19-006177 Palm Beach County School Board vs. William Latson Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, August 13, 2020.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent engaged in misconduct in office, incompetence, or gross insubordination by a preponderance of the evidence. No just cause for his suspension or termination exists, but a reprimand and reassignment are warranted.

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

The issue is whether Respondent’s employment with Petitioner as a high

school principal should be terminated.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On October 11, 2019, Donald E. Fennoy, II, Ed.D., Petitioner’s

(“Petitioner” or “School Board”) superintendent of schools, issued a Notice of

Recommendation for Termin ation of Employment. The letter informed

Respondent (“Respondent” or “Dr. Latson”) that at the School Board’s October 30, 2019, meeting, the superintendent would recommend

Respondent’s suspension without pay and the termination of his employment.

The lette r further informed Respondent that he could appeal the

superintendent’s recommendation through the School Board’s grievance

procedure or by submitting a request for a hearing before DOAH and, if no

grievance or request for hearing was filed by November 20, 2019, the

termination would become effective on November 21, 2019. If a grievance or

request for hearing was filed, the termination would be stayed and suspension without pay would remain in effect pending appeal. On

October 30, 2019, the School Board ado pted the superintendent’s

recommendations to suspend Respondent without pay and to terminate

his employment. The stated basis for the superintendent’s action was

that just cause existed for Respondent to be disciplined pursuant to

sections 1012.22(1)(f) an d 1012.27(5), Florida Statutes ; School

Board P olicies 1.013 and 3.27 ; and Florida Administrative Code

Rules 6A - 5.056(3)(a) (Incompetency) and 6A - 5.046(2) (Misconduct in Office).

Respondent timely requested a hearing and the case proceeded to hearing.

The parties filed a Pre - T rial Stipulation of the Parties (p re - h earing

s tipulation in DOAH terminology ) on January 24, 2020. At hearing,

Petitioner offered the testimony of Dr. Latson, Dr. Fennoy, Dr. Glenda

Sheffield, Mr. Keith Oswald, and Ms. Vicki Evans - Paré , and introduced

Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 37, all of which were admitted into evidence.

Respondent offered the testimony of Dr. Latson, Ms. Lisa Core, Dr. Arthur

Johnson, Ms. Shari Fox, Ms. Rachel Ostrow, Ms. Bettina Hoffman, Mr. Aaron

Ryan Wells, M r. Robert Pinkos, Dr. Ben Marlin, and Ms. Mara Goron, and

introduced Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 51, all of which were admitted

into evidence. All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2019 version in

effect at the time of the matters relevant to t hese proceedings.

On June 5, 2020, the parties submitted proposed recommended orders,

containing F indings of F act and C onclusions of L aw, and, in the case of

Respondent, a post - hearing brief as well. These post - hearing submittals have

been duly considered in this Recommended Order. Respondent also filed a

Motion for ALJ to Wait at Least Thirty Days Before Issuing a Ruling on the

Merits, to Allow for Petitioner to Withdraw Its Petition or for Respondent to

File a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to F.S. §57.105. The undersigned granted this Motion on June 17, 2020, but the Motion became moot with Respondent’s Notice of Mootness being filed on July 6, 2020.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

1. Beginning in 2011, Respondent was employed by Petitioner as the

principal of Sp anish River High School (“SRHS”).

2. As the principal of SRHS, Respondent was required to “perform such

duties as may be assigned by the district school superintendent pursuant to

the rules of the school board, [including] rules relating to administrative

responsibility, instructional leadership in implementing the Sunshine State Standards and the overall educational program of the school to which the

principal is assigned.” § 1012.28(5), Fla. Stat.; Palm Beach Sch. Bd.

Policy 1.014.

3. The educational prog ram which principals are charged with

implementing is defined by Florida law. Section 1003.42(1), Florida Statutes ,

requires school boards to provide “all courses required for middle school

promotion, high school graduation, and appropriate instruction des igned to

meet State Board of Education adopted standards [in the subject areas of

reading and other language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign

languages, health and physical education, and the arts].”

4. Additionally, the State of Florida requires “members of the

instructional staff of the public schools” to teach certain specified subjects

“using books and materials that meet the highest standards for

professionalism and historical accuracy.” § 1003.42, Fla. Stat. These

specifically requi red teachings, which are defined and described in varying

degrees of detail, include: the “history of the state”; “conservation of natural

resources”; “the elementary principles of agriculture” ; “flag education,

including proper flag display and flag salut e”; the “study” of Hispanic and

women’s contributions to society; kindness to animals; the “history and

content of the Declaration of Independence, including national sovereignty …

and how [these concepts] form the philosophical foundation of our

governmen t”; the “history, meaning, significance and effect of the provisions”

of the United States Constitution; the “arguments in support of adopting our

republican form of government, as they are embodied in the most important

of the Federalist Papers”; and “the nature and importance of free enterprise

to the United States economy.” Section 1003.42(2)(f) requires the teaching of

the history of the United States, including the period of discovery, the Civil

War , and the civil rights movement to the present, and in cludes the following

direction:

American history shall be viewed as factual, not as

constructed, shall be viewed as knowable,

teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the

universal principles stated in the Declaration of

Independence.

Section 1003.42 (2) (h), which requires Florida educators to teach the “history

of African - Americans,” specifically requires instruction on:

The history of African Americans, including the

history of African peoples before the political

conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the

passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and contributions of African Americans to society. Instructional materials shall include the

contributions of African Americans to American

society.

5. The teaching of the history of the Holocaust is mandated by section

1003.42(2)(g), which provides:

(2) Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State Board of Education and the district school board, shall teach

efficiently and faithfully, using the books and

materials required that meet the highest standards for professionalism and historical accuracy, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instructi on, the

following:

* * *

(g) The history of the Holocaust (1933 - 1945), the

systematic, planned annihilation of European Jews and other groups by Nazi Germany, a watershed event in the history of humanity, to be taught in a manner that leads to a n investigation of human

behavior, an understanding of the ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping, and an examination of what it means to be a responsible and respectful person, for the purposes of encouraging tolerance of diversity in a plur alistic

society and for nurturing and protecting democratic

values and institutions.

6. The curriculum for teaching the Holocaust at SRHS included an

assembly which all tenth - grade students were required to attend. Schools

have discretion in constructing a curriculum. The school’s principal is

responsible for determining the contents of the curriculum. A school is not

required to have a Holocaust assembly as part of its curriculum, but if an

assembly is part of the curriculum, the assembly must be mandator y. A

Holocaust assembly was “part of [SRHS’s] mandatory curriculum for tenth -

graders.”

7. On April 13, 2018, the mother of a rising SRHS tenth - grader wrote to

Dr. Latson “to discuss the Florida Mandate to include Holocaust Education

each year in the studen t’s curriculum” and specifically to ask “in what

ways/classes is Holocaust education provided to all of the students.”

8. Dr. Latson answered the parent in an email which included these

statements:

[A]s far as [H]olocaust studies and the curriculum

it can be dealt with in a variety of ways. The

curriculum is to be introduced but not forced upon individuals as we all have the same rights but not all the same beliefs. Each year we do a Holocaust

assembly and we target the 10th graders so every

year that grou p will get a day[‘]s work with the

[H]olocaust. We advertise it to the tenth grade parents as [there] are some who do not want their children to participate and we have to allow them

the ability to decline.

9. The parent replied to Dr. Latson in another e mail:

Please clarify your statement: “The curriculum is to

be introduced but not forced upon individuals as we

all have the same rights but not all the same beliefs.”

The Holocaust is a factual, historical event. It is not

a right or a belief.

10. Dr. Latson responded with the following statements:

The clarification is that not everyone believes the

Holocaust happened and you have your thoughts

but we are a public school and not all of our parents have the same beliefs so they will react differently, my thoughts or beliefs have nothing to do with this

because I am a public servant. I have the role to be

politically neutral but support all groups in the

school. I work to expose students to certain things but not all parents want their students exposed so they will not be and I can’t force the issue . I

can’t say the Holocaust is a factual, historical event

because I am not in a position to do so as a school

district employee. I do allow information about the Holocaust to be presented and allow students a nd

parents to make decisions about it accordingly. I do

the same with information about slavery, I don’t

take a position but allow for the information to be

presented and parents to be parents and educate their students accordingly. I am not looking for a situation to divide but just to let all know I don’t

have a position on the topic, as an educator. My

personal beliefs are separate and will always have no place in my profession. This is a very touchy subject, one I have had conversation with Rabbi Levin about. I am simply letting you know all we

can do as a public school within our ability.

11. Dr. Glenda Sheffield, who currently is Petitioner’s chief academic

officer, was, at all times relevant to this matter, the instructional

superintendent for Petiti oner’s south region, which included SRHS. In that

earlier position, Sheffield was the immediate supervisor of the principals of

more than 20 middle and high schools located in the south region, including

Dr. Latson. Sheffield reported to Dr. Ian Saltzman w ho was the regional

superintendent for the south region. Saltzman reported to Mr. Keith Oswald.

12. Oswald, at all times relevant to this matter, was Petitioner’s deputy

superintendent of schools. Oswald’s duties included supervision of the

regional and in structional superintendents who supervise the schools.

Oswald was made aware of the email exchange between Dr. Latson and the

SRHS parent by Dianna Fedderman, Petitioner’s assistant superintendent

for curriculum, who had been told of it by Maureen Carter, Petitioner’s

Holocaust program planner, to whom the parent had forwarded the emails.

Carter and Fedderman expressed concern about the content of the emails,

which Oswald shared. He forwarded the email chain to Saltzman and

Sheffield to take action. Oswald directed Saltzman and Sheffield to keep him

informed about the counseling they were giving to Dr. Latson, to address the

Holocaust studies at the school to strengthen them, and to meet with the

parent and address her concern. The Palm Beach County School D istrict

( “ District ” ) did not publicize Dr. Latson’s emails, deciding the matter would

be handled at the regional level.

13. Dr. Latson was not disciplined for his statements to the parent. He

was, however, counseled. Dr. Latson’s counsel described the coac hing as

advising Dr. Latson of the need for “more circumspect e - mail, e - mail

composition to parents.” Dr. Latson testified that the “only criticism” he

received was that he “could have worded a better email.”

14. Sheffield did not feel the need to address the teaching of the Holocaust

at SRHS because she knew from her own experience that the subject was, in

fact, infused in the school’s curriculum. She, therefore, focused her work with

Dr. Latson on what she considered to be his poor choice of words.

15. Sh effield did work with the parent for “quite some time.” Between

April of 2018 and July of 2019, there were numerous meetings and

interactions among and between Sheffield, Saltzman, Carter, Fedderman, and the parent. Dr. Latson had no doubt that the Distric t was supportive of

him during this time and, again, the “only criticism” he received was that he “could have worded a better email.”

16. Dr. Latson’s perception was that his emails to the parent were “not

clear [and as I read them] some of the things were n’t clear and some of it, in

retrospect I could have just left out.” Dr. Latson felt that his words to the

parent “obviously gave her the belief that [he] did not believe in the

Holocaust, [and he] was just saying [he] wasn’t going to affirm or deny it.”

“ [S]he kept bringing it back up, so that gave [him] the opinion that she didn’t

understand what that meant, even after it was clarified.”

17. When Sheffield was coaching Dr. Latson, she was not aware that he

was allowing students to opt out of the Holocaust assembly because the

students’ parents did not want the students to be exposed to the contents of

the assembly. There is some confusion on this point because Dr. Latson says he never said directly that a student might “opt out” of an assembly with his

ble ssing, but that parents were always free to keep their children home from

school for any reason (including not wanting them exposed to the serious

nature of the assembly), subject only to District attendance requirements.

There is no District or SRHS provi sion authorizing a parent to opt out of

instruction on the Holocaust. If a principal were to allow that practice, she

believed he would not be enforcing the mandatory curriculum for the Holocaust.

18. Oswald, who was to be kept informed of the efforts of S altzman and

the others, was told that Dr. Latson had acknowledged that his words were

inappropriate. Like Sheffield, Oswald was not aware that Dr. Latson was

allowing parents who wished to avoid the Holocaust assembly to “opt out” of

it.

19. On May 9, 2019 , the same parent sent an email to Saltzman and

copied Superintendent Fennoy, Oswald, and Sheffield about a meeting held on May 6, 2019, attended by the complaining parent and School District personnel. The email included the following statement referring specifically

to Dr. Latson’s statements in his April 2018 emails:

There is one major issue that was not resolved at

the meeting, and we do not think there is any resolution other than to remove Mr. Latson as

principal from [SRHS]. Mr. Latson made his

thoug hts very clear at the meeting. When he tried

to explain that he thinks his statements in his offensive and erroneous emails last year were

misunderstood, he ended up reiterating his

offensive and erroneous views.

20. Saltzman informed Oswald that the way the parent characterized the

meeting of May 6, 2019, was not accurate. The District, therefore, gave no

consideration to the parent’s call for Dr. Latson’s removal from his position at

SRHS and took no action in response to the parent’s email.

21. On July 5, 2019, the Palm Beach Post (“ Post ”) published an article

headlined, “Spanish River High’s principal refused to call the Holocaust a

fact: A mother pushed for a year to address what she described as a school

leader’s failure to separate truth from myth.”

22. Petitioner was aware before its publication that the article was being

written. Oswald made a statement to the reporter writing the story. Oswald’s

comments were reported in the article:

Oswald, who oversees all the county’s principals,

said he agreed with the mother that Latson’s email

messages were inappropriate but were not

reflective of who he was as an educator. Latson, he

said, is a popular school leader whose school does more Holocaust education than most campuses and

has led the school successfu lly for years. He should

not be judged, he said, solely by a pair of email

messages. “It was a hastily, poorly written email that he apologized for,” Oswald said. “That’s some of the challenge that we face when we email back

and forth instead of picking up the phone.”

23. Dr. Latson was also aware that the article was being written. The

District’s communications director, Claudia Shea, worked with him to

prepare a statement to be given to the writer. That statement was reported in

the article:

In a stateme nt to The Post, Latson apologized for

the way he expressed himself in his emails, saying

it was not indicative of his actual beliefs or regard for historical fact. “I regret that the verbiage that I used when responding to an email message from a parent, o ne year ago, did not accurately reflect my

professional and personal commitment to educating

all students about the atrocities of the Holocaust,” Latson wrote. “It is critical that, as a society, we

hold dear the memory of the victims and hold fast

to our commitment to counter anti - Semitism,” he

continued. He pointed out that [SRHS’s] educational offerings on the Holocaust exceed the

state’s requirements. The Holocaust is taught, he

said, in ninth - and 10th - grade English classes, as

an elective course and i n an annual assembly

featuring a keynote speaker.

24. The reaction to the publication of the article on July 5, 2019, was

“complete outrage, chaos.” Oswald testified to the article’s impact:

Q. Can you tell us how it was expressed?

A. It was expressed phone calls, e - mails, meeting

with State representatives, locally to the White House. It was completely consuming of all my time on the following days. Q. The following day being the 6th?

A. There and forward.

25. The public reaction to the publication of the article and its impact on

the District is not disputed. Dr. Latson himself acknowledged it in an email

he sent to Oswald and others in the District at 3:36 p.m. on Saturday, July 6,

2019:

The release of this article is having the effect the

parent w ho wants to discredit me desired. It is

causing a rift in the community, students and parents are attempting to defend me to those in the community who do not know me. I am not the public relations expert but I am wondering if

something should come out fro m me to clear this

up. Me not saying anything is fueling questions in

the community. I am getting this daily from parents. My parent groups are trying to stop the negativity but they are asking if a statement can

come out from me addressing this issue. The y state

that I have always been vocal and got ahead of things so it is the parents[‘] expectation to hear

from me and not doing so is causing questions.

Your thoughts?

26. In response to Dr. Latson’s email, Oswald telephoned, telling him “not

to make any statements and to not say anything and that we are working

internally with the communications department about this.” Oswald

specifically directed Dr. Latson not to make any further contact at that time.

Oswald told Dr. Latson that they would talk on Monda y, July 8, 2019.

27. Dr. Latson testified that Oswald emailed his response to Dr. Latson’s

July 6, 2019, email. No such email from Oswald was produced, but

Dr. Latson’s telephone records indicate that he received a telephone call from

Oswald on July 6, 201 9, at 4:56 p.m., which lasted eight minutes. Dr. Latson

acknowledged that this telephone call could have been Oswald’s response to

his email. In any event, he did confirm being told that “we weren’t going to respond” to the article.

28. The District contin ued to support Dr. Latson after the article was

published. Before he left for vacation, he received a phone call from Sheffield, who told Dr. Latson that she was supporting him. Sheffield, having taken her

current position as chief academic officer, was no t Dr. Latson’s supervisor on

July 6, 2019. She learned of the article’s publication while traveling back from her vacation. She nevertheless called Dr. Latson to ask how he was faring and to tell him to “hold [his] head high” and “ [w] e’re going to get

thro ugh this working together.” In the telephone conversation, Dr. Latson

expressed the hope that “this doesn’t ruin [his] reputation.” He also spoke with Dr. Arthur Johnson, the representative of the principal’s association and

his friend and former superinte ndent. Johnson told Dr. Latson to “hold on

and let’s see what’s happening.”

29. On Monday, July 8, 2019, Oswald called Dr. Latson at 7:36 a.m., and

they spoke for five minutes. Oswald told Dr. Latson that the “Post article was

starting to cause somewhat of a problem for [Oswald] and the District and

[Oswald] wanted me to take a voluntary reassignment.” Dr. Latson told

Oswald that he “needed to discuss [the reassignment] with [his] family”

because he believed that his voluntary acceptance of a reassignment m eant

that the District could place him where they wanted and that might affect his compensation, and he “had an issue with that.”

30. There is some variance between Dr. Latson’s testimony that he

informed Oswald he would “try to get back” to him by noon, a nd Oswald’s

testimony that Dr. Latson “stated he would get back to him that morning.” Dr. Latson admits “that Oswald requested a call back by noon.” Dr. Latson

testified that, because he was on vacation, he was not obligated to call

Oswald back before noon and, also, testified that, if he had been told to

contact Oswald, that would be a directive he had to obey. It is, however,

undisputed that Dr. Latson at least told Oswald he would “try” to get back to

him by noon and undisputed that, even though he spoke with “individuals”

about the reassignment, he made no effort to communicate with Oswald

before noon of July 8, 2019.

31. After speaking with Dr. Latson at 7:36 a.m., Oswald attempted to

communicate with him no fewer than six times before noon on July 8, 2 019 ,

because of the urgency of the worsening situation. Oswald called Dr. Latson at 8:21 a.m., 9:35 a.m., 10:32 a.m., and 10:42 a.m., and texted him at

8:22 a.m. and 10:32 a.m. When Dr. Latson did not answer the telephone calls,

Oswald left voicemails, inc reasing with urgency, saying the situation was

escalating and asking him to return his call.

32. In response to an automated text sent from Dr. Latson’s phone --

indicting he was driving and could not receive notifications, but informing the

caller to “reply urgent” to send a notification with the original message --

Oswald texted him the word “urgent” twice at or around 10:32 a.m. Oswald

received no response from Dr. Latson.

33. Between 7:36 a.m. and noon on July 8, 2019, Dr. Latson placed nine

and received fo ur telephone calls to and from friends, family members,

colleagues, and Johnson. Apparently, his cellular phone was functioning

during this time.

34. At approximately 12:33 p.m., not having heard back from Dr. Latson,

Oswald sent Dr. Latson a text and an e mail informing him that Oswald was

reassigning him to the District Office. Dr. Gonzalo La Cava, Petitioner’s chief

of human resources, also left Dr. Latson a voicemail about the reassignment.

Oswald’s text to Dr. Latson was as follows: “I have left you num erous

messages to contact me. I am reassigning you to the district office. Please call

me ASAP.”

35. Dr. Latson’s argument, as opposed to his testimony, explaining his

failure to respond to Oswald on July 8, 2019, is inconsistent. Dr. Latson

initially just ified his lack of a response to Oswald by arguing that the text he

received from Oswald about being removed as principal of SRHS “did not

seem to invite a response.” In fact, that text closed with the words, “Please

call me ASAP.” In his Answer, Dr. Latson alleged that after he received the

message about the re - assignment, he “attempted to email Oswald, but the

message did not go through.” At hearing, Dr. Latson testified that he tried to

text Oswald around 12:30 p.m., but the text did not go through. He al so

testified that he attempted to email Oswald at 9:30 p.m. from Jamaica.

36. Dr. Latson explains his lack of response to Oswald by saying he was

already on the phone whenever Oswald was trying to call and the calls could not have gone through. His telepho ne records, however, showed that other

calls he was making during this time were interrupted and he was able to

connect with the incoming caller.

37. It is undisputed that Dr. Latson received Oswald’s communication

telling him that he was being reassigned to the District Office. He admits he

told Oswald he would “try” to get back to him specifically to tell Oswald

whether he would accept the voluntary assignment. Dr. Latson’s failure to

respond to Oswald’s several attempts to speak with him is consistent w ith a

decision not to accept the voluntary reassignment.

38. Contradicting testimony was given at hearing regarding whether

Dr. Latson’s request to travel to Jamaica in July had even been approved or

known about by Petitioner. A District spreadsheet showin g a week - long leave

beginning July 8, 2019, was offered into evidence and removed any doubt as

to whether Dr. Latson was on recognized or approved leave.

39. The public reaction that followed publication of the July 5, 2019,

article was somewhat lessened by news of Dr. Latson’s reassignment, and,

“after he was reassigned, there was some calming in the District.” The

reassignment was widely publicized. The New York Times published an

article datelined July 8, 2019, under the headline, “Principal Who Tried t o

Stay Politically Neutral A bout Holocaust Is Removed.”

40. Although he did not respond to Oswald, Dr. Latson did email the

faculty and staff at SRHS. The email was obtained by the author of the

July 5, 2019, article. His email opened with the paragraph:

I have been reassigned to the district office due to a

statement that was not accurately relayed to the newspaper by one of our parents. It is unfortunate

that someone can make a false statement and do so anonymously and it holds credibility but that is th e

world we live in.

41. Dr. Latson describes his email as “a necessary and righteous denial of

a false allegation.” He describes the “false statement” -- the statement that

was “not accurately relayed to the newspaper by a parent” -- to be that “I was

hesitan t and I wouldn’t -- I avoided confrontation with Holocaust deniers [and]

that was not true [and] it also stated that, you know, I denied that the

Holocaust occurred [and] that’s not true.” “She can fear my reluctance, but I

had no reluctance, so that would b e an incorrect statement.” However, in

explaining his reasoning, Dr. Latson admits that the statements of the

parent contained in the article were reported as the parent’s opinion and

that , although she did not doubt that he knew the Holocaust was real, sh e

“feared” that his reluctance to say so stemmed from a desire to “avoid

confronting parents who deny the Holocaust reality.” He also made clear that

the “statement” that was “relayed” by the parent to which he referred in his

email to staff were, in fact, the statements that he had written in April of

2018.

42. Dr. Latson believes that as an educator mandated by law to teach the

history of the Holocaust, he is required -- by the very statute which imposes

that duty, to be tolerant of those who would deny tha t the Holocaust is

historical fact, to the point of allowing some to avoid attending Holocaust

remembrance assemblies required of all students.

43. In his email to the complaining parent, Dr. Latson wrote that he could

not, as a school district employee, s ay “the Holocaust is a factual, historical

event.” At hearing, he testified that, although he could as a District employee

state whether he believes the Holocaust to be a fact, he had the “option to be politically neutral.” In his email to the parent, Dr. Latson wrote that he

advertised the tenth - grade Holocaust assembly “as there are some who do not

want their children to participate and we have to allow them the ability to

decline.” At hearing, Dr. Latson testified that he advertised the assembly so

paren ts would know, in case a teacher marked a child who was attending the

assembly absent. He testified that some parents do not want their children to

attend the Holocaust assembly because of the graphic nature of the teaching materials used, and he is not “g oing to force a child to sit in a room where

their parents don’t want them to be.” The District ’s absence policy can be

used to allow students to stay home from school during the Holocaust

remembrance assembly, if the parents so desire. He believes that th e statute

mandating the teaching of the Holocaust as history requires that he be tolerant of those who do not want their children to be shown the graphic

images of the atrocities, but that they could still learn from the required

teachings through other me ans.

44. Dr. Latson sent an email to faculty and staff at SRHS on the afternoon

of July 8, 2019. Oswald, Fennoy, and the District did not learn of Dr. Latson’s

statement concerning the complaining parent in this email until late that

evening.

45. Dr. Latso n testified it was a common practice for principals leaving a

school to inform the staff of their departure so they can prepare themselves

for a change in administration, which generally means that an entering

principal might do things a bit differently. H e believed it was important to

deliver the message of his leaving as early as possible. He admitted he wrote

the email to staff quickly and did not take the time to fully consider the

repercussions of his words regarding the complaining parent. He was

frus trated that he had lost the support of the District at the time he wrote

the email, after having received their support prior to that time. He admitted

he did not do a good job of expressing his frustration, but he never believed

the email would be seen by anyone but the faculty and staff at SRHS.

46. While news of Dr. Latson’s reassignment had dampened the public

reaction which the District was dealing with after publication of the July 5, 2019, article, Dr. Latson’s statement in the email re - energized th e public.

Instead of reconciliation over his poorly worded April 2018 emails,

Dr. Latson’s placement of blame on the parent undermined the apology and

made matters worse. There was “complete outrage [by District personnel] that he would do that to a parent .” An article which appeared in the Post on

July 9, 2019, was headlined, “More calls for Spanish River High principal’s

firing after he blames parent.” The article included the sub - heading,

“Principal William Latson’s farewell message prompted an anti - hate group

and two Boca - area legislators to join calls for his termination.” On July 10,

2019, the Post published an article headlined, “In defiant farewell, ousted

principal blames parent.” Dr. Latson does not dispute that the public reaction

to his email was negative, which he learned of while he was still in Jamaica.

47. The personal impact of Dr. Latson’s statement in the July 8, 2019,

email was demonstrated by those who testified on behalf of him. Dr. Latson

conceded that he did not know the reasons for hi s reassignment at the time

he wrote the email to SRHS faculty and staff. He wrote to his staff that he

was reassigned because of a statement inaccurately relayed to the

newspaper. He believes the statement to be that he did not want to confront

Holocaust d eniers. In fact, in the predetermination hearing, Dr. Latson’s

representative began the defense with the statement that the District

“cannot remove a principal or adversely transfer him for not being zealous

enough in a parent’s personal crusade against an ti - Semitism.” That is not

how Dr. Latson’s supporters saw it. The record makes clear that the

controversy was about Dr. Latson’s earlier words, specifically , that , as a

public educator who was mandated to teach the history of the Holocaust, he

thought it w ould be improper for him to state that the Holocaust was a fact

since he would not be acting in a neutral manner as an educator.

48. Shari Fox, the Magnet Academy coordinator at SRHS, testified that

she specifically asked Dr. Latson, “What is controversial about the

Holocaust?” His response was that he did not think it was controversial in

the beginning, but it has more recently come to his attention that Holocaust

deniers exist, which makes its existence controversial.

49. Mr. Aaron Ryan Wells, a SRHS teac her and debate coach, described a

news article that “was essentially fabricated in the sense that it didn’t give all the facts, basically creates the disaster that removes a man of three decades from his post.” Because of Dr. Latson’s treatment, Wells “tre ads

lightly even when teaching geography.” He has had inquiries regarding whether the Holocaust is even an appropriate subject for high school students. This incident detracts from the power of the course that introduces

the skill that is supposed to be in troduced with these types of students,

namely tolerance and respect for others who may be different from you. He

took from Dr. Latson’s reassignment the lesson that a single parent can

question how you teach a subject, which could potentially result in you r

reassignment or termination as an educator should you fail to bend to the

parent’s wishes.

50. The lesson and perception that Wells and others took from

Dr. Latson’s removal was that you should not teach controversial subjects. In

fact, and as a matter o f law, the State of Florida does not consider the

occurrence of the Holocaust to be controversial. It does not and cannot

prevent any student or parent from holding the absurd “belief” that the

Holocaust did not happen. It can and does mandate that the stu dent will be

taught that history is not opinion or belief and that the Holocaust did occur.

Through his actions, Dr. Latson caused a great number of people to doubt the

commitment of the District to honor that mandate. His unilateral attribution

of the rea sons for his termination caused further disruption in the SRHS

community.

51. Many SRHS faculty and staff were left with the idea that Dr. Latson

was reassigned because of the April 2018 emails, and were left with a sense

of “injustice” and “unfairness.” T he Community, the faculty, and the staff

were angry, and some of that anger was directed at the complaining parent and her student. Dr. Latson’s allocation of blame to the parent and pointing out a “false statement” also sowed discontent among the faculty and staff,

directed towards the District. Because Dr. Latson’s email stating the reasons

for his reassignment were the April 2018 emails and, what he considered to

be, a false statement from a parent, the faculty and staff felt that the District did not su pport the staff.

52. Prior to learning of Dr. Latson’s July 8, 2019, email, the District had

not taken any action to terminate him. Dr. Latson believes he was

terminated because of outside pressure, to satisfy the not insignificant group

of public official s and members of the public who called for his resignation.

But those calls were made some time before he was terminated. Despite those

calls, the District took Dr. Latson at his word, that he had been

misunderstood, that his emails could be worded better, and that he

understood the parents’ perception of his views.

53. After the newspaper article of July 5, 2019, was published, when

Oswald faced the reaction of the public and public officials, the District stood

by Dr. Latson. The article itself contained Oswald’s defense of Dr. Latson,

that he had written a poorly worded email. Even after Dr. Latson made no

effort to contact Oswald before noon on July 8, 2019, the District did not

move to terminate him. He was reassigned.

54. Not until Dr. Latson made clea r that he had not been misinterpreted

in his “neutrality” statements to the complaining parent and it was clear to

the District personnel involved that he was not walking back these

statements, did Fennoy conclude that Dr. Latson’s employment was

incompati ble with the District’s commitment to teach the Holocaust. At some

level, Dr. Latson believed that parents who do not want their children to be

taught the Holocaust should be allowed to keep their children out of school on

that day. He believed that he had a professional obligation to be neutral on

matters of historical fact, even as espoused by members of, for example, the Flat Earth Society. Further, he believed that a statute that mandated the teaching of the Holocaust in a way that promoted tolerance re quired the

teacher to be tolerant of those who said the history to be taught was, in fact,

not history.

55. Johnson, a long - serving principal, former Palm Beach County school

superintendent, and now a consultant to principals, testified that no progressive discipline was imposed on Dr. Latson. Respondent admitted into

evidence a document entitled “The Discipline Process, A Guide for Principals

and Department Heads.” He testified the manual is still in existence and

used by the District. Describing the proce ss, Johnson discussed how,

typically, “we start from the bottom and move to the top,” beginning with a

verbal reprimand, followed by a written reprimand, then a short - term

suspension, followed by a longer - term suspension, and, ultimately, a

termination. He noted that there are occasional instance s where discipline

can go from “ zero to one hundred, all the way to termination,” but these must

involve “very serious offenses” that “put the District at risk.” He testified that

the initial problem here was “an ov erly zealous parent’s intolerance of

Dr. Latson’s tolerance.” He believes that an educator’s role is to be neutral

and provide both sides of an issue. “You stick with the facts.” “You present

both sides of the story. And you as a teacher or administrator m ay have to

become very neutral, meaning you can’t advocate.” “We are definitely not in a

position to proselytize or to indoctrinate young people,” he testified. He did admit that Dr. Latson could have used better language to communicate his

thoughts on neu trality and to communicate with faculty and staff via email.

56. Dr. Ben Marlin, another former Palm Beach County school

superintendent, concurred with Johnson’s analysis and the appropriateness of exercising progressive discipline in this case. He likened the process to a

ladder, with the penalty growing more severe the higher you climb. He

testified that he would not have terminated Dr. Latson under the

circumstances of this case. He would have resolved the matter through a

meeting with a possible verbal reprimand. If the behavior occurred again, he

would consider a written reprimand. Subsequent violations would result in

more severe penalties.

57. The testimony of the two former superintendents was not challenged

or rebutted by Petitioner. No witnesses we re called to state that progressive discipline was not applicable to this matter.

58. Fox testified “we have to stay neutral in all of these topics [including

the Holocaust] and just explain the facts to the students and guide the

information and the disc ussion.” Fox specifically testified she does not believe

Dr. Latson is Anti - Semitic.

59. According to SRHS history teacher, Ms. Rachel Ostrow, the teacher’s

role is “to present the facts, to guide the discussion amongst the students.

But I lay out the fact s from every point of view and then we discuss the

content.” Ostrow specifically testified she does not believe Dr. Latson is Anti -

Semitic.

60. On July 17, 2019, Dr. Latson received notice that an administrative

investigation had been opened by the Departm ent of Employee and Labor

Relations related to Ethical Misconduct. An investigative report was

authored by Ms. Vicki Evans - Paré on August 23, 2019. On September 26,

2019, Dr. Latson received a copy of the investigative file, including the

written investiga tive report.

61. On October 7, 2019, a predetermination meeting was held to allow

Dr. Latson to respond to the allegations, produce any documents that he

believed would be supportive of his position, or rebut information in the

investigation materials he w as provided. He submitted a written response to

the potential charges and his representatives, Dr. Thomas E. Elfers and

Johnson provided oral presentations.

62. Dr. Latson’s response at the predetermination meeting again

compared the Holocaust to a belief, claiming that “constitutional liberty

interests are involved: an interest in not being forced to reveal information

about personal beliefs and an interest in being forced to make statements

about one’s views.” The response preached neutrality in the prese ntation of

“various hot buttons or touchy subjects.”

63. Dr. Latson believed his body of work as an educator should have been

taken into account and should not have resulted in a termination of his employment. He had never been disciplined previously by th e District or the

Educational Practice Commission in 26 years as an educator. He had received a “highly effective evaluation” for each of his eight years as the principal of

SRHS, and the highest possible evaluation for 25 of his 26 years as an

educator.

64. Under his leadership, Dr. Latson oversaw the raising of SRHS from a

“B” to an “A” rating in 2012, which was maintained throughout his tenure as principal. He achieved many successes as principal, such as significantly

raising the school’s national acad emic ranking, being recognized by the

District as the highest performing Palm Beach County school in advanced

academic studies, and creating a school environment described by teacher

Wells as “phenomenal,” and engendering an atmosphere of trust among the

t eachers, as stated by Fox and Ostrow at hearing.

65. When asked by his counsel at hearing, Dr. Latson unequivocally

stated that he is not Anti - Semitic. This statement was unrebutted by

Petitioner.

66. On October 11, 2019, however, based upon the informatio n presented

to him from the investigation and the predetermination meeting, Fennoy informed Dr. Latson that there was just cause, which can be substantiated by

clear and convincing evidence, to warrant his termination from his position

as a principal, and that Fennoy would recommend Dr. Latson’s suspension

without pay and termination of employment at the October 30, 2019, School

Board meeting.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

67. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of these

proceedings pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.33, Florida Statutes.

68. The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and

supervision of all free public schools within the District . Art. IX, § 4(b),

Fla. Const.; §§ 1001.30, .32, Fla. Stat. The School Board’s powers and

duties include providing for the suspension and dismissal of employees.

§ 1012.22(1)(a), (f), Fla. Stat.

69. Fennoy is the s uperintendent of s chools for the District. The

superintendent’s power and duties include making recommendations for the suspension without pay and termination of School Board employees.

§ 1012.27(5)(a), Fla. Stat.

70. Petitioner bears the burden of proving the charges against Respondent

by a preponderance of the evidence. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.; Sublett v. Sumte r Cty . Sch. Bd. , 664 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Allen v.

Sch. Bd. of Dade Cty. , 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (citing Dileo v.

Sch. Bd. of Dade Cty. , 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)). The

preponderance of the evidence standard requir es proof by “the greater weight

of the evidence” or evidence that “more likely than not” tends to prove a

certain proposition. See Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 280 n.1 (Fla. 2000)

(citations omitted); see also Williams v. Eau Claire Pub. Sch. , 397 F.3d 441,

446 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding the trial court properly defined the

preponderance of the evidence standard as “such evidence as, when

considered and compared with that opposed to it, has more convincing force

and produces ... [a] belief that what is sou ght to be proved is more likely true

than not true”). No presumption of correctness is given to the preliminary

determination of Petitioner to terminate Dr. Latson’s employment. Fla. Dep ’ t

of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co. , 396 So. 2d 778, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). This

proceeding is considered to be de novo. § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat.

71. Section 1012.33(6)(b) provides that a principal may be suspended or

dismissed at any time during the term of his contract on charges based on:

Immorality, misconduct in office, inc ompetency,

gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty,

drunkenness, or being found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty, regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude, as these

terms are defined by rule by the State Board of

Education.

72. Rule 6A - 5.056 defines “just cause” as the basis for dismissal actions

against instructional personnel and defines “misconduct in office” as follows:

[ “ ] Just cause” means cause that is legally sufficient.

Each of the charges upon which ju st cause for a dismissal action against specified school personnel may be pursued are set forth in Sections 1012.33

and 1012.335, F.S.

* * *

(2) “Misconduct in Office” means one or more of the

following:

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

Education Profession in Florida adopted in Rule 6A - 10.080, F. A. C;

(b) A violation of the Principles of Professional conduct for the Education Profession adopted in

Rule 6A - 10.081, F. A. C.;

(c) A violation of the adopted school board rules;

(d) Behav ior that disrupts the student’s learning

environment;

(e) Behavior that reduces the teacher’s ability or his or her colleagues’ ability to effectively perform

duties.

73. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 10.081(2), “Principles of

Professional Conduct f or the Education Profession in Florida , ” provides, in

relevant part:

(2) Florida educators shall comply with the following disciplinary principles. Violation of any of

these principles shall subject the individual to

revocation or suspension of the individ ual

educator’s certificate, or oth er penalties as provided

by law.

* * *

(b) Obligation to the public requires that the individual:

1. Shall take reasonable precautions to distinguish between personal views and those of any educational instituti on or organization with which

the individual is affiliated.

2. Shall not intentionally distort or misrepresent

facts concerning an educational matter in direct o r

indirect public expression.

* * *

(c) Obligation to the profession of education

req uires that the individual:

1. Shall maintain honesty in all professional dealings.

74. School Board Policy 3.02 is titled “Code of Ethics” and provides , in

relevant part:

4. Accountability and Compliance

Each employee agrees and pledges:

a. To provide the best example possible; striving to demonstrate excellence, integrity and responsibility

in the workplace.

* * *

e. To create an environment of trust, respect and

non - discrimination, by not permitting

discriminatory, demeaning or harassing beh avior of

students or colleagues.

f. To take responsibility and be accountable for his or her acts or omissions.

* * *

h. To cooperate with others to protect and advance

the District and its students.

* * *

j. To be efficient and effec tive in the delivery of all

job duties.

75. Rule 6A - 5.056(3) defines “incompetency”:

(3) “Incompetency” means the ability, failure or

lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a

result of inefficiency or incapacity.

(a) “Inefficiency” means one o r more of the

following:

1. Failure to perform duties prescribed by law;

2. Failure to communicate appropriately with and relate to students; 3. Failure to communicate appropriately with and relate to colleagues, administrators, subordinates, or parents ;

4. Disorganization of his or her classroom to such

an extent that the health, safety or welfare of the students is diminished; or

5. Excessive absences or tardiness.

Dr. Latson did not fail to perform any duties required by law.

76. Dr. Latson ensur ed that the Holocaust and other statutorily required

areas of study were taught at SRHS. He personally involved himself in the

annual Holocaust remembrance assemblies and personally escorted

Holocaust survivors to classrooms to meet the students and tell t heir stories.

He never instructed an educator not to teach the approved Holocaust

curriculum every year that he served as principal at SRHS. By all accounts,

he communicated well with students, teachers, and parents, except for the

one parent. Dr. Latson m ade some unfortunate choices in expressing his

thoughts in his interaction with the parent whose emails precipitated this

entire series of events. His choice of words and methods of trying to express

that everyone at SRHS has the right to their individual beliefs, even if they

differed from the required, approved curriculum were unfortunate. Rather

than carefully choosing his words when speaking with a parent who, despite

her not testifying at hearing, seemed to be passionate about the required

teaching of the Holocaust, he offended her by making an endorsement, of sorts, of Holocaust deniers. All of Dr. Latson’s actions surrounding Holocaust

studies at SRHS, and his clear statement at hearing that he is not Anti -

Semitic, negate his improvident choice of wor ds espousing “neutrality” when

talking to the one parent.

77. Rule 6A - 5.056(4) defines “gross insubordination” as:

[T] he intentional refusal to obey a direct order,

reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority; misfeasance, or malfeasance a s to

involve failure in the performance of the required

duties.

One of the elements of insubordination is willfulness or an “intentional

refusal to obey a direct order.” See, e.g., Dolega v. Sch. Bd. of Miami - Dade

Cty . , 840 So. 2d 445, 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 20 03); and Rosario v. Burke , 605 So.

2d 523, 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). See also Krieger v. Fla. Fish & Wildlife

Conser . Comm'n, 220 So. 3d 511, 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“direct

contravention of the orders”). While Respondent showed less than diligent behavior, under the circumstances of what was happening at home, and in

his sporadic answering of telephone calls while vacationing in Jamaica, his

actions did not rise to the level of gross insubordination. However, Dr. Latson

knew that his supervisors, all the way up the chain of command, were

anxious and disturbed about the escalation of events surrounding the

newspaper articles, as well as the local, state, and national attention being

given to his statements, as reported. Accordingly, he should have made a far g reater effort to communicate with Oswald or another administrator at the

School District.

78. Mitigating Circumstances, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A -

11.007(3), lists the circumstances as follows:

(a) The severity of the offense.

(b) The danger to the public.

(c) The number of repetitions of offenses. (d) The length of time since the violation.

(e) The number of times the educator has been previously disciplined by the Commission.

(f) The length of time the educator has practiced and the contri bution as an educator.

(g) The actual damage, physical or otherwise,

caused by the violation. (h) The deterrent effect of

the penalty imposed.

(i) The effect of the penalty upon the educator’s livelihood.

(j) Any effort of rehabilitation by the educator .

(k) The actual knowledge of the educator pertaining to the violation.

79. Concerning his farewell letter to faculty and staff at SRHS, while his

actions in accusing the complaining parent of having made a false statement

in the email was a poor and unc alled for choice of words on his part,

Petitioner did not provide evidence that Dr. Latson’s words violated a direct

order from his supervisors or from the School Board’s reasonable policies.

Therefore, just cause for his termination resulting from gross i nsubordination

was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

80. The most glaring omission from this proceeding is that the

complaining parent did not testify at the hearing. Had she appeared, the

undersigned and the parties would have heard first - ha nd her version of the

conversations between Dr. Latson and her, whether by email, telephone, or

face - to - face. She could have been placed under oath and asked directly

whether she believed Dr. Latson was or is Anti - Semitic. Instead, at hearing,

her only wor ds were from emails written nearly two years before. Not a single

witness was called by Petitioner (or Respondent, of course) who testified that

he or she believed Dr. Latson was either Anti - Semitic or ever espoused Anti -

Semitic beliefs throughout his enti re career as an educator. No evidence of

Dr. Latson’s insensitivity to those of the Jewish faith, either direct or indirect was offered. This entire matter hinged on this offending behavior: ( 1) a poor

choice of words concerning respect for others’ opinion s, even if they may be

heinous or uninformed; ( 2) an ill - advised statement in his farewell email to

faculty and staff at S RHS directly blaming a parent for the situation in which

he now found himself; and ( 3) his lack of communication with his supervisors

during a political crisis caused by the Post article that, at least to an extent,

sensationalized a poor way of expressing himself, while he was vacationing

with his family. This entire mess would have been avoided had Dr. Latson done two things: ( 1) chose n his words more carefully so that, rather than

giving any credence to Holocaust deniers, he would have stated that he

personally believes the Holocaust is a historical fact, but understands that in

today’s world, there are people who refuse to believe wha t is right before their

eyes as facts; and ( 2) simply not blamed the offended parent for his poorly

chosen method of communicating his “neutrality” regarding some people’s

beliefs that the Holocaust never occurred . Had he done these two things, the

issue o f the telephone calls not being returned would never have occurred,

because there would have been no article in the Post and, ultimately, no

reassignment followed by a termination of his employment as principal at

SRHS. Any competent evidence of Anti - Semit ism, either direct or indirect, on

Dr. Latson’s part, is sorely lacking.

81. The Holocaust, “the systematic, planned annihilation of European

Jews and other groups by Nazi Germany, a watershed event in the history of

humanity,” is to be taught in Florida “for the purposes of encouraging

tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and for nurturing and protecting

democratic values and institutions.” § 1003.42(2)(g), Fla. Stat. When teaching

about such significant, and sometimes disturbing, subjects as t he Holocaust,

the history of African Americans, and the study of Hispanic and women’s

contributions to the United States, an individual educator’s specific spoken

words matter greatly. This is especially true when that person is a public

figure within the education community, such as Dr. Latson. From everyone

who testified on his behalf, and from many who testified for the School Board,

before this unfortunate series of incidents, Dr. Latson was a highly respected,

even beloved, educator. Regardless of the outcome here, his record has been

tainted due to small missteps on his part, that, while clumsy, were for the

most part well intended. Dr. Latson, throughout his otherwise stellar career, has had a proven record of ensuring that Holocaust and all other sta te -

mandated curricula were properly taught under his leadership.

82. Johnson, as a former principal and superintendent in Palm Beach

County and elsewhere, testified, as set forth in paragraph 55 above, that

progressive discipline is currently employed by the District. There was no

evidence presented by the District that Dr. Latson’s behavior in this matter

rose to the level of a “serious offense” or one that “puts the District at risk,” to

justify a termination without any prior lesser levels of discipline . Under the

facts as presented and applying those facts to the relevant law, Dr. Latson’s

actions do not warrant termination. See Quiller v. Duval Cty. Sch . Bd. , 171

So. 3d 745, 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)( f ollowing progressive discipline

mandated by the schoo l board was required “unless a severe act of

misconduct warranted circumventing the steps.”). Regardless of the ultimate

discipline imposed in this matter, his time at SRHS has been tainted by this

entire series of events. His poor choices, while not sever e enough to warrant

termination, do support the School Board’s original decision to transfer him

to another position within the District. Further, his statement that the

parent who complained about his neutrality language in his email to her and

his statem ent in his farewell email to the faculty and staff at SRHS that she

had made false statements to the media, showed poor judgment on his part

and even led many faculty members to fear retaliation by the administration

should they speak their minds on this o r other subjects that may be

controversial to some. These acts of poor judgment on Dr. Latson’s part

should result in a verbal or written reprimand, the lowest rungs on the

ladder of progressive discipline.

83. The teachers who testified on Dr. Latson’s b ehalf, without exception,

glowingly spoke of their complete confidence in Dr. Latson as a principal and

as a proponent of Holocaust studies as mandated and as enhanced by his

academic assemblies in memory of the Holocaust. In order to streamline the

hearin g, the undersigned strongly suggested that Dr. Latson reduce the

number of teachers and students he had listed in the p re - h earing s tipulation

due to their testimony, at some point, being likely to become cumulative and

repetitive. From the sampling of teac hers Dr. Latson called, the undersigned

is confident that the other dozen or so witnesses from SRHS who could have

been called would have spoken no less highly of Dr. Latson’s dedication to the

school, to the faculty, and, most importantly, to the students .

84. Dr. Latson’s 26 - year record as an educator makes the decision to

terminate his employment, in light of the facts adduced at hearing, all the

more puzzling. The undersigned fully appreciates the pressure brought to

bear on the superintendent, his depu ties, and most likely, all of the School

Board members, by well - informed and well - meaning politicians at the local,

state, and national levels. It is commendable that respected , elected or

appointed officials from the District heed the concerns of not only the parents

and students of SRHS, but of interested parties such as those described by

Fennoy and others who exerted some pressure on them to make a rapid and

decisive move concerning Dr. Latson after the series of articles in the Post .

Despite the extern al pressures, the District maintained its faith in

Dr. Latson and stood behind him, offering him a voluntary, followed by an

involuntary, transfer when he was dilatory in getting in touch with them at a

crucial moment for them while he was vacationing in J amaica. Clearly, in the

eyes of Petitioner, the single statement in the faculty email about the

complaining parent’s false statements was the final straw for Petitioner. While that is understandable at some level, the punishment imposed on

Dr. Latson was t oo severe in light of 26 years of service, including eight

laudable years as principal at SRHS. Therefore, the undersigned concludes that the penalty should be limited in this case, as set forth in paragraph 81

above.

85. In conclusion, the record in this case fails to establish by a

preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in misconduct in

office, incompetence, or gross insubordination. There was, therefore, no just

cause for his suspension and termination. The transfer of Dr. Latson to

anothe r position within the District, a discretionary move, however, is

warranted based upon his poor choices in communicating to a parent his

“neutral” position on the factual basis for the Holocaust; his failure to timely

connect with his superiors during his vacation when a voluntary transfer was

still on the table; and his poor choice of words concerning a parent being

untruthful in an otherwise appropriate letter to his faculty and staff

communicating his departure. It is not surprising that the totality of these

events resulted in his s uperintendent’s loss of confidence and created

confusion and, to a lesser extent, fear among some of his former faculty at

SRHS.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order

rescinding the suspension and termination of Dr. Latson; award ing him his

lost wages for the period beginning with his suspension without pay; and

transfer ring him to a position within the Distri ct, as determined by the

s uperintendent, commensurate with his qualifications.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 1 3 th day of August , 2020 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

R OBERT S. C OHEN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSot o 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 3 th day of August , 2020 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Thomas E. Elfers, Esquire

Law Office of Thomas Elfers 14036 Southwest 148th Lane

Miami, Florida 33186

(eServed)

Thomas Martin Gonzalez, Esquire

GrayRobinson, P.A.

401 East Jackson Street , Suite 2700

Tampa, Florida 33602

(eServed)

Craig J. Freger, Esquire

16247 Northwest 15th Street

Pembroke Pines, Florida 33028 - 1223

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Richard Corcoran

Commissioner of Education

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Donald E. Fennoy II, Ed.D., Superintendent

Palm Beach County School Board

3300 Forest Hill B ou l e v ar d, C - 316

West Palm Beach , F lorida 33406 - 5869

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

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.