The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment as a teacher.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within the Broward County, Florida, pursuant to Florida Constitution Article IX, section 4(b), and section 1012.23, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed with Petitioner as an exceptional student education ("ESE") teacher at Silver Ridge Elementary School in Broward County, Florida. The Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding Respondent has extensive educational training and experience in working with disabled and special needs students for many years. Respondent worked in the school system in Long Island, New York, as a paraprofessional for an estimated 13 to 14 years. Her duties included working with exceptional students at a cerebral palsy center, where she assisted teachers in changing students' diapers, feeding them, and assisting them in using various types of adaptive equipment. She also taught and tested special needs students having physical disabilities but possessing greater cognitive awareness. At the encouragement of teachers with whom she worked, Respondent pursued and received her bachelor's degree in elementary education in 1999, while continuing to work as a paraprofessional in the school system. Thereafter, she pursued her master's degree while working as a substitute teacher during the school year and as a teacher for summer school during the summer months. Respondent received her master's degree in special education in 2003. Respondent began working as an ESE teacher at Silver Ridge Elementary School in 2003, shortly after she moved to Florida. The allegations giving rise to this proceeding span the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. During both school years, Respondent's ESE students were disabled and most of them were nonverbal. Petitioner alleges that during both school years, Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive actions toward students in her classroom in violation of Department of Education rules and Petitioner's policies. The 2011-2012 School Year Background Starting in August of the 2011-2012 school year, paraprofessionals Rostande Cherelus and Cara Yontz were assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom. Cherelus and Yontz both testified that they had a good working relationship with Respondent. However, this testimony is belied by the credible, persuasive evidence establishing that Respondent did not enjoy a smooth working relationship with either of them. The persuasive evidence establishes that the difficulties in Respondent's relationship with both paraprofessionals stemmed from their frequent tardiness, leaving the classroom during instructional time without Respondent's permission, and frequent use of their cell phones in the classroom during instructional time. Respondent let them know on many occasions that this behavior was not acceptable. The persuasive evidence further establishes that neither paraprofessional was particularly cooperative in assisting Respondent in the classroom. For example, when Respondent attempted to engage the participatory-level students in the various learning activities class, the paraprofessionals ——particularly Cherelus——would often respond with what Respondent characterized as "huffing and puffing," rolling of the eyes, crossed arms, and comments questioning the utility of engaging in activities to educate the students because "that kid can't do anything anyway." Respondent credibly testified that when admonished, Cherelus would make statements such as "thank God, God didn't give me a kid like that." Respondent consistently reported the ongoing problems with Cherelus and Yontz to then-Principal Marion Gundling and then-Assistant Principal Saemone Hollingsworth. However, it appears that this effort was in vain. By November 7, 2011, the situation in Respondent's classroom had deteriorated to the point that Respondent requested a meeting with Gundling and Hollingsworth to address the continuing problems with the paraprofessionals. After the November 7, 2011, the situation in Respondent's classroom did not improve. Respondent testified, credibly, that both paraprofessionals continued to be difficult to work with, that there was constant friction in the classroom, and that both paraprofessionals were aware of her lack of satisfaction with their behavior and job performance. They also knew that she communicated her dissatisfaction to the school administration. On December 1, 2011——notably, before Cherelus and Yontz alleged student abuse by Respondent1/——Respondent contacted Gundling and Hollingsworth by electronic mail ("email"), stating "[m]y classroom is an absolute disaster since our meeting." The email described in great detail2/ events, actions by the paraprofessionals, the dysfunctional atmosphere in Respondent's classroom arising from the paraprofessionals' behavior and poor job performance, and Respondent's continued dissatisfaction with them. On December 15, 2011, Yontz filed a written statement with the school administration alleging that Respondent had taken abusive actions toward students D.N. and J.M. Yontz's statement alleged that in October of that year, Respondent had become angry with D.N., screamed at her, and grabbed her hair from behind. The statement also alleged that in October of that year,3/ Respondent punished student J.M. by confining her to the classroom bathroom from 8:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. The statement further alleged that on December 15, 2011, Respondent had become angry with and screamed at student J.M., pushed her face, and attempted to secure J.M's glasses, which were too large for her face, with a rubber band. According to Yontz's statement, Respondent pulled J.M.'s hair, causing her to make noises indicating that she was in pain. Cherelus filed a written statement with the school administration on December 16, 2011, stating that when she had returned from break the previous day, J.M. was upset. According to Cherelus' statement, when she asked J.M. what was wrong, J.M. said "Ms. T. pull" and made a pulling motion while pointing to her glasses. On December 16, 2011, Respondent was removed from her classroom pending an investigation of the allegations against her made by Yontz and Cherelus. Ultimately, the investigation yielded insufficient evidence to support Yontz's and Cherelus' allegations and Petitioner took no disciplinary action against Respondent at that time. She was returned to her classroom in April 2012. Notwithstanding that the investigation absolved Respondent, Petitioner now seeks to take disciplinary action based on these accusations. Allegations in Amended Administrative Complaint In Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint filed in this proceeding on April 1, 2014, Petitioner alleges that during the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive acts toward students D.N., J.M., A.S., and C.A., who were assigned to her class. Each of these allegations is addressed below.4/ Student D.N. Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that in October 2011, Respondent screamed at student D.N. for being unable to complete her work and pulled her hair. At the final hearing, Cherelus and Yontz both testified that one day in the classroom, Respondent grabbed D.N. by her ponytail. However, their testimony is inconsistent regarding key details and circumstances. Cherelus testified that Respondent grabbed D.N. and pulled her up from her chair because she had asked D.N. to get up and go get her classwork, and D.N. did not do so. Cherelus testified that Respondent said something to the effect of "[l]et's go, you don't want to do your work" and pulled D.N. up from her chair by her ponytail, causing D.N. to fall on the floor. Cherelus testified that D.N. screamed and Respondent let her go. Cherelus further testified that Respondent did not scream at D.N. Yontz, on the other hand, testified that Respondent screamed at D.N. because she was not focusing on the classwork in front of her on her desk. Yontz testified that at one point, Respondent grabbed D.N. by the back of the neck and forcefully held her head to keep her facing downward. Yontz testified that Respondent then grabbed and tugged D.N.'s ponytail and pulled her head backward to force her to look at her work. The inconsistencies between the Cherelus' and Yontz's testimony are significant. Cherelus described a situation in which Respondent jerked D.N.'s ponytail to make her get up from her desk, and that as a result, D.N. fell to the floor. However, Yontz described a situation in which D.N. remained seated and Respondent jerked her head backward by her ponytail to make her focus on the work on her desk.5/ Additionally, Yontz testified that Respondent screamed at D.N., while Cherelus specifically stated that she did not scream. Yontz testified that Respondent grabbed the back of D.N.'s neck, while Cherelus did not testify to that effect. Testimony regarding key details and circumstances surrounding the incident is vital to determining credibility in a case such as this, where the witnesses for both parties have differing accounts of the events at issue. Here, due to the inconsistencies in their testimony regarding significant details and circumstances regarding the alleged incident, the undersigned finds neither Cherelus' nor Yontz's testimony persuasive or credible. By contrast, Respondent provided a clear, detailed account of the incident that significantly differed from that provided by Cherelus and Yontz. On the day in question, Respondent was working with D.N., who has a movement-related disability, to direct her to focus on her work. Because of D.N.'s disability, she was easily distracted and often looked around at activity occurring on either side of her. Thus, when Respondent engaged in one-on-one instruction with D.N., she would stand behind D.N. and use a series of voice and gestural commands, verbal and gestural prompts, and physical prompts as necessary, to get D.N. to focus on her work. Pursuant to D.N.'s individual education plan ("IEP"), she had worn a weighted vest to assist her in focusing on her work, but shortly before the incident, her IEP had been amended to no longer include use of the vest, so Respondent had instead begun using physical compression on D.N.'s shoulders, with her thumbs touching the back of her neck, to assist D.N. in focusing. Respondent credibly testified that the compression was slight, not forceful. On the day in question, Respondent used the compression technique but D.N. continued to look around, so Respondent put her hands on the sides of D.N.'s face to focus her to gaze downward at her work. When Respondent removed the compression from D.N.'s shoulders, she popped backward. Respondent credibly testified that she did not pull D.N.'s hair or jerk her head backward by her ponytail. Respondent's account of the incident is credible and persuasive.6/ Further, the timing of Respondent's email communication with Gundling and Hollingsworth is significant to determining the comparative credibility of Respondent, Cherelus, and Yontz. Respondent's December 1, 2011, email to Gundling and Hollingsworth described in significant detail the events and actions that had taken place in Respondent's classroom following her November 7, 2011, meeting with them. Of particular note is Respondent's detailed description of Cherelus' actions on December 1, 2011, toward student D.N.——specifically, that Cherelus pulled D.N's hair and screamed at her. Respondent's email account of that incident, sent on the same day it was alleged to have occurred and describing it in substantial detail, is far more persuasive than both Cherelus' or Yontz's subsequent statements and hearing testimony regarding the incident. The credible, persuasive evidence leads to the inference that as a result of the paraprofessionals' poor relationship with Respondent, they accused her——after she had reported their poor performance——of the very conduct toward student D.N. that Respondent previously reported that Cherelus had committed. This is a far more reasonable inference than the version of events that Petitioner espouses——which would require the undersigned to infer that Respondent somehow knew that she was going to be accused, at a later date, of pulling D.N.'s hair and screaming at her, so she covered herself by preparing and sending the December 1, 2011, email accusing Cherelus of engaging in that same conduct. For these reasons, the undersigned finds the testimony of Cherelus and Yontz regarding the alleged incident involving D.N. incredible and unpersuasive. Conversely, the undersigned finds Respondent's testimony regarding D.N. credible and persuasive. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint regarding student D.N. Student J.M. In paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in October 2011, Respondent confined student J.M. to the classroom restroom from 8:30 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. as punishment for urinating in her pants. Petitioner's direct evidence to support this allegation primarily consisted of Yontz's testimony.7/ According to Yontz, J.M. came to school one morning after having wet her pants the previous day, and Respondent immediately placed her in the classroom restroom, with the door closed, to punish her.8/ Yontz testified that Respondent left J.M. in the restroom by herself with the door closed beginning at 8:30 a.m. until 1:45 p.m., only being allowed to leave the restroom for lunch in the cafeteria. Yontz also testified that because J.M. was confined to Respondent's classroom restroom all day, the other students in Respondent's class had to use the restroom in other classrooms. Cherelus did not testify regarding this alleged incident.9/ Respondent's clear, credible explanation of this incident differed sharply from that provided by Yontz. Because J.M. frequently would urinate in her pants, her mother would send multiple sets of clothing to school so that Respondent could change J.M.'s clothes when this happened. J.M. had urinated on herself the previous day and had gone through her last set of clothing that day, so Respondent sent a note home to J.M.'s mother asking her to send a fresh set of clothing to school the following day. However, when J.M. arrived at school the next day, she had urinated in her pants and her mother had not sent extra clothing. Respondent changed J.M. into a borrowed set of D.N.'s clothing. J.M. again urinated in her pants and at that point, there was no extra clothing in the classroom for J.M. to wear. Respondent sent Cherelus to the school clinic to see if there was extra clothing that J.M. could wear and she also contacted J.M.'s mother to bring clothing to school for J.M. During the time it took for Cherelus to go to the clinic and return with clothing for J.M. to change into, Respondent put J.M. in the restroom. Respondent could not recall the exact amount of time that J.M. was confined to the restroom, but estimated that it was a short amount of time. She credibly testified that J.M. did not spend the entire day confined to the restroom, and that J.M. was not placed in the restroom as punishment, but, rather, to await a change of clothing. J.M.'s mother, Shakima Brown, verified Respondent's account of the incident. Brown testified that Respondent called her on the day in question to request that she bring a change of clothes to the school. Brown lived only ten minutes away, and she directed Respondent to place J.M. in the restroom until she could bring the extra clothing to the school. Brown testified, credibly, that J.M. had never communicated to her that Respondent confined her to the restroom as punishment, and that had that happened, J.M. would have let her know. The credible, persuasive evidence supports Respondent's account of this incident. The undersigned finds Yontz's account of this incident incredible and unpersuasive. Petitioner also alleges, in paragraph 6. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that on December 15, 2011, Respondent verbally abused J.M., slapped her face, and popped her with a rubber band that she had tied to J.M.'s glasses in an effort to keep them on her face. Yontz is the only witness whose testimony Petitioner presented who claimed to have actually seen the incident. Yontz testified that on the day in question, J.M. was attempting to write her name but was unable to do so without making mistakes. According to Yontz, this annoyed Respondent, who screamed at J.M. Yontz testified that J.M.'s glasses kept falling off, so Respondent tied a rubber band on the ends of them to keep them from falling off. However, the rubber band was too tight so kept popping J.M.'s ear, causing her to make noises as if she were in pain. According to Yontz, Respondent pushed J.M.'s face and screamed at her "oh, you're so annoying, you freaking idiot." Yontz testified that Respondent did not slap J.M.'s face.10/ Cherelus' also testified regarding this incident. She testified that on that day, she took J.M. to another classroom, and that as she was doing so, J.M. cried. Cherelus testified that when she asked J.M. what was wrong, J.M. said "Ms. T slapped me" and gestured in a manner that Cherelus interpreted as showing that Respondent had slapped J.M.11/ On cross examination, Cherelus acknowledged that she did not see Respondent slap J.M., pull her hair, or otherwise hurt her. Cherelus further acknowledged that J.M. is largely nonverbal and incapable of articulating sentences, and that she only said "Ms. T." while making a pulling motion. In any event, Cherelus did not have personal, independent knowledge of this alleged incident, and her testimony was based on J.M.'s limited statement and gesture. Maureen McLaughlin, the child abuse designee for Silver Ridge Elementary School, also testified regarding this alleged incident. McLaughlin testified that Yontz brought J.M. to her office,12/ and that at Yontz's prompting, J.M., using a teddy bear, indicated that Respondent had pushed her head using an open hand. McLaughlin testified: [a]nd basically, it's hard to enact, but J. took her hand, sort of open like this, and what I remember is that her head turned, like, she turned her head. So it was hard to tell, like, is it a slap, is it a push, but it was an open hand and her head ended up being turned because of it. McLaughlin reported the incident to the abuse hotline.13/ Respondent provided a credible, persuasive explanation of the incident. She testified that J.M. previously had a pair of glasses that did not fit her and had used a teal elastic band to hold them on her face. At some point, J.M. lost both the elastic band and her glasses, so Respondent contacted J.M.'s mother regarding getting another pair of glasses for J.M.; however, J.M.'s mother told her that they could not afford to purchase another pair of glasses. Respondent gave J.M.'s mother a pair of glasses frames that had belonged to her daughter, and J.M.'s mother had the frames fitted with J.M.'s prescription. However, those glasses also did not fit J.M.'s face and fell off when she looked down. On the day in question, Respondent tried, unsuccessfully, to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face using a large rubber band. The rubber band popped, causing J.M. to make a sound. Respondent apologized, tried one more time to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face using the rubber band, then gave up. Respondent testified that while she was attempting to tie the glasses on J.M.'s face, J.M. was moving around, so Respondent had J.M. put her head down on the desk. J.M. was hearing-impaired and had put her head down on the side on which her functioning ear was located, so Respondent used her open hand to turn J.M.'s head to the other side. Respondent credibly testified that she did not slap J.M., scream at her, or pull her hair. J.M.'s mother, Shakima Brown, testified that she had been informed of the incident concerning J.M.'s glasses and that on her own, over a period of days, had asked J.M. several times if anyone had hit her. Brown testified, credibly, that J.M. said "no" every time she was asked.14/ The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not scream at J.M., did not slap her face, and did not intentionally hurt her by popping her ear with a rubber band. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 6. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student A.S. In paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent handled A.S. in a physically rough manner, causing him to sustain a scratch on his neck. Cherelus testified that she did not recall any incident involving a student named "A.," and she could not recall his last name. Yontz testified that one day, she took the children out for recess, and as they were leaving, A. was in the room with Respondent. A. subsequently came outside and was crying, and Yontz observed scratch marks on A.'s neck. Yontz testified that she had asked what had happened, and Respondent told her that A. had scratched his neck on the corner of the counter as he put trash in the trash can. Neither Yontz nor Cherelus saw Respondent scratch A., and Petitioner presented no other evidence showing that Respondent scratched A. The sum of Petitioner's evidence regarding this allegation is that A. was scratched while in the classroom with Respondent. There is absolutely no competent substantial evidence in the record showing that Respondent scratched A. Additionally, neither Yontz nor Cherelus, or any other witness, specifically identified "A." as the student "A.S." named in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence linking the testimony about "A." to any allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations set forth in paragraph 5. of the Amended Administrative Complaint involving student A.S. Student C.A. Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 7. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that C.A. went home with scratches on his neck and face over a three-day period, and that when Respondent was questioned, she claimed that C.A. "had an encounter with a tree." Presumably, paragraph 7. is intended to charge Respondent with scratching C.A. and then lying about it. However, this paragraph does not expressly allege that Respondent scratched C.A. or otherwise injured C.A., so fails to allege that Respondent engaged in conduct that, if proven, would violate Petitioner's policies or Department of Education rules. Further, to the extent paragraph 7. could be read to sufficiently allege that Respondent scratched or otherwise injured C.A., there was no testimony presented at the final hearing by anyone having personal knowledge of the alleged incident. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence supporting this allegation.15/ Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation involving student C.A. set forth in paragraph 7. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. The 2012-2013 School Year Background Petitioner alleges in the Amended Administrative Complaint that during the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent again engaged in physically and verbally abusive acts toward students assigned to her class. Paraprofessionals Shirley Brown and Monica Jobes were assigned to assist in Respondent's classroom in the 2012-2013 school year. That year, approximately nine ESE students were assigned to Respondent's classroom. The credible, persuasive evidence made abundantly clear that neither Brown nor Jobes enjoyed a smooth working relationship with Respondent. This was, in large measure, due to the fact that Respondent had high expectations regarding their performance in assisting her in the classroom, and she consistently reminded Brown and Jobes of those expectations.16/ In particular, Respondent made clear that her——and, by extension, the paraprofessionals'——job entailed taking reasonable and necessary measures to work with students to help them achieve to their capabilities. Respondent testified, persuasively, that neither Brown nor Jobes were dedicated to this approach and instead viewed their jobs more as caretakers or "babysitters" of the students for the school day. Respondent frequently made clear to Brown and Jobes that as the teacher, she was in charge of the class and the instructional approach and all other activities and aspects of classroom management. It was apparent from the credible, persuasive evidence that Brown and Jobes resented Respondent's repeated, overt assertion of authority over them. The persuasive evidence establishes that Brown was as much as a half-hour late to Respondent's class nearly every day, and that Respondent also regularly had to admonish her about frequent use of her cell phone for personal matters during instructional time. Brown also frequently disregarded Respondent's instructions on a range of student-related matters, and when Respondent confronted her, Brown verbally lashed out.17/ The persuasive evidence also establishes that Jobes often sent and received personal text messages during instructional time, causing her to be distracted and interfering with her work. The persuasive evidence established that Brown's and Jobes' behaviors were disruptive to the classroom environment and, in some instances, posed a danger to the students, and that Respondent let them know that their behavior was unacceptable. Shortly before the holiday vacation in December 2012, a holiday celebration was held in Respondent's classroom. While Respondent tended to the other students in the class and their parents, she specifically asked Brown and Jobes to stay with and tend to student C.R., since he did not have a parent present at the celebration. At some point, both paraprofessionals left C.R. alone. While unattended, C.R. ingested something to which he was allergic, went into anaphylactic shock, and ultimately had to be transported to the hospital. In early January 2013, shortly after school commenced following the holiday vacation, Respondent's students went to the music teacher's classroom. Brown was going to place C.R. on the floor, notwithstanding that Respondent had specifically directed her not to do so because he might again ingest something that could make him ill. At that point, Respondent told Brown not to place C.R. on the floor, to which Brown responded "don't worry, I got this" or something to that effect. Respondent tersely admonished Brown and reminded her that it was her (Respondent's) call because she was the teacher.18/ It was apparent from Brown's testimony that she greatly resented Respondent's assertion of authority over her. To address Brown's ongoing behavior and performance issues, Respondent requested a meeting on January 9, 2015, with Principal Hollingsworth, Assistant Principal Long, and ESE Supervisor Vickie Bloome. At the meeting, Hollingsworth informed Brown that Respondent had complained to her about her (Brown's) repeated cell phone use during classroom instructional time and directed her to refrain from using her cell phone during that time. Notwithstanding this meeting, nothing changed in Respondent's classroom. Respondent continued to experience friction in working with the paraprofessionals, who knew that Respondent had complained to the school administration about their performance. On January 16, 2013, an incident involving C.R., discussed in detail below, occurred. During this incident, C.R. became very aggressive, fought, bit and scratched himself, and grabbed for Respondent's insulin pump, which she wore on her arm. As discussed in greater detail below, Respondent and C.R. fell on the floor. Respondent prepared a written report detailing the incident. Persons who witnessed the incident, including Brown and Jobes, signed the report, and Respondent filed it with the school administration that day. On January 23, 2013, Respondent called a meeting with Jobes and Brown to address their ongoing performance issues, update them on student issues, and cover common core implementation procedures. In the email Respondent sent to Jobes and Brown regarding the meeting, she reminded them: "STILL seeing phones being checked and answered during class time. Even if a phone rings during class, it should NOT be answered until your personal time." At the meeting, Respondent once again reminded Brown and Jobes that they were not to use their cell phones during classroom instructional time. On the afternoon of January 23, 2013, following Respondent's meeting with her and Jobes, Brown reported to Assistant Principal Long an incident in which T.P. allegedly said "Ms. T. hurt me." At some point, Jobes also reported to Long that T.P. told her the same thing.19/ Jobes also sent an email to Hollingsworth that afternoon describing a situation in which T.P told her "Ms. T. hurt me." Thereafter, Long spoke with Respondent to get her version of what had happened. At some point on the evening of January 23, 2013, Respondent sent an email to Long stating that she had not been alone with T.P. that day. It was apparent from Respondent's email that she felt that could not trust Brown. She requested that Brown be removed from her classroom. Brown was removed from Respondent's classroom on the morning of January 24, 2013. At some point thereafter, Brown prepared, signed, and filed a report, dated January 23, 2013, alleging that Respondent had engaged in numerous aggressive and abusive acts toward students over a period of months. It is obvious in reading the report——which references Brown's removal from Respondent's classroom———that it was not prepared until sometime after Brown was removed from Respondent's classroom on January 24, 2015. Jobes also signed the report. She testified that Brown had prepared it and that she had contributed "notes." Brown also prepared and filed another written statement alleging that Respondent had engaged in specific instances of abusive and aggressive behavior toward students in her class. This report also was dated January 23, 2013, but again referenced her removal from Respondent's classroom, so obviously was prepared sometime after January 24, 2013. On the evening of January 24, 2013, Jobes sent an email to Hollingsworth requesting to be removed from Respondent's classroom. The email stated: "I came home today so stressed and exhausted from Ms. T all day at me." Jobes, who was pregnant, was concerned that the stress she was experiencing in working with Respondent in her classroom would adversely affect her health. On January 25, 2013, Jobes was removed from Respondent's classroom. On or about January 29, 2013, Respondent was removed from her classroom and reassigned to another position in the school system pending the outcome of an investigation conducted by the Broward County Sheriff's Office Child Protective Investigations ("CPI") Section. In a statement dated February 3, 2013, Jobes alleged that Respondent had taken aggressive and abusive actions toward certain students in her class over a period of months. She also stated that she felt bullied because Respondent, at times, spoke to her disrespectfully, and that Respondent would "constantly remind everyone in the room that she is the boss and if they wanted to be the boss then they need to go get a 4-year degree." Notably, prior to their January 23, 2013, meeting with Respondent, neither Jobes nor Brown had ever reported that Respondent had engaged in aggressive or abusive behavior toward her students.20/ Allegations in Amended Administrative Complaint In the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent engaged in physically and verbally aggressive and abusive behavior toward specific students in her class. Each of these allegations is addressed below. Student M.M. In paragraph 9. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that Respondent grabbed student M.M. by the back of her neck, held her head down in the garbage can to make her retrieve an open bag of chips, and forced her to eat them because she had asked for them. At the hearing, Brown and Jobes both testified that on one occasion during classroom snack time, Respondent had given M.M. a bag of chips at her request. M.M. ate a few chips, then tossed the bag in the trash can. Brown and Jobes testified that Respondent held M.M. by the back of the neck and forced her to remove the chips from the trash can. On direct examination, Jobes testified that Respondent forced M.M. to eat the chips, but on cross-examination, testified that, M.M. did not eat the chips. Brown testified that M.M. ate some of the chips but did not finish. Respondent confirmed that she did make M.M. retrieve the chips from the garbage can, but explained the context and the circumstances for making M.M. do so. She credibly denied that she had forced M.M. to eat the chips. Specifically, M.M. had been purchasing school lunches, but Jobes and Brown informed Respondent that M.M. was not eating her lunch. Respondent contacted M.M.'s mother, and collectively, Respondent and M.M.'s mother arrived at a plan in which M.M. would pick out her lunch and snack items at home. The items would be packed in her lunch box, and she would bring her lunch and snacks to school every day. M.M.'s mother also sent a large bag of snacks for M.M. that was kept in the classroom closet and M.M. would get the snack of her choice at snack time. M.M.'s mother specifically requested that Respondent send home anything that M.M. did not eat so that she (M.M.'s mother) would know what M.M. was and was not eating. On the day at issue, M.M. requested a bag of chips. Respondent gave them to her and M.M. returned to her seat, where she ate one or two chips, then threw the bag of chips away in the trash can. Respondent saw this and told M.M. to retrieve the chips from the trash can. Respondent did this so that she could send them home with M.M., consistent with the plan she had devised with M.M.'s mother. Consistent with Respondent's method of prompting M.M.'s behavior, she asked M.M. three times to remove the chips from the trash can. She then added a gestural prompt, done multiple times, that consisted of pointing to the trash can to inform M.M. exactly what she wanted her to do and where she was to go. When M.M. did not respond, Respondent took M.M. by the hand, led her to the trash can, and again gestured and asked her to remove the chips. Again, M.M. did not respond, so Respondent employed a physical prompt that consisted of placing her hand on M.M.'s shoulder and hand and applying enough pressure to show M.M. that she needed to bend down to retrieve the chips. At that point, with Respondent's help, M.M. retrieved the chips from the trash can. Respondent told M.M. to put them in her lunch box so that she could take them home, consistent with M.M.'s mother's request. Respondent credibly testified that she did not tell M.M. she had to eat the chips or force her to eat them. The evidence does not establish that M.M. cried or was distressed as a result of Respondent's actions, and there was no evidence presented to show that M.M. was injured or sickened as a result of this incident. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not punish M.M. for throwing the chips away, that she did not forcefully grab M.M. by the back of the neck or hold her head down into the trash can, and that she did not force M.M. to eat the chips. The evidence instead shows that Respondent's actions in dealing with M.M. on this occasion were appropriate and were consistent with her discussions with M.M.'s mother. Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 9. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student T.P. In paragraph 10. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in December 2012, Respondent force-fed student T.P., causing him to regurgitate. The undisputed evidence establishes that T.P. often refused to eat. On the day in question, T.P. purchased lunch from the cafeteria but he refused to eat the lunch, so was brought back to the classroom, where Respondent attempted to get T.P. to eat his lunch. Brown testified that Respondent forced a piece of chicken and chicken skin into T.P.'s mouth, that he was crying hysterically, and that he gagged. Brown further testified that Respondent made a video recording of T.P. eating. Jobes, who also was present when the incident occurred, did not testify that Respondent force-fed T.P.——only that Respondent was verbally urging T.P. to eat plantains. She did not testify that T.P. gagged or regurgitated. She also testified that Respondent made a video recording of the incident. Respondent testified that T.P. was a very picky eater who did not eat well, and that he regurgitated on the way to lunch every day. She testified, credibly, that she had discussed this issue with T.P.'s parents, and they had directed her to encourage him to eat.21/ Because the sight of other students eating or the smells of food would cause T.P. to vomit, he typically ate at a small table in the cafeteria positioned so he could see the outdoors. On the day in question, the students ate lunch in the classroom. T.P. was having particular difficulty eating that day because he was situated with the entire class as they ate, making him uncomfortable. In an effort to persuade T.P. to eat, Respondent went over to him, picked up a piece of food and coaxed him to eat. T.P. regurgitated all over his food. At that point, Respondent stopped trying to persuade T.P. to eat and sent a note home to his parents describing what had happened. Respondent's version of events is credible. By contrast, the testimony of Jobes and Brown regarding this incident was inconsistent, incredible, and unpersuasive. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 10. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. In paragraph 14. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that on January 23, 2013, Respondent grabbed T.P. by the back of the neck and pushed him toward the door, causing him to stumble and fall to the ground and to verbalize that "Ms. T. hurt me." Jobes testified that on that day, she was in the cafeteria when Brown and T.P. entered, with T.P crying. Jobes testified that Brown told her at lunch that she (Brown) had heard some kind of altercation while she was in the classroom restroom. Jobes did not see Respondent grab, push, or take any other action toward T.P. Jobes testified that later that day, T.P. told her "Ms. T. hurt me," and held his hands in a "U" shape. Jobes interpreted that as indicating that Respondent had choked T.P. Brown testified that she actually saw Respondent grab T.P. by the back of the neck and push him toward the door, causing him to fall, and that he got up, crying, and went with Brown and the rest of the class to lunch. She testified that later in the afternoon, T.P. told her and Jobes that "Ms. T. hurt me." Specifically, she testified: I didn't understand him clearly, you know. So Ms. Jobes was on the other side. He turned, he said 'Ms. Jobes, Ms. Jobes, Ms. T. hurt me, she grabbed me like this." And I, like, what? He said 'I'm going to tell them, I'm going to tell them, Ms. Brown, that Ms. T. hurt me, you see, Ms. T. hurt me.' The undersigned finds Brown's testimony incredible and unpersuasive. First, Brown's statement that she actually saw Respondent grab and push T.P. is inconsistent with her statement made to Jobes while at lunch that same day, that she had been in the restroom at the time and had heard an altercation. Further, the evidence showed that while T.P. is somewhat verbal, he is not capable of the extended, coherent discourse that Brown claims he verbalized in telling her and Jobes that Respondent had hurt him. The undersigned also assigns no weight to Jobes' testimony regarding whether the alleged incident actually occurred. Jobes did not witness the alleged incident, so has no personal independent knowledge regarding whether it occurred. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 14. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student M.P. In paragraph 11. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that in an effort to make M.P. stop crying, Respondent jerked her chair backward to scare her to make her stop crying, and that when M.P. did not stop crying, Respondent laid the chair down on the floor so that M.P.'s feet were in the air, leaving her in that position for approximately 20 minutes. Brown and Jobes both testified that M.P. often cried and rocked back and forth in her chair. They testified that in order to make M.P. stop crying, Respondent would try to scare her by jerking the chair backward. Then, if M.P. did not stop crying, Respondent would lay her chair down on the floor so that M.P.'s feet were in the air, and she would leave M.P. in that position until she cried herself to sleep. Both Brown and Jobes testified that they had seen Respondent do this on numerous occasions. Respondent acknowledged that she had, on more than one occasion, laid M.P. down on the floor in the Rifton chair,22/ but, again, provided credible context for taking this action. Specifically, as a result of her exceptionality, M.P. would constantly verbalize and often would rock in her chair. When she became agitated, she would rock her chair so violently that she tipped the chair backward. Initially, Respondent had moved M.P.'s chair against a bookshelf, but M.P. banged her head on the bookshelf. In an effort to prevent M.P. from hurting herself, Respondent then removed M.P. from her chair and placed her on the floor; however, M.P. banged her head on the floor. At that point, Respondent placed M.P. in the Rifton chair. M.P. continued to rock violently, so Respondent ordered a Rifton chair with footrest; however, that measure did not solve the problem with M.P.'s rocking. Respondent then considered placing M.P.'s chair up against the teacher's desk, which would help stabilize the chair but had nothing against which Respondent could bang her head. On one occasion, as Respondent tipped the chair back at a 45-degree angle to place it against her desk, she noticed that M.P. calmed down and closed her eyes. Thereafter, Respondent would sometimes tip M.P.'s chair against her or her desk if she was not otherwise occupied with activities. However, when she was occupied with other activities, she would sometimes completely recline the Rifton chair, with M.P. strapped in it, on the floor. She did this because it calmed M.P., who otherwise would constantly vocalize, cry, and rock back and forth. To determine whether this was an appropriate technique, Respondent asked colleagues who also taught ESE students about their view of this technique and whether there were better techniques of which they were aware. Respondent testified, credibly, that the consensus among other ESE teachers was that if the technique worked to soothe the child and did not endanger her, it was appropriate to use. Respondent also had consulted regularly with occupational specialist Mariana Aparicio-Rodriquez regarding techniques to prevent M.P. from rocking her chair so that she would not tip her chair over and injure herself, but they had not collectively arrived at a solution to the problem. Respondent testified that she and Aparicio-Rodriquez had not specifically discussed reclining the Rifton chair on the floor with M.P. strapped in it. One day, while Respondent was alone in the classroom, Aparicio-Rodriquez entered the classroom and saw M.P. completely reclined on the floor in the Rifton chair. Initially, Aparicio- Rodriquez was alarmed that M.P. had tipped the chair over. Aparicio-Rodriquez testified that Respondent told her that she had placed M.P. on the ground to give her a sense of what it felt like to fall back. Respondent then picked up the chair and placed M.P. in an upright position. Aparicio-Rodriquez confirmed that during the entire time that she was in Respondent's classroom, M.P. was calm, unhurt, and not in distress, and that she did not cry. Aparicio-Rodriquez testified that she did not believe this was an appropriate or useful technique for teaching M.P. not to rock in her chair, and she had intended to report the incident to her supervisor, but because one of Respondent's paraprofessionals informed her that the matter was going to be reported, Aparicio-Rodriquez did not report it. Aparicio- Rodriquez testified that she did not consider the incident to constitute child abuse, so did not report it to the Department of Children and Families. On cross-examination, Aparicio-Rodriquez stated that it was her opinion, from an occupational therapist's perspective, that using the Rifton chair in such a manner was not appropriate; however, she conceded that placing M.P. on the floor in a reclined position in the Rifton chair was not unsafe, and that M.P. was neither hurt nor in imminent or potential danger. She acknowledged that she and Respondent had a difference of opinion regarding the propriety of the use of the Rifton chair in this manner.23/ Aparicio-Rodriquez did not identify any statute, rule, policy, or other applicable standard that was violated by Respondent's use of the Rifton chair in this manner. The persuasive evidence supports the inference that Respondent's placement of M.P. in the Rifton chair in a reclined position on the floor was not intended as a disciplinary measure to frighten or punish M.P. for crying or rocking in her chair, and was appropriate under the circumstances. Respondent credibly testified that she had tried numerous measures to prevent M.P. from harming herself while rocking back and forth, and that when she inadvertently discovered this technique, she discussed it with other ESE professionals, who had suggested that she continue using it since the child was not distressed or injured and the technique worked to soothe her and prevent her from rocking back and forth and potentially injuring herself. Aparicio-Rodriquez disagreed with Respondent regarding the appropriateness of the technique, but she was neither qualified nor presented as an expert witness in appropriate teaching techniques for ESE students or in any other subject, and she did not identify any applicable professional or other standards that were violated by Respondent's use of the Rifton chair in this manner. The persuasive evidence establishes that Aparicio- Rodriquez and Respondent had a difference of opinion regarding the appropriateness of this technique; however, unlike Aparicio- Rodriquez, Respondent had actual successful experience in using this technique without harming M.P. Thus, Respondent's view regarding the appropriateness of using this technique under the circumstances is afforded greater weight than Aparicio- Rodriquez's view. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent distressed, injured or otherwise harmed M.P., placed M.P. in danger, or violated any applicable statute, rule, policy, teaching technique, or standard by placing M.P. in the Rifton chair in a reclining position. Thus, Petitioner did not prove the allegations set forth in paragraph 11. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner also alleges that on one occasion, Respondent disciplined M.P. for crying by placing a plastic bag of ice directly on M.P.'s bare chest, and when that technique was unsuccessful, Respondent placed the bag of ice on M.P.'s back, causing her to cry more loudly. Petitioner presented the testimony of Jobes to substantiate this allegation. Jobes testified that "a couple of times," she saw Respondent place bags of ice under M.P.'s clothing on her bare skin in an effort to get M.P. to stop crying, but that M.P. would not stop crying. Petitioner did not present the testimony of any other witnesses to corroborate Jobes' testimony. Respondent flatly denied ever having placed ice on M.P. for any reason, and stated that under any circumstances, she did not know how that would have helped make M.P. stop crying. Respondent also denied having kept ice in the refrigerator in her classroom. Respondent's testimony was credible, and Jobes' testimony was not credible, regarding these allegations. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove the allegations in paragraph 12. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Student C.R. In paragraph 13. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner alleges that on one occasion, Respondent removed C.R. from his wheelchair, screamed in his ear, held both hands behind his back, laid him face-down on the floor, and laid on top of him for several minutes as he gasped for air. The undisputed evidence shows that on the morning of January 16, 2013, student C.R. (also referred to as "C.J." in the final hearing testimony) arrived at school in an extremely emotionally-distressed state. Although C.R. is a small child who weighs approximately 30 pounds and is confined to a wheelchair, he becomes physically aggressive when distressed and is capable of inflicting injury on others by biting, scratching, and hitting. Upon arriving at school that day, C.R. physically struggled with school personnel, including Jobes, Brown, and Cherelus. Brown took C.R., still upset, in his wheelchair to Respondent's classroom, where he was placed in his classroom chair. C.R. attempted to grab, bite, and scratch Respondent, Jobes, and Brown, bit his own hands, and rubbed and scratched his own face, arms, and legs. Respondent left him in his chair and he eventually calmed down. At that point, Respondent removed C.R. from his chair and carried him to another classroom, where the rest of the class was engaged in instructional exercises. Thereafter, when Respondent carried C.R. back to her classroom, C.R. again became very upset and bit and scratched her. At that point, Respondent notified the school administration and C.R.'s mother of the incident involving C.R. that morning. Assistant Principal Long visited Respondent's classroom to determine what had happened. As of 11 a.m. that day, C.R. was still seated in his classroom chair aggressively biting his own hands and rubbing and scratching his face, arms, and legs.24/ Respondent prepared and submitted an incident report detailing these events, and Brown, Jobes, and Cherelus, and another school staff member, Julie Weiss, signed and dated the report that same day. Jobes testified she read the January 16, 2013, incident report before signing and dating it that same day. She stated that although she had signed the document without being under duress, she had questioned Respondent regarding its accuracy before signing it. Brown testified that she signed the January 16, 2013, incident report that day, but did not read it before she signed it. It is undisputed that at some point in the day on January 16, 2013, Respondent and C.R. ended up on the floor of Respondent's classroom, with Respondent laying on top of C.R. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the time of day, sequence of events, and circumstances that led to this incident. Jobes and Brown both testified that the events that led to Respondent and C.R. being on the floor with Respondent laying on top of C.R. occurred in the morning after C.R. came to school in an emotionally distressed state, and that Respondent had placed C.R. on the floor and laid on top of him to punish him for his aggressive behavior. However, their testimony is contradicted by the version of events detailed in the January 16, 2013, incident report——which they both had signed and dated that same day, thus tacitly acknowledging its accuracy. As discussed in greater detail below, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the incident during which Respondent and C.R. ended up on the floor actually occurred later that same day, and that afterward, C.R. was taken from the classroom to the school clinic and did not return to the classroom for the rest of the day. Had Brown and Jobes been correct regarding the time of day when the incident occurred, C.R. would have been removed from the classroom during the morning. However, according to the January 16, 2013, incident report, C.R. was still in the classroom as of approximately 11 a.m. that day. Indeed, according to the incident report, Assistant Principal Long visited the classroom to investigate the events that were detailed in the report. Had C.R. been removed from the classroom in the morning after the incident, Long would have discovered that when she visited the classroom.25/ Further, Respondent would have known that so would not have stated in the written incident report that C.R. was still in the classroom as of 11 a.m. that day. It is undisputed that Jobes did not actually witness Respondent place C.R. on the floor. Jobes testified that when she looked over from another part of the classroom where she had been tending to other students, she saw C.R. face down on the floor with Respondent on top of him. Notwithstanding that by her own admission, Jobes did not witness the entire incident between Respondent and C.R., she nonetheless testified that Respondent held C.R. down on the floor for three to five minutes.26/ Brown claims to have witnessed the entire incident between Respondent and C.R. She testified that C.R. was acting aggressively, so to punish him, Respondent picked him up, flipped him around, placed him face-down on the floor, and laid on top of him for approximately 20 seconds as he gasped for breath. As noted above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the allegation regarding Respondent laying on top of C.R. arose from an incident that occurred later in the day on January 16, 2013, after lunch and after the incident that had happened earlier that day. The credible evidence establishes that when C.R. returned to Respondent's classroom after having had lunch in the cafeteria under Jobes' and Brown's supervision, his face was red and he was scratching himself and squirming in his chair. Respondent became very concerned, from the previous experience that school year, that C.R. was again having an allergic reaction to something he had eaten. Respondent removed C.R. from his wheelchair in order to place him in his Rifton chair so that she could administer his epi-pen to counter any allergic reaction he might have been having. Respondent is diabetic and wears an insulin pump strapped to her left arm. Respondent testified, credibly, that as she was removing C.R. from the wheelchair, he grabbed at her insulin pump. In an effort to prevent C.R. from pulling her insulin pump off of her arm, Respondent jerked her hand and arm backward, causing her to lose her balance. She fell to the floor with C.R. and landed on top of him. Respondent estimated that she and C.R. were in that position for perhaps five seconds,27/ at which point she scrambled off of C.R. and placed him in his Rifton chair. C.R. was then taken to the clinic to address his allergic symptoms and did not return to the classroom that day. Respondent testified, credibly, that Brown did not witness the entire event because for part of it, she was in the restroom with M.P., consistent with their established routine after the students returned from lunch. The undersigned finds Jobes' and Brown's version of the incident unpersuasive and incredible.28/ Their testimony was imprecise, inconsistent, and directly contradicted by other credible evidence regarding the incident. By contrast, Respondent's testimony regarding the incident was specific, precise, and detailed. The undersigned finds her account of the incident credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegations in paragraph 13. of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Allegations Regarding Unspecified Students Petitioner alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that Respondent "was observed grabbing students by the arm and forcefully pulling them to the ground." The Amended Administrative Complaint does not identify the students whom Respondent is alleged to have treated in such a manner. Jobes testified that "one or two times" she had seen Respondent grab a student by the arm and pull that student to the ground in an effort to get the student to sit down. She could not recall which students she allegedly saw Respondent treat in that manner and she did not provide any detail regarding these alleged incidents. Her testimony was not corroborated by any other competent evidence in the record and was too vague and lacking in detail to be deemed credible or persuasive. Brown testified that on one occasion, Respondent pushed M.P. to make her walk faster, causing her to fall to the ground. Although Brown identified the specific student, she provided no temporal context or detail regarding the incident. Her testimony was confused and imprecise, so was neither credible nor persuasive. Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent grabbed students by the arm and forcefully pulled them to the ground. Petitioner also generally alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that on occasion, Respondent would grab students by the neck to force them to look at their work. However, neither Brown nor Jobes identified any specific students to whom Respondent's alleged conduct was directed or provided any detail or context in which these alleged incidents occurred, and their testimony was too vague and imprecise to be deemed credible or persuasive. Petitioner did not present any other competent substantial evidence to substantiate this allegation. Respondent testified that at times, it was necessary for her to physically focus students' attention on their work. At those times, she would place her hands on the student's head and turn the student's face down toward the desk so that the student could attend to his or her work. She testified that she did not grab students by the back of the neck or engage in any forceful techniques as she focused their attention on their work. Her testimony was credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent grabbed students by the neck and forced them to look at their work. Petitioner also alleges, in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint, that "[i]n one incident, Respondent crumbled [sic] a student's paper into a ball before throwing it at the student." The student whom Respondent is alleged to have treated in this manner was not identified in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Paragraph 8. specifically states that the incidents alleged therein occurred "shortly after the commencement of the school year in August 2012." However, the only evidence Petitioner presented in support of this allegation was the testimony of Cara Yontz, a paraprofessional assigned to Respondent's classroom in the 2011-2012 school year——a completely different school year than Respondent's actions alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Thus, Petitioner failed to present any evidence to substantiate this allegation in paragraph 8. Even assuming that the reference in the Amended Administrative Complaint to the 2012-2013 school year was a drafting error and that Petitioner actually intended to allege that Respondent engaged in such conduct during the 2011-2012 school year, Petitioner still did not prove this allegation by credible, persuasive evidence. Yontz testified that on one occasion, a student named "D." was having difficulty with his work and that twice, when he turned his work in to Respondent, she yelled at him, crumpled up his paper, and threw it back at him, causing him to cry. Petitioner did not present any other competent substantial evidence to support this allegation. Respondent denied having thrown D.'s paper at him and testified, credibly, that she never had thrown anything at any student. The undersigned finds Respondent's testimony on this point credible and persuasive. Thus, Petitioner failed to prove the allegation in paragraph 8. of the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent crumpled a student's work and threw it at him. Petitioner also alleges in paragraph 8. that Respondent verbally abused unspecified students, making statements such as "they're so stupid," and that she was "happy that God never gave her kids like them." Petitioner did not present credible, persuasive evidence proving this allegation, and Respondent credibly testified that she had not, and would not, ever address a student in such a manner. Failure to Provide Statement On March 4, 2013, the Broward District Schools Police Department issued a Notice to Appear for Statement ("NTA") to Respondent, informing Respondent that an investigation regarding a reported incident had been initiated. The NTA informed Respondent that on March 11, 2013, she was required to appear at a designated location and provide a statement as part of the investigation. The NTA further informed her that a representative of her choice could be present during the statement and that her failure to appear on the scheduled date and to provide a statement would constitute gross insubordination and lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Respondent is a member of the Broward Teacher's Union ("BTU") and was represented by Diane Watts, a field staff representative with BTU, in the investigation. Watts had contact with Kathleen Andersen, a detective with the Broward District Schools Police Department regarding scheduling the appointment and other matters with respect to Respondent's statement. At some point before Respondent was to appear and provide her statement, Andersen called Watts to give her a "heads-up" that the investigation was "going criminal"——meaning that a criminal investigation was being commenced and that criminal charges may be filed against Respondent. Watts testified, credibly, that when a matter "goes criminal," the BTU retains a lawyer to represent the member being investigated. At that point, BTU had not yet retained an attorney to represent Respondent in any investigation that may "go criminal." Under those circumstances, it is customary for the employee not to appear and provide a statement. Watts testified, credibly, that she informed Andersen that under the circumstances, Respondent would not appear as scheduled on March 11, 2013, to provide the statement. Watts understood Andersen to have agreed that, given the circumstances, Respondent was not required to appear and, in fact, she credibly testified that she believed Andersen had called her to give her a "heads-up" specifically so that she and Respondent would not make a wasted trip to appear at the location of the scheduled statement, only to find out there that the investigation had "gone criminal"——at which point, Watts would have advised Respondent not to make a statement pending BTU's retention of a lawyer to represent her. Based on her belief that she had an understanding with Andersen, Watts advised Respondent that she was not required to appear and provide a statement on March 11, 2013. Therefore——specifically at Watts' direction and advice——Respondent did not appear and provide a statement on March 11, 2013. At the final hearing, Andersen disputed that she had agreed with Watts that Respondent did not need to appear and provide a statement as directed in the Notice to Appear. Andersen testified that pursuant to Petitioner's Policy 4.9, Respondent was required to appear and provide a statement, and that she had not done so.29/ IV. Findings of Ultimate Fact Petitioner seeks to suspend Respondent without pay and to terminate her employment as a teacher on the basis of just cause, pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. The statute defines just cause to include immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination; and being convicted of or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty of, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude. Here, Petitioner charges that just cause exists, on each of these bases, to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment. As more fully addressed below, Petitioner bears the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to establish each element of each offense with which Respondent is charged. Further, whether Respondent committed the charged offenses is a question of ultimate fact to be determined by the trier of fact in the context of each alleged violation.30/ For the reasons discussed in detail above, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, any of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and therefore failed to prove any of the administrative charges stated in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner asserts in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order that "Petitioner had a number of witnesses to testify to these various events. Respondent had none." This mischaracterizes the evidence presented in this case. Although Petitioner presented the testimony of four persons having personal knowledge of some of the incidents, for several of the allegations, Petitioner presented the testimony of only one witness who had personal knowledge of the alleged incidents, and, as discussed above, often that testimony was not credible. Even when Petitioner presented the testimony of more than one witness regarding a particular allegation, as discussed above, often that testimony was inconsistent on significant details, calling into serious question the credibility and reliability of the testimony. Also, Respondent herself testified. Her testimony was clear, precise, credible, and persuasive, and she provided consistent, logical accounts of the incidents that gave rise to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint.31/ In addition to her own testimony, Respondent presented the testimony of the mother of student J.M., who credibly supported Respondent's version of the incident giving rise to one of the allegations involving her daughter. Here, the undersigned did not find the testimony of Cherelus, Yontz, Brown, or Jobes credible or persuasive on most of the matters about which they testified. As discussed in detail above, in many instances their testimony was vague, unclear, or inconsistent with other testimony or evidence. Moreover, it was abundantly clear that each of these paraprofessionals found Respondent difficult to work with because she was demanding, did not tolerate lax performance, and consistently reminded them that as teacher, she was in charge of the management of her classroom. It was apparent that each of them resented her frequent assertion of authority over them. Each of them had ample motive to be untruthful or to exaggerate regarding certain events——such as those involving J.M. being placed in the restroom, C.R. and Respondent falling on the floor, and T.P. being fed by Respondent. In other instances——such as reclining M.P. in the Rifton chair or directing M.M. to retrieve her snack from the trash can——it is plausible to infer that the paraprofessionals misunderstood Respondent's actions and judged to be inappropriate, when, in fact, they were appropriate under the circumstances. Another factor militating against the paraprofessionals' credibility is that each of them was a mandatory child abuse reporter under Florida law, each of them knew that, and each understood her legal duty. Nonetheless, most of the incidents alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint were not reported until sometime after the incident is alleged to have occurred. In particular, Brown and Jobes first reported that Respondent had engaged in abusive behavior only after she had taken measures to address their classroom performance issues, including her requesting a meeting with the principal and holding her own meeting aimed at, again, addressing their unacceptable behavior and performance. Petitioner focuses on a statement in Respondent's January 23, 2013, email thanking Brown and Jobes for their efforts as indicating that up to that point, Respondent and the paraprofessionals enjoyed a smooth working relationship and that Respondent did not have any problems with their performance, and, in fact, was pleased with their performance. However, this position is contradicted by the strong evidence showing otherwise. Respondent's emails to the school administration dated December 1, 2012, and January 9, 10, and 23, 2013, particularly speak to the ongoing difficulty she was having with both paraprofessionals, even before they submitted statements alleging that she had abused students. Further, the testimony by Brown, Jobes, and Respondent shows that the relationship between Respondent and the paraprofessionals was not a smooth one. In sum, the evidence establishes that the paraprofessionals were not reliable witnesses, and their testimony was neither credible nor persuasive. Conversely, Respondent's testimony was credible and persuasive. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years that violated Department of Education rules and school board policies, and, thus, constituted just cause to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment. Petitioner also has charged Respondent with gross insubordination for failure to appear and provide a statement to the Broward District Schools Police Department on March 11, 2013. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not appear and provide a statement to the Broward Schools Police Department specificially because she had been directed and advised by her BTU representative not to do so. Further, even if Watts did not, in fact, have an understanding with Andersen that Respondent would not provide a statement, it is undisputed that Watts told Respondent that such an understanding existed so that she did not need to appear and provide a statement. Thus, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not intentionally refuse to appear and provide a statement, but, instead, simply and reasonably followed the advice and direction of her BTU representative, who had specifically told her not to appear and provide a statement. Under these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that Respondent intentionally refused to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature. Accordingly, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent did not commit gross insubordination. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Petitioner failed to meet its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that Respondent engaged in conduct, alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, that violates Department of Education rules and school board policies. Accordingly, Petitioner did not prove that just cause exists to suspend Respondent without pay and terminate her employment.
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 dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent; reinstating Respondent's employment as a teacher; and awarding Respondent back pay for the period of her suspension, less the amount of back pay that would be owed for the period commencing on November 6, 2013, and ending on January 23, 2014.42/ DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2015.
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 presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact From 1985 until his suspension on April 22, 1992, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a school monitor and was assigned to Kelsey L. Pharr Elementary School. Respondent attended mandatory training sessions for school monitors on March 24, 1989; February 2, 1990; September 20, 1990; February 1, 1991; April 1, 1991; and January 31, 1992. During those training sessions, the job description of a school monitor was reviewed. The school monitors were given suggested guidelines on how to handle situations with students and were provided with scenarios that they might encounter on a daily basis. They were specifically instructed to use the least force necessary to bring a situation under control and to always contact a school administrator for assistance using their hand- held radios before putting their hands on a student. School monitors have never been given the authority to administer corporal punishment. At the end of the school day on February 4, 1992, Respondent observed a male student, Thomas Rolle, attempting to kiss a female student. A few days earlier, Respondent had observed him engaging in that same conduct. Respondent approached Rolle and told him that he could not kiss his girlfriend on school premises. Rolle responded by cursing at Respondent, using profanity and a racially derogatory remark. Rolle then turned and began running away from Respondent. Respondent threw his hand-held radio, striking Rolle behind his ear, causing a laceration which began to bleed. Not knowing that Rolle had been injured, Respondent did nothing to assist him. Further, Respondent did not report the incident to a school administrator, as he had not reported the problem with Rolle a few days earlier. One of Rolle's friends told Rolle that his ear was bleeding, and Rolle became quite agitated. He and his friends proceeded to the school building were they encountered the assistant principal at one of the exit doors to the building. The assistant principal, Gigi Gilbert, saw that Rolle was crying and bleeding. Rolle and his friends told her that Rolle had been "doing something" to a girl, that Respondent had told him to stop, that Rolle then began using profane language, that he started running with Respondent running after him, and that Respondent hit Rolle with the radio which Respondent had thrown. Gilbert sent Rolle to the office to receive first aid. Gilbert signaled to the school principal, June Day, to come to where Gilbert was standing with the group of students. Gilbert advised Day as to what the students were telling her and as to Rolle's injury. Day sent a student to get Respondent, and within moments Respondent came to where Day and Gilbert were standing. The principal told Respondent what the students had reported, and Respondent denied that the incident had occurred. Respondent then asked if he could speak with the principal privately, and Gilbert left them alone. Respondent then admitted to the principal that he threw the "walkie-talkie" at Rolle. Day went to the office and attempted to speak to Rolle about the incident. She was unable to because he was too upset and would only say that he was going to "get him," referring to Respondent. She contacted the School Board's Special Investigative Unit, and an investigator was sent to the school. Respondent admitted to that investigator that he had struck Rolle with the radio. Respondent was arrested and charged with aggravated battery. He subsequently plead guilty to that charge, was placed on probation for a period of eighteen months, and was ordered to pay court costs in the amount of $225. Adjudication of guilt was withheld.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing him from his employment with the School Board of Dade County. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-5695 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-11, 13-17, and 19-23 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, and 18 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald A. Williams, Labor Attorney Mack & Bernstein The School Board of Dade County, Florida 1450 N.E. Second Avenue-Suite 562 Miami, Florida 33132 William Du Fresne, Esquire Du Fresne & Bradley 2929 S.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Octavio J. Visiedo Superintendent of Schools Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 562 Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent from her employment as a teacher for three days without pay.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the School Board of Manatee County, Florida, ("Petitioner" or "School Board") is responsible for providing public education in Manatee County, Florida. Melissa Graves has been employed with the School District of Manatee County ("District") since August 8, 2000. During the 2008-2009 school year, Ms. Graves was a kindergarten teacher at Gullett Elementary School ("Gullett"). The last day for students that year was June 4, 2009, and the last day for teachers was June 5, 2009. Katherine Hayes was the principal at Gullett. At the end of the school year, Ms. Hayes required all teachers to complete an "End of Year Checklist" ("checklist") and a "Room Prep Check List for Summer Cleaning" ("room prep list"). On May 27, 2009, Ms. Hayes emailed the checklist to all teachers. The list includes such tasks as: taking textbook inventories, returning media center materials, completing end of year report cards, making a final check of cumulative folders, stripping hallway bulletin boards, and completing a room prep list. The checklist was to have been checked off by the responsible person, for example, Ms. Hayes when she received the report cards, and the head custodian when tasks on the room prep list were completed. The deadline was June 5, 2009. On June 1, 2009, Ms. Hayes sent a second email to all teachers with the room prep list attached to give specific instructions on how to prepare classrooms for summer cleaning. In May 2009, Ms. Hayes informed Ms. Graves that she was being reassigned from kindergarten to second grade. Ms. Graves was unhappy about the reassignment and, near the end of the month, the teacher's union filed four grievances against Ms. Hayes on behalf of Ms. Graves. The grievances were dismissed by the Superintendent. Ms. Graves' allegation that her reassignment was in retaliation for the filing of the grievances is not supported by the testimony regarding the dates of the two events. On June 3, 2009, Ms. Hayes sent an email to teachers confirming that thirteen teachers, including Ms. Graves, would be assigned to new grades and, therefore, moving to different classrooms for the 2009-2010 school year. She requested that they coordinate their efforts with teachers who were moving in/out, and told them to contact the head custodian to schedule assistance. On June 5, 2009, Ms. Hayes sent another reminder for teachers to complete the checklist and return it to her before leaving that day for the summer. At the end of the day on June 5, 2009, Ms. Graves and one other teacher, Kim McAfee, who had additional duties checking off teachers' technology checklists, had not completed their own checklists and room prep lists. Both teachers were to return and complete the tasks on January 8, 2009. Ms. McAfee did, but Ms. Graves did not. Ms. Graves testified that, rather than prepare her room on June 5, 2009, she chose to work with Ms. McAfee on an I-Movie project, an end of the year gift she gave to her students' parents that apparently had some defects in the sound. She was also transferring files from one laptop to another. Ms. Graves' technology projects took longer than expected because Ms. McAfee, who was assisting her, was being interrupted by teachers who needed her to verify that they had completed the technology portions of their checklist. Ms. Graves noted that, in an email on May 20, 2009, Ms. Hayes instructed teachers not to "dismantle" their classrooms to avoid disrupting students, but to begin separating personal items from school materials, so that they could take their personal items home. Ms. Graves never "dismantled" her room before the last day; nevertheless, Ms. Graves knew that she did not need to wait until the last day to begin the task. She had been able to prepare her room for the summer in one day for the previous nine years. Ms. Graves also testified that three teacher's aides who came to assist her on the morning of June 5th made a bigger mess and mixed her personal items with school property while she was out of the room. She gave the aides essentially no instructions except to take everything off the walls and pack them. She then returned to her project in Ms. McAfee's room. On June 8, 2009, Ms. Graves, who was teaching summer school classes at another elementary school, assured Ms. Hayes that she would get the room prep task done during the three weeks of summer school by returning each day after summer classes ended, at 1:15 p.m., and working until Gullett closed at 3:15 p.m. Ms. Graves came some but not every day during the three weeks. Ms. Hayes returned from a vacation on June 16 or 17, 2009, and the head custodian informed her that all classrooms were prepared for summer cleaning except Ms. Graves'. Ms. Graves blamed her failure to complete the tasks on rainy weather, her parents' having turned in their rented truck, and car troubles. On July 30, 2009, Ms. Hayes sent Ms. Graves a letter telling her that the classroom had to be prepared for summer cleaning no later than August 6, 2009. Ms. Graves testified that she did not receive the letter until August 5, 2009, and that day she sent Ms. Hayes an email stating that she had just received the letter, but was unable to comply with the deadline because she would be out-of-town until the following week. On August 11, 2009, Ms. Hayes and two custodians packed and cleared Ms. Graves' classroom, and placed her personal items in storage in an empty classroom. They also cleared various items, including toys and books from desks, tables, and the floor, and emptied shelves and unplugged electronic devices. On August 19, 2009, Ms. Hayes sent Ms. Graves a letter instructing her to remove her personal items from storage by the end of the day on August 21, 2009, and she did.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of incompetency and gross insubordination within the meaning of Subsection 231.36(4), Florida Statutes (1987) and that she be dismissed as an employee of the Board. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of February, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. D0NALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4576 Petitioner: 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. 2-23. Covered in finding of fact 3. 24. Covered in finding of fact 4. 25. Covered in finding of fact 6. 26. Covered in finding of fact 7. 27. Covered in finding of fact 8. 28. Covered in finding of fact 9. 29. Covered in finding of fact 10. 30. Covered in finding of fact 11. 31. Covered in finding of fact 12. 32. Covered in finding of fact 13. 33. Covered in finding of fact 14. 34. Covered in finding of fact 15. 35. Covered in finding of fact 16. 36. Covered in finding of fact 17. 37. Covered in finding of fact 5. 38. Covered in finding of fact 18. 39. Covered in finding of fact 19. 40. Covered in finding of fact 20. 41. Covered in finding of fact 21. 42. Covered in finding of fact 22. 43. Covered in finding of fact 23. 44. Covered in finding of fact 24. 45. Covered in finding of fact 25. 46. Covered in finding of fact 26. 47. Covered in finding of fact 27. 48. Covered in finding of fact 28. 49. Covered in finding of fact 29. 50. Covered in finding of fact 30. 51. Covered in finding of fact 31. 52. Covered in finding of fact 32. 53. Covered in finding of fact 33. 54. Covered in finding of fact 34. 55. Covered in finding of fact 35. 56. Covered in finding of fact 36. 57. Covered in finding of fact 37. 58. Covered in finding of fact 38. 59. Covered in finding of fact 39. 60. Covered in finding of fact 40. 61. Covered in finding of fact 41. 62. Covered in finding of fact 42. 63. Covered in finding of fact 43. 64. Covered in finding of fact 44. 65. Covered in finding of fact 45. 66. Covered in finding of fact 46. 67. Covered in finding of fact 47. 68. Covered in finding of fact 48. 69. Covered in finding of fact 49. Covered in numerous findings of fact. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in numerous findings of fact. Covered in finding of fact 58. 74.-76. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially covered in finding of fact 53. The remainder has been rejected as being argument or irrelevant. Rejected as being argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33132 H. T. Smith, Esquire 1017 Northwest Ninth Court Miami, Florida 33136 Dr. Joseph A. Fernandez Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Room 125, Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent, Latunya Gibbs ("Respondent" or "Gibbs"), committed the violations as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, BCSB, is located at 600 Southeast Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. BCSB is in charge of the Broward County School District ("the District"). Robert W. Runcie is the Superintendent of BCSB. The Superintendent is statutorily obligated to recommend the placement of school personnel and to require observance with all laws, rules, and regulations. He is authorized to report and enforce any violation thereof, together with recommending the appropriate disciplinary action against instructional personnel employed by the Board. Gibbs is employed by BCSB as a teacher pursuant to a Professional Services Contract, issued in accordance with section 1012.33(3)(a), Florida Statutes. She was first hired by BCSB on August 24, 1993. Gibbs holds a Florida Educator's Certificate in Elementary Education. The Superintendent recommended that Gibbs be terminated from her employment with BCSB. On October 2, 2018, the Board adopted the Superintendent's recommendation. BCSB provided all notice and process that was due as it pertains to the investigation and procedural requirements through the Board's adoption of the Superintendent's recommendation for termination. Gibbs was assigned as a teacher at MLE for school years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. In 2015-16, Gibbs was assigned to teach second grade. On September 2, 2015, she was placed on administrative reassignment due to a personnel investigation. She remained on administrative reassignment for the remainder of the school year. During the 2016-17 school year, Gibbs was assigned to teach third grade at MLE. Gibbs had 18 students in her class. On May 24, 2017, Gibbs received notice of an investigation into an allegation that she falsified records pertaining to student evaluations and achievements for promotion to the fourth grade. These records included student assessments for the Benchmark Assessment System and third grade Portfolios. On June 19, 2017, Gibbs received notice that the investigation was expanded to include an allegation that she submitted falsified documents to utilize FMLA leave and that she falsified a training certificate. Fabricated BAS Assessments The District uses the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment Systems ("BAS"). It is used to determine a student's independent, instructional, and frustration reading levels. BAS assessments are conducted one-on-one by the teacher. In part 1 of the assessment, the student reads aloud and talks about the system's leveled fiction and nonfiction books, while the teacher observes and notes the reader's behaviors on constructed forms. In part 2, the teacher conducts a Comprehension Conversation. There is an optional part 3, which uses a reading prompt to elicit student response to the text. BAS assessments are done for all students in grade levels Kindergarten through 3, and for those students in grades 4 and 5 who score a one or two on the Florida Standards Assessment ("FSA"). For BAS, there are three assessment periods each school year. The District deadline for the third assessment period was May 26, 2017. MLE set an earlier internal deadline for its teachers of May 19, 2017, to insure that the District deadline would be met. On May 11, 2017, Gibbs was provided with a substitute so she could have the opportunity to complete BAS assessments. After school on Friday, May 12, 2017, there was a Response to Intervention ("RTI") meeting at MLE. Gibbs told Marlen Veliz ("Veliz"), MLE's Principal, that she had completed the BAS assessments for two of her 18 students. Gibbs stated that she was confident that she would be able to complete all student assessments by the May 19 deadline, and that she did not need a substitute for an additional day. Gibbs was at school on Monday, May 15, 2017, but then was absent for an extended period. She was absent on May 16 through 19, and 22 through 24. Principal Velez asked Ms. Shamequia Wright ("Wright"), a third grade teacher and union steward, and Ms. Hend Hafez ("Hafez"), an MLE Literacy Coach, to help assess Gibbs' students. On Thursday, May 18, 2017, Wright and Mr. Lawrence Hennequin ("Hennequin"), third grade team lead, entered Gibbs' classroom to look for the students' BAS folders. They could not find the BAS folders, and only found blank scoring sheets. They held up a BAS folder and asked the students where they could find the folders. The students informed Hennequin and Wright that they had never seen the folders. Hennequin and Wright left Gibbs' classroom to get their own materials so they could start assessing students. Wright proceeded to assess Gibbs' students on May 19 and May 22., 2017 On May 23, 2017, Hafez was asked to gather the BAS assessments that Wright had completed. Wright told Hafez that the assessments were on the round table in Gibbs' classroom. Hafez collected the BAS materials from the round table in Gibbs' classroom and provided them to the office. Upon trying to enter the BAS scores into the BASIS system, it was discovered that Gibbs had entered all of the students' scores on May 15, 2017. In order to have done this, Gibbs would have had to complete assessments for 16 students on that day. Principal Veliz knew this was an impossible task and, therefore, questioned the validity of the scores. Principal Veliz asked the District for a review. By May 26, 2017, the office had received all of the protocols--the student BAS folders containing the data for all three of the assessment periods--from all of the third grade teachers with the exception of Gibbs. The Assistant Principal, Joan Rosa ("Rosa"), made an announcement over the P.A. reminding all of the teachers who had not submitted their protocols to do so prior to 3:00 p.m. Gibbs never brought any of the protocols for any of the three assessment periods to the office. On May 26, 2017, Mildred Grimaldo ("Grimaldo"), Director of Literacy from the District, went to MLE to conduct a review and reassess Gibbs' students. The team conducted a reassessment of five students. Hafez reassessed the remaining students. It was found that the scores entered in BASIS on May 15, 2017, by Gibbs did not align with the reassessments completed by Grimaldo's team or Hafez. Of the 18 students in Gibbs' class, only six scored a three or above on the FSA. Six students scored a two and five students scored a one. One student was absent. Gibbs was scheduled for mandatory BAS training on January 13, 2017, but she did not attend. Gibbs received a verbal reprimand for missing the training. Gibbs received training as part of a calibration conversation that took place on April 4, 2017. The Literacy Coach also had previously shared (November 2016) a link to a Brainshark presentation, which included suggested best practices from Fountas & Pinnell and those implemented in the District. Gibbs did not review the Brainshark presentation. Incomplete Portfolios and Falsified Promotion Testing Section 1008.25(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and Board Policy 6000.1 indicate that any student in third grade who does not meet the reading promotion criteria, which is a two or higher on the FSA, can be promoted to fourth grade based on good cause promotion criteria. The good cause promotion criteria consists of the completion and passing of a third grade Portfolio as an alternative to a passing FSA score. All third grade teachers are required to have their students complete the third grade Portfolio. Student Portfolios are based on work completed by the students in connection with what they are being taught by the teacher. The teachers are to teach the State standards. The Portfolios gauge students' mastery of the reading information standards, reading literature standards, and language standards. There are eight cycles that were put together by the District to help teachers teach the reading information standards, reading literature standards, and language standards. Each cycle has certain tasks that students must complete. The tasks are to be graded by the teachers and kept as part of the Portfolios. The grade is based on a four point system, with one being the worst and four being the best. If a student does not score a three out of four on a particular standard, the student is then given an additional passage and multiple choice test. The student must receive at least a 70% on the multiple choice test to show proficiency in the standard. Scores for the Portfolio tasks as well as the multiple choice test, if necessary, are recorded on a form entitled Third Grade Assessment Portfolio: Cumulative Student Record Form ("Portfolio Record Form"). MLE had an in-house deadline of May 1, 2017, to submit all Portfolios along with the summary sheets. The District's deadline was May 5, 2017. On May 1, 2017, Gibbs emailed Hafez asking for assistance finishing the last tasks for the Portfolios. Principal Veliz received Gibbs' Portfolio Record Form and Portfolios on or about May 4, 2017. Veliz must sign each Portfolio Record Form. She also reviews the Portfolios. Veliz noticed that Gibbs' Portfolio Record Form indicated a perfect score, four out of four, for every one of her 18 students. Additionally, even though every student allegedly received a perfect score, Gibbs also had a score for the multiple choice test for every standard for every student. Had a student actually received a perfect score on the tasks, the multiple choice test would have been unnecessary. This raised a red flag for Veliz. Based on the concerns, Veliz asked Hafez and Rosa to bring her Gibbs' box of Portfolios. The box was sealed, almost completely, with duct tape. As a team, Veliz, Hafez, and Rosa opened Gibbs' Portfolio box. They spot checked a few of the students' work and noticed significant discrepancies in what Gibbs recorded and the student product. Hafez and Rosa were asked to review all of Gibbs' students' Portfolios. It took a week to review all of the Portfolios. The team found errors that included, but were not limited to: incorrect grading; the sample answer was provided (i.e., the teacher answer key); missing tasks; missing test items; task given multiple times despite mastery of the task; blank or incomplete tasks; discrepancy in time frame of dates; items done as homework as opposed to class work; missing multiple choice sheets; and the inclusion of non-summative task items. Veliz reached out to Ms. Nicole Mancini, Director of Elementary Learning, to have someone from the District rescore the Portfolios. Dr. Teri Acquavita and Ms. Shellie Gory ("Gory"), supervisors for the District, conducted a District review. There were discrepancies between the District review and Gibbs' grading. On May 9, 2017, Veliz emailed Gibbs requesting her monthly data along with the alternative portfolio multiple-choice assessments. Gibbs submitted the monthly data. Gibbs did not submit the multiple-choice alternative data, and has never submitted the multiple-choice data. However, on that same day, Gibbs sent two of her students to Hafez asking for copies of the multiple-choice tests. Gibbs told all of the parents that their students would be promoted. Unfortunately, five of Gibbs' students scored a one on the FSA. The Portfolios should have been used as good cause promotion criteria for those students, but they were too deficient. The students were promoted and placed into intervention programs the following year. Falsified Test Administrator Certificate School year 2016-17 was the first year that the FSA was to be given to students via computer. All MLE teachers were directed by Veliz to complete a Test Administrators' ("TA") Certification Course from American Institutes for Research ("AIR"). The FSA was given on April 27 and 28, 2017. On February 7, 2017, the school was scheduled to take an infrastructure practice test to make sure the school's system had the capacity to handle the testing by computers. On February 6, 2017, Gibbs received assistance from School Counselor, Ms. Gigi McIntire ("McIntire"), and the Micro-Tech, Mr. Osvaldo Hernandez ("Hernandez"), to create her password and receive a link for the infrastructure practice test. Gibbs' class did not take the infrastructure test. On February 8, 2017, Veliz met with Gibbs to discuss the fact that her class had not completed the infrastructure test and the importance of practicing with her students prior to the FSA. During the meeting, Gibbs claimed that she had not been given the link and she had not received the password until the very end because Hernandez had helped all other teachers and left her for last. This was not true, however, because Gibbs received her password and the link on February 6, 2017. Gibbs submitted a TA Certificate on March 13, 2017, which had her name handwritten on it and which did not state a date of completion of the course. The certificate looked as though it was a screen shot from the computer. The certificates that were submitted by all other teachers looked different. They had their names typed on the certificate and the date that the course was completed. Gibbs was supposed to have her students practice taking the test on a computer. The expectation was that students would have done this multiple times before having to take the FSA. On April 24, 2017, Veliz approached some third grade students and asked them how their computer practice test was going. Several students from Gibbs' class stated that they had not practiced yet because their teacher did not know how to log in. Students from other classes stated that they had practiced several times. This alarmed Veliz. Veliz asked McIntire to provide copies of all the TA Certificates. Veliz saw that the only certificate with a name handwritten in was that of Gibbs. Veliz contacted the AIR Help Desk. Mr. Anthony Nembhard ("Nembhard") confirmed that Gibbs had only used her password to log in on February 6, 2017, and had not logged in at any other time. Nembhard provided Veliz with Case No. 545991, and showed Veliz how to print a report indicating that Gibbs had not completed the course. It was uncovered that a teacher could scroll through the course without actually taking it and get to a "Congratulations!" page that looked like what Gibbs had submitted as her certificate. A screen shot of this page could be printed out. On April 25, 2017, Veliz went into Gibbs' classroom with Hernandez to assist students in practicing prior to the test. None of the students had any idea how to log in, did not know which browser to use, and every single one of them indicated that it was their first time accessing this practice test. The students were confused and did not know how to log in. This student confusion took place in the presence of Gibbs, Hernandez, and Veliz. When Gibbs was asked if she had her students do the practice test, Gibbs indicated she had done everything she needed to do. Gibbs' defense, that her printer was not functioning properly to print a complete TA Certificate, is not credible. Gibbs apparently printed a TA Certificate in which everything printed perfectly, except her name, which she handwrote. She offered no explanation for failing to provide instruction to her students on how to utilize the computer so they would be ready to take the FSA. Falsified FMLA Certification of Healthcare Provider Gibbs sought and was granted Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") intermittent leave in 2012. Gibbs reapplied for FMLA intermittent leave every year thereafter from 2013 to 2015, and was approved by Ms. Marjorie Fletcher ("Fletcher") of the BCSB Leaves Department on each instance. Gibbs submitted a FMLA certificate of healthcare provider form from ARNP Princy Bhat-Bhardwaj ("ARNP Princy"), certifying Gibbs' need for another FMLA leave for the period of November 15, 2015, to November 15, 2016. ARNP Princy is employed by Metcare, Gibbs' primary medical care provider. The frequency and duration section of the form on paragraph 11 were left blank. In order to process Gibbs' leave request, Fletcher faxed this form back to Metcare to request that it fill in the frequency and duration section of the form. The form was faxed back to Fletcher with the frequency and duration section of the form filled in. However, Fletcher noticed that the beginning and ending dates of the certification on paragraph nine, as well as the date of the signature on the bottom of the form, were whited out and written over. Fletcher called Metcare to verify their fax number which was fax-stamped at the top of the form. A person at Metcare could not verify the phone number listed on the top of the form. ARNP Princy confirmed to Fletcher that the handwritten portion of the date of the signature was not her handwriting. ARNP Princy also confirmed that the beginning and ending dates of the certification on paragraph nine of the form was not her handwriting. ARNP Princy testified that if she signs a form, it is her practice to date the form at the same time. According to ARNP Princy, Metcare's procedure for filling out and executing FMLA certifications is directed by the patient. In some instances, they fill out and execute FMLA certifications and directly send it to a patient's employer. In other instances, the form is handed back to the patient to submit to their employer. Gibbs submitted another FMLA certificate of healthcare provider from ARNP Princy, certifying Gibbs' need for another FMLA leave for January 29, 2016, to June 10, 2016. On May 23, 2017, legal counsel for Metcare, confirmed to the Leaves Department that it had not completed a FMLA certificate for Gibbs since January 2015. It is evident that one or more FMLA forms submitted on behalf of Gibbs were falsified. However, no evidence was presented that the documents were altered by Gibbs or that they were ever in her possession prior to their submission by someone to the Leaves Department. Although no one other than Gibbs would seemingly have a motive to modify these forms, Gibbs denied falsifying them. While Fletcher certainly had a legitimate basis to question the validity of these forms, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Gibbs knowingly submitted false information to secure ongoing intermittent leave. Prior Discipline Gibbs has prior disciplinary actions consisting of two verbal reprimands and several corrective actions (i.e., summary memoranda). She received a verbal reprimand on January 27, 2017, for failing to attend the scheduled Professional Learning Community on BAS at McNab Elementary on January 13, 2017. She received another verbal reprimand on December 11, 2017, for intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Gibbs received received summary memos concerning: the need to attend all scheduled afternoon meetings; the need to promote positive interactions with students; the need to be punctual; the need to follow procedures and protocols for drills; the need to instruct for an entire period; the need to closely monitor and track student progress; the need to adhere to timelines and complete school-wide assessments in a timely manner; the need to understand standards; for sending a grammatically incorrect letter to a parent; for lack of intervention with behavior issues in the classroom; for intentionally exposing students to embarrassment with references to boyfriends and girlfriends; the need the adhere to timelines and complete school-wide assessments in a timely manner; and the need to use guided reading during the reading block. On September 2, 2015, Gibbs was placed on administrative reassignment due to a personnel investigation. She remained on administrative reassignment for the remainder of the school year. The personnel investigation involved two issues. One issue was about conduct that occurred during the 2014-15 school year when she was assigned to Walker Elementary as a VPK teacher. The alleged conduct was that she charged parents a fee if their child was picked up late from VPK and that she planned on charging a fee for the end of school graduation ceremony. The other issue was for conduct that occurred during the 2015-16 school year. It was alleged that on August 26, 2015, she pushed a student out of the classroom and pinched his back. Based on these two incidents, the Education Practices Commission issued a letter of reprimand to Gibbs, which is part of her BCSB personnel file. Ultimate Findings of Fact The evidentiary record overwhelmingly reveals a pattern by Gibbs of misconduct, gross insubordination, incompetence, willful neglect of duty, and violation of school board policies. The evidentiary record amply supports suspension without pay and termination of her employment for just cause.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Denise Marie Heekin, Esquire Ranjiv Sondhi, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 For Respondent: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33675
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 upholding Respondent's suspension without pay and termination for just cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 6th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. McKee, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East Seventh Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33675 (eServed) Denise Marie Heekin, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Ranjiv Sondhi, Esquire Bryant Miller Olive, P.A. One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Katherine A. Heffner, Esquire Robert F. McKee, P.A. 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33605 (eServed) Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 10th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether just cause exists to terminate Respondent's employment with the Broward County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is the entity charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Broward County, Florida. Respondent began her teaching career with the Broward County School District in or around January 2002, at which time she was assigned to South Broward High School ("South Broward").2/ In or around 2006, Petitioner introduced a program known as "Post-Graduate Alternatives for Secondary Students" ("PASS program") to most of its high schools, including South Broward. As explained by various witnesses during the final hearing, the PASS program is designed to assist students with moderate to significant learning disabilities——all of whom are between the ages of 18 to 21 and have already received special high school diplomas——attain the highest possible level of independence. This is achieved by placing students in a variety of work experience sites (simulated at first in the classroom and later at actual work locations), providing instruction related to community living tasks (e.g., use of money, transportation, shopping), and working to improve the students' behavior and communication skills. Following its district-wide introduction in 2006, the PASS program underwent various refinements, which included the development of clear, well-defined "steps" for instructors to follow in their implementation of the program. "Step 1," for instance, requires a PASS teacher, who is supported by two classroom paraprofessionals, to create a minimum of five stations (or, in Petitioner's terminology, "zones") within the classroom, with each zone consisting of multiple tasks. Such stations can run the gamut from a "restaurant zone," where students learn, for example, to sort silverware, to a "laundry zone," where students are taught to fold and hang clothing. Among other things, the PASS steps also require the teacher to: create specialized zone instructions for each of the approximately 10-12 students to which the PASS instructor is assigned; create schedules to govern the rotation of students from zone to zone; and collect data that tracks each student's performance on every assigned task, which is later used for "job matching" and to determine if the students are meeting the goals in their Transition Individualized Education Plans ("TIEPs"). As will be seen shortly, Respondent demonstrated a substantial lack of compliance with several of the PASS steps during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, most notably in the area of data collection; it is upon that particular failing that the ensuing factual recitation will largely focus. 2010-2011 School Year Prior to the start of the 2010-2011 academic year, Respondent was provided with a document titled, "PASS Process Implementation Steps & Expectations," which plainly instructed, inter alia, that PASS teachers record data (at least one time per week) for each student and for every task to which the student was assigned. The document read: STEP 1: IDENTIFY ZONES Arrange furniture/physical space for zones All zones clearly defined and labeled Minimum of 5 zones/areas 1:1 zone/area defined STEP 2: DETERMINE TASKS PER ZONE At least 3-5 tasks in each zone to start; increase number of tasks as they are mastered Construct tasks for the zones – both high and low level Age appropriate materials must be used; nothing that's typically seen in elementary classrooms Variety of instructional methods used STEP 3: DEVELOP THE MASTER SCHEDULE Implement the Master Schedule Master Schedule/zone assignments are based on [each students' transition individualized education plan or "TIEP"] STEP 4: DEVELOP THE ZONE PROFILES Post a Zone Profile in every zone; zone profile shows, at a glance, which student should be in the zone at what particular time. STEP 5: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT STAFF SCHEDULES Teacher and paraprofessional schedules are complete Schedule shows coverage for each zone STEP 6: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT ZONE BINDERS WITH TASK INSTRUCTIONS Individualized task instructions for every task and every student in every zone (includes written instructions for readers/visual instructions for nonreaders) STEP 7: DEVELOP INDIVIDUAL DAILY STUDENTS SCHEDULES Create master individual schedules for students Implement Daily Independent Individual Student Schedule; student is following their individual schedule and going to zone that is stated on their schedule at their own individual pace Students rotating from zone to zone independently by following their individual daily schedule Students do schedule review at the end of the day for the next day; teacher/para checks for accuracy Students meaningfully engaged in zones STEP 8: COMPLETE STUDENT ASSESSMENTS Complete comprehensive vocational assessment(s) Complete specific behavior assessments (each task, for each student, for each zone, each week) Evidence of data collection Evidence of individual student binders to contain record keeping Evidence that staff is implementing students' TIEP STEP 9: DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT [Community Based Instruction "CBI"] PROCESS Sites based on TIEP and student assessments Classroom zones based on CBI/Community sites Individualized student schedules created for each CBI site Preparation of students before CBI Follow-up CBI's CBI schedule posted 3-4 students maximum at any given site (emphasis added). As established during the final hearing, the school district did not simply disseminate the foregoing steps to Respondent and leave her to her own devices. On the contrary, Respondent——who previously received formal PASS training from the school district——was provided with significant support throughout the 2010-2011 school year from Ms. Wendy Barnes, a PASS program transition instructor. Nevertheless, evidence of Respondent's noncompliance with the PASS steps was evident by early October 2010. Indeed, a classroom observation on October 5, 2010, by Ms. Barnes and Deborah Kearns (an assistant principal at South Broward and Respondent's immediate supervisor) revealed no evidence of data collection, contrary to Step Eight of the PASS program. In addition, the observers discovered a more fundamental problem in that the zone instruction binders were incomplete and not individualized for the students. Subsequently, on October 14, 2010, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss her noncompliance with the PASS program and to develop a plan to correct the shortcomings. At the conclusion of the meeting, Respondent was: advised that she was being placed on a cycle of assistance, whereby she would be provided with written directives on a weekly basis by Ms. Kearns; informed that she would continue to receive support from Ms. Barnes, who would assist her in complying with the directives; and provided with a memorandum from Ms. Kearns, which emphasized, among other things, that her "failure to implement and demonstrate improvements throughout this cycle of assistance may result in [her] placement on a Professional Development Plan." Owing perhaps to the sheer impracticability of ordering Respondent to bring all PASS steps into immediate compliance, Ms. Barnes instead directed, in a memorandum dated October 20, 2010, that Respondent correct Step Two (and only Step Two) within the next six days. In relevant part, the memorandum read: On 10/19/10, Ms. Barnes assisted you with regard to Step 2 of the PASS process Implementation Expectations. As discussed at that time, PASS Step 2 requires that zone binders and individual zone tasks reflect the following: Students must be assigned at least 3-5 activities per zone. Students must be assigned an amount and level of zone activities to maintain engagement during the period scheduled within each zone. Students must be assigned zone tasks that are [] varied by level and challenging based upon individual student ability and need. Students must be assigned zone tasks that are appropriate . . . . You are directed to bring these aspects of Step 2 of the PASS program into compliance by October 26, 2010. Unfortunately, Respondent failed to satisfy this reasonable——and modest——directive, as Ms. Kearns and Ms. Barnes discovered during an observation of Respondent's classroom on October 26, 2010. In response, Ms. Barnes issued a memorandum to Respondent the following day, wherein she directed Respondent to bring "item three" of Step Two (i.e., assign zone tasks of varying difficulty based upon student ability), as well as Steps Three and Four, into compliance by November 2, 2010. Ms. Barnes' ample and appropriate support efforts notwithstanding, Respondent brought only one of the PASS steps (Step One) into compliance by mid-December, a fact that was confirmed during a classroom observation on December 14, 2010. Ms. Kearns discussed this issue with Respondent during a pre- disciplinary conference held the following day, at which time Respondent admitted that she had "muddled" the implementation of the PASS steps. Two days later, on December 17, 2010, Ms. Kearns warned Respondent in writing that her continued failure to implement the PASS steps might result in further disciplinary action. As the 2010-2011 school year progressed, Respondent's failure to implement the PASS steps——particularly the step related to data3/ collection——continued in spite of frequent classroom visits, numerous memoranda4/ and emails, and regular meetings5/ with Ms. Kearns, Ms. Barnes, and Ms. Aldridge. Ultimately, on April 5, 2011, Ms. Kearns provided written notification to Respondent that she was being placed on a 90-day Performance Development Plan ("PDP") due to deficiencies in the areas of lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation (i.e., assessments and data collection). The PDP, which was drafted during a meeting held the same date (attended by Ms. Kearns, Respondent, the school principal, and a union representative), articulated the corrections Respondent was required to make, various strategies for improvement, and the assistance with which Respondent would be provided. With respect to the issue of data collection, for example, the PDP contemplated that by September 19, 2011, Respondent would be required to demonstrate mastery of the requirement that she "collect and record quantitative data for each task in each zone for each student on a weekly basis." The PDP further provided that Ms. Barnes and/or Ms. Aldridge would work with Respondent to improve her data collection methods. (At Respondent's request, this portion of the PDP was amended on May 31, 2011, to read that only "District Personnel and/or Shalita Aldridge" would assist her.) On April 11, 2011, less than one week after the creation of the PDP, Ms. Barnes met with Respondent (for one hour) to review and discuss proper data collection methods. Despite this meeting and the subsequent provision of ample support, Respondent's failure to collect proper data——and comply with numerous other PASS steps——persisted: on April 27, 2011, Ms. Kearns noticed during a classroom observation that Respondent was still not collecting weekly data for each task and, further, that the data she had collected was not measureable; on May 3, 2011, Ms. Barnes and Ms. Kearns examined a sample of recent data sheets, which revealed that Respondent's data entries were vague and not recorded separately by task type; on May 16, 2012, during a classroom visit by Alan Strauss (South Broward's principal) and Louis Ruccolo (a transition supervisor with the district), it was observed that six PASS steps were out of compliance, including data collection; and, on May 19, 2011, a one-hour classroom observation by Ms. Kearns uncovered myriad data collection issues, which included, with respect to one particular student, zero "office zone" data entries during the preceding six weeks. Respondent's continued noncompliance resulted, not surprisingly, in the issuance of several reprimands by Ms. Kearns. The first, provided to Respondent in writing on May 12, 2011, was based upon her repeated failure to comply with time- bound directives; the second, issued in early June of 2011, disciplined Respondent for her lack of adherence to "directives relative to student supervision." On or about June 10, 2011, Ms. Kearns issued a memorandum to Respondent that discussed, in painstaking detail, what would be expected of her during the following school year. Among other things, the memorandum advised Respondent that she would be required, effective August 22, 2011, to "utilize the specific data collection tools that are named in [her] PDP," including but not limited to weekly zone task data. Respondent was further informed, accurately as it turns out, that "District support will continue to be provided . . . during the school year and will begin the week of August 15, 2011." 2011-2012 School Year At the outset of the 2011-2012 school year, Mr. Strauss provided Respondent with two memoranda. The first, dated August 16, 2012, recounted Respondent's shortcomings during the preceding academic year, which included her failure to "collect and maintain consistent and quantitative data through specific zone task data collection." The second, which Respondent received on August 22, 2011, reminded her that her PDP (initiated on April 1, 2011) had carried over from the previous year and would expire on September 13, 2011; Respondent was further advised that the performance evaluation to be conducted upon the expiration of her PDP would be drafted under the assessment system in effect during the 2010-2011 school year. Pursuant to the School Board's evaluation system (known as the Instructional Personnel Assessment System or "IPAS"), teachers are rated (satisfactory, in need of improvement, or unsatisfactory) in ten areas: instructional planning; lesson management; lesson presentation; communication; classroom management; behavior management; records management; subject matter knowledge; "other professional competencies"; and student performance evaluation. On September 19, 2011, Ms. Khandia Pinkney——an assistant principal at South Broward, who assumed the duties of Ms. Kearns——issued Respondent's evaluation for the 2010-2011 school year. In the evaluation, Ms. Pinkney awarded Respondent satisfactory ratings in seven of the performance areas, while the remaining three (lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation) were deemed unsatisfactory. In light of her failure to achieve satisfactory ratings in all ten performance areas, Respondent was issued an overall performance rating of unsatisfactory. Although Respondent's poor evaluation could have resulted in the initiation of termination proceedings, Mr. Strauss and Ms. Pinkney elected instead to place Respondent on a new, 90-day PDP. The second PDP, which was drafted with Respondent's collaboration on September 19, 2011, listed 14 specific deficiencies (e.g., "collect and record quantitative data for every task in each zone for each student on a weekly basis") that Respondent was required to correct by January 10, 2012. In accordance with the terms of the second PDP, Respondent received considerable support and supervision as the school year progressed. Such support included twice-weekly visits by Ms. Shaneka President (a district-level transition teacher) to Respondent's classroom, as well as weekly follow-up e-mails that emphasized, among various issues, the necessity of proper data collection.6/ Respondent's data collection issues persisted; in light of this continued failing, as well as several other concerns, Ms. Pinkney drafted a written recommendation, dated October 17, 2011, that Respondent be suspended from work for three days.7/ In pertinent part, the recommendation read: On 10/13/2010 you received a summary memo, on 12/17/2010 you received a written warning, on 3/01/2011 you received a verbal reprimand, and on 5/12/2011 and 6/10/2011 you received written reprimands. All notifications were regarding the concern with your failure to follow directives. You have failed to meet the performance standards required of your position as a teacher. Specifically, you have failed to follow directives relative to leaving campus without administrative approval, following time-bound directives, directives relative to student supervision by failing to properly supervise you SVE students, utilizing instructional time for personal activities such as smoking and personal phone calls, and not following procedural directives. . . . Your repeated failure to follow directives is a serious breach of conduct that cannot be tolerated. Therefore, I am recommending that your name be sent before the School Board . . . for a 3-day suspension. Petitioner's receipt of the foregoing memorandum did not spur her into compliance: two days later, on October 19, 2011, Mr. Ruccolo and Ms. Pinkney conducted an observation of Petitioner's classroom, during which they noticed——among other deficiencies——instances of incomplete8/ and/or inaccurate data.9/ The observed deficiencies were discussed with Respondent during a meeting with Ms. Pinkney on October 25, 2011, and further outlined in a memorandum issued to Respondent two days later. During the ensuing four weeks, Ms. President continued to remind Respondent, in writing and on no fewer than four occasions, of the requirement to record data "for every task for every student in every zone on a weekly basis."10/ Respondent, however, failed to heed this guidance——as Mr. Strauss learned during a classroom observation of Respondent's classroom on December 1, 2011. On that occasion, Mr. Strauss and an intern principal (Ms. Cherie Hodgson-Toeller) uncovered numerous data collection issues, each of which was discussed with Respondent during a meeting on December 5, 2011, as well as detailed in a memorandum provided to Respondent the following week. The memorandum read, in relevant part: We also pointed out that [student "Sa."] had no data in her binder with respect to her performance in the Office zone. We discussed that no data was reflected in the binders for the current week and commented that the data recorded in the binders was lacking uniformity and data recorded did not provide[] comparison details to determine the students['] current percentage of correct completions while performing the task or indicate whether or not they are making adequate progress. . . . It was also discussed that we witnessed a lot of confusion in the classroom and inconsistencies in monitoring, scheduling, and tracking of data continue to exist. (emphasis added). Over the next four weeks, Respondent's issues with data collection persisted, and, in at least one regard, worsened. During an observation of Respondent's class on January 3, 2012, Ms. Pinkney discovered that no data had been recorded for one particular student in the "restaurant zone"; with respect to another student, Ms. Pinkney noted, troublingly, that "restaurant zone" data had been recorded for a date (December 15, 2011) that the student had been absent. The cause of the latter discrepancy, as established by Ms. Riley's credible testimony, was a directive to Ms. Riley from Respondent to manufacture data entries (after the fact) to create the appearance of proper data collection. As Ms. Riley explained during the final hearing: There were times [when] I was uncomfortable. Ms. Liquori would say, well, Ms. Presidente [sic] and them are coming on Monday, or, they are coming this and such date, so you need to go ahead and put your data in. And there was a time where she asked me to put in data for a student that had not been in school for three weeks. And I told her, I said, I don't think that we are supposed to be doing that. I know that's not right for us to do that. But because you are my supervisor and teacher, then I have to follow orders from my supervising teacher. Q. So, if I understand correctly then, Ms. Liquori instructed you to put in data on a student that wasn't present. A. That is correct. Q. And that was false data. A. Right. And there was [sic] times where we would have to put down a student mastered a task when we know that the student had not mastered that task. Q. Why would Ms. Liquori make you do that? A. Because data needs to be put in before Ms. Presidente [sic] and them would come in. Because when they come in they did the observations. (emphasis added). A meeting was thereafter scheduled for January 12, 2012, during which Ms. Pinkney intended to close Respondent's PDP and draft an unfavorable performance evaluation. From what can be gleaned from the record, however, the meeting was postponed by virtue of Respondent's placement on medical leave. The meeting was ultimately convened on April 26, 2012, at which time Ms. Pinkney issued a written performance evaluation that rated Respondent unsatisfactory in three performance areas (lesson management, lesson presentation, and student performance evaluation——the same categories that were rated unsatisfactory during the previous evaluation), satisfactory in the other seven areas, and unsatisfactory overall. Petitioner has demonstrated by a greater weight of the evidence that Respondent's failure to collect appropriate PASS data, a deficiency that persisted for more than one and one-half school years, constituted a willful neglect of her duties. In so finding, it is notable: that the data collection tasks Respondent was directed to perform were uncomplicated and reasonable in nature; that Respondent received adequate training concerning the PASS program prior to the 2010-2011 school year, as well as substantial levels of support and guidance during each school year at issue; and that Respondent never indicated, at any point during the 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 school years, that she did not understand her obligations or was unable to perform them.11/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 8th day of February, 2013.
The Issue Did Respondent, Liudmila Parker, commit misconduct in office, willful neglect of duty and gross insubordination in violation of section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ as well as engage in conduct unbecoming a public employee? Did Ms. Parker violate the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession and Orange County School Board Management Directive B-12? What discipline, if any, should Petitioner, Orange County School Board (Board), impose on Ms. Parker?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Admitted by Both Parties2/ The Board employed Ms. Parker as a classroom teacher. Ms. Parker held a Professional Service Contract with the Board. Ms. Parker received a written reprimand on May 3, 2010, for verbal intimidation of students and interfering in an investigation. On November 19, 2010, Ms. Parker received a written reprimand for embarrassing students. On November 29, 2010, Ms. Parker received a 5 day suspension without pay for confronting a student regarding a complaint the student and his parent made about Ms. Parker. From February 9, 2011, through the end of the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Parker was on relief of duty status without pay. Background Facts Ms. Parker taught ninth-grade English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) at Dr. Phillips High School in Orange County, Florida, during the 2011-2012 school year. Ms. Parker has been teaching for 34 years. She started teaching in Lithuania where she taught for 27 years. In Lithuania she also taught ESOL. Ms. Parker majored in ESOL and has taught it all her life. Assistant Principal of Instruction Dr. Suzanne Knight was Ms. Parker's direct supervisor. When Ms. Parker began work at Dr. Phillips, she was given a copy of the Dr. Phillips High School Faculty and Staff Handbook. She also had access to an electronic copy of the handbook. The handbook included a copy of the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. The handbook also included a copy of Orange County Management Directive B-12, Code of Civility. Ms. Parker read and understood the handbook. Ms. Parker read and understood the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Ms. Parker read and understood the Code of Civility. The handbook described and emphasized how to use common sense and professional judgment to avoid complications resulting from conduct that violates the Code of Ethics. The handbook included these admonitions: "All co-workers and employees of the district are to be treated with dignity, respect and courtesy at all times." "Use common sense and good judgment. Ask yourself how someone else could perceive your comments or actions. Ask yourself if your comments or actions could be taken out of context and/or misinterpreted." "Avoid putting yourself in a position where you have to defend, explain or justify your behavior or actions." December 8, 2011, Email Dr. Phillips High School Principal Eugene Trochinski observed Ms. Parker's classroom teaching on November 17, 2011. Dr. Knight observed Ms. Parker's classroom teaching on December 5, 2011. Mr. Trochinski and Dr. Knight gave Ms. Parker written comments after observing her performance. On December 8, 2011, in an email to Mr. Trochinski and Dr. Knight, sent at 3:52 a.m., Ms. Parker stated that she had "several questions to ask." The tone and the text of the email were confrontational and belligerent. Each of Ms. Parker's "questions" was in bold face font, something Ms. Parker does to demonstrate her indignation. Some of Ms. Parker's supervisors' observations and her "questions" follow: Observation--"Student in back of room working on Rosetta Stone but not engaged in daily lesson." "Question" "Do you think they should work with the whole group without understanding anything?" Do you think it is better for them???" Observation--"How do you celebrate success in the lesson" There was no evidence of this between teacher and students during my observation." "Question": "Do you want me to interrupt the test and start celebrating success because you came in for observation???" Observation--[Although the specific observation was not reproduced, it was plainly about the students not appearing to be engaged and the lesson being difficult to focus on.] "Question(s)"--"My students demonstrated good behavior and they were listening attentively. Your comments 'Students did not appear to be engaged in the lesson' and 'It was hard to focus on the lesson due to not understanding the starting point' do not make sense at all. Hard to focus for who? For you??? May be. My students were focused!!! Once again,Dr. Knight was in class during Benchmark test results analysis. Her comments show that she does not like to see that students are focused and attentive." Ms. Parker follows her "questions" with: "To sum up, I evaluate the above-mentioned comments of administrators as one more evidence of a biased attitude towards me at school; it is apparent nagging, nothing else." The email ends with a demand to compare and contrast the teacher training at Dr. Phillips with teacher training at Hunter's Creek Middle School and Evans High School. The last words of the email are: "Thank you for your time spent on reading this email. I am looking forward to getting your responses to my questions ASAP." Ms. Parker's explanation for her charges of bias was only that she was a good teacher and, therefore, Dr. Knight must be picking on her. Section 1012.34(3)(c) and Article X, Section (B)(2) of the Contract between the School Board of Orange County and the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association impose a duty on Dr. Knight and Mr. Trochinski to evaluate the performance of teachers under their supervision, including Ms. Parker. This observation and assessment is not "nagging" or "bias." Ms. Parker's December 8, 2011, email about their observations was discourteous, disrespectful, uncooperative, and a display of temper. It interfered with her ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight and Mr. Trochinski to effectively perform their duties. Ms. Parker's email also demonstrates a refusal to take responsibility for her own actions and statements. Ms. Parker's testimony about a later conversation with Ms. Knight affirmed the hostility to criticism and suggestions for improvement recorded in her email. One example is her lengthy answer, at page 430, line 16 of the Transcript, to the question "How long would she [Dr. Knight] come in to your class?" Ms. Parker's answer included this statement, with emphasis supplied: So--and then when she said that it doesn't coincide, I asked, Okay, Dr. Knight, for example you were in my class on December 5th, and you saw--and she wrote down, she had in her notes--that we were going to read and work with fluency based on the story The Birds. And she said, yes. I said, Then why do you say that my lesson plans do not coincide with what I was teaching? She said, Hum, I came in at the beginning and then I don't know what you were teaching. I said, Do you think that I wrote this agenda for the president or somebody else? I wrote for the students. I cannot just write the words and do something else. I don't know. It seems to me there is common sense here. Yeah. So she was just arguing. And her statements, I don't know. This statement was a display of temper, discourteous, disrespectful, and uncooperative. It also interfered with Ms. Parker's ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight to perform her duties. Because of the December 8, 2011, email, Dr. Knight held a conference with Ms. Parker on December 9, 2011, about the email. Dr. Knight explained what was wrong with the email. She also advised Ms. Parker of the importance of being careful when writing emails because of the risks that a writer may not be as polite as they would be in a personal conversation and the risk that emails may be written and sent when emotions are running high. Ms. Parker reiterated her claims that all criticisms were due to bias. Ms. Parker interrupted Dr. Knight and said "Let's have a dialogue not a monologue." During the meeting of December 8, 2012, Ms. Parker did not acknowledge any validity to any of the concerns raised. She did, however, complain about training and lack of support. During this meeting, Ms. Parker communicated in person as she had in the email. She again demonstrated an inability to accept criticism and responsibility for her own actions. She was again discourteous, disrespectful, and uncooperative and displayed her temper. Ms. Parker's behavior interfered with her ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight to perform her duties. Ms. Parker's approach was the same during her testimony. She testified that she had a right to tell an administrator to stop talking and let her speak. Ms. Parker impatiently described the December 8 meeting as useless. In her words starting at page 556, line 17: Yes, I can [tell an administrator that she should stop talking]. Because she was starting to say again and again, and I have no time to sit the whole planning period without any production, without any use, because my planning period I'd rather spend with students. By the way, at that meeting, I wanted to stand up and leave her office, because she didn't want to listen to me. She was only talking, talking, talking. For monologue, she could send me an e-mail. If it was a dialogue--meeting is meant for dialogue, for exchanging ideas, for talking, to discussing [sic] things, but she was just talking and talking. That's why I said, Let us have dialogue, not monologue, because she was speaking 15 minutes. Later in her testimony, Ms. Parker dismisses Dr. Knight's efforts to explain what Ms. Parker had done wrong and suggest improvements this way: "She brought me there to discuss things. Instead of discussion, she began to say boring things, repeating." Ms. Parker's testimony reflected the confrontational and belligerent approach manifested in her emails and conversations during her employment. She repeatedly expressed her view of her superiority as a teacher and her view that all criticisms were unfounded and unfair. She never acknowledged even a possibility that any of her actions or communications were improper. "Elements of Literature" Communications On January 5, 2012, Ms. Parker lunched with fellow teacher Brandi Boone and two other teachers. During lunch, Ms. Parker said that she did not use the "Elements of Literature" curriculum book and had not used it since the beginning of the year, because it was "too difficult" for her students. On January 11, 2012, Dr. Knight conducted an ESOL meeting to address aligning the ESOL curriculum with the general English curriculum. Having both general and ESOL students use the "Elements of Literature" curriculum was part of the school's required teaching strategy. During the meeting, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight that she used the "Elements of Literature" curriculum and that she loved it. On January 12, 2012, Ms. Boone approached Dr. Knight and told Dr. Knight about Ms. Parker's statement during the January 5, 2012, lunch meeting that she was not using "Elements of Literature" because it was too difficult for her students. On January 17, 2012, Dr. Knight called Ms. Parker in to her office. Assistant Principal Alisa Dorsett was present. During the meeting Dr. Knight asked Ms. Parker if she used "Elements of Literature." She asked because of her observations of Ms. Parker's classroom teaching and Ms. Boone's statements. Ms. Parker said that she was. Because of what she had observed and what Ms. Boone had reported, Dr. Knight questioned the accuracy of this. She told Ms. Parker she thought that Ms. Parker was "being less than honest." This was a fair observation based on the information known to Dr. Knight. During the meeting, Ms. Parker repeatedly got up and tried to go behind Dr. Knight's desk to show her documents. Dr. Knight repeatedly had to ask Ms. Parker to sit down. At the end of the meeting, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight that "If you want to go to court, we can go to court." Ms. Parker testified that she said: "Shall we go to court? We'll go to court." Regardless of the exact wording, the gist of the comment is the same. The comment, like Ms. Parker's conduct in the meeting, was a combative, discourteous, threatening, and uncooperative response to Dr. Knight's attempt to address a professional issue. The comment and Ms. Parker's behavior in the meeting also interfered with Ms. Parker's ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight to perform her duties. It is not the fact that Ms. Parker wanted to exercise her legal rights that is improper. It is the way she expressed it that is improper. Ms. Parker's repeated attempts to move behind Dr. Knight's desk were also combative, discourteous, threatening, and uncooperative. Emails of January 17 and 18 After the January 17 meeting, Ms. Parker wrote emails to Dr. Knight and Ms. Dorsett. In her January 17 email to Ms. Dorsett, Ms. Parker asked Ms. Dorsett to write in her notes that Dr. Knight told Ms. Parker that she was a dishonest person and that Ms. Parker had lied during the ESOL meeting. Ms. Dorsett replied that she would write that Ms. Parker had asked to have that statement included in her notes. But Ms. Dorsett testified that she did not agree that the requested additions were accurate. Ms. Parker sent another email to Dr. Knight on January 18, 2012, in which she said that Ms. Dorsett had not responded to the January 17 email. Ms. Parker then asked in the email, "So who is dishonest then?" The statement is discourteous, disrespectful, a display of temper, and uncooperative. It also interfered with Ms. Parker's ability to perform her duties and the ability of Dr. Knight and Ms. Dorsett to perform their duties. Communications with Ms. Boone On Sunday, January 22, 2012, at 12:49 a.m., Ms. Parker sent Ms. Boone an email. In it, Ms. Parker accused Ms. Boone of telling Dr. Knight that she grouped her students by ethnicities. Ms. Parker, who suspected but had not confirmed that Ms. Boone told Dr. Knight that she said she did not use "Elements of Literature," went on to discuss her usage of "Elements of Literature." The email concluded: "My colleagues who create slanders will be really upset when investigation starts. According to The Principles of Professional Conduct, 'the educator shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.' You have to be honest and tell the truth. You must take responsibility for your words and actions." The statement was threatening. Ms. Parker intended to convey to Ms. Boone that she would sue her for slander. Exercising your legal rights, including in a work place context, is not inherently improper. But Ms. Parker's threat of investigations and slander suits reduced her ability to effectively perform her duties, reduced Ms. Boone's ability to effectively perform her duties, harassed Ms. Boone, created a hostile and intimidating environment, and was bullying. Ms. Boone replied in an email of January 22, 2012, at 8:24 p.m. She denied accusing Ms. Parker of grouping students by ethnicity. She acknowledged providing information to Dr. Knight and that she was appalled when Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight she used and loved "Elements of Literature." In a second email a few minutes later, Ms. Boone said that she wanted Dr. Knight present for any further conversations between her and Ms. Parker about students or Ms. Parker's claims. Ms. Parker responded with a lengthy email that included the following series of sarcastic and combative statements. You showed yourself a very disrespectful person accusing me, a veteran teacher, who is 2 times older than you, who has worked 34 years at school. I also noticed that you have hearing problems. Am I right? Maybe you misunderstood something and jumped to conclusions? Besides, I love humor. Boring people do not understand it as a rule. And guess what? I have a lot of students' works done during the first semester based on "Elements of Literature", and I can show them to everybody at any time. I showed them to Dr. Knight. Why should I tell [sic] that I did not work with EL??? You saw my students' projects too. In your class there are no students' works at all! To sum up, you violated the Principles of Professional Conduct: Obligation to the Profession of Education (d) and (e) because you created offensive environment and made a malicious statement about your colleague (me). Now you will have to take responsibility for your words. After your actions I have no desire to communicate with you at all, but because of working conditions I will have to have "that pleasure", only in the presence of Rita or administrator. Ms. Parker's statements in these email communications harassed Ms. Boone and created a hostile, intimidating, and oppressive environment. The statements were discourteous and interfered with the ability of Ms. Parker and Ms. Boone to perform their duties. Midpoint Evaluation Dr. Knight met with Ms. Parker on January 19, 2012, to discuss her midpoint evaluation. Assistant Principal Bridget Bresk attended as a witness. During the meeting, Dr. Knight gave Ms. Parker a direct and reasonable order to acknowledge that she had received the written mid-point evaluation. Ms. Parker had not acknowledged receipt as requested when she was provided the evaluation. The acknowledgement form only asked the teacher to acknowledge receiving the evaluation. It did not state or imply that the teacher agreed with the evaluation. Ms. Parker refused. Ms. Parker said that she would not acknowledge receipt of the evaluation because she did not agree with it. Dr. Knight explained that the acknowledgement simply stated that Ms. Parker had received it and did not say that Ms. Parker agreed with the evaluation. Ms. Parker still refused. She told Dr. Knight that "acknowledge" means to agree and that Dr. Knight "should look it up yourself." Ms. Parker intentionally refused to obey a reasonable direct order given by her direct supervisor, Dr. Knight. Ms. Parker was also discourteous and uncooperative. Her conduct impaired Dr. Knight's ability to perform her duties. During the meeting, when they discussed what Ms. Parker needed to improve, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight "sorry for breathing." She sought to justify the comment by saying it was an "American expression." Ms. Parker also told Dr. Knight her comments after the classroom observation about celebrating student success were "ridiculous." At the meeting's end, Ms. Parker told Dr. Knight one of the following: "I have people who will take care of me and I have people who will take care of you"; "There are people who will take care of me and take care of you."; or "There are people who will take care of me and you." There are no material differences between the three statements. Any version is a threatening and bullying statement. Ms. Parker's argument that she was only stating the obvious, that she could file a grievance, is not persuasive. She made no reference to a grievance in the meeting. Her words plainly convey a darker impression than "we may have to agree to disagree and resolve our disagreements legally" or "I will file a grievance about this." The preceding comments were threatening, bullying, discourteous, disrespectful, and uncooperative. Also, throughout the meeting, Ms. Parker's conduct impaired the ability of Dr. Knight and Ms. Parker to perform their duties. After the meeting, Ms. Parker sent Dr. Knight two emails. The first, sent at 5:20 p.m., included the following two sarcastic statements: I appreciate your close attention to me lately. I wish you started to analyze planning problems since the beginning of the school year, but better late than never. Well, I think you are very brave. I wonder if you are aware of the fact that Code of Civility refers to all OCPS employees, not only teachers. The second, sent 30 minutes later, included the two statements that follow. Referring to Dr. Knight's concerns about whether Ms. Parker was using the "Elements of Literature," Ms. Parker said: It proves again and again your hostile biased attitude. Earlier or later, we all have to pay for what we have done. . . . (Unknown author). Ms. Parker's original explanation that she was paraphrasing a biblical passage and her later explanation that she was quoting Oscar Wilde are neither persuasive nor material. The source of the quote does not alter the fact that the statement and the entire email are discourteous, disrespectful, bullying, and uncooperative. Grievance Meeting On January 20, 2012, Ms. Parker submitted a grievance to the Board's employee relations office. Carianne Reggio, the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer and Equity Officer for the Orange County Schools, investigated the grievance. Ms. Reggio met with Ms. Parker on March 20, 2012, to advise her of the result of the investigation. During the meeting Ms. Parker displayed, as she had in her meetings with Dr. Knight, what the union representative described as confidence "that borders on what we might perceive as arrogance." During the meeting, Ms. Parker gave no indication that she acknowledged that anything she had said or done during the communications and meetings from December 2011 forward was inappropriate or improper. She maintained that same position during her testimony. During the three-hour meeting, Ms. Reggio reviewed her findings of no violations with Ms. Parker and considered Ms. Parker's reactions and complaints. Ms. Parker was very upset. While Ms. Reggio was walking Ms. Parker to the elevator, Ms. Parker said she could see why teachers resort to extreme measures and shoot up school systems. This was a reference to a recent murder/suicide in Jacksonville, Florida, where a teacher shot the headmistress of his school and then killed himself. Ms. Parker did not accompany this statement with any gestures, a display of a weapon, or any more specific statement. The statement was crass, disquieting, and inappropriate. But it was not a threat. On March 6, 2012, the Superintendent of Schools recommended termination of Ms. Parker's contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Orange County School Board enter a final order finding that there is just cause to terminate Ms. Parker's employment and terminating her professional service contract for just cause pursuant to section 1012.33, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 October, 2012.
