20-002987PL
Richard Corcoran, As Commissioner Of Education vs.
Ruth S. Gaillard Leger
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, February 10, 2021.
Recommended Order on Wednesday, February 10, 2021.
1S TATE OF F LORIDA
6D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS
13R ICHARD C ORCORAN , A S C OMMISSIONER
21OF E DUCATION ,
24Petitioner ,
25vs. Case No. 20 - 29 87PL
32R UTH S. G AILLARD L EGER ,
39Respondent .
41/
42R ECOMMENDED O RDER
46This case was heard by Robert L. Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge of
58the Division of Administrative Hearings (ÑDOAHÒ) , on November 30 and
68December 1, 2020, by Zoom conference .
75A PPEARANCES
77For Petitioner: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire
83Charles T. Whitelock, P.A.
87300 Southeast 13 th Street
92Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
96For Respondent: Mark S. Wilensky , Esquire
102Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC
1061200 Corporate Center Way , Suite 200
112Wellington, Florida 3 3414 - 8594
118S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE
125Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that
134Respondent left a kindergarten student, K.M., alone in her classroom on
145April 2, 2018 , as alleged in PetitionerÔs Administrative Complaint.
154P RELIMINARY S TAT EMENT
159On July 1, 2020, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against
169Respondent. The Administrative Complaint alleged violations of section
1771012.795, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A - 10.081.
188Respondent requested an administr ative hearing to contest the charges.
198As a result, Petitioner forwarded this matter to DOAH for the assignment
210of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct the hearing. A hearing was
222initially scheduled for September 14 and 15, 2020.
230After an Agreed Motio n to Reset Hearing was filed by the parties and
244granted, a formal evidentiary hearing was conducted on November 30 and
255December 1, 2020.
258At the hearing, Petitioner called the following witnesses to testify by Zoom
270conference : Samiyeh Nasser, Steven Bynes, Jr., Nikia Ragin, and Sharonda
281Bailey. Petitioner offered the following exhibits , which were admitted in
291evidence: Exhibits 1 through 3 and 5 through 7. Respondent testified on her
304own behalf and called the following witnesses: William Miller, Shirelle M . ,
316and K.M. (a student). Respondent's Exhibits 1, 3, 8, 12a, 12b , and 13b were
330admitted into evidence.
333The T ranscript of the proceedings was filed with DOAH on January 4,
3462021. After an agreed extension was requested by both parties and granted,
358the parti es timely submitted proposed recommended orders. Both were
368reviewed and considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this
379Recommended Order.
381References to the Florida Statutes are to the versions in effect at the time
395of the incident, act , or omiss ion, unless otherwise stated.
405F INDINGS OF F ACT
410Based on the record and evidence presented at the hearing, the
421undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material fact:
431Stipulated Facts
4331. Respondent holds Educator Certificate 1168653, coveri ng the areas of
444Elementary Education, English for Speakers of Foreign Languages, and
453Exceptional Student Education ( Ñ ESE Ò ), valid through June 30, 2021.
4662. At all relevant times, Respondent was employed as a kindergarten
477teacher at Sunland Park Academy, in the school district of Broward County,
489Florida.
490Evidence Presented at the Hearing
495Samiyeh Nasser
4973. During the 2017 - 2018 school year, Samiyeh Nasser (ÑNass e rÒ) was
511employed as a TeacherÔs Assistant at Sunland Pa r k Academy in the Broward
525County School dist rict. She worked with the kindergarten classes.
5354. Nasser Ñpulled outÒ students, removing them from a teacherÔs class and
547bringing them to her own room to provide extra help with reading, spelling ,
560and word pronunciation.
5635. She regularly went to LegerÔs classroom during first period each day, at
576approximately 9:00 a.m., and would take four or five students to her own
589classroom. She would then bring them back to their regular class to attend
602Ñspecials,Ò which are elective classes.
6086. On April 2, 2018, whe n Nasser returned children to LegerÔs classroom ,
621at 10:05 a.m. that day, she noticed that the other students had already left
635the room, but that there was one student, K.M., there alone.
6467. When Nasser found her , K.M. was crying. When Nasser asked her why
659she was alone, K.M. said that her classmates had gone to physical education
672class ( Ñ P.E. Ò ), and that she had been told by her teacher, Respondent, to stay
690in the classroom.
6938. Based on other credible evidence, K.M.Ôs comment to Nasser regarding
704having t o Ñ stay in the classroom Ò referred to a counseling conversation which
719Leger had with K.M. earlier in the morning, prior to the class leaving for P.E .
7359. She did not mention anything to Nasser about Steven Bynes (ÑBynesÒ),
747a pool substitute who had assumed responsibility for the class in
758RespondentÔs absence.
76010 . Nasser opened the back door to the classroom, saw the other students
774at P.E., and instructed the small group of students she brought back to the
788classroom to join them outside.
79311. She did not s ee either Leger or Bynes with the students at P.E. when
809she found K.M.
81212. Nasser remained with K.M. briefly, hugged her to calm her down, and
825then left her in the room as she went on to assume her other duties.
84013. She was in LegerÔs classroom a total o f approximately five to seven
854minutes.
855Steven Bynes, Jr .
85914. Steven Bynes, Jr., was employed as a pool substitute at Sunland Park
872Academy during the 2017 - 2018 school year. He provide d coverage when
885teachers were absent or out, and no outside substitute wa s hired for the day.
90015. On April 2, 2018, he was instructed to cover LegerÔs class while Leger
914attended a meeting. 1
91816. Bynes was in RespondentÔs classroom for approximately 20 minutes.
92817. Leger returned to the classroom while Bynes was still there an d
941advised him that the class had Ñspecials . Ò
95018. Bynes claimed that he advised Leger that it was two minutes before
963the class was to go to P.E., and advised her that she Ñstill had timeÒ to take
980them there.
9821 This was a meeting between Leger, the guidance counselor , and a parent mentioned later in
998this Recommended Ord er, para graph 60 infra.
100619. He claimed that Leger did not say anything to him, and he left the
1021classroom to return to the front office.
102820. After the fact, Bynes was told that a student had been left in the
1043classroom, but he denied knowledge of it and denied responsibility for leaving
1055K. M . in the classroom. He claimed he l eft the class with Leger. He also
1072denied having any conversation with K.M. in the classroom.
108121. Bynes denied taking the class to P.E. and stated that when he left the
1096classroom , he left the students with Leger. 2
1104Nikia Ragin
110622. Nikia Ragin (ÑRaginÒ) was the Assistant Principal at Sunland Park
1117Academy during the 2017 - 2018 school year.
112523. She was told by the Principal that Nasser had reported an incident
1138concerning a student, K.M. After speaking to Nasser, she spoke to K.M.
115024. Ragin spoke to K.M. approx imately two hours after the event took
1163place, and then reported to the Principal.
117025. Ragin was also present when Leger explained to the Principal that
1182Bynes, not she, had taken the students to P.E.
119126. Other than LegerÔs statement, Ragin found no other evidence to
1202conclude that Bynes had taken the students to P.E.
121127. RaginÔs conclusion regarding the evidence, at that point, was
1221mis guided and affected because the school surveillance cameras that would
1232likely show who took the students to P.E. were not operating properly. 3
124528. Leger elaborated and explained to Ragin that she was in a meeting
1258with the g uidance c ounselor when the students went to specials.
12702 Notably, Bynes said he didnÔt really remember what Leger said or did after he advised her
1287that she still had time to take the class to specials. Curiously, after he said this , he testified
1305that he simply Ñwalked out of the classro om . Ò This description by Bynes was significantly at
1323odds with LegerÔs testimony and recollection of the same discussion. Bynes seemed vague
1336and uncertain at times regarding the incident. LegerÔs description of her encounter and
1349discussion with Bynes when s he returned, is more persuasive and credible, and is adopted.
13643 The camera tapes had been reviewed by Ragin because of LegerÔs claim about not taking
1380the students to P.E.
138429. Had the surveillance cameras been working, there would have been
1395clear images of the kindergart en hallways and other relevant areas.
140630. There were also other inoperative cameras, that if working properly,
1417would have shown relevant views of the hallway leading to and from the
1430office of the g uidance c ounselor.
1437Sharonda Bailey
143931. Sunland Park Acade my Principal, Sharonda Bailey (ÑBaileyÒ) , received
1449a report from Nasser about a student in LegerÔs class.
145932. She referred the matter to Ragin, and saw her speaking with Nasser
1472and also with K.M.
147633. Bailey recalled that Bynes had been in the classroom t hat day to cover
1491the class. She asked him if anything had occurred when he was in the
1505classroom.
150634. Bynes told Bailey that Leger had returned to the classroom and said
1519something about the students being late for specials.
152735. Bynes recounted to Bailey t hat he explained to Leger that they werenÔt
1541that late, that she should take them herself, and that he then walked out the
1556front door.
155836. When she spoke with Respondent, Leger stated to her that she did not
1572leave a student in the classroom and that Bynes was the person who took the
1587students to P.E.
159037. Bailey also attempted to verify who took the students to P.E. through
1603the school Ô s security cameras. However, because the camera system was
1615antiquated , it had not captured or recorded what she needed to see .
162838. The security cameras glitched and froze, and the time stamp was off.
1641In short, the cameras were not capable of adequately displaying RespondentÔs
1652location or movement in the hallways because its quality was so poor. 4
16654 The security videos of the kindergarten hallway and the area outside the office of the
1681g uidance c ounselor were requested by Leger during discovery. However, they were not
1695provided to her and were not used or shown at the final hearing.
170839. Bailey contacted K.M.Ôs mot her and told her that her child was left
1722alone in the classroom while the rest of the class was taken to specials. She
1737explained that she would investigate the incident.
174440. Because Bailey was not able to find anyone during the investigation to
1757validate R espondentÔs position that she did not leave the student behind, she
1770issued a written reprimand to Leger.
177641. Bailey did not speak at length with K.M. about the incident, but
1789merely asked if she was okay.
1795Private Investigator William Miller
179942. William Miller (ÑMillerÒ) was retained by LegerÔs counsel to attempt to
1811locate K.M. He ultimately located her in Gulfport, Mississippi.
182043. He telephoned K.M.Ôs mother, Shirelle M. He reached her in her car on
1834her way to pick up K.M. from school.
184244. Later that day, Miller was also able to speak directly to K.M. 5
185645. Miller asked K.M. if she remembered the incident. K.M. explained
1867that Respondent went to a meeting, and that the class had been turned over
1881to a substitute teacher by the name of Mr. Bynes . She tol d him Bynes took
1898the class to P.E. outside the classroom.
19054 6. K.M. related to Miller that she told Bynes she had been bad, and t hat
1922Respondent had told her she could not go outside for P.E.
193347. K.M. stated that Bynes then told her to Ñwait in the classro omÒ and he
1949took the rest of the class to P.E.
195748. Miller testified that neither he nor K.M.Ôs mother provided her with
1969any background, mentioned Bynes, or in any way suggested what
1979information they wanted from her.
198449. Miller had work experience intervie wing juvenile witnesses and
1994testified that he Ñassiduously avoidedÒ leading K.M., because they are so
2005prone to being improperly led when questioned.
20125 Shirelle M. had called back about 30 minutes later and Miller spoke to K.M. on her
2029motherÔs speaker phone while they were in the car together.
203950. Miller recounted that K.M.Ôs mother expressed surprise that K.M.
2049recalled the name of Bynes, and assur ed Miller that she had not coached
2063K.M. in any way. 6
206851. Based on his interviews over the phone, affidavits were prepared for
2080K.M. and her mother, which documented the verbal information they had
2091provided to Miller.
209452. The affidavits were given to K.M.Ô s mother. Miller explained to her
2107that the affidavits should be their testimony, and not the testimony of either
2120Miller or the attorney in the case. He also explained that if there were any
2135changes that needed to be made, she should make the changes, send the
2148affidavit back to him, and that the affidavits could be redone, if necessary.
216153. Miller asked the mother to read and go over the affidavit that K.M.
2175was being asked to sign.
218054. Miller arranged to have a notary go to their apartment in Mississippi
2193t o have the mother and the child execute the affidavits.
220455. Before this occurred , he was able to reach Shirelle M. by telephone.
2217She apologized and told him that the delay in executing the affidavit
2229stemmed from the fact that she had changed jobs, and tha t the Gulf Coast
2244had experienced three separate hurricanes since he had last spoken to her.
225656. Miller explained to her that he did not want it to be inconvenient and
2271that he would make the arrangements necessary to get a notary to her to be
2286able to notar ize the affidavits.
229257. The notary was given specific instructions to tell Shirelle M. and K.M.
2305that they did not have to sign the affidavits , and could make any changes to
2320them that they wanted .
232558. Despite the delay in securing her signature, Miller s till felt that the
2339mother did not have any hesitation signing her affidavit.
23486 K.M.Ôs mother had been told of the incident, but had not been told about Bynes at the time
2367of the incident.
2370Ruth Galliard Leger
237359. Respondent was K.M.Ôs kindergarten teacher at Sunland Park
2382Academy during the 2017 - 2018 school year. She recalled that K.M. was a
2396good student and they g ot along well.
240460. Sometime during the morning of April 2, 2018, Respondent requested
2415an emergency meeting with the schoolÔs g uidance c ounselor and the parent of
2429a male student.
243261. The male student had come in late to class that day. He became
2446disruptiv e, knocking teaching items, like posters and magnets, to the floor. 7
245962. The meeting was scheduled by the guidance counselor. Respondent left
2470for the meeting when Bynes arrived at her classroom to provide coverage.
248263. Earlier that morning, K.M. had also been disruptive. Respondent
2492counseled her and told her that if she did it again, Respondent would take
2506some time from her P.E., consistent with the class rules, and that she would
2520have to stay behind in the classroom with Respondent for a few minutes of
2534h er P.E. time. 8
253964. On the day of the incident, the class had P.E. scheduled at 10:10 a.m.
2554When Respondent left for her meeting, the class had not yet gone to P.E.
256865. During the meeting with the guidance counselor, Respondent excused
2578herself and returned briefly to her classroom to retrieve a form that needed to
2592be signed by those in attendance at the conference. Resp . Ex . 1.
260666. When she entered the room to get the form, Bynes was there with her
2621students. Respondent explained to Bynes that she forgot the form, and that
2633her meeting with the counselor and parent was not over.
264367. Respondent asked Bynes what time it was and when he told her that
2657it was approximately 10:15 a.m. , she reminded him that the class had
2669specials at 10:10 a.m.
26737 This was out character for him, prompting Respondent to request the emergency meeting.
26878 Four other students had also been counseled that morning about their conduct and the
2702consequences before Respondent went to her meeting with the counselor.
271268. Bynes said that they had only missed five minutes, and the class could
2726still go to P.E.
273069. Respondent retrieved the form she needed, went out the front door
2742into the kindergarten hallway , and back to her meeting.
275170. The class was in the room with Bynes when Responden t departed to go
2766back to the meeting. However, she did not see Bynes take the students to
2780P.E.
278171. After the meeting with the counselor and the parent, Respondent left
2793the counselorÔs office. Respondent and the studentÔs parent stood in the first -
2806grade ha llway talking for several minutes. 9
281472. Respondent then walked the mother to the front door of the school,
2827where there are more cameras, and parted company with her. Leger then
2839proceeded down the hallway back to her classroom.
284773. When she got back , she was shocked to find K.M. standing in the room
2862by herself. When she asked K.M. why she was in the room, K.M. explained
2876that she had remembered that Leger previously told her that she owed time
2889from P.E. for misbehaving. As a result, she decided to stay behi nd in the
2904room when the others went to P.E.
291174. Respondent did not recall telling K.M. to Ñstay backÒ from P.E.
2923Leger told K.M. that she did not have to remain behind, that she wasnÔt upset
2938with her, and that she should have gone to P.E. with the rest o f the kids.
295575. Since there w ere five minutes left in the P.E. class, Respondent took
2969K.M. out to P.E.
297376. When Respondent picked up her students from P.E. five minutes later,
2985K.M. was fine and the class went to lunch.
299477. The next day, at the end of sc hool, Principal Bailey handed
3007Respondent a letter advising her that she was under investigation for leaving
3019a child unattended.
30229 This hallway was covered by the same faulty security cameras previously mentioned.
303578 . At her disciplinary meeting, Respondent told Bailey that she did not
3048leave K.M. in the classroom, and that she was at a mee ting with the g uidance
3065c ounselor and a parent at the time.
307379. To support her defense, Respondent asked Bailey for the school videos
3085which would show her in different hallways, entering the counselorÔs office ,
3096and speaking with and walking the mother to t he front door when her
3110students went to P.E.
311480. Leger later asked her first lawyer on two separate occasions to obtain
3127the relevant videos from the Broward County School District through a
3138Freedom of Information Act request. Resp . Exs . 12a and 12b.
315081. S he wanted the security videos to be subpoenaed for this case. 10
316482. K.M. remained in RespondentÔs class for the balance of the year and
3177Respondent had a good year with her.
318483. Leger never spoke to K.M. or her mother about the incident.
3196Shirelle M .
319984. Shirelle M. is the mother of K.M. She recalled Miller calling and
3212speaking to her and K.M. on the speaker phone.
322185. She heard K.M. tell Miller that it was Bynes that had left her in the
3237classroom.
323886. She heard K.M.Ôs entire conversation with Miller.
324687. The affidavit that K.M. signed was an accurate recitation of the phone
3259conversation she heard between Miller and her daughter in the car.
327088. She also signed her own affidavit that accurately set forth her
3282conversation with Miller. Resp. Ex . 8.
328989. Sh e knew that she could make any changes to her affidavit before
3303signing it.
330510 The undersigned took a dministrative notice of the DOAH file, which included RespondentÔs
3319subpoena to the Broward County School District seeking the videos, the DistrictÔs response,
3332and RespondentÔs Motion t o Compel seeking access to the videos.
334390. Shirelle M. was there when K.M. signed her affidavit, and read it with
3357her beforehand. She testified that no person forced her daughter to sign the
3370affidavit.
337191. She expla ined the long period of time that elapsed between the time
3385that she got the affidavit and the time that she signed . The delay was due to
3402her work schedule, which involved four or five jobs, since the COVID - 19
3416pandemic.
341792. She testified that she had no h esitation executing her affidavit, and
3430did so freely and voluntarily, since it was accurate and correct.
344193. Concerning the day of the classroom incident, she saw her daughter
3453before speaking with the Principal when she picked K.M. up from aftercare.
346594. She did not get much detail from the Principal, who said that the
3479matter was still under investigation. The P rincipal never told her that it was
3493Respondent who left K.M. in the room.
350095. She never overheard K.M. tell anyone that Respondent had left her i n
3514the classroom.
3516K.M .
351896. Before beginning her testimony, eight - year - old K.M. was questioned
3531by the undersigned. She was polite, alert, and calm. She understood the oath
3544and the importance of telling the truth.
355197. She remembered when she lived in Florid a. She also recalled
3563Respondent as her kindergarten teacher and the incident of being left in the
3576classroom.
357798. K.M. testified that it was Bynes who left her in the classroom when
3591Respondent was at a meeting. 11
359799. She recalled that when Bynes arrived at the classroom, Respondent
3608then left for a meeting.
361311 The T ranscript mistakenly phon etically wrote Barnes . It should have been Bynes.
3628100. K.M. stayed behind when the rest of the class went to P.E. She did so
3644because Respondent had told her earlier that morning to stay behind because
3656of minor discipline issues with her.
3662101. More sp ecifically, as the class left to go to P.E., K.M. told Bynes that
3678she was supposed to remain in the classroom, and Bynes said ÑokayÒ and took
3692the remainder of the class to P.E.
3699102. K.M. remained in the classroom while the class was at P.E., until
3712Respond ent returned from her meeting. When asked by Leger why she was
3725there alone, K.M. reminded Respondent that she had previously told her to
3737stay in the class.
3741103. K.M. executed an affidavit that she read and that her mother read to
3755her. It accurately reflec ted what happened. Resp . Ex . 13 b .
3769104. K.M. recalled speaking to a man on the phone (Investigator Miller) ,
3781and told him the same thing as what she testified to in court.
3794105. K.M. unequivocally stated twice during the hearing that she never
3805told anyone th at Respondent, Leger, had left her in the classroom.
3817106. Nobody told K.M. what to say in the hearing, and she remembered on
3831her own that to which she testified.
3838107. K.M. liked Respondent and stated that she was Ña pretty good
3850teacher.Ò
3851C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW
3856108. DOAH has jurisdiction o f the subject matter of this proceeding and
3869the parties , pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
387910 9 . The Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged
3891with the certification and regulati on of Florida educators under chapter 1012 ,
3903Florida Statutes .
39061 10 . This is a proceeding in which Petitioner seeks to sanction
3919RespondentÔs Educator Ôs Certificate. Because sanction proceedings are
3927considered penal in nature, Petitioner is required to prove the allegations in
3939the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. DepÔt of
3949Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co., 6 7 0 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v.
3967Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
397411 1 . The Ñclear and convincingÒ standard of proo f is described by the
3989Florida Supreme Court in In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1994). There, the
4004Court held:
4006Clear and convincing evidence requires that the
4013evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to
4023which the witnesses testify must be distinctl y
4031remembered; the testimony must be precise and
4038explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in
4046confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence
4055must be of such weight that it produces in the mind
4066of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction,
4076without hes itancy, as to the truth of the allegations
4086sought to be established.
4090Id. 645 So. 2d at 404 (quoting with approval, Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d
4105797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).
411111 2 . Here, the material allegation s of the Administrative Complaint are
4124stra ightforward and clear -- Respondent left K.M. unsupervised and alone in
4136her classroom while she took the other students to P.E. That allegation must
4149be proven by clear and convincing evidence . Osborne Stern & Co., 6 7 0 So. 2d
4166at 93 4 .
417011 3 . In considering wheth er the proof offered to establish the allegations
4184was clear and convincing, this tribunal is cognizant of the limitations on the
4197use of hearsay evidence in administrative proceedings set forth in s ection
4209120.57(1)(c) . Section 120.57 (1) (c) states:
4216(c) Hears ay evidence may be used for the purpose of
4227supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it
4234shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding
4244unless it would be admissible over objection in civil
4253actions.
425411 4 . H earsay w as offered and , in some inst ances, conditionally admitted
4269in to evidence during the hearing. The hearsay admitted during the hearing
4281was carefully re - evaluated and used as evidence when permitted by law.
429411 5 . In this case, for example, an out - of - court statement was made by
4312K.M. to Na sser. Th ese statement s by K.M. fall within one or more exception s
4329to the hearsay rule, and w ere admitted and considered. They also
4341supplemented or explained K.M.Ôs testimony.
434611 6 . Significantly, K.M.Ôs statement to Nasser when she found her alone
4359in the cl assroom , reasonably interpreted, did not directly implicate
4369Respondent as the person who actually left her in the classroom when the
4382class went to P.E.
438611 7 . Rather, K.M. told Nasser only that her classmates Ñwent to P.E.Ò and
4401she had Ñto stay in classÒ be cause Respondent had told her to stay in the
4417classroom. 12
441911 8 . The undersigned finds that this comment by K.M. referred to LegerÔs
4433comments to K.M. earlier in the morning before Bynes arrived.
444311 9 . The undersigned concludes that the statement by K.M. to Nas ser ,
4457when she found her crying alone in the classroom , did not clearly or
4470convincingly prove that it was Respondent who actually left her in the
4482classroom .
44841 20 . Further, the statements made by K.M. to Nasser in the classroom are
4499consistent with a conclusio n that K.M. obediently concluded that she was
4511required to remain behind when Bynes left for P.E with the other students.
452412 1 . The undersigned further concludes that Respondent was absent
4535when this occurred, having already left the classroom with the form she had
4548retrieved, to return to her meeting with the guidance counselor.
455812 K.M. did not clarify when Leger told her this -- only that it was said.
457412 2 . Not surprisingly, t he statements made by K.M. to Nasser were
4588repeated and interpreted by others who heard i t -- not from K.M. , but from
4603Nasser. Th e information relayed by Nasser t o others and the variants of her
4618statements to , or by , others , were hearsay. Those out - of - court statements
4632were not persuasive or convincing and were not given weight by the
4644undersigned.
464512 3 . S tatements by K.M. to Miller and Shirelle M. in the car were
4661con sidered for the purpose of supplementing or explaining the testimony both
4673g ave at the hearing.
467812 4 . Other evidence proffered by Petitioner is worth mentioning as well.
4691In considering whether allegations have been proven by clear and convincing
4702evidence, t his tribunal considered the use of evidence in administrative
4713proceedings outlined in s ection 120.57(1)(d). That statute concerns the
4723admission of collateral matters not necessarily raised by the pleadings.
4733Section 120.57 (1) (d) states, in pertinent part:
4741. .. [S] imilar fact evidence of other violations,
4750wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to
4758prove a material fact in issue, such as proof of
4768motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
4773knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or
4780accident, but it i s inadmissible when the evidence
4789is relevant solely to prove bad character or
4797propensity. When the state in an administrative
4804proceedin g intends to offer evidence of other acts or
4814offenses under this paragraph, the state shall
4821furnish to the party whose su bstantial interests are
4830being determined and whose other acts or offenses
4838will be the subject of such evidence, no fewer than
484810 days before commencement of the proceeding, a
4856written statement of the acts or offenses it intends
4865to offer, describing them an d the evidence the state
4875intends to offer with particularity ... .
488212 5 . It is undisputed that a notice of intent to use similar fact evidence
4898was not filed in this case by Petitioner.
490612 6 . Similarly , Petitioner sought to introduce and have the undersign e d
4920consider matters that referenced alleged prior failures to supervise students,
4930and other alleged misdeeds of Respondent. Those allegations d id not p rovide
4943any clear or persuasive evidence of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,
4953plan, knowledge, iden tity, or absence of mistake or accident in this case.
496612 7 . The undersigned concludes that this evidence was proffered for the
4979purpose of showing RespondentÔs bad character or propensity. As a result, the
4991evidence was inadmissible . §120.57 (1) (d) , Fla. Sta t .
500212 8 . Petitioner also suggests that the evidence of these Ñ uncharged
5015offenses Ò should be considered because ÑEPC RulesÒ do not permit its own
5028consideration of matters for penalty purposes which are not contained in the
5040hearing record. Respondent object ed. 13
504612 9 . That argument is unpersuasive and fails for several reasons. This
5059case was referred to DOAH . The case is subject to the DOAH rules, policies ,
5074and statutes which govern its proceedings. To layer in or apply rules or
5087policies of other entities, without notice or authority, is inconsistent with the
5099tenets of due process.
51031 30 . Moreover, in light of the ultimate F inding s of F act and C onclusions of
5122L aw s et forth herein , the issue as framed by Petitioner is moot, as no penalty
5139is recommended.
514113 1 . F inally, d iscipline or sanctions may be imposed only on grounds
5156specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint. See Cottrill v. DepÔt of
5167Ins ., 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Kinney v. DepÔt of State , 501
5184So. 2d 129, 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) ; Hunter v. DepÔt ProfÔl Reg., 458 So. 2d
5200842, 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
520613 2 . Likewise, o nly those facts and charges outlined in the A dministrative
5221C omplaint may be considered during the hearing. See Christian v. DepÔt of
5234Health, Bd. o f Chiropractic Med., 16 1 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2014) , and
525013 Despite being aware of this disputed issue and RespondentÔs objection , Petitioner cited to
5264no authority , rule, or law to supports it s position in its P roposed R ecommended O rder .
5283cases cited therein. The past offenses were not outlined or plead in the
5296A dministrative C omplaint, and will not be considered by the undersigned.
5308Other Applicable Law
531113 3 . In a DOAH hearing, the case is considered de novo by the
5326Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") , based on the facts and evidence presented
5339at the hearing. This means that the evidence is heard and considered again.
5352There is no "presumption of correctness" that attaches to the preliminary
5363decision of the a gency. Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778
5380(Fla. 1st DCA 1981) ; and Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Ctr., Inc. v. Fla. Dep't
5394of HRS , 475 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
540413 4 . Factual findings in a recommended order are within the province of
5418the ALJ, based on the broad discretion afforded to him or her. Goin v.
5432Comm'n on Ethics , 658 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). See also Heifetz v.
5447Dep't of Bus. Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Bevs . & Tobacco 475 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st
5464DCA 1985).
546613 5 . More speci fically, the ALJ has the best vantage point to resolve
5481conflicts, determine the credibility of witnesses, draw permissible and
5490reasonable inferences from the evidence, and reach ultimate findings of fact,
5501based on the competent and substantial evidence pre sented. Goin , 658 So. 2d
5514at 1138; Dep't of Bus. and Prof'l Reg. v. McCarthy , 638 So. 2d 57 4 (Fla. 1 st
5532DCA 1994).
553413 6 . Whether Respondent committed the charged offense(s) is a question
5546of ultimate fact to be decided by the trier - of - fact in the context of ea ch alleged
5566violation. McKinney v. Castor , 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995);
5579Langston v. Jamerson , 653 So. 2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
559113 7 . An agency may not substitute its own facts for that of the ALJ so long
5609as there is adequate evidence in t he record to support the ALJ's factual
5623findings. Lantz v. Smith , 106 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). See also Resnick
5638v. Flagler Cty. Sch. Bd ., 46 So. 3d 1110, 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)("In a fact -
5657driven case such as this, where an employee's conduct is at issue, great
5670weight is given to the findings of the [ALJ], who has the opportunity to hear
5685the witnesses' testimony and evaluate their credibility.") .
5694Ultimate Finding s of Fact
569913 8 . After considering the evidence presented at the hearing, and the
5712record as a whole, th e undersigned finds the testimony of K.M. and
5725Respondent more persuasive and credible than other witnesses presented by
5735Petitioner, including Bynes. 14
573913 9 . In short, in this case , Petitioner simply failed to carry itÔs burden by
5755clear and convi ncing evidence that it was Respondent who left K.M. in the
5769classroom on April 2, 2018 , when the other students went to P.E.
57811 40 . School officials developed versions of K.M.Ôs statement through
5792inadmissible and unreliable hearsay which differed and straye d from what
5803K.M. actually t old Nasser . Whether they misunderstood Nasser or reached
5815conclusions based on their own assumptions, PetitionerÔs version of the
5825incident is not supported by the evidence , and falls short of proving the
5838allegations by clear and c onvincing evidence.
584514 1 . Bynes denied that he took the students to P.E., and claimed he left
5861Respondent with her class before K. M. was left alone . The undersigned
5874found this testimony to be directly refuted by other more persuasive evidence
5886from K.M. and Respondent.
589014 2 . Regardless, the undersigned concludes that the quality and quantum
5902of evidence produced by Petitioner was simply insufficient to produce in the
5914mind of th e undersigned a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to
5928the truth of th e allegations sought to be established against the Respondent .
5942See, In re Davey, 645 So. 2d at 404 .
595214 3 . In short, PetitionerÔs proof was neither clear nor convincing that
5965Respondent left K.M. alone in the classroom on April 2, 2018, and the
597814 Regrettably, Petitioner was either unable or unwilling to present or use video surveillance
5992that may have bolstered its allegations and supported its burden of proving the case by clear
6008and convincing evidenc e.
6012allegations ou tlined in the PetitionerÔs Administrative Complaint were not
6022sufficiently proven.
6024R ECOMMENDATION
6026Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
6039R ECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a Final Order
6050dismissing the Ad ministrative Complaint and the charges contained therein.
6060D ONE A ND E NTERED this 10th day of February, 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon
6075County, Florida.
6077S
6078R OBERT L. K ILBRIDE
6083Administrative Law Judge
60861230 Apalachee Parkway
6089Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
6094(850) 488 - 9675
6098www.doah.state.fl.us
6099Filed with the Clerk of the
6105Division of Administrative Hearings
6109this 10th day of February , 2021 .
6116C OPIES F URNISHED :
6121Matthew Mears, General Counsel Randy Kosec, J r ., Chief
6131Department of Education Office of Professional Practices Services
6139Turlington Building, Suite 1244 Department of Education
6146325 West Gaines Stre et Turlington Building, Suite 224 - E
6157Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400 325 West Gaines Street
6166Tallahassee, Florid a 32399 - 0400
6172Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire
6176Dubiner & Wilensky, LLC Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire
61841200 Corporate Center Way , Suite 200 Charles T. Whitelock, P.A.
6194Wellington, Florida 33414 - 8594 300 Southeast 13th Street
6203Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
6207Lisa M. Forbess
6210Interim Executive Director
6213Education Practices Commission
6216Department of Educati on
6220Turlington Building, Suite 316
6224325 West Gaines Street
6228Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400
6233N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS
6244All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from
6257the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended
6268Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this
6283case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 02/10/2021
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/07/2021
- Proceedings: Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Proposed Recommended Order ("PRO") filed.
- Date: 01/04/2021
- Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 12/01/2020
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 11/30/2020
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 11/30/2020
- Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- Date: 11/24/2020
- Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- Date: 11/17/2020
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
- PDF:
- Date: 11/16/2020
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for November 30 and December 1, 2020; 9:00 a.m., Eastern Time).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/25/2020
- Proceedings: the School Board of Broward County, Florida's Response to Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/03/2020
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for November 30 and December 1, 2020; 9:00 a.m.; Lauderdale Lakes and Tallahassee, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 07/13/2020
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/13/2020
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for September 14 and 15, 2020; 9:00 a.m.; Lauderdale Lakes and Tallahassee, FL).
Case Information
- Judge:
- ROBERT L. KILBRIDE
- Date Filed:
- 07/01/2020
- Date Assignment:
- 07/02/2020
- Last Docket Entry:
- 04/30/2021
- Location:
- Lauderdale Lakes, Florida
- District:
- Southern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO
- Suffix:
- PL
Counsels
-
Lisa M Forbess, Program Specialist IV
Address of Record -
Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire
Address of Record -
Mark S. Wilensky, Esquire
Address of Record -
Lisa M Forbess, Executive Director
Address of Record -
Mark S Wilensky, Esquire
Address of Record