The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent's employment by the School Board should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert F. Ward was employed by the School Board as a teacher and was assigned to Richmond Heights Middle School, pursuant to a professional service contract. Willie Harris was the principal of Richmond Heights from 1988 to 1995. During those years, Harris gave Respondent verbal directives to follow School Board rules concerning the discipline of students. As punishment, Respondent inappropriately used excessive writing and standing and inappropriately placed students outside the classroom. Each time Respondent was warned that he was violating School Board rules in his methods of disciplining students, he would stop using those methods for a while but would then return to those methods and be warned again. Harris found it necessary to counsel Respondent every year. Principal Harris learned that Respondent responded better to male authority figures than to female authority figures. He, therefore, gave Respondent directives himself or through male administrators. Mona Bethel Jackson became the principal of Richmond Heights in July 1997. On October 2, 1998, Denise Franze, a parent, submitted a written complaint to Principal Jackson concerning Respondent's behavior at the school's Open House because Respondent appeared to be a very angry person. He spent the entire time that he met with her and other parents complaining about the school. She requested that her child be transferred out of Respondent's class. Respondent wrote her a very insulting, unprofessional response letter. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On November 17, 1998, Respondent left his class unsupervised, and two students became involved in a fight. Respondent was directed to properly supervise his class and was directed not to place any students outside his class unsupervised. At a faculty meeting on January 13, 1999, Principal Jackson reviewed School Board policies prohibiting inappropriate language/teacher conduct. At a faculty meeting on February 16, 1999, Jackson reviewed School Board procedures regarding the supervision of students. On March 26, 1999, student D. L. was being disruptive. Respondent told her to go outside the classroom. Because it was raining, D. L. refused to leave. Respondent again ordered her to go outside and called her "dumb." He then left his class unsupervised to deliver a memorandum regarding D. L.'s behavior to the school administrators. An assistant principal directed Respondent not to leave his class unsupervised. On March 30, 1999, Respondent was inside his newly- assigned portable classroom, by himself, writing on the board. An assistant principal asked Respondent where his students were, and Respondent answered that he did not know. Some of Respondent's students were found outside the portable classroom unsupervised, and others were found in the auditorium also unsupervised. Also on March 30, Respondent used the words "hell" and "damn" while aggressively reprimanding D. L., shouting at her, and shaking his fingers in her face. Respondent was reminded that School Board rules prohibit unseemly conduct and the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students. On April 1, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was conducted with Respondent to address his failure to supervise his class, his inappropriate reprimand of a student, his lack of emergency lesson plans, and related matters. As a result of the conference, Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in professional responsibilities and was provided with a prescription to address his deficiencies. The prescription was to be completed by June 16, 1999. If done properly, the prescription should have taken no more than three weeks to complete. At the conference, Respondent was also directed to follow school procedures for the removal of disruptive students from class, to not leave students unsupervised at any time, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, to prepare lesson plans each day, to replenish emergency lesson plans, and to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity. He was warned that failure to comply with these directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. Respondent was given a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. On April 22, 1999, Respondent failed to report to the media center at the conclusion of a teacher workshop as directed in writing prior to the workshop and, again, at the beginning of the workshop. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998/99 school year was unsatisfactory due to Respondent's deficiencies in the area of professional responsibility. On June 16, 1999, Respondent's prescriptive activities were deemed unacceptable because they were careless, sarcastic, and unprofessional. Respondent admits that the prescriptive work he turned in to Principal Jackson was inappropriate. Respondent did not take his prescriptive activities seriously and did not attempt to benefit from them. On June 18, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to re-do his prescriptive activities and turn them in by October 1, 1999. Because Respondent ended the school year in an unacceptable status, his salary was frozen and he was precluded from summer school employment. Respondent assigned two students to detentions to be served before school on September 15 and 16, 1999. The students arrived at approximately 7:15 a.m. both days. At 8:00 a.m., Respondent had not yet arrived to supervise them on either day. When the bell rang at 9:00 a.m. to begin the school day, Respondent was still not there. One child's grandmother, who was concerned about the children not being supervised, complained to the school administrators. September 20, 1999, was a teacher planning day. Respondent was not present during his assigned work hours, 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. An "all call" for him was made over the public address system at 9:28 a.m., which went throughout the school. Respondent did not respond. An assistant principal checked his classroom, but Respondent was not there. She was unable to locate his car in the parking lot, and he had not signed the attendance roster. When Respondent arrived at approximately 10:00 a.m., he told Principal Jackson that he was not in the building because he had stopped at Publix. At the final hearing, Respondent testified that he was probably in the wood shop working on a personal project during his work hours when the "all call" announcement was made for him. Respondent failed to complete his prescription by the October 1, 1999, deadline. A conference-for-the-record was held on that date to address parental complaints about Respondent. The complaints involved the unsupervised detentions, Respondent's requiring students to stand for almost two hours as punishment, and Respondent's requiring students to write essays as punishment. Parents also complained that Respondent punished the entire class when only one student misbehaved. Respondent admitted that he administered those punishments. Respondent was directed to refrain from having students write essays for punishment, to refrain from having students stand for punishment, to refrain from assigning detentions when students would not be supervised by Respondent, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and to follow all directives previously given to him. Since Respondent was already on prescription and had failed to complete the prescriptive activities by the October 1 deadline, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to complete his prescription by January 26, 2000. Respondent was warned that failure to comply with the directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. He was again provided with a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule. On October 13, 1999, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss complaints from three parents. The complaints were that Respondent did not give clear directions to the students, that he had humiliated a student, that he required students to write essays as punishment, and that he was assigning math as punishment to his social studies students. The parents complained that Respondent was using academics as punishment. Principal Jackson directed him to stop humiliating students, to stop intimidating students, and to provide in-class assistance. She also directed Respondent to stop assigning math and requiring students to write repetitive "lines" as punishment. She directed Respondent to correct his grading practices and to not retaliate against any students. Respondent was given copies of the letters from the parents. The math that was assigned by Respondent was not an appropriate assignment for a sixth-grade geography class. The interim progress reports Respondent gave to his students corroborate that Respondent was using essays as punishment. After the conference, Respondent informed secretarial staff that he would be absent the next day, which was the day of the school's open house. Teachers have a contractual requirement to attend the school's open house. Respondent was not absent as a result of an illness or an emergency; rather, he simply decided to take a personal holiday on that day. On October 19, 1999, Respondent responded to a parental complaint with a letter that was unprofessional, demeaning, and insulting. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system. On October 29, 1999, Respondent was directed to report for a conference-for-the-record in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards on November 4, 1999. On November 2, 1999, Respondent attended a round-table discussion with a counselor, the parents of a student, the student, and all of that student's teachers. Respondent was abrasive to the student, loud, and intimidating. The student, who was communicative and comfortable before Respondent arrived at the meeting, was uncomfortable and would not speak while Respondent was present. After Respondent arrived, the student "clammed up," and his eyes "teared up." The next day, the student's father brought a letter to school reciting what had happened at the meeting and requesting that the student be transferred out of Respondent's class. The father and Respondent encountered each other in the school office, and Respondent invited the father to his classroom. While there, Respondent asked the father which grade the father wanted him to change. The father was surprised at Respondent's offer and explained to Respondent that he only wanted his son to get the grades his son deserved. On November 4, 1999, Respondent requested to leave school for a dental emergency. Since his conference-for-the- record was scheduled for that day, an assistant principal directed Respondent to submit documentation from his dentist to her or to the principal's secretary. Respondent failed to follow this directive in a timely fashion. Respondent was subsequently directed to comply with all directives given by his immediate supervisors. At Respondent's request, the conference-for-the-record was re-scheduled for November 9, and Respondent was directed to attend. Respondent did not attend the November 9 conference, which was scheduled to discuss his non-compliance with site directives, his performance assessment, parental complaints, and student complaints. As a result of the conference-for-the- record, which consisted of a review of Respondent's file, Respondent was directed to comply with the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, to provide an educational environment free from harassment and intimidation for all students, to not intimidate staff and faculty members, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to use specific grading practices. He was warned that non-compliance with these directives could lead to further disciplinary measures. Respondent was provided with another copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule, the Code of Ethics, and the School Board's violence in the workplace rule. On December 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to review his performance assessments and future employment status. Respondent was reminded that he was in his second year of unacceptable performance status, which if not remedied, could lead to termination of his employment. He was also directed to comply with the directives previously given to him by the Office of Professional Standards. He was warned that non-compliance with the directives could result in disciplinary measures. Respondent failed to comply with his prescriptive activities by January 26, 2000. On February 7, 2000, at 3:39 p.m., Principal Jackson directed Respondent to submit his prescriptive activities directly to her within 24 hours. This directive was reasonable since the Principal had repeatedly directed Respondent to complete his prescriptive activities since April 1999. Respondent refused to sign that he had received a copy of the memorandum memorializing this directive even after being directed to sign it. On February 8 Respondent did not come to work. Another teacher gave Respondent's prescriptive activities to the principal's secretary after 5:00 p.m. The principal did not accept the activities because neither of her directives had been followed: the prescriptive activities were not given directly to her, and they were turned in late. On February 17, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with prescriptive deadlines and to review his record and his future employment status. Respondent was reminded that if his deficiencies were not remedied, he could lose his job. Respondent was told that his failure to comply with the directives concerning his prescription was considered gross insubordination. Respondent was directed to place his prescriptive activities in the principal's hand by 12:30 p.m. the next day, February 18. He was warned that non-compliance would result in further disciplinary action. Respondent was absent from work on February 18, 2000, and did not attempt to give the documents to his principal until February 24 at 3:30 p.m. His principal refused to accept the package because it was so overdue. On February 28, 2000, Respondent was directed to report to a conference-for-the-record at the Office of Professional Standards at 9:00 a.m. on March 14, 2000. On March 13, 2000, Respondent was accused of battery and administering physically-demanding punishments to students. The investigation revealed that Respondent was still using inappropriate punishment and profanity with his students. The incidents described in paragraphs numbered 40-48 below were discovered. On March 2, 2000, Respondent called A. W. a "dummy," told him to "shut up," and ordered him to pull a heavy cylinder across the physical education field. The cylinder is a piece of equipment that is pulled by a tractor and used to flatten pavement. A. W. tried but could not comply. He was crying when he went to the school office, complaining that his hands hurt. Respondent ordered other students to pull or push the cylinder as punishment. Respondent also ordered students to push volleyball poles, or standards, which have tires filled with cement at the bottom. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to administering this punishment one time. Respondent also ordered students to walk or run on the physical education field. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to ordering students to walk to the far fence. Respondent ordered students to do "push-ups." At the final hearing, Respondent admitted he used "push-ups" as punishment at the election of the student in lieu of other discipline. Respondent ordered his students to move rocks located around his portable classroom. Respondent called the students derogatory names, such as "stupid," "dumb, dumber, and dumbest," and "imbecile." He told them to "shut up." In speaking with a security monitor, Respondent referred to one of his students as "a piece of shit." Respondent required his students to write essays and repetitive "lines" as punishment, which he admitted at the final hearing. He made his students stand for lengthy periods of time as punishment. At the final hearing, Respondent asserted that he only made them stand for 30-45 minutes. Respondent claims he was sending his students to "time-out" on the physical education field. Even if true, sending the students to the physical education field is not an appropriate time-out. It is humiliating and demeaning to the students, the students were not properly supervised, the students were not being educated, and the students were at risk of injury. The procedure for disciplining students at Richmond Heights was to counsel the student after the first violation, make contact with the parents after the second violation, and write a referral to the administrators after the third time. The School Board does not permit the physical punishment of students. On March 14, 2000, Respondent was two hours late for the scheduled conference-for-the-record. By the time he arrived, the other participants had left. He was directed to report for a re-scheduled conference at the Office of Professional Standards on March 27, 2000. On March 27, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with site directives regarding prescription deadlines, student discipline, violation of the Code of Ethics and of professional responsibilities, violation of School Board rules, and his future employment status. Respondent was directed to comply with all previously-issued directives, to refrain from retaliating against students and staff, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to comply with all School Board rules, the Code of Ethics, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. On May 15, 2000, Principal Jackson observed Respondent outside of his classroom, with his back to his class, talking on the telephone. The class was noisy. No one was supervising his students. He was again directed not to leave his classes unsupervised. On May 22, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address the pending action by the School Board to take dismissal action at its meeting of June 21, 2000. On June 21, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay and initiated this dismissal proceeding against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges, affirming Respondent's suspension without pay, and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board effective June 21, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Stewart Lee Karlin, Esquire 400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912 Miami, Florida 33132 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Jesse M. Black, was employed in an instructional capacity teaching mathematics at Nautilus Junior High School in Miami Beach, Florida, by Petitioner, the School Board of Dade County. He has been employed at that school since 1976. On or about March 28, 1979, Black was teaching a mathematics class in which one Bobby Jackson, aged 12 years, was a student. After the "tardy" bell had rung, Jackson entered the classroom. Instead of being seated Jackson went directly to the rear of the room and began "yelling" and "playing" with other students. After being told by Black to be seated all other students except Jackson sat down; however, Jackson continued to remain in the rear of the room to borrow a sheet of paper. He then started towards his desk which was at the front of the room and directly in front of Respondent's desk. By this time, Black was approximately 10 minutes late in beginning classroom instruction. In order to prevent any more disruption in the classroom, Black told Jackson to leave the room and reached over and placed his hands on Jackson to escort him to the hall where an assistant principal would take him to the principal's office. When Black placed his hands on the student, Jackson slipped and fell over his desk; however, Black did not use unreasonable force in dealing with the student. Jackson was later suspended from Nautilus for fighting and other disciplinary problems and new attends an Opportunity School in Dade County. On or about November 13, 1980, Black went to his classroom at approximately 6:45 a.m. to prepare an examination to be given that day to his students. At approximately 7:45 a.m. one Nicholas Catania, aged 13 years, entered the classroom. Because class did not begin until 8:30 a.m., Black advised him that he could remain in the classroom to study but otherwise would have to leave. After Catania had placed another student's books on top of a light fixture, Black tapped him on the shoulder and told him to leave the classroom. When class convened at 8:30 a.m. that morning and the Pledge of Allegiance was being conducted, Catania gave a Nazis Salute which prompted laughter in the classroom. After the Pledge of Allegiance was over Black went to Catania, grabbed him on the shoulder, and told him that what the Nazis did was not to be glorified. In the presence of four students, Black then pulled a closed pocketknife out of his pocket, placed it behind Catania's leg, and then replaced it in his pocket. When he did this, he was smiling and did not make the student feel threatened or in danger of physical harm. At no time was the blade on the knife ever opened or exposed. Black has been a public school teacher since September, 1957. His speciality is mathematics and he holds two degrees. His immediate supervisor characterized him as being a dedicated and well-prepared teacher. He was also described by another teacher as having an extensive educational preparation and one who possessed the skills to be a good teacher. Black has had an undisclosed number of problems with discipline in his classroom. He has also been counseled by his principal on several occasions at Nautilus concerning his management skills. However, there was no evidence to show that his effectiveness as a teacher had been impaired by virtue of the incidents herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of the allegations in the Notice of Charges dated March 7, 1981, and that he be immediately reinstated be his teaching position with full back pay. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire 3650 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33137 William Du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to suspend for 30 workdays, without pay, a paraprofessional for just cause based upon the allegation that he kicked an autistic student and struck the student with an umbrella.
Findings Of Fact Background The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Robert Blanc ("Blanc") had worked in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for more than 20 years. During the 2006-07 school year, and at all times relevant to this case, Blanc was employed as a therapeutic paraprofessional at South Miami Senior High School, where he provided educational services to students with disabilities. The alleged incident giving rise to this case occurred on Friday, October 12, 2007. The School Board alleges that on that date, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Blanc kicked an autistic student named C. R. in the leg, and then used his umbrella to strike C. R. on the arm. This allegation is based on the accusations of two purported eyewitness (hereafter, collectively, the "Accusers")——Julie Ann Rodriguez and Nemy Aimable——both of whom were (and as of the final hearing continued to be) education paraprofessionals working at South Miami Senior High School. Blanc consistently has maintained his innocence, denying that he kicked or struck C. R. as charged. Moreover, he claims——and testified at hearing——that C. R. kicked him, and that he (Blanc) then used verbal commands to redirect C. R. and get the student to sit down, thereby protecting himself and others. This case boils down to a credibility contest between the Accusers and Blanc. If the Accusers' account is truthful and accurate, then Blanc is guilty of at least one of the charges against him and should be disciplined. On the other hand, if Blanc's account is believed, then he is not guilty of misconduct. Given that the credibility determination drives the outcome, the undersigned will first, as a predicate to evaluating the evidence, set forth the competing accounts of the incident in question, and then make determinations, to the extent possible, as to what might have happened. It is important to note, however, that unless otherwise specifically stated, the findings in the next two sections merely report what the respective witnesses said occurred; these do not necessarily correspond to the undersigned's findings about what likely took place on October 12, 2007. The Accusers' Story While the respective accounts of Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable concerning the incident in question differ as to some nontrivial details, they agree on the big picture. Their story begins at about 2:30 on a Friday afternoon. The Accusers were on "bus duty," as were other staff members, as was Blanc. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable were sitting next to one another on a wall or ledge overlooking a field of grass that lay between them and the road where a line a buses stood waiting for children to clamber aboard. This was a busy time of day, and many people were moving about the bus loading area. Sitting on the long wall with the Accusers were a number of other school employees——at least 25 teachers and aides in all, maybe more, Ms. Rodriguez recalled (and the undersigned finds). Blanc, however, was not sitting on the wall; he was standing on the grass, among the students. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable were engaged in conversation, when suddenly each noticed Blanc——who was located about 10 feet in front of them——kick C. R. on the leg and strike the student with an umbrella across the upper body. Ms. Rodriguez recalls that C. R. was sitting down on a ledge, near other faculty members, when Blanc attacked. Mr. Aimable, in contrast, remembers C. R. standing in the grass when Blanc struck. According to Ms. Rodriguez, Blanc yelled at C. R., threatening to "beat up" the student if C. R. ever hit Blanc again. Mr. Aimable does not recall Blanc making such a threat, although he vaguely remembers Blanc uttering something about not letting C. R. get away with hitting him. By their own admissions, which are accepted as credible and found as fact, neither of the Accusers saw anything that transpired between Blanc and C. R. before the alleged battery. The altercation upset Ms. Rodriguez, and she began to cry. She and Mr. Aimable continued talking——but not about the battery they had just witnessed. It is undisputed that neither of them made any attempt to protect C. R. or other students from Blanc; nor did they examine C. R. for injuries or offer any assistance.1 No one else did either. Apparently none of the other staff members on the scene saw Blanc attack C. R., and the Accusers (it is found, again based on undisputed evidence) did not mention to anyone sitting near them on the wall the remarkable event they had seen. About ten minutes later, the Accusers rose from the wall and walked to the office, where they would "sign out" for the day. Blanc's Testimony Blanc, who was on bus duty the afternoon of Friday, October 12, 2007, was standing in the middle of the grassy area near the buses, chatting with another teacher, when he felt a sharp pain in his lower right leg. C. R. had just kicked him hard, without warning, and was now pressing very close, invading his personal space. C. R. is a special education student who has been diagnosed with autism. He is reportedly nonverbal. (C. R. did not appear at the final hearing.) It is an undisputed fact that C. R. has a history of violent and assaultive behavior: he has injured teachers and once broke a bus driver's nose; in addition, he hurt a student by striking her in the stomach. Also material are the undisputed facts that C. R. is an adult- sized male who, at the time of the incident, was 17 years old, stood approximately six feet tall, and weighed about 200 pounds. Blanc, who is blind in one eye, was taken by surprise when C. R. attacked him. Though his hands were full——Blanc was holding a collapsible umbrella in one hand and a coffee mug in the other——he raised his arms to protect his face, yelled at C. R. to sit down, and began backing C. R. toward the ledge, where he could be seated. This approach worked. C. R. sat down, and the situation was defused. At this point, Isidro Alfonso, who is C. R.'s one-on-one paraprofessional, took charge of C. R. Blanc immediately reported to his supervisor, Yvette Williams, that C. R. had kicked him. Ms. Williams was (and as of the final hearing continued to be) a special education teacher at South Miami Senior High School. She, too, was on bus duty that day but had arrived on the scene after the incident took place. Blanc told Ms. Williams that he was going home to put ice on his ankle, which hurt. Ms. Williams saw no need to report the incident because C. R. was known to lash out at teachers and others. Blanc, for his part, declined to make a formal report out of concern for Mr. Alfonso, who, he felt certain, would be disciplined for inattentiveness if the matter were brought to the attention of the administration. Resolutions of Evidential Conflict The competing accounts of what occurred are sufficiently in conflict that both cannot simultaneously be considered fully accurate. The fact-finder's dilemma is that neither account——the Accusers' on the one hand, Blanc's on the other——is inherently incredible, impossible, or patently a fabrication; neither, in short, can be readily or easily dismissed as false. Of course, it is not the School Board's burden to prove to a certainty that its allegations are true, but only that its allegations are most likely true. As the fact-finder, the undersigned therefore must consider how likely it is that the incident took place as described by the respective witnesses. In evaluating the credibility of the witnesses who testified against Blanc, the undersigned has considered the relationship that existed between Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable, as well as their post-incident conduct. As mentioned above, after the incident, the Accusers walked to the office together, arriving at about 2:45 p.m. At some point, they agreed to report what they had observed, namely that Blanc had physically attacked a disabled student. Yet, once the two were in the office, they decided that it was "too busy" there——and so, rather than waiting to be seen, they left after at most ten minutes, without telling anyone in authority that Blanc had (at least as they understood the situation) committed a battery on a minor. This impatience seems a bit strange, given the circumstances. The undersigned supposes that a reasonable school employee, having witnessed an incident as serious as the one the Accusers claim to have seen, would have been insistent about speaking to someone in the administration about it. That the Accusers lacked such persistence does not completely discredit them, but it does raise doubts about their veracity. Leaving the office, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable walked to the parking lot, got into Ms. Rodriguez's car, and drove off the premises together, around three o'clock. This was not unusual for them: they carpooled to work. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable were not, in other words, merely co-workers; they were co-workers who spent off-duty time together. The Accusers made two stops on the way home that day, to pick up Ms. Rodriguez's children from their respective schools. Ms. Rodriguez then dropped off Mr. Aimable at his place. By that time, it was about 3:35 p.m. At home, Mr. Aimable continued to stew about the incident, he says, and after about an hour, around 4:30, he called Ms. Rodriguez to ask that she pick him up and return with him to the school to report the matter. According to Mr. Aimable, Ms. Rodriguez assented; she arrived at his residence around 4:50 p.m. From there, they proceeded to the school, where they eventually found an assistant principal, Ms. Tudor. It was now around 5:30 Friday evening, some three hours after the alleged event. Each of the Accusers prepared for Ms. Tudor a written statement about the incident. According to Mr. Aimable, this process took until about 6:45 p.m., at which time the Accusers went home. Later Friday night, at a homecoming dance, Ms. Tudor notified the school's principal, Gilberto Bonce, about the complaint made earlier against Blanc; she also let him know that the Accusers' statements were on his desk. Mr. Bonce took no action that night, however, nor did he do anything in reference to alleged incident over the weekend or during the following Monday, October 15. Curiously, in view of the possibility (if the Accusers were believed) that one of his staff might have committed a crime against a student, Mr. Bonce did not report the matter to the school police until Tuesday, October 16, 2007. All in all, the circumstances——especially the following——give the undersigned reasons to discount the Accusers' testimonies. The failure of Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable to take any immediate action at the scene of the incident not only is inconsistent with their claim to have seen Blanc beat C. R., but also it ensured that there would be no better evidence than their eyewitness accounts of a sudden and unexpected, fast-moving event whose duration can be measured in seconds. Had the Accusers gone to the aid of C. R., as a reasonable, responsible adult in their position should have done, they could have examined him for injuries. If Blanc had given C. R. a hard kick in the leg and struck him with an umbrella, the blows likely would have left at least a red mark somewhere on the student's body. Mr. Aimable, for example, could have studied such a mark or welt, not for a moment, but long enough to form a firm, lasting impression, one less subject to misinterpretation or distortion than the mental image left behind after catching a fleeting glimpse of activity that occurred unexpectedly in his field of vision, while focused on something else. Testimony about such an injury would have been compelling. But there was none. The Accusers' decision not to report the incident immediately because it was too "busy" in the office is inconsistent with the gravity of the alleged misconduct. But more than that, because Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Aimable left the premises together before telling anyone about what they claim they saw, the two had ample opportunity to talk privately for a couple of hours——plenty of time to "get their story straight." One does not need to believe that the Accusers consciously intended to harm Blanc to realize that their discussing the incident (which they must have done——after all, they returned to the school on a Friday evening to make a report about it) likely helped them reach a consensus about what had happened, potentially corrupting their memories in the process. The Accusers' respective accounts are not, at bottom, independent accounts, and may, in fact, be dependent on one another.2 Indeed, in this case, one eyewitness might have been more persuasive than these two. Finally, it is significant that, while the incident took place in full view of more than two dozen responsible adults, not one of them intervened——and no one (besides the Accusers) even saw the altercation. To be sure, these facts cut both ways: nobody saw C. R. kick Blanc or intervened to help him either. Nevertheless, as between the competing scenarios, it seems more likely that C. R. was the attacker, rather than the other way around, for at least two reasons. First, C. R. had a history of assaultive behavior whereas Blanc did not. Second, if Blanc were inclined to hit C. R., he likely would have refrained from doing so in broad daylight before an audience of his peers. C. R., on the other hand, being severely autistic and physically aggressive in nature, would not likely have been deterred by the presence of witnesses. Taken as a whole, the evidence is insufficient to establish that, more likely than not, Blanc struck C. R. as alleged. Based on the evidence, the undersigned believes that, as between the two scenarios presented, the incident more likely occurred as Blanc described it; in other words, relative to Accusers' account, Blanc's is more likely true. Accordingly, the undersigned accepts and adopts, as findings of historical fact, the statements made in paragraphs 12 through 15 above. The upshot is that the School Board failed to carry its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Blanc committed a disciplinable offense. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Blanc is guilty of the offense of violating the School Board's policy against violence and threatening behavior in the workplace. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Blanc is guilty of the offense of unseemly conduct. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that Blanc is guilty of violating the School Board's Code of Ethics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order exonerating Blanc of all charges brought against him in this proceeding and awarding him the back pay, plus benefits if any, which accrued while he served the previously imposed suspension of 30 workdays. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 2009.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend without pay and terminate Respondent’s employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a music teacher at Manatee Academy K-8 School (“Manatee”), pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent’s employment with the School Board as a teacher began in 2006. At all times material hereto, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law and the School Board’s policies. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent was not the subject of any discipline. She had received overall ratings of “Exceptional” or “Above Expectation” on her teaching evaluation forms. The incidents giving rise to this proceeding occurred on October 18 and 19, 2012, during the 2012-2013 school year. October 18 and 19 Respondent awoke around 6:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 18, 2012, and reported to work at Manatee. That afternoon, Respondent finished her work day at Manatee and left the school sometime after 3:15 p.m. After running some errands, Respondent arrived at her single-family residential home in Fort Pierce, sometime after 5:00 p.m. Respondent shared the home with her long-time boyfriend and fiancé, Dominic Madison (“Madison”). Madison was also a teacher employed by the School Board. At that time, Madison was a band director at a local high school. By the time Respondent got home, Madison had not yet returned home from his work day at the high school. Shortly after arriving home, Respondent sat down at her personal laptop computer to check e-mails and do some work. The computer was connected to the home’s wi-fi network. While working on the computer, Respondent discovered an unfamiliar icon and link to a file on the home network. The icon peaked Respondent’s interest. Upon clicking on the icon, a video opened with Madison’s face. Respondent then observed Madison and a white female engaged in sexual activity in a room inside their home.1/ While Respondent was unsure, it appeared that the female might be a former student of Madison’s who might also be a minor. As she continued watching the video, Respondent recognized the female as one of Madison’s 17-year-old students, K.M. After watching the video, Respondent was devastated, upset, angry, and unable to process what she saw. She called Madison at 6:36 p.m., to confront him about the video and confirm her suspicions that he, in fact, engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. They spoke for approximately 36 minutes. During the call, they argued, and Madison neither admitted nor denied engaging in sexual activity with K.M. By this point, Respondent was in tears and so upset and completely devastated that she experienced chest pains. After getting off the phone with Madison and while still at home, Respondent called her pastor, Theodore Sanders, for guidance. They spoke around 7:13 p.m., for approximately 14 minutes. Pastor Sanders knew Madison because his children had been members of the band at Madison’s high school. Pastor Sanders was shocked by Respondent’s allegation that Madison had engaged in sexual activity with a minor student. Due to the ramifications of such a “huge allegation,” Pastor Sanders was cautious and wanted to make sure that Respondent was certain about what she saw on the video. It is understandable that Respondent needed some period of time in which to process the situation, given that Madison was her fiancé; they had a long relationship together; and she observed Madison on her personal computer engaging in sexual activity with a minor student in their home. Sometime after 7:30 p.m., Respondent left the home. At 7:26 p.m., Respondent and Madison spoke again on the phone for approximately 38 minutes. Respondent and Pastor Sanders spoke again on the phone at 8:03 p.m. and 8:45 p.m., with such calls lasting one minute and 10 minutes, respectively. In the interim, Respondent spoke again on the phone with Madison for 43 minutes starting at 8:03 p.m. As a teacher, Respondent is a mandatory reporter of child abuse under sections 39.201(2)(a) and 1006.061(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent clearly understood that she had a mandatory obligation to report the sexual activity she saw on the video between Madison and K.M.2/ Respondent and Pastor Sanders discussed the need to report what Respondent saw. There was never any doubt that the abuse needed to be reported. Because of Respondent’s distraught emotional state at the time, they agreed that Pastor Sanders would make the call. Pastor Sanders told Respondent to get off the road and go home. Pastor Sanders then called “911” at some point after they got off the phone at 8:55 p.m., to report the abuse. At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged that there was almost a four-hour gap from when she first saw the video until the time that Pastor Sanders stated he was going to report the abuse. Respondent further acknowledged that prior to 8:55 p.m., she had never made a phone call to report the abuse to 911, DCF, or her principal. However, given that Respondent had just recently seen a video on her personal computer of her fiancé engaged in sexual activity with a minor female student in their home, it was understandable that Respondent needed time to process the situation. A less than four-hour delay from when Respondent first saw the video to Pastor Sanders’ call to 911 was immediate, and not an unreasonable delay given the unique facts of this case. Sometime before 10:00 p.m., Respondent returned to her residence. She saw Madison’s vehicle and assumed he was inside the home. According to Respondent, she knew the police were on their way. Respondent nevertheless entered the home, but she did not approach Madison in any manner. At approximately 10:00 p.m., two St. Lucie County Sheriff’s deputies arrived at the home and rang the doorbell at the front door. Madison answered the door, and was told by one of the deputies that they were there to talk to Respondent. The officer asked Respondent to step outside to speak with them and Madison was directed to step back. Madison then went back inside the home and closed the door behind him. One of the deputies remained at the front porch area while Respondent and the other deputy began to discuss what Respondent had seen on the video. At this point, one of the deputies requested to see the video so Respondent and the deputies proceeded to attempt to go back inside the front door. However, they discovered that Madison had locked the door behind him when he re-entered the home. By this point, no law enforcement officer had explored the perimeter of the home to determine whether there were any other entrances or exists from the home. Nor was Respondent asked by either deputy if there were any other entrances or exits from the home. Respondent began ringing the doorbell and knocking on the front door. In the midst of Respondent ringing the doorbell, knocking on the door, and receiving no response from Madison, the deputies asked Respondent, for the first time, if there were any guns in the home and any other entrances and exits. Respondent advised the deputies that there was a back door. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison had snuck out the back door of the home to elude law enforcement. Respondent gave the deputies permission to enter and search the home. They entered through the open back door. Once the house was cleared by the officers, Respondent and the officers went inside the home. Respondent was cooperative during the search of the home and she consented to allowing the officers to look at the computer. Respondent attempted to show one of the deputies what she saw on the computer, but nothing would come up. Ultimately, it was determined that Madison took the evidence with him when he fled the home. When officers went into the front office and wanted to collect some items belonging to Madison, Respondent told the officers that she would prefer if they got a search warrant. The officers obtained a search warrant and stayed all night searching the home until approximately 5:00 a.m. Respondent did not sleep or eat while the officers were at the home and she was visibly “shaken-up” and crying at times during the evening and early morning hours of October 19. Detective Wentz was at the home and spoke with Respondent throughout the night and early morning of October 19. At some point, Detective Wentz “flat out asked” Respondent if she knew where Madison was located. Respondent responded, indicating she did not know where he fled to. Detective Wentz made it clear to Respondent on multiple occasions during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 that if she knew Madison’s whereabouts, she should let him know. Before he left the home on the morning of October 19, Detective Wentz reiterated to Respondent that she needed to contact law enforcement immediately if she had any information about Madison’s whereabouts. Respondent clearly understood this directive. At no time during the evening of October 18 and early morning of October 19 did Respondent ever volunteer information as to where she thought Madison might be. On the other hand, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not know of Madison’s whereabouts at any time during the evening of October 18 and early hours of October 19 after he fled the home. However, by 11:45 a.m., on October 19, Respondent discovered that Madison might be staying at the local Holiday Inn Express, based on information she received from Madison’s father. Respondent called the front desk of the hotel at 11:47 a.m. and 12:01 p.m., in an effort to confirm that Madison was indeed at the Holiday Inn. Respondent and Madison spoke at 12:09 p.m., at which time Respondent knew Madison was still at the hotel, about to check-out of the hotel. At no time between 11:47 a.m. and 1:39 p.m., did Respondent make any calls to law enforcement to let them know that Madison might be at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz was at Respondent’s home before 1:39 p.m. However, Respondent failed to inform Master Deputy Horowitz that Madison was at the Holiday Inn. Master Deputy Horowitz specifically asked Respondent if she knew where Madison was. Respondent responded, stating that she “did not know where his whereabouts were at the time.” Respondent spoke with Master Deputy Horowitz by telephone on two or three occasions later that afternoon. Respondent’s testimony that she told Master Deputy during one of these telephone conversations that Madison had been at the Holiday Inn is not credited and is rejected as unpersuasive. Later that afternoon, Respondent was transported to the Sheriff’s Office for an interview. During the interview, Respondent admitted she failed to inform law enforcement that Respondent had been staying at the Holiday Inn: DETECTIVE NORMAN: I know you’ve talked to several detectives throughout yesterday evening, last night, this morning, this afternoon. Probably seen more faces that you want to see. Here’s--here’s what we’re trying to figure out, where your fiancé is. Do you know where he is? MISS THOMAS: And I understand that. And like I told the officers that came to the home, it was information that was left out. And it truly was not intentional. I know the way it looked, intentionally, it made me look bad, but I honestly do not know where he is. At the time when I did speak to him, he told me that’s where he was, that he was leaving that location so I haven’t a clue. He hasn’t contacted me since the last time I spoke with him today. * * * And I mean, I’m disappointed because I made a mistake. I did. I omitted something that I didn’t realize at the time and I don’t know if it was, you know, just, you know, just did it just because I guess deep down I was maybe trying--you know, I don’t know why I didn’t say, “Oh yea, by the way this.” I don’t know why. That was so stupid. Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, pp. 5-7. Following the interview, Respondent was placed under arrest and charged with one felony count of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, Florida Statutes, and one felony count of being an accessory after the fact, in violation of section 777.03(1)(c), Florida Statutes. After Respondent was arrested, she was placed on temporary duty assignment at home with pay. On Monday, October 22, Respondent self-reported her arrest and the abuse of K.M. by Madison to her principal and the District. Subsequently, the State Attorney charged Respondent in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for the felony charges of failing to report child abuse in violation of sections 39.201(1)(b) and 39.205, and for the felony charge of being an accessory after the fact in violation of section 777.03(1)(c). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing establishes that Respondent did not call Madison while he was at the Holiday Inn Express to warn him so that he could elude arrest. Nevertheless, Respondent knew Madison was at the Holiday Inn at least by 12:09 p.m. on October 19, when she spoke to Madison on the telephone. Respondent failed to inform law enforcement that he was at the Holiday Inn, or that he had been at the Holiday Inn, until her interview at the Sheriff’s office later that afternoon just prior to her arrest. After a 23-hour manhunt, law enforcement officers found and arrested Madison at the Holiday Inn Express around 7:00 p.m. Respondent’s delay in informing law enforcement of Madison’s whereabouts or that he had been at the Holiday Inn Express delayed his arrest by at most, approximately seven hours. Notably, the video was discovered by Respondent, reported by Respondent to law enforcement, and Madison was arrested, within the span of approximately 25 or 26 hours. Ultimately, it was Respondent who identified the victims of Madison’s crimes. It was Respondent’s discovery of the video, her immediate reporting of the abuse, and her later identification of the victims, which led to Madison’s arrest and his conviction on all charges. The State Attorney charged Madison in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit with 40 counts of criminal activity: 34 felony charges of sexual activity with a minor; five felony charges of sexual battery on a child in custodial relationship; and one felony charge of using a child in a sexual performance. On April 1, 2016, Madison was adjudicated guilty on five counts of sexual activity with a minor. Madison was sentenced to 15 years, consecutive, for each count. On August 7, 2013, Respondent pled no contest to both charges. On the plea form, Respondent checked section 25, which states: “I specifically believe the plea is in my best interest even though I am innocent of the charge, charges, or violations, or may have defenses to them.” After Madison was adjudicated guilty, all criminal charges against Respondent were Nolle Prossed. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 5.056(2)(d) or (e). The evidence does not establish that Respondent engaged in behavior that disrupted a student’s learning environment or reduced her ability or his or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform duties. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The evidence does not establish that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health. Indeed, Respondent protected students from any further abuse by Madison. Respondent is responsible for Madison’s abuse of K.M. being brought to the attention of law enforcement immediately after she observed the video on her personal computer. Within about four hours after observing her fiancé engaging in sexual activity with a minor on her personal computer and processing the situation and speaking with her pastor, the matter was reported to 911, and law enforcement arrived at Respondent’s home. Madison was at the home when the deputies arrived. Notably, the deputies who arrived at Respondent’s home did not ask to speak with Madison first. Instead, they asked to speak with Respondent, and Respondent was asked to step outside the home. Madison, the alleged perpetrator of the sexual abuse, was ordered by one of the deputies to go back inside the home. Knowing full well that the suspect, Madison, went back inside the home through the front door, neither deputy undertook any efforts to determine whether Madison might have an escape route through another door. A perimeter was not established until after law enforcement officers discovered that Madison had fled the home. Respondent cooperated with law enforcement while they were at her home. She cooperated fully in the prosecution of Madison and she was instrumental in securing Madison’s criminal conviction for the abuse. Given the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s failure to inform law enforcement during the afternoon of October 19 of Madison’s whereabouts at the Holiday Inn, which delayed the arrest of Madison by seven hours, at most, does not rise to the level of conduct sufficient to support a finding of guilt in violation of rule 6B-1.006(3)(a). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated rule 6B-1.006(3)(n). Respondent reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when Pastor Sanders called 911. She also reported the abuse to appropriate authorities when deputies arrived at her home. Respondent also self-reported the incident to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent is guilty of immorality in violation of rule 6A-5.056(1). Insufficient credible and persuasive evidence was adduced at hearing to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, and that the conduct was sufficiently notorious so as to disgrace or bring disrespect to Respondent or the teaching profession and impair Respondent’s service in the community. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 5.37(8)(a). Respondent “directly” reported her knowledge of Madison’s abuse of K.M. as required by the policy when Pastor Sanders called 911 within four hours of Respondent’s view of the video. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b). As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(viii), Respondent did not engage in immoral conduct, nor was it shown that Respondent’s conduct was “indecent.” As to Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx), the School Board failed to prove that Respondent engaged in off-duty conduct that does not promote the good will and favorable attitude of the public toward the School District, its programs, and policies. In reaching this conclusion, it is notable that the School Board did not call any members of the public or any administrators, teachers, or other personnel as witnesses to support this claim. Moreover, the School Board does not argue in its proposed recommended order that it proved that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). Paragraphs 71 through 73 refer to another specific subdivision within Policy 6.301(3)(b), 6.301(3)(b)(viii). However, there is no specific argument that Respondent violated Policy 6.301(3)(b)(xxx). The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing fails to establish that Respondent violated Policy 6.94(2)(a). As detailed above, Respondent reported the abuse when Pastor Sanders called 911. Respondent also reported the incident to the deputies when they arrived at her home shortly after Pastor Sanders called 911, and when she self-reported the abuse to her principal and the District on the following Monday, October 22.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board enter a final order rescinding Respondent’s suspension without pay and termination, and reinstate her with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2017.
The Issue In DOAH Case No. 97-5828, the issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 1998, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed. In DOAH Case No. 98-2387, the issue is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges dated July 30, 1998, and, if so, whether he should be dismissed from employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the county and to "provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees" of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1997). The Department of Education is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints against teachers holding Florida teachers' certificates for violations of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes. Section 231.262, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Sections 231.261(7)(b) and 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, the Educational Practices Commission is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set forth in Section 231.28(1). Richard V. Powell holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 585010, which covers the subjects of journalism and English- as-a-Second-Language ("ESOL"). His teacher's certificate has an expiration date of June 30, 1999. Mr. Powell was first employed as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County public school system in August 1985. From 1989 through August 1996, Mr. Powell was assigned to Jose Marti Middle School as an ESOL teacher; in August 1996, he was assigned to John F. Kennedy Middle School ("JFK Middle School") as an ESOL teacher; in August 1997, he was given a new assignment as the facilitator of JFK Middle School's School Center for Special Instruction. On November 26, 1997, Mr. Powell was temporarily assigned to the Region II office. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Powell was employed by the School Board under a professional service contract. November 1995 incident On the evening of November 19, 1995, at around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m., Mr. Powell was driving his Ford Bronco on Pembroke Road in Broward County, Florida. Mr. Powell's fourteen-year-old son was sitting in the front passenger seat, and he and his father began arguing about his school behavior and progress and about his failure to do his chores around the house. Mr. Powell became angry and punched his son in the mouth with his fist and then pulled the Bronco off the street, into a vacant lot. Mr. Powell got out of the Bronco, walked around the back of the vehicle to the door on the passenger's side, opened the door, and pulled his son out of the vehicle. After the child was outside the vehicle, Mr. Powell punched his son once in the face and, when the child fell to the ground, Mr. Powell kicked him at least once in the ribs. 8/ The child broke away and ran to a convenience store about twenty-five yards from the vacant lot, where a witness to the incident had already called the police. When he arrived at the convenience store, the child was sobbing and holding his side; blood was pouring from his lip. 9/ After the altercation with his son, Mr. Powell was not feeling well and, believing that his son had run the short distance to his home, Mr. Powell drove home. He waited a few minutes for his son and then walked from his home to Pembroke Road. He saw his son, a police car, and an ambulance at the convenience store, and he walked up to the police officers and identified himself as the child's father. Mr. Powell's son was taken to the hospital and treated and released with a split lip and a bruise in the area of his ribs. Mr. Powell was taken to the Pembroke Pines, Florida, police station. Mr. Powell is a diabetic, and, while he was at the police station, he asked to be examined by a doctor because he did not feel well. He was taken to the hospital, where he remained for about an hour. After his release from the hospital, Mr. Powell was arrested and charged with child abuse. On July 29, 1996, after a bench trial on child abuse charges, the court found Mr. Powell guilty but withheld adjudication, sentenced him to six months' probation, and required him to complete a parent counseling course. 10/ Mr. Powell successfully completed the course in December 1996 and was released early from probation on January 8, 1997. In August 1996, Mr. Powell was transferred from Jose Marti Middle School to JFK Middle School, where Raymond Fontana was principal. In a letter dated August 1, 1996, Seth A. Levine, an assistant state attorney in Broward County, Florida, notified the superintendent of the Miami-Dade County public school system that Mr. Powell had been tried on the charge of child abuse, and he advised the superintendent of the resolution of the case. The letter was forwarded to James E. Monroe, who was at the time an Executive Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, who reviewed the letter and transmitted the information contained therein to Mr. Fontana at JFK Middle School and to the state Department of Education Educational Practices Services. Mr. Monroe was not aware of the November 1995 incident involving Mr. Powell and his son until on or about August 14, 1996, when he received the copy of Mr. Levine's letter. In a letter dated October 10, 1996, the Education Practices Services notified Mr. Powell that it had received a complaint against him related to the charges of child abuse, and an investigation was begun which led to the filing of the original Administrative Complaint dated January 21, 1997. The disciplinary action taken against Mr. Powell by the School Board with respect to the child abuse charges consisted of a Site Disposition in the case, which the School Board referred to as Case No. A-17734. In a memorandum to Mr. Powell dated October 15, 1996, Mr. Fontana summarized the substance of a conference which was held on October 15, 1996, with Mr. Powell, Mr. Fontana, and William McCard, an assistant principal at JFK Middle School, in attendance. In the memorandum, Mr. Fontana indicated that "[t]he purpose of the conference was to establish a final disposition through administrative review of the above indicated case." Mr. Fontana further stated: Upon review of all the records and talking with you, it is determined that the incident in question happened in Broward County, no adjudication of guilt was established, and legally the case was closed. However, you have agreed to counseling in order to forestall any future problems. The case in question dealt with your own family member and alleged child abuse. We reviewed my expectations of you in regards to your teaching position at John F. Kennedy Middle School and your professional treatment of all your students. We reviewed the State Code of Ethics guidelines dealing with the same subject. Thus, I am directing you to follow the established State Code of Ethics Rules, School Board Policy, and Site Rules dealing with conduct becoming a teacher and subsequent teaching relationships with students. I feel that this will adequately bring closure to this incident and that in the future your teaching behavior will always be of the highest professional standard. In his annual evaluation for the 1995-1996 school year, Mr. Powell was rated "acceptable" in both classroom performance and in professional responsibility, and he was recommended for continued employment. Likewise, in his annual evaluation for the 1996-1997 school year, Mr. Powell was assessed "acceptable" in both classroom performance and in professional responsibility, and he was recommended for continued employment. This annual evaluation followed a Teacher Assessment and Development System Post-Observation Report completed on April 16, 1997, by Mr. McCard, in which he found that Mr. Powell's performance satisfied every indicator subject to evaluation. 11/ November 1997 incident On November 25, 1997, Mr. Powell was the teacher in charge of the School Center for Special Instruction ("SCSI") at JFK Middle School. The SCSI is an indoor suspension program for children who are being disciplined for behavior violations; SCSI is an alternative to sending these children home for the duration of their suspension. The SCSI class was held in the school cafeteria at JFK Middle School from 9:00 a.m. until the end of the school day at 3:40 p.m. Two sets of double doors provide access to the cafeteria. One set, those on the right, were locked from the outside and not normally used; the students entered and left the cafeteria by the set of doors on the left of the building. At approximately 3:20 p.m. on November 25, 1997, the SCSI students were returning to the cafeteria after cleaning up an area outside the cafeteria. Mr. Powell was outside supervising the students as they returned to the cafeteria, and there was no adult supervising the students who had already moved inside the cafeteria. During this hiatus, a seventh-grade student named M. M. got into an altercation with several other boys in the class whom he suspected of taking his book bag. The boys began pushing and shoving M. M. and encouraging him to fight with one specific boy. M. M. refused to fight; he became angry and upset and left the cafeteria by way of the set of double doors on the right side of the cafeteria. Because he was angry and upset, M. M. pushed the door open quite forcefully. Mr. Powell had had surgery on his right foot the previous day; his foot was in a cast, and he used a cane to assist him in walking. At the time M. M. pushed open the cafeteria door, Mr. Powell was standing outside directly in the path of the door as it opened. M. M. could not see Mr. Powell because there were no windows in the door. As it swung open, the door hit Mr. Powell's injured foot, and Mr. Powell raised his cane and struck M. M. on his right arm. 12/ M. M. ran back inside the cafeteria, in tears. He rushed through the cafeteria and exited through the set of doors on the left side of the cafeteria. He went directly to the office of Sandra Clarke, one of the guidance counselors at JFK Middle School. When he arrived at her office, M. M. was agitated and crying, and he told Ms. Clarke that Mr. Powell had hit him on the arm with his cane. M. M. showed Ms. Clarke the mark on his arm, which was located on the outside of his right arm, midway between his shoulder and his elbow. Ms. Clarke observed that M. M. had a red welt on his arm, and she took him to the office of Patrick Snay, who was at that time the principal of JFK Middle School. Mr. Snay called in Assistant Principal McCard and told him about the allegations M. M. had made against Mr. Powell. Mr. Snay directed Mr. McCard to call the school police and to take statements from the students in the class who witnessed the incident. Mr. McCard took a statement from M. M. and observed the red mark on his arm. A school security guard went into the SCSI class right before school ended for the day and asked that any students who had seen the incident involving Mr. Powell and M. M. stay after school and write a statement telling what they had seen. Several students remained and prepared statements. 13/ Mr. Powell reported for school the next morning but was told to report to the School Board's Region 2 office. Mr. Powell worked at that office for one day, and then, beginning on the Monday after Thanksgiving, he was assigned to work at Highland Oaks Middle School. He worked at that school until he was suspended by the School Board on May 13, 1998. His duties at Highland Oaks Middle School included taking care of disabled students, accompanying them to their classes and to lunch, sitting with them, and taking notes for them, all under the direct supervision of the school's media specialist. At the direction of James Monroe, who was at the time an Executive Director in the School Board's Office of Professional Practices, a personnel investigation was initiated on December 6, 1997, with respect to M. M.'s allegations against Mr. Powell. A preliminary personnel investigation report was submitted on February 13, 1998, in which the investigator concluded that the charge against Mr. Powell was substantiated. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on March 25, 1998, attended by Mr. Snay; John F. Gilbert, Director of Region 2; Ms. Falco, Mr. Powell's union representative; Dr. Monroe; and Mr. Powell. Several issues were discussed during the conference: Mr. Powell was allowed to review a copy of the School Board's investigative report regarding the incident involving M. M., and he was allowed to comment on the report. Mr. Powell denied having hit M. M. and advised the School Board personnel that he knew of an eye witness to the incident who would support his denial. Mr. Powell was also allowed to review a copy of the October 15, 1996, memo to Mr. Powell from Principal Fontana, discussed in paragraph 16, supra, memorializing the discipline imposed with respect to the charges that Mr. Powell had committed child abuse on his son. Dr. Monroe advised Mr. Powell that he had failed to comply with the directives included in that disposition. /14 During the Conference-for-the-Record, Mr. Powell was told that a recommendation would be made to the School Board that his professional services contract not be renewed and that a decision would be made whether to take disciplinary measures against him, which could include suspension or dismissal. In a letter dated April 29, 1998, the Superintendent of Schools recommended to the School Board that Mr. Powell be suspended from his position as a teacher and that dismissal proceedings be initiated against him. The School Board accepted this recommendation on May 13, 1998. On October 29, 1998, Mr. Powell was tried by a jury on the criminal charge of battery arising out of his striking M. M. A number of students testified at the trial, and Mr. Powell was found "not guilty" of the charge. On September 5, 1997, Mr. Powell was honored by the Florida House of Representatives with a Certificate of Appreciation for "his contributions and accomplishments in the National Association of Black Scuba Divers." As a member of that association, Mr. Powell was recognized and commended for his work with the sunken slave ship Henrietta Marie and for his lectures and seminars on the history of this ship. On May 28, 1998, an article about the Certificate of Appreciation appeared in The Miami Times, together with a picture of Mr. Powell and Representative Larcenia Bullard. Nowhere in the certificate or in the news article is Mr. Powell identified as a teacher or former teacher in the Miami-Dade County public schools. Mr. Powell is mentioned and quoted in an article which was published in the South Florida edition of the Sunday Sun Sentinel newspaper on February 1, 1998. The article discussed the celebration of Black History Month by the descendants of slaves who are living in South Florida. Mr. Powell is identified in the article as the person who led members of the National Association of Black Scuba Divers in a dive to the site of the Henrietta Marie. Mr. Powell also gave a lecture on the Henrietta Marie in February 1997 at the Miami-Dade County Community College, as part of a special African-American history course. Summary The evidence presented herein clearly and convincingly establishes that Mr. Powell struck and kicked his son on November 19, 1995, and that he struck M. M. with his cane on November 25, 1997, while carrying out his duties as an SCSI teacher. Mr. Powell's testimony that he did not strike either his son or M. M. is rejected as not persuasive, as is the testimony of those witnesses who testified that Mr. Powell did not strike M. M. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality and of moral turpitude when he dragged his fourteen-year-old son from the passenger seat of his Ford Bronco, struck his son in the face twice, and kicked his son in the ribs at least once, causing him to suffer a split lip and bruised ribs. This act of violence is not only inconsistent with the public conscience, it is an act of serious misconduct which was in flagrant disregard of society's condemnation of violence against children. The seriousness of Mr. Powell's act is only exacerbated by the fact that he acted in anger. Although the evidence establishes that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality, the only evidence offered regarding any notoriety arising from the November 1995 incident and from Mr. Powell's subsequent trial on the charges of child abuse is the testimony of Dr. Monroe. Dr. Monroe's testimony that there "was considerable notoriety via the print and the electronic media of Mr. Powell's action which resulted in his arrest" was not based on his personal knowledge but was based on information he received in August 1996 from an assistant state's attorney in Broward County. Dr. Monroe's testimony is not only hearsay unsupported by any other evidence in the record, it is not credible to prove that Mr. Powell's conduct was sufficiently notorious to cast him or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect or to impair Mr. Powell's service in the community. Moreover, Mr. Powell presented evidence that, subsequent to the November 1995 incident, he was publicly recognized for his contributions to the community through his work with the slave ship Henrietta Marie. The evidence presented is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Powell committed an act of gross immorality and of moral turpitude with respect to the November 1997 incident involving M. M. When Mr. Powell lashed out at this student and struck him with a cane, albeit after the student pushed a door into his injured foot, he demonstrated a flagrant disregard of public morals and of society's condemnation of violence against children, and he committed an act that betrayed the special trust placed in teachers. However, there was no persuasive evidence presented to establish that Mr. Powell's conduct involving M. M. was sufficiently notorious to expose either Mr. Powell or the education profession to public disgrace or disrespect or that Mr. Powell's service in the community was impaired with respect to the November 1997 incident. The most the evidence demonstrates is that the school received inquiries from parents about the need for their children to give statements regarding the incident, but these inquiries do not rise to the level of notoriety. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to infer notoriety and public disgrace and disrespect from the fact that Mr. Powell was tried and found not guilty of the charge of battery on M. M. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that, with respect to the November 1997 incident in which Mr. Powell struck M. M. with his cane, Mr. Powell violated several provisions of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession and of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida because he did not exercise professional judgment; because he inflicted physical injury on M. M. rather than protecting him from such injury; and because he exposed M. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by striking him and causing him to cry in front of his fellow students in the SCSI class. There was, however, no persuasive direct evidence presented to establish that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a teacher and an employee of the School Board was diminished as a result of the November 1997 incident. This direct evidence consisted solely of the opinion testimony of Dr. Monroe, which was conclusory and was based exclusively on information he obtained from Mr. Powell's records and from discussions with school administrative personnel charged with monitoring Mr. Powell's conduct and teaching performance. No parents or students or members of the community testified that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a teacher and as an employee of the School Board was diminished as a result of this incident. Under the circumstances of this case, however, it can be inferred from the record as a whole that Mr. Powell's effectiveness as a School Board employee and as a teacher was seriously diminished as a result of the November 1997 incident. Mr. Powell stuck a student with a cane during school hours, and the incident was witnessed by a number of students, who were asked to testify both in this proceeding and in Mr. Powell's criminal trial. In addition, the allegations against Mr. Powell with respect to the November 1997 incident were of such a serious nature that it was necessary to relieve Mr. Powell of his teaching responsibilities and to transfer him from JFK Middle School to the Region 2 administrative offices and, from there, to another middle school in which his contact with students was closely supervised. Finally, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that, with respect to the November 1997 incident in which he struck M. M. with his cane, Mr. Powell did not conduct himself in a manner which reflected credit on himself or on the school system, nor did his conduct conform to the highest professional standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that In DOAH Case NO. 97-5828, the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Richard V. Powell guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(c) and (i), Florida Statutes, and revoking his teacher's certificate for a period of two years, followed by three years' probation, subject to reasonable conditions to be determined by the Commission; and In DOAH Case No. 98-2387, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order finding Richard V. Powell guilty of misconduct in office pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(a) and (6)(a), Florida Statutes, and of violating School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4-1.08 and 4-1.09; sustaining his suspension; and dismissing him from employment as a teacher with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Superintendent of Schools' Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Dismissal from Employment. If so, whether such conduct provides the School District of Palm Beach County with "just cause" to take disciplinary action against Respondent pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent's Certification Respondent previously held a temporary, non-renewable teaching certificate (Certificate Number 618674) issued by the Florida Department of Education certifying that he was eligible to teach biology in grades six through twelve in the State of Florida. The certificate's "validity period" was July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1997. Respondent's Employment with the School District At all material times to the instant case, Respondent was employed by the School District as a biology teacher in the ESOL program at Atlantic Community High School. The ESOL program is designed to meet the special needs of students whose native language is not English. The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a teacher employed by the School District, Respondent was a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School District and the CTA (CTA Contract), effective from July 1, 1995, to June 30, 1997. Article II, Section M, of the CTA Contract addresses the subject of "discipline of employees." It provide as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Association [CTA], disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. Any information which may be relied upon to take action against an employee will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Association representative as soon as possible. Copies of any written information/correspondence that is related to the action of the employee or the investigating administrator(s) will be provided promptly to the employee and his/her Association representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under any Section and his/her Association representative shall have the right to review and refute any and all of the information relied upon to support any proposed disciplinary action prior to taking such action. To this end, the employee and his/her Association representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph #7 below may be cited. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Section, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended with pay, suspended without pay or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, 1/ progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall not be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee after twelve months of the action/inaction of the employee which led to the notation. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension With Pay. A suspension with pay may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension with pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and receiver of the Megha P. suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay may be issued to an employee when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Agreement, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension without pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and receiver of the suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Dismissal. An employee may be dismissed (employment contract terminated or non- renewed) when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. If the disciplinary action(s) taken include either a suspension or dismissal, the grievance shall be initiated at STEP TWO. Megha P. was a student at Atlantic Community High School during the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years. Megha was a ninth grader during the 1995-96 school year. Respondent was Megha's biology teacher during the first semester of that school year. On the day of her final examination in Respondent's class, Megha arrived at school early, approximately three hours before the examination was scheduled to commence. Shortly after her arrival at school that day, she was approached by Respondent, who asked her to accompany him to his classroom to help him with some paperwork. Megha complied with Respondent's request. After Megha and Respondent walked into the classroom, Respondent closed the classroom door behind them and told Megha to sit on his lap. Megha refused. Respondent then forced her to sit on his lap. While Megha was on his lap, Respondent fondled her buttocks and breasts. Megha tried to stand up and walk away, but Respondent physically restrained her and she was unable to escape his grasp. As he was restraining her, Respondent demanded that Megha give him "hugs and kisses." Megha told him "no." Respondent, however, persisted. He told Megha that "all the girls" give him "hugs and kisses" and that she should do the same. Megha responded that she did not care what "all the girls" did. Despite Respondent's persistence, Megha never gave Respondent the "hugs and kisses" he had requested. Megha was involved in another incident with Respondent during the first semester of the following school year. She was not a student of Respondent's at the time. On this subsequent occasion, Megha went to Respondent's classroom to purchase a bagel. (Respondent was selling bagels at school to raise money for a class trip.) When Megha entered the classroom, Respondent commented to her that she always wore loose fitting pants without a belt. Megha replied that she did not like wearing belts. Respondent then suddenly pulled down Megha's pants. Megha quickly pulled up her pants and left the classroom. Following this incident, Respondent, on several occasions, invited Megha to his classroom, but Megha declined his invitations. Suchi H. When she was in the ninth grade at Atlantic Community High School, Suchi H. was a member of a student organization (the Asian Club) sponsored by Respondent. On a club outing to the beach, during the taking of a group photograph, Respondent, who was standing next to Suchi, put his hand on the side of her breast and kept it there. Respondent's uninvited advance made Suchi feel very uncomfortable. Lovely R. During the first semester of the 1996-97 school year, Lovely R. was a student in Respondent's class. She was in eleventh grade at the time. Lovely was once late to Respondent's class on the day of an examination and Respondent told her to come back to the classroom later in the day to take the examination. Lovely did as she was told and returned to Respondent's classroom later that day. Upon entering the classroom, she locked the door behind her pursuant to Respondent's instructions. Respondent then gave Lovely a copy of the examination, along with the answer key. When asked by Lovely why he had given her the answers to the examination, Respondent replied that he was her friend and would do anything for her. Acting without Lovely's consent, Respondent thereupon moved his hands down her body, touching her neck, shoulders, breast and buttocks. He also tried to kiss her on the face, but was unsuccessful as Lovely turned her head away from him. Not wanting to be subjected to any more of Respondent's advances, Lovely told him that she had another examination she had to take (a story she made up) and left the classroom. Before this incident, Lovely had been receiving A's for her work in Respondent's class. After the incident, she received, undeservedly, F's from Respondent. Alexis G. During the first semester of the 1996-97 school year, Alexis G. was a tenth grade student in Respondent's class. One day during the semester, Respondent asked Alexis to stay after school so that she could show him a homework assignment she had done. He told her that if she did not see him after the end of that school day, she would not receive any credit for having done the assignment. At the end of the school day, Alexis went to Respondent's classroom. After she entered the room, Respondent locked the door behind her. He then directed Alexis to a table in the back of the room and told her to lie down on it. Following Respondent's instructions, Alexis got on the table and laid down on her stomach. Respondent proceeded to caress Alexis' back, breasts and buttocks and press his body against hers. He then asked Alexis to take her clothes off. Alexis told him "no" and screamed at him to get off of her. Respondent responded by moving away from Alexis. With Respondent off of her, Alexis stood up and left the classroom. On a subsequent occasion, acting in accordance with Respondent's instructions, Alexis visited Respondent in his classroom before her sixth period class. When she arrived, Respondent was alone. Following Respondent's directives, she gave him a massage. Chrisly A. In 1996, when she was in tenth grade, Chrisly A. was a student in Respondent's class. One day in class, Respondent approached Chrisly and told her that he wanted to speak to her during sixth period that day to discuss her grades. When Chrisly expressed concerns about missing her sixth period class, Respondent gave her a pass to show to her sixth period teacher. Chrisly went to Respondent's classroom after her fifth period class that day as Respondent had asked her to. After Chrisly entered the classroom, Respondent locked the door behind her. He then began to talk with Chrisly about her grades, as he had said he would earlier that day when he had requested her to meet with him. After a short period of time, however, he abruptly changed the subject of their discussion when he told Chrisly that he liked her and that he wanted to be her boyfriend and have sex with her. In addition, he asked Chrisly when she had her menstrual period. Respondent then forced Chrisly to sit in his lap. While Chrisly was on his lap, he stroked her neck, breasts and stomach and made her kiss him. He asked Chrisly to take off the shirts she was wearing so he could see her body, but she refused. Chrisly tried to get up from Respondent's lap, but Respondent held on to her and would not let her go. Finally, after someone knocked on the classroom door, Respondent permitted Chrisly to leave. Effectiveness By engaging in the conduct described above with Megha, Suchi, Lovely, Alexis, and Chrisly, Respondent has impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in the school system and as a member of the community. Aftermath Neither Megha, Suchi, Lovely, Alexis, nor Chrisly immediately reported Respondent to school authorities. Respondent's highly inappropriate conduct with these students, however, was ultimately brought to the authorities' attention. Following an investigation conducted by the School Board's Police Department, the School Board's Department of Employee Relations determined, based upon the findings of the investigation (which were contained in a written report prepared by the investigating officer), that a pre-disciplinary meeting should be held with Respondent. Such a pre-disciplinary meeting was held on April 7, 1997. Present at the meeting were representatives of the School District, a representative of the Palm Beach County Teachers Association, Respondent and his attorney. During the meeting, Respondent declined the opportunity to make a statement. On or about April 8, 1997, the Superintendent of Schools sent Respondent a Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Dismissal from Employment, which read as follows: Based upon substantial information presented to me, I hereby inform you that I have found probable cause sufficient to warrant recommendation for your suspension without pay and dismissal from employment with the School District as an ESOL instructor. You are charged with committing misconduct sufficient to constitute just cause under the 1995-1997 collective bargaining agreement between The School District of Palm Beach County, and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, based upon your repeated inappropriate behavior with students. Specifically, on numerous occasions you made sexual advances towards female students. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), School Board Rules and Regulations, and the Code of Ethics for the Education Profession in Florida, Chapter 6B- 1, Florida Administrative Code. Please be advised that I will recommend at the April 23, 1997, meeting of the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, that the School Board suspend you without pay effective April 24, 1997, and that termination of employment will become effective upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days thereafter. This action is taken in accordance with Sections 230.23 and 230.33, Florida Statutes. The April 23, 1997, School Board meeting will be held in the Board Room at 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida at 5:00 p.m. You or your representative have the right to attend this meeting and present an oral statement or documentation to show why you should not be suspended without pay and/or terminated. If you intend to speak before the School Board, please immediately notify Ms. Alicia Bell, Clerk, at (407) 434- 8139, of your intention to make a presentation at that meeting. Pursuant to School Board Policy 3.27, you have the right to request a formal hearing contesting the recommendation for your suspension without pay and dismissal. If you desire to request a formal hearing, you must put your request in writing and submit it within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this letter to Cynthia S. Prettyman, General Counsel, School District of Palm Beach County, 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302, West Palm Beach Florida 33406-5813. Failure on your part to timely request a hearing will be deemed a waiver of your right to a hearing on the matter, and all material allegations and charges made against you shall be deemed true by the School Board for purposes of entering a final order in this matter. By letter dated April 22, 1998, Respondent, through counsel, requested a hearing on the matter. The letter from Respondent's counsel read as follows: Our office has been retained for the purpose of representing Mr. Prakash Pathmanathan before the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida with respect to the issues raised in the Superintendent's letter dated April 8, 1997, charging Mr. Pathmanathan with inappropriate behavior with students. Mr. Pathmanathan denies that there is any basis to support the Superintendent's recommendation for suspension without pay, and contests the recommendation for his dismissal. Mr. Pathmanathan requests that a hearing be conducted with respect to all issues raised by the charges described above and his defense to the charges, and requests that the hearing be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., before an Administrative Law Judge appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Neither Mr. Pathmanathan, I, nor any other representative for Mr. Pathmanathan will make a presentation at the School Board meeting scheduled for April 23, 1997, when the Board will consider the propriety of the recommendation for suspension without pay, and recommend Mr. Pathmanathan's dismissal from employment. Accordingly, we request that the matter be placed on the Board's consent agenda. The matter was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct the hearing Respondent had requested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing him as an employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 4th day of December, 1998.
The Issue Whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes,2 for Petitioner to suspend Respondent from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay in Case No. 19-3380; and (2) whether just cause exists, pursuant to section 1012.33, for Petitioner to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher in Case No. 19-3381.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the entity charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all district public schools in Broward County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b) of the Florida Constitution, and section 1012.33. Respondent is employed by the District as a mathematics teacher at Miramar High School ("MHS") pursuant to a professional services contract issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a). He holds a professional educator's certificate in mathematics for 6th through 12th grades. Respondent was employed by the District in 2007, and has been a teacher at MHS since the 2007-2008 school year, with the exception of most of the 2015-2016 school year, during which he was administratively reassigned with pay pending the outcome of a personnel investigation. He returned to teaching at MHS for the 2016-2017 school year, and was a teacher at MHS during the 2018-2019 school year, when the conduct giving rise to these proceedings is alleged to have occurred. The Administrative Complaints February Administrative Complaint The February Administrative Complaint, which gives rise to Case No. 19-3380, alleges that during the 2017-2018 school year and the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent engaged in conduct that violated specified statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. Pursuant to the February Administrative Complaint, Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent from his employment as a teacher for ten days without pay. Specifically, the February Administrative Complaint alleges that after previously having been disciplined for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students, Respondent continued to use embarrassing or disparaging language toward students. As a result, a cease and desist letter was issued to Respondent on or about March 23, 2017, directing him to cease engaging in such conduct. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent continued to use racially insensitive, embarrassing, and disparaging language toward students—specifically, that he referred to an African-American male student as "boy." The February Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent threatened to remove students who talked from his class; graded students based on their behavior, rather than their work product; and failed to grade student work in a timely manner. As a result of this alleged conduct, Respondent received a meeting summary memorandum on or about December 7, 2017. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent still failed to contact the parents of students who were failing and engaged in unfair grading practices, resulting in issuance of another meeting summary memorandum to him on or about April 27, 2018. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that in the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, during a Code Red Drill, Respondent is alleged to have engaged in racially insensitive conduct by disparately disciplining African-American students for engaging in the same type of conduct in which white and Hispanic students engaged, without any disciplinary consequences. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that during the Code Red Drill, Respondent was so disengaged from his students that he did not know one of his student's name and, consequently, wrote a disciplinary referral for the wrong student. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in conduct demeaning to students. Specifically, it is alleged that Respondent did not respond to student questions regarding how to do problems; embarrassed a student by saying he did not understand fifth grade math; and wrote "1 + 1" on the board to mock students in his class. He also allegedly reduced a student's class participation grade for talking. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent spoke to a "black girl who is Jamaican in Creole because he assumes she is Haitian." The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent embarrassed and degraded a student by saying he did not understand the classwork "because it's not fifth grade math." The February Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent demeaned students by saying "'slick stuff,' such as 'math is simple and we are used to [second] or [fifth] grade math.'" The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent lowered the grade of a student for talking, and told her that she and several other students were "on his 'watch list'" of students who would have their grades lowered for talking. The February Administrative Complaint further alleges that when that student asked about Respondent's grading practices, he responded "you ask too much questions," causing the whole class to laugh. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about October 10, 2018, during the administration of the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test ("PSAT"), Respondent did not follow proper testing protocol. Specifically, it is alleged that Respondent did not pick up the testing materials on time, started the test late, and did not read all of the directions to the students. It is also alleged that he did not collect book bags and cell phones and place them at the front of the room, and that a cell phone rang during the test. Additionally, he is alleged to have allowed students to talk loudly during the test. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent took points off of a student's grade for talking. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent refused to allow students who had missed class due to a band trip to make up their class work. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent made demeaning comments about students' writing; used the word "horrible" to describe their work, which made them feel "dumb or stupid"; was "disrespectful and sarcastic"; and deducted students' class participation points for talking or asking for a pencil or paper. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent talked to students in a demeaning manner about being "slow" and told students he thought the Chinese were smarter than Americans. May Administrative Complaint The May Administrative Complaint, which gives rise to Case No. 19-3381, alleges that in the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent continued to engage in conduct that violated specified statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. Specifically, the May Administrative Complaint alleges that in February 2019, Respondent threatened to put tape over students' mouths for talking; disparaged students through racially insensitive treatment and comments; and made insulting and offensive comments to students regarding their mental health and ethnicity. The May Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent wrote a "red list" of students' names on the board who were disruptive or talking and continued to engage in inappropriate grading practices, such as lowering students' grades as a means of discipline for behavior issues. The May Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent continued his practices of not contacting parents of failing students; not writing referrals to deal with disciplinary matters; and failing to create a discipline plan for dealing with behavior issues in his classroom, as directed. In addition, the May Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent claimed that during the past four years, Respondent's students were manipulated by an assistant principal, Ms. Hoff, to write false statements against him, notwithstanding that Hoff had not been employed at MHS for the previous two years. Pursuant to the May Administrative Complaint, Petitioner seeks to terminate Respondent's employment as a teacher. Stipulated Facts Regarding Disciplinary Corrective Action History The parties stipulated to the following facts regarding Respondent's history of disciplinary corrective actions while employed as a teacher with the District.8 On or about February 13, 2013, Respondent received a verbal reprimand for failing to meet the performance standards required of his 8 Petitioner's Corrective Action Policy, Policy 4.9, section I(b), states: The types of corrective action may include, but are not limited to the following employment actions: verbal reprimands, written reprimands, suspension without pay, demotion, or termination of employment. There are other types of actions to encourage and support the improvement of employee performance, conduct or attendance that are not considered disciplinary in nature. These actions may include, but are not limited to: coaching, counseling, meeting summaries, and additional training. Policy 4.9, Corrective Action. Respondent cannot be subjected to discipline in these proceedings for previous violations of statutes, rules, or policies for which he has already been disciplined. See Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., Case No. 11-4156 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 19, 2011; Fla. DBPR Oct. 2, 2012)(multiple administrative punishments cannot be imposed for a particular incident of misconduct). However, under Policy 4.9, section III, the history of disciplinary corrective actions is relevant to determining the appropriate penalty, if any, to be imposed in these proceedings, and history of disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions is relevant to determining whether Respondent subsequently engaged in conduct constituting gross insubordination, as charged in these proceedings. position, by failing to follow School Board policy and procedures and engaging in unprofessional conduct. On or about May 30, 2013, Respondent received a written reprimand for not following proper procedures, and being insubordinate by failing to follow such procedures after numerous directives. Specifically, he failed to contact the parents of students who had been habitually truant or were failing his class; arrived late to work several times; lied about parking in the student parking lot; and left students unsupervised on multiple occasions. On November 8, 2016, Respondent received a verbal reprimand for not providing accommodations to his exceptional student education ("ESE") students; not taking attendance; not grading students’ work or grading students’ work inaccurately; and failing to provide feedback to students. On February 7, 2017, Respondent received a five-day suspension for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students. This five-day suspension resulted from a personnel investigation by the District police department into allegations that Respondent made racist and racially insensitive remarks to students. The request for the investigation was made on or about October 16, 2015. Respondent was administratively reassigned out of the classroom on November 6, 2015, and was not released from administrative reassignment until August 15, 2016. Respondent originally challenged the five-day suspension in Case No. 17-1179TTS, but later withdrew his challenge, and the case was closed on May 19, 2017. The Commissioner of Education ("COE") also filed an administrative complaint with the Education Practices Commission, based on Respondent making racially, ethnically, and/or socioeconomically-driven disparaging comments toward students. Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with the COE under which he received a written reprimand; was fined and placed on probation for one year; and was assessed costs for monitoring his probation. The written reprimand was placed in his District personnel file. On or about October 27, 2017, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District's professional standards committee for unfair grading practices; making embarrassing remarks to students; failing to provide feedback to students; grading inaccuracies; refusing to accept work; grading student behavior rather than student work product; failing to contact parents; failing to follow a discipline plan; failing to grade student work in a timely manner; entering incorrect grades; failing to provide ESE accommodations to students entitled to receive such accommodations; and making disparaging remarks about colleagues. This letter of reprimand resulted from a personnel investigation conducted by the District police department regarding numerous allegations against Respondent. These allegations included, but were not limited to, unfair grading practices; making embarrassing remarks to students; failing to provide feedback to students; lowering grades based on behavior; failing to contact parents; grading and attendance inaccuracies; providing fake lesson plans to his assistant principal; and making remarks to a student that a fellow math teacher did not know what she was doing. The request for the investigation was made on or about November 21, 2016. Respondent did not challenge the letter of reprimand. Stipulated Facts Regarding Non-Disciplinary Corrective Action History The parties stipulated to the following facts regarding Respondent's history of non-disciplinary corrective actions while he was employed as a teacher with the District. On or about July 16, 2011, Respondent received a concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow and adhere to School Board and school policies, procedures, and regulations; failing to maintain accurate student records and follow the District grading system; and not fulfilling his responsibility as a professional educator in a timely manner, with integrity. On or about October 20, 2011, Respondent received another concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow and adhere to School Board and school policies, procedures and regulations; failing to maintain accurate student records and follow the District grading system; and not fulfilling his responsibility as a professional educator in a timely manner, with integrity. On or about October 31, 2012, Respondent received another concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow the District’s grading system. On or about January 7, 2013, Respondent received another concerns and expectations memorandum for failing to follow and adhere to School Board and school policies, procedures and regulations; failing to maintain accurate student records of students and failing to follow the District grading system; and not fulfilling his responsibility as a professional educator in a timely manner, with integrity. On January 23, 2015, Respondent received a meeting summary regarding grading criteria; students not learning in, and failing, his class; and making students feel disparaged or embarrassed. He was directed to ensure that students understand his grading criteria for classwork and homework; use strategies to help students with new knowledge; use strategies to help students practice and deepen the new knowledge in all lessons and activities; and not intentionally expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. On October 14, 2016, Respondent received a summary memorandum for his use of embarrassing language towards students; failure to contact parents or write referrals for behavior issues; and concerns about his failure to provide daily remediation. Respondent was advised that he was expected to create and maintain a positive and pleasant learning environment in the classroom; use effective instructional strategies and feedback techniques that do not embarrass students; create and follow a discipline plan for his classroom; contact parents when students are failing; write referrals for referable acts; and remediate and teach students daily. Respondent was informed that his failure to correct these issues may result in disciplinary action. On or about March 23, 2017, Respondent was issued a cease and desist letter for his continued use of embarrassing and disparaging language toward students. On or about December 7, 2017, Respondent received a meeting summary for his use of embarrassing and condescending language towards the students, by referring to an African-American male student as "boy"; threatening to remove students from his class if they misbehaved during a formal observation; grading students on their behavior rather than their work product; and failing to grade student work in a timely manner. He was directed to refrain from using condescending language that makes students feel inferior in math; learn his students’ names and refer to them by name; create and follow a discipline plan for his classroom without removing students unless they have completely disrupted the teaching and learning process in the classroom; enter grades in a timely manner and refrain from deducting participation points from students' grades for talking; and contact parents and write referrals for student misbehavior. On or about April 27, 2018, Respondent received a meeting summary memorandum for failing to contact parents of students who had D's or F's in his classes, and for keeping inaccurate grades. Findings of Fact Based on Evidence Adduced at Final Hearing Based on the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence; the following Findings of Fact are made regarding the conduct charged in the February Administrative Complaint and the May Administrative Complaint. February Administrative Complaint The February Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having engaged in conduct during the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year that is alleged to violate statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. By way of background, Tevin Fuller and Julian Cardenty were students in Respondent's financial algebra class in the 2017-2018 school year. Both credibly testified that during a class in the 2017-2018 school year, Respondent called Fuller, who is African-American, "boy" and "bad boy." Both Fuller and Cardenty were offended by Respondent's use of the word "boy" in referring to Fuller, and considered it a racially demeaning remark. They reported Respondent's conduct to Assistant Principal J.P. Murray. Fuller credibly testified that as a result of Respondent's disrespectful conduct toward him, he avoided attending Respondent's class. As discussed above, in December 2017, as a result, Respondent previously had been issued a summary memorandum—a non-disciplinary corrective action—which instructed him to, among other things, cease using racially demeaning terms toward African-American students, and cease using condescending language that made students feel inferior regarding their mathematical ability. The credible, consistent evidence establishes that during the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and engage in conduct directed toward students in his classes that they found embarrassing and offensive. Specifically, several students testified, credibly, that on one occasion during the 2018-2019 school year, after Respondent gave an unannounced quiz to his financial algebra class, he stated that he would not grade the quiz papers because he could "see the F's on their foreheads," or words to that effect. The credible evidence establishes that the students considered this remark as demeaning to their ability and intelligence, and they were offended. This testimony corroborated several written statements, admitted into evidence, which were provided by students at or about the time this incident took place. Two students, Malik Cooper and Nyesha Dixon, credibly testified that they witnessed Respondent belittle and mock a student, Jordan Lee, when he asked for assistance on a class assignment in Respondent's financial algebra class. Specifically, they saw and heard Respondent comment to Lee that he (Lee) did not understand the lesson because he could "only understand fifth grade math," or words to that effect. Dixon and Cooper both credibly testified that the whole class laughed at Respondent's comment to Lee. Dixon testified, credibly, that Lee appeared shocked and embarrassed by Respondent's comment. Although Petitioner did not present Lee's testimony at the final hearing, Lee provided a written statement that was admitted into evidence, describing this incident. An email from Lee's mother to Murray regarding this incident corroborates Dixon's and Cooper's testimony and Lee's reaction to Respondent's insulting comment to him. Two students, Breanna Dwyer and Malik Cooper, credibly testified that on one occasion, Respondent told his students that the Chinese were smarter and learned faster than Americans, a comment that the students interpreted as belittling their intelligence. Two students, Dorcas Alao and Nyesha Dixon, testified, credibly, to the effect that Respondent singled out Haitian students and made remarks to them, which those students found offensive. Specifically, they testified that Respondent would attempt to speak to Haitian students in Creole, that the students told him they found his behavior offensive, and that Respondent would "just laugh." Several students credibly testified, in more general terms, that Respondent frequently spoke down to them, treated them in a condescending manner, made rude remarks to them, and was disrespectful toward them, and that his conduct and remarks were insulting and made them feel as if they were ignorant and unintelligent. Additionally, one student, Whitney Malcolm, testified, credibly, that in response to her asking a question about a syntax error on a calculator, Respondent yelled at her loudly enough for the entire class to hear. Malcolm testified, credibly, that she was embarrassed by the incident. The credible evidence establishes that Respondent continued to lower students' academic course grades as a means of addressing behavioral issues, notwithstanding that he had been issued a meeting summary on April 27, 2018, directing him not to do so. Specifically, several students testified, credibly, that Respondent kept a "watch list" of students for whom he deducted points off their academic course grade for behavioral issues, such as talking in class. Murray credibly testified, and the MHS Faculty Handbook for the 2018-2019 school year expressly states, that student misbehavior cannot be reflected in the academic course grade, and, instead, is to be addressed in the conduct grade. Murray testified that he counseled Respondent numerous times on this issue and directed him to cease deducting points from students' academic course grades for behavior issues. The evidence regarding Respondent's history of disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions bears out that he repeatedly has been directed not to lower students' academic course grades as a means of dealing with classroom behavioral issues. The competent substantial evidence also establishes that Respondent did not follow proper testing protocol when administering the PSAT to his homeroom students on October 10, 2018. Specifically, notwithstanding that all teachers, including Respondent, who were administering the PSAT had been given training and provided written instructions regarding picking up the exams, reading the instructions to the students, and administering the exams, Respondent did not timely pick up the exams on the day it was administered. The exams for his homeroom students had to be delivered to the room in which he was to administer the exam, and as a consequence, he was late starting the exam administration. The credible evidence establishes that Respondent instructed the students to turn off their cell phones, place them in their book bags, and put their book bags away. However, he did not collect students' book bags or require students to place their book bags at the front of the room, as expressly required by the exam proctor reminders document and the PSAT/NMBQT Coordinator Manual, both of which previously had been provided to the teachers, including Respondent, who were administering the PSAT. As a result of Respondent's failure to follow exam protocol, the students kept their book bags next to, or under, their desks, in violation of that protocol. A cell phone rang during one of the testing sessions. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent had instructed students to silence their cell phones and put them away; thus, the cell phone ringing during a testing session was the result of a student failing to follow instructions, rather than Respondent failing to provide such instructions. Two teachers, Tamekia Thompson and Richard Cohen, went to Respondent's classroom at different times on the day the PSAT was administered, to tell the students in his classroom to be quiet. Amaya Mason, a student in Respondent's homeroom class who took the PSAT that day, complained in a written statement, and subsequently testified, that students were talking during the testing sessions, while the students were in the process of taking the exam. Other students who took the PSAT in Respondent's homeroom class that day testified that students did not talk during the testing sessions, but that they did talk loudly during breaks between the testing sessions. Thus, the evidence does not definitively establish that students were talking during the testing sessions themselves. As a result of these testing protocol irregularities, Alicia Carl, the Student Assessment Specialist at MHS, contacted the College Board regarding the testing conditions in Respondent's classroom. Ultimately, the students' exam scores were not invalidated. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent refused to allow two students, Dejah Jeancharles and Asia Parker, to make up classwork they had missed, notwithstanding that they had excused absences due to a band trip. However, the credible evidence established that Respondent ultimately did allow the students to make up the missed work. The February Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with disciplining African-American students during a Code Red Drill conducted on or about September 6, 2018, while not subjecting white and Hispanic students to discipline for engaging in the same conduct during the Code Red Drill. The students' testimony regarding whether Respondent engaged in this conduct was conflicting, and the greater weight of the competent, credible evidence fails to establish that Respondent engaged in this behavior. The February Administrative Complaint alleges that on or about April 27, 2018, Respondent was issued a meeting summary for failing to contact parents of failing students and engaging in unfair grading practices. Murray testified, and Petitioner presented excerpts of Respondent's grade book showing, that as of March 6, 2018, approximately 75 percent of Respondent's students were earning either D's or F's in Respondent's classes. Murray testified that MHS has a policy, stated in the 2018-2019 Faculty Handbook, that teachers "shouldn't have that many D's or F's."9 Murray testified, and Petitioner presented evidence consisting of an email from Murray to MHS Human Relations Specialist Nicole Voliton, stating that he (Murray) had spoken to parents, who told him that Respondent had not contacted them regarding their children's failing grades. Murray also testified that Respondent acknowledged to him that he had not 9 However, the February Administrative Complaint does not specifically charge Respondent with conduct related to the amount of D's and F's his students earned. Additionally, as discussed below, the Faculty Handbook policy does not establish a mandatory compliance standard regarding the amount of D's and F's given students on which disciplinary action can be based. contacted the parents of all students who were failing his courses. Murray's email and his testimony regarding parents' statements made to him constitute hearsay evidence that has not been shown to fall within an exception to the hearsay rule in section 90.802, Florida Statutes, and is not substantiated by any competent substantial evidence in the record; accordingly, the undersigned cannot assign weight to this evidence.10 May Administrative Complaint The May Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with having engaged in conduct in the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year that is alleged to violate DOE rules and Petitioner's policies. The credible evidence establishes that Respondent continued to engage in conduct, directed toward his students, that was demeaning and racially insensitive. Specifically, several students submitted written statements that in February 2019, Respondent threatened to tape students' mouths shut because they were talking in class. Students Dorcas Alao, Breanna Henry, and Darius Gaskin credibly testified about this incident, confirming that Respondent had engaged in such conduct toward students in his class. Alao, who is of Nigerian heritage, testified, credibly, that Respondent remarked to her that if she couldn't understand something in English, he would "say it in Yoruba," or words to that effect. She also testified, credibly, that Respondent told her that she had "mental issues." She was offended by Respondent's comments and reported the incidents to Murray. The credible evidence also establishes that Respondent continued to deduct points from students' academic course grades for behavioral issues, such as talking in class. 10 § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence but is not sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions. The burden of establishing that hearsay evidence falls within an exception to the hearsay rules in sections 90.803 and 90.804 is on the proponent of the hearsay. See Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952, 956 (Fla. 2008)(evidentiary proponent has burden to establish predicate for exception to hearsay rule). To this point, Alao and Henry credibly testified that Respondent deducted points from their academic course grades for talking in class. Murray corroborated this testimony, credibly testifying that he examined Respondent's grade book and confirmed that Respondent had deducted points from their grades. As a result, Henry's class grade dropped a letter grade, from an "A" to a "B." Several students also testified, credibly and consistently, that Respondent did not timely grade their classwork or homework papers, so they were unable to determine what their grades were, even when they accessed the Pinnacle electronic gradebook. The 2018-2019 Faculty Handbook for MHS expressly requires that grades be posted within 48 hours of collecting the assignment/test. Respondent has repeatedly been directed to timely and accurately grade classwork and homework, and to record the grades in Pinnacle so that students and parents can be apprised of student progress in the course. The disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions to which Respondent previously has been subject bear this out. Murray testified, credibly, that in the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent still did not timely or accurately grade classwork, homework, or tests, as required by the Faculty Handbook, and as previously directed through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions, discussed above. The May Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent made claims that former assistant principal Cornelia Hoff had manipulated students, during the previous four years, to write false statements about him. Murray testified, credibly, that Respondent did, in fact, make such claims. There was no evidence presented to substantiate any of Respondent's claims against Hoff, and the competent substantial evidence establishes that Hoff had not been employed at MHS for over two years at the time Respondent made such claims. The May Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent with failing to contact parents, write disciplinary referrals, and create a discipline plan for student behavior issues in his classroom, as previously directed. However, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence to substantiate the allegation that Respondent engaged in this specific conduct during the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year, which is the period covered by the May Administrative Complaint.11 Thus, Petitioner did not demonstrate that Respondent engaged in this conduct during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint. Witness Credibility Respondent contends, on the basis of inconsistencies between student witness's testimony and written statements regarding various details of Respondent's alleged conduct and surrounding circumstances, that these witnesses were not credible, so that their testimony should not be afforded weight in these proceedings. The undersigned rejects this contention. Although the students' accounts of Respondent's conduct and surrounding circumstances were not uniformly consistent, the inconsistencies concerned minor or collateral details, which the undersigned ascribes to the fact that the students were testifying about incidents that occurred as much as two years earlier. The undersigned found the student witnesses to be credible and persuasive. Crucial to this credibility determination is that the students' testimony was remarkably consistent with respect to whether Respondent 11 The evidence presented regarding this charge concerned conduct that is alleged to have occurred in the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, which is not addressed in the May Administrative Complaint. Notably, the February Administrative Complaint, which addressed conduct that is alleged to have occurred in the 2017-2018 school year and the first semester of the 2018-2019 school year, did not charge Respondent with having engaged in such conduct. See Cottrill v. Dep't of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (predicating disciplinary action against a licensee on conduct never alleged in an administrative complaint violates the Administrative Procedure Act). engaged in, and the significant circumstances pertaining to, the conduct at issue in these proceedings. Findings of Ultimate Fact Under Florida law, whether conduct charged in a disciplinary proceeding constitutes a deviation from a standard of conduct established by statute, rule, or policy is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, considering the testimony and evidence in the context of the alleged violation. Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See also McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); MacMillan v. Nassau Cty. Sch. Bd., 629 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Accordingly, whether conduct alleged in an administrative complaint violates the statutes, rules, and policies cited as the basis for the proposed disciplinary action is a factual, rather than legal, determination. February Administrative Complaint Here, Petitioner demonstrated, by the preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct with which he was charged in the February Administrative Complaint. As discussed below, Respondent's conduct violated DOE rules, School Board policies, and Florida Statutes. Rule 6A-5.056(2) – Misconduct in Office As found above, Respondent made racially insensitive comments and comments that demeaned and belittled students in his classes. The evidence also established that Respondent yelled at students. As a result, many of his students felt disrespected, embarrassed, and offended. One student, Tevin Fuller, even went so far as to avoid going to Respondent's class in order to avoid Respondent's harassment and disrespectful treatment of him. Respondent's behavior toward his students constituted misconduct in office under Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(2), because it disrupted the students' learning environment, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(d), and it reduced his ability to effectively perform his teaching duties, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(e). Additionally, Respondent's behavior toward his students constituted misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2)(b), because it violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a), which establishes a teacher's professional obligations to students. Specifically, in making demeaning, racially insensitive, and embarrassing comments to students in his classes, he failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their learning and mental health, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. He also intentionally exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., and harassed students on the basis of race, color, and national or ethnic origin, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)7. Respondent's racially insensitive and disrespectful comments toward his students also constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2)(c), because they violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, Respondent did not comply with paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B., because he violated the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.081, as discussed herein. Additionally, Respondent violated paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B., because he did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by that policy. Rule 6A-5.056(3) – Incompetency In making racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and in engaging in disrespectful conduct toward his students, Respondent failed to discharge his required teaching duties. Specifically, in making such comments and engaging in such conduct, Respondent failed to communicate appropriately with, and relate to, his students, and, thus, exhibited incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)2. As discussed above, Respondent's conduct also violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., and, thus, constituted incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)1. Additionally, as found above, Respondent did not follow established exam protocol when he failed to collect students' book bags and place them at the front of the room during administration of the PSAT to his homeroom class on October 10, 2018, as specified in the PSAT/NMSQT administration manual and mandated pursuant to section 1008.24(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Thus, Respondent failed to perform duties prescribed by law, which constitutes incompetency due to inefficiency under rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)1. Rule 6A-5.056(4) – Gross Insubordination As found above, on January 23, 2015, Respondent received a meeting summary regarding grading criteria; students not learning in, and failing, his courses; and making students feeling disparaged or embarrassed. On October 14, 2016, Respondent received a summary memorandum for his use of embarrassing language toward students. On February 7, 2017, Respondent received a five-day suspension for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students. On March 23, 2017, Respondent was issued a cease and desist letter for his use of embarrassing and disparaging language toward students. On October 27, 2017, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District's professional standards committee for making embarrassing remarks to students. On or about December 7, 2017, Respondent received a meeting summary for making racially insensitive comments to a male African-American student. In each of these corrective actions, Respondent was specifically and expressly directed to cease engaging in specified conduct. These directives were directly based on school and School Board policies and DOE rules, and, thus, were reasonable in nature. The directives were given by his supervisors at MHS and Petitioner, all of whom had proper authority to issue such directives. As found above, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments to his students during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4). As found above, Respondent continued to lower students' academic course grades as a means of dealing with classroom behavioral issues during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non- disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination under rule 6A-5.056(4). Rule 6A-5.056(5) – Willful Neglect of Duty "Willful neglect of duty" is defined in rule 6A-5.056(5) as the intentional12 or reckless failure to carry out required duties. In continuing to intentionally engage in unauthorized grading practices by lowering students' academic course grades to address behavioral issues, Respondent engaged in willful neglect of duty. In continuing to intentionally make racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and engaging in disrespectful conduct toward his students, Respondent failed to comply with authority that establishes required duties. Specifically, Respondent's conduct did not comply with School Board Policy 4008.B.4., requiring that he treat students with kindness and consideration. Additionally, his conduct did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., requiring that he make reasonable efforts to protect students from conditions harmful to learning; refrain from exposing 12 "Intentional" is defined as "done with intention" or "on purpose." Dictionary.com, https://dictionary.com (last visited Apr. 21, 2021). The evidence establishes that Respondent's actions in this regard were done with intention or on purpose; there was no evidence presented from which it reasonably can be inferred that Respondent's actions in this regard were accidental. students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and refrain from harassing or discriminating against students on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity. Section 1008.24 – Test Administration and Security Based on the facts found above, it is determined that Respondent did not follow testing protocol when he failed to collect students' book bags before administering the PSAT on October 10, 2018. However, in order to violate section 1008.24, the failure to follow test administration directions must be done both "knowingly and willfully." Neither "knowingly" nor "willfully" are defined in chapter 1008. Where the legislature has not defined the words used in a statute, the language should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.13 The term "knowingly" is defined as "having knowledge or information"14 or "deliberate, conscious."15 The term "willfully" is defined as "deliberate, voluntary, or intentional."16 The evidence fails to establish that Respondent made the deliberate decision not to collect the book bags, notwithstanding the test manual and exam directions. From the evidence in the record, it is equally reasonable to infer17 that he either did not realize that he needed to collect the book bags, 13 Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cty. v. Survivors Charter Sch., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1220, 1233 (Fla. 2009). It is appropriate to refer to dictionary definitions when construing a statute in order to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of words used in the statute. Id.; Barco v. School Bd. of Pinellas Cty., 975 So. 2d 1116, 1122 (Fla. 2008); see also Rollins v. Pizzarelli, 761 So. 2d 294, 298 (Fla. 2000)(when necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary). 14 Dictionary.com, https://dictionary.com (last visited Apr. 22, 2021). 15 Black's Law Dictionary, Deluxe 7th ed., at p. 876. 16 See id. at p. 1593, describing "willful" or "willfully" as meaning "only intentionally or purposely as distinguished from accidentally or negligently." 17 See Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)(it is the presiding officer's function to, among other things, draw permissible inferences from the evidence). or that he simply forgot to do so. The latter inference is particularly plausible, given that he was running late in beginning administration of the test. Thus, it is found that Respondent did not violate section 1008.24, as charged in the February Administrative Complaint. School Board Policy 4008 - Responsibilities and Duties (Principals and Instructional Personnel) As discussed above, Respondent's racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments toward his students violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, as discussed herein, Respondent did not comply with rule 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, as required by paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B. Additionally, Respondent did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B. School Board Policy 6314 – Testing – Assessing Student Achievement School Board Policy 6314, the text of which is set forth in the Conclusions of Law, below, establishes a District-wide policy regarding annual achievement testing. The plain language of the policy states, in pertinent part, "[a] program of achievement testing shall be conducted annually . . . ," and "[t]esting within the Broward County School District should be conducted to . . . [p]rovide parents/guardians with a yearly individual student test report and interpretation for those students who have been tested." Policy 6314, at preamble, ¶ 2 (emphasis added). From this language, it is clear that Policy 6314 is specifically directed toward annual achievement testing, rather than routine classroom tests and quizzes. Further to this point, nowhere in Policy 6314 is there any language establishing a prohibition on giving unannounced class quizzes, or deciding not to count quiz grades in a class. Additionally, although the February Administrative Complaint cites Policy 6314 as a basis for imposing discipline, the policy does not establish any specific standards of conduct to which instructional personnel must adhere, or which can constitute the basis of disciplinary action for lack of compliance. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order cites Policy 6314 as a basis for imposing discipline on Respondent for having given an unannounced quiz in his class on material that he allegedly had not yet taught his class, and then deciding not to grade the quiz "because he could 'read the F's on their foreheads.'" However, as discussed above, the language of Policy 6314 makes clear that it does not apply to routine class tests and quizzes. Additionally, the February Administrative Complaint does not specifically charge Respondent with having engaged in any of this conduct. As discussed herein, Respondent cannot be disciplined for conduct which was not specifically charged in the Administrative Complaint.18 Therefore, even though credible testimony and other evidence was provided showing that Respondent engaged in this conduct, that evidence is relevant only with respect to whether Respondent made demeaning comments to his students. That conduct was charged in the February Administrative Complaint, and, as discussed herein, has been considered in determining that Respondent engaged in conduct constituting misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2). School Board Policy 4.9 – Corrective Action Petitioner also alleges that Respondent "violated" School Board Policy 4.9, titled "Corrective Action," as a basis for its proposal to terminate his employment. As further addressed in the Conclusions of Law, below, Policy 4.9 does not establish a separately enforceable standard of conduct which may be 18 Cottrill, 685 So. 2d at 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). See note 11, supra. violated for purposes of serving as the basis for discipline, but, rather, constitutes a policy designed to improve and/or change employee's job performance and conduct, as well as establishes Petitioner's progressive discipline policy for purposes of determining the appropriate penalty range for violations of applicable standards of conduct established in statutes, DOE rules, and School Board policies. In this case, Respondent has been charged with "Category B" offenses under Policy 4.9. Section III of Policy 4.9, titled "Other Considerations," sets forth a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may be considered in determining the appropriate penalty for Category B offenses. The racially insensitive and demeaning comments that Respondent repeatedly made to his students, over a substantial period of time in his employment with Petitioner, constitute a severe offense. The evidence establishes that Respondent's comments not only offended and embarrassed his students, but also affected his effectiveness as a teacher—to the point that one student avoided going to class in order to avoid Respondent's racially insensitive and disrespectful conduct toward him. Additionally, Respondent's conduct in lowering students' academic course grades to deal with behavioral issues, directly contrary to school grading policy set forth in the MHS Faculty Handbook, was severe, in that it inappropriately affected students' course grades in a negative manner. Moreover, Respondent's students were directly involved in, and affected by, his conduct. To this point, Respondent's racially insensitive and demeaning comments and disrespectful conduct was directed to his students, who were offended and embarrassed by his comments and conduct. Additionally, his students' grades were directly and negatively affected by Respondent's practice of lowering academic course grades to address behavioral issues. Respondent's conduct had direct, negative impacts on his students. Respondent has a lengthy corrective action history during his employment with Petitioner, dating back to 2011. He previously has received two verbal reprimands, two written reprimands, and a five-day suspension without pay. Additionally, he has received numerous non-disciplinary corrective actions during his employment with Petitioner. Collectively, he has received approximately 14 corrective actions, five of which were disciplinary, between July 2011 and November 2018. Notwithstanding these numerous corrective actions, Respondent has persisted, during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint, in engaging in much of the same conduct for which he previously has been disciplined or issued non- disciplinary corrective actions. The competent, credible evidence shows that these corrective actions have had little, if any, deterrent effect on Respondent's conduct. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, it is determined that Respondent should receive a ten-day suspension without pay in Case No. 19-3380, for having engaged in conduct that was charged in the February Administrative Complaint and proved by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence. May Administrative Complaint Petitioner demonstrated, by the preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct with which he was charged in the May Administrative Complaint. As discussed below, Respondent's conduct violated DOE rules and School Board policies. Rule 6A-5.056(2) – Misconduct in Office As found above, in the second semester of the 2018-1019 school year, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive and disparaging comments, and engage in demeaning and disrespectful conduct, directed toward his students. Specifically, he directed racially insensitive comments toward an African-American student, Dorcas Alao, regarding her language and ethnicity. As discussed above, Alao found Respondent's conduct offensive. Respondent's conduct in this regard constituted misconduct in office, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(2). Specifically, it disrupted his students' learning environment, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(d), and it reduced his ability to effectively perform his teaching duties, in violation of rule 6A-5.056(2)(e). Additionally, Respondent's behavior toward his students constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2)(b), because it violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a), which establishes his professional obligations to students. Specifically, in making racially insensitive and demeaning comments, he failed to make reasonable effort to protect his students from conditions harmful to their learning and to their mental health, in violation of rule 6A- 10.081(2)(a)1.; he intentionally exposed students to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5.; and he harassed students on the basis of race, color, and national or ethnic origin, in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)7. Respondent's racially insensitive and demeaning comments and disrespectful conduct toward his students also constituted misconduct in office under rule 6A-5.056(2)(c), because it violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, Respondent did not comply with paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B., because he violated the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, rule 6A-10.081, as discussed herein. Additionally, Respondent violated paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B., because he did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by that policy. Respondent's conduct in making unsubstantiated accusations against former assistant principal Hoff constituted misconduct in office because it violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(c)5., which establishes the professional standard that an educator shall not make malicious or intentionally false statements about a colleague. Although the evidence does not establish that Respondent's accusations about Hoff were malicious—i.e., characterized by, or showing malice, intentionally harmful, or spiteful19—it is reasonable to infer that they were intentionally false, given that Hoff had not been employed at MHS for over two years when Respondent made those accusations, and that Murray had succeeded Hoff as Respondent's supervisor. Rule 6A-5.056(3) – Incompetency In making racially insensitive and demeaning comments, and engaging in disrespectful conduct, toward his students, Respondent also failed to discharge his required teaching duties. Specifically, in making such comments and engaging in such conduct, Respondent failed to communicate appropriately with, and relate to, his students, and, thus, exhibited incompetency as a result of inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)2. As discussed herein, Respondent's conduct also violated rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., and, thus, constituted incompetency due to inefficiency, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(3)(a)1. Rule 6A-5.056(4) – Gross Insubordination As found above, on January 23, 2015, Respondent received a meeting summary regarding grading criteria; students not learning in, and failing, his courses; and making students feeling disparaged or embarrassed. On October 14, 2016, Respondent received a summary memorandum for his use of embarrassing language towards students. On February 7, 2017, Respondent received a five-day suspension for making racially insensitive and inappropriate comments to students. On March 23, 2017, Respondent was issued a cease and desist letter for his use of embarrassing and disparaging language toward students. On October 27, 2017, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the School Board’s professional standards committee for making embarrassing remarks to students. On or about December 7, 2017, 19 Dictionary.com, https://dictionary.com (last visited Apr. 22, 2021). Respondent received a meeting summary for making racially insensitive comments to a male African-American student. Additionally, as discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that Respondent be suspended without pay for ten days in Case No. 19-3380, for continuing to engage in such conduct during the timeframe covered by the February Administrative Complaint. This ten-day suspension constitutes yet another disciplinary corrective action against Respondent for continuing to engage in conduct about which he repeatedly has been admonished, and has been directed to cease. In each of these corrective actions, Respondent was specifically and expressly directed to cease engaging in specified conduct. These directives were directly based on school and School Board policies and DOE rules, and, thus, were reasonable in nature. The directives were given by his supervisors at MHS and Petitioner, all of whom had proper authority to issue such directives. As found above, Respondent continued to make racially insensitive and demeaning comments and engage in disrespectful conduct toward his students during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4). As found above, Respondent continued to lower students' academic course grades as a means of dealing with classroom behavioral issues during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, after repeatedly having been directed not to do so through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Respondent's conduct in this regard constitutes gross insubordination, pursuant to rule 6A-5.056(4). Rule 6A-5.056(5) – Willful Neglect of Duty "Willful neglect of duty" is defined in rule 6A-5.056(5) as the intentional20 or reckless failure to carry out required duties. In continuing to intentionally engage in unauthorized grading practices by lowering students' academic course grades to address behavioral issues, Respondent engaged in willful neglect of duty. In continuing to intentionally make racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments and conduct toward his students, Respondent failed to comply with authority that establishes required duties. Specifically, Respondent's conduct did not comply with School Board Policy 4008.B.4., requiring that he treat students with kindness and consideration. Additionally, his conduct did not comply with rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., 5., and 7., requiring that he make reasonable efforts to protect students from conditions harmful to learning; refrain from exposing students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement; and refrain from harassing or discriminating against students on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity. School Board Policy 4008 – Responsibilities and Duties (Principals and Instructional Personnel) As discussed herein, Respondent's racially insensitive, demeaning, and disrespectful comments toward his students violated School Board Policy 4008.B., regarding duties of instructional personnel. Specifically, as discussed herein, Respondent did not comply with rule 6A-10.081, the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, as required by paragraph 1. of Policy 4008.B. Additionally, Respondent did not treat all students with kindness and consideration, as required by paragraph 4. of Policy 4008.B. School Board Policy 4.9 – Corrective Action Petitioner also alleges that Respondent "violated" School Board Policy 4.9, titled "Corrective Action," as a basis for its proposal to terminate his employment. As previously discussed and further addressed in the Conclusions of Law, below, Policy 4.9 does not establish a separately enforceable standard of conduct which may be violated for purposes of serving as the basis for discipline, but, rather, constitutes a policy designed to improve and/or change employee's job performance and conduct, as well as establishes Petitioner's progressive discipline policy for purposes of determining the appropriate penalty range for violations of applicable standards of conduct. The racially insensitive and demeaning comments that Respondent made to his students, repeatedly, over a substantial period of his employment with Petitioner, constitute a severe offense. The evidence establishes that his comments not only offended and embarrassed his students, but also affected his effectiveness as a teacher. Additionally, Respondent's conduct in lowering students' academic course grades to deal with behavioral issues, directly contrary to school grading policy set forth in the MHS Faculty Handbook, was severe, in that it inappropriately affected students' course grades in a negative manner. Moreover, Respondent's students were directly involved in, and affected by, his conduct. To this point, Respondent's racially insensitive and demeaning comments and disrespectful conduct was directed to his students, who were offended and embarrassed by his comments and conduct. Additionally, his students' grades were directly and negatively affected by Respondent's practice of lowering academic course grades to address behavioral issues. Respondent's conduct had direct and negative impacts on his students. As discussed above, Respondent has a lengthy corrective action history during his employment with Petitioner, dating back to 2011. He has previously received two verbal reprimands, two written reprimands, and a 20 See note 12, supra. five-day suspension without pay. Additionally, in Case No. 19-3380, the undersigned has recommended that Respondent be suspended for ten days without pay for engaging in conduct charged in that case. Respondent also has been subjected to numerous non-disciplinary corrective actions during his employment with Petitioner. Collectively, counting the ten-day suspension that has been recommended in Case No. 19-3380, Respondent has received approximately 15 corrective actions, six of which were disciplinary in nature, between July 2011 and March 2019. Notwithstanding these numerous corrective actions, Respondent has persisted, during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, in engaging in much of the same conduct for which he previously has been disciplined and issued non- disciplinary corrective actions. The evidence shows that these corrective actions have had essentially no deterrent effect on Respondent's conduct. The competent, credible evidence establishes that Petitioner has given Respondent numerous chances, through its corrective action policy, including the progressive discipline process, to change his conduct which violated, and continues to violate, DOE rules and School Board policies. The competent, credible evidence establishes that nonetheless, Respondent has continued, during the timeframe covered by the May Administrative Complaint, to engage in much of the same conduct which violates DOE rules and School Board policies, and for which he previously has received numerous disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions. Petitioner has closely adhered to the progressive discipline provisions in Policy 4.9, meting out multiple verbal and written reprimands, interspersed with non-disciplinary corrective actions to Respondent, before resorting to suspending him from employment—first, for five days, then for ten days—for his persistent conduct which violated DOE rules and School Board policies. The purpose of Policy 4.9 is "to improve and/or change employees' job performance [and] conduct."21 Despite giving Respondent numerous opportunities, through disciplinary and non-disciplinary corrective actions, to change his conduct, Respondent has not done so. Given that Petitioner has closely followed the progressive discipline provisions of Policy 4.9, and the fact that Respondent has received numerous corrective actions over his period of employment with Petitioner—which have not resulted in him changing his conduct such that he does not engage in behavior which violates DOE rules and School Board policies—it is determined that, pursuant to Policy 4.9, Respondent should be terminated from his employment as a teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Broward County School Board, enter a Final Order in Case No. 19-3380 suspending Respondent for ten days without pay, and enter a Final Order in Case No. 19-3381 terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Marie Heekin, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Elizabeth W. Neiberger, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Katherine A. Heffner, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 Ranjiv Sondhi, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 Robert W. Runcie Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Tenth Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a district school board is entitled to dismiss a teacher for just cause based principally upon the allegation that he failed to prevent or stop two students from engaging in oral sex in his classroom.
Findings Of Fact The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. As of the final hearing, Respondent Ismael Delgado ("Delgado") had been employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for approximately 12 years. At all times relevant to this case, Williams was assigned to Booker T. Washington Senior High School, where he taught students with disabilities. The alleged events giving rise to this case allegedly occurred on December 6, 2004. The School Board alleges that on that date, during Delgado's fourth-period class, a female student named R. B. fellated a male student named D. B., while Delgado busied himself on the computer, paying no attention to the brazen carnality on display in his presence. The School Board charges that at about 11:15 a.m., a young man named K. M.——who was not a student of Delgado's——chanced to enter Delgado's locked classroom (somehow without attracting Delgado's attention) to check up on R. B. at precisely the moment she happened to be orally stimulating D. B.'s penis. K. M. was purportedly shocked to see this behavior——too shocked, evidently, to mention anything about it to Delgado, who allegedly remained glued to his computer, oblivious. K. M. later reported the alleged incident to another teacher, investigations ensued, and Delgado ended up being accused effectively of causing the students' sexual misconduct, for which the School Board now wants to fire him. Delgado consistently has maintained——and testified at hearing——that nothing extraordinary occurred in his classroom on December 6, 2004. He claims that he neither saw nor heard R. B. and D. B. engage in any sexual activity; indeed, Delgado insists that such behavior could not possibly have taken place in his presence. The undersigned fact-finder believes Delgado's testimony in this regard, which is more credible and persuasive than the evidence to the contrary, and finds, on the record as a whole, that the evidence is insufficient to establish that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's presence, as charged. Because Delgado witnessed nothing of the sort alleged, it is difficult to make affirmative findings concerning what, if anything unusual, occurred in Delgado's classroom on December 6, 2004. Compounding this difficulty, the students who testified were poor witnesses. The School Board called four purported eyewitnesses to the alleged sexual act: R. B. and D. B., the alleged participants; K. M., the student who serendipitously caught the two flagrante delicto; and A. S., another student in Delgado's class. Each one individually came across as an unreliable witness. None seemed to possess (or was able to articulate) a clear and precise memory of the remarkable alleged events, yet each recounted details that struck the undersigned as being implausible at best. Moreover, taken together, their stories are inconsistent and, in material respects, irreconcilable. In support of these general observations, the undersigned will add the following particular findings, to underscore the care with which the evidence has been weighed. As mentioned, the students who testified gave conflicting accounts about what occurred. The points in conflict are not mere minor details, as the School Board argues, but rather involve material facts, such as when the alleged sexual act took place and what Delgado was doing at that time. The details are critical because it is not enough for the School Board to prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex on December 6, 2004. In addition, the School Board alleged and must prove that the sex act took place in Delgado's classroom, while he was present; that Delgado knew or should have known what was going on; and that Delgado failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or stop the students from having oral sex. The following table presents a summary of the eyewitness testimony regarding six basic questions raised at hearing: R. B. D. B. A. S. K. M. When did act occur? In the morning, right before, and continuing after, the bell rang. In the middle of class. It was at the end of class, when the bell rings. Class was over. Before lunch; the bell rang at 11:50 a.m., so between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., but witness is unsure. Before the bell rang. Between 11 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. Before 12:15 p.m. K. M. came after the class was over. Where did At R. B.'s desk, in the At the front of At the At a desk. act occur? front of the class. the room. teacher's desk in the back. (A. S. had to turn around to see.) Where was Delgado? Before the bell rang, at his desk, in the back of the room. After the bell, he was in hallway. At the board, on one side of the classroom, facing away from the students. At the board. Behind the computer. What was Delgado doing? Before the bell, looking at "perfume" on the computer; he didn't see the act. After the bell, Delgado was in the hallway, watching students. Writing on the board with a marker; he didn't know that students were having sex. Not looking at the computer. Writing a science problem (or something) on the board. He didn't see what was happening. Busy looking at the computer. He didn't see any sexual activities. R. B. D. B. A. S. K. M. What did other students do? No one said anything. Students were standing up to shield R. B. and D. B., so Delgado couldn't see the act. Students were not standing up to block Delgado's view. They were playing cards or something. Were other Yes, K. W. & S. J. Yes. T. H. did Doesn't Didn't see that. students Their pants were down something remember; having sex at their ankles. They (unclear). didn't see too? stood by the wall, Also, K. W. that. having regular sex. "jacked" S. J. Students told hem to while they were stop. Delgado couldn’t sitting down at see the couple, but one of the heard the students and teacher's desks. told S. to get off K. No one said They ignored Delgado and continued. anything. Although many discrepancies are obvious, focus on the question of Delgado's whereabouts. Two students placed Delgado behind his computer at the relevant moment. Two others recalled that he was writing on the board. The School Board insists that Delgado was engrossed in his computer; it became invested in this theory during the investigative phase when an examination of the cookies on the hard drive of Delgado's classroom computer turned up electronic evidence that the Yahoo website might have been opened at 11:37 a.m.2 If Delgado were at the computer, however, then both D. B. and A. S. gave unreliable testimony on this significant point.3 Conversely, if D. B. and A. S. were believed, then the reliability of the accounts of R. B. and K. M. would be brought into question. The inconsistencies ultimately undermine the credibility of each of the student witnesses. Apart from the testimonial inconsistencies, none of the students, considered individually, impressed the undersigned as being a trustworthy witness. R. B.'s testimony was vague and childlike, offering little on which the fact-finder could get any traction. Her story, in a nutshell, is that D. B. and some other students goaded her into performing oral sex on D. B., to which she reluctantly consented in the vain hope that compliance would put an end to persistent prodding. R. B. also testified that while she was sucking on D. B.'s penis, two other students (S. J. and K. W., a male and female) were standing by the wall, their pants down at their ankles, having regular sex. This latter is beyond belief and suggests to the undersigned that R. B. has difficulty distinguishing fantasy from fact. That being the case, the undersigned considers her testimony unreliable and has discounted it accordingly. D. B.'s version of the alleged event differs from R. B.'s in one immediately apparent respect: as D. B. tells it, he was practically the victim, R. B. the aggressor who pulled down his pants and commenced sucking on his penis against his wishes. This is unlikely——almost absurd, the undersigned thinks——but D. B.'s testimony in this regard is notable insofar as it exposes a desire (also evident, incidentally, in R. B.'s testimony) to shift the blame——for whatever happened——to someone else. Like R. B., D. B. testified that other students also engaged in sexual activity that morning in Delgado's classroom. In particular, D. B. asserted that K. W. had "jacked" S. J. (i.e. masturbated his penis) while the couple had been sitting down at one of the teacher's desks. The undersigned believes that D. B.'s testimony about K. W. and S. J. is most likely a fabrication.4 Having given testimony that is probably untrue, D. B.'s credibility is suspect and his testimony as a whole must be discounted. A. S. testified that on the morning in question, he turned around and saw R. B. and D. B. at the teacher's desk in the back of room, R. B.'s mouth on D. B.'s penis. Apparently witnessing two classmates openly engaging in a sexual act was not a remarkable event for A. S., for he claims to have looked away and said nothing to the teacher (who was, according to A. S., writing a problem on the board at the time). The undersigned considers this to be implausible. He can scarcely believe that a student in A. S.'s supposed position would react in the blasé manner that A. S. described. The testimony as a whole is not credible. K. M.'s testimony is full of improbabilities. To begin, the undersigned is skeptical that K. M. just happened to be running an errand for his teacher in the middle of fourth period, allowing him to detour to Delgado's classroom to check up on R. B.——whom, he said, he treated "like a sister"——at the very moment she was performing fellatio on D. B. This is too contrived to be believable. Second, the undersigned does not believe that K. M. could have entered Delgado's classroom—— which, it is undisputed, was locked while class was in session—— without Delgado knowing about it, which is what K. M. claims occurred. Third, the undersigned rejects as incredible K. M.'s testimony that he stood watching R. B. suck on D. B.'s penis for a considerable period of time (several minutes), unobserved by Delgado, without saying anything to the teacher. Fourth, the undersigned disbelieves K. M.'s testimony that he slipped out of the secure classroom unnoticed by Delgado. Finally, K. M. testified at hearing with some certainty that he had reported the incident the next day, after carefully considering whether to do so. Yet, the contemporaneous written record reflects that he reported the matter within hours after its alleged occurrence. Standing alone, this latter would be a relatively minor discrepancy. But viewed in the light of other facially improbable details, this discrepancy is more troubling. All things considered, the undersigned harbors genuine doubt regarding K. M.'s reliability as a witness. The School Board offered the unsworn written statements of eight students, including the four who testified at hearing. These are hearsay and hence can be used, if at all, only to supplement or explain other admissible evidence.5 To give a flavor of the nature and quality of the evidence presented in support of the charges against Delgado, the undersigned will reproduce the statements of the non-testifying students below.6 S. J.7 gave a statement dated December 8, 2004, wherein he recounted:8 it happen when [R. B.] was siting between [D. B.] legs and when I went to get my paper from the printer and I turn around I seen [R. B.] sucking [D. B.] penis I was not the only one seen them [K. M.] seen them also this happen 2 minutes before the bell rang that how the other person which is [K. M.] seen them when he walk into the room and seen them thats how everything started. I was not involved with them. J. signed another statement, dated December 14, 2004, in which he wrote: When the problem happen the teacher was right in front of them but he told her to stop but she wouldnt. He told her plenty of times to go down stairs to see Ms. Thomas but she wouldnt. but when they were doing it in the corner in he see them crowed around he gets up to see what's going on thats the only time he gets up to see. the problem doesn't occur now scense she not in the class anymore. K. W.'s9 December 7, 2004, statement provides as follows: when she came in she started to play with [nickname deleted] and he said to leave him and still cap playing with and he got up side on the other side of the classroom and teacher her to stop she cap on playing with him and I when to sleep after that I does not know that they had sex or not. T. H. gave two written statements. The first, dated December 7, 2004, states: I was seating down on the char in I sha [D. B.] in [R. B.] [R. B.] was sukin [D. B.] penis two times. H.'s second statement is dated December 10, 2004. Therein he wrote: Mr. Dilgado trys to stop hus from having six bet we keep on going in he call ower house bet we cap on going. N. H. provided two statements, neither of which is dated. In one he wrote: [D. B.] in [R. B.] was having sex in the classroom. I was go to the computer lab. In the other, N. H. added: I feel I Mr. Delgado did not see [R. B.] in [D. B.] have sex in the class. These written statements do not explain or supplement the admissible evidence; to the contrary, if accepted they would create additional inconsistencies. Thus, the undersigned has not based any findings of fact on their contents. The undersigned has taken note, however, that out of 15-17 students in Delgado's fourth-period class, fewer than half (seven, to be exact) testified at hearing and/or signed a written statement about the alleged incident that was produced at hearing. This causes the undersigned to wonder what, if anything, the other 8- 10 students in the class witnessed on December 6, 2004. Given the paucity of persuasive evidence, the undersigned is better able to find what was not proved to have happened, than to find what likely happened in Delgado's classroom on December 6, 2004, if anything out of the ordinary. To repeat the key finding above, the School Board failed to prove that R. B. and D. B. engaged in oral sex in Delgado's classroom while he was present. While these students probably did not engage in oral sex, the undersigned believes that there is a slightly better than even chance, and thus he finds, that D. B. briefly exposed his penis in Delgado's classroom after the bell had rung and class had been dismissed, when Delgado was outside of the room monitoring the hallway, which is what he was supposed to be doing at the time.10 The undersigned thinks, based on the evidence presented, that it is reasonably possible (the probability being between, roughly, 25 percent and 35 percent) that R. B. might have placed her mouth on D. B.'s penis, but he cannot make this finding because he is not persuaded that this likely occurred. What is likely, and what the undersigned finds, is that D. B.'s exhibition was a type of taunting, teasing, or sexually harassing behavior directed at R. B. It is found that K. M. likely did enter Delgado's classroom, not during the class period as K. M. claimed, but after fourth period had ended, when Delgado was properly in the hallway and the door to his room was unlocked. It is found that, more likely than not, K. M. then learned about D. B.'s harassment of R. B. It is possible that the incident was already being exaggerated in discussions about what had happened. At any rate, by the time K. M. reported the incident, the facts had become distorted. There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado saw or knew about, or reasonably should have seen or known about, D. B.'s misbehavior, which occurred while Delgado was properly monitoring the hallway between classes. There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado reasonably should have foreseen D. B.'s misconduct or that he reasonably could have stopped or prevented it.11 There is no persuasive evidence that Delgado was in any way the cause of, or responsible for, D. B.'s bad behavior. In sum, the undersigned determines as a matter of ultimate fact that, to the extent anything unusual occurred on December 6, 2004, in Delgado's classroom, it was student misbehavior that took place outside the teacher's presence and beyond the reach of his senses. Delgado neither knew nor should have known that anything untoward was occurring. The student or students who engaged in the misbehavior should have been punished, not the teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order: (a) exonerating Delgado of all charges brought against him in this proceeding; (b) providing that Delgado be immediately reinstated to the position from which he was suspended without pay; and (c) awarding Delgado back salary, plus benefits, that accrued during the suspension period, together with interest thereon at the statutory rate. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent's suspension should be upheld and whether his employment with Petitioner should be terminated, as set forth in Petitioner's action letter dated August 21, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the School Board was a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32, Florida Statutes (2002). At all times material hereto, Mr. Moore was employed full-time with the School Board as a paraprofessional at Robert Renick Educational Center (Renick) and subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board in accordance with Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2002). The UTD Contract, between the School Board and UTD, also governs the terms and conditions of Mr. Moore's employment. In April 1977, Mr. Moore began his employment with the School Board and was assigned to Renick. He remained at Renick as a paraprofessional through February 9, 2003. In December 1996, prior to beginning his employment with the School Board, Mr. Moore was charged with possession of stolen property and driving with a suspended license and an expired registration. A few months later, on February 20, 1997, Mr. Moore completed an application for employment with the School Board and indicated on the application that he had no criminal charges pending. However, at the time that he made application for employment, the charges of December 1996 were pending. Mr. Moore does not contest several performance problems and deficiencies for the period October 19, 1998 through March 10, 2002. By memorandum dated October 27, 1998, Mr. Moore was notified by the assistant principal, James DeWitt, that he violated School Board policy on October 19, 1998, by allowing a student to be in possession of the key to his classroom. Mr. DeWitt advised Mr. Moore that a reoccurrence of the violation would lead to a conference-for-the-record. By memorandum dated October 17, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that he had arrived late at school that same day without notifying the main office of his tardiness in accordance with the UTD Contract. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the established work hours and advised Mr. Moore that further failure to adhere to his work schedule would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated November 2, 2000, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 1, 2000, he (Mr. Moore) was playing a game on his computer while the students were taking a test even though he was required to monitor the test; and that his (Mr. Moore's) failure to supervise and monitor the test resulted in a student writing the answers in the wrong section of the test. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that, among other things, his lack of supervision would not be tolerated and that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 5, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by the principal, Eugenia Smith, that, among other things, he was on leave without authorization for 17 days of the 2000-2001 school year, from February 8, 2001 through March 5, 2001. Ms. Smith directed Mr. Moore to, within three (3) days of the date of the memorandum, provide his intended date of return or resign from employment with the School Board. By memorandum dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on December 5, 2001, because of his (Mr. Moore's) lack of supervision, a student pushed the emergency call button twice even though no emergency existed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to his duties in his job description and advised Mr. Moore that his failure to adhere to the duties would result in disciplinary action. By memorandum dated March 8, 2002, Ms. Smith notified Mr. Moore that he had been tardy for several days, specifying the days of tardiness. On March 8, 2002, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore to address his tardiness, including noncompliance with verbal and written directives regarding his tardiness. Also present were, Ms. Smith, Mr. DeWitt, and a UTD representative. At the conference-for-the-record Mr. Moore was given specific directives regarding future tardiness, which were to be to work on time and to adhere to procedures in the UTD contract. A summary of the conference-for-the-record dated March 10, 2002, was prepared and was subsequently signed by Mr. Moore. By memorandum dated November 8, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that, on November 7, 2002, Mr. Moore's personal telephone was confiscated because it had been used in the classroom as an extension of the school's telephone system. By memorandum dated November 13, 2002, Mr. Moore was notified by Mr. DeWitt that his (Mr. Moore's) use of his personal telephone as an extension of the school's telephone system was a violation of the School Board's policy prohibiting telephones in the classroom unless approved by the administration. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to School Board policies and advised Mr. Moore that failure to do so would result in disciplinary action. Mr. Moore does not contest violating the School Board's policy regarding the use of his personal telephone in the classroom. By memorandum dated January 17, 2003, Mr. DeWitt notified Mr. Moore that, on January 22, 2003, he (Mr. Moore) left the school for approximately one and one-half hour, from approximately 11:50 a.m. to 2:20 a.m., without signing-out as required by the School Board's policy. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to adhere to the scheduled work hours and advised (Mr. Moore) that his failure to so adhere would result in further disciplinary action. On January 22, 2003, Mr. Moore was arrested based on an outstanding warrant for the December 1996 charges previously indicated. Renick is a special center for emotionally handicapped and severely emotionally disturbed students. The student's have emotional problems, which interfere with their ability to learn. The teachers, including paraprofessionals, at Renick are specially trained to deal with the behavior problems of the students. The School Board adheres to a graduated system of discipline for students, which consists of the following: first, student conferences are held, then parent conferences, and then parent-teacher conferences; and after the conferences, indoor suspension, then detention, and, lastly, outdoor suspension. Also, located in each classroom is a call button to call security for assistance if needed. The use of profanity and corporal punishment is prohibited by School Board rules. As a paraprofessional with the School Board for several years, Mr. Moore knew or should have known the School Board's graduated system of discipline, rules, and policies. Training is provided for teachers, including paraprofessionals, in the management of students at Renick, who are misbehaving. Also, in-house workshops are provided. The training is "crisis management," which was formerly safe physical management. In crisis management, physical restraint is the last resort; interventions are used instead. A student's parent must consent in writing for the use of physical restraint; however, even without consent, physical restraint may be used for situations that do not de-escalate. If physical restraint is used, the situation must be documented and the student's parent must be notified. One intervention is a prearranged intervention in which the student and teacher agree on a technique to be used by the teacher to make the student aware that his/her behavior is escalating. The prearranged intervention may be, for instance, a pulling of the student's ear. If the prearrange intervention fails to de-escalate the student's behavior, another intervention referred to as proximity control may be used. In this technique, the student feels the teacher's presence by the teacher moving towards the student, which interrupts the student's behavior. If no interventions, whether verbal or non-verbal, de- escalates the student's behavior, which begins to get out-of- control, forms of physical restraint may be used, as a last resort. One form of physical restraint is for the teacher to hold the student with his/her hand to communicate to that student that his/her behavior is escalating, with safety being the primary issue. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may resort to a more restrictive restraint such as the cradle. In using this technique, both the student and teacher are standing, with the student having his/her back to the teacher, and the teacher holding the student, with safety being the primary issue. Again, the teacher is attempting to have the student realize that his/her behavior is escalating. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher may take the student to the floor. One technique used is the cradle assist. In this technique, the student is brought to the floor by the teacher and the student is held by the teacher in a cradle-like position. If the student's behavior continues to escalate, the teacher, with the assistance of a colleague, may hold the student to the floor. Using a colleague, assists the student in calming down. Whenever physical restraint is used, the parents of the student are notified. Furthermore, the student is counseled, and the student's file must be documented regarding the use of physical restraint. Mr. Moore received the training as to the interventions and the physical restraints. Furthermore, he attended at least one in-house workshop. Therefore, Mr. Moore had knowledge of the behavior techniques. A past performance problem involving Mr. Moore and a student was documented by a memorandum dated July 24, 1998 from Mr. DeWitt to Mr. Moore. The memorandum addressed "alleged misconduct" by Mr. Moore committed on July 20, 1998, in which Mr. Moore allegedly choked a student, when he was putting the student in time-out, and used inappropriate language by calling the student a "faggot." Although the memorandum indicated that Mr. Moore stated that he may have grabbed the student's neck, the memorandum did not indicate that the allegation was confirmed. Mr. DeWitt directed Mr. Moore to "refrain from using inappropriate procedures and language" while performing his duties. The statement by Mr. Moore showed that he admitted, not denied, that he did take some action with the student. Regarding incidents with students, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges alleges a specific incident, occurring on December 19, 2002, between Mr. Moore and a student, J. G. Allegedly, Mr. Moore told J. G. that he "was going to kill him" and "for him [J. G.] to meet him [Mr. Moore] at the store in five minutes since he [J. G.] was bad, so they could fight"; and that he "was going to make him [J. G.] his girl"; Furthermore, Mr. Moore allegedly called J. G. a "fat bitch." Additionally, Mr. Moore allegedly told another student, X. W., that he would "fuck X. W.'s mother in the grave" and called X. W. a "faggot." Also, Mr. Moore allegedly grabbed another student, I. J., and subsequently, another student, M. S., and pulled their arms behind their backs and pushed them against a wall. Further, the Amended Notice of Specific Charges contains a general allegation of how Mr. Moore treated students, i.e., "Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, pushed students to the ground, picked a student up and slammed him to the floor, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay." As to the general allegation, student D. J. testified regarding Mr. Moore pushing a student to the ground. D. J. testified that he did not want to do his work and attempted to leave the classroom without permission from Mr. Moore; that Mr. Moore would not allow him to leave the room; and that Mr. Moore placed him on the floor, face first, with his (D. J.'s) arms behind his back in a manner that hurt him (D. J.). No one else was in the classroom to witness the alleged incident. No specific time period was provided for the alleged incident. Mr. Moore's testimony did not address this particular incident. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. D. J.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find D. J.'s testimony convincing. Even if Mr. Moore engaged in the physical restraint of D. J., the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. D. J. was attempting to force his way out of the class. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the incident and notify D. J.'s parents that physical restraint was used. Also, as to the general allegation, student M. L. testified regarding picking a student up and slamming the student to the floor. M. L. testified that, except for him, all the other students in the class had completed their work and were in the rear of the classroom with the teacher; that he had just completed his work and was walking to the rear of the class when Mr. Moore walked into the classroom; that Mr. Moore told him that he was out of his seat without permission; and that Mr. Moore picked him up and slammed him to the floor, placing his (Mr. Moore's) knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore testified that M. L. was out of his seat without permission and that M. L. was running in the classroom and would not sit down even though Mr. Moore asked him to sit down and stop running. M. L. admitted that he had been disciplined before for running around in the classroom. Mr. Moore admits that he put M. L. to the floor, which de-escalated the situation, and that he then allowed M. L. to get up. Furthermore, Mr. Moore admits that he did not document the incident and did not notify the parents of M. L. that physical restraint had been used on M. L. No testimony was presented from Mr. Moore's supervising teacher, Jaime Calaf, regarding the incident with M. L. No other testimony was presented. As to the incident with M. L., the only witnesses testifying were M. L. and Mr. Moore. In considering M. L.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. M. L.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, and his admission that he had been disciplined for the same action previously detracted from the credibility of his testimony. Specifically, the undersigned is not convinced that M. L. had completed his work, that he was not disruptive, that Mr. Moore slammed M. L. to the floor, and that Mr. Moore put his knee in M. L.'s back. Mr. Moore admits that he put, not slammed, M. L. to the floor. The undersigned does not find M. L.'s testimony convincing. The evidence presented fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore's action was inappropriate under the circumstances. However, Mr. Moore failed to document the situation and failed to notify the parents of M. L. as required that physical restraint had been used with M. L. Regarding the general allegation that Moore often hit students with a broomstick on the legs and buttocks, wrestled students in the classroom, and often called them gay, M. L. testified as to Mr. Moore punching students in the arm, who were misbehaving, and O. B. testified as to Mr. Moore hitting students with a broom. M. L. testified that, at times, Mr. Moore punched him and other students in the arm when they were misbehaving. The undersigned's decision as to M. L.'s credibility remains the same. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Moore punched students who were misbehaving. O. B. testified that Mr. Moore attempted to hit him once with a broom when he was misbehaving and, at times, hit other students with a broom when they were misbehaving. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but that also the students should expect to be treated in accordance with the School Board's established crisis management techniques. O. B. testified that he did not consider J. B. to be a disruptive student; whereas, the evidence presented, regarding J. B., clearly indicates that J. B. is a disruptive student. O. B.'s demeanor and candor, during his testimony, together with his unsupported conclusion that J. B. was not a disruptive student, detracted from the credibility of his testimony. The undersigned does not find O. B.'s testimony convincing. Further, Mr. Calaf testified that, on occasions, he observed Mr. Moore grabbing students in the back and getting rough with them. Mr. Calaf did not testify that he reported his observations to the principal or other person who could exact discipline upon Mr. Moore. Moreover, Mr. Calaf did not testify that what he observed was inappropriate or contrary to the established crisis management training. Consequently, Mr. Calaf's observations cannot be used to support the alleged inappropriate conduct by Mr. Moore. Regarding the specific incident involving J. G. in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges, according to the principal of Renick, Eugenia Smith, she would not have recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore if it had not been for the incident on December 19, 2002, involving J. G., a middle school student at the time. No dispute exists that the School Board uses progressive discipline. For Ms. Smith, the incident involving J. G. was the incident that triggered the dismissal of Mr. Moore. As a result, this incident is the defining incident for Ms. Smith's decision to recommend dismissal of Mr. Moore and, therefore, if this incident is not proven, the basis for her recommendation of Mr. Moore's dismissal no longer exists. As to the specific incident involving J. G., the witnesses to the incident are J. G., other Renick students in the class, and Mr. Moore. No dispute in the testimony exists that, on December 19, 2002, Mr. Moore and J. G. got into a shouting match and that Mr. Moore never touched J. G. At Renick, J. G. was disruptive in his classes and had had many discipline problems. One psychologist at Renick, Joseph Strasko, described J. G. as physically disruptive and aggressive. Another psychologist at Renick, Theodore Cox, Jr., had observed J. G. engaging in inappropriate behavior. Also, Mr. Strasko described J. G. as a student who would not tell the truth when it was detrimental to him (J. G.); whereas, Mr. Cox had not known J. G. to tell an untruth. As to whether J. G. would tell the truth, the undersigned finds Mr. Strasko to be more credible and, therefore, finds that J. G. will not tell the truth when it is detrimental to him (J. G.). As to what lead to the shouting match, only Mr. Moore was certain as to what happened. The undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony credible regarding this aspect of the incident. J. G. was bullying a new student in the class and had physically moved toward the new student. Mr. Moore interceded to stop the bullying by J. G. and to protect the new student, requesting J. G. to take his seat but J. G. refused. Mr. Moore kept himself between J. G. and the new student, thereby, preventing J. G. from advancing upon the new student. What Mr. Moore said during the shouting match is where the testimony differs. However, no dispute exists as to certain aspects of the incident: that J. G. became angry and disrespectful toward Mr. Moore; that J. G. stated to Mr. Moore that, if Mr. Moore put his hands on him, he (J. G.) would bring his father and brother to Renick and they would deal with Mr. Moore; and that J. G. used profanity with Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore denies that he used profanity or disparaging remarks during the incident with J. G. The crisis management expert, Mr. Strasko,2 testified that it is not appropriate for a teacher to shout profanities at a student who is shouting profanities at the teacher; and that a teacher is required to be professional even when students are being disruptive. X. W., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that Mr. Moore called J. G. a "fat bitch" and called him (X. W.) a "punk." X. W. is J. G.'s cousin. D. J., a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that he did not hear about what J. G. and Mr. Moore were arguing. However, D. J. testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother and that he (Mr. Moore) would "lay him on the ground." O. B. a student who was at Renick in the class at the time of the incident on December 19, 2002, testified that, when J. G. told Mr. Moore that he (J. G.) was going to bring his (J. G.'s) brother, Mr. Moore told J. G. to bring his brother to the store and that they would deal with it then. O. B. further testified that J. G. and Mr. Moore were calling each other gay and other derogatory names. Further, regarding the incident on December 19, 2002, Mr. Calaf did not witness the incident. Mr. Calaf returned to the class after the incident had occurred and observed J. G. crying and Mr. Moore and J. G. shouting at each other. Mr. Calaf did not testify as to what Mr. Moore and J. G. were shouting but did testify that he advised Mr. Moore that he (Mr. Moore) should not shout at students and should always remain professional, not getting on the level of the students. As to J. G.’s being disruptive in the class, Mr. Calaf testified that J. G. was generally disruptive and that usually Mr. Moore could calm J. G. down. The undersigned finds Mr. Calaf's testimony credible. In considering J. G.'s credibility, the aforementioned factors describing J. G. must be considered. In considering X. W.'s credibility, the undersigned must include, as a factor, that the students at Renick have behavior problems but also that teachers are required not to use profanity and to be professional. Further, the undersigned must consider the fact that X. W. is J. G.'s cousin, which was unbeknownst to Ms. Smith. In considering D. J.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider the factor that D. J. complained that Mr. Moore used physical restraint against him in an earlier incident in which the only witnesses were he and Mr. Moore. The incident and D. J.'s credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering O. B.'s credibility, the undersigned must consider that O. B. complained that he observed Mr. Moore hitting students at Renick with a broom. The incident and O. B's credibility are addressed earlier in these findings. In considering Mr. Moore's credibility, the character testimony provided by Mr. Strasko and the character letters provided by Mr. Moore's colleagues must be considered. Mr. Strasko and Mr. Moore's colleagues address, among other things, what they consider the appropriate manner in which Mr. Moore handled students who were having behavior problems. Further, Mr. Moore's length of employment with the School Board, and his aforementioned past performance situations must be considered, including the one documented alleged inappropriate crisis management technique and language used by Mr. Moore in July 1998. Taking all of the aforementioned factors of credibility into consideration, the undersigned finds Mr. Moore's testimony more credible than the students, the character testimony and letters persuasive, and the lack of evidence, as to what was said, by a witness who was not involved in the incident, i.e., Mr. Calaf. Therefore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Moore did not use profanity during the incident of December 19, 2002. Mr. Moore did not report the incident involving J. G. Mr. Moore did not believe that the incident rose to the level that reporting was necessary. Moreover, no physical restraint was used. On May 1, 2003, a conference-for-the-record was held with Mr. Moore by the School Board's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) to review his employment history and future employment with the School Board. Among those in attendance with Mr. Moore were a UTD advocate, Ms. Smith, and the assistant superintendent for the Office of Exceptional Student Education and Student/Career Services. By a summary of the conference- for-the-record, dated June 6, 2003, the conference-for-the record was memoralized. By memorandum dated May 28, 2003, Ms. Smith and the assistant superintendent recommended the dismissal of Mr. Moore. By letter dated August 21, 2003, the School Board notified Mr. Moore that at its meeting on August 20, 2003, it took action to suspend him and initiate dismissal proceedings against him from all employment with it.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: Finding Algernon J. Moore, Jr. in violation of Counts I and IV in accordance with this Recommended Order. Dismissing Counts II and III. Upholding the suspension of Algernon J. Moore, Jr. Dismissing Algernon J. Moore, Jr. from all employment with the Miami-Dade County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 30th day of December, 2004.
The Issue Whether the Respondent should be dismissed from her employment as a teacher because of incompetency, as alleged in the Petitioner's letter to the Respondent dated November 16, 1999, and in the Notice of Specific Charges filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 22, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is the entity authorized to operate the public schools in the county and to "provide for the appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal of employees" of the school district. Section 4(b), Article IX, Florida Constitution; Section 230.23(4) and (5), Florida Statutes (1997). At the times material to this proceeding, Ms. Weinstein was an elementary school teacher employed under a continuing contract by the School Board and assigned to Miami Heights Elementary School ("Miami Heights Elementary"). Ms. Weinstein has been employed by the School Board since 1968. Ms. Weinstein is a member of United Teachers of Dade and is governed by the Contract Between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD Contract"). During the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Weinstein taught a second grade class at Miami Heights Elementary. She was placed on alternate assignment on February 9, 1999, and, in March 1999, she took medical leave, which was approved by the School Board. On October 13, 1999, Ms. Weinstein was advised that she must either resign or retire from her position as a teacher with the School Board by October 20, 1999, and that, if she did not do so, a recommendation would be made to the School Board at its November 17, 1999, meeting that she be dismissed from her employment. The decision that Ms. Weinstein could no longer teach in the Miami-Dade County public school system was based on two grounds. First, she had received an unacceptable evaluation for the 1998-1999 school year based on the determination that her teaching performance was not acceptable and that she had failed to remediate the deficiencies identified in the TADS formal observations conducted in September and November 1998 and in January 1999. Second, two psychologists had found Ms. Weinstein medically unfit for duty as an elementary school teacher as a result of psychological evaluations conducted in January 1999 and August 1999. Performance as a teacher Parent and teacher complaints Blanca M. Valle became principal of Miami Heights Elementary in June 1997. Soon after she assumed her duties, Ms. Valle received a letter from a parent complaining that Ms. Weinstein allegedly told her son he was "stupid"; the parent requested that her son not be assigned to Ms. Weinstein's class for the upcoming school year. At the time, Ms. Weinstein was teaching in a summer program at South Miami Heights Elementary School. Although the charge made by the parent was not substantiated, 1/ the child was assigned to a different teacher for the summer program, and Ms. Valle made sure that the child was not assigned to Ms. Weinstein's class for the 1997- 1998 school year. Ms. Valle assigned Ms. Weinstein to teach a kindergarten class during the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Valle received several letters from parents in September 1997 complaining about Ms. Weinstein's treatment of their children. One parent complained that Ms. Weinstein ignored her son when he raised his hand to participate in class; another parent asked that his child be assigned to another kindergarten class because the child felt intimidated and frightened in Ms. Weinstein's class; another parent complained that Ms. Weinstein was not aware that her daughter was lost in the cafeteria for 45 minutes after lunch; another parent complained that her son's school supplies were stolen from the classroom, his homework was not collected by Ms. Weinstein, and his shirt was cut in several places by another student during the time he was under Ms. Weinstein's supervision. As a result of the complaints, Ms. Valle assigned Ms. Weinstein in October 1997 to teach a third grade class that had just been created at Miami Heights Elementary to accommodate a greater-than-expected number of students. In addition to re- assigning Ms. Weinstein, Ms. Valle assigned another teacher to act as her mentor, assigned the grade level chairperson to work closely with her, and referred her to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. 2/ After Ms. Weinstein was transferred, Ms. Valle received several letters from parents of third grade students complaining about Ms. Weinstein and asking that their children be transferred to another class. One parent complained that, during a field trip the parent was chaperoning, Ms. Weinstein spent an inordinate amount of time berating students for misbehavior, to no effect; she lacked control of the class, and she was disorganized; another parent complained that, during a conference with Ms. Weinstein and Ms. Clayton, Ms. Weinstein lied about sending progress reports home to the parent and said that her daughter was crazy. During the 1998-1999 school year, Ms. Weinstein was assigned to teach a second grade class. Ms. Valle received several letters from parents complaining about Ms. Weinstein and requesting that their children be transferred to another class. Several parents stated that they wanted their children transferred to another class because they had received negative reports from other parents regarding Ms. Weinstein. One parent complained that her son cried every morning and did not want to go to school, that Ms. Weinstein told the parent that her son lied to the parent and to himself, and that Ms. Weinstein did not have a professional appearance; another parent complained that Ms. Weinstein ignored her daughter when she raised her hand to turn in her homework. Crystal Coffey was the assistant principal at Miami Heights Elementary during the 1998-1999 school year, which was her first year in the position at Miami Heights Elementary. It was not unusual for parents to approach her and ask that their child be transferred out of Ms. Weinstein's class. At the end of the 1998-1999 school year, when Ms. Weinstein was on medical leave, Ms. Valle received letters from three teachers complaining about Ms. Weinstein. The second grade level chairperson during the 1998-1999 school year complained that Ms. Weinstein was very difficult to work with and did not grasp the curriculum or understand how to present lessons. Another teacher commented that she had observed Ms. Weinstein engage in a pattern of unprofessional and often bizarre behavior over the years. A teacher who team-taught language arts with Ms. Weinstein wrote that, among other things, Ms. Weinstein would not let students go to the rest room, that on two occasions Ms. Weinstein sat at her desk during class and ate a chef salad and a tuna salad with her hands, and that Ms. Weinstein would put a "bad behavior" check mark beside children's names for the most minor offenses. Observations of Ms. Weinstein's teaching performance Ms. Weinstein's performance as a teacher was rated acceptable overall and acceptable in every performance category in each annual evaluation from the 1978-1979 school year 3/ through the 1997-1998 school year. Ms. Valle signed Ms. Weinstein's Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS") 4/ Annual Evaluation for the 1997-1998 school year based on a formal TADS observation conducted on April 13, 1998, by the then-assistant principal of Miami Heights Elementary, Alice Clayton. Ms. Clayton prepared a CAI-Post Observation Report for the April 13, 1998, TADS observation rating Ms. Weinstein's performance acceptable in each category assessed. She also rated Ms. Weinstein's performance acceptable for each indicator in each category. Ms. Valle conducted informal observations of the classroom performance of each of the teachers in Miami Heights Elementary; it was her practice to visit all of the classrooms in the school at least once a day. During her informal observations of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance, she observed students who were not on task, discipline problems, and a general lack of teaching and learning in the classroom. Ms. Coffey made it a practice to informally observe each teacher's classroom at least three times each week. Ms. Coffey informally observed Ms. Weinstein's classroom an average of three times each week during the 1998-1999 school year. At the beginning of the school day, Ms. Coffey would often find Ms. Weinstein sitting at her desk in the classroom eating her breakfast or looking "spacey," apparently unaware that the classroom door was open and that a number of parents were trying to talk with her and/or trying to get their children organized for the day. On September 18, 1998, Ms. Valle, who was trained in the use of TADS, conducted a formal TADS observation of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance and completed both a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement with respect to the observation. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance acceptable in three categories listed on the CAI Post-Observation Report: knowledge of subject matter, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in three categories on the CAI Post-Observation Report: preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. The Record of Observed Deficiencies contains numerous references to Ms. Weinstein's failure to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students who were off task; rather, Ms. Valle observed that Ms. Weinstein ignored students who were talking and playing and generally behaving poorly, and she seemed to be unaware of the students' behavior in her classroom. Ms. Valle also observed that Ms. Weinstein ignored students who raised their hands with questions or to contribute to the class discussion, did not provide background information for her lesson or any explanation of how to do the problems assigned, did not acknowledge that many of the children were confused by the lesson, and did not provide closure to the lesson. On November 16, 1999, Ms. Coffey, who was trained in the use of TADS, conducted a formal TADS observation of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance and completed both a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement with respect to the observation. Ms. Coffey rated Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance acceptable in two categories listed on the CAI Post-Observation Report: knowledge of subject matter and assessment techniques. Ms. Coffey rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in four categories on the CAI Post-Observation Report: preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Ms. Coffey observed that Ms. Weinstein did not follow her lesson plan and went beyond the time allotted for the lesson, leaving the teacher who was to teach the next lesson knocking at the classroom door for over five minutes. Ms. Coffey noticed that students already had completed the workbook page for the lesson, and, in Ms. Coffey's opinion, Ms. Weinstein was not teaching a new lesson during the observation but one she had already taught. Ms. Coffey observed that Ms. Weinstein did not use any verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect the many students who were off task and that she put check marks for bad behavior and stars for good behavior beside students' names, which she had written on the chalk board, without providing any explanation to the students and often for no discernable reason. Ms. Coffey also observed that Ms. Weinstein often ignored students' inappropriate behavior, did not monitor whether the students were learning the lesson, did not provide feedback to the students, and did not respond to students who had questions. A Conference-for-the-Record was held on December 8, 1998, to discuss Ms. Weinstein's September and November performance assessments and related matters and her future employment status with the School Board. Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey attended the conference, as well as Ms. Weinstein and two union stewards. Ms. Valle discussed the two TADS formal observations with Ms. Weinstein, as well as the prescriptive activities assigned in the observation reports and ways in which Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey would assist her to improve her teaching performance. Ms. Weinstein was advised that disciplinary action would be considered if her performance did not improve. On January 25, 2000, Ms. Valle conducted her second formal observation of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance, and she completed both a CAI Post-Observation Report and a Record of Observed Deficiencies/Prescription for Performance Improvement with respect to the observation. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance acceptable in three categories listed on the CAI Post-Observation Report: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, and teacher-student relationships. Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in three categories on the CAI Post-Observation Report: classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. At the time of the second observation, Ms. Weinstein had not remedied many of the unsatisfactory teaching behaviors Ms. Valle had observed in her formal observation in September 1998. The lesson observed by Ms. Valle on January 25, 1999, was on the concepts of solid, liquid, and gas, but Ms. Valle observed that Ms. Weinstein did not use any supplemental materials or hands-on activities to teach the students, nor did she provide necessary background information or closure for the lesson. Ms. Valle observed that Ms. Weinstein did not call on students who had raised their hands with questions or to contribute to the class discussion, did not provide feedback to help students who were confused by the lesson, failed to use verbal or non-verbal techniques to redirect students who were off task, and ignored students who were off task, seemingly unaware of their behavior. In addition, Ms. Valle found that Ms. Weinstein had virtually no documentation to support grades for the students: As of January 25, 1999, the most recent grade recorded in Ms. Weinstein's grade book was for December 9, 1998, and there were no assessments and very little work contained in the students' folders. On June 8, 1999, Ms. Valle prepared a memorandum regarding Ms. Weinstein's TADS Annual Evaluation for the 1998- 1999 school year, in which Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein unacceptable in every category of classroom assessment; Ms. Valle rated Ms. Weinstein acceptable in professional responsibilities. The memorandum was prepared in lieu of conducting a conference-for-the-record because Ms. Weinstein was on extended medical leave. In the memorandum, Ms. Valle advised Ms. Weinstein that her performance was unacceptable because the deficiencies identified in the formal TADS observations in September and November 1998 and January 1999 had not been remediated. Ms. Valle advised Ms. Weinstein that the assessment process would continue when she returned to Miami Heights Elementary. Had Ms. Weinstein not gone on medical leave in March 1999, she would have been entitled to at least one, and perhaps two, formal TADS observations conducted by a School Board administrator other than Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey. As it was, no external TADS observation was conducted, and the TADS assessment process was not completed. Fitness for duty as a teacher In a memorandum to the Office of Professional Standards dated January 13, 1999, Ms. Valle requested that Ms. Weinstein be given a fitness evaluation because she had observed Ms. Weinstein engage in behavior during the 1998-1999 school year that Ms. Valle considered unusual. Ms. Valle attached to the memorandum letters that Ms. Weinstein had prepared requesting that the parents of various students sign a statement "for her autograph book" to the effect that "Ms. Weinstein is a good teacher"; Ms. Weinstein passed the letters out to students and parents and disrupted classes when she took letters to other teachers and asked that they give them to the students whose names she had written on the letters. Both parents and teachers complained to Ms. Valle about these letters. Ms. Valle observed Ms. Weinstein engage in other behavior that Ms. Valle considered unusual: Ms. Weinstein came to school dressed in a manner that Ms. Valle considered inappropriate, and her hair was often untidy; during the winter, Ms. Weinstein sometimes wore a hat pulled down to her eyes the entire day; during a meeting with Ms. Valle and others, Ms. Weinstein took a pair of leopard-print gloves out of a box she carried and put on the gloves; Ms. Weinstein attended a PTA meeting wearing a black see-through skirt and blouse; Ms. Weinstein gobbled her food and ate food such as tuna salad with her hands; Ms. Weinstein walked in the school halls with a blank look on her face. In addition, Ms. Valle noted that Ms. Weinstein had excessive absences from school. Ms. Coffey observed Ms. Weinstein engage in behavior she considered unusual: When she had conferences with Ms. Weinstein, Ms. Weinstein would not look at her or respond to questions or statements except to say that "it's not true"; Ms. Weinstein wore a fur-like hat and long leopard gloves on hot days and sometimes walked around school under an umbrella when it was not raining; and Ms. Weinstein often had a "spacey" look and seemed not to understand what was being said to her. In response to Ms. Valle's request that Ms. Weinstein be referred for a fitness evaluation, a Conference-for-the- Record was held in the Office of Professional Standards on January 27, 1999, to consider, among other things, Ms. Weinstein's performance assessment and her medical fitness to perform her assigned duties. The Summary of the Conference- for-the-Record reflected that Ms. Weinstein was advised that her absences were considered excessive because she used more sick leave than she had accrued, and the two formal TADS observations completed in September and November 1998 were discussed. Ms. Weinstein acknowledged that the School Board had the right to require that she be evaluated to determine her fitness for duty, and she chose to be evaluated by Dr. Larry Harmon, whose name appeared on a list of psychologists approved by the School Board. Ms. Weinstein appended a two-page response to the Summary of the Conference-for-the-Record in which she admitted to some of the behaviors identified by Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey but disputed the conclusion that these behaviors were unusual. Dr. Harmon's evaluation - January 1999 At the request of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Larry Harmon, who is a licensed clinical psychologist, performed a fitness-for-duty evaluation of Ms. Weinstein on January 28, 1999. In evaluating Ms. Weinstein, Dr. Harmon conducted a clinical interview and a mental status examination, administered several psychological tests, consulted with other mental health professionals, and reviewed materials provided to him by the School Board. Dr. Harmon issued a report dated March 10, 1999, in which he deferred his diagnosis with respect to Axis I "Clinical Disorders and Conditions." 5/ He diagnosed Ms. Weinstein with "Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified" with respect to Axis II "Personality Disorders," 6/ commenting that she exhibited moderate to severe patterns of defensiveness, denial, projection, blame, rationalization, distorted thinking, suspiciousness, selective listening, inability to process and accept feedback, poor judgement, and lack of insight. Dr. Harmon deferred his diagnosis with respect to Axis III "Physical Disorders and Conditions" to her physician. Dr. Harmon concluded that Ms. Weinstein was not fit for duty as an elementary school teacher. This conclusion was based on his assessment that [h]er impaired interpersonal behavior and unacceptable work performance in Preparation and Planning, Classroom Management, Techniques of Instruction, and Teacher- Student Relationships is likely to continue and be considered below acceptable standards. Based on this assessment, there is insufficient supporting information to clear her to return to work. . . . Dr. Harmon's assessment that her interpersonal behavior was impaired was based on his observations that Ms. Weinstein was extremely defensive and almost in a state of denial that there were any problems with her interactions and performance; that she had difficulty processing information conveyed to her during the clinical interview and mental status examination; that her judgment was impaired and her problem-solving ability reduced; and that she had a low level of insight into the effect of her behavior on others. Dr. Harmon found that Ms. Weinstein generally had serious difficulties with job tasks requiring interpersonal interactions and stated that individuals with her [Ms. Weinstein's] level of defensiveness, distorted thinking, suspiciousness, denial, selective listening, inability to engage feedback, poor judgement, and lack of insight are likely to evidence significant work difficulties, especially if she is under stress. . . . [T]here appears to be a probability of significant risk that her inadequate interpersonal skills and inability to benefit from feedback will adversely affect her work performance . . . . Among other things, Dr. Harmon recommended in his report that Ms. Weinstein be placed on medical leave for at least one month to allow her to receive intensive mental health treatment to help her improve her interpersonal skills and work performance and that she participate in psychotherapy sessions and follow the recommendations of her psychotherapist. Another Conference-for-the Record was held in the Office of Professional Standards on March 17, 1999, for the purpose of discussing Ms. Weinstein's medical fitness to perform her assigned duties. At the time, Ms. Weinstein was temporarily assigned to the Region VI Office, where she had been placed in early February 1999. Dr. Harmon's report was reviewed at the conference with Ms. Weinstein and the union representative, and the recommendations in his report were accepted by the School Board as conditions for Ms. Weinstein's continued employment as follows: Obtain medical clearance from the Board approved evaluator to return to work within 29 working days of this conference or implement procedures for Board approved medical leave. Participate in psychotherapeutic sessions on a regular basis to be monitored by personnel from the District's support agency. Follow all recommendations of the health care professionals. Sign a limited Release and Exchange of Information for all of your mental health professionals which restricts the release and exchange of information to those symptoms, behavioral patterns, and treatment compliance issues directly relevant to your fitness for duty determination. Upon the recommendation of the District's support agency, which will be based upon discussions with your treating mental health professionals, a re-evaluation will be scheduled for you with Dr. Harmon. Ms. Weinstein was advised that, if she did not comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations, the School Board would be compelled to take disciplinary measures against her including suspension, demotion, or dismissal. In the School Board's opinion, Ms. Weinstein was not ready to assume her duties after 30 days, and she subsequently took School Board-approved medical leave through the end of the 1998-1999 school year. Dr. Feazell's evaluation - March 1999 After the School Board received Dr. Harmon's evaluation report, Ms. Weinstein sought a second opinion on her fitness to carry out her duties as a second grade teacher with the Miami-Dade County school system. David A. Feazell, a licensed psychologist, conducted a psychological evaluation of Ms. Weinstein on March 22 and 26, 1999, and prepared a report summarizing his findings. Dr. Feazell spent approximately two hours with Ms. Weinstein in a clinical interview and another two hours administering psychological tests, which included personality and intelligence tests. Ms. Weinstein provided Dr. Feazell a copy of Dr. Harmon's report; he did not have access to the information provided to Dr. Harmon by the School Board, although he had access to the summary of the information contained in Dr. Harmon's report. Dr. Feazell noted in his evaluation report that, during the clinical interview, Ms. Weinstein's account of her employment situation was relevant and detailed and consisted of explanations for her behavior and rebuttal of the complaints made about her. Ms. Weinstein believed that she had made an unduly negative impression on Dr. Harmon because she was ill at ease and defensive in answering his questions. The psychological tests given by Dr. Feazell revealed that Ms. Weinstein's MMPI-2 [Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2] profile is defensive, going beyond that which is commonly seen in fitness for duty evaluations. She denies emotional discomfort and vulnerability, as well as common place human faults and frailties. She presents an unusually positive self-image, describes herself as self-controlled and quite socially responsible, and reports unusually low levels of depression or anxiety. In MMPI-2 item responses, she admits minimal social anxiety and characterizes herself as very outgoing, despite describing herself in the interview as shy. Individuals with Ms. Weinstein's MMPI-2 and Rorschach profiles are typically inclined to deny problems and not to have a high level of introspection or insight into their own feelings. They can be simplistic or inflexible into [sic] their approach to problems and tend to see things too much in terms of how others do not understand them or treat them unfairly. Ms. Weinstein actually shows several signs of a particular need for the approval and affection of others, so that she may find situations quite disconcerting in which others evaluate, criticize, or take a demanding, skeptical view of her. In terms of judgment, Ms. Weinstein is capable of thoughtful, perceptive analysis of situations. However, she also appears likely to overlook or misinterpret important details. Her judgment can be inconsistent, especially under conditions of emotional stress. She seems to react strongly to emotional stimuli. She could benefit from the support or guidance of others in learning to stop and to look at a situation from other points of view before she draws unwarranted or inaccurate conclusions. It is noted that testing shows no bizarre thinking or major distortion of judgment. Based on his clinical interview and testing of Ms. Weinstein, Dr. Feazell diagnosed her with an Axis I clinical diagnosis of "Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct in the face of occupational and personal stress." Dr. Feazell did not make an Axis II diagnosis, noting that "[a]lthough personality patterns predispose her to respond with some defensive inflexibility to certain interpersonal stresses, there may not be sufficient evidence of a formal personality disorder." Dr. Feazell did note, however, that, at the time of his evaluation, Ms. Weinstein was inclined to overreact to stress and to misunderstand things and form incomplete conclusions when she was under stress. Dr. Feazell finally observed that Ms. Weinstein needs continuing psychotherapy to develop better ways to recognize and deal with uncomfortable feelings, to learn better skills for hearing and taking in feedback and information without over-reacting and selectively misunderstanding it, and to learn better awareness of how her won style of judgment and interaction can hinder her problem solving under pressure. In Dr. Feazell's opinion, Ms. Weinstein was fit for duty at the time he evaluated her in March 1999 "as long as she has the support of treatment while working out her job issues with her principal. It is recommended that Ms. Weinstein return to work with continuing treatment." According to Dr. Feazell, Ms. Weinstein's prognosis is fairly good if she continues in treatment. Dr. Gibb's evaluation - August 1999 Ms. Weinstein was referred by the School Board for a follow-up fitness-for-duty evaluation, which was performed by Charles C. Gibbs on August 13, 1999. Dr. Gibbs conducted a clinical interview with Ms. Weinstein, administered several psychological tests, reviewed records provided by the School Board, and reviewed the evaluations of Ms. Weinstein performed by Dr. Harmon, Dr. Feazell, and Dr. Maurer, a psychologist who evaluated Ms. Weinstein at her request in June and July 1999. Dr. Gibbs tried to contact Ms. Weinstein's psychotherapist, Tyrone Lewis, but Mr. Lewis did not return several telephone calls. In Dr. Gibbs' opinion, Ms. Weinstein's most likely diagnosis would be an Axis I clinical disorder, such as depression, anxiety, or an adjustment disorder. Dr. Gibbs concluded that Ms. Weinstein was not fit to return to her job duties as an elementary school teacher as of August 1999, observing in the report of his psychological evaluation that [c]urrent test results and clinical data indicate that Ms. Weinstein is excessively defensive, guarded, substitutes fantasy for reality in stressful situations and she is plagued with poor judgment given her tendency to make decisions based on inadequate information. Furthermore she is not introspective and lacks insight into her behavior. As such she tends to project blame onto others and minimize the effects of her behavior on those in her environment. The aforementioned summary of the data in my professional opinion would make it difficult for Ms. Weinstein to counsel students when adjustment and/or academic problems arise. Further concern is raised in that she tends to make poor decisions based on inadequate information. Working with children requires a great deal of patience and as noted by results from Dr. Maurer with which I concur she is in a constant state of stimulus overload. Thus such typical stressors such as managing classroom rules and behavior of students will likely result in Ms. Weinstein becoming overwhelmed. Additionally, her unconventional and egocentric style will not allow her to meet the changing and challenging emotional needs of elementary children. I am further concerned that her defensiveness will prevent her from benefiting from constractive [sic] criticism which will impair her participating in professional meetings and being able to put into action new information obtained from conferences and inservice classes. Dr. Gibbs noted in his report that Dr. Feazell and Dr. Maurer had both concluded that Ms. Weinstein was fit for duty but that they had not reviewed the materials he received from the School Board. Dr. Gibbs also was concerned that Ms. Weinstein had some mild organic impairment, and he recommended that she have a full neuropsychological evaluation. He further recommended that Ms. Weinstein continue in therapy for at least three months before having another evaluation of her fitness for duty and that, if she were at some point allowed to resume her duties as an elementary school teacher, she "team teach with another professional for 3 months prior to teaching on her own." Ms. Weinstein's psychotherapy treatment Ms. Weinstein has been in treatment with Tyrone Lewis, a psychotherapist, since January 1999. Mr. Lewis sees Ms. Weinstein once a week and sometimes once every two weeks; he engages in what he describes as "supportive psychotherapy" with Ms. Weinstein, which is designed to provide her with insight into her current situation and to help relieve her depression and anxiety. Currently, he is working with Ms. Weinstein to help her deal with the uncertainty about her job and the possibility that she will not work as a teacher. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Lewis was of the opinion that Ms. Weinstein was much improved, specifically with respect to her cognitive skills, her depression, her anxiety, and her awareness of her current life situation. Final Conference-for-the Record A Conference-for-the-Record was held at the Office of Professional Standards on October 13, 1999, to review Ms. Weinstein's performance assessment and her medical fitness to perform assigned duties. Ms. Weinstein had been working in her alternate assignment in the Region VI Office since the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year. With respect to Ms. Weinstein's performance assessment, the results of the observations done by Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey in September and November 1998 and in January 1999 were reviewed, and it was noted that her 1998-1999 TADS Annual Evaluation was unacceptable. Ms. Weinstein was advised that her teaching performance was not acceptable and that she had not remediated the cited deficiencies. With respect to Ms. Weinstein's medical fitness to perform her duties, the report of Dr. Gibbs was reviewed with Ms. Weinstein and her union representative. The School Board personnel acknowledged that Dr. Feazell and Dr. Maurer both concluded that Ms. Weinstein was able to return to work, while Dr. Harmon and Dr. Gibbs concluded that Ms. Weinstein was not able to return to work. The School Board accepted the assessment of Dr. Gibbs. Ms. Weinstein requested that she be evaluated by a fifth doctor, as a "tie breaker"; this request was denied, as were Ms. Weinstein's requests that she be transferred from Miami Heights Elementary and that the School Board authorize additional leave to allow time for her to have the neurological examination recommended by Dr. Gibbs. Ms. Weinstein was advised that she must either resign her job or retire because she had been unable to obtain medical clearance to return to her teaching duties and was not eligible for additional leave. Ms. Weinstein did not choose to resign or retire by the October 20, 1999, deadline, and the School Board suspended her and recommended her dismissal from employment at its November 17, 1999, meeting. Summary The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Weinstein is incompetent as a teacher because she failed to communicate with or relate to her students to such a degree that the students were denied a minimum educational experience. Based on the formal and informal observations of Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey during the fall of 1998 and in January 1999, Ms. Weinstein exercised virtually no control over the students in her classroom and either indiscriminately reprimanded the students or ignored their inappropriate behavior. Ms. Weinstein did not present her lessons in a coherent fashion, did not respond to students who were either confused or wanted to participate in the class, and was seemingly indifferent to whether the students learned in her classroom. No improvement of Ms. Weinstein's classroom performance was noted by Ms. Valle in her formal observation in January 1999 even though Ms. Weinstein had completed the activities prescribed by Ms. Valle and Ms. Coffey with respect to the September and November 1999 observations. The School Board has shown by the greater weight of the persuasive evidence that Ms. Weinstein is unable to perform her responsibilities as an elementary school teacher as a result of inefficiency in the classroom. The evidence presented by the School Board is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Ms. Weinstein is incompetent as a teacher because she is not emotionally stable. Dr. Harmon, Dr. Gibbs, and Dr. Feazell reached virtually the same conclusions regarding Ms. Weinstein's psychological profile and personality traits. All three psychologists found that Ms. Weinstein is extremely defensive, shows little insight into her own behavior, is unable to accept and benefit from feedback, makes judgments based on incomplete or incorrect information, and processes information poorly when she is in a stressful situation. On the basis of their assessments, Dr. Harmon and Dr. Gibbs concluded that Ms. Weinstein is unfit to carry out the duties as a teacher of elementary school children; Dr. Feazell concluded that Ms. Weinstein was fit to return to her teaching duties as of July 1999, as long as she continued in treatment to resolve the issues he identified in his evaluation report. The psychotherapy treatment Ms. Weinstein is receiving is not, however, focused on developing her ability to interact with others, to process and benefit from feedback, or to improve her judgment and ability to react properly in stressful situations, and Mr. Lewis supported his opinion that Ms. Weinstein was fit for duty as an elementary school teacher with nothing more than the observation that she was "much improved." The School Board has shown by the greater weight of the persuasive evidence that Ms. Weinstein is not fit to discharge her duties as a teacher at Miami Heights Elementary as a result of emotional instability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the suspension without pay of Yvonne M. Weinstein and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, for incompetency. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2000.
