D. was making a failing grade. L.D. could hear students in the background. Ms. West made remarks to students which were disparaging and embarrassing. One remark made by Ms. West to T.J. was, “You must have studied in the dark.” Ms. West had been talking to T.J. about his low grade on a test. T.J. said that he had studied for the test, and Ms. West responded that he must have studied in the dark. Ms. West has also made this comment to other students who had made low grades on tests. Ms. West also told T.J. in front of other classmates to “Take your grow-up pill.” T.J. is small in stature and sensitive about his size. Ms. West denied that she was making a reference to his small size and contends that she was just trying to tell him that he was acting immaturely. Although Ms. West did not intend to make fun of T.J.’s small size, she should have known that such comments could embarrass him. Ms. West made the comment, “Dumb boys make dumb babies” during her health class in the fall of 2005. She contends that she was trying to make the students aware that they should think about the consequences of the decisions that they make in life. Although Ms. West was trying to convey an appropriate message, she chose an inappropriate means to do so. At the final hearing, Ms. West stated that she had made the remark to two girls, who were discussing a particular student. In essence, she referred to the young man as being dumb, which was not appropriate. Based on the numerous complaints that the administration received about Ms. West’s behavior, the Pinellas County School Board made investigations and terminated Ms. West’s employment with the Pinellas County School Board. Both administrators and parents found that Ms. West was an ineffective teacher. Based on the numerous complaints from parents and the necessity to transfer students from Ms. West’s classes to other classes, Ms. West was an ineffective teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Ms. West guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(f), 1012.795(1)(i), and 1012.795(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.006(3)(a), 6B-1.006(3)(e), 6B-1.006(3)(g), and 6B-1.006(3)(i) and suspending Ms. West’s educator’s certificate for three years, followed by a two-year probationary period under terms and conditions set by the Education Practices Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2009.
