When Resignations Mask Accountability: The Case of Florida's Resigning Teacher

Please note this true case study is alarming. As of June 5th, 2025, the teacher had yet to be arrested, but a criminal investigation was underway. https://www.bradenton.com/news/local/article305571141.html

A fifth-grade teacher at B.D. Gullett Elementary School, identified as Jarrett Williams, allegedly groomed an 11-year-old student—sending her a two-page, hand-written letter confessing, “You know I truly love you no matter what… I love how close we have gotten this year” (https://www.mysuncoast.com). After the letter was discovered on March 9, 2025, authorities and district officials were notified the next day, and Williams was immediately reassigned to a non-teaching role (WESH, WTSP).

Despite the severity of the allegations—including parents calling it a “textbook grooming letter”—the school board voted on April 29 to accept Williams’s resignation under investigation, rather than officially firing him (https://www.mysuncoast.com). Only one dissenting voice, board member Cindy Spray, urged the district to fire him outright (Your Observer).

District officials later defended the resignation stance as functionally equivalent to a firing. They emphasized that his personnel file would be flagged, and multiple agencies—including the state Department of Children and Families, the Department of Education’s Office of Professional Practices, and local law enforcement—were looped in (WESH).

However, the parents—shaken by the letter’s discovery—said they had hoped for a firmer statement: “To us, we felt termination was tougher language… somebody we would hope would never be in a classroom again” (WESH).

Resignation vs. Termination: What’s at Stake?

I have a growing concern: individuals who have engaged in sexual harassment, abuse, or grooming behaviours are too often being allowed to quietly resign (as we see in this story) rather than first being suspended pending a proper investigation. If a preponderance of evidence supports the allegations—or there is a conviction—termination should be the only acceptable outcome.

When personnel are suspended due to allegations or suspicions of abuse, they must have no contact with vulnerable individuals and must not be placed in a Position of Trust. Such suspensions should only be lifted if the individual is cleared of all allegations or concerns.

Before any reinstatement, organization leaders must consult legal counsel, their insurance provider, and child protection authorities. However, it is not uncommon for legal counsel to recommend accepting a resignation rather than pursuing the termination. One lawyer told me this gives the individual an opportunity to “take responsibility” for their actions.

But does it really?

This reasoning is deeply flawed. Allowing someone to resign under investigation does not equate to accountability. It often enables the offender to move on quietly, potentially securing similar roles elsewhere, without consequences or disclosure.

Organizations must have clear policies outlining a progressive discipline approach. Some behaviours warrant a warning. Others—particularly those involving a serious breach of trust or a failure to comply with the code of conduct—demand immediate suspension or termination. In cases of abuse, harassment, or grooming, the safety of others must take priority over reputational protection or legal convenience.

We must stop allowing resignations to replace real accountability... 

Accepting resignations in grooming or abuse allegations, rather than formal firings, can:

1. 1. 1. Diminish Public Accountability: A resignation may appear less punitive to the community and doesn’t always carry the same stigma as termination.
   3. 2. Reduce Transparency: Employment records may obscure the real reason behind resignation, potentially enabling future employment in similar roles.
   5. 3. Slow Institutional Learning: Annual reporting and policy revisions—especially relevant to churches, faith-based schools, and other institutions—often rely on firings as triggers for review and audit processes.
   7. 4. Hinder Survivor Justice: Victims and families may view resignation as a form of "soft exit," without the closure or formal acknowledgment they need.
5. In this Florida case, while the district insists the resignation triggers the same procedural flags as termination, it avoided the public spectacle—and legal clarity—of firing him under a cloud. However, the parents and community believe this action calls for termination. 

6.  

8. The Broader Church–School Nexus

9.  

11. Religious institutions and school boards often share oversight, leadership, and reporting structures, particularly in private or parochial schools. When abuse occurs, the inclination to quietly accept resignations—including through agreements that prevent further disclosure—can undermine transparency and accountability.

14.  

15. Key Concerns:

16.  

17. • Cover-ups vs. Protection: While resignation can seem protective, it risks re-hiring in another context, sometimes under the guise of having "left for personal reasons."
    • Legal Loopholes: Resignations rarely involve admission of guilt, and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) accompany them more frequently than with firings.
    • Consistency in Safeguarding: Church communities must insist that workers who exhibit grooming behaviours be removed decisively and records flagged permanently, not simply offered an “exit.”

18.  

19. Recommendations for Stronger Systems

20.  

    1. 1. Mandatory Firing in Serious Claims: Institutional policy should require termination (with cause) if there is credible evidence of grooming or abuse.
    2. 2. Clear Reporting Mandates: School boards, dioceses, and boards of elders must report to appropriate regulatory or legal bodies, and make minimal sanitized records available for background checks.
    3. 3. Independent Oversight: External reviews (by child protection agencies or independent safeguarding boards) should verify whether cases are handled properly—not internally decided.
    4. 4. Transparency with Community: Notifications—including general statements about cause (e.g., “resigned amid grooming allegations”)—should be made to the congregation or school community to maintain trust.
    5. 5. Survivor-Centred Responses: Provide counselling, clear options for legal recourse, and public acknowledgement of wrongdoing, not quiet agreements.

21.  

22. Conclusion

23. The Williams case highlights a systemic problem: resignations often serve as institutional escape hatches. Schools and churches risk compounding harm unless they commit explicitly to accountability—firing abusers, reporting misconduct, and protecting community members through transparent, survivor-focused measures.

    Communities of faith and education must ask: Are we shielding abusers through silent exits, or are we standing firmly with justice and prevention? Accepting resignations in serious cases sends a dangerous message—something survivors and families rightly criticize.

Sources & Further Reading:

• WESH/CNN affiliate WFLA coverage (WTSP, WESH)
• Suncoast.com reports on grooming allegations (https://www.mysuncoast.com)
• East County Observer coverage of resignation vote (Your Observer)