17-003806TTS Duval County School Board vs. Stephanie Stripling-Mitchell Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, December 12, 2017.

Summary: The School Board demonstrated just cause to impose a 10-day suspension against Respondent's employment as a teacher.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 3806TTS

STEPHANIE STRIPLING - MITCHELL,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On October 4 , 2017, Administrative Law Judge Yolonda Y.

Green, of the Division of Ad ministrative Hearings (ÐDOAH Ñ),

conducted a duly - noticed final hearing in Jacksonville, Florida,

pursuant to 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2017).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Derrel Q. Chatmon, Esquire

Tracey Kort Parde, E squire

Office of General Counsel

City of Jacksonville

117 West Duval Street, Suite 480

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

For Respondent: James C. Poindexter, Esquire

Delegal Law Offices, P.A.

424 East Monroe Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated

the Princ iples of Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as alleged in the letter from Duval County

School Board dated May 25, 2017; and, if so, the appropriate

disciplinary action.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated May 25 , 2017, Petitioner, Duval County

School Board (ÐPetitionerÑ or ÐSchool BoardÑ), provided

Respondent, Stephanie Stripling - Mitchell (ÐRespondentÑ or

ÐMs. Stripling - Mitchell Ñ), with a n otice of Step III Progressive

Discipline - Reprimand and Suspension Without Pay (ÐNoticeÑ). The

Notice alleged Ms. Stripling - Mitchell exercised poor judgment by

placing her hand and arm against student J.K.Ós ( ÐJ.K. or Ðthe

studentÑ) throat and pinning him against a wall, after the

student swung a laptop at her on April 20, 2017. On the basis of

that alleged conduct, Petitioner alleged that Respondent violated

se ction 1012.33(1 )(a), Florida Statutes, and F lorida

Administrative Code Rule 6A - 10.081(1)(b) and (2)(a)1.

The Notice informed Ms. Stripling - Mitchell of her right to a

hearing to contest the allegations in the Notice. On June 26,

2017 , Respondent timely fil ed a Petition for Administrative

H earing to dispute the allegations in the Notice and challenge

the disciplinary action .

On July 3 , 2017, the School Board referred this case to DOAH

for assignment to an administrative law judge. This matter was

initially assigned to Administrative Law Judge Suzanne Van Wyk ,

who issued a Notice of Hearing scheduling this matter for

August 25, 2017 . On August 16, 2017, this matter was transferred

to the undersigned. On August 17, 2017, Petitioner filed an

Unopposed Motion to Continue the Scheduled He aring Due to

Unavailability of a Witness, which the undersigned granted. The

final hearing was rescheduled for September 13, 2017. On

September 13, 2017, Petitioner filed an Unopposed Emergency

Motion to Continue the Scheduled Hearing D ue to Hurricane Irma ,

which the undersigned granted. The final hearing was rescheduled

for October 4, 2017.

T he hearing convened on October 4, 2017, as scheduled. At

the final hearing, Petitioner presented t he testimony of four

witnesses: James Gregory , an investigator for the Office of

Equity and Inclusion/Professional Standards (ÐOffice of

Professional StandardsÑ) for the School Board; Tanzania Jones, a

Team - Up instructor; Augena Sapp , the p rincipal at Hyde Grove

Learning Center (ÐHyde GroveÑ) within the School Board system;

and Sonita D. Young, the assistant superintendent of Employee

Services for the School Board. P etitioner offered Exhibits 1

through 7 , 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 23 , which were admitted in to

evidence without objection; and P etitionerÓs Exhibit 18 , which

was admitted over objection. Respondent testified on her own

behalf and offered Exhibit s 1 through 7, which were admitted into

evidence . The parties stipulated to PetitionerÓs Exhibit 20,

which was admitted as Joint Exhibit 1.

A one - volume Transcript of the hearing was filed by the

court reporter on O ctober 30 , 2017 . On October 31, 2017,

Respondent filed a copy of the transcript. The ti me to file the

proposed recommended orders was calculated from the date

Respondent filed the Transcript, extending the time frame for the

partie s to file proposed recommended o rders (ÐPROsÑ) to

November 13, 2017 . 1 / T he parties timely filed PRO s, which have

been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

On November 14, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend

PetitionerÓs PRO, which the undersigned has granted.

This proceeding is governed by the law in effect at the time

of the commissi on of the acts alleged to warrant discipline.

See McCloskey v. DepÓt of Fin. Servs. , 115 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th

DCA 2013). Thus, references to statutes are to Florida Statutes

(2016 ).

FINDING S OF FACT

Background

1. Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to

operate , control, and supervise the system of public schools in

Duval County, Florida. Ar t. IX, § (4)(b), Fla. Const.;

§ 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has the authority to discipline

instructional staff and other school employees. § 1012.22(1)(f),

Fla. Stat.

2. Ms. Stripling - Mitch ell is a teacher covered by the

Collective Bargaining Agreement (ÐCBAÑ) between Duval Teachers

United and the Duval County School Board for 2014 - 2017.

3. At all times material to this matter, Respon dent was a

teacher assigned to Hyde Grove . During the 2016 - 20 17 school

year, Respondent was assigned to teach second - grade students.

4. As a classroom teacher, Respondent was expected to

comply with the 2016 - 2017 staff handbook which required st aff

members to strive to achieve ethical conduct and to familiarize

themselves with the Code of Ethics. Teachers are trained to

avoid touching students aggressively and to avoid leaving

students unsupervised .

5. The staff handbook provide s that students should not be

left unsupervised in a classroom or other area. The policy also

provides that no student should be sent to the playground without

teacher supervision.

6 . Ms. Sapp, the principal of Hyde Grove, provided training

to the staff during pre - planning training and orientation week.

One of those trainings was on Ethics and Professionalism . The

training in - service record reflects that Respondent completed the

training.

7. During the training, Ms. Sapp provided guidelines for

interaction with students and demonstrate d the training

principles. To avoid aggressive touching of students, she gave

examples as follows: Ð[i ] f a student falls down to the floor,

po uting, as children would do, . . . basically ask for them to

get up, but, rule of thumb, just not to put your hands on the

student.Ñ

8. Ms. Sapp testified that teachers could exercise various

strategies to diffuse a situation with a student engaged in

disruptive behavior . Teachers are t rained to create distance

between the child who is being disruptive and the adult , until

someone else could remove that child. Another strategy is to

transfer the disruptive student to the partner - teacher for time -

out. A teacher could also send the classroom partner for help or

call the administration for assistance. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell

tes tified that her partner - teacher, Ms. Hinton, was absent on the

day of the incident so she did not use that strategy. However,

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell did not otherwise use any of the suggested

strategies during the incident with the student .

9. The facts that serve as the basis for this case occurred

in April 2017. On April 20, 2017 , at approximately 2:45 p.m.,

classes were preparing for afternoon dismissal. At around the

same time, Ms. Jones, the Team - Up instructor arrived at the

classroom she shared with Ms. Stripling - Mi tchell. Team - Up is an

after - school program that provides academic enrichment, a rts and

crafts, and ho me work assistance. The Team - Up program operate s

from 2:55 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. each day.

10. As she entered the class room , Ms. Jones saw

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell talking to students to prepare them for

dismissal.

11. The students were working on the iReady program using

laptops. Respondent was working with three students who were

seated in the back left corner of the classroom. Ms. Jones

noticed that J.K. was being non compliant with Ms. Stripling -

MitchellÓs requests to continue working on the iReady program .

12. As a result of the disruptive behavior, Ms. Stripling -

Mitchell directed the student to return his laptop to the laptop

cart and leave her classroom . The student continued to be

disruptive and stated that h e was not going to leave.

Ms. Jones heard Ms. Stripling - Mitchell say, Ð[ l ]et me help you

out with i t , Ñ and Ms. Stripling - Mitchell led the student by his

left arm to the front of the classroom. Ms. Jones also heard the

student say, Ð[n ]o . I didnÓt do anything. Get your hands off

me.Ñ

13. While the student walked with Respondent side by side,

he continued to resist. When the two arrived at the front of the

class room, the student turned and faced Respondent.

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell bent over toward the studentÓs face. H er

face was a few inches from the student Ós . Ms. Jones saw

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell pointing and waving her finger in the

student Ó s face while saying, "[w ]hat did your mother tell you?

Didn't she tell you to respect me? I'm going to call your mother

and she's going to beat your butt."

14. Ms. Jones tes timony about this statement is different

in h er written statement, which states, Ð [M ]s. Stripling - Mitchell

said, What did your mother tell you about being disruptive? What

did your mother tell you about being disrespectful to me? I am

going to call your mother and tell her everything you have done

here today so she can get on you r butt!Ñ Ms. Jones was at the

back of the room, near the sink, on the opposite side of the room

from Ms. Stripling - Mitchell and the student. Although the

statements are diffe re nt, the difference is of minor

significance. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Stripling -

Mitchell th reatened to call the studentÓ s parent while she and

J.K. were at the front of the classroom and in front of other

students.

15. The student in turn yelled at Respon dent to get out of

his face. A t the same time, he raised the laptop above his head

and sw ung it at Ms. Stripling - Mitchell . Respondent blocked the

laptop and took it from the student. The student then attempted

to punch Ms. Stripling - Mitch ell . S he dropped the laptop and

blocked his punch.

16. Although Ms. Jones witnessed the events, she had not

intervene d to assist Ms. Stripling - Mitchell at this point .

Ms. Jones contacted the administration office two times, but the

teachers did not receive assis tance in the classroom. After

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell struggled with the student, she restrai ned

him against one of the two dry - erase board s using her hand and

forearm . Ms . Stripling - Mitchell was directly facing the student

with her back to the classroom , and the studentÓs back was

against the dry - erase board. Ms. Jones testified that

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell and the student continued to argue and

they moved along the dry - erase board laterally , for approximately

eight feet .

17. Ultimately , Ms. Jones separated Ms. Stripling - Mitchell

and the student. M s. Jones walked the student to Ms. SappÓs

office . During the walk to the principalÓs office, the student

complained of short ness of breath and was breathing heavily .

18. Ms. Sapp was notified that a student was in her office

and there was an issue she needed to address. Ms. Sapp testified

that when she initially saw the student , he was crying, huffing

and puffing , and breathing hard . When Ms. Sapp asked what

happened, the student told Ms. Sapp that Ms. Stripling - Mitchell

placed her hands aroun d his throat and that he could no t breathe.

19. After J.K. told h is account of the incident,

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell arrived in the office. Ms. Sapp then met

with J.K. and Ms. Stripling - Mitchell . During the meeting, J.K.

repeated that Ms. Stri pling - Mitchell choked him. Ms. Stripling -

Mitchell interrupted J.K . and engaged him in reenactment of the

incident. T he reenactment consisted of Ms. Stripling - Mitchell

demonstrating how she restrained the student using her hand near

his neck. Ms. Sapp then stopped the reenactment and asked the

student to wait outside her office.

20. Ms. Sapp told Ms. Stripling - Mitchell she should not

touch the children , and Ms. Stripling acknowledged in agreement

this was the school policy. Ms. Sapp testified that it was

unaccepta ble for Ms. Str ipling - Mitchell to instruct the student

to leave her class and go sit at the picnic bench without

supervision. Ms. Sap p finished her meeting with Ms. Stripling -

Mitchell , and Ms. Stripling - Mitchell returned to her classroom .

21. Before Ms. Sapp met with J.K. and Ms. Stripling -

Mitchell , she contacted the O ffice of Professional Standards for

guidance regarding the appropriate next step. Ms. Sapp was

advised to obtain statemen ts regarding the incident. Ms. Sapp

later asked Ms. Jones to send students who had knowledge of the

incident to her office. After speaking with the students,

Ms. Sapp asked the students to writ e statements about the

incident as requested by the Office of Professional Standards.

The statements were provided to the inves tigator conducting the

invest igation of the allegations, Mr. Gregory.

22. Mr. Gregory col lected the written statements and

interviewed five students t he day following the incident.

Overall, the students provided varied descriptions of what

happened. Mr. Gregory also cond ucted an interview of Ms. Jones ,

a portion of which occurred in the classroom, and requested that

she provide a written statement.

23. In addition to obtaining witness statements,

Mr. Gregory researched Ms. Stripling - MitchellÓ s discipline

history . He discovered that Ms. Stripling - Mitchell had been the

subject of prior investigations that re sulted in disciplinary

action.

24. On May 18, 2012, Ms. Stripling - Mitchell was

investigated for use of profanity, dem eaning, and derogatory

communication directed toward employees. She was issued a

written reprimand , a Step II disciplinary action.

25. In December 2016, Ms. Stripling - Mitchell was involved

in an incident with a different student that is of direct

relevance to this proceeding . In that incident, a parent

complained about Ms. Stripling - MitchellÓs interaction with their

child. It was determined that during an interaction with a

disruptiv e student, Respondent pushed that student to the floor

and verb ally reprimanded him in front of other students. The

incident resulted in the child being subject to embarrassment and

physical aggression. On January 9, 2017, Ms. Stripling - Mitchell

w as issued a written reprimand, her second Step II disciplinary

action. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell was also directed to seek

assistance from the Employee Assistance Program (ÐEAPÑ) to obtain

training on strategies for deescalating situations.

26. After the interviews an d review of the statements,

Mr. Gregory concluded that Ms. Stripling - Mitchell used

inappropriate physical contact with J.K. by restraining him

against the wall with her hand and arm against his throat, after

J.K. swung the laptop at her.

27. Although not specifically alleged in the Notice, there

was a dispute whether the student was choked.

28. Ms. Jones testified that Ms. Stripling - Mitchell choked

the student during the incident. However, she did not mention

choking in her written statement. At hearing, Ms. Jones was

confronted with a text message addressing that issue. The texts

were as follows:

Ms. Striplin g - Mitchell: I was told that

Ms . Timberlake planned or plans to call DCF

or someone since J.K. told her I choked him

that why he tried to hit me. LIES!!

Ms. Jones: What!!! ThatÓs a freaking

lie!!! You did not choke him!!!

Ms. JonesÓ testimony regarding Ms. Stripling - Mitchell choking

J.K. was not credible .

29. There was also a disp ute regarding whether

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell raised her fist toward the student.

Ms. Jones testified Ms. Stripling - Mitchell raised her fi st and

threatened to strike the student. Ms. J ones did not mention this

allegation in her written statement provided days after the

incident. Ms. Jones also did not mention this alleged

observation when Mr. Gregory interviewed her. Ms. Stripling -

Mitchell testified that she did not raise her fist to strike J.K.

30. The student provided a statement describing the

inc ident in his own words. He indicated that Ms. Stripling -

Mitchell placed her hand on his neck. There was no reference in

the studentÓs statement that Ms. Stripling - Mitchell tried to

punch him.

31. S everal other stude nts provided written statements

which also did not include any indication that Ms. S t ripling -

Mitchell raised her fist toward the student.

32. The undersigned finds no credible evidence that

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell raised her fist to strike the student.

33. There was much disc ussion at hearing regarding the

description and behavioral history of the student .

34. Ms. Jones described the student as a seven - year - old ,

scrawny boy , standing at four f ee t , nine in ches . S he also stated

that the student could be sweet , but could be provoked Ðif thi n gs

donÓt go his way, if you threaten him or when the children . . .

play a game called Ðthe dozens. Ñ 2/

35. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell , on the other hand, described

the student as routinely disruptive and non compliant with staff.

Between October 2016 and April 2017, J.K. engage d in conduct that

resulted in six referral s . The referrals i nvolved pushing

another student, attempting to trip a student multiple times ,

stabbing a student in the arm with a pencil , and fighting . T he re

were no referrals that involved a confrontation with a teacher .

36. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell provided her account of the

incident at hearing.

37. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell testified that she became the

studentÓs teacher in August 2016. Shortly after he became her

student, she became aware of his disruptive behavior.

Ms. Stripl ing - Mitchell had a practice of telling J.K., Ð [I ] Óm

going to call your mom if you donÓt settle down, Ñ to encou rage

him to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior.

38. On April 20, 2017, Respondent was working with three

students on the iReady syste m when she heard someone say Ð[t ]he

folder hit me.Ñ When she approached a group of three boys ,

including J.K., one student said, ÐJ.K. just hit me with a

folder.Ñ Ms. Stripling - Mitchell instructed the boys to get back

to work. Before she returned to her s eat, she heard someone say

ÐStop.Ñ She then returned to J.K. and told him, Ð [ y ] ouÓre going

to need to go sit on the picnic table.Ñ J.K. agreed to return to

the iReady activity. However, a short time later, Ms. Stripling -

Mitchell heard a loud yell from o ne of the boys at J.K.Ós table.

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell then repeated to J.K., Ð [y] ouÓre going to

have to leave.Ñ

39. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell recalls that Ms. Jones arrived

and sat at a table in the opposite corner of the room and began

changing her shoes . During this time, Ms. Stripling - Mitchel l

continued to engage in a back - and - forth exchange with J.K.

40. Similar to Ms. Jones Ó acc ount of the incident, J.K.

swung the laptop at Ms. Stripling - Mitchell and she blocked it.

Then, J.K. tried to punch her, which she also blocked.

41. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell testified that after she blocked

his punch, J.K. continued to attack her by tryi ng to thro w her to

the floor. She testified that she had to restrain him against

the dry - erase board to avoid falling.

42. It is disputed whether the student continued to attack

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell after she took the laptop and blocked his

punch . Ms. Jones testified the student was not attacking

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell, but rather he was trying to get away

while Ms. Stripling - Mitchell was restraining him. On the other

hand, Ms. Stripling - Mitchell testified that the student was

trying to ÐflipÑ her, which is why she restrain ed him. The

undersigned finds Ms. JonesÓ testimony more credible.

43. After J.K.Ós failed attempt to punch her, there was no

evidence of a threat for which Ms. Stripling - Mitchell needed to

defend herself . Even if there was a threat, Ms. Stripling -

Mitchell inappropriately touched J.K. by restraining him against

the dry - erase board using her hand against his neck area.

Ultimate Findings of Fact

44. Overall, the credible evidence demonstrates that

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell restr ained the student against the dry -

erase board using her hand near his neck.

45. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she

told the student that his mother was going to discipline him at

home for his behavior in front of other students .

46. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell exercised poor judgment when she

instructed the student to leave her classroom to sit at the

picnic bench.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Jurisdiction

47 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of

the parties thereto pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and

1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2017).

B. Standards

48 . Sect ion 1012.22(1) provides, in part, that a district

school board shall Ð[d]esignate positions to be filled, prescribe

qualifications for those positions, and provide for the

appointment, compensation, promotion, suspension, and dismissal

of employees . . . , subject to th e requirements of [chapter

1012].Ñ

49. The School Board has the authority to suspend

instruc tional employees pursuant to sections 1012.22(1)(a ) and

1012.33(6)(a) .

50 . Respondent is an instructional employee of Petitioner

pursuant to the authority of section 1012.33.

51 . Teachers are held to a higher moral standard than

others in the community because they are leaders and role models.

See Adams v. State ProfÓl Practices Council , 406 So. 2d 1170,

1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

52 . Section 1012.33 (6)(a) provide s that the standard for

suspension of instructional personnel is "just cause," which

includes misconduct in office as defined by rule of the State

Board of Education.

53 . S ection 1012.33 provides, in pertinent part:

(1)(a) Just cause includes, but is not

limited to, the following instances, as

defined by rule of the State Board of

Education: immorality, misconduct in

office, incompe tency, two consecutive annual

performance evaluation ratings of

unsatisfactory under section 1012.34, two

annual performance evaluation ratings of

unsatisfactory within a 3 - year period under

section 1012.34, three consecutive annual

performance evaluation ratings of needs

improvement or a combination of needs

improvement and unsatisfactory under s ection

1012.34, gross insubordination, willful

neglect of duty, or being convicted or found

guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to,

regardless of adjudication of guilt, any

crime involving moral turpitude.

* * *

(6)(a) Any member of the instructional

staff, excluding an employee specified in

subsection (4), may be suspended or

dismissed at any time during the term of the

contract for just cause as provided in

paragraph (1)(a).

54 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 5.056 establishes

and further defines the criteria for suspension and dismissal of

school person nel. S ubs ection (2) of the rule , in relevant part,

provides that:

(2) ÐMisconduct in OfficeÑ 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 6A - 10.080, F.A.C.;

(b) A violation of the Principles of

Professional Conduct for the Education

Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6A -

10.081, F.A.C.;

(c) A violation of the adopted school board

rules;

(d) Behavior that disrupts the studentÓs

learning environment; or

(e) Behavior that reduces the teacherÓs

ability or his or her colleaguesÓ ability to

effectively perform duties.

55. Rule 6A - 10.081 Principles of Professional Conduct for

the Education Profession in Florida , in relevant part , provides

that :

(1) Florida educators shall be guided by

the following ethical principles:

* * *

(b) The educatorÓs primary professional

concern will always be for the student and

for the development of the studentÓs

potential. The educator will therefore

strive for professional growth and will seek

to exercise the best professional judgment

and integrity.

* * *

(2) Florida educators shall comply with the

fol lowing disciplinary principles.

Violation of any of these principles shall

subject the individual to revocation or

suspension of the individual educatorÓs

certificate, or the other penalties as

provided by law .

(a) Obligation to the student requires that

the individual:

1. Shall make reasonable effort to protect

the student from conditions harmful to

learning and/or to the studentÓs mental

and/or physical health and/or safety.

C. The Burden and Standard of Proof

56 . Petitioner seeks to terminate Respondent's employment,

which does not involve the loss of a license or certification.

Thus, Petitioner has the burden of proving the allegations in its

N otice by a preponderance of the evidence. Cropsey v. Sch. Bd.

of Manat ee Cnty. , 19 So. 3d 351, 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Cisneros

v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. , 990 So. 2d 1179, 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA

2008); McNeill v. Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd. , 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla.

2d DCA 1996); Allen v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. , 571 So. 2d 568,

569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty. , 569 So.

2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

57. The preponderance of the evidence standard Ðis defined

as Òthe greater weight of the evidence,Ó Black's Law Dictionary

1201 (7th ed. 1999), or evidence that Òmore likely than notÓ

tends to prove a certain proposition.Ñ Gross v. Lyons , 763 So.

2d 276, 289 n.1 (Fla. 2000). See also Haines v. DepÓt of Child.

& Fams. , 983 So. 2d 602, 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

58 . The N otice of recommendation of termination alleg ed

that Respondent engaged in an incident of Ð placing [her] hand and

arm against a studentÓs throat and pinning him against a wall . Ñ

Thus, the scope of this proceeding is properly restricted to

those matters as framed by Petitioner. M.H. v. DepÓt of Chil d. &

Fam. Servs. , 977 So. 2d 755, 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

59 . The evidence established that Ms. Stripling - Mitchell

res trained a student against a dry - erase board in a classroom

full of st udents. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell did not exercise

reasonable efforts to protect the student from conditions harmful

to his physical health and mental health when she restrained the

student , which resulted in him crying and being unable to

breathe. Ms. Stripling - Mit chellÓs actions also demonstrated her

failure to exercise the best professional judgment when she

restrained the student in front of other students and instructed

the student to leave the classroom and go to an unsupervised

area.

60. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell argued that the student

attacked her with a laptop and attempted to punch her , so she

was defending herself. She also argued that the school did not

properly train her to deal with a student when attacked.

However, the evidence does no t demonstrate that Ms. Stripling -

Mitchell was under attack whe n she held J.K. against the dry -

erase bo ard and continued to struggle with him. After she

removed the lap top and avoided the attempted punch,

Ms. Stripling - Mitchell engaged in inappropriate con duct when she

continued to struggle with the student.

61. Ms. Stripling - Mitchell exercised poor judgment. She

also did not make a reasonable effort to protect the student

from conditions harmful to the studentÓs physical health and

safety.

62 . Articl e V. C. 1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement,

the Progressive Discipline Policy, provides as follows, in

relevant part:

The following progressive steps must be

followed in administering discipline, it

being understood, however, that some more

severe a cts of misconduct may warrant

circumventing the established procedure:

a. Verbal Reprimand

1. No written conference summary is placed

in personnel file

2. Employees must be told that a verbal

reprimand initiates the discipline process

b. Written Reprimand

c. Suspension without Pay

d. Termination

63 . Without question , Ms. Stripling - Mitchell violated r ule

6A - 10.081(1)(b) and (2)(a)1 . in such a manner that warrants

disciplinary action consistent with the progressive discipline

policy.

64. I n January 2017, Ms. Stripling - Mitchell r eceived a

written reprimand for conduct similar to the facts in this

matter. The next step in the Progressive Discipline Policy is

suspension without pay . Based on the foregoing, the appropriate

disciplinary action for Ms. Stripling - Mitchell Ós conduct is

suspe nsion without pay for 10 days.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Duval County School

Board, enter a final order sustaining the Step III written

reprimand and suspension without pay disciplinary action imposed

against Respondent, Stephanie Stripling - Mitchell, as an

instructional employee of the School Board.

DONE AND EN TERED this 12th day of December, 2017 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

YOLONDA Y. GREEN

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 12th day of December , 2017 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28 - 106.103 .

2/ The dozens is a game where the participants exchange humorous

insults .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Derrel Q. Chatmon, Esquire

Tracey Kort Parde, Esquire

Office of General Counsel

City of Jacksonville

117 West Duval Street , Suite 480

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

(eServed)

James C. Poindexter, Esquire

Delegal Law Offices, P.A.

424 East Monroe Street

Jacksonvi lle, Florida 32202

(eServed)

Dr. Patricia Willis, Superintendent

Duval County Public Schools

1701 Prudential Drive

Jacksonville, Florida 32207 - 8152

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Pam Stewart

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.