01-001131 Miami-Dade County School Board vs. Gregory Adams
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, October 26, 2001.


View Dockets  
Summary: Allegations of child abuse not proven; teachers reinstated with back pay.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8MIAMI - DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

15)

16Petitioner, )

18)

19vs. ) Case No. 01 - 1131

26)

27GREGORY ADAMS, )

30)

31Respondent. )

33_________________________________)

34MIAMI - DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

41)

42Petitioner, )

44)

45vs. ) Case No. 01 - 1132

52)

53BRETT T. SCANLON, )

57)

58Respondent. )

60__________ _______________________)

62RECOMMENDED ORDER

64Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in this cause was

74held on May 24 - 25, 2001, in Miami, Florida, and on

86September 14, 2001, via video - teleconference at sites in Miami

97and Tallahassee, Florida, before Fl orence Snyder Rivas, a

106duly - designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

116Administrative Hearings.

118APPEARANCES

119For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire

125Miami - Dade County School Board

1311450 Northeas t Second Avenue, Suite 400

138Miami, Florida 33132

141For Respondent Leslie A. Meek, Esquire

147Adams: United Teachers of Dade

1522200 Biscayne Boulevard

155Miami, Florida 33137

158Fo r Respondent Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire

166Scanlon: 2800 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 900

172Miami, Florida 33137

175H. T. Smith, Esquire

1791017 Northwest 9th Court

183Miami, Flori da 33136

187STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

191The issue for determination is whether the School Board

200has proven the allegations set forth in the Notices of

210Specific Charges dated April 3, 2001, and, if so, what penalty

221should be imposed.

224PRELIMINARY STATEMEN T

227On Mar ch 14, 2001, Petitioner, Miami - Dade County School

238Board ("Petitioner" or "School Board") acted to suspend and

249initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondents. The

255Respondents timely requested hearings pursuant to Section

262231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes. These causes were filed with

270the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings

278on March 22, 2001, and were consolidated for final hearing by

289Order dated April 10, 2001.

294The School Board furnished its Notice of Specific Charges

303to each Respondent on April 3, 2001. Petitioner alleges that

313Respondents were guilty of misconduct in office, violation of

322School Board rules pertaining to conduct unbecoming a School

331Board employee, corporal punishment, child abuse, violence in

339the workplace, a nd violation of the State Board of Education

350Rules contained in the Code of Ethics of the Education

360Profession in Florida (Ethics Code), and the Principles of

369Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida

377(Professional Conduct Principles).

380At the hearing, the School Board presented the testimony

389of the following witnesses: William Tagle, School Board

397police detective; Dr. Diane Cotter, school psychologist

404qualified as an expert witness without objection; complaining

412witness Miguel Suarez 1 ; Paulette Martin, principal; Carmen

420Gutierrez, assistant principal; Silvia Gomez, mother of the

428complaining witness; Martha Ortega, Adrianna Garcia, Millie

435Johnson, Suzanne Burstein, and Dr. Joseph Finn, teachers; and

444Dr. Thomasina O’Donnell, district direc tor of Petitioner’s

452Office of Professional Standards (OPS). Petitioner’s Exhibits

459numbered 1 - 12 were admitted into evidence.

467Respondents testified in their own behalf, and presented

475the testimony of Dr. Charles Miller, parent, and Leah

484Gilliard, te acher. Respondents' Exhibits numbered 1 - 4 were

494admitted into evidence with Exhibit 3 being late - filed by

505stipulation. These exhibits were submitted and considered on

513behalf of both Respondents.

517Subsequent to the hearing, on June 1, 2001, Petitioner

526move d to reopen the evidence in order to introduce a copy of a

540written statement into evidence. The statement was testified

548about at the time of the hearing but was not located until

560after the hearing. The motion was granted, and as a result,

571the parties wer e afforded a video - teleconference evidentiary

581hearing on September 14, 2001.

586The parties were unprepared to discuss case law relevant

595to the statement's admissibility on that date. The

603undersigned was initially inclined to rule that the copy of

613the document could not be admitted over objection absent an

623explanation of what had happened to the original. The parties

633were afforded leave to submit memorandums of law in support

643of, or opposition to, the statement's admissibility. Upon

651consideration of c ase law, the motion to admit the statement

662is granted and the document is admitted into evidence as

672Petitioner's Exhibit 13. It has been considered along with

681all the other evidence and testimony in the case.

690A transcript of the proceedings was filed on J une 18,

7012001. However, the disposition of this case was substantially

710delayed by the sudden serious illness of counsel for

719Respondent Scanlon. The undersigned wishes to acknowledge the

727efforts of H. T. Smith, Esquire, who entered the case on

738behalf of Sc anlon post - hearing, and worked diligently to

749assist in the resolution of this case as expeditiously as

759possible under difficult circumstances.

763By stipulation of the parties the deadline for proposed

772recommended orders was extended to September 30, 2001. All

781parties filed timely submissions which have been carefully

789considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

797FINDINGS OF FACT

8001. The incident giving rise to this case occurred on

810November 14, 2000. At that time, Respondents Gregory Ada ms

820(Adams) and Brett T. Scanlon (Scanlon) were employed as

829teachers by the School Board and assigned to William Chapman

839Elementary School (Chapman). Adams has been employed by the

848School Board since August 1996, and has taught at Chapman

858since 1998.

8602. Scanlon has been employed by the School Board at

870Chapman since October 1999. Adams and Scanlon shared a second

880grade classroom during Scanlon's first year at Chapman, and

889Adams became a mentor to him. At the start of the 2000/2001

901school year, Scan lon was assigned to teach third grade, while

912Adams continued to teach second grade.

9183. The complaining witness against Adams and Scanlon,

926Miguel Suarez (Miguel), was nine years old at the time of the

938incident. Like many of the teachers and adminis trators at

948Chapman, Miguel is of Hispanic origin. English is his second

958language.

9594. Miguel's academic functioning is quite low. In terms

968of expressing himself, he functions at a four or five - year - old

982level. His memory functions no better than tha t of a five -

995year - old. He was not sure, for example, what school he had

1008attended last year. Miguel is unable to reliably sequence

1017events. He is eager to please and, at least in the presence

1029of the undersigned, attempted to ascertain what adult

1037authority figures wanted and to give it to them.

10465. Miguel's learning disabilities are not the first

1054thing one notices about Miguel. Indeed, Miguel began the

10632000/2001 school year as a second grade student in a regular

1074education class. It was not until mid - October that the

1085professional educators who worked with him daily mustered

1093sufficient evidence to identify his learning disabilities and

1101appropriately place him into a learning disabilities (LD)

1109program for part of the day.

11156. Miguel's family is n ot adept at communicating

1124effectively with school teachers and administrators. Miguel's

1131mother, Silvia Gomez (Gomez), does not strive for a united

1141front between home and school.

11467. In addition to his mother, Miguel resides with her

1156live - in boyfriend . Both are irregularly employed. Sometime

1166prior to the incident on November 14, 2000, Miguel's father

1176had committed suicide. Miguel was aware that his father had

1186died, but had never received counseling directed to this loss.

11968. Adams is an Afric an - American from an impoverished,

1207hardscrabble background. Out of seven siblings, he and one

1216other have achieved a college education. Adams feels an

1225obligation to encourage children of similar background.

1232Scanlon is a white male, who previously served i n the armed

1244forces. His professional bearing is reminiscent of what

1252official Miami used to look like. He too is committed to

1263teaching.

12649. At the time of the final hearing, Chapman’s racial

1274and ethnic composition, as well as the mix of English and

1285S panish spoken as first languages, typifies the rich diversity

1295of Miami - Dade County in the 21st century. But it also

1307provided fertile ground for misunderstanding,

1312miscommunication, and mixed signals.

131610. Compounding the potential for trouble at Chapm an, at

1326the time of the incident, some teachers employed a practice

1336called ”time - out” to deal with students with whom they were

1348having a problem at a moment when they were not able or

1360willing to deal with the problem themselves.

136711. Time - out, though not part of the officially approved

1378discipline program at Chapman, was widely known in the school.

1388The practice was discontinued after and as a direct result of

1399this incident. At the time of the incident, Adams and Scanlon

1410had a good faith belief that it was a form of professional

1422courtesy within the school, and not an act which would place

1433one’s career in jeopardy.

143712. Time - out was initiated by the teacher having

1447difficulty with a particular student. She would take or send

1457the disruptive student to a fellow teacher who would use his

1468own discretion in returning the child to a compliant mode.

1478Sometimes, the mere act of sending the child to another

1488teacher was sufficient to inspire contrition. Sometimes it

1496wasn't. Sometimes a child would join the time - out teacher's

1507classroom. Sometimes the child would be taken to a private

1517area and given a stern lecture.

152313. Miguel, due to his learning disabilities and in

1532particular his extremely poor communication skills, was not a

1541good candidate to respond positivel y to a stern lecture.

1551Rather, it was frightening to him, particularly when delivered

1560by two adult male teachers previously unknown to him.

156914. Adams, on the other hand, had good results in the

1580past with students referred to him for time - out. Adams was

1592e xperienced in administering time - outs for fellow teachers,

1602and the record reflects no complaints about either

1610Respondent's techniques with reference to their handling of

1618time - outs.

162115. Adams and Scanlon had no knowledge of Miguel’s

1630limitations and special circumstances on November 14, 2000,

1638when one of Miguel’s teachers, Leah Gilliard (Gilliard), was

1647angry at Miguel for “helping” to collect books without

1656permission.

165716. Gilliard delivered Miguel to Adams, who in turn

1666sought the assistance of his colleagu e Scanlon.

167417. Miguel’s time - out ended in a student bathroom, where

1685Respondents used language and metaphors which may have been

1694effective with a third grader of average communication skills,

1703but which served only to frighten Miguel.

171018. In particula r, Scanlon asked Miguel why he wanted to

1721throw his life away and if he wanted to flush everything down

1733the toilet. Asked by Scanlon questions to the effect of why

1744he was throwing his education away like he was flushing it

1755down the toilet, Miguel started l aughing. It may well be that

1767Miguel laughed out of fear, or confusion, but Scanlon and

1777Adams perceived disrespect.

178019. Rather than switch metaphors, Adams took Miguel to a

1790child - size toilet stall and said “This is your life going down

1803the drain if you don't get serious about education.” As he

1814said this, he flushed the toilet with his foot.

182320. Miguel was sufficiently chastened to obey Adams'

1831direction to apologize to Scanlon for having been (in

1840Respondents' perception) rude. Miguel did not cry or e xhibit

1850other signs of distress to Respondents as they escorted him

1860from the bathroom.

186321. Scanlon returned to his own classroom and Adams

1872returned Miguel to Gilliard. At Adams' direction, Miguel

1880apologized to Gilliard and the time - out ended.

188922. Miguel said nothing of the incident until later that

1899night. At bedtime, Miguel told Gomez that “a brown man and a

1911white man” had “put his head in the toilet.” Gomez did not

1923take the claim seriously, and Miguel was not agitated or

1933upset. Gomez told Miguel to go to sleep and he did so.

194523. The next morning, however, Miguel said he did not

1955want to go to school, so his mother went to school with him.

1968In the presence of Miguel, she first met with Gilliard, and

1979next with teacher Millie Johnson (Johnson). Johnson, on

1987hearing the toilet story, said to Miguel in a loud and

1998“forceful” voice, “They didn't really do that, did they?”

2008Miguel answered, “They almost.”

201224. Adams was summoned, and admitted to having had

2021Miguel in his custody for time - out, but not to any typ e of

2036physical abuse.

203825. By this time, Miguel had told at least three adults,

2049his mother, Gilliard, and Johnson, that he, Adams, Scanlon,

2058and a flushing toilet were all in proximity to one another

2069while Miguel was being sternly double - teamed on the subjec t of

2082his behavior — - a fact which Adams and Scanlon do not dispute.

209526. Dissatisfied with Adams’ explanation, an angry Gomez

2103left an upset Miguel behind at school to be cared for by

2115teachers, administrators, and counselors who were busy with

2123their regular w ork. As the day progressed, Miguel was

2133required to tell his story to no fewer than four more teachers

2145and administrators.

214727. Miguel began to add substantially and horrifically

2155to the story he had told his mother the night before.

2166Meanwhile, Adams and Scanlon were immediately transferred out

2174of Chapman and assigned to a district office.

218228. At different times and places, Miguel has claimed

2191that Adams kicked walls and slammed doors; that Scanlon

2200threatened to cut off his tongue and his fingers; that Ad ams

2212threatened to cut out his tongue and teeth; and that Adams

2223pushed his head just inside the rim of the toilet seat, near

2235the water, and asked, “Do you want to drown?”

224529. In addition, Miguel has claimed that both teachers

2254took him to a stairwell where Adams told Miguel that he would

2266drop him down the stairs, pull out his teeth, and do

"2277something" to him if he told his mother. Miguel's story has

2288grown to include allegations that one or both teachers made

2298him stand on one foot and pretended to push him d own the

2311stairs. It is also alleged that Adams made him run up and

2323down the stairs chasing an unidentified boy that they had

2333picked up on their way to the stairs.

234130. For reasons not reflected in the record, a couple of

2352days after the incident, Miguel's mother's live - in companion

2362came to the school office screaming, “How could teachers do

2372this!”

237331. For several days following his mother's visit to

2382Chapman, Miguel was agitated and did not want to go to his

2394homeroom. The record is unclear as to whether his agitation

2404was the product of the November 14th incident, or adult

2414reaction to it as horrific details were added, or being simply

2425overwhelmed by the attention.

242932. Soon after the incident, Miguel was administratively

2437promoted to a third grade homero om. He continues to be

2448enrolled at Chapman.

245133. Gomez retained an attorney to pursue a civil action

2461on Miguel's behalf. At the time of the final hearing in this

2473case, the incident which occurred on November 14 is in active

2484litigation and requires a sig nificant amount of Miguel's time.

2494He is fearful of failing this year because he is missing a lot

2507of school due to the legal proceedings.

251434. Gomez and her lawyer sought and received publicity

2523for their claims against Petitioner. In seeking media

2531coverag e they knowingly and voluntarily made Miguel's identity

2540a matter of public notoriety for purposes of influencing the

2550outcome of the litigation.

255435. Because Petitioner's case rests entirely upon

2561Miguel's claims that he was subjected to criminal conduct far

2571beyond the time - out described by Adams and Scanlon, the

2582undersigned paid careful attention to his demeanor under oath.

2591Miguel attended a significant portion of the final hearing

2600accompanied by his mother and his lawyer, and listened again

2610to teachers' ac counts of what he had allegedly told them about

2622the incident.

262436. Miguel's time on the witness stand was prolonged

2633because he had significant difficulty understanding questions

2640and even more difficulty in recalling and recounting facts

2649crucial to the alle gations against Respondents. On several

2658occasions his attempted answers were simply unintelligible.

266537. Miguel's family, by virtue of its lawsuit against

2674Petitioner, had an obvious financial stake in telling as

2683horrifying a tale as possible.

268838. Simila rly, Adams and Scanlon, whose careers and

2697livelihoods are at stake, are motivated to downplay the extent

2707of their efforts to intimidate Miguel into improving his

2716behavior. The undersigned, therefore, carefully observed

2722Respondents' demeanor as they testif ied.

272839. The testimony of the Respondents and of Miguel, when

2738evaluated in the context of the entire record, reveals that

2748Petitioner has failed to establish that Miguel was abused in

2758the manner described in the Notice of Specific Charges.

2767Rather, the v ersion of the incident recounted by Adams and

2778Scanlon is far closer to the truth.

278540. The Petitioner's allegations are utterly

2791inconsistent with any evidence presented about the character

2799and professional career of Adams and Scanlon. In addition,

2808they ar e so horrific that one would expect that a child who

2821had suffered such treatment would be far more traumatized than

2831the cheerful, if intimidated, little boy who testified at the

2841final hearing.

284341. The undersigned attaches particular significance to

2850Gomez ' claim at the final hearing that on the night of the

2863incident, Miguel reported to her most, if not all, of the

2874abuse allegations against Adams and Scanlon. Yet, all of

2883Petitioner's witnesses agree that when Gomez confronted Adams

2891and school authorities t he following day, she said nothing of

2902the alleged threats of violence and death made against her

2912son.

291342. Gomez claims she did not mention the abuse

2922allegations the next day because she deemed them unimportant

2931when measured against the fact that -- taking the evidence in

2942the light most favorable to the Petitioner -- Miguel's head had

2953been placed near, but not in, the toilet water. The

2963undersigned rejects Gomez' testimony that Miguel in fact

2971claimed, on the night of November 14th, that he had been

2982subjected to violence, physical abuse, and death threats. Not

2991only did Gomez fail to mention these most serious charges to

3002any of the teachers or administrators, she never mentioned

3011them to school police.

301543. It is also significant that the day after the

3025inciden t, Miguel did not suggest to anyone that any other

3036children were present on the stairs. It was not until his

3047deposition was taken in May 2001, that Miguel stated that

3057another little boy was on the stairs and that the “Brown man”

3069pulled the little boy from class and made both of them run up

3082and down stairs. There is no corroborating evidence that this

3092child exists, or this incident took place on November 14th nor

3103at any other time.

310744. Neither is there any corroboration of any kind for

3117Miguel's testimon y that several children were in the bathroom

3127at one time or other during the course of the incident and

3139each of these children was ordered out by Adams or Scanlon.

3150Such witnesses, if they existed, would be of obvious value in

3161providing disinterested testi mony as to, at a minimum, the

3171demeanor of the Respondents during the incident. Being kicked

3180out of a bathroom by a teacher is not a daily occurrence. Had

3193multiple children been subjected to this unusual behavior by

3202two teachers who were preparing to or w ere in the process of

3215abusing a second grader, it should not have been difficult to

3226identify them 24 hours later.

323145. Petitioner attempted to corroborate Miguel's

3237testimony through a school psychologist, Diane Cotter

3244(Cotter). She opined that the allege d abuse actually

3253occurred. Cotter has no personal knowledge of the incident,

3262does not treat Miguel, and has no credentials in forensic

3272psychology.

327346. With deference to the witness, the undersigned

3281disagrees with her opinion as to Miguel's reliability.

328947. The record as a whole establishes that Miguel's

3298story grew in direct response to the attention and

3307reinforcement he was receiving as the flushing toilet story

3316was embellished with allegations of criminal child abuse.

332448. Petitioner, at its duly - n oticed meeting of March 14,

33362001, took action to suspend Adams and Scanlon without pay and

3347to initiate dismissal proceedings against them pursuant to

3355Sections 230.23(5)(f) and 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes.

3361CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

336449. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

3371jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these

3381proceedings. Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes.

338850. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly -

3399constituted school board charged with the d uty to operate,

3409control, and supervise all free public schools within the

3418School District of Miami - Dade County, Florida. Article IX,

3428Constitution of the State of Florida. Section 230.03, Florida

3437Statutes.

343851. Since Petitioner seeks only to dismiss Resp ondents

3447as employees, but not to revoke their teaching certificates,

3456it need only prove the allegations set forth in the Notice of

3468Specific Charges by a preponderance of the evidence. Allen v.

3478School Board of Dade County , 571 So. 2d 568 (3d DCA 1990);

3490Dil eo v. School Board of Dade County , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d

3504DCA 1990).

350652. The complaining witness is competent to testify and

3515his testimony was considered along with all other evidence and

3525testimony in the case.

352953. The Petitioner has alleged that R espondents are

3538guilty of misconduct in office, violation of School Board

3547rules pertaining to employee conduct, violence in the

3555workplace, failure to report child abuse, corporal punishment,

3563and the Ethics Code and Professional Conduct Principles.

357154. Rul e 6B - 4.009, Florida Administrative Code, provides

3581in pertinent part as follows:

3586(3) Misconduct in office is defined as a

3594violation of the Code of Ethics of the

3602Education Profession as adopted in

3607Rule 6B - 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles

3615of Professiona l Conduct for the Education

3622Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule

36296B - 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to

3639impair the individual’s effectiveness in

3644the school system.

364755. Rule 6B - 1.001, Florida Administrative Code, the

3656Ethics Code, provides in pert inent part, as follows:

3665(1) The educator values the worth and

3672dignity of every person, the pursuit of

3679truth, devotion to excellence. . . .

3686(2) The educator’s primary professional

3691concern will always be for the student and

3699for the development of the s tudent’s

3706potential. The educator will therefore

3711strive for professional growth and will

3717seek to exercise the best professional

3723judgment and integrity.

3726(3) Aware of the importance of

3732maintaining the respect and confidence of

3738one’s colleagues, of student s, of parents

3745and of other members of the community, the

3753educator strives to achieve and sustain the

3760highest degree of ethical conduct.

376556. Rule 6B - 1.006, Florida Administrative Code, the

3774Principles of Professional Conduct, provides in pertinent

3781part , as follows:

3784(3) Obligation to the student requires

3790that the individual:

3793(a) Shall make reasonable effort to

3799protect the student from conditions harmful

3805to learning and/or to the student’s mental

3812and/or physical health and/or safety.

3817* * *

3820(e) Shall not intentionally expose a

3826student to unnecessary embarrassment or

3831disparagement.

3832(f) Shall not intentionally violate or

3838deny a student’s legal rights.

384357. Petitioner contends that Respondents have violated

3850Rule 6B - 1.001(3)(a),(e), and (f), Fl orida Administrative Code,

3861in that they failed to value Miguel's worth and dignity;

3871failed to exhibit a professional concern for Miguel; failed to

3881exercise the best professional judgment; and failed to

3889maintain the respect of their colleagues, parents and members

3898of the community. Violation of any of these rules comprises

3908just cause for the termination of Respondents' employment.

391658. Petitioner further contends that Respondents have

3923violated Rule 6B - 1.006(1),(2), and (3), Florida Administrative

3933Code, in t hat they failed to protect Miguel from conditions

3944harmful to his learning, mental and/or physical health and/or

3953safety; have exposed Miguel to unnecessary disparagement; and

3961have intentionally violated his legal rights.

396759. As to each of the foregoing cha rges, the only

3978evidence against Respondents is Miguel's testimony. For the

3986reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact, the undersigned

3996does not credit Miguel's shifting and escalating accounts of

4005what transpired between him and Respondents on November 14,

40142000.

401560. The expert testimony of school psychologist Cotter,

4023considered in its entirety and in the context of the record as

4035a whole, is nothing more than vouching for Miguel's

4044credibility. The trier of fact is not bound by the expert's

4055opinion as to the believability of a witness. Troinger v.

4065State of Florida , 300 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1974); Ward v. State of

4078Florida , 519 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Put another way,

4090expert testimony may not be offered to directly vouch for the

4101credibility of a witness. Kruse v. State , 483 So. 2d 1383

4112(Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

411661. The School Board has failed to demonstrate by a

4126preponderance of evidence that Adams and/or Scanlon committed

4134any or all of the specific acts of abuse alleged. Rather, the

4146evidence establishes the ill - fated time - out began with the

4158best of intentions on the part of both teachers who were

4169acting in accordance with an established, although not

4177formally acknowledged, practice within the school of teachers

4185supporting and assisting one another in dealing with children

4194who were, for whatever reason, beyond a particular teacher's

4203ability to deal with at a given moment.

421162. Although Petitioner has claimed that other students

4219could corroborate aspects of Miguel's story, no corroborating

4227witnesses have been pr oduced. There are no physical

4236indications of abuse. There is no evidence that Miguel would

4246even remember this incident were it not for the ongoing

4256reminders which come with the litigation process. There is no

4266evidence of mental or emotional trauma on a level approaching

4276what would be expected in a child who had been subjected to

4288even one of the traumatic events alleged, let alone all of

4299them. There was no evidence that Miguel responds to terror by

4310falling silent, rather than crying out in fear, or cryin g

4321promptly upon being released into the custody of his family.

4331Instead, the evidence is that he was calm on his return to

4343class, and calm until the next morning.

435063. While it is theoretically possible that two

4358dedicated teachers with unblemished records could

4364simultaneously turn into monsters, the more probable

4371explanation is that Miguel was in fact distressed and angry

4381about the dressing down he received that day. When he finally

4392told his mother the story at bedtime, he did not get the

4404reaction he hoped for. Whether he decided to embellish the

4414story to gain sympathy, or whether he did in fact become more

4426distressed the longer he thought about the incident is

4435unknowable. What the evidence does establish, however, is

4443that Miguel's story grew in direct pr oportion to the amount of

4455attention he received in the telling.

446164. Because the evidence establishes that Adams' and

4469Scanlon's accounts of the event are substantially truthful,

4477and that Miguel's is not, the record as a whole compels the

4489conclusion that Petitioner has failed to prove misconduct in

4498office, and lacks just cause for the termination of

4507Respondents' employment.

450965. Petitioner argues that Scanlon's acknowledgment on

4516cross - examination that he would not have wanted his own child

4528to experience w hat Miguel experienced is, in and of itself, an

4540admission that Scanlon had, at a minimum, reason to suspect

4550child abuse by Adams and therefore had a duty to report same.

4562The undersigned observed the demeanor of the interested

4570witnesses with particular car e. Observation of Scanlon under

4579oath, coupled with a careful review of the actual question

4589asked and answer given in the context of the entire final

4600hearing, indicates that Scanlon provided an ambiguous answer

4608to an ambiguous question. The record reveals that Scanlon has

4618denied every specific allegation of abuse from the very

4627beginning and throughout the final hearing. In that context,

4636what the Petitioner seeks to characterize as an admission is,

4646at most, an acknowledgment that if he knew then what he kn ows

4659now, he'd have let Gilliard deal with her own problem

4669students.

4670RECOMMENDATION

4671Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

4680of Law, it is

4684RECOMMENDED that the Miami - Dade County School Board issue

4694a final order reinstating Gregory Adams and Brett T. Scanlon

4704with back pay.

4707DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2001, in

4717Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

4721_______________________________

4722FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS

4725Administrative Law Judge

4728Division of Administrative Hearings

4732The DeSoto Building

47351230 Apalachee Parkway

4738Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

4743(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCO M 278 - 9675

4752Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

4758www.doah.state.fl.us

4759Filed with the Clerk of the

4765Division of Administrative Hearings

4769this 26th day of October, 2 001.

4776ENDNOTE

47771/ For reasons discussed in the Findings of Fact, below,

4787Miguel's right to keep his identity secret has been waived.

4797COPIES FURNISHED:

4799Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire

4803Miami - Dade County School Board

48091450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400

4815Mia mi, Florida 33132

4819Leslie A. Meek, Esquire

4823United Teachers of Dade

48272200 Biscayne Boulevard

4830Miami, Florida 33137

4833Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Esquire

48382800 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 900

4843Miami, Florida 33137

4846H. T. Smith, Esquire

48501017 Northwest 9th Court

4854Mia mi, Florida 33136

4858Dr. Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent

4863Miami - Dade County School Board

48691450 Northeast Second Avenue

4873Miami, Florida 33132

4876James A. Robinson, General Counsel

4881Department of Education

4884The Capitol, Suite 1701

4888Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

4893NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE EXCEPTIONS

4899All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

490915 days from the date of this recommended order. Any

4919exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the

4929agency that will issue the final order i n this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2001
Proceedings: Final Order of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/16/2001
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 11/16/2001
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order issued (hearing held May 24 and 25, and September 14, 2001) CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2001
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying hearing record referred to the Agency sent out.
PDF:
Date: 10/25/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Rivas from L. Meek regarding new address filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2001
Proceedings: Respondent Scanlon`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law Recommendations filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Rivas from L. Meek concerning Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order on the acompanying diskette filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner School Board`s Proposed Recommended Order and Supporting Memoranda of Law filed.
Date: 09/27/2001
Proceedings: Transcript filed, Volume Three.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript and Disk filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2001
Proceedings: Memo to DOAH from M. Schere concerning transcript of hearing, Volume II, pages 480 through 487 (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2001
Proceedings: Memo to DOAH from M. Schere concerning transcript of hearing, Volume II, pages 399 through 419 (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2001
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Video Teleconference issued (video hearing set for September 14, 2001; 9:00 a.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 07/24/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance as Co-Counsel (filed by H. Smith via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 07/02/2001
Proceedings: Respondent`s Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/20/2001
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Set Aside Order to Reopen Evidence issued.
Date: 06/18/2001
Proceedings: Mini-Transcripts (2 volumes with disks) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/18/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Mini-Transcripts and Disks filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/18/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference issued (video hearing set for July 6, 2001; 1:00 p.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 06/15/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Memorandum in Opposition to Respondent`s Motion to Set Aside Order to Reopen Evidence (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2001
Proceedings: Respondent`s Motion to Set Aside Order to Reopen Evidence (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2001
Proceedings: Respondent`s Notice of Filing Respondent`s Exhibit 3 filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/13/2001
Proceedings: Order issued. (motion to reopen evidence, granted)
PDF:
Date: 06/08/2001
Proceedings: Respondent`s Opposition to Petitioner Motion to Reopen Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/07/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion to Reopen Evidence (filed via facsimile).
Date: 06/06/2001
Proceedings: Final Hearing Transcript with exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/01/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Opposed Motion to Reopen Evidence (filed via facsimile).
Date: 05/24/2001
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to date not certain.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Respondent, Gregory Adams` Additional Exhibits (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2001
Proceedings: Respondent, Gregory Adams` Notice of Additional Witnesses (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (D. Brown, L. Gillard, M. Johnson, and P. Martin) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Additional Witness (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/17/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion to Quash Cross-notice of Taking Videotaped Depositions and Request for Telephonic Hearing on Same (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/17/2001
Proceedings: Letter to Counsel from R. Dohan (regarding depositions of Miguel Suarez and Sylvia Gomez) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2001
Proceedings: Re-Notice of Taking Deposition (Change of Location Only M. Suarez filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (S. Gomez) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2001
Proceedings: Pre-Hearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 05/14/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel (filed by L. Meek via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2001
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing issued. (hearing set for May 24 and 25, 2001; 8:30 a.m.; Miami, FL, amended as to Style and Date).
PDF:
Date: 04/10/2001
Proceedings: Order Granting Consolidation issued. (consolidated cases are: 01-001131, 01-001132)
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition filed by Petitioner.
PDF:
Date: 04/05/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Renewed Opposed Motion to Consolidate Cases (with 01-1132) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2001
Proceedings: Order issued (Petitioner`s Opposed Motion to Consolidate is denied).
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Specific Charges (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2001
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for September 11 and 12, 2001; 9:00 a.m.; Miami, FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2001
Proceedings: Response to Petitioner`s Motion to Consolidate (filed by L. Pearson via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2001
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Opposed Motion to Consolidate Cases (DOAH Case Nos. 01-1311 and 01-1132) filed via facsimile.
PDF:
Date: 03/27/2001
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2001
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2001
Proceedings: Notice of Suspension from Employment (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2001
Proceedings: Request for Formal Hearing (filed via facsimile).
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2001
Proceedings: Agency referral (filed via facsimile).

Case Information

Judge:
FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS
Date Filed:
03/22/2001
Date Assignment:
04/10/2001
Last Docket Entry:
11/19/2001
Location:
Miami, Florida
District:
Southern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (2):