Ferris v. Turlington
| Decision Date | 16 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 69561,69561 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 393,510 So.2d 292 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 393 Thomas B. FERRIS, Petitioner, v. Ralph D. TURLINGTON, as the Commissioner of Education, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John J. Chamblee, Jr. and Susan E. Hicks of Chamblee & Miles, Tampa, for petitioner.
Sydney H. McKenzie III, General Counsel, and Cecilia Bradley, Counsel, State Bd. of Educ., Tallahassee, for respondent.
Pamela L. Cooper of Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A., Tallahassee, for Florida Teaching Profession-Nat. Educ. Ass'n, amicus curiae.
Thomas W. Young III, General Counsel, FEA/United, Tallahassee, for Florida Educ. Ass'n/United, AFT, AFL-CIO, amicus curiae.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Susan Tully Proctor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for Educ. Practices Com'n, amicus curiae.
We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution, because of express and direct conflict between Turlington v. Ferris, 496 So.2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and Ferris v. Austin, 487 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
Thomas Ferris was an elementary schoolteacher in Hernando County. In 1983, the school board filed a complaint against Ferris, seeking his dismissal on charges of immorality based upon allegations of sexual misconduct with a fifteen-year-old male student. (Ferris had pleaded nolo contendere to sexual battery and had been placed on probation for three years with adjudication of guilt withheld.) Thereafter, the Commissioner of Education, Ralph Turlington, filed an administrative complaint seeking revocation of Ferris' teaching certificate.
The two cases were consolidated by stipulation and heard jointly by an administrative hearing officer. As a threshold finding applicable to both proceedings, the hearing officer concluded that Ferris had no sexual contact with the student as alleged. The hearing officer recommended that both the school board's charges and the administrative complaint be dismissed.
The school board rejected the recommended order and dismissed Ferris, finding that the hearing officer incorrectly applied a clear and convincing standard of proof to the evidence and erroneously concluded that corroboration was necessary to sustain the minor's testimony. The school board's order permanently dismissing Ferris was appealed by Ferris, however, and reversed by the Fifth District in Ferris v. Austin. The Fifth District, quoting extensively from the hearing officer's recommended order, determined that "[t]he hearing officer made a clear factual determination that Ferris 'never made any sexual contact with any minor,' and that there was a 'failure of the weight of the evidence to support a factual finding that [the minor's] allegations are true.' " Id. at 1166. The court then concluded that a reading of the recommended order made it apparent that pursuant to "any standard " the evidence supported Ferris, and thus the school board erred in rejecting the recommended order. Id. at 1167.
Conversely, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) adopted the hearing officer's order and dismissed the administrative complaint against Ferris. This order was appealed by the Commissioner of Education to the First District, which in essence agreed with the Hernando County School Board. The First District found that the hearing officer had erred by requiring corroboration of the minor's testimony and by erroneously applying a clear and convincing standard of proof to the evidence.
After reviewing the record, we agree with the Fifth District's analysis of the hearing officer's recommended order in this case. Read in its entirety, it is clear that the hearing officer concluded that under any standard of proof the evidence presented failed to support the allegations of misconduct. The hearing officer unequivocally found that the alleged sexual incident did not occur and took great pains to delineate why he so concluded. The EPC correctly adopted the hearing officer's order and should have been affirmed.
Although we have found that the hearing officer's order is supported under the lesser standard of preponderance of the evidence, we take this opportunity to clarify the issue of the appropriate standard of proof to be applied in the circumstances presented here. As the hearing officer correctly noted:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. State
...standard of proof," Smith, 405 So.2d at 186, which is equivalent to the clear and convincing evidence standard, see Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla.1987). The State was also required to establish the basis for C.B.'s similar fact testimony by clear and convincing proof. See Bryant ......
-
Nguyen v. STATE HEALTH MED. QUALITY ASSUR.
...medical licensure proceedings); Rife v. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, 638 So.2d 542 (Fla.App.1994) (clear and convincing); Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla.1987) (clear and convincing in license revocations); Bernard v. Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 2 Or.App. 22, 465 P.2d 917 (1970) (license......
-
Rameses, Inc. v. County of Orange
...is subject to suspension or revocation only upon proof by clear and convincing evidence of the alleged violations."); Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla.1987) (holding that after a teacher's plea of nolo contendere to sexual battery, the administrative revocation of his license must b......
-
McDonald v. Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Pilot Com'rs
...of proving the violations by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a mere preponderance of the evidence. See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292, 294-95 (Fla.1987) (revocation of teaching certificate). In proving its case, however, DPR relied upon the prima facie negligence presumpt......
-
Administrative Procedure for the Generalist.
...285 So. 3d 975, 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Beckett v. Dept. Fin. Servs., 982 So. 2d 94, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). (70) Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. (71) Dept. of Banking and Fin. v. Osborne Stern and Co., 670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla. 1996). (72) In re Graziano, 696 So. 2d 744, 7......
-
Agency discipline proceedings: the preponderance of clear and convincing evidence.
...37, 48-49 (1914). (10) Florida Dep't of Transportation v. J.W.C., 396 So. 2d 778 (Flat 1st D.C.A. 1981). (11) See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292, 295 (Flat 1987) ("In a case where the proceedings implicate the loss of livelihood, an elevated standard is necessary to protect the rights......