13-003849TTS St. Lucie County School Board vs. William Doran Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, August 19, 2014.

Summary: Respondent teacher committed misconduct in office by challenging a disruptive student to a fight and then calling the student a coward when he refused to hit the teacher. Ten-day suspension without pay and one year of probation recommended.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ST. LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 13 - 3849TTS

WILLIAM DORAN ,

Respondent .

/

RECO MM ENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal adm inistrative hearing was

conducted in Fort Pierce , Florida, on June 3 , 201 4 , before

Administrative Law Judge Mary Li Creasy .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Elizabeth Coke , Esquire

Richeson and Coke, P.A.

Post Office Box 4048

Fort Pierce, Florida 34948

For Respondent: Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire

Law Offices of Thomas Johnson , P.A.

510 Vonderburg Drive , Suite 309

Brandon, Florida 33511

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The issues are whether Respondent, William Doran, co mm itted

the acts alleged in the Statement of Charges and Petition for

Ten - Day Suspension Without Pay, and, if so, the discipline to be

imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Respondent, a teacher at Southport M iddle School ( SMS ),

received a letter in May 2013 advising that the Superintendent of

Schools would be reco mm ending that he be suspended for a period

of ten days without pay for just cause . H e was advised of his

right to request an administrative hearing within 15 days and

timely requested a hearing .

On October 2, 2013, Petitioner, St. Lucie County School

Board (School Board) , provided Respondent with a Statement of

Charges and Petition for a Ten - Day S uspension (Petition) . The

P etition alleges that the S chool Board has just cause pursuant to

section 1012.33, Florida Statu t es , to warrant a ten - day

suspension without pay. More specifically, it is alleged that

Respondent Ó s actions on May 3, 2013 , constitute a violation the

following: Florida Administrati ve Code Rule 6A - 10.081,

Princip l e s of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession

in Florida (principles of Professional Conduct) ; r ule 6A - 10.080 ,

C ode of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (C ode of

Ethics) ; r ule 6A - 5 . 056 , I mm orality and Mis condu ct in Office; and

School Board P olicy 6.301(3)(b) , Employee Standards of Conduct .

On October 2, 2013 , the matter was referred to the Division

of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the assignment of an

A dministrative L aw J udge, and the case was origina lly scheduled

for final hearing on December 19 and 20, 2013. Due to a series

of unopposed motions to continue the final hearing filed by both

parties, the matter was rescheduled for June 3 and 4, 2014.

The parties stipulated to certain facts, which were a ccepted

at hearing, and are included among those set out below. The

School Board presented the testimony of nine witnesses: Lydia

Martin, principal of SMS; students M.M. , A . L . , H . S . , D . M . , and

J . B . ; Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, St. Lucie County

P ublic S chools; and Susan Ranew, assistant superintendent for

H uman R esources. Petitioner Ó s E xhibits 1 through 6 and 8 through

14 were admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on his own

behalf and presented the testimony of three other witness es:

Linnea Norton, teacher at SMS; Dan Hochberg, teacher at SMS; and

Dan Kaiser, teacher at SMS. Respondent Ó s Exhibits 1 through 5

were admitted into evidence.

The Transcript of the hearing was filed with DOAH on July 2 ,

2014. Pursuant to Respondent Ó s two un opposed m otion s , time for

filing p roposed r eco mm ended o rders was extended to August 13,

2014 . Proposed r eco mm ended o rders were timely filed by both

parties and were carefully considered in the preparation of this

Reco mm ended Order . Unless otherwise indic ated, all rule and

statutory references are to the versions in effect at the time of

the alleged violations.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The School Board is a duly - constituted school board

charged with the duty of operating, controlling, and supervising

all free public schools within St. Lucie County, Florida,

pursuant to A rticle IX, section 4(b), Florida Constitution, and

section 1001.32, Florida Statutes.

2. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as

a teacher at SMS, a public school in St. Lucie County, Florida ,

pursuant to a professional services contract . Respondent has

been employed by the School Board for approximately eight years.

Respondent most recently provided individualized instruction and

assistance to students with individualized ed ucation plans.

3. At all times material to this case, R espondent Ó s

employment with the S chool B oard was governed by Florida law, the

School B oard Ó s policies, and the collective bargaining agreement

between the S chool B oard and the St. Lucie Classroom Teac hers Ó

Association .

4. Lydia Martin, p rincipal of SMS , was authorized to issue

directives to her employees, including Respondent.

The 2010 - 2011 School Year

5. On November 8, 2010, R espondent was counseled by

P rincipal Martin for discourteous and disparagi ng remarks to

students causing them to feel unnecessary embarrassment.

6. Students and parents reported that Respondent made

co mm ents in the classroom including Ð the Bible is crap and we

should not believe it, Ñ told students they could not work in

groups because they Ð would just bullshit, Ñ called a student

Ð stupid, Ñ and referred to a group of African - American students as

the Ð black coffee group. Ñ Parents also expressed concern that

Respondent discussed prostitution and told students that , in some

co untrie s the younger the girls are , the better it is considered

because they have not lost their virginity.

7. Respondent denied saying that the Bible is Ð crap Ñ but

admitted telling students that he did not be lieve in it.

Respondent denied calling a student stu pid but admitted that he

told a student certain choice s may be what a Ð not so smart Ñ

person would do. Respondent admitted to referring to a group of

black students as a Ð coffee klatch , Ñ but denied any reference to

race or ethnicity. Respondent admitted d iscussing prostitution

in the context of human rights and his personal observations of

sex trafficking while serving in the military in East Germany .

8. Principal Martin provided R espondent with a written

Su mm ary of C onference that stated, Ð In the future, do not make

co mm ents to students that may cause them embarrassment or that

are unprofessional. My expectation is that you will treat

students with respect and follow the district guidelines

under 6.302 Employee Standards of Conduct and Code of Ethics for

Educators. Ñ

9. On May 2, 2011, P rincipal Martin gave Respondent a

L etter of C oncern for making co mm ents to a student that caused

embarrassment to the student w hen R espondent stated that,

Ð somebody cried about not getting their stupid PTO FCAT Goodie

bag Ñ and that Ð they were filled with cheap candy. Ñ The daughter

of the PTO president was in the class.

The 2011 - 2012 School Year

10. During the fall of 2011, Respondent was accused of

inappropriately touching students. 1/ As a result, on December 5,

2011, Re spondent was removed from the classroom at SMS and placed

on Temporary Duty Assignment at the School Board district office

pending an investigation into the allegations. In a letter from

Maurice Bonner, director of personnel, dated December 14, 2011,

R esp ondent was directed not to engage witnesses , their parents,

or potential witnesses during the open investigation.

11. While he was working at the district office, two co -

workers of Respondent overheard Respondent contact the parents of

one of the student witnesses involved in the investigation by

telephone to d iscuss the investigation. Also, during the

investigation , it was discovered that Respondent had taken

pictures of students when they were misbehaving in his class as a

means of disciplining those st udents.

12. On February 13, 2012, P rincipal Martin provided

Respondent a Letter of Reprimand for the violation of the

administrative directive (not to contact witnesses and parents

during a pending investigation) and inappropriately disciplining

students. This Letter of R eprimand reminded R espondent of his

previous counseling and Letter of C oncern and notified R espondent

that his f ailure to follow the prior direct ives or violation of

any other School B oard policy would result in more severe

disciplinary a ction being taken against him.

13 . In May 2012, Respondent received a three - day suspension

without pay for embarrassing students. Respondent is alleged to

have announced a student Ó s name in class and stated that he

(Respondent) was Ð just wasting red ink Ñ by grading the student Ó s

paper. Respondent does not deny the statement , but claims he

muttered it under his breath , and it was overheard by several

students.

14 . Respondent embarrassed another student by sharing

personal information about her family wit h the class. A

student Ó s mother had privately discussed with Respondent the fact

that her daughter might act out in class due to the distress she

was experiencing as a result of her parents Ó divorce. During a

classroom discussion about families, this stu dent made a co mm ent

that she had a Ð normal Ñ family . Respondent said to the student,

in front of the class, Ð I f you Ó re so normal , where is your

father? Ñ Respondent admits this was inappropriate behavior on

his part.

The 2012 - 2013 School Year

15 . On May 3 , 2013, Respondent was in the classroom of

another teacher for the purpose of providing additional teaching

assistance for several student s . On this date, the usual

classroom teacher was absent , and a substitute teacher was

present.

16. While walking aro und the classroom, Respondent observed

two students , M.M. and A . L . , engaged in a game of Ð slaps , Ñ in

which both students tried to hit each other Ó s hands. Respondent

directed M.M. to stop and asked why he was doing the game during

class time. M.M. respond ed that he was trying to cheer up A . L . ,

it felt good , and they liked playing the game. At this time ,

Respondent was approximately eight to ten feet away from M.M. who

was sitting at a desk.

17 . Respondent told M.M. that he didn Ó t care if it felt

good for M.M. to Ð jump off a bridge, Ñ it was not to go on in the

classroom and to get back to work. M.M. asked Respondent what he

meant and the two began to argue.

18 . Respondent approached M.M. and bent over him while M.M.

remained seated at his desk. Responde nt testified that he closed

the gap between him and M.M. when he felt M.M. told him to shut

up by saying Ð get out of my face . Ñ Respondent stated, Ð At that

point I decided I wasn Ó t going to let him push me around and I

decided to engage him. Ñ

19 . T he cred ible testimony from several of the student

witnesses was that Respondent approached M.M. and stood over him

and that M.M. repeatedly asked Respondent to Ð please, get out of

my face Ñ and to leave him alone. M.M. also cursed and used a

racial slur directed at Respondent. 2/

20 . Respondent told M.M. to get up and get out of the

classroom. When Respondent did not move away from looming over

M.M. , M.M. said something to the effect of Ð I don Ó t want to do

any of this. Ñ

21 . M.M. stood up , and he and Respondent w ere face to face,

only a few inches apart. M.M. told Respondent that he was a

grown man and that he was Ð acting like a bitch. Ñ Respondent

repeatedly mocked M.M. , yelling in his face, Ð Come on big man --

What are you going to do about it, hit me? Ñ and told M.M. to hit

him because it would Ð make my day. Ñ Respondent called M.M. a

coward several times when M.M. refused to hit Respondent and

backed away.

2 2 . While this was going on, the other students in the

classroom believed that Respondent and M.M. were goi ng to have a

physical fight , and they stood up, pushed the desks and chairs

back, and got out their cell phone s to take photos and video.

Several of the students began screaming and yelling. 3/

2 3 . M.M. left the classroom and continued to curse at

Respond ent as Respondent followed him to the Dean Ó s office.

During this altercation, the substitute teacher did not intervene

or attempt to help or contact the SMS office. Respondent admit s

that , once M.M. told Respondent to Ð get out of his face, Ñ

Respondent di d nothing to de - escalate the situation. To the

contrary, R espondent intentionally escalated the altercation.

According to Respondent, Ð He [ M.M. ] needed to be shown you can Ó t

tell an adult to shut up. Ñ Respondent testified that he believed

that he was te aching M.M. a Ð life lesson Ñ - Î that Ð you can Ó t engage

an adult and expect to get away with it. Ñ

2 4 . SMS has a protocol for handling belligerent students in

the classroom. Teachers receive training at the beginning of

each school year regarding the differen ce between classroom

managed behaviors and office managed behaviors. Teachers are

trained not to engage a belligerent student but rather to use the

buzzer which i s tied to the intercom or telephone , available in

every classroom , to notify the main office of the situation. In

response, s omeone from the trained management team will come to

the classroom to retrieve the student and bring them back to the

Dean Ó s office.

2 5 . As explained by P rincipal Martin, the purpose of

sending an adult from out of the cla ssroom to retrieve a

disruptive student is to minimize the possibility of harm to

either the student, teacher, or other students , and to allow a

Ð cooling off period Ñ while the misbehaving student is escorted to

the Dean Ó s office.

2 6 . During the altercatio n with M.M. , Respondent made no

effort to use the buzzer or the telephone or ask anyone else to

notify the office of the escalating situation. Respondent was

aware of the protocol but chose to ignore it. According to

R espondent, Ð [ M.M. ] wanted to intimid ate me and he failed and I

let him know about it. Ñ Respondent was purposely confrontational

and testified that he wanted to show M.M. that Respondent Ð was

not going to back down. Ñ Respondent disregarded the protocol

because he believed it would be ineffe ctive and he wanted to

teach M.M. a Ð humility lesson. Ñ

27 . Respondent Ó s explanation , that he thought using the

buzzer or telephone would be ineffective because sometimes the

buzzer does not work or he was blocked from reaching the buzzer

by M.M. , was not supported by credible evidence . Further it was

directly contradicted by Respondent Ó s explanation that he didn Ó t

contact the office because M.M. Ó s behavior problems likely

started in elementary school a nd that at this point, M.M. was not

responsive to Ð con ventional means of disciplining students. Ñ

28 . While the undersigned is sensitive to the difficulty

faced by teachers when dealing with confrontational and unruly

students, no rational justification was provided for Respondent Ó s

extreme and outrageous act of attempting to engage M.M. in a

fight and labeling him a coward in front of his peers.

Respondent Ó s actions were an unwarranted attempt to bully and

belittle a middle school student .

2 9 . In May 2013, Respondent received a letter from then

Superintende nt Michael Lannon advising Respondent that he was

reco mm ending him to the School Board for a ten - day suspension

without pay. During the S chool Board Ó s investigation and at the

final hearing of this matter, Respondent expressed no remorse

regarding his act ions towards M.M. and testified that , despite

knowing his actions constitute a violation of S chool Board

policies, he would do the same thing again.

30 . Respondent received all the necessary steps of

progressive discipline required by the collective barga ining

agreement between the parties prior to receipt of the

reco mm endation for the ten - day suspension without pay.

31 . As discussed in greater detail below, the School Board

proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged

in misconduct i n office in violation of rule 6A - 5.056(2).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

32 . DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter and

parties in this case, pursuant to section s 1012.33(6), 120.569 ,

and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2013). Pursuant to

section 120.65(11), th e School Board has contracted with DOAH to

conduct these hearings.

33 . Respondent Ó s substantial interests are affected by

suspension and termination of h is employment , and he has standing

to contest the School Board Ó s action. McIntyre v. Seminole Cnty.

S ch. Bd. , 779 So. 2d 639, 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

3 4 . The School Board seeks to suspend Respondent Ó s

employment for ten days without pay and has the burden of proving

the allegations set forth in the Petition by a preponderance of

the evidence, as opposed to the more stringent standard of clear

and convincing evidence applicable to the loss of a license or

certification. Cropsey v. Sch. Bd. of Manatee Cnty. , 19 So. 3d

351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) rev. denied , 29 So. 3d 1118 (Fla. 2010);

Cisneros v. Sch. Bd. of Miami - Dade Cnty. , 990 So. 2d 1179 (Fla.

3d DCA 2008).

3 5 . Pursuant to sections 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.33(6)(a),

Florida Statutes (2012), the School Board has the authority to

suspend or terminate employees under a professional services

contract for just c ause. Section 1012.33(1)(a) provides:

Just cause includes, but is not limited to,

the following instances as defined by rule of

the State Board of Education: i mm orality,

misconduct in office, incompetency . . .

gross insubordination, willful neglect of

d uty, or being convicted or found guilty of,

or entering a plea of guilty to, regardless

of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving

moral turpitude.

3 6 . According to the Petition, Respondent is charged in

this case with i mm orality and misconduct in offi ce.

3 7 . Whether Respondent co mm itted the charged offenses is a

question of ultimate fact to be decided by the trier - of - fact in

the context of each alleged violation. McKinney v. Castor , 667

So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston v. Jamerson , 653

S o. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

3 8 . Section 1001.02(1) , Florida Statutes, grants the State

Board of Education authority to adopt rules pursuant to

sections 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement provisions of law

conferring duties upon it.

I mm orality

3 9 . Consistent with this rulemaking authority, the State

Board of Education has defined Ð i mm orality Ñ to implement

section 1012.33(1).

40 . Rule 6A - 5.056 defines Ð i mm orality Ñ as follows:

[C]onduct that is inconsistent with the

standards of public conscience a nd good

morals. It is conduct that brings the

individual concerned or the education

profession into public disgrace or disrespect

and impairs the individual Ó s service in the

co mm unity.

4 1 . In the instant case, the School Board presented no

evidence esta blishing the applicable Ð standards of public

conscience and good morals Ñ with which Respondent Ó s behavior was

inconsistent. Lack of evidence establishing the Ð standards of

public conscience and good morals Ñ has been the basis for

reco mm ending dismissal of charges of i mm orality. See Miami - Dade

Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Swirsky - Nunez , Case No. 10 - 4143 (Fla. DOAH

May 16, 2012; Miami - Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. Dec. 19, 2012); Broward

Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Harris , Case No. 10 - 10094TTS (Fla. DOAH

Nov. 23, 2011; Broward Cnty. Sch. Bd. Feb. 7, 2012); Broward

Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Deering , Case No. 05 - 2842 (Fla. DOAH July 31,

2006).

4 2 . The undersigned concludes that evidence as to the

particular moral standards need not be introduced. It is

axiomatic that, by virtue of their leadershi p position, teachers

are traditionally held to a high moral standard in the co mm unity.

Adams v. Prof Ó l Practices Council , 406 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Fla.

1st DCA 1981). Teachers are expected to be leaders and role

models for students. Id. , See also Citrus C nty . Sch. Bd. v.

Stone , Case No. 13 - 3340 (Fla. DOAH Jan. 10, 2014; Citrus C nty .

Sch. Bd. April 8, 2014).

4 3 . Respondent acted contrary to the high moral standard

for teachers when he chose to challenge M.M. to hit him and then

called M.M. a Ð coward Ñ when he chose to walk away.

4 4 . However, it is not enough for Respondent Ó s conduct to

have been inconsistent with the standards of public conscience

and good morals. It must also be Ð conduct that brings the

individual concerned or the education profession int o public

disgrace or disrespect and impairs the individual Ó s service in

the co mm unity. Ñ Fla. Admin. Code R. 6A - 5.056(1).

4 5 . No evidence was introduced to demonstrate that

Respondent Ó s actions were ever the subject of public knowledge or

de bate . Althoug h the evidence and testimony indicates students

took photos and video recordings of the altercation, there was no

evidence that this material was placed on social media or was

disseminated to the public. Accordingly, t he evidence fails to

demonstrate that Respondent Ó s misrepresentations brought Ð public

disgrace or disrespect Ñ to Respondent or to the education

co mm unity.

4 6 . While Respondent Ó s actions are demeaning to the

teaching profession , and he lost the respect of his students, the

School Board offere d insufficient evidence to show that

Respondent Ó s actions impaired his service in the co mm unity.

4 7 . The School Board failed to prove by preponderance of

the evidence that Respondent Ó s conduct constituted i mm orality as

defined in rule 6A - 5.056.

Misconduct in Office

4 8 . Consistent with its rulemaking authority, the State

Board of Education has defined Ð misconduct in office Ñ in

r ule 6A - 5.056(2), which reads in pertinent part as follows:

(2) Ò Misconduct in Office Ó means one or more

of the following:

(a) A violation of the Code of Ethics of the

Education Profession in Florida as adopted in

Rule 6B - 1.001, F.A.C.;

(b) A violation of the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in

Rule 6B - 1.006, F.A.C. ;

(c) A vi olation of the adopted school board

rules;

(d) Behavior that disrupts the stu d ent Ó s

learning environment; or

(e) Behavior that reduces the teacher Ó s

ability or his or her colleagues Ó ability to

effectively perform duties.

49 . Florida Administrative C ode Rule 6B - 1.001, renumbered

without change as rule 6A - 1 0.080, Code of Ethics , provides:

(1) The educator values the worth and

dignity of every person, the pursuit of

truth, devotion to excellence, acquisition of

knowledge, and the nurture of democratic

citizenship. Essential to the achievement of

these standards are the freedom to learn and

to teach and the guarantee of equal

opportunity for all.

(2) The educator Ó s primary professional

concern will always be for the student and

for the development of the student Ó s

potential. The educator will therefore

strive for professional growth and will seek

to exercise the best professional judgment

and integrity.

(3) Aware of the importance of maintaining

the respect and confidence of one Ó s

colleagues, of stu dents, of parents, and of

other members of the co mm unity, the educator

strives to achieve and sustain the highest

degree of ethical conduct.

50 . Rule 6B - 1.006, renumbered without change as

rule 6A - 10.081, sets forth the Principles of Professional

Conduct . The School Board alleges that Respondent violated

section (3)(a) of the rule, which reads as follows:

(3) Obligation to the student requires that

the individual:

(a) Shall make reasonable effort to protect

the student from conditions harmful to

learn ing and/or to the student Ó s mental

and/or physical health and/or safety.

5 1 . The School Board demonstrated by a preponderance of the

evidence that Respondent violated the Code of Ethics and the

Principles of Professional Conduct. Respondent clearly fail ed to

use his best professional judgment and integrity during his

altercation with M.M. By attempting to bait M.M. into a physical

fight, Respondent lost the respect and confidence of his students

as evidenced by the pandemonium that took place in the cla ssroom

during the altercation.

5 2 . Respondent Ó s choice, to forgo SMS Ó s protocol for

handling disruptive students and instead attempt to teach M.M. a

Ð life lesson Ñ in Ð humility, Ñ created conditions harmful to

learning and to M.M. and his classmates Ó mental and physical

health and safety. It is notable that the other students in the

classroom clearly anticipated a physical fight and felt it

necessary to push back the tables and chairs to prevent injury.

5 3 . Respondent Ó s actions fall squarely within the

def inition of Ð misconduct in office Ñ because they severely

disrupted the students Ó learning environment and dramatically

reduced Respondent Ó s ability to effectively perform his duties.

5 4 . School B oard P olicy 6.301 (3)(b) provides a list of

typical infraction s that warrant disciplinary action which

includes the following provisions with which Respondent was

charged:

(i) insubordination;

(ix) abusive or discourteous conduct or

language to supervisors, employees, students,

visitors, or vendors;

(xix) violat ion of any rule, policy,

regulation, or established procedure;

(xxix) any violation of the code of ethics

of the education profession, the principles

of professional conduct for the education

profession, the standards of competent and

professional perfor mance, or the code of

ethics for public officers and employees; and

(xxxi) inappropriate or disparaging remarks

to or about students or exposing the student

to unnecessary embarrassment or

disparagement.

5 5 . On four separate occasions during the preced ing two

school years, Respondent received counseling and increasing

levels of discipline for subjecting students to unnecessary

embarrassment or disparagement. Respondent was notified that

future subsequent similar behavior would result in additional

disc ipline , and he was instructed to refrain from making

embarrassing or disparaging remarks to or about students.

Respondent categorizes his own actions on May 3, 2013, as an

intentional effort to humiliate M.M. In light of Respondent Ó s

past disciplinary hi story, this constitutes insubordination and a

violation of School Board P olicy 6.301(3)(b)(i).

5 6 . As discussed in greater detail above, Respondent Ó s

actions toward M.M. were certainly discourteous, if not abusive.

Respondent Ó s decision to Ð engage Ñ M.M. , rather than utilize SMSÓ s

establish protocol of contacting the office for assistance,

violates S chool B oard P olicy 6.301(3)(b)(ix) and (xix).

5 7 . By knowingly attempting to humiliate and

embarrass M.M. , R espondent violated the C ode of E thics and the

P rin ciples of the P rofession, thus also violating S chool B oard

P olicy 6.301(3)(b)(xxix) and (xxxi).

5 8 . The School Board proved that Respondent is guilty of

misconduct in office as defined in rule 6A - 5.056(2). In light of

this serious violation, Respondent Ó s prior disciplinary history

for embarrassing and humiliating students, and his refusal to

acknowledge any wrongdoing regarding his actions on May 3, 2013,

the School Board has just cause to suspend Respondent for ten

days without pay.

RECO MM ENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECO MM ENDED that the St. Lucie County School Board

enter a final order finding William D o ran guilty of misconduct in

office, suspending his employment without pay for a period of ten

school d ays , and placing him on probation for a period of one

year.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1 9 th day of August , 2014 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

MARY LI CREASY

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearin gs

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 1 9 th day of August , 2014 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ The allegations of touching were determined by SMS to be

unfounded.

2/ M.M. received a five - day out of school suspension from school

for using profanity and a racial slur directed at Respondent

during the May 3 altercation.

3 / Respondent can be heard on the video tape of the altercation

(Petitioner Ó s Ex. 8) taunting M.M. that he is a Ð big man Ñ and

calling him a Ð coward. Ñ Another student is heard yelling at

Respondent, Ð You can Ó t do that to a kid. He ain Ó t your

children. Ñ

COPIES FURNISHED:

Thomas L. J ohnson, Esquire

Law Office of Thomas Johnson, P .A.

510 Vonderburg Drive , Suite 309

Brandon, Florida 33511

Elizabeth Coke, Esquire

Richeson and Coke, P.A.

Post Office Box 4048

Fort Pierce, Florida 34948

Genelle Zoratti Yost, Superintendent

St. Lucie Cou nty School Board

4204 Okeechobee Road

Fort Pierce, Florida 34947

Lois S. Tepper, Interim General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

Pam Stewart

Commissioner of Educatio n

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Reco mm end ed Order. Any exceptions

to this Reco mm ended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.