The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2009).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Peters has been employed by Petitioner as a Special Education Teacher for eight years. Her first two years of employment as a full-time teacher were at Edison Park Elementary School. Peters has been assigned to Morningside Elementary School ("Morningside") as a full-time Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher for approximately six years. She remains employed at Morningside presently. During the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Respondent worked as an ESE teacher dealing with kindergarten and first grades. Even though Peters had a room, she went to the classrooms of the students assigned to her to perform her duties. Peters' job duties and responsibilities included but were not limited to developing IEPs, maintaining attendance and grade records, keeping students records, participating in various meetings and in-services, and performing work as required or assigned by the supervising administrator or his/her designee. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was provided with an assigned class schedule. During Peters' employment at Morningside from August of 2005 through March of 2009, Respondent was disciplined numerous times for not complying with her job duties. Peters repetitively failed to adhere to her class schedule; failed to request administrative permission to leave the worksite; failed to follow faculty sign in/out procedures; left the school site during scheduled classroom work time; failed to complete student IEPs; failed to keep student grading, attendance, and other student records; and continually refused to obey the direct and reasonable orders given by her supervisors, Morningside Principal Ms. Kathleen John-Lousissaint ("Principal" or "John- Lousissaint"), and Morningside Assistant Principal Ms. Sandra Cue ("Assistant Principal" or "Cue").2 The School Board kept a record of the occurrences in Peters' personnel file and went through all the required procedures for disciplining Peters, including repetitive verbal directives, approximately 47 written directives by memorandums, numerous Conferences-for-the-Record ("CFR"), and ultimately written reprimands after Respondent continuously refused to comply with previously given directives. From October 4, 2006, to March 16, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written and was issued 16 written directives, including two written reprimands, to adhere to her class schedule and not to make any changes to the class schedule unless approved by the Principal or Assistant Principal.3 On September 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2008, Peters did not adhere to her daily schedule as written when she didn't report to her assignment. Peters received her first written reprimand for failing to adhere to her schedule on September 21, 2008.4 The Principal went out of her way to work with Peters constantly and met with her numerous times providing verbal directives to follow the school policies including adhering to the class schedule. After the first reprimand, Peters continued to fail to adhere to her class schedule numerous times in November and December 2008 and January 2009. Peters received a second written reprimand for failing to adhere to her class schedule on March 16, 2008. Peters signed both of the written reprimands dated September 21, 2008, and March 16, 2008. Each informed Peters that "Any recurrence of the above infraction [would] result in further disciplinary action." By failing to adhere to her schedule, Peters burdened the Morningside administrators and other teachers who had to cover for Respondent or do her work. Peters also impaired the learning environment for the ESE students when she didn't show up, since she was responsible for educating the students assigned to her. Further, when Peters did not report to her assigned classes, she jeopardized the health, safety, and welfare of the children assigned to her care. From November 8, 2006, to February 16, 2009, Peters was issued several written directives including one written reprimand for failing to request authorization from the administration before leaving the school site, and three written directives for failing to sign in and out when leaving and returning to the school site, as per school site policy.5 Peters received two written reprimands on March 27, 2007, and on March 16, 2008, for failing to comply with the established timelines in the execution of a variety of her duties including, but not limited to, recording student grades, failing to complete IEPs in a timely manner, and failing to utilize the WISE system to complete IEPs. When Peters failed to complete her IEPs, the Morningside administrators had to get other teachers to complete Peters' job in addition to their own assignments. On February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written. Peters was reprimanded on February 20, 2009, for numerous violations of school policy. The reprimand was entitled RESPRIMAND-INSUBORDINATION and stated: On the following dates, November 3, 6, 18, 20, and 25, 2008, December 1, 5, 8, and 9, 2008, January 12, 13, 15 and 21, 2009 and February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, you did not adhere to your schedule as written. On December 10 and 11, 2008, you attended a two day WISE training without prior approval from this administrator. On January 13, 2009, you refused to meet with this administrator. On January 14, 2009, you did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting. Since your Conference-For-[the-]Record meeting in September, you have failed to follow your schedule on 16 occasions, did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting, and have refused to meet with this administrator on five different occasions and refused to meet with the Assistant Principal on one occasion. Your continuous defiance and compliance with the site directives issued on September 25, 2008 and reissued on October 20, 2008, is considered insubordination. It is your professional responsibility as a Miami-Dade County Public School employee to comply with directives issued by the site supervisor. You are hereby officially reprimanded for the following violations of your professional contractual responsibilities: Non-compliance with Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6GX13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties.[6] Refusal to meet with this administrator. Failure to adhere to school site procedures. Failure to adhere to assigned schedule as written. At hearing, Respondent answered in the affirmative that she believed that the directives relating to adhering to a work schedule, seeking administrative approval before leaving a school site, and signing in and out when leaving campus were reasonable. Peters' journal, submitted to the School Board detailing her responses to the disciplinary action of February 20, 2009, stated “I’m not following the schedule because it doesn’t make sense.”7 After receiving the reprimand of February 20, 2009, Peters failed to secure approval from an administrator on either February 26, 2009, or March 3, 2009, when she signed out on the staff sign out log and left the building at a time when she was scheduled to work with students. On March 5, 2009, Peters refused to sign the memorandum dated March 4, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that the Assistant Principal provided Peters. The memorandum advised Peters that she had been told on February 20, 2009, to "adhere to [her] schedule and secure administrative approval prior to leaving the building at a time other than the scheduled lunch time.” It also stated: This memorandum serves as a final reminder that you are to adhere to your schedule and you are to request prior approval from this administrator to leave the building at anytime other than your scheduled duty free half hour lunch block. On March 16, 2009, John-Lousissaint observed Peters in the hallway at approximately 8:30 a.m. and instructed her to report to her scheduled assignment. At approximately 8:40 a.m., the Assistant principal saw Peters and told her several more times to report to her scheduled assignment. At 9:00 a.m. Peters was not in her scheduled classroom assignment. On March 16, 2009, the Assistant Principal gave Peters a memorandum dated March 16, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that stated, "You are reminded that you are to adhere to school site procedures and your schedule as outlined unless notified by an administrator." As a result of Peters actions described in paragraphs 21 and 22 above, on or about April 16, 2009, a CFR was held with Peters. Administrators addressed Peters' gross insubordination and misconduct at the CFR. Peters was instructed yet again to adhere to the directives previously issued by the Principal on numerous occasions, and to comply with the reasonable requests of the Principal. Peters testified at hearing that her personal relationship with the school administrators has become strained and she felt she was being singled out. Peters felt as though she were not being treated like a teacher. Peters asserted that she should work with higher level students and didn't feel like she was part of the Morningside team since she didn't have a homeroom.8 On or about May 18, 2009, Morningside's Principal observed Peters in the school's resource room, sitting in front of a laptop, during a time when Respondent was scheduled to be instructing students. John-Louissaint instructed Respondent to follow her schedule and report to room 103. Peters refused and replied, "No, I don't think I will be going." The Principal left and went and brought a union steward back to the resource room, and repeated to Peters, "Ms. Peters as your supervisor and in front of your union steward, you are directed to report to your scheduled assignment." Peters was insubordinate and refused to go stating again, "No, I am not going." The students in room 103 were unattended. On May 20, 2009, the Principal issued a memorandum to Peters regarding the May 19, 2009, incident stating that Respondent's "continuous defiance and non-compliance with previously issued directives is considered blatant and gross insubordination." On or about August 26, 2009, Peters was notified by letter that the Superintendent of Schools was recommending to the School Board to suspend her without pay for 30 workdays. The letter further notified Respondent the reasons for the recommendation included, but were not limited to: gross insubordination and violations of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Code of Ethics. At a regularly scheduled meeting on September 9, 2009, the School Board of Miami-Dade County took action to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay for just cause including, but not limited to, gross insubordination and violations of those School Board Rules as set forth above in paragraph 28. Respondent was notified of the School Board's action by letter dated September 10, 2009. On March 15, 2010, the School Board filed its Notice of Specific Charges charging Respondent with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board rules regarding responsibilities and duties, and ethics.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Peters without pay for 30 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2010.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board (School Board), had just cause to suspend Respondent, Harcourt I. Clark, for ten days without pay.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, and an evaluation of the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence presented, the following facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the School Board as a school teacher within the School District of Miami-Dade County (School District). Respondent was a teacher in the School District, since approximately August of 1987 at various schools within the county, and also worked as a coach for 15 years of that tenure. At the time of the incident alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, Respondent was teaching at Shenandoah Middle School. Respondent has a disciplinary history with the School Board. In 1995 (23 years ago), Respondent was the subject of an administrative review at the individual school level, as a result of a complaint that alleged, in part, that Respondent was allowing students to massage his shoulders in class, and for showing movies unrelated to the curriculum. As a result, Respondent received an informal conference and a letter of written directives. The written directives included an admonition that Respondent refrain from “allowing students to massage your shoulders, neck, etc.,” and “any other physical contact with students.” No further action with respect to this complaint was taken at the district level. On October 2013, Respondent showed up to work under the influence of alcohol. He returned to work only after completing a rehabilitation program under the supervision of the District’s Support Agency. In September 23, 2016, Respondent was given a written reprimand for using profanity in the classroom. On November 21, 2016, later that same year, Respondent received a written Absence from Worksite Directive for having six unauthorized absences in November 2016. The incident giving rise to the discipline in this case took place on February 28, 2017, prior to the administration of an FSA examination to a group of sixth-grade students. The Notice of Specific Charges alleged that Respondent “walked around the classroom and slapped several students in the back of the head, grabbed others by the neck, and physically squeezed at least one student’s hands.” Respondent was to administer the FSA test with another instructor, Teresa Gonzalez. Before the start of the examination, Respondent walked around the classroom between the rows of student desks, gathering book bags, making sure that students had pencils for the test, and encouraging students to do their best. As he walked around the classroom, Ms. Gonzalez observed Respondent touch the back of several students’ necks or shoulders in what she described as correcting their posture. She also observed him “squash” a student’s fingers together in what she described as a prayer position. She could not, however, hear what Mr. Clark was saying to students because she was in the front of the room and Mr. Clark was in the back. Ms. Gonzalez could not identify the students who Mr. Clark touched because they were not her students. She also did not recall any comments by students, but stated at hearing that their facial expressions indicated that they did not like being touched by him.1/ Ms. Gonzalez also confirmed her statement to School District investigators that she did not believe Mr. Clark was angry with the students, and that it looked like his actions were a way of communicating and playing with the students. However, she was disturbed by Mr. Clark’s actions and reported them to her assistant principal. Two students testified regarding the February 28, 2017, incident. One of them, R.M., testified that before the exam, Mr. Clark grabbed his hands and squished them, and grabbed at the back of his neck, and stated that Mr. Clark also slapped another student on the back of the head. He testified that he was not hurt in any way by the action, but the other student said “ow” in response to Mr. Clark’s action. R.M. did not believe that Mr. Clark was trying to motivate the students. Student A.F. recalled Mr. Clark tapping the top of a student’s head and that the student just laughed. A.F. believed that Mr. Clark may have patted some kids on the back of the head before the test, but that he believed it was done to encourage the students, much like a coach would. Mr. Clark testified that he merely tapped students on the back of the head while telling them to do well on their test. He viewed the tap as similar to what a principal or school board attendee might do at a graduation or where a student was receiving a certificate. It was encouragement and not malicious, and not meant to hurt anyone. Mr. Clark acknowledged that he had been warned about harmful touching, and would not engage in that type of conduct, saying, “I wouldn’t want anybody hitting my kid. And for no way [sic] I would lose my pension for 31 years hitting a kid like that. That’s not my character.” Mr. Clark did not recall grabbing R.M.’s hand and testified that he generally stayed away from R.M. because R.M. was rude in his classroom, and they did not get along. Whatever the relationship between R.M. and Mr. Clark, it appeared from R.M.’s demeanor at hearing that he did not care for Mr. Clark, and that may have colored his testimony somewhat. It is found that Mr. Clark tapped several students on the back of the head or neck and squeezed at least one student’s hands together before the administration of the test. The gestures were meant to be an encouragement for the students to do well during the examination, and were not any form of punishment. Mr. Clark’s actions, based on the evidence presented, did not constitute corporal punishment, and did not rise to the level of use of force, much less excessive or unreasonable use of force. The Notice of Specific Charges also alleges that Respondent “used profanity towards at least one student, said other inappropriate things and also used the term ‘these/deez nuts’ prior to the start of the exam.” The only evidence presented regarding profanity during hearing was a statement by Ms. Gonzalez that an unidentified student stated that Mr. Clark was “cursing her.” There was no testimony from that student, and no description that is not hearsay describing what was allegedly said. While Petitioner attempted to characterize the hearsay statement of the student as an excited utterance, there was no evidence presented upon which to predicate that characterization. With respect to the use of the term “deez nuts,” Ms. Gonzalez did not hear Mr. Clark use the term. Both students testified that he did so, in response to a question asked by a student. R.M. testified that the term is slang for “I don’t know,” or “whatever,” and may refer loosely to a young man’s genitalia. A.F. also stated that Mr. Clark used the term “deez nuts” as sort of a joke, and said that use of the term used to be popular as sort of a joke. Both students’ description of the term was somewhat tentative. Mr. Clark testified that he had heard the term before from the students, but would not use it. The more persuasive testimony is that Mr. Clark used the term in response to a student in the classroom, but there was no compelling testimony that the term is anything more than rap- influenced slang. No evidence was presented to indicate whether the students found the term offensive or inappropriate, considered it to be profane, or that any student felt embarrassed or humiliated by its use. Further, the evidence was not persuasive that Mr. Clark intended by his use of the term to refer to genitalia. No evidence was presented regarding any other “inappropriate” comment made by Mr. Clark.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board rescind its order suspending Respondent without pay, and reimburse him for the period for which he was not paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 13th day of August, 2018.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent had just cause to suspend Petitioner for 30 workdays, without pay.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that the School Board is a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was employed full-time with the School Board as a teacher and held a professional service contract. Mr. Boundy had been a teacher with the School Board for 15 years. In his professional career, Mr. Boundy had been a teacher, then had practiced law in the State of Florida for 15 years, and had become a teacher again. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, Mr. Boundy was assigned to Nautilus Middle School, hereinafter Nautilus, in the Miami-Dade County’s school district. He was assigned to teach science. On September 30, 2005, Mr. Boundy was teaching his science class at Nautilus. He was having problems with one particular student, D. M., who was approximately 14 years of age.1 D. M. had just returned to class from being on indoor suspension, for cutting class. Earlier that day, after having returned from indoor suspension, D. M. had been involved in a physical altercation, a “minor”2 fight, and Mr. Boundy counseled him. At lunch time, another teacher broke-up a fight between D. M. and another student; Mr. Boundy counseled him again. Mr. Boundy determined that the first fight did “not” warrant a “write-up” and that the second fight perhaps “may” have warranted a write-up but that he decided not to do so.3 After lunch, while in Mr. Boundy’s class, D. M. had another fight with a student, which was D. M.’s third fight that day. Mr. Boundy has a policy in his class that, “after three strikes, you’re out,”4 therefore, instead of counseling D. M. again, Mr. Boundy determined that a “write-up” was warranted and that D. M. had to leave his class. Mr. Boundy told D. M. to leave the class and go to the office. Before leaving the class, D. M. began spraying perfume and then walked out into the hallway but did not go the office. Mr. Boundy observed D. M. still outside in the hallway. When Mr. Boundy walked out of his class into the hallway, he observed D. M spraying perfume in the hallway. Mr. Boundy asked D. M. to give the perfume to him (Mr. Boundy). D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy at which time Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.’s hand and pulled it behind his (D. M.’s) back and told D. M. that he (D. M.) needed to go to the office. The hallway outside of Mr. Boundy’s classroom is equipped with a surveillance camera, which recorded the interaction between Mr. Boundy and D. M. after the contact described above. The surveillance camera does not record as a regular video camera but records as a series of snapshots or still pictures approximately every second, with gaps in between the snapshots; therefore, the surveillance camera fails to reveal completely what happens within a segment of time.5 As a result of the gaps in between snapshots of the surveillance camera, the testimony of witnesses is crucial in determining what happened. While in the hallway, the surveillance camera shows Mr. Boundy’s back to it and D. M. directly in front of him in such close proximity as if their bodies were touching. Mr. Boundy testified that he took D. M. by the arms and was directing him toward the doors leading to the office. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found to be credible. Subsequently, while also in the hallway, the surveillance camera, in several snapshots, shows Mr. Boundy and D. M. separated, with D. M. facing Mr. Boundy, who testified that D. M. wrestled away from him. The surveillance camera also shows, in one snapshot, Mr. Boundy’s left hand on D. M.’s right shoulder and, in another snapshot, D. M. moving back toward the classroom. Mr. Boundy testified that D. M. was going back to the classroom without his (Mr. Boundy’s) permission. D. M. admitted that he was returning to the classroom without Mr. Boundy’s permission. Mr. Boundy’s testimony is found credible. Further snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy grabbing D. M. by the arms and shoulder area, when D. M. gets close to the classroom, and pushing D. M. down the hallway; and shows some students observing the conduct in the hallway. Also, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy and D. M. exiting the exit doors at the stairwell, with Mr. Boundy continuing to hold D. M.’s arms. After they go through the exit doors, the snapshots by the surveillance camera show Mr. Boundy releasing D. M. and watching D. M. go down the stairs. Mr. Boundy testified that he told D. M. to go to the office. D. M. does not deny that Mr. Boundy told him to go to the office at that point. D. M. went to the main office. The school counselor, Amy Magney, talked with D. M., who was loud and appeared to be agitated. Ms. Magney observed marks on D. M.’s arms and the back of his neck, which she described as “very red.” D. M. informed Ms. Magney that Mr. Boundy’s forceful touching had caused the red marks. Ms. Magney took D. M. to the assistant principal, Ms. Gonsky, who observed marks on D. M.’s arms, which were red, and marks on D. M.’s the neck, shoulder area, which Ms. Gonsky described as a “little red.” Mr. Boundy admits, and at no time did he deny, that he grabbed D. M. by the arms and shoulder area. For example, at the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, Mr. Boundy admitted that he held D. M.’s arms by the back directing him towards the stairs. A detective of the School Board’s police department reviewed the snapshots by the surveillance camera. From the detective’s observation, he determined that Mr. Boundy did not take any malicious action against D. M.; that D. M. was resisting Mr. Boundy; that, at one point, D. M. made an aggressive action against Mr. Boundy; and that Mr. Boundy was “directing, escorting” D. M. through the exit doors. D. M. testified that Mr. Boundy also grabbed him around the neck. Mr. Boundy denies that he grabbed or touched D. M.’s neck but admits that he grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area. V. V., a student in Mr. Boundy’s class, testified that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. by the neck, pushing D. M. out of the classroom. Also, the Conference for the Record (CFR) held on November 15, 2005, indicates that the same student stated that, while Mr. Boundy and D. M. were in the hallway, D. M. swung at Mr. Boundy and struck him in the chest. Mr. Boundy denies that he was struck by D. M. and D. M. denies that he struck Mr. Boundy. V. V.’s testimony is not found to be credible. The snapshots by the surveillance camera do not show Mr. Boundy grabbing or touching D. M.’s neck. Ms. Magney was the first person in the school's office to observe the marks, and when she saw the marks on the back of D. M.’s “neck,” the marks were “very red”; however, when Ms. Gonsky, the second person in the school's office to observe the marks, the marks around the “neck, shoulder area” were a “little red.” Further, D. M. had been in two physical altercations before the incident with Mr. Boundy and the last altercation had occurred at lunch time. Ms. Gonsky’s account of the location of the red marks is not inconsistent with Mr. Boundy’s testimony, regarding the shoulder area. Additionally, when Ms. Gonsky observed the marks at the neck, shoulder area, they were a little red, not red or very red. The undersigned finds Mr. Boundy’s and Ms. Gonsky’s testimony and account more credible regarding the marks being at the shoulder area, not the neck. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M. at the shoulder area and that the marks at the shoulder area were caused by Mr. Boundy and were a little red. No dispute exists that D. M. was being disruptive. Mr. Boundy had counseled D. M. on two occasions that same day for fighting. D. M. had committed a third strike by fighting again in Mr. Boundy's class, and according to Mr. Boundy's classroom policy of which the students were aware, the third strike meant that the student was leaving the classroom and going to the school's office. Mr. Boundy was going to write-up D. M. for the incident but did not do so. Before he could write-up D. M., Mr. Boundy was summoned to the school's office after the administrators in the office observed the marks and heard D. M.'s version of the incident. At the beginning of each school year, the principal of Nautilus, Caridad Figueredo, has an opening meeting, consisting of two days. At the opening meeting, among other things, Ms. Figueredo notifies the Nautilus' faculty that they must comply with the rules of the School Board and the Code of Ethics, and some of the rules are reviewed with the faculty. Further, at the opening meeting, Nautilus' faculty is provided a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Nautilus' faculty signs an acknowledgement that they understand that they are responsible for becoming knowledgeable about the rules and adhering to them. Mr. Boundy signed an acknowledgement and received a copy of the Faculty Handbook. Regarding physical contact, Ms. Figueredo indicates at the opening meeting that the School Board prohibits using physical contact to maintain discipline or to affect a student’s behavior. As a result, at the opening meeting, she informs Nautilus' faculty, and stresses to them, that they should not use physical force or, generally, to come in physical contact with the students. However, as to coming into physical contact with students, an exception is recognized and allowed in the touching of a student by a teacher if the teacher has a rapport with the student and the student has no objection to or approves of the teacher just tapping him or her. That exception is not applicable in the instant case. Nautilus had a 2005-2006 Faculty and Staff Handbook, hereinafter Handbook. The Handbook contained a Progressive Discipline Plan, hereinafter Plan, for teachers to use when they encounter disruptive students. The Plan contained several steps of action, which provided in pertinent part: Step I: Teacher The teacher may handle discipline in the following ways (list not inclusive): Move close to the student – use verbal and/or non-verbal techniques to correct behavior problems * * * Speak with the student on a one-to-one basis * * * Contact parent (verbal and/or written) Hold parent or student/parent conference PLEASE NOTE: Parent contact is REQUIRED before a referral can be made to the administration. Only disciplinary problems involving infractions of the Code of Student Conduct Group III or higher (fighting . . .) may be directly referred to the administration using a case management form. * * * Step IV: Referring Students For Administrative Action Students should be sent directly to the appropriate administrator only when critical incidents occur such as fighting . . . Please use your emergency button to request for[sic] assistance. If a student becomes disruptive and you request removal the administrator will take the appropriate disciplinary action deemed necessary according to the Code of Student Conduct and provide teachers immediate feedback. (emphasis in original) The Handbook also contained a section entitled “Things To Remember When Dealing With A Student,” which provided in pertinent part: 4. DON’T: Snatch things away from students. Become confrontational. Physically block an exit. Argue or get on the student’s level. Shout or put them down. Disrespect them. * * * 6. Use common sense regarding touching students: Be aware that affectionate gestures may be misconstrued. Avoid physical contact of any kind in situations involving you and student (i.e. where there are no witnesses). Additionally, the Handbook contained a section entitled “How to Avoid Legal Complications as an Educator,” which provided in pertinent part: Respect the space of others. Do not place your hands on students. * * * Know the laws, School Board policies and school rules, and follow them. * * * Corporal punishment is prohibited in Miami- Dade County Public Schools. Treat each student with respect. Establish a policy regarding discipline. Distribute the policy to students and parents at the beginning of the year or when the students begin your class. The School Board has established “Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment,” which provides in pertinent part: Purpose of the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment This document, Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment, is incorporated by reference and is a part of School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Maintenance of Appropriate Student Behavior. It has been prepared to assist school administrators in promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. These procedures and directions are set forth to guide and promote orderly and productive participation of students in school life and support the achievement of Florida's education goal for school safety and environment, Section 229.591(3)(e), F.S. Student actions and behaviors that can be defined as disruptive and/or threatening must be dealt with according to Florida Statutes, and Florida Board of Education and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules. This manual contains information necessary to assist school administrators in making the most appropriate decisions and taking warranted action in promoting maintaining a safe learning environment. * * * Administrators, counselors, and appropriate staff are expected to become familiar with this document, to review it periodically, and to utilize it according to its inherent purpose -- promoting and maintaining a safe learning environment in the public schools of Miami-Dade County, Florida. As the administration and staff at each school site address the requirements of current Miami- Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) guidelines, they should also review modifications of requirements related to school discipline and school safety as established by the Florida Legislature. * * * GUIDELINE #39: REMOVAL OF STUDENT FROM CLASS AND POSSIBLE EXCLUSION OF THE STUDENT BY THE TEACHER CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: Florida Statutes and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules allow for teachers to remove a disruptive student from class if the behavior of the student has an adverse effect on the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with students or the ability of the students to learn. Section 232.271, F.S., provides for the right of the teacher to refuse to accept a student back to class who has been removed for disruptive behavior which adversely affects the teacher's ability to communicate effectively with the students or with the ability of the students to learn. Provisions for Exceptional Students: The Placement Review Committee shall refer to the IEP team all exclusion requests for students from exceptional education classes. Temporary Removal from Class 1. The teacher shall have the authority to remove a seriously disruptive student from the classroom. In such cases, the principal or designee shall be notified immediately and the teacher shall be entitled to receive, prior to the student's return to class, a report describing corrective action(s) taken. Guidelines for implementing this provision shall be developed by each Educational Excellence School Advisory Council (EESAC). Code of Student Conduct Infractions The principal or designee will follow the Code of Student Conduct on all disciplinary matters. Only those disciplinary problems which disrupt a teacher's instruction, when the teacher requests the student's permanent removal from class, shall be referred to the Placement Review Committee, if the request is not resolved by the principal. A CFR was held on November 15, 2005. A Summary of the CFR was prepared and provides in pertinent part: [Mr. Boundy was asked]: 'Did you touch the student?' [Mr. Boundy] replied: 'Yes and it will never happen again.' * * * The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you [Mr. Boundy] during the conference: Adhere to all M-DCPS [Miami-Dade County Public Schools] rules and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Rules [sic] 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Adhere to The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida. Cease and desist from utilizing physical means to effect the behavior of students. * * * During the conference, you [Mr. Boundy] were directed to comply with and were provided copies of the following School Board Rules: 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties 6Gx13-4A-1.213, The Code of Ethics You [Mr. Boundy] were advised of the high esteem in which teachers are held and of the District's [School Board's] concern for any behavior, which adversely affects this level of professionalism. You [Mr. Boundy] were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive. . . . Further, attached to the Summary of the CFR was "Guideline #9: Corporal Punishment, Current Law and/or Practice, from the Procedures for Promoting and Maintaining a Safe Learning Environment," which provides in pertinent part: GUIDELINE #9: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT CURRENT LAW AND/OR PRACTICE: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS PROHIBITED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. . . . Corporal punishment is physical force or physical contact applied to the body as punishment. Section 228.041(27), F.S., defines corporal punishment as: . . . the moderate use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher or principal as may be necessary to maintain discipline or to enforce school rule. However, the term 'corporal punishment' does not include the use of such reasonable force by a teacher or principal as may be necessary for self-protection or to protect other students from disruptive students. The use of physical restraint techniques in accordance with the Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-6A-1.331, Procedures for Providing Special Education for Exceptional Students and Article VIII of the Contract Between Miami-Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade is not corporal punishment. Prior to Mr. Boundy’s going into the hallway, to confront D. M., alternative avenues were available to Mr. Boundy for sending D. M. to the school's office without confronting him in the hallway. Nautilus has a protocol that, whenever a teacher is unable to control a disruptive student by using classroom management techniques, the teacher can press a security button, located in the classroom, and a security monitor or an administrator will immediately come to the classroom. The security monitor or administrator will assess the situation and remove the disruptive student. Mr. Boundy failed to use this established protocol. The undersigned does not find credible the testimony given on alternative methods of dealing with D. M., as a disruptive student, in terms of in-school suspension, student mediation, conflict resolution, parent involvement, alternative education, suspension, and expulsion as being applicable to the instant case. These alternatives are available after the student is removed from the classroom to the school's office; they fail to address the immediate removal of the physical presence of a disruptive student from the classroom. The exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline Nos. 9 and 39, regarding the use of physical restraint techniques for situations involving Exceptional Student Education (ESE), is not applicable to the instant case. Mr. Boundy's class was not an ESE class, and D. M. was not an ESE student. Also, the exception to corporal punishment found at Guideline No. 9, regarding situations to protect other students, is not applicable to the instant case. None of the other students in Mr. Boundy's class were in harm's way or needed protection in the hallway outside Mr. Boundy's classroom. However, the exception to corporal punishment in a situation for self-protection, i.e., the protection of Mr. Boundy from D. M., was applicable in the instant case. When D. M. raised his hand and brought it down as if to strike Mr. Boundy, Mr. Boundy grabbed D. M.'s arms and put his (D. M.'s) arms behind his back; at that instant, Mr. Boundy was in need of self-protection and he (Mr. Boundy) acted appropriately. But, the evidence fails to demonstrate that, after Mr. Boundy prevented D. M. from striking him, Mr. Boundy continued to be in need of self-protection. Self-protection failed to continue to exist and failed to exist during the time that Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall to the exit doors. The Administrative Director of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards, Gretchen Williams, testified that Mr. Boundy's use of physical contact in the handling of D. M. in the hallway and that the presence of red marks on D. M., exemplified excessive force, which rendered Mr. Boundy's action as a violent act. Further, she testified that Mr. Boundy's conduct was corporal punishment; that his violent act constituted unseemly conduct; and that his violent act was contrary to the School Board's prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment, which constituted unseemly conduct and was conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Williams' testimony is found to be credible. Also, the School Board's Administrative Director, Region II, DanySu Pritchett testified that Mr. Boundy's physical force constituted violence in the workplace; and that he failed to maintain the respect and confidence of the student and the value of worth and dignity of the student through the use of physical force. Further, she testified that the failure to use an alternative method of removal by using the emergency call button was poor judgment and constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Ms. Pritchett's testimony is found to be credible. Additionally, Ms. Figueredo, testified that Mr. Boundy subjected D. M. to unnecessary embarrassment by using physical force in the hallway in front of D. M.'s classmates while Mr. Boundy was directing/escorting D. M. down the hall. Further, Ms. Figueredo testified that, during the hallway incident, Mr. Boundy engaged in corporal punishment, conduct unbecoming an employee of the School Board, unseemly conduct, and poor judgment, and was not a good role model to the students and staff. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Also, Ms. Figueredo testified that Mr. Boundy's use of poor judgment and failure to use established protocol and to exemplify a good role model to the students and the staff caused Mr. Boundy to lose his effectiveness. Ms. Figueredo's testimony is found to be credible. Pending the investigation of the incident by the School Board, Mr. Boundy was removed from the classroom. He was placed on alternative assignment, i.e., at his home. Due to Mr. Boundy's failure to follow established protocol at Nautilus for the removal of D. M. from the classroom, to the physical force used by Mr. Boundy, to the marks that were a little red and were caused by the physical force, and to the seriousness of the incident, by memorandum dated November 21, 2005, Ms. Figueredo recommended a 30-day suspension for violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Ms. Pritchett agreed with the recommendation. By memorandum dated December 1, 2005, the School Board's Region Center II concurred in the recommendation. On February 28, 2006, a meeting was held with Mr. Boundy to address the forthcoming School Board's consideration of the recommendation for a 30-day suspension without pay. Those in attendance included Mr. Boundy, Ms. Williams, Ms. Pritchett, Ms. Figueredo, and a UTD representative, Mr. Molnar. The determination was that Mr. Boundy would be recommended for a 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, including but not limited to "deficient performance of job responsibilities; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; and violation of State Board Rule 6B-1.001, Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida; and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment--Prohibited." By letter dated March 1, 2006, Mr. Boundy was notified by the School Board's Assistant Superintendent, among other things, that the School Board's Superintendent would be recommending, at the School Board's meeting scheduled for March 15, 2006, the 30-day suspension without pay for just cause, indicating the violations aforementioned. By letter dated March 16, 2006, the School Board's Assistant Superintendent notified Mr. Boundy, among other things, that the School Board had approved the recommendation and that he was not to report to work at Nautilus from March 16, 2006 through April 26, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding that just cause existed for the 30-day suspension, without pay, from employment of Robert Boundy. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Palm Beach County School Board ("Petitioner" or "School Board") proved by clear and convincing evidence that it has just cause to discipline Respondent, Jeffrey Schector, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material facts: The School Board is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Palm Beach County Public School System. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent was employed as a math teacher at Eagles Landing Middle School in the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida. A Collective Bargaining Agreement existed, which governed relations between the School Board and certain employees, including Respondent. Resp. Ex. 7. Article II, Section M of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Discipline of Employees (Progressive Discipline), provided, in relevant part: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrong doing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. * * * 5. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph 7 below may be cited. * * * 7. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the district or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation * * * Written Reprimand * * * Suspension Without Pay * * * Dismissal . . . . Respondent acknowledged receipt of the School Board's Code of Ethics on October 13, 2010. See Pet. Ex. 1. While teaching at Eagles Landing Middle School, Respondent received a Memorandum of Specific Incident dated January 29, 2013, for a lack of professionalism displayed during interactions with the mathematics team. Pet. Ex. 2. Written Reprimand on December 2, 2013 Respondent was disciplined and issued a written reprimand on December 2, 2013, for violations of School Board policies regarding Commitment to Student Principles, Code of Ethics, and state statutes regarding the education professional. He had been found to have engaged in inappropriate horseplay with a student which ended with the student falling to the floor. Additionally, Respondent tossed a student's crutches from his classroom and referred to the student as a "cripple." In the reprimand, Respondent was advised to cease and desist from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future, and, if he did not, he would be subject to further discipline up to and including termination. Pet. Ex. 7. The evidence during the hearing reflected that Respondent had received several recent performance evaluations during his tenure with the School Board. For the 2013 school year, his performance evaluation was "effective." For an evaluation submitted April 17, 2014, he received "highly effective" marks in instructional practice. For the 2015 school year, he received an annual evaluation of "highly effective" for instructional practice, "effective" for student growth, "highly effective" for deliberate practice, and "highly effective" for evaluation level. Resp. Ex. 4. Classroom Incident on May 4, 2015 Respondent was teaching math to eighth-grade students in a portable building at Eagles Landing Middle School. Near the end of the lesson, Respondent became aware that two male students were engaged in horseplay with another student, J.G.1/ One of the two male students grabbed a water bottle from J.G. intent on annoying and/or harassing J.G. This horseplay caused the water bottle top to come off, resulting in water spewing on several of the boys and also dousing several school documents Respondent had on his desk. Upon seeing the mess that was created, Respondent stood up and screamed "I am fucking tired of this shit and I don't appreciate having my stuff destroyed." The comment was not directed at anyone in particular. Respondent then took the water bottle, walked to the back door of the classroom, and threw it outside. He then went back to his desk and, as he put it, "was stewing about what had happened." Sometime later, just before the end of the class period, Respondent noticed that one of the males had dropped his cell phone on the floor by his desk. Respondent walked over, bent down and picked up the phone, and put it in his pocket. Apparently, the student was not aware that Respondent had picked up his phone. Respondent admitted that he had taken the cell phone for the purpose of teaching the student a lesson and that he intended to hold on to it until dismissal. As he put it, "it would be nice to watch G.P. [the student who owned the phone] squirm for a little bit." When the dismissal bell rang, the student started looking frantically for his cell phone. At that point, J.G. went over to G.P. and told him that Respondent had his phone. This made Respondent angry. He stated that he felt that J.G. "had sabotaged his plans." Respondent raised his voice and began yelling at J.G. claiming that he had "sold him out" and why could he do such "an idiotic thing." There was conflicting evidence concerning whether or not any profanity was used by Respondent.2/ Respondent then followed J.G. outside the classroom and continued to berate him. Respondent used some other choice words against J.G. including calling him "stupid" and "idiotic." Respondent admitted that the May 4, 2015, incident was not the first time he used profanity in the classroom and that it was not the first time he ever become angry, or made any harsh comments to a student. J.G. testified by way of deposition taken on February 1, 2016. He claimed that when the water bottle incident occurred, Respondent was yelling in general.3/ J.G. testified that the conduct of Respondent shocked him and made him nervous because he had never seen a teacher react like that to anything. When J.G. told the other student that Respondent had his phone, Respondent started screaming at him and had a "melt down," as he described it. J.G.'s recollection of the event was fairly detailed and consistent. He said that Respondent called him "stupid," "retarded," and an "idiot." He cursed at J.G. using the F_ _ _ word, the S_ _ _ word, and accused J.G. of being a "F_ _ _ing idiot." When Respondent cursed at him, it made J.G. feel very shocked and embarrassed, particularly in front of the other students. He acknowledged, however, that this was the first time that Respondent ever got in his face and yelled or cursed at him. Notably, J.G. admitted that since the May 4, 2015, incident his academic career has been the same and that he is actually doing better this year, than last year. Also, after the incident on May 4, 2015, J.G. testified that much of the harassment decreased. Apparently, one of the male students involved in the incident received an in-school suspension for the name-calling incident and stayed away from J.G. The other student, as well, was not making fun of him like he had done previously. Several students, including the two male students involved, testified by way of their deposition transcripts. Each recalled the incident on May 4, 2015. The students each had a similar recollection of the basic events. They confirmed that Respondent got very upset, was screaming, and used some curse words and demeaning language. Several of the students acknowledged, in general, that the incident resulted in the classroom antics and horseplay subsiding. Each provided a written statement which was reviewed by the undersigned. Following the incident on May 4, 2015, Respondent was removed from the classroom, but was allowed to return to school on May 11, 2015, to begin teaching again. He taught until the end of that school year-–until approximately June 6, 2015. During the summer of 2015, Respondent received a letter from the principal reappointing him to his teaching position at Eagles Landing Middle School for the 2015-2016 school year. Approximately 11 days after the new school year began, Respondent was requested to attend a pre-disciplinary hearing relating to the May 4, 2015, incident. After the pre- disciplinary meeting, he was allowed to return to his classroom until October 9, 2015. In early October 2015, Respondent was directed to attend several Employee Assistance Program meetings. He attended four different sessions through November 4, 2015, when he was terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board discipline Respondent with an unpaid suspension covering the period of time Respondent has been suspended from his teaching duties, but immediately reinstate him to his teaching duties. No back pay is recommended. The undersigned also recommends that Respondent be required to attend and successfully complete an anger management class after reinstatement. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 13th day of April, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida (including, among others, Phillis Wheatley Elementary School (Phillis Wheatley) and Palm Springs Middle School (Palm Springs)), and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. Respondent is now, and has been since October 1987, employed as a classroom teacher by the School Board. She holds a professional services contract. Respondent first taught for the School Board at Phillis Wheatley. In 1996, she moved to Palm Springs, where she remained until she was "assigned to a paid administrative placement at [the] Region Center I [effective October 4, 2007] pending the resolution of investigative case # N-85085" (referenced in paragraph 14 of the Notice of Specific Charges). Respondent has previously been disciplined by the School Board for using physical means to control student behavior. In 1992, following an investigation during which Respondent "admitted to placing tape on one student's mouth and telling the other to place the tape on his mouth" and "also admitted to hitting a student on the head with a dictionary and tapping another student on the hand with a ruler," she received the following "letter of reprimand" from her principal at Phillis Wheatley: On August 8, 1992, you were charged with conduct unbecoming a School Board employee and battery of students. You violated the Chapter 6B-1.01(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, and Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx-13-4A-1.21, "Conduct Unbecoming a School Board Employee." The above infractions were substantiated by the Special Investigative Unit, Case No. 92-00946. You are directed to comply with the procedures outlined in the Chapter 6B- 1.01(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profess[ion] in Florida, to refrain from demeaning students, punishing them by taping mouths, touching or taping students to discipline them or to demonstrate affection, and to conduct yourself in a professional manner. Any recurrence of the infractions will result in further disciplinary actions. In 1995, Respondent was reprimanded for striking a student with a stack of papers and received the following "Confirmation of Administrative Action" from the Phillis Wheatley principal: Please be advised that after a complete investigation of Case Number 95-12689 done by this administrator the following guidelines must be reviewed with this administrator. Review the faculty handbook pg 18, on Corporal Punishment. Review a copy of School Board Rule 6Gx4A-1.21, Employee Conduct, and Chapter 6B-1.01(3), Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. You are to refrain from touching or tapping students to discipline them and you must conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times. Any recurrence of this infraction will result in further disciplinary action. In 2004, after determining that Respondent had "acted inappropriately" when, in anger, she had "grabbed" a student by the "hair yanking [the student's] head backwards," the Palm Springs principal issued Respondent the following written reprimand: On December 11, 2003, you inappropriately disciplined (a) student(s) while waiting in front of the cafeteria. You violated the Contract between the Miami- Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade, Article VIII, Section 1. [a]s well as School and Miami-Dade County School Board Rules, 6Gx13-5D-1.07, Corporal Punishment, and 6Gx13-5D-1.08, Code of Student Conduct. It is your responsibility as a classroom teacher to maintain control and discipline of students. However, it is imperative that you follow school and Miami-Dade County School Board rules in doing so. Rules governing student discipline a[re] outlined in the Code of Student Conduct, Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.08, faculty handbook, and Promoting and Maintain[ing] a Safe Learning Environment document, and are referenced in the United Teachers of Dade Contract, Article VII, Section I. You are directed immediately to refrain from using any physical means to affect student behavior. You are directed immediately to implement the appropriate procedures for dealing with inappropriate student behavior as stipulated in the documents above[]. The above infraction was substantiated by an Administrative Review, Case Number J08655. You are directed to refrain from using inappropriate procedures in the performance of your assigned duties. You are directed to implement immediately, approved procedures in the performance of your assigned duties. Any recurrences of the above infraction will result in further disciplinary action. As a School Board employee, Respondent is expected to conduct herself in accordance with School Board rules, including the aforementioned School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13- 5D-1.07. At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21I has provided as follows: Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES Employee Conduct All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited. At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 has provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Corporal Punishment - Prohibited The administration of corporal punishment in Miami-Dade County Public Schools is strictly prohibited. Miami-Dade County Public Schools has implemented comprehensive programs for the alternative control of discipline. These programs include, but are not limited to, counseling, timeout rooms, in-school suspension centers, student mediation and conflict resolution, parental involvement, alternative education programs, and other forms of positive reinforcement. In addition, suspensions and/or expulsions are available as administrative disciplinary action depending upon the severity of the misconduct. Procedures are in place for students to make up any work missed while on suspension, or to participate in an alternative program if recommended for expulsion. As an instructional employee of the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and UTD (UTD Contract). Article V of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "[e]mployer [r]ights." Section 1 of Article V provides, in part, that the School Board has the exclusive right to suspend, dismiss or terminate bargaining unit employees "for just cause." Article VIII of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "[s]afe learning environment." Section 1.D. of Article VIII provides as follows: The parties recognize the potential for difficult circumstances and problems related to the use of corporal punishment. Accordingly, the parties agree that such punishment shall be prohibited as a disciplinary option, and further agree to act affirmatively in continuing to identify and implement more effective alternatives for dealing with student behavior. The involvement of school-site personnel in developing such alternatives is critical to their potential for success. Article XXI of the UTD Contract addresses the subject of "[e]mployee [r]ights and [d]ue [p]rocess." Section 1.B.1.a. of Article XXI provides that "[a]ny member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes." Section 1.B.2. of Article XXI provides, in part, that "[d]ismissals and suspensions shall be effected in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, including the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) " In the instant case, the School Board is seeking to dismiss Respondent based on conduct in which she allegedly engaged during the 2007-2008 school year. While assigned to Palm Springs during the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent taught three periods of language arts to sixth and seventh grade Spanish-speaking ESOL students. She also had responsibility for a sixth grade homeroom class. Y. L., J. T., and I. M. were sixth grade students at Palm Springs during the 2007-2008 school year. They each had Respondent for homeroom and language arts for a brief time during the beginning of that school year. At all material times during the 2007-2008 school year, Respondent understood that the School Board had a policy "strictly prohibit[ing]" the use of corporal punishment. Nonetheless, on more than one occasion during this time period, Respondent used physical means to redirect Y. L. She grabbed him by the hair and pulled him by the arm, hurting him in the process. She also "grabbed other students by their arms" to control their behavior. Respondent made threats to throw Y. L. and other students out the window if they did not behave. Although Respondent had no intention of carrying out these threats, Y. L. believed that the threats were real and that Respondent meant what she had said. On one occasion, Respondent opened a window, had Y. L. stand next to it, and told him that if he moved at all, she would toss him out the open window. As a disciplinary measure, Respondent had Y. L. pick up his wheel-equipped book bag (filled with textbooks and notebooks for all his classes) and hold it on top of his head for an extended period of time while he was standing in place. Y. L. felt some discomfort in his shoulder when he did this. Afraid of Respondent, Y. L. often "hid[] in the bathroom" at school instead of going to Respondent's classroom. On numerous occasions, Y. L.'s mother had to pick him up from school before the end of the school day because he had vomited. At home, Y. L. had trouble sleeping and refused to eat. He lost approximately 20 pounds (going from 100 pounds down to 80). Y. L. was not the only student that Respondent directed to stand with a filled book bag on his head. J. T. and I. M. were also issued such a directive by Respondent. It happened the first week of the school year on a day when the students remained in their homeroom classes until dismissal because of a power outage that left the school without lights and air conditioning for much of the day. Towards the end of the day (after power had been restored to the school), J. T. and I. M. were talking to one another when they were not supposed to. In response to their transgression, Respondent instructed them to stand in separate corners of the classroom and hold their book bags (which were similar to Y. L.'s) on top of their heads.2 The book bags remained on their heads for a substantial enough period of time to cause them to experience pain. 3 Y. L., J. T., I. M., and their parents complained to the Palm Springs administration about Respondent's disciplinary tactics. In response to Y. L.'s and his mother's complaints, one of the school's assistant principals, Niki Ruiz, interviewed "randomly selected" classmates of Y. L.'s. These students "corroborated what Y. [L.] was saying." On September 26, 2007, the matter was turned over to the School Board's General Investigative Unit (GIU) for investigation. Respondent was removed from the classroom and placed on alternative assignment pending the outcome of the investigation. Following the GIU investigation, the matter was referred to the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. There was a conference-for-the-record held on February 6, 2008, at which Respondent had the opportunity to tell her side of the story. In her remarks, she expressed a disdain for authority when she said, "I'm very professional but I don't stick to rules." The School Board's Superintendent of Schools recommended that the School Board suspend Respondent and initiate termination proceedings against her. The School Board took such action at its May 21, 2008, meeting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and terminating her employment as a professional service contract teacher with the School Board for the reasons set forth above DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate the employment of Respondent, a Behavior Management Teacher (BMT), due to Respondent's inappropriate interaction with a student on April 16, 2014, as alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising all free public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to article IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and section 1001.32, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a BMT at Allapattah Middle School (Allapattah), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent has been employed by the School Board for approximately 14 years pursuant to a professional service contract and subject to Florida Statutes, the regulations issued by the Florida State Board of Education, the policies and procedures of the School Board, and the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement in effect between Miami-Dade Public Schools and United Teachers of Dade (UTD contract). During his employment with the school district, Respondent took a break from teaching to attend divinity school. He became a permanent teacher in 2007 and worked in Miami Senior High School. Respondent transferred to Allapattah in 2011 at the request of its assistant principal. During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent served as a SPED reading, language arts, and math teacher. During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent held dual roles as the SPED Chair and a SPED teacher. In November 2013, Respondent was offered and accepted the position of BMT at Allapattah. The BMT is considered the "first in line" to deal with a student who causes a disturbance in the classroom by behavior such as cursing or fighting. If called by a teacher to assist or a BMT observes a student acting out in such a way as to disrupt a classroom, the BMT intervenes to try and get both sides of the story regarding why the student is upset and tries to redirect or modify the student's behavior so that the student can remain in the classroom. If that is unsuccessful, the BMT removes the student to a special education classroom where the BMT uses other techniques, such as discussing respect, to calm the student. The BMT may also recommend an in- school or out-of-school suspension. Respondent was in a graduate program for guidance counseling when offered the BMT position. He accepted the position because he felt the BMT role would help him better understand the student population with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBDs). As the BMT, Respondent was assigned 30 students with severe behavioral issues. Respondent also continued some duties of the SPED Chair position until February 2014. Respondent received uniformly satisfactory performance evaluations throughout his teaching career with Petitioner. He was not previously counseled or disciplined for any reason. On April 16, 2014, Towanda Seabrook, the SPED Chairperson, entered a seventh-grade classroom for observation and saw two students being disruptive. N.H. was cursing the classroom teacher, and D.J. was talking with other students. Ms. Seabrook directed these students to leave the classroom and go with her to the SPED office/classroom. The SPED office/classroom is in Allapattah's classroom 1165. It is a large room with several work stations and a conference table that are used by the EBD counselors, teachers, and the BMT. Attached and opening into the SPED office/classroom are the offices of the SPED Chairperson and EBD counselors. After going with Ms. Seabrook to the SPED classroom, N.H. directed his profanity and ranting at Ms. Seabrook calling her a "motherfucker," "whore," and "bitch" and repeatedly saying "fuck you" to her. Ms. Seabrook attempted to defuse the situation by explaining that she is a mother and asking N.H. how would he like it if someone said these types of graphic things to his mother. Ms. Seabrook chose not to go "toe to toe" with N.H. because she was aware that his exceptionality, EBD, causes him to be unable to control his emotions and temper. N.H. is known to curse and use profanity directed at teachers. Despite N.H.'s continued use of graphic language, Ms. Seabrook felt she had the situation under control and attempted to complete some SPED paperwork. Respondent entered the classroom and heard N.H.'s barrage of profanity and aggression directed at Ms. Seabrook. Respondent was familiar with N.H. due to N.H.'s history of being disrespectful to teachers, running out of class, name calling, defiance, and fighting. Respondent worked with N.H. on an almost daily basis attempting to help N.H. stay in school and modify his behavior to facilitate learning. Respondent described N.H. as one of the most difficult students with whom he was assigned to work. Because the BMT is supposed to be the first line of response to a belligerent and disruptive EBD student, Respondent immediately tried to diffuse the situation by reasoning with N.H. N.H. proceeded to call Respondent (an African-American male) "Nigger," "Ho" (whore), "pussy," "punk," and repeatedly said "fuck you." This tirade by N.H. went on for almost 45 minutes. During this time, N.H. and D.J. sat at the conference table in the classroom. Throughout the 2013-2014 school year, Respondent had tried numerous strategies to assist N.H. in controlling his behavior and temper at school-–all with no success. On April 16, 2014, after listening to N.H. verbally abuse Ms. Seabrook and himself, Respondent decided to use an unorthodox strategy to get N.H. to understand the gravity of his words and to calm down. Respondent asked N.H. if he knew what "fucking" means. N.H. responded "a dick inside a pussy." Respondent replied, "A dick inside a pussy? Maybe if you were fucking you wouldn't behave this way," implying that if N.H. was having sex, perhaps he would be better able to control his emotions at school. Ms. Seabrook overheard this portion of the conversation and it made her uncomfortable so she left the room. She believed this method used by Respondent was inappropriate and not likely to be successful, and she intended to talk to Respondent about it before advising the principal. Notably, Ms. Seabrook did not feel the need to intervene or immediately report the conversation and testified that in response to N.H.'s provocation, she may also have said "fuck you" back to N.H. This graphic discussion was also overheard by Deborah Phillips, an EBD counselor, who was in an adjacent office with the door open. After N.H. called Respondent a "pussy," Respondent asked N.H. if he knew what one was, had ever seen one or knew what to do with one. Ms. Phillips did not intervene or report the conversation. According to Ms. Phillips, this extremely graphic and profane interaction between N.H. and Respondent was only a minute or two. Ms. Phillips testified that she would not go toe to toe with N.H. because she believed it would only elevate the behavior. While Respondent and N.H. were arguing, and Respondent asked N.H. to define the words he was using, D.J. used his cell phone to video and audio record approximately 25 seconds of the conversation. In the recording, Respondent is heard telling N.H. to spell "Ho." N.H. answered "hoe," and Respondent stated, "yea nigga-–that's what I thought." During the brief recording, D.J. is heard laughing in the background. The conversation had the desired effect. N.H. started laughing and immediately calmed down. Respondent was able to escort N.H. to the principal's office where it was decided that N.H. would not be suspended, but rather Respondent would drive N.H. home. During the ride home, N.H. was calm and there were no further incidents or inappropriate discussions. The following school day, D.J.'s mother brought the recording to the attention of the principal who initiated an investigation. Respondent immediately expressed remorse and regret that he used this unconventional method of defusing N.H.'s anger. Respondent admitted participating in the graphic dialogue and acknowledged that it was inappropriate. As a result of the investigation, Respondent was suspended effective June 19, 2014, without pay and recommended for termination from employment. Findings of Ultimate Fact As discussed in greater detail below, Petitioner proved Respondent violated School Board Policy 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, but failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed any of the other charged offenses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Miami-Dade County School Board, enter a final order: (1) finding that just cause does not exist to terminate Respondent's employment; and (2) imposing punishment consisting of suspension without pay from employment through the end of the first semester of the 2014-2015 school year for violation of School Board Policy 3210 that does not amount to misconduct in office. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2014, 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 20th day of November, 2014.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Lake County School Board, had just cause to terminate Respondents for the reasons specified in the agency action letters dated April 17, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lake County School Board, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Lake County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Mr. Rosier has been employed at Groveland Elementary School (Groveland) in Lake County, Florida, for three years. During the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, Mr. Rosier was the Instructional Dean. One of Mr. Rosier’s duties was to assist teachers with students who have behavioral problems and liaison with parents of these students. Mr. Rosier also conducted in- school suspension of students. Mr. Rosier also had a contract supplement to assist with students who were on campus after school hours because they either missed the bus or were not picked up by their parent or guardian on time. Mr. Rosier assisted by keeping the student safe and contacting the emergency contact on file for the student to find a way to get the student home. Ms. Lassen has taught at Groveland for four years. She taught first grade during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. Petitioner Lassen is an “inclusion teacher,” meaning her classroom is a combination of students receiving Exceptional Student Education (ESE) services and students with no need for services. Ms. Lassen has no special training in ESE services for children with behavioral challenges. ESE students in her classroom are “push in, pull out,” meaning an exceptional education teacher comes in to work with some of the students in the classroom, and other students are pulled out of the classroom to work with an exceptional education teacher. Ms. Lassen was not happy at Groveland. She enjoyed teaching and was passionate about her students achieving their learning potential. However, she was frustrated by what she saw as a lack of needed services for her ESE students. Ms. Lassen applied for a transfer during the 2016 school year, but the transfer was denied. During the 2017-2018 school year, Ms. Lassen had eleven ESE students in her classroom, four of whom had severe behavioral issues. Some of her students were violent, even trying to harm themselves. She found it stressful to corral children who were throwing things in the classroom, especially at other children, while trying to teach the required lessons. She often found herself dealing with parents who were upset about their ESE child being disciplined for their behaviors, or who were upset about the treatment of their child by an ESE student. To address these concerns, Ms. Lassen frequently met with Mr. Rosier. Toward the end of the 2017-2018 school year--in March 2018 particularly--they met roughly twice a week. The two met once in Mr. Rosier’s office and sometimes in the portable where Mr. Rosier conducted in-school suspension; however, they met most frequently in Ms. Lassen’s classroom. The meetings usually occurred around 4:00 p.m., after students were dismissed at 3:30 p.m. and Mr. Rosier’s after- school responsibilities ended. Ms. Lassen usually left the school between 4:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to pick up her own children from school and daycare and take them to after-school activities. During the meetings, Ms. Lassen discussed with Mr. Rosier the behavioral challenges she faced with students in her classroom, as well as the issues with parents. Mr. Rosier had the responsibility to deal with parents, often conducting parent conferences to address issues arising in the classroom. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier became friends, and occasionally discussed personal matters, in addition to classroom and parent issues. Sometimes Ms. Lassen would become emotional. Mr. Rosier assured her he would work to get the help the students needed. Kimberly Sneed was the Groveland Principal during the 2017-2018 school year. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Sneed entered Ms. Lassen’s classroom shortly after 4:00 p.m. Assistant Principal Joseph Mabry had suggested to Ms. Sneed that she should look into why Mr. Rosier was in Ms. Lassen’s classroom at that time. When Ms. Sneed arrived, she observed that the lights were turned off and the classroom was empty. She walked to the classroom supply closet, inserted her key, and opened the door, which opens inward. Just as she was pushing the door open, Ms. Lassen pulled the door open to exit the closet with her purse and supply bag in hand. Ms. Sneed did not try the closet door handle first to determine whether the closet was locked. She simply inserted the key in the lock and pushed open the door. She testified that she was not certain the closet door was actually locked. The closet light was off when Ms. Lassen opened the closet. Ms. Lassen testified that she had just switched the light off before opening the door to exit the closet. Ms. Sneed turned the light switch on as she entered the closet. Ms. Lassen was surprised to see Ms. Sneed and asked if she could help her find something. Ms. Sneed asked Ms. Lassen why she had been in a dark closet. How Ms. Lassen replied to Ms. Sneed’s question was a disputed issue. Ms. Lassen maintains she said, “Ms. Sneed, you don’t understand, all it was, it was just a kiss, a kiss on the cheek, nothing more.” Ms. Sneed maintains Ms. Lassen said, “We were only kissing, we weren’t doing anything, no sex or nothing.” Ms. Lassen promptly left to pick up her children. Ms. Sneed entered the closet and observed Mr. Rosier standing at the back of the L-shaped closet, with his back to the door. Mr. Rosier was fully clothed, but his shirt was untucked and his glasses were off. Ms. Sneed did not question Mr. Rosier. Instead she quipped sarcastically, “Really, Mr. Rosier? Really?” Mr. Rosier did not turn toward Ms. Sneed or otherwise respond to her immediately. As Ms. Sneed exited the closet and proceeded to leave the classroom, Mr. Rosier called after her and asked if he could talk with her in her office. What else Mr. Rosier said to Ms. Sneed at that time was also a disputed issue. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier stated, “I’ll admit we were kissing, and it turned into touching, but nothing else.” Mr. Rosier was not certain what exactly he said, but admitted that he did use the word “kiss.” He testified that everything happened quickly. He was embarrassed and Ms. Sneed was angry. The following day, Ms. Sneed reported the incident to the School Board Employee Relations Supervisor Katherine Falcon. That same day, both Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier were interviewed separately by Ms. Falcon. Ms. Falcon drafted an interview questionnaire based solely on her telephone conversation with Ms. Sneed that morning. The questionnaire contained the following seven questions: For the record state your name. What is your current position? How long have you been in your current position? Yesterday, Ms. Sneed found you and another teacher in a locked dark closet. Can you explain? Is this the first time you have engaged in this activity on campus? Did you share any information about this incident with anyone else? Is there anything else you would like to say? Ms. Falcon asked the questions, and David Meyers, Employee Relations Manager, typed Respondents’ answers. Ms. Falcon printed the interview record on site and presented it to each respective Respondent to review and sign. The report states Ms. Lassen’s response to Question 4 as follows: The closet was unlocked. It is always unlocked. I just kissed him. It didn’t go any further. There was no touching or clothing off. Nothing exposed. Nothing like that has ever happened before. Yesterday was more, like a kiss goodbye. I was getting ready to leave and getting my stuff. He was standing by the door. He was standing by my filing cabinet. Nobody ever comes in there during the day. Sneed wanted to know what we were doing in there. We told her we were fooling around a little bit, kissing. Ms. Lassen signed her interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. Ms. Lassen testified that she did not review the interview report before signing, did not understand it to be any form of discipline, and was anxious to return to her classroom because her ESE students do not do well in her absence. At the final hearing, Ms. Lassen denied stating anything about “fooling around a little” with Mr. Rosier. In response to the same question, Mr. Rosier’s report states the following: The closet wasn’t locked. This teacher, Katie Lassen and I have become good friends. Yesterday we caught ourselves being too close, kissing, hugging . . . . We were first in the main classroom. When we began to kiss we went in the closet. There was a knock on the door. It was Ms. Sneed. My clothes were kind of wrangled. Mr. Rosier also signed his interview report without asking for clarifications or changes. At the final hearing, Mr. Rosier denied stating that he and Ms. Lassen were “kissing and hugging” or that “when we began to kiss we went into the closet.” As to his statement that “we caught ourselves becoming too close,” he testified that he meant they had begun discussing personal issues in addition to Ms. Lassen’s concerns with her ESE students. Ms. Lassen and Mr. Rosier testified as follows: they were discussing her concerns about a particular ESE student who was very disruptive and threatened to harm himself. Ms. Lassen was emotional. Ms. Lassen proceeded into the closet to get her things so she could leave to pick up her children and get them to after-school activities. Just inside the closet, Ms. Lassen broke down crying again. Mr. Rosier entered the closet, closing the door behind him (allegedly to keep anyone from seeing Ms. Lassen cry), put his hands on her shoulders and told her to get herself together and not let anyone see her crying when she left the school. She collected herself, thanked him, gave him a hug and they exchanged kisses on the cheek. Respondents’ stories at final hearing were nearly identical, a little too well-rehearsed, and differed too much from the spontaneous statements made at the time of the incident, to be credible. Based on the totality of the evidence, and inferences drawn therefrom, the undersigned finds as follows: Mr. Rosier was consoling Ms. Lassen and the two adults became caught up in the moment, giving in to an attraction born from an initial respectful working relationship. The encounter was brief and there is no credible evidence that Respondents did anything other than kiss each other. Both Respondents regret it and had no intention to continue anything other than a professional relationship. This incident occurred after school hours, sometime between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. on April 2, 2018. The only students on campus were at an after-school care program in a different building across campus. No one witnessed Respondents kissing or entering the closet together. Only Ms. Sneed witnessed Respondents emerging from the closet. Both Respondents were terminated effective April 23, 2018. Administrative Charges The school board’s administrative complaints suffer from a lack of specificity. Both employees are charged with “engaging in sexual misconduct on the school campus with another school board employee which is considered Misconduct in Office,” in violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for Educators (Principles). The administrative complaints do not charge Respondents with any specific date, time, or place of particular conduct which constitutes “sexual misconduct.”2/ Moreover, the School Board introduced no definition of sexual misconduct. The School Board inquired about some specific conduct during the Employee Relations interviews with Respondents. Ms. Falcon asked Respondents about being found together in a “locked dark closet.” The School Board failed to prove that the closet was either locked or dark while Respondents were in the closet. It appears the School Board bases its charge of Misconduct in Office, in part, on an allegation that the Respondents had “engaged in this activity on campus” on dates other than April 2, 2018. When Ms. Sneed went to Ms. Lassen’s room on April 2, 2018, she was acting upon a report that Mr. Rosier went to Ms. Lassen’s room every day at 4:00 p.m. There is no reliable evidence in the record to support a finding to that effect. The report that Mr. Rosier “went to Ms. Lassen’s classroom every day at 4:00,” was hearsay to the 4th degree,3/ without any non-hearsay corroborating evidence. Petitioner did not prove Respondents were ever together in a closet, much less a dark closet, on campus any date other than April 2, 2018. Finally, it appears the School Board bases its charges, in part, on an allegation that Mr. Rosier was not fulfilling his after-school duties because he was spending too much time with Ms. Lassen. To that point, Petitioner introduced testimony that on the Friday after spring break in March, Mr. Rosier was not to be found when the administration had to deal with a student who had either missed the bus or was not picked up on time. Ms. Sneed testified that Mr. Rosier came through the front office, observed the student there with herself and Mr. Mabry, and left through the front office. Ms. Sneed assumed Mr. Rosier had left for the day, but that when she left the school she saw his car in the parking lot. Mr. Rosier recalled that particular day, and testified that, as two administrators were attending to the student, he did not see the need for a third. He chose instead to keep his appointment with Ms. Lassen to discuss her difficult students. Petitioner did not prove that Mr. Rosier neglected either his after-school or any other duties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lake County School Board enter a final order dismissing the charges against Respondents Katie Lassen and Alan Rosier, and award back pay and benefits retroactive to April 23, 2018. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 3rd day of August, 2018.
The Issue Whether just cause exists for Petitioner to suspend Respondent for 30 days without pay.
Findings Of Fact The School Board is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Miami-Dade County, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was employed as a teacher at Henry E.S. Reeves Elementary School (“Henry Reeves”), a public school in Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to a professional services contract. Respondent was initially hired by the School Board as a teacher in 1982. At all times material to this case, Respondent’s employment with the School Board was governed by Florida law, the School Board’s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade (“UTD”). Julian Gibbs, the principal of Henry Reeves (“Principal Gibbs”), was authorized to issue directives to his employees, including Respondent. The 2011-2012 School Year After holding various teaching positions within the School Board, Respondent was assigned to Henry Reeves beginning with the 2011-2012 school year. On August 18, 2011, Respondent arrived late to work on her first day at Henry Reeves. Respondent was supposed to arrive at Henry Reeves at 8:20 a.m., for a pre-planning faculty meeting and to set-up her room, but she did not arrive until after 12:30 p.m., because she reported that morning to another school, Van E. Blanton Elementary School. On August 23, 2011, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Duty and Responsibilities memorandum concerning Respondent’s tardiness and informed Respondent that failure to report to work on time in the future would result in further disciplinary action.1/ Some time during the next few weeks, Principal Gibbs conducted an informal classroom walkthrough of Respondent’s class. At that time, Principal Gibbs observed that Respondent did not have any lesson plans, grades for students, or a “print- rich” classroom and outside bulletin board.2/ On September 16, 2011, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for failing to display current student work, update and have print-rich classroom and outside bulletin boards, timely grade and file student assignments, label data charts, and graph student assessment results. Respondent was advised to ensure she fulfilled these responsibilities by September 20, 2011. On January 4, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for failing to update outside bulletin boards and ensure her desk was organized and clutter free. The memorandum advised Respondent to ensure she fulfilled these responsibilities by January 6, 2012. The 2012-2013 School Year On October 17, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for allegedly not providing updated lesson plans for a substitute teacher when she was absent on October 8 and 12, 2012. However, the School Board did not prove at the hearing that Respondent failed to provide updated lesson plans for a substitute teacher when she was absent. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the October 17, 2012, memorandum he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the lack of updated lesson plans for the substitute teacher on October 8 and 12, 2012. No witness with personal knowledge of the lack of updated lesson plans for the substitute teacher testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum is hearsay. In any event, the October 17, 2012, memorandum directed Respondent to “read and review the Code of Ethics cited in The School Board of Miami-Dade County Bylaws and Policies, 4210.01 and Common Sense Suggestions and School Board Policy 1139, Responsibilities and Duties for Full-Time Personnel.” Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that failure to comply with her “professional responsibilities may be considered a violation of School Board and Administrative policies.” On November 29, 2012, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum for arriving late to two meetings on November 13 and 29, 2012. Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that it is her “professional duty and responsibility to report to all scheduled meetings on time” and “to review all notifications in regards to scheduled meetings and events.” Principal Gibbs informed Respondent that failure to comply with her “professional responsibilities may be considered a violation of School Board and Administrative policies.” On December 12, 2012, Principal Gibbs placed Respondent on support dialogue following an observation he made of Respondent in her classroom. Support dialogue involves a “two-way conversation” between the principal and teacher to develop strategies so that the teacher may improve for the next evaluation. Respondent was upset that she was placed on support dialogue. During the support dialogue meeting between Principal Gibbs and Respondent, Respondent spoke to Principal Gibbs in a loud manner. Later that day during dismissal, Respondent again spoke to Principal Gibbs in a loud manner, but this time in front of other teachers. Because of Respondent’s loud tone of voice during and after the support dialogue meeting, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum advising her to “immediately refrain from exhibiting inappropriate behavior, and adhere to all school site and M-DCPS policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, 3210.01, and Code of Ethics.” Respondent was informed that “[a]ny recurrence of the above infraction may lead to further disciplinary actions.” On December 18, 2012, Principal Gibbs held a Conference For The Record (“CFR”) with Respondent, because she allegedly struck a student with a ruler. During the conference, Principal Gibbs provided Respondent with a copy of School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics, and “How to Use Common Sense and Professional Judgment to Avoid Legal Complications in Teaching.” Respondent was “advised of the high esteem in which M-DCPS employees are held and of the District’s concern for any behavior which adversely affects this level of professionalism.” Respondent was “reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe learning environment for all students.” Respondent was informed that “[n]oncompliance with these directives will necessitate further review for the imposition of additional disciplinary measures and will be deemed as insubordination.”3/ During the December 18, 2012, conference, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a written letter of reprimand. The written reprimand directed Respondent to: 1) immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students; 2) adhere to all School Board policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. Respondent was informed that “[a]ny recurrence of the above infraction may lead to further disciplinary actions.”4/ On January 16, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent “Absences and Tardies From Work Directives,” because Respondent was allegedly tardy and/or absent from work during the 2012-2013 school year on the following occasions: October 1, 2012: tardy one hour October 8, 2012: sick one day October 11, 2012: tardy 1 ½ hour October 12, 2012: personal one day October 25, 2012: sick one day December 4, 2012: personal one day December 6, 2012: sick one day December 12, 2012: sick one day December 19, 2012: personal .5 day January 9, 2013: sick one day January 10, 2013: sick one day January 15, 2013: sick one day However, the School Board failed to prove at the hearing that Respondent was tardy and/or absent from work as indicated in the directives and accompanying documentation. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the January 16, 2013, directives he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the tardiness and absences. No witness with personal knowledge of the tardiness and absences testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum and accompanying documentation are hearsay. In any event, Respondent was informed that “[n]on-compliance with the directives will be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and insubordination.”5/ On February 22, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued Respondent a Professional Duty and Responsibility memorandum because she was allegedly six minutes late picking up her students from the cafeteria. Although Principal Gibbs testified about the February 22, 2013, memorandum he authored, he lacked personal knowledge of the incident. No witness with personal knowledge of the incident testified at the hearing. The content of the memorandum is hearsay. In any event, Respondent was informed in the memorandum that “[i]t is essential that all teachers pick up their classes on time, especially when other classes are entering the cafeteria.” On March 14, 2013, Principal Gibbs held a CFR with Respondent because she “grabbed” a student “by the arm” on some unspecified date and time when the student was attempting to obtain a set of headphones out of his backpack. Principal Gibbs witnessed this incident [while] conducting an observation of Respondent in her classroom. However, at the hearing, Principal Gibbs provided no further detail regarding the alleged incident other than indicating that Respondent “grabbed” the student “by the arm.” There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Respondent caused the student any emotional or physical injury. The student did not testify.6/ In any event, the CFR directed Respondent to: 1) immediately refrain from inappropriate physical contact/discipline with students; 2) adhere to all School Board policies and regulations at all times, specifically School Board Policies 3210, Standards of Ethical Conduct, and 3210.01, Code of Ethics; and 3) conduct herself, both in her employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon herself and the School Board. The 2013-2014 School Year The School Board alleged in paragraph 18 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 13, 2013, a parent reported that her child had been poked under the eye and Respondent failed to render first aid. When asked about the incident, Respondent was completely unaware that a student had been injured [while] under her supervision.”7/ The School Board failed to prove that a student was poked under the eye on September 13, 2013, while under Respondent’s supervision. The parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the alleged incident testified at the hearing. Respondent denied the allegations. In an effort to demonstrate that Respondent is guilty of the allegations, however, the School Board points to Principal Gibbs’s testimony that he “personally observed the lead mark under the child’s eye.” This observation by Principal Gibbs allegedly occurred at some point on September 13, 2013, after the school’s dismissal of students, and after “the parent” returned to the school with the child. The undersigned finds that Principal Gibbs’s testimony is unpersuasive. Even if Principal Gibbs observed a lead mark under a child’s eye at some time after the alleged incident occurred, that does not prove that the child was poked under the eye while under Respondent’s supervision. The child could have been poked under the eye at any time and anywhere. Principal Gibbs’s conclusion that a child was poked under the eye with a pencil while under Respondent’s supervision is based on speculation and hearsay of the parent and students. Nevertheless, on September 16, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” The School Board alleged in paragraph 19 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 17, 2013 Respondent informed Mr. Gibbs that she had scratched ‘L.G.’, her student.” The School Board failed to prove that Respondent scratched a student under her supervision as alleged in paragraph 19 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. No evidence was adduced at hearing in support of the School Board’s allegations in paragraph 19 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Moreover, the School Board failed to address this issue in its Proposed Recommended Order. The School Board alleged in paragraph 20 of its Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “On September 18, 2013, a parent reported that her child had been stabbed . . . three times with a pencil by another student. Respondent failed to render first aid and failed to notify the other student’s parents.” The School Board failed to prove that a student was stabbed with a pencil by another student while under Respondent’s supervision as alleged in paragraph 20 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Again, the parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the alleged incident testified at the hearing. In an effort to demonstrate that Respondent is guilty of the allegations, however, the School Board argues in its Proposed Recommended Order that: “[w]hen Respondent was asked about the incident, she indicated that she was on the other side of the room when it happened.” The School Board’s position, however, contradicts Principal Gibbs’s testimony at the hearing when he was asked: Q. Did you speak to Ms. Parris about this incident? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what did she say to you? A. She doesn’t recollect the child being poked by another child in the wrist with the pencil. She just had no memory. Transcript, pages 53-54. Nevertheless, on September 19, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” The School Board alleged in paragraph 21 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges that: “Based on the witness statements, the following was gathered during the investigation: i. On September 24, 2013, under Respondent’s supervision, or lack thereof, four students were injured. [One] student, ‘A.J.’ was taken to the hospital by her mother hospital [sic] because of a facial contusion.” The School Board failed to prove that any students were injured while under Respondent’s supervision as alleged in paragraph 21 of the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Any witness statements are hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the incident testified at the hearing. The School Board argues in its Proposed Recommended Order that on September 25, 2013, a third incident occurred in Respondent’s classroom. Specifically, the School Board contends: “A parent approached administration concerned about the safety of her child. . . . The student had been kicked in the face causing her face to swell.” Notably, this alleged incident is not referred to in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. The notice was, therefore, insufficient to inform Respondent of the School Board’s contention. Even if Respondent was on notice of the allegations, however, the School Board failed to prove that a student was kicked in the face while under Respondent’s supervision. The parent’s report is hearsay. No students, parents, or witnesses to the incident testified at the hearing. Respondent denied the allegations. Notably, Principal Gibbs testified that when asked about the incident, Respondent “said that she doesn’t recall a child being kicked in the face, but allegedly she was pushed by another child in the class, but she doesn’t recall the child being kicked in the face.” The undersigned finds that Principal Gibbs’s testimony is not credible and is unpersuasive. The purported statement contradicts what Principal Gibbs wrote in the September 26, 2013, Professional Responsibilities memorandum. At that time, Principal Gibbs wrote that when Respondent was “asked what happened. [She] stated I have nothing to say.” Nevertheless, on September 26, 2013, Principal Gibbs issued to Respondent a Professional Responsibilities memorandum regarding the alleged incident, requiring her to “[e]nsure the safety and well-being of students at all times”; “[m]aintain close supervision of students at all times”; “[r]eport immediately to administration any accidents or incidents involving student welfare”; and “[n]otify parents in regards to any accident or incidents occurring with students.” On September 25, 2013, Principal Gibbs met with Respondent in his office to discuss her classroom supervision. The meeting was held behind Principal Gibbs’s closed door. During the meeting, Respondent felt as if Principal Gibbs was speaking to her in an arrogant manner. Respondent became upset at Principal Gibbs, spoke to him in a loud manner, and, at one point, hit his desk with one of her hands and stated: “No, I’m not going to allow you to speak to me like that, because I’m 61 years old and I’m old enough to be your mother.” At no time during the meeting did Respondent threaten or intimidate Principal Gibbs in any way. Approximately one week later, Principal Gibbs and Respondent met in his office to discuss some student discipline referrals. During this meeting, Respondent became upset at Principal Gibbs and spoke to him in a loud manner. At no time during this meeting did Respondent threaten or intimidate Principal Gibbs in any way.8/ In sum, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s loud voice and conduct in her meetings and conversations with Principal Gibbs constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. Although Respondent may have used a loud voice during the meetings and conversations, and staff members may have overheard Respondent’s loud voice, given the context in which these meetings and conversations occurred (they were meetings and conversations between a principal and teacher--not a classroom situation involving students), the School Board failed to establish that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. As to the alleged incident on March 14, 2013, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent engaged in conduct which rose to the level of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. As to each of the alleged incidents in September 2013, involving allegations of students getting injured while under Respondent’s supervision, the evidence at hearing failed to show that students were injured while under Respondent’s supervision. Accordingly, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or that she violated applicable School Board policies with regard to these alleged incidents. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent’s failure to have any lesson plans, grades for students, or a “print-rich” classroom and outside bulletin board, constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent did not have lesson plans available for a substitute teacher on October 8 and 12, 2012. Thus, the evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or that she violated applicable School Board policies with regard to these allegations. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent “significantly arrived late” to important faculty meetings. The evidence presented at hearing merely showed that Respondent was late to a pre-planning faculty meeting on her first day at Henry Reeves on August 18, 2011, because she went to the wrong school. The significance of this faculty meeting was not established at the hearing. During the next school year, she was late to two other meetings in November 2012. It is unclear from the record that these two other meetings in November 2012, were, in fact, faculty meetings. Be that as it may, the fact that Respondent was late to three meetings from August 2011 to September 2013-- one of which was on the first day of school when she went to the wrong school--is insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in conduct which constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetence due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent was tardy and absent from work to the extent alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges. Even if she was tardy and absent as alleged, however, the tardiness and absences do not constitute misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetence due to inefficiency, or a violation of applicable School Board policies. The evidence at hearing failed to show that Respondent engaged in any conduct alleged in the Amended Notice of Specific Charges which constitutes misconduct in office, gross insubordination, incompetency due to inefficiency, or a violation of School Board policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order rescinding the 30-day suspension with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 2014.
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 action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Kenneth Ingber has been employed by Petitioner and assigned under a continuing contract to West Little River Elementary School. During Respondent's 23 years of employment by Petitioner, he resigned/retired twice. He was rehired by Petitioner after each resignation, the last rehiring taking place for the 1985/86 school year. His then-principal, Glenda Harris, hired him with the knowledge that he was an admitted recovering alcoholic. He told her that he was under control. She told him that she would give him a chance but that he would have to meet the expectations that all teachers have to meet. From the 1985/86 school year through the 1990/91 school year, Harris rated Respondent acceptable on his annual evaluations; however, during the 1989/90 school year, Respondent had an attendance problem when he began drinking again. Harris tried to get Respondent to obtain help, but he felt he could do it on his own. He deteriorated during that year but improved during the 1990/91 school year. During the time that Harris supervised Respondent, she had a problem with his not having lesson plans. He felt that he did not need them. For the 1991/92 school year, Respondent came under the supervision of Principal Lillian Coplin. Coplin was never advised of Respondent's alcoholism. On January 29, 1992, Respondent left school early without permission. He also failed to attend a Global Awareness Workshop scheduled for that day. Coplin discussed these failures with him on January 30, 1992. On January 31, 1992, Respondent arrived at work late and left early. The official working hours are from 8:15 a.m. to 3:20 p.m., but Respondent only worked from 9:47 a.m. to 2:50 p.m. On February 7, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to observe the working hours set by the collective bargaining agreement between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade (Labor Contract). On February 27 and March 2, 1992, Respondent failed to have lesson plans. On February 27, 1992, Assistant Principal Edith Norniella observed Respondent smoking outside of his classroom, but within view of his students. Prior to that date, Norniella had observed him smoking on school grounds on August 30, 1991, November 14, 1991 and February 18, 1992. On each of these occasions, she told him not to smoke on school grounds. Coplin had also told him several times not to smoke on school grounds. On March 3, 1992, Coplin directed Respondent to adhere to Petitioner's non-smoking rule. Norniella saw him smoking on school grounds at least two more times after that. On March 3, 1992, Coplin also directed Respondent to develop lesson plans according to the Labor Contract. On March 27, 1992, all teachers were given a site directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules before leaving for spring-break on April 3, 1992. On April 3, 1992, Respondent reported to work at 9:25 a.m. in spite of the directive given on February 7, 1992. On that same date, Respondent also failed to comply with the directive to turn in parent logs, gradebooks, and daily schedules. Moreover, by April 22, 1992, he still had not complied with that directive. On April 22, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to discuss his attendance problems and other failures to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and administrative directives. During the conference, he stated that he lost the gradebook but that the principal would not like it anyway. He also admitted that he did not maintain a parent log. Respondent was warned that any further violation of directives would be considered gross insubordination. He was also issued a written reprimand and directed to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and site directives. He was advised of the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a program which offers assistance to employees in overcoming personal problems that may be affecting their work. Respondent declined the assistance and treated the matter as a joke by posting the EAP referral on his classroom door. On May 27, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella, using the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have lesson plans, student work folders with tests, or a gradebook. It was impossible to assess his students' progress. Respondent was given a prescription to help him correct his deficiencies. Prescriptions are activities which the employee is directed to complete. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was to prepare two teacher-made tests and submit those to Norniella for review. He was also to complete some activities concerning assessment techniques from the TADS prescription manual. His prescription deadline was June 16, 1992. On June 2, 1992, Respondent was wearing a "pocket-knife" on his belt. Both Coplin and Norniella considered the pocket-knife to be a weapon in violation of the School Board rule because, although Respondent did not physically threaten anyone with the knife, the wearing of such a knife was intimidating to students and to Coplin. The matter had come to Coplin's attention through a complaint from the parent of a student. In addition, both administrators believed that wearing a knife set a bad example for the students and did not reflect credit upon Respondent and the school system. On June 3, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address the knife incident. Respondent was issued a written reprimand and directed to cease and desist from bringing the pocket-knife to school. He was further advised that any re-occurrence of that infraction would result in additional disciplinary action. On June 5, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held to address Respondent's performance and his future employment status. During the conference, he admitted to not having had a written lesson plan during the May 27 observation. He was told of the Labor Contract provision which requires weekly lesson plans reflecting objectives, activities, homework, and a way of monitoring students' progress. He was also warned that if he did not complete the prescription from that observation, he would be placed on prescription for professional responsibilities and given an unacceptable annual evaluation. On June 19, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent. He had failed to correct his deficiencies and had failed to complete his prescription. Moreover, he still had not turned in his gradebook, parent log, and daily schedule, as directed on March 3, 1992. He was given an unacceptable annual evaluation because of his deficiencies in professional responsibility. Respondent verbally disagreed with that decision stating that the unacceptable evaluation was for simple paper-pushing requirements. The prescription for professional responsibilities required Respondent to review from the faculty handbook School Board policy on grading criteria, to submit his gradebook on a weekly basis to Coplin, to maintain a gradebook and a log of parent conferences, to maintain daily attendance, to submit student assessment records to Coplin for review prior to submission of the nine-week grade report, and to complete the prescription from the May 27 observation by September 15, 1992. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1991/92 school year was overall unacceptable and was unacceptable in the category of professional responsibility. On September 20, 1992, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent because he was still wearing a "pocket-knife" in spite of the prior directive. He was directed not to wear the knife or the knife case. Respondent stated that he would not do as directed. On October 9, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. He did not have a lesson plan, student work folders, tests, or a gradebook. It would not be possible to evaluate the students' strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, if an administrator were called upon to explain to a parent why a student got a particular grade, the administrator would not have been able to do so. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write detailed lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella weekly. He was directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual dealing with lesson planning and assessment techniques and to prepare two teacher-made tests and to submit all to Coplin for review. The prescription was to be completed by October 30, 1992. By November 13, 1992, Respondent was exhibiting a pattern of excessive and unauthorized absences. The absences were unauthorized because he failed to call the school prior to his absences as required by directives contained in the faculty handbook. He was advised that his absences were adversely impacting the continuity of instruction for his students and the work environment. He was given directives to report his absences directly to the principal, document absences upon return to the worksite, and provide lesson plans and materials for use by the substitute teacher when he was absent. On November 13, 1992, it was noted that Respondent had not met the prescription deadline of October 30, 1992. Coplin gave Respondent a new prescription deadline of November 30, 1992. In addition, she made a supervisory referral to the EAP because of Respondent's excessive absences, unauthorized disappearance from work, poor judgment, and failures to carry out assignments. By the end of November, 1992, Respondent had accumulated 21 absences. While he was absent, there were no gradebook, lesson plans or student folders for the substitute teacher. The substitute teacher was told to create a gradebook, lesson plans, and student work folders. All was in order when Respondent returned to work. On December 11, 1992, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Norniella and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, in techniques of instruction, and in assessment techniques. Because his techniques of instruction were also rated unacceptable, Respondent recognized for the first time that his teaching performance was being criticized. He had dismissed the prior criticisms as simply problems with creating a "paper-work trail". Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because he did not have a lesson plan. Norniella gave him a chance to turn in the lesson plans the following Monday, but he failed to do so. Respondent was unacceptable in techniques of instruction because he used the same materials and methods for all students regardless of their individual needs. Respondent failed to establish background knowledge before beginning the lesson. The sequence of the lesson was confusing to Norniella. Respondent covered three different subjects (vocabulary, science, and math), all within a period set aside for language arts. Respondent was given a prescription to help correct his deficiencies. He was directed to write lesson plans and to turn them in to Norniella on Fridays. He was to observe a reading/language arts lesson by another sixth- grade teacher. He was directed to maintain at least two grades per week in each subject for each student. He was also directed to complete specific activities in the TADS prescription manual relating to preparation and planning, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. He was directed to complete the prescription by January 15, 1993. He failed to complete any of the prescription activities. On January 4, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his performance and future employment. His absences and reporting procedures were also discussed as was his failure to comply with his prescription and prior directives. During the conference, Respondent was rude, agitated, and disrespectful. He yelled at the principal. His behavior did not reflect credit upon himself and the school system. He treated the conference as a joke. As of January 20, 1993, Respondent still had no gradebook. On January 25, 1993, he was notified that upon his return to the school site, there would be a conference-for-the-record to deal with his noncompliance with the directives to maintain a gradebook and to complete his prescription activities. A conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on March 3, 1993. It was noted that because of his absences, he had failed to meet the prescription deadline on January 15, 1993. Coplin gave him a new deadline of March 11, 1993. Respondent failed to meet the March 11, 1993, prescription deadline. Moreover, he still had not completed his prior prescription for professional responsibility. Because of these failures, Coplin extended the 1992 professional responsibility prescription through June 1993. On March 26, 1993, Respondent was formally observed in the classroom by Coplin and was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning and in assessment techniques. While Respondent had some lesson plans, he did not have one for each subject taught during the day. The student folders contained no tests. Respondent was prescribed activities to help him correct his deficiencies. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans and to submit them on Wednesdays for the principal to review. He was also to complete an assessment techniques activity from the TADS prescription manual and was to submit the activity to Coplin for review. His prescription was to be completed by April 23, 1993. On April 1, 1993, Respondent was placed on prescription for professional responsibilities for failure to comply with School Board rules, Labor Contract provisions, and school site policies and directives concerning lesson plans, student assessment, record keeping, and maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to develop weekly lesson plans for each subject taught and to submit those to the principal for review. He was directed to read Article X of the Labor Contract and to submit a summary to the principal for review. He was directed to review the section of the faculty handbook concerning maintaining a gradebook. He was directed to maintain an updated gradebook with at least two grades per week per subject and to label the grades. He was directed to maintain a parental conference log in the gradebook. He was directed to submit his gradebook to the principal for weekly review. On May 12, 1993, Coplin advised Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS) that Respondent had failed to comply with the directive of November 13, 1992, concerning procedures for reporting absences. He had been absent on April 13, 16, 23, 27, and May 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11, 1993, without calling the principal in advance. Respondent claims that he called the school secretary at her home before 7:00 a.m. every time he was absent, except for one time. Although the secretary told him he would have to speak directly to the principal, he chose not to call the school when Coplin was there. Calling the secretary does not absolve him from his responsibility to comply with the principal's directive to speak to her personally. On May 19, 1993, Respondent was sent a letter directing him to schedule a conference at OPS. Respondent did not do so. On that same day, Coplin was advised by EAP that EAP was closing Respondent's case due to his noncompliance with the program. Respondent was absent without authorized leave from April 23 - June 17, 1993. Moreover, he had 106 absences for the school year. Nine of these were paid sick leave, and 97 were leave without pay. The school year has 180 student contact days. Because of Respondent's absences and failure to follow leave procedures, Coplin was not able to secure a permanent substitute teacher. Respondent's students were subjected to frequent changes in substitute teachers and a lack of continuity in their education. Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1992/93 school year was overall unacceptable and unacceptable in the categories of preparation and planning, assessment techniques, and professional responsibility. Because of Respondent's absences, the usual conference-for-the-record could not be conducted, and Respondent's annual evaluation was sent to him by mail. Respondent failed to complete all prescriptions given him by Coplin and by Norniella. By letter dated June 15, 1992, OPS notified Respondent that he was willfully absent from duty without leave. He was given an opportunity to provide a written response and was advised that failure to do so would result in the termination of his employment. On July 6, 1993, a conference-for-the-record was conducted by Dr. Joyce Annunziata at OPS. The conference was held to discuss the pending dismissal action to be taken by Petitioner at its meeting of July 7, 1993. During the meeting, Respondent was extremely disoriented, turned his back on Annunziata, did not take the meeting seriously, made irrelevant comments, carried a stuffed purple animal which he talked to and through, and had watery, bloodshot eyes. He also wore his "pocket-knife" to the conference. Petitioner suspended Respondent and took action to initiate dismissal proceedings against him on July 7, 1993.
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 without pay and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board of Dade County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1994, 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 12th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-3963 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3-27, and 29-56 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 28 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 and 7-9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 14-16 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10-13 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: William DuFresne, Esquire Du Fresne & Bradley 2929 S.W. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1 Miami, Florida 33129 Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Mr. Octavio J. Visiedo, Superintendent Dade County School Board 1450 N.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 The Honorable Doug Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The first issue in this case is whether, as the district school board alleges, a middle school teacher had a consensual sexual relationship with a teenage student; if this allegation is proved to be true, then it will be necessary to decide whether the school board has just cause to fire the teacher.
Findings Of Fact Parties. The Miami-Dade County School Board ("School Board"), Petitioner in this case, is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the Miami-Dade County Public School System. Respondent Mariella Brenlla ("Brenlla") holds a Florida Educator Certificate. She is certified in Emotionally Handicapped, Reading, and Educational Leadership. Brenlla also holds a National Board of Education certification in exceptional needs. She was employed as a teacher in the Miami-Dade County Public School System for nearly 18 years, from 1992 until November 2009, at which time the School Board suspended her without pay and gave notice that it intended to dismiss her for cause, giving rise to the instant proceeding. During the 2001- 02 school year, which is the period relevant to this case, Brenlla taught students who, having been diagnosed as Severely Emotionally Disturbed ("SED"), received special education services in the Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") program at Ponce de Leon Middle School ("Ponce de Leon"). Allegations and Investigation. In May 2006, a former ESE student of Ponce de Leon named J. B. sent Brenlla an e-mail inviting her to attend his high school graduation. Although she had not heard from him in nearly four years, Brenlla knew J. B. because she had been his "confidant" (her word) during the better part of 2002; their relationship, the nature of which is at the heart of the instant dispute, had begun when J. B. was a 14-year-old eighth grader who attended class in a room adjacent to Brenlla's, and ended about midway through J. B.'s freshman year of high school. Brenlla did not reply to the electronic invitation, and she did not go to J. B.'s graduation ceremony. On October 23, 2006, J. B. sent Brenlla another e-mail. In this message, J. B. demanded that Brenlla call him "ASAP" on a matter of "the utmost importance." He added, "I have terrible news for you." Concerned, Brenlla called. When they spoke, J. B. told Brenlla that he wanted to see her. Brenlla expressed her unwillingness to meet with J. B. Then J. B. revealed the "terrible news": he was thinking about disclosing that he and Brenlla had had a sexual affair in 2002. Brenlla instructed J. B. not to call or contact her again. J. B. did not accede to Brenlla's directive. He sent more e-mails, and placed more phone calls to Brenlla. On October 24, 2006, Brenlla filed a report with the Miami-Dade Schools Police, complaining that J. B. had made threatening comments to her, such as "start saying goodbye to your family." On November 2, 2006, J. B. filed a complaint with the Coral Gables Police Department, alleging that, in 2002, while he was in middle school and, later, high school, he and Brenlla had been involved in a consensual sexual relationship which had begun shortly after spring break and continued until around December. On November 16, 2006, J. B. gave a sworn statement that detailed the numerous and diverse sexual activities in which, he claimed, he and the teacher had engaged. The police commenced an investigation. On November 21, 2006, the detective in charge directed J. B. to place a telephone call to Brenlla, which the police would record, in hopes that J. B. might coax Brenlla into making some incriminating comments. The controlled call was made but failed to produce any unambiguously inculpatory remarks. During the brief conversation, Brenlla neither admitted nor denied the existence of a previous sexual relationship; her unremarkable responses to J. B.'s questions can be construed as being consistent with either possibility. In sum, the digital recording of this call, which is in evidence, is not probative one way or the other. Another attempt to trick Brenlla into incriminating herself was made a few months later. On February 6, 2007, the police equipped J. B. with a "wire" (some sort of recording device) and instructed him to approach Brenlla in the school parking lot, where he was supposed to initiate a conversation about their sexual relationship. This plan came a cropper because, rather than talk with J. B., who accosted Brenlla as she was getting into her car after work, Brenlla insisted that J. B. leave the school premises (on which he was trespassing), and she called the school police. Arrest and Prosecution. On February 21, 2007, J. B. informed the police (for the first time) that Brenlla had a mole or freckle near her vagina. Armed with this information, the police eventually obtained a search warrant, which was issued on August 9, 2007. The warrant authorized detectives to inspect and photograph Brenlla's pubic area. Law enforcement officers executed the warrant and, as the resulting pictures (which are in evidence) show, Brenlla does have a nondescript pigmented spot in the vicinity of her vagina. Soon after the service of the search warrant, Brenlla was arrested and charged with four felony counts of sexual battery on a minor. The criminal prosecution of Brenlla ended when she entered into a Pre-Trial Diversion Program, which required that she plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of child abuse (no harm) and agree not to take a classroom teaching position for the 2009-10 school year.1 Holding up its end of the bargain, the state entered a nolle prosequi on the felony charges. As far as the record in this case shows, Brenlla is no longer in jeopardy of being prosecuted for crimes she might have committed in connection with her relationship with J. B. The Operative Historical Events. Credibility and Weight of the Evidence. The operative historical facts——especially the nature of the relationship between Brenlla and J. B.——are sharply disputed. Moreover, the gravamen of the School Board's case being that Brenlla had sexual relations with an underage student, the conduct in question is the kind which occurs in private, unobserved by disinterested eyewitnesses. Resolving disputes of fact in a case such as this largely boils down to determining which of the only two witnesses who really know for sure what happened is the more believable. Having listened carefully to and closely observed J. B. and Brenlla at final hearing, the undersigned found Brenlla to be, on balance, the better witness. For the most part, her demeanor was poised and professional; the content of her testimony (with a couple of significant exceptions) is reasonable; she seemed responsible and mature, her denials of wrongdoing sincere. The undersigned wanted to believe her, because the behavior of which she is accused is so reckless and outrageous (not to mention criminal), and she appeared to be none of those things. J. B., in contrast, while appropriate in demeanor and articulate in speech (though glib at times), made a less favorable impression. In part this was because he occasionally came across as vindictive. But also, and more important, the content of J. B.'s testimony has elements that seem, on the surface at least, to be fictional or (as Brenlla contends) fantastic; that——coupled with the fact that J. B.'s story, like a snowball rolling downhill, has gotten bigger and gathered additional details as it moves forward through time——casts doubt on his veracity. Were this case merely a "swearing contest" between Brenlla and J. B., therefore, Brenlla would have won. There are, however, some pieces of circumstantial evidence that corroborate J. B.'s testimony and tip the balance in favor of his version of the relevant events. These will be discussed next. J. B.'s Knowledge of Brenlla's Inconspicuous Mole. J. B. told the police that Brenlla had a mole near her vagina, and this turned out to be true. Thus, either J. B. made a lucky guess, or he somehow had learned about this personal detail concerning Brenlla's body. The undersigned considers the first possibility to be too remote to credit: if J. B. were clever enough to gamble that Brenlla would be found to have a mark in her pubic area, he also would have been aware that sending the police on a wild goose chase which proved him wrong would leave his credibility in tatters. More likely, therefore, is that J. B. knew about the mole, and the undersigned so finds. The question then is: how he know? The simplest (and hence most likely) explanations are: (a) somebody with personal or secondhand knowledge told him; (b) he saw a photograph of Brenlla in a state of undress; or (c) he saw the mole in person. Brenlla's explanation that J. B. might have overheard her talking about the mole with another teacher, or on the phone making a waxing appointment, strikes the undersigned as highly implausible and is rejected. Of the most obvious explanations for J. B.'s knowledge, the undersigned considers (c) above to be the likeliest possibility, notwithstanding that J. B. did not immediately tell the police about this crucial bit of information, because it is the simplest explanation for which, as will be seen, there is other credible evidence besides J. B.'s own testimony (the believability of which is the point presently under consideration). At bottom, the fact that J. B. knew about the mole near Brenlla's vagina is neither direct nor conclusive proof that he and she had a sexual relationship, as he claims; his knowledge of this intimate detail does, however, corroborate his testimony in this regard. The Telephone Calls. Shortly before the final hearing, the School Board obtained from T-Mobile, U.S.A., Inc., via subpoena, the invoices for J. B.'s cell phone service for the period from May 25, 2002 to July 16, 2002, comprising 53 days (the "First Stage"); and the period from August 26, 2002 to October 12, 2002, comprising 48 days (the "Third Stage"). The evidence does not make clear why there were no invoices for the 40-day period running from July 17, 2002 to August 25, 2002. This middle period for which there are no phone service details will be called the "Second Stage". The invoices show the date, time, and duration of calls to J. B.'s cell phone ("incoming calls"), and calls from J. B.'s cell phone ("outgoing calls"). For each call, whether incoming or outgoing, the bills identify the other party's phone number. At hearing, Brenlla identified two telephone numbers which appear in the bills as being hers. One, she explained, was her home number (a landline), and the other she identified as her work number. Although Brenlla testified that J. B. and other students called her occasionally on her cell phone, she did not volunteer her cell phone number(s) for the relevant periods and was not pressed to do so; thus, no cell-to-cell phone calls are accounted for in the discussion that follows. The undersigned has studied the invoices, and it is no exaggeration to say that they are the smoking gun. For what the bills show is that, during the 101 days they cover, Brenlla and J. B. talked on the phone——a lot. The volume, frequency, duration, and timing of these conversations simply defy innocent explanation. The records show that Brenlla and J. B. had approximately 197 conversations. (This does not include calls of one minute or less, which the undersigned interpreted as mere attempts; there were about 120 of those. Also, the undersigned counted multiple calls as a single conversation if they occurred in rapid sequence, as would happen if a call were dropped or momentarily interrupted from some other reason. Thus, a different reviewer might come up with different numbers at the margins. The undersigned is highly confident, however, that the observations made herein are fair and accurate.) Nearly 80 percent of the documented conversations, or 156 of them, took place during the First Stage, which corroborates J. B.'s testimony that this period corresponded to the most intense stage of his relationship with Brenlla. Combined, these conversations, which occurred during a period of 53 days, consumed approximately 1,451 minutes——about 24 hours in all. Brenlla initiated 138 of these conversations. In other words, Brenlla called J. B. about 88 percent of the time during the First Stage. The frequency of their contact is notable as well. During the First Stage, the pair talked on 46 of the 53 days covered by the bills. The numbers drop significantly in the Third Stage, again corroborating J. B.'s testimony that the relationship began to unravel after he started high school in the fall. In this period there were 41 documented conversations comprising about 303 minutes. Brenlla initiated nearly three-quarters (30) of these calls, continuing the previous pattern of Brenlla being the one who, by far, most often made the first move. The two had conversations on 23 out of the 48 days in this period——a marked decrease in intensity relative to the First Stage. Still, with a phone conversation occurring on average about every other day, the two remained in suspiciously close contact by most reasonable measures, especially in view of the fact that J. B. was now in high school and therefore would have few, if any, school-related reasons to talk regularly with a teacher at his old school. Some further observations underscore the inculpatory nature of these documented calls. Many of them took place during non-business hours (before 9:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m.) and on weekends. Approximately 19 percent——nearly one in five—— occurred between 9:00 p.m. and midnight, hours during which a teacher rarely should have a legitimate pedagogical reason for calling a student. Another 26 percent, roughly, or about one quarter, of the conversations were held between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Five percent or so of the calls took place between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. While the majority of the conversations (102) took place on weekdays, of which 69 fell during the covered periods, the couple spent more time on the phone (957 minutes vs. 749 minutes) during the 29 weekend days than on regular workdays. There were, in addition, seven conversations totaling 48 minutes during three holidays, i.e. Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day. Brenlla testified that she called J. B. because she was concerned about his transition to high school, which she asserted could be difficult for SED students such as J. B. to make, and because she had become J. B.'s confidant, someone he trusted and with whom he could share his secrets. These explanations do not hold water and are rejected. The available records show that Brenlla was contacting J. B. almost literally around the clock, day and night, constantly, even on weekends and holidays. (Remember, too, that Brenlla's cell phone number was not disclosed; it is possible that the over-the-top degree of telephonic contact between her and J. B. as revealed above was in fact even higher. Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that Brenlla and J. B. stopped talking on the phone during the 40 days between the First Stage and the Third Stage. To the contrary, it is probable that there was a substantial amount of contact between the two during the Second Stage, for which records are not available.) The telephone records do not prove the content of the conversations between Brenlla and J. B., nor do they establish that the two had a sexual relationship. The records are circumstantial evidence of a very close and probably intimate personal relationship, however, and as such they not only provide some independent support for the finding above regarding how J. B. likely came to know about Brenlla's mole, but also they corroborate J. B.'s testimony that he and Brenlla engaged in a consensual sexual affair. The Affair. At the beginning of the 2001-02 school year, Brenlla administered a standardized test to determine J. B.'s abilities in reading, math, and basic humanities. This was how Brenlla first met J. B., who was at the time a 14-year- old, eighth grade SED student in the ESE program at Ponce de Leon. Though J. B. was not one of Brenlla's students, his teachers' (he had two) classroom was next door to the classroom in which Brenlla and another teacher taught their SED students. As the school year progressed, Brenlla became better acquainted with J. B. because he and other SED students occasionally would visit her classroom during the "free period," usually on Fridays, when ESE students who had completed their assignments and otherwise behaved themselves were rewarded with time to enjoy nonacademic activities. Brenlla taught J. B. how to play chess, and he assisted her with classroom chores. The relationship between Brenlla and J. B. became increasingly personal. One Friday shortly after spring break, Brenlla invited J. B. to have an online conversation with her that night via instant messaging. He agreed. An IM chat was attempted but failed due to computer problems, forcing J. B. and Brenlla to communicate by telephone. This led to a lengthy session of "phone sex." Thereafter, Brenlla and J. B. became physically intimate. J. B. testified that he and Brenlla engaged in a variety of foreplay in Brenlla's classroom. J. B. claimed that these encounters occurred before class, at lunchtime, and after school, two or three times a day, nearly every day. The undersigned, however, credits Brenlla's testimony regarding the unlikelihood of this much contact going unnoticed, given the proximity of other adults, the fact that the SED classrooms were never locked, and the generally high level of supervision to which SED students are subjected. J. B.'s account more likely than not is exaggerative. Nevertheless, even after discounting J. B.'s testimony for probable embellishments, the undersigned finds that, more likely than not, Brenlla and J. B. found ways to engage in furtive kissing and petting in moments when no one was around. While such moments probably did not arise as frequently as J. B. recalls, it is likely (and thus found) that the couple grabbed opportunities to disappear briefly from time to time. J. B. testified that he and Brenlla frequently engaged in oral sex (fellatio and cunnilingus) in her car after school. While some aspects of J. B.'s testimony in this regard are difficult to believe——such as that Brenlla sometimes parked her car in residential neighborhoods, where the two would engage in oral sex and, on occasion, nearly be caught——the undersigned considers it likely, and finds, that, among other sexual activities, J. B. and Brenlla performed oral sex on one another many times inside her vehicle. J. B. testified that he and Brenlla often had "phone sex." J. B. did not define "phone sex," but the undersigned reasonably infers, from the totality of J. B.'s testimony and the plain meaning of the term, that the phone sex in question entailed conversations having explicit sexual or erotic content. The undersigned credits J. B.'s testimony in this regard, which is corroborated by the cell phone bills discussed above, and finds that Brenlla had phone sex with J. B. on numerous occasions. J. B. claimed that he and Brenlla engaged in sexual activities in his apartment, and that it was at this location that they had anal and vaginal intercourse, but only a few times. J. B. testified that these trysts occurred during the day when his father was at work and his mother out running errands. J. B.'s mother, however, testified that she saw Brenlla leaving the apartment on some occasions, and was aware that her son was involved in a sexual relationship with the teacher. The undersigned doubts the reliability of the mother's testimony but finds that, more likely than not, Brenlla visited J. B. at his apartment once or twice and had sexual intercourse with him there. The sexual affair between Brenlla and J. B. continued through the summer months following the 2001-02 school year and even after J. B. started high school in the fall of 2002. Gradually, though, the relationship began to fizzle out. With J. B. attending a different school, the two saw each other less frequently, and they began to fight and argue on the phone. In or around December 2002, Brenlla expressed her desire to end the relationship. The two would have no more contact for nearly four years, until May 2006, when (as found above) J. B. sent Brenlla an e-mail asking her to come to his high school graduation. Determinations of Ultimate Fact The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Brenlla engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a 14- year-old SED student that lasted for more than six months and included numerous instances of intimate physical contact in addition to many hours of documented telephonic contact. Based on this course of conduct, it is determined that Brenlla is guilty of the offense of immorality as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Mariella Brenlla's employment in the Miami-Dade County Public School System. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2010.
