IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-0998

Filed April 14, 2021

SEAN FARMER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

IOWA BOARD OF EDUCATIONAL EXAMINERS,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence P. McLellan, 

Judge.

Sean Farmer appeals the disciplinary decision of the Iowa Board of 

Educational Examiners. AFFIRMED.

Charles Gribble and Christopher Stewart of Gribble Boles Stewart & 

Witosky Law, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jesse Ramirez and David M. 

Ranscht, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.
2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

Sean Farmer appeals the disciplinary decision of the Iowa Board of 

Educational Examiners (Board), which was upheld by the district court on judicial 

review. Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings of fact, we 

affirm. 

The Iowa Administrative Code requires individuals licensed to teach to 

abide by standards of professional conduct and ethics. It is a violation of the 

standards for a licensee to be on school premises while possessing unauthorized 

drugs. Iowa Admin. Code r. 282–25.3(2)(a). After an arbitration hearing, an 

administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a proposed ruling, finding Farmer violated 

the standard:

Here, the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding 

that Farmer stole [a] student[’s] prescription medication in violation 

of the above rule. On two occasions, Farmer is seen entering the 

nurse’s office late on Sunday night after school hours. In the 

February video footage, Farmer first enters the teacher’s lounge to 

retrieve the keys to the nurse’s office and then enters the nurse’s 

office and remains in the office for a few minutes before leaving. On 

both mornings following the night that Farmer enters the nurse’s

office, the same prescription medication is missing from the nurse's 

medicine cabinet. There is no other unusual activity seen on the 

video footage. In particular, no one, other than cleaning staff 

emptying trash cans, enters or exits the nurse’s office during the

weekend prior to when the medicine is discovered missing.

Farmer admitted to entering the nurse’s office after school 

hours during the weekends in question. Farmer testified that he often 

works at the school late at night on Sunday, exercises in the weight 

room, and watches football. Farmer stated that he has severe

allergies and therefore went into the nurse’s office for allergy 

medication and saline solution. However, Farmer’s testimony 

explaining why he entered the nurse’s office is not credible. While 

there is little doubt that Farmer suffers from allergies, it defies logic

that someone who suffers from the type of severe allergies suffered 

by Farmer relies on liquid children Benadryl obtained from the school 

nurse’s office. Further, on no other occasion does Farmer enter the 

nurse’s office other than the two occasions when prescription 
3

medication is later found missing. In other words, every time Farmer 

is seen entering the nurse’s office after school hours, prescription 

medicine is missing the following morning.

In addition, Farmer’s explanation as to why he wrote his 

March 7, 2019 email requesting forgiveness is also not credible.[1]

Farmer argues that he was asking for forgiveness for taking time off 

from work. However, when Farmer wrote the email to 

Superintendent Peterson and Principal Bohlen he was on 

administrative leave for taking prescription medication, not for 

excessive absences. Further, although Farmer thought that 

Superintendent Peterson was upset with him for taking time off, other 

than Farmer’s testimony, there is no indication that Superintendent 

Peterson was upset by Farmer’s absences and Farmer himself 

argues that he had “never had an issue or other allegation of 

impropriety” prior to the incident at hand. Moreover, it is unclear how 

Farmer asking for forgiveness for being absent would alleviate 

concerns by Superintendent Peterson and Principal Bohlen that 

Farmer was taking student’s prescription medication. Rather, 

Farmer's March 7, 2019 email appears to be intended as a request 

for forgiveness for taking the prescription medication.

Overall, the preponderance of the evidence, including the 

video footage, email from Farmer requesting forgiveness and 

offering to go to treatment, and testimony from the parties supports 

a finding that Farmer went to the nurse’s office and took prescription

medication in violation of [rule 282–25.3(2)(a).]

The ALJ recommended: Farmer’s license be indefinitely suspended with no 

possibility of reinstatement for a minimum of three years and Farmer receive a 

written reprimand, successfully complete at least fifteen in-person hours of an 

educator-ethics course, and successfully complete mental-health and substanceabuse evaluations and comply with any recommended treatment. 

 

1 Farmer’s email to Superintendent Peterson states:

I know you said there was nothing I could do to keep working at 

[school], I am asking for a 2nd chance, I am asking for forgiveness. 

I know I have some things that are getting in the way of me being a 

teacher the kids deserve. I am offering this idea. I would take a 

nonpaid leave of absence. I would go to treatment to get myself 

better. I would pay for all of it. Then I would come back ready to do 

the job correctly.
4

On appeal to the Board, the Board adopted the ALJ’s proposed order as its 

final decision. 

Farmer filed an application for judicial review of agency action and the 

district court determined:

[T]he ALJ made detailed findings of her facts setting forth the 

portions of the record she relied upon and she set forth her disbelief 

of Farmer’s testimony and the reasons for that disbelief. She did not 

find credible his explanation that he used children’s Benadryl to 

alleviate his severe allergies. She did not find credible his 

explanation that he wrote the March 7th email because he believed 

he was on administrative leave for missing work. His lack of 

credibility and the testimony and evidence presented by the board, 

the ALJ found proved by a preponderance of the evidence Farmer 

took the student medication on the two evenings in question. After 

reviewing the entire record, including a review of the video 

surveillance tape and the audiotape of the hearing before the ALJ, 

the court finds a reasonable mind could view the evidence presented 

and reach the same conclusions found by the ALJ and the board.

When the record is viewed as a whole it contains substantial 

evidence to support the board’s fact findings and determination 

Farmer violated the standard for professional conduct and ethics set 

forth in [rule 282–25.3(2)(a)].

Farmer appeals. 

“Appellate review of the contested case proceeding of a licensing board is 

for correction of errors at law.” Christiansen v. Iowa Bd. of Educ. Exam’rs, 831 

N.W.2d 179, 186 (Iowa 2013). We review the district court decision by applying 

the standards of Iowa Code section 17A.19 (2020). Id.

Farmer contends the Board’s finding he possessed unauthorized drugs is 

not supported by substantial evidence. 

When dealing with the issue of whether substantial evidence 

supports the agency’s findings, the district court and the appellate 

court can only grant relief to a party from the agency’s decision if a 

determination of fact by the agency “is not supported by substantial 

evidence in the record before the court when that record is viewed 

as a whole.” Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f).
5

Gits Mfg. Co. v. Frank, 855 N.W.2d 195, 197 (Iowa 2014). We review to determine 

whether the evidence in this case “would be deemed sufficient by a neutral, 

detached, and reasonable person, to establish the fact at issue when the 

consequences resulting from the establishment of that fact are understood to be 

serious and of great importance.” Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f)(1). We are mindful 

it is the agency’s duty “as the trier of fact to determine the credibility of the 

witnesses, weigh the evidence, and decide the facts at issue.” Arndt v City of Le 

Claire, 728 N.W.2d 389, 394–95 (Iowa 2007).

Farmer attempts to liken the administrative record here with Babe v. Iowa 

Board of Educational Examiners, No. 17-0213, 2018 WL 1098923 (Iowa Ct. App. 

Feb. 21, 2018), where this court found the Board’s finding an educator committed 

an act of physical abuse of a student was not supported by substantial evidence. 

Babe, 2018 WL 1098923, at *12. Babe is distinguishable. There, we noted the

Board relied heavily on hearsay statements alleged to be made by the complaining 

student but “neither the ALJ nor the Board personally observed [the student] testify, 

and any credibility determination in his favor suffers from the absence of any 

demeanor evidence.” Id. at *8. We also noted the hearsay statements “‘[came]

through the filter’ of a parent—[the child’s] mother” who “cannot be described as a 

disinterested witness” and “[w]hat we do know is that [the child] does not always 

tell the truth.” Id. at *8–9. 

Here, the student’s medication was behind the locked doors of the school, 

the locked door of the nurse’s office within the school, and the locked medicine 

cabinet doors within the nurse’s office. We have Farmer’s testimony admitting he 
6

entered the nurse’s office on both occasions the student’s medication went 

missing. There is video evidence of Farmer accessing the nurse’s office late in the 

evenings on the Sunday before the medication was discovered missing. Farmer 

takes medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which was the type of 

medication taken from the nurse’s locked cabinet. And after Farmer was 

confronted by the principal and superintendent about the specific allegation of 

stealing the student’s medication, Farmer sent an email to the superintendent 

“asking for forgiveness” and stating he would “go to treatment to get myself better.” 

The ALJ personally observed Farmer’s testimony and made specific findings 

Farmer’s explanations were not credible. We agree with the district court, there is 

substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.