the Education Practices omm ission of the tate of Florida DR. ERIC J. SMITH, as the Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, EDUCATEUN COMMISSION STATE or twain vs. EPC CASE N9: DOAH CASE NQ index Ni il?33?2~ Poi?? CASEY GRIFFITH, PPS N9 0892096 Ng 1021431 Respondent. Final Order This cause came before a teacher panel of the Education Practices Commission on August 4, 2011, in Tallahassee, Florida pursuant to Sections 1012.795, 1012.796 and Florida Statutes for consideration of the Recommended Order entered in this case by Lisa Shearer Nelson, Administrative Law Judge dated June 10, 2011. Respondent filed Exceptions to the Recommended Order. A copy of those exceptions is attached to and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the complete record accompanying the Recommended Order, the Recommended Order, the exceptions, and being fully advised in the premises, the Commission rejected exception 1, finding that there is competent and substantial evidence to support the findings of fact in the Recommended Order. The Commission rejected exception 2, finding that the administrative Iawjudge?s finding was more reasonable. The Commission rejected the exception as to the recommendation. The Panel hereby adopts the findings of fact, (paragraphs 1~16), conclusions of law, Final Order Casey Griffith Page 2 (paragraphs 17?29), and the recommendation contained in the Recommended Order. A copy of the Recommended Order, attached to and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted in full and becomes the Final Order of the Education Practices Commission. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that: Respondent?s educator?s certificate shall be suspended for a period of two (2) years from the date of this order. 2. Upon employment in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator?s certificate, Respondent shall be placed on 2 employment years of probation with the conditions that during that period, he shall: A. immediately notify the investigative office in the Department of Education upon employment or termination of employment in the state in any public or private position requiring a Florida educator?s certificate. B. Have Respondent?s immediate supervisor submit annual performance reports to the investigative office in the Department of Education. C. Pay to the Commission during the first 6 months of each probation year the administrative costs ($150) of monitoring probation assessed to the educator. D. Violate no law and shall fully comply with all district school board policies, school rules, and State Board of Education rules. E. Satisfactorily perform ali assigned duties in a competent, professional manner. F. Bear all costs of complying with the terms of a final order entered by the Commission. Final Order Casey Griffith Page 3 G. Respondent shall submit to a Recovery Network Program evaluation within sixty (60) days from the date of this order by an RNP qualified provider and Respondent is to follow the course of treatment or counseling as recommended. H. Respondent is assessed an administrative fine of $500.00 to be paid within the first year of probation. This order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Commission. ozadayor L?aefmgew ,2011. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Bureau of Professional Practices Bureau of Teacher Certification Florida Administrative Law Reports Superintendent Lisa Shearer Nelson Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 323994 550 Claudia Llado, Clerk Division of Administrative Hearings Daniel Biggins Presidin?woacer NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW A PARTY WHO tS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION AND A SECOND COPY, BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF RENDITION OF THIS ORDER. Final Order Casey Griffith Page 4 Assistant Attorney General Recovery Network Program for Educators Probation Office SERVICE I that a copy of the foregoing Order was mailed to Casey Griffith, Tallahassee, Florida 3230341432 and Mark. Herdman, 29605 US. Highway 19 North, Suite 110. Clearwater, Florida 33761 by Certi?ed US. Mail and by electronic mail to Margaret O'Sullivan Parker, Deputy General Counsel, Suite 1232, Turiington Building, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 this 7th day of September, 2011. . (310mm Hmuuro Jar?e Harris, Education Practices Commission STATE OF FLOREDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATEVE HEARINGS DR. ERIC J. SMITH, AS COMMESSIONER OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, vs. Case No. CASEY GRIFFITH, Respondent. RECOMMENDED ORDER On April 25, 2011, a hearing was held in Ocala, Florida, pursuant to the authority set forth in sections 120.569 and Florida Statutes. The case was considered by Lisa Shearer Nelson, Administrative Law Judge. ARPEARANCES For Petitioner: Brent McNeal, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street anlington Building, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399w0400 For Respondent: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman Sakeliarides, P.A. 29605 0.8. Highway, 19 North, Room 110 Ciearwater, Florida 33761 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section and Florida Statutes (2008), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, What penalty shouid be imposed? PRELIMINARY On December 15, 2009, Petitioner, Dr. Eric Smith, as Commissioner of Education (Petitioner), filed a two?count Administrative Complaint charging Respondent, Casey Griffith (Respondent or Mr. Griffith) with violating section and Respondent executed an Election of Rights form on January 8, 2010, disputing the allegations in the Administrative Complaint and requesting an administrative hearing pursuant to section Fiorida Statutes. On March 31, 2011, Petitioner referred the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an administrative law judge. On March'lB, 2011, a Notice of Hearing was issued scheduling the case to be heard April 25, 2011, and the case proceeded as scheduled. The parties filed a Joint Premhearing Stipulation in which they stipulated to the majority of the facts in the Administrative Complaint and, where relevant, those stipulated facts have been included below. The parties stipulated that Respondent violated section in that he was adjudicated guilty of a criminai charge other than a minor traffic vioiation. What remained in dispute is whether Respondent committed gross immorality by his actions leading to his arrest and adjudication of guilt. Petitioner presented the testimony of Officer Carla Whitley, and Petitioner?s Exhibits 1?7 were admitted into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Susan Martelli, Kevin Helms, Jarrod Hickman, and Eula Walker, and testified on his own behalf. Respondent?s Exhibit number i was admitted into evidence, and Respondent was allowed to late?file Respondent's Exhibit 2, and did so. The Transcript of the hearing was filed May 9, 2011. Petitioner filed its Proposed Recommended Order on May 19, 2011, and Respondent filed his Proposed Recommended Order on May 20, 2011. Both submissions have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been a licensed teacher in the State of Florida, having been issued Florida Educator's Certificate 1021431. His certificate covers the area of social science, and expires on June 30, 2011. 2. During the 2008*2009 school year, Respondent was a teacher and coach at Florida State University School in Tallahassee, Florida. 3. While attending college, Respondent played football for the University of Florida. During his football career, Respondent suffered several injuries, including five concussions and injuries to his shoulder, hand, knee and ankle. Several of these injuries required surgery, and as a result, Respondent was prescribed a series of pain medications and developed a tolerance for them. Respondent continues to have surgeries related to his football injuries and continues to take pain medication. 4. On January 17, 2009, Respondent went on a lunch date. During the date, he consumed some alcoholic drinks. At the time of the lunch date, Respondent was also taking pain killers and did not think that these medications impaired his ability to function. However, as a result of the drinks at lunch and/or drinks consumed the night before, coupled with the use of Respondent was impaired. 5. Respondent does not remember the incident described below, before waking up in the Leon County Jail medical ward. 6. As acknowledged by Respondent, the ultimate facts of the incident giving rise to his arrest are not in dispute. Respondent was intoxicated or otherwise impaired when he became involved in a verbal confrontation with his neighbor, Jordan Thompson, while the neighbor and his uncle, Gene Thompson, were attempting to secure a cable to the side of the neighbor's residence. Respondent was upset about the amount of noise he perceived the neighbor to be making. 7. Respondent knew most of his neighbors and felt he had a good relationship with them, but did not know this particular neighbor. 8. Respondent threatened his neighbor, shouting profanities at him, and the threats by Respondent caused Thompson and his uncle to go inside his home. Respondent returned to his own home, came back outside with a shotgun, approached the neighbor?s house and continued to threaten Jordan and his uncle with shotgun in hand. 9. Jordan Thompson?s aunt, Kathleen, was inside the home and called 911. Respondent was arrested and charged with one count of aggravated assault with deadly weapon without intent to kill, a felony. All three of the Thompsons were very frightened by the incident. 10. After his arrest, at some time over the weekend, Respondent notified administrative authorities at the school where he worked of the incident, and he was placed on administrative leave. At the end of the school semester, he was notified that, along with 47 other teachers, his contract would not be renewed. ii. The incident was reported in the local newspaper and the website of a local television station. At least one witness who testified at hearing read about the arrest in the newspaper. Respondent acknowledged that his call to the school was motivated in part so that the school could "distance" itself from the event. 12. On or about April 2, 2009, the charges against Respondent were amended to misdemeanor charges for trespass; improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon; and using a firearm while under the influence. 13. On or about June 10, 2009, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charges and the court adjudicated him guilty on all counts. Respondent was sentenced to 30 days in jail, 12 months of probation, substance abuse counseling and any recommended counseling or aftercare, random drug and alcohol screenings, 60 days in jail work camp and payment of applicable fines and fees. Respondent was also ordered to have no contact with the victims and to change his address by August 2009. 14. By all accounts, Respondent is a gifted teacher. He is currently studying at Florida State University working on his doctorate in education. 15. Respondent is embarrassed by his actions January 17, 2009, and regrets having acted as he did. However, he stopped short of acknowledging that he should not mix drugs and alcohol, especially at the doses to which he had become accustomed, and seems to think that he could tolerate mixing the two. 16. Colleagues with whom Respondent worked testified at hearing on his behalf. Of particular interest was the testimony of Eula Walker, a support assistant at Florida High whose daughter had been one of Respondent's students. She, along with other staff members who testified, believed that Respondent could continue to be an effective teacher. She also had no hesitation regarding his continuing to teach her daughter following the January 17, 2009, incident. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 17. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action in accordance with sections 120.569 and Florida Statutes {2010}. i8. This is a disciplinary action by Petitioner in which 9etitioner seeks to discipline Respondent?s teaching certificate. Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate the allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Dep't of Banking and Fin. v. Osborne Stern Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turiington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987). 19. As stated by the Florida Supreme Court: Clear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be distinctiy remembered; the testimony must be precise and lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such a weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction,' without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. in re Henson, 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005), quoting Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). 20. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with violations of section and Section 1012.795 authorizes the Education Practices Commission to suspend, revoke, or otherwise penalize a teaching certificate, provided it can be shown that the holder of the certificate has committed any of the violations enumerated. 21. The parties have stipulated that Respondent violated section as charged in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint, which makes it a disciplinary violation when a certificateholder has "been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of guilty to, regardless of adjudication of guilt, a misdemeanor, felony, or any other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation." The remaining determination is whether Respondent is guilty of the violation charged in Count One. Count One of the Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with "gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude as defined by rule of the State Board of Education," in violation of section 22. @he Education Practices Commission has not defined "gross immorality" or "moral turpitude" for the purposes of discipline to be imposed pursuant to section 1012.795. The Commission has, however defined "immorality" and "moral turpitude" for use by school districts in taking action against instructional personnel in Florida Administrative Code Rule This rule, which may provide guidance in this context, provides in pertinent part: (2) Immorality is defined as conduct that is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. It is conduct sufficiently notorious to bring the individual concerned or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect and impair the individual?s service in the community. Moral turpitude is a crime that is evidenced by an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties; which, according to the accepted standards of the time a man owes to his or her fellow man or to society in general, and the doing of the act itself and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral tnrpitude. 23. Moral turpitude has also been defined by the Supreme Court of Florida as "anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals, although it often involves the question of intent as when unintentionally committed through error of judgment when wrong was not contemplated." State ex rel. Tuliidge v.'Holiingsworth, l08 Fla. 607, l46 So. 660, 661 (1933). 24. It is clear that Respondent's conduct in this instance was inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals. Given Respondent's own reaction to his behavior, and the reports in the media, his conduct meets the definition of immorality. 25. To constitute a violation of section however, the conduct must go a step further. It must involve an act of misconduct that is serious, and which demonstrates a flagrant disregard of proper moral standards. Brogan v. Mansfield, No. 96m0286 (DOAH Aug. l, 1996; EPC Oct. 18, 1996). 26. The conduct at issue here meets this higher standard, and it is found both as the ultimate finding of fact and recommended conclusion of law that Respondent has committed gross immorality as contemplated by section lOl2.795. Respondent voluntarily mixed alcohol and pain medication, and was admittedly impaired at the time of the accident. Brandishing a gun at one's neighbors and shouting threats and profanities at them while brandishing that gun is horrific behavior, impaired or not. Moreover, the impairment in this case only adds to the seriousness of Respondent's behavior given that Respondent created the impairment by mixing drugs and alcohol. 27. Most troubling was Respondent's failure to recognize that, regardless of the tolerance built to the pain medications he had been taking, mixing alcohol with narcotics is a dangerous practice. Until such time as Respondent recognizes that the two substances should not be mixed together, regardless of his belief regarding his ability to tolerate the combination, there can be no assurance that the factors giving rise to this incident could not recur. 28. By the same token, Respondent has significant support in the educational community. Former colleagues and instructors Itestified and/or wrote letters or support on his behalf. Respondent truly wants to make a contribution to the education of young people in his community. 29. The Education Practices Commission is issued disciplinary guidelines for violations of section 1012.795, and l0 has identified mitigating and aggravating factors to be considered in determining the appropriate penalty. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6lel.007. A penalty within the guideline ranges for the violations found is appropriate. RECOMMENDATEON Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reachedJr it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent is found guilty of section and as charged in Counts One and Two of the Administrative Complaint; that his license be suspended for a period of two years; that he be required to submit to an evaluation by a qualified provider approved by the Florida Recovery Network Program within 60 days of the entry of the Commission?s final order, and follow any recommended course of treatment or counseling; that he be placed on probation for a period of two employment years; and that he pay a fine of $500 to the Commission. 11 DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman Sakeilarides, P.A. Florida. LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Bearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399m3060 (850) 488?9675 Fax Filing (850) 921w6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 2011. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Brent McNeai, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399w0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Department of Education Turlington Building, 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida Lois Tepper, Department of Education Turlington Building, 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida Suite 224 Executive Director Education Practices Commission 32399~0400 Acting General Counsel Suite 1244 32399w0400 12 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224?3 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399u0400 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case. 13 STATE or FLORIDA it we Pt? is 23 DIVISION or ADWNISTRATIVE HEARINGS DR. ERIC SMITH, as Commissioner of Education Petitioner, vs. Case No.: CASEY GRIFFITH, Respondent. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent, CASEY GRIFFITH, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fla. Stat. ?12057 hereby files these Exceptions to certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order, as well as the recommended penalty. Specifically, Respondent takes exception to the second sentence in paragraph 15 of the findings of fact. The finding states: . . . However, he stopped short of acknowledging that he should not mix drugs and alcohol, especially at the doses to which he had become accustomed, and seems to think that he could tolerate mixing the two (Rec. Order, p. 6). This finding is directly contrary to the record evidence. Respondent?s uncontradicted testimony on this issue was: Q: Even with this incident, you think you can still garner the respect of the students and be a teacher? A: Yes. I know, because this incident not only embarrasses me, but it it scared me. It shamed me. It also opened my eyes to a manner I guess of a problem with too much reliance on medical prescriptions, and I know that will never be an issue again in my life. 1 since had two more one major surgery, one minor operation and haven?t relied on the medication for more than a day or two after. I found other ways of dealing with the pain, the day?to, day pain. I know that that can never be . this incident could never be repeated. 1 would not let that happen. That is not in my nature. It is not in my nature to let myself lose completely . lose complete coherent control like that, to not even remember. I mean, it still kills me to this day that have to read the police report. I feel like I can put images to it, but it is what I interpret the report to say. i have no recollection. I mean, it is very humbling to have no ability to defend yourself whaESOever because you have no recollection. All of that does not make me a enable to be a teacher, because I know I recognize that. I recognize the problem. I saw what happened after the fact. (Tr. pp. 40?41). Thus, the finding in the second sentence of paragraph 15 is not supported by competent substantial evidence and should be rejected. Respondent takes exception to the Conclusion of Law in paragraph 27 of the Recommended Order, which states: This conclusion is predicated on the factual findings in paragraph 15, which, as discussed above, are not supported by competent substantial evidence, and in fact, are contrary to the evidence. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests the Commission reject the conclusion of law set forth in paragraph 27 of the Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED PENALTY The recommended Respondent?s license be suspended for two years. That recommendation was, at least in part, predicated on the belief Respondent does not recognize the dangers inherent in mixing prescription pain medication and alcohol. As discussed above, that belief is incorrect. The found. that, ?By all accounts, Respondent is a gifted teacher. He is currently studying at Florida State University working on his doctorate in education.? (R0. ?1 1. That he enjoys the continued support of his colleagues, and the parents of his former students (RD. ?l 16); and that ?Respondent truly wants to make a. contribution to the education of the young people in his community.? (KO. ill 28). Respondent?s actions were described by the as horrific. Respondent agrees with that characterization. As a result of his actions, Respondent resigned from his job, and has been out of teaching for over 2 years. But in that time, he has not abandoned education. He has worked to better himself as an educator, and to put himself in the position of making substantial contributions to young people?s lives. Two more years out of the classroom serves no purpose. If the purpose of a suspension is to punish, Respondent has already been punished. If the purpose of a suspension. is to force Respondent to re?ect on his actions and show contrition, he has done so. Respondent is ready to go back into the classroom. Probation and monitoring will go much further toward ensuring Respondent?s issues do not resurface than a snspensioni WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests the Commission fashion any penalty it deems appropriate that does not include a suspension of his license. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HERE-BY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via 6- mail to Brent McNeal, Asst. General Counsel, Florida Dept. of Education, 325 W. Gaines Street, Building, Room 1244, Tallahassee, FL 323990400, this 27th day ofjime, 2011. Mark Herdman Mark Herdman Florida Bar No.: 602566 HERDMAN SAKELLARIDES, PA. 29605 US. Hwy 19 North, Suite. 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 (727) 785?1228 Phone (727) 7864107 Facsimile Attorney for Respondent