Recommended Order — 26-001027PL

STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DR. HENRY MACK, AS
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, 1
Petitioner,
vs.
LAUREN WATTS,
Respondent.
/
Case No. 26-1027PL
RECOMMENDED ORDER
By notice, a formal hearing was conducted on July 13, 2026, via Zoom
conference, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Yolonda Y. Green, of the
Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH).
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: 	Ron Weaver, Esquire
101 Marketside Avenue
Suite 404, Box 157
Ponte Vedra, Florida 32081
Bonnie Ann Wilmot, Esquire
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1232
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6533
For Respondent: 	Martin French Powell, Esquire
Stephanie M. Schaap, Esquire
Meyer Blohm and Powell, P.A.
Post Office Box 1547
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
1 During this proceeding, Dr. Henry Mack succeeded Anastasios Kamoutsas as the
Commissioner of Education (the Commissioner).

2
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Respondent (Lauren Watts or Ms. Watts) committed the
violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty,
if any, should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On January 26, 2026, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint2
against Ms. Watts, seeking to take disciplinary action against Respondent’s
Florida educator’s certificate alleging the following:
3. During the 2022/2023 school, Respondent allowed
students to disparage [the student], a [Gainesville]
high school student, when students suggested that
[the student] was a Hitler sympathizer. Respondent
went 	further 	by 	suggesting 	to 	the 	class 	that 	a
student 	in 	another 	class 	had 	made 	a 	similar
observation with regards to [the student]. Finally,
Respondent presented [the student], in front of [the
student’s] 	peers, 	with 	a 	formal 	certificate
proclaiming [the student] the most likely member of
the class to become a dictator. Respondent’s conduct
embarrassed and disparaged [the student].
The Commissioner alleged that Ms. Watts’s alleged conduct violated
section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code
Rules 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. and 10.081(2)(a)5. Respondent timely disputed the
material allegations in the Administrative Complaint and requested a formal
administrative hearing under sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida
Statutes.
2 On November 5, 2025, after Respondent filed her Motion to Dismiss the Administrative
Complaint in DOAH Case No. 25-5266PL, Petitioner requested to withdraw and hold the
Administrative Complaint in abeyance to conduct additional investigation into the facts and
circumstances in this matter. The undersigned relinquished jurisdiction and closed the file of
DOAH. Since Petitioner requested in its motion that it sought to refile the case at a later
date, the case was not dismissed with prejudice. The case was refiled with DOAH and
assigned DOAH Case No. 26-1027PL. Although Petitioner did not entitle its complaint as an
Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner withdrew certain factual allegations and
four charges.

3
On February 23, 2026, this case was referred to DOAH and assigned to
the undersigned. This case was scheduled for a formal hearing on May 27,
2026. On May 5, 2026, the undersigned granted a continuance and
rescheduled the hearing for August 13, 2026.
The hearing was conducted via Zoom on August 13, 2026, as scheduled.
Petitioner presented the testimony from Respondent and from T.M. (student).
Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 and 2 and Petitioner’s Exhibit 3, pages 14, 15, and 24
through 29, were accepted into evidence. Respondent testified on her own
behalf and presented the testimony of two students, L.L. and M.F.
Respondent’s Exhibits 4 and 6 through 8 were accepted into evidence.
The one-volume Transcript of the formal hearing was filed with DOAH on
September 15, 2026. Both parties timely submitted Proposed Recommended
Orders (PROs) that were considered in preparing this Recommended Order.
Unless stated otherwise, all statutory and rule citations will be to the
version of the Florida Statutes or rules in effect at the time the alleged
conduct occurred. See McCloskey v. Dep’t of Fin. Serv., 115 So. 3d 441, 444
(Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (indicating that the question of whether a statute was
violated is based on the version of the statute in effect when the conduct at
issue occurred).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the evidence presented at the formal hearing, and the stipulated
facts, the Findings of Fact are made:
1. The Commissioner is the head of the Florida Department of Education,
Education Practices Commission and is statutorily authorized to investigate
and prosecute disciplinary actions against persons holding Florida educator’s
certificates.

4
2. Ms. Watts holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 1387090, covering the
area of Social Science, which is valid through June 30, 2027.
3. Respondent was employed as a Social Studies teacher at Gainesville
High School (GHS) in the Alachua County School District. During the 2022-
2023 school year, Respondent was in her third year as a classroom educator.
She began teaching World History at GHS in 2019.
4. The issues involve events that occurred in Ms. Watts’s World History
class during the 2022-2023 school year.
5. T.M. was a ninth-grade student enrolled in Respondent’s third-period
World History Honors class during the 2022-2023 school year. T.M. was 14 or
15 years old during that year, and he is a high school graduate.
6. T.M. is of Argentine descent. T.M. had a longstanding passion for
history and world affairs, and he had told Respondent that he was “a big
history aficionado.”
7. The incidents involving T.M. began very shortly after the beginning of
the school year. According to an email from his mother, he reported to her
that Ms. Watts displayed a Black Lives Matter and Pride flags in her
classroom, but did not display other flags.3
8. T.M.’s mother also communicated concerns about Ms. Watts classroom
lessons related to authoritarian regimes, specifically regarding a video about
Eva Peron. T.M. reported that the video depicted Eva Peron as positive, and
it caused him to be upset. There was no reference to T.M. or his immediate
family related to the lesson about the video. Yet T.M.’s mother emailed
Ms. Watts and asserted the video was offensive due to their family’s
Argentine history. Ms. Watts, who was unaware of the family’s history before
3 T.M.’s mother was not in the classroom and did not witness the interactions at issue. She
also did not testify at the final hearing. Thus, any references to her email are to supplement
or explain other evidence. That T.M. reported his experience is credited, but the extent of
actual statements were not credited. The statements were not written by him, and appeared
to include his mother’s subjective interpretation of the events.

5
showing the video, apologized to T.M.’s mother and stated she did not intend
to offend T.M.
Hitler Comments
9. During the school year, Ms. Watts covered authoritarian regimes led by
dictators, including Adolf Hitler.
10. Ms. Watts covered various subjects, including World War II, Adolf
Hitler, and the Holocaust. Typically, when she approaches the subjects she
instructs students that they need to be open and accepting to different
opinions.
11. T.M. testified that at the beginning of the lesson about Hitler,
Ms. Watts remarked that every year a student “falls in love with Hitler.”
T.M.. testified that a classmate then said T.M. would be that student. T.M.
testified that Ms. Watts did not shut down or correct this comment, which he
found hurtful. T.M. stated Ms. Watts then stated that she recalled another
student made a similar comment about him and he believed Ms. Watts was
contributing to a mischaracterization of him.
12. Students L.L. and M.F., who were in class on that day, also recalled
the lesson. The students offered credible testimony that was clear, concise,
and without equivocation.
13. L.L. was a student in Ms. Watts’s World History class during the
2022-2023 school year, along with T.M. L.L. recalled Ms. Watts introducing
Hitler by saying that every year, someone sympathizes with Hitler because of
his dark backstory. She distinctly recalled that Ms. Watts instructed the
class not to comment on it. L.L. recalled no one saying T.M. was a Hitler
sympathizer in that moment. She also did not recall Ms. Watts saying
another student had made such a comment about T.M., and she stated that
she would have remembered such a statement.
14. M.F. was also a student in Ms. Watts’s World History class during the
2022-2023 school year. She stated that Ms. Watts introduced the subject and
soon after another student said M.F. and T.M. looked like they would

6
sympathize with Hitler. M.F. distinctly recalled that Ms. Watts “shut it
down” by telling students to “stop because it was inappropriate and we
weren’t allowed to say that type of stuff.”
15. Ms. Watts testified that she would not refer to a student as a Hitler
sympathizer, or allow another student to do so.
16. The facts are in dispute regarding what occurred with the Hitler
comments. In examining the testimony and the record, there is insufficient
evidence to support a finding that the exchange occurred as alleged in the
Administrative Complaint.
17. T.M. testified about his recollection regarding the Hitler comment,
which is credited as his subjective experience. While T.M. may have reported
his recollection of the event to his mother, there is no clear record of what he
told his mother, other than that the incident occurred. T.M.’s mother did not
testify at the formal hearing. Thus, her emails are only a representation of
what he may have told her. The emails were intertwined with T.M.’s mother’s
interpretation of the events. Thus, they are unreliable to corroborate T.M.’s
testimony. There was also no other witness who testified to corroborate
T.M.’s testimony.
18. On the other hand, M.F. testified that the comment by the student
was directed to her as well. M.F.’s recollection of what happened in that
moment was recalled clearly. She recalled, Ms. Watts’ instruction, the
student’s comment, and that Ms. Watts “shut down the comment.” L.L.
corroborated M.F.’s testimony about the instruction to the students.
19. To be sure, T.M.’s personal recollection of this event is not discredited.
However, M.F.’s testimony, to whom the comment was also directed, is
supported by L.L. and Ms. Watts. M.F.’s testimony of the events involving the
Hitler comments is accepted as an accurate description of the incident and,
accordingly, supports a finding that there is insufficient evidence to establish
that Ms. Watts allowed a student to suggest T.M. was a Hitler sympathizer
or that she suggested that another student made a similar observation.

7
Superlative Activity
20. Turning to the superlative activity T.M. testified that Ms. Watts chose
the categories for the superlative activity. T.M. acknowledged that his
classmates nominated peers for each category, and T.M. was nominated by
his peers and selected for the “dictator” superlative. T.M. took a photo of the
whiteboard and sent it to his family group chat, stating, “so the only negative
thing on the board, I was voted for.” At that time, T.M. was the only student
listed for the dictator superlative. T.M. later acknowledged that after he sent
the photo, Ms. Watts encouraged the students to nominate other students for
the dictator category. T.M. acknowledged that his classmates elected him for
the superlative for which he was nominated. T.M. stated that he did not
object at the time because he was embarrassed and did not want to reveal his
feelings in front of the class. He also said nothing in private to Ms. Watts
after the class was dismissed.
21. When the certificates were handed out, T.M. did not stand up to
receive his certificate, and another student brought it to him. He did not
throw the certificate in the trash or express any unhappiness. Instead, T.M.
took a photo of the certificate and sent it to his parents. Again, he described
feeling embarrassed, hurt, and attacked, and stated that the experience was
not fun or uplifting for him. T.M. stated that based on his personal family
experience he did not want to be associated with dictators and felt the
superlative was a gross misrepresentation of his character.
22. T.M. was questioned about screenshots of a public YouTube channel
that he created and managed called “The Student T.M. Manifesto” (a play on
the Communist Manifesto); a photo of him wearing a Soviet-style hat; as well
as a social media post in which he stated he wanted to be a “Central African
dictator.” T.M. authenticated the screenshots but explained these were jokes
or were related to his interest in history, not indications that he wanted to be
a dictator.

8
23. T.M. stated that he could not state that Ms. Watts intended to
embarrass him.
24. T.M. explicitly testified multiple times that he was embarrassed, hurt,
and felt attacked by being labeled “most likely to become a dictator.” He
communicated his feelings in to his family via text and photo, describing the
superlative as the only negative one and expressing his unhappiness. T.M.
did not stand up to receive the certificate, which he explained was because he
was embarrassed. T.M. explained that he did not object publicly because he
was embarrassed and did not want to show his feelings in front of peers,
which could explain why others did not perceive his discomfort. Although
actual embarrassment is not necessary, the undersigned credits T.M.’s
testimony that he was embarrassed.
25. L.L. remembered the superlative activity at the end of the year as a
fun, light-hearted activity. It was not perceived as mean-spirited or intended
to embarrass anyone. L.L. described the superlative process as first using a
set list that Ms. Watts used every year that previous students created. Then,
students were nominated for superlatives by other students, not by
Ms. Watts. She testified that students were not required to participate in the
activity. L.L. testified the activity was not student-driven, but she
acknowledged that she received a superlative (“most likely to get married to
my [still] partner”). Such a superlative seemed to be specific to her. While she
chose to participate, she recalled no one getting upset during the nomination
process.
26. M.F. also described the superlative activity as a voluntary, fun event
where students could opt out if they wished to so. According to M.F., everyone
in the class wanted to participate. Ms. Watts provided examples of
superlatives from previous years, but the class as a whole decided on the final
categories through majority vote. Students suggested and voted on the
categories and nominees. If Ms. Watts believed the superlatives were
appropriate she would write it down. M.F. stated that Ms. Watts’s role was to

9
write down the categories and nominations, but the students made the
decisions. M.F. was nominated for “biggest flirt” and “teacher’s pet,” which
she believed was funny.
27. M.F. recalled that T.M. was nominated by a student for the dictator
superlative. Voting was done with heads down and hands raised to ensure
anonymity and avoid embarrassment. M.F. did not recall T.M. showing any
negative reaction during the nomination or award process. She stated that
T.M. was generally vocal if upset about something, but she did not observe
such behavior this time. M.F. did not perceive the nomination or award as
mean-spirited or intended to insult T.M.; she believed the class viewed it as a
joke and that no one believed T.M. wanted to be a dictator.
28. M.F. did not perceive any intent by Ms. Watts to expose T.M. to any
embarrassment. She described the activity as student-driven, voluntary, and
lighthearted. M.F. stated that the “dictator” category was not presented in a
negative or malicious way.
29. Ms. Watts testified that she started the superlative activity because
she had done the activity with her mission group and they enjoyed it.
30. At the start, Ms. Watts provided a list of possible superlative
categories created by students from previous years, but students could add,
remove, or change categories. She stated the students selected the final
categories and nominees by majority vote. She emphasized that participation
was voluntary and that students could opt out of being nominated or
participating at any time. Ms. Watts stated that she did not insist on any
category or nominee and that she would remove any offensive category if
suggested.
31. Ms. Watts acknowledged the category “most likely to become a
dictator” was on the superlative list, and T.M. was ultimately nominated and
selected by his peers for this superlative. Ms. Watts also acknowledged that
she prepared, signed, and handed out the certificates for each superlative,
including the one for T.M. On the day the certificates were presented, T.M.

10
did not leave his desk to receive his certificate. Instead, another student
retrieved it for him. Ms. Watts stated that if the certificate had not been
claimed, she would have thrown it away.
32. She testified that she did not observe T.M. being upset or objecting
during the activity. She stated T.M. did not communicate any discomfort to
her before, during, or after the process. Ms. Watts explained if she knew that
any student was upset, including T.M., she would not have continued with
the activity. When Ms. Watts learned that T.M. was unhappy about the
superlative activity, Ms. Watts sent an apology to T.M.’s mother:
Good Afternoon Mrs. [M.], I do apologize that [T.M.]
was 	offended 	by 	the 	Class 	Superlative. 	Class
Superlatives are an activity I have been doing with
all my classes for the last four years. I give students
the option to change or add superlatives to the list
from previous years and then the class nominates
students and votes on the winner. I was not aware
that [T.M.] was upset that he was nominated for
that superlative a few weeks ago. To my knowledge,
he 	did 	not 	ask 	to 	be 	removed 	when 	he 	was
nominated or when the class voted. When I passed
them out today, I reiterated that they were just for
fun. These were not meant to be offensive. I do
apologize.
33. The superlative activity was not a part of the school curriculum, and
Ms. Watts did not notify the school administration that the class would be
participating in the activity.
Respondent
34. Ms. Watts described her classroom as open, respectful, and welcoming,
with an emphasis on accepting differing opinions and not disparaging others.
She stated she had never received any prior complaints related to her
teaching or classroom management. Both M.F. and L.L. agreed that
Ms. Watts was a teacher who created a judgment-free environment and
treated all students equally.

11
35. Ms. Watts received positive evaluations from supervisors, with ratings
of “effective” or “highly effective.” Other than the complaints involved in this
case, Ms. Watts has never received complaints about her character, teaching
abilities, or interactions with students. Ms. Watts has not received
disciplinary action by GHS and was not removed from the classroom.
36. Respondent is familiar with the Code of Ethics for the education
profession and received training on that Code when she began as a classroom
teacher. Respondent understood the rule prohibiting an educator from
intentionally exposing a student to embarrassment or disparagement, and
the rule requiring an educator to make reasonable effort to protect students
from conditions harmful to learning.
Ultimate Findings of Fact
37. The evidence does not support a finding that Ms. Watts allowed
students to disparage T.M. by suggesting he was a Hitler sympathizer. The
evidence also does not support a finding that Ms. Watts suggested that
another student made a similar observation.
38. The evidence supports a finding that T.M.’s personal experience was
that of embarrassment as a result of the superlative activity. At the same
time, there was not sufficient evidence, that Respondent intended to expose
T.M. to embarrassment or disparagement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
39. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this
cause. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. (2026).
40. The Department of Education is the state entity responsible for
investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against teachers
holding Florida educator’s certificates. §§ 1012.795(1) and 1012.796(6), Fla.
Stat.
41. This is a proceeding in which the Commissioner seeks to impose
discipline against Ms. Watt’s educator certificate. Because disciplinary

12
proceedings are considered penal in nature, the Commissioner is required to
prove the allegations in the Administrative Complaint by clear and
convincing evidence. Dep’t of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So.
2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1996); Avalon’s Assisted Living, LLC v. Ag. for Health Care
Admin., 80 So. 3d 347, 348-49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing Ferris v.
Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292, 294-95 (Fla. 1987)).
42. Clear and convincing evidence “requires more proof than a
‘preponderance of the evidence’ but less than ‘beyond and to the exclusion of a
reasonable doubt.’” In re Graziano, 696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). 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 	distinctly
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 Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)(quoting Slomowitz v. Walker, 429
So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)); See also In re Henson, 913 So. 2d 579,
590 (Fla. 2005). “Although this standard of proof may be met where the
evidence is in conflict, it seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.”
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros., 590 So. 2d 986, 989 (Fla. 1991).
43. Determining whether charged conduct violates a statute or rule is a
question of ultimate fact to be decided by the trier-of-fact based on the weight
of the evidence. Holmes v. Turlington, 480 So. 2d 150, 153 (Fla. 1st DCA
1985); McKinney v. Castor, 667 So. 2d 387, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Langston
v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
44. Charges in a disciplinary proceeding must be strictly construed, with
any ambiguity construed in the licensee’s favor. Elmariah v. Dep’t of Pro.
Regul., 574 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Taylor v. Dep’t of Pro. Regul.,

13
534 So. 2d 782, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Disciplinary statutes and rules must
be construed in terms of their literal meaning, and words used by the
Legislature may not be expanded to broaden their application. Beckett v.
Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 982 So. 2d 94, 99-100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Dyer v. Dep’t
of Ins. & Treas., 585 So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
45. Factual findings in a recommended order are uniquely within the
province of the ALJ, based on the broad discretion afforded to him or her.
Goin v. Comm'n on Ethics, 658 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). See also
Heifetz v. Dep’t of Bus. Regul., Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 475 So.
2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The ALJ has the best vantage point to resolve
conflicts, determine the credibility of witnesses, draw permissible and
reasonable inferences from the evidence, and reach ultimate findings of fact,
based on the competent and substantial evidence presented. Goin, 658 So. 2d
at 1138; Dep’t of Bus. and Pro. Regul. v. McCarthy, 638 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1994).
46. An agency may not substitute its own facts for that of the ALJ so long
as there is adequate evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s factual
findings. Lantz v. Smith, 106 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). See also Resnick
v. Flagler Cnty. Sch. Bd., 46 So. 3d 1110, 1112-13 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)(“In a
fact-driven case such as this, where an employee’s conduct is at issue, great
weight is given to the findings of the [ALJ], who has the opportunity to hear
the witnesses’ testimony and evaluate their credibility.”).
47. An agency may only take disciplinary action against a licensee based
on facts or conduct charged in the Administrative Complaint. See, e.g.,
Trevisani v. Dep’t of Health, 908 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); see also
Christian v. Dep’t of Health, 161 So. 3d 416, 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Due
process prohibits Petitioner from taking disciplinary action against a licensee
based on matters not specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Cottrill v. Dep’t of Ins., 685 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

14
48. Section 120.57(1) provides, in relevant part, that hearsay evidence
may be used to supplement or explain other evidence, but it shall be
insufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over
objection in civil actions.
49. Turning to this case, the Commissioner alleges in Count I of the
Administrative Complaint that Ms. Watts violated section 1012.795(1)(j),
which provides, in pertinent part, that the Education Practices Commission
may, among other things, suspend an educator’s certificate if that person
“[h]as violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education
Profession (Principles of Professional Conduct) prescribed by State Board of
Education rules.” The Principles of Professional Conduct provides a basis for
discipline only to the extent that the rule violations alleged are established. A
violation of one or more provisions of rule 6A-10.081 establishes a derivative
violation of section 1012.795(1)(j). As discussed below, Petitioner has proved a
violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5. by clear and convincing evidence. Thus,
Petitioner has proved the charges in Count I.
50. In Counts II and III, the Commissioner identified the Principals of
Professional Conduct Ms. Watts allegedly violated.
51. In Count II, the Commissioner alleges that Ms. Watts violated rule
6A-10.081(2)(a)1., which requires licensed educators to “make reasonable
effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the
student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.”
52. Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. “does not require evidence that Respondent
actually harmed [a student’s] health or safety. Rather, it requires a showing
that Respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to protect the student from
such harm.” Gerard Robinson, as Comm'r of Educ. vs. William Randall
Aydelott, Case No. 12-0621PL, ¶ 76 (Fla. DOAH Aug. 29, 2012; Fla. EPC
Dec. 19, 2012). See also Pam Stewart, as Comm'r of Educ. vs. Brian Roney,
Case No. 16-3897PL ¶46 (Fla. DOAH Jan. 23, 2017; Fla. EPC Mar. 27, 2017).

15
53. The Commission met its burden of presenting clear and convincing
evidence in support of Count II.
54. The competent substantial evidence does not support a finding of a
violation related to the alleged Hitler comment. T.M.’s recollection of the
actual comment was that a student suggested he would sympathize with
Hitler and that Ms. Watts stated another student made the same comment.
He did not recall whether the student was a boy or girl. He did not recall that
the student also included M.F. in that comment. Although T.M. reported the
incident to his mother, his personal experience was through the lens of prior
incidents. M.F., on the other hand, recalled more details about the statement
and distinctly recalled that Ms. Watts “shut down the comment.” L.L. also
recalled the incident and provided more context as to the nature of Ms. Watts
comments. Based on the totality of the competent substantial evidence, M.F.
and L.L., being more persuasive on this point, Petitioner did not establish
clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Watts made the Hitler comment.
55. Turning to the superlative activity, M.F. and L.L., both participants in
the superlative activity, described it as a voluntary activity where students
could opt out if they wished to do so. According to M.F., everyone in the class
wanted to participate. Ms. Watts provided examples of superlatives from
previous years, but the class as a whole decided on the final categories
through majority vote. Then, students voted on the nominees.
56. While the superlative activity was generally light-hearted, inclusion of
the dictator category, in general, was not reasonable. As to T.M., Ms. Watts
was aware, before the superlative activity, that T.M.’s family had
sensitivities regarding dictator regimes due to their Argentine background
and prior communication about the Eva Peron video. That sensitivity
warranted additional steps regarding T.M.’s participation after T.M. was
nominated for the dictator superlative. Yet she did not check with T.M. about
the ‘dictator’ category. Ms. Watts did not personally ask T.M. if he was

16
comfortable with the nomination or the certificate, nor did she provide a
private avenue for T.M., or other students to express discomfort.
57. Although Ms. Watts took reasonable steps to make the superlative
activity voluntary and to foster a respectful environment, her efforts to
protect T.M. from mental harm were not fully reasonable given the history
with T.M.’s mother and certain classroom content. Ms. Watts had notice of
T.M.’s sensitivities regarding authoritarian regimes but did not take extra
precautions regarding the “dictator” category. She did not provide a private
or explicit opportunity for T.M. to opt out or express discomfort. Moreover,
the lack of proactive measures, especially after being aware of T.M.’s family’s
sensitivities, supports a finding that her efforts fell short of what would be
considered reasonable under the circumstances to protect T.M. from potential
mental harm. Although T.M. did not report his discomfort to her, it would
have been a reasonable effort for her to check in with him given the
awareness of his mother’s complaints. As a result, it would have been
reasonably likely that T.M. would be impacted by receiving the dictator
superlative.
58. Accordingly, the Commissioner proved Respondent did not make
reasonable effort to protect T.M. from conditions harmful to his mental
health by presenting him with a certificate indicating he was most likely to
become a dictator, given T.M.’s purported sensitivities to the subject matter,
in violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1. As a result, Petitioner proved Count II.
59. In Count III, the Commissioner alleges that Ms. Watts violated rule 6A-
10.081(2)(a)5., which requires licensed educators to “[n]ot intentionally expose
a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
60. The evidence shows that the superlative activity was not part of any
lesson plan, carried no educational or curricular objective, was not graded, and
was never approved by any administrator. Therefore, it could be considered
unnecessary.

17
61. Based on statements stated above, there was not competent
substantial evidence that Ms. Watts made the Hitler comments as alleged in
the Administrative Complaint.
62. As for the superlative activity, there is not sufficient clear and
convincing, competent substantial evidence that Ms. Watts acted with the
intent to expose T.M. to embarrassment or disparagement. She did not
choose the categories, she did not nominate the students, and she did not
vote. The undersigned is not persuaded by the Commissioner’s argument that
by writing the names selected by students, and writing the names on the
certificate, she intended to expose T.M. to embarrassment. Ms. Watts created
a welcoming environment and treated all students equally. The two students
who testified did not witness Ms. Watts intentionally exposing any student to
embarrassment. The witnesses testified that the “dictator” category was not
presented in a negative or malicious way. Ms. Watts also expressed
compassion by apologizing for how the activity affected T.M. However, the
issue here hinges on the difference between intent and impact: while the
effect of the activity was that T.M. was embarrassed, the competent
substantial evidence does not support a finding that Ms. Watts acted with the
intention to expose T.M. to embarrassment.
63. The adverb “intentionally,” as used in rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)5., requires
proof that Respondent chose to expose a student to unnecessary
embarrassment or disparagement; it does not require a subjective purpose to
harm or humiliate. See Langston v. Jamerson, 653 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA
1995) (reversing the EPC where the record contained no evidence that the
teacher “made a conscious decision not to comply with the rule”).
64. Ms. Watts’ conduct during the superlative activity was intended to
foster a fun, light-hearted student-led event. The students who testified
agreed that the activity was fun and not mean-spirited. There was no
competent substantial evidence to establish that Ms. Watts intended to
expose T.M. to unnecessary embarrassment. Petitioner therefore did not

18
prove Ms. Watts violated rule 10.081(2)(a)5. Since Petitioner did not prove
the violation of rule 10.081(2)(a)5., Count III of the Administrative Complaint
must be dismissed.
65. Section 1012.796(7) sets forth the disciplinary process for educators,
and provides:
(7) A panel of the commission shall enter a final
order either dismissing the complaint or imposing
one or more of the following penalties:
(a) Denial of an application for a certificate or for an
administrative 	or supervisory 	endorsement 	on a
teaching certificate. The denial may provide that the
applicant may not reapply for certification, and that
the 	department 	may 	refuse 	to 	consider 	that
applicant’s application, for a specified period of time
or permanently.
(b) Revocation or suspension of a certificate.
(c) Imposition of an administrative fine not to exceed
$2,000 for each count or separate offense.
(d) 	Placement 	of 	the 	teacher, 	administrator, 	or
supervisor on probation for a period of time and
subject to such conditions as the commission may
specify, including requiring the certified teacher,
administrator, or supervisor to complete additional
appropriate college courses or work with another
certified educator, with the administrative costs of
monitoring the probation assessed to the educator
placed on probation. … .
(e) Restriction of the authorized scope of practice of
the teacher, administrator, or supervisor.
(f) 	Reprimand 	of 	the 	teacher, 	administrator, 	or
supervisor in writing, with a copy to be placed in the
certification file of such person.
(g) Imposition of an administrative sanction, upon a
person whose teaching certificate has expired, for an
act or acts committed while that person possessed a

19
teaching certificate or an expired certificate subject
to late renewal, which sanction bars that person
from applying for a new certificate for a period of
[ten] years or less, or permanently.
66. Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.007, Florida Administrative
Code, establishes disciplinary guidelines for violating section 1012.795. The
guidelines provide a range of reprimand to revocation for a violation of
section 1012.795(1)(j), by violating rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1.
67. Mitigating factors include Respondent’s absence of any prior
employment or certification discipline; her length of service and her
“effective” and “highly effective” performance evaluations; the testimony of
two of her former students describing her classroom as a welcoming
environment; the lack of evidence that Ms. Watts intended to act maliciously
toward T.M.; this was an isolated incident that occurred based on unique
circumstances; Ms. Watts was not removed from the classroom; and finally,
Ms. Watts apologized on the day of the incident.
68. While not necessary given that the undersigned does not believe the
facts here warrant deviation from the guideline, an aggravating factor
includes the degree of physical and mental harm to a student or a child; T.M.
credibly testified that he was embarassed in the moment as it relates to the
superlative activity.
69. Petitioner proposed a recommendation that an appropriate penalty
would be a reprimand, suspension, followed by probation and required works,
as well as a $1,000 fine. Since Ms. Watts continued to teach, and had a very
effective teaching record, a suspension and removal from the classroom is
unnecessary.

20
Case No. 26-1027PL
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order as
follows:
1. Finding Lauren Watts violated section 1012.795(1)(j), Florida Statute
as a result of her violation of rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., and thereby violating
Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint;
2. Dismissing Count III of the Administrative Complaint; and
3. Issuing Ms. Watts a written letter of reprimand.
DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2026, in Tallahassee,
Leon County, Florida.
S
YOLONDA Y. GREEN
Administrative Law Judge
DOAH Tallahassee Office
Division of Administrative Hearings
2001 Drayton Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32311
(850) 488-9675
www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the
Division of Administrative Hearings
this 15th day of October, 2026.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Randy M. Kosec, Chief
(eServed)
Lisa M. Forbess, Executive Director
(eServed)
Ron Weaver, Esquire
(eServed)
Michael Barrett, General Counsel
(eServed)
Stephanie M. Schaap, Esquire
(eServed)
Martin French Powell, Esquire
(eServed)

21
Bonnie Ann Wilmot, Esquire
(eServed)
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from
the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended
Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this
case.