STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-1340
)
JOAN HUMPHRIES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, R. L. Caleen, Jr., held a formal hearing in this case on December 1 through 4, 1981, in Miami, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Arthur M. Simon, Esquire
25 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
For Respondent: Elizabeth J. du Fresne, Esquire
1782 One Biscayne Tower
Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
ISSUE
Whether respondent, an assistant professor at Miami-Dade Community College, should be dismissed on grounds of willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and incompetency as alleged.
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 1981, the president of petitioner Miami-Dade Community College ("the College") suspended respondent Joan Humphries ("respondent"), without pay, from her position as a College employee. On March 27, 1981, the College Board of Trustees approved the suspension and the president's recommendation that she be dismissed.
Thereafter, on April 30, 1981, the College filed a petition for respondent's dismissal, charging her with incompetency, willful neglect of duty, and gross insubordination. Respondent denied the charges and requested a Section 120.57(1) formal hearing. The College then forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
At the College's request, hearing was initially set for September, 1981. On respondent's subsequent motion--unopposed by the College--hearing was reset for December 1 through 4, 1981.
At hearing, the College called as its witnesses: Gerald L. Sicard, Duane Hansen, Rhea Schwartzberg, Bess Fleckman, Robert McCabe, Joan Rosen, Joan Humphries, and Cecil B. Nichols; it also offered Petitioner's Exhibit 1/ Nos. 1- 609, each of which was received into evidence.
Respondent testified in her own behalf and called Gloria Signorelli and Ronald Tikofsky as witnesses; she also offered Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 3, 3C, 4-7, 7A, 9-12, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26-29, 30C, 33-34, 34A-B, 35(18), 36 36(2), 38-
41, 45, 47, 48, and 56, all of which were received into evidence.
The parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by March 11, 1982.
Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, Joan Humphries, earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Miami, a master's degree in counseling and guidance from Florida State University, and a Doctorate of Philosophy in experimental psychology from Louisiana State University. (Testimony of Humphries.)
Before coming to Miami-Dade Community College, she worked as a psychological consultant at Louisiana State Hospital and taught at the University of Miami. She has been employed by the College for approximately 15 years--since October, 1966. (Testimony of Humphries.)
First employed by the College as a part-time instructor, she soon became a full-time instructor of introductory psychology courses. She is now a tenured assistant professor and was granted a continuing teaching contract by the College. (Testimony of Humphries.)
During her years at the College, she received annual performance evaluations from the chairperson of her department--now named the Department of Behavioral Studies. Until 1978, she was evaluated as a competent instructor. Her 1970 evaluation stated:
Dr. Humphries continues to do an excellent job of teaching PSY 207. She has been most helpful in orienting new faculty members [and] is a most dependable and valuable member of the psychology faculty. (P-75.)
In 1971, David Powers, her new department chairperson, recommended her for promotion and gave her this evaluation:
Joan Humphries possesses excellent knowledge of her subject field. Her course
is extremely well planned out and organized. She is quite fair in her grading techniques,
. . . (P-78.)
In 1972, she was rated as "outstanding" in professional status, growth, and development; "competent" in her performance as a faculty member; and as giving "more than most" in ancillary services to the College. In 1973, Dr. Powers again rated her as competent and described her professional strengths and goals:
Professional Strengths: Joan displays an in-depth knowledge of behavioristic psychology. Joan is competent in utilization of audiovisual materials and psychological equipment. She is conscientious in meeting her office hours. She has originated several ideas for obtaining both community involvement and enrollment in future psychological courses. Joan involves her students in community activities by requiring a ten hour
out-of-class service project.
Professional Goals: In order to maintain larger retention rate, Joan should develop a diversity of instructional strategies including greater enthusiasm in teacher
presentation. She should place less emphasis on objective testing and involve more subjective methods for student evaluations, [i]ncluding student feedback on course activities and evaluative tools should be meaningful for her students. This summer
she will be acting chairman of a committee for a parental education course to be offered in the fall. (P-82.)
In 1974, Dr. Powers again rated her as a "competent" faculty member and "outstanding" in professional status, growth, and development. He recommended her for promotion and described her professional strengths:
Professional Strengths: Joan is showing even more enthusiasm [sic] toward the college this year than last year. She has developed many innovative ideas including a proposed psychology laboratory, courses associated with the county judges and for the education of elderly citizens within the community, and a rationale for a four
day college work week. Joan helped increase the fall term departmental productivity figure by conducting a large section of
100 Psychology 211 students. She has incorporated a formal student evaluation system into her course. She not only participates in community betterment but requires her students to spend at least 15 hours working on a community project. In determining the student's grade, this year, she has placed greater emphasis upon student involvement in projects, experiments, and oral presentations. In her classes Joan
includes recent relevant research findings in order to clarify psychological concepts. She has devoted many hours toward coordinating the senior citizens program and the parent education course. She is an active sponsor of Phi Lambda Pi and continually invites guest speakers into her classes. Joan actively engages in scientific research and she has recently written an article for the Journal of Parapsychology. Joan is recommended for promotion to Associate Professor, Senior.
Professional Goals: Joan should be a good resource coordinator for utilization of the new Alpha Theta Cyborg. This coming year the department could use her for teaching a couple sections of Psychology 212. Her ideas for meeting the community's needs are practical and worth implementing. Joan should perhaps develop a written syllabus in outline form to give to all of her students at the beginning of the course.
Joan would like to initiate and teach a course in recent psychological developments, i.e., biofeedback, hypnosis, and brain research. (P-89.)
She was not promoted, however, because she had not yet completed the required three years in grade. She appealed the College's failure to promote her.
Although she subsequently satisfied the three-year requirement, she has not been promoted. She attributes this to discrimination by the College because of her earlier appeal. In 1975 and 1976, she was rated "competent" but given specific suggestions for improved performance (P-119.) In 1977, she was rated as a "competent" faculty member who contributed "more than most" in ancillary services to the College, and recommended for promotion. But, "some reservation" was indicated concerning her professional status, growth, and development. (P- 235.) In 1978, her new department chairperson, Gerald L. Sicard, rated her as "competent;" described her as a dedicated psychologist who gave enthusiastic lectures; and noted that evaluations by her students were generally positive.
(P-315.) She was rated "unsatisfactory" by the evaluations completed in 1979, 1980, and 1981.
The Charges: Eleven Specific Allegations of Misconduct
The College's charges against respondent--willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and incompetency--rest on eleven specific allegations of misconduct. The findings of fact which follow are organized under the pertinent allegation.
Alleged: Over a period of years, the respondent has demonstrated belligerence toward those in authority.
Respondent has not demonstrated a pattern of belligerence or hostility toward her College superiors. Her supervising department chairperson, Mr. Sicard, had difficulty defining the term at hearing. When pressed, he gave as examples her desire to tape record conversations when meeting with a supervisor, her writing of memoranda when an issue could be easily resolved by an office conference, and her refusal to sign a performance evaluation form because she did not agree with it. Such conduct illustrates her distrust of her supervisors and the persistence with which she advocated her views; they do not demonstrate belligerence. Neither, according to her students, did she exhibit belligerence toward her supervisors in the classroom environment.
7 College administrators became irritated with her obvious distrust, her persistence, and her unwillingness to compromise; two examples: (1) When her fellow faculty members selected a common course textbook for use in introductory psychology, she resisted and stubbornly advocated another choice. (2) During 1978, Mr. Sicard learned that respondent was offering extra grade points to students who campaigned for enactment of the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA") to the U.S. Constitution. Students who desired to campaign against the ERA were not, however, equally rewarded. Mr. Sicard questioned her about the fairness of this practice and its relevance to introductory psychology. She explained that prejudice against women was a disease, that to give students points for campaigning against the ERA would be supporting a disease. Mr. Sicard, still unconvinced, instructed her by memorandum on November 6, 1978, to discontinue the awarding of points to students for pro-ERA or any other political activity. (P-359.) One week later she explained, in writing, that she had been promoting good mental health, not partisan politics, and cited various publications by psychologists in support of her view that discrimination against women was detrimental to human welfare; and that, in the past, her students had worked for legislation benefiting autistic children and migrant workers and the College had supported such action. She ended by asking Mr. Sicard if advocacy of human rights and legislation supporting human rights would be considered engaging in partisan politics. But, although she disagreed with her supervisor, she complied with his directive and discontinued the practice. (Testimony of Sicard, Tikofsky, Hansen, Signorelli, Humphries.)
Alleged: On numerous occasions, the respondent willfully and deliberately failed to comply with directives from College administrators relative to her classes of instructions.
In connection with respondent's 1978 performance evaluation, Mr. Sicard and respondent negotiated and agreed upon goals and objectives for the coming year. The College contends that several of the goals were not met. Some of these items were tasks which Mr. Sicard thought were important at the time, others originated with the respondent. The effect to be given these goals is ambiguous. Mr. Sicard now considers some of them to be mandatory or directory in nature; others not. In any case, during the ensuing year, respondent satisfied most of the goals and objectives specified in the 1978 evaluation.
In 1978, as already mentioned, respondent's department decided to select a common text for introductory psychology courses. Respondent resisted the consensus selection; she advocated an alternative and wrote memoranda to Mr. Sicard expressing her views. He responded with this memorandum:
Instead of replying to the above-memos, it would probably be mutually beneficial to discuss your problems during my office hours. This way we can move from adversary roles
to the cooperative model existing with the other departmental faculty.
In doing this, I hope we can work together to achieve your and the department's goals.
Please advise me in this matter. (P-334.)
Thereafter, respondent did not go to Mr. Sicard's office to discuss the issue further. But the nature of his memorandum is, by its terms, non-directory, even conciliatory in nature. Respondent's failure to accept the invitation cannot fairly be translated into willful failure to comply with an administrator's directive.
On December 4, 1978, Mr. Sicard recommended that respondent's employment be terminated for various "acts of insubordination." (P-368, P-369.) He asserted that she violated regulations by utilizing the psychology laboratory for hypnosis and biofeedback treatment for students with smoking and overweight problems; that her earlier awarding of grade points to students who worked for ERA violated a 1976 directive of David Powers, the previous department chairperson; and that she continued to refer students to Robert Courier, an alleged psychic and hypnosis counselor, despite the fact that Mr. Courier had been prohibited from instructing students in her classes. Her alleged failure to comply with laboratory regulations, even if true, does not constitute willful violation of an administrator's directive relative to her classroom instruction; and Mr. Sicard acknowledges that her referral of students to Mr. Courier "do[es] not violate previous directives" to respondent. (P-368.) This leaves only the alleged violation of Mr. Powers' 1976 directive.
In that directive, Mr. Powers directed Respondent to obtain prior clearance from the departmental chairperson for "[a] 11 off-campus activities which affect the student's grade[s]." (P-147.) In 1977, however, Mr. Power's successor chairperson, Bess Fleckman, effectively countermanded or negated the effect of Mr. Powers' directive. By a memorandum dated March 21, 1977, she asked respondent to take full responsibility for assignments to students, stating that this should not "be a concern of a chairperson." (P-261, P-262, P- 263.) Thus, respondent's subsequent assignments concerning off-campus ERA activities did not violate a directive from her supervising administrator.
By memorandum dated April 3, 1979, Mr. Sicard suggested that respondent improve her teaching techniques by accepting the assistance of Ms. Fleckman--a qualified and experienced classroom instructional specialist. (P- 388.) Respondent replied with a memorandum stating that she did not wish to work with Ms. Fleckman because she did not feel Ms. Fleckman "would be objective in evaluating my performance. (P-391.) Mr. Sicard replied on April 17, 1979, converting his suggestion into a clear directive that respondent work with and accept the assistance of Ms. Fleckman. Although clearly unhappy with the arrangement, respondent complied. (P-404.)
The College has not shown that respondent ever refused or willfully and deliberately failed to comply with an administrator's directive which was phrased in clear and mandatory terms. Administrators, understandably, preferred to give suggestions to respondent, not orders or directives. But, failure to agree with or follow a suggestion does not amount to willful violation of a directive. (Testimony of Humphries, Fleckman, Sicard.)
Alleged: Respondent . . . repeatedly refused to follow directives from college administrators, which has distracted from the objectives of her department, division, and campus.
This charge is similar to the preceding allegation; no additional evidence was offered to substantiate it. Consequently, it is similarly concluded that no showing has been made that respondent repeatedly refused to follow directives from college administrators. (Testimony of Humphries, Fleckman, Sicard.)
Alleged: Respondent deliberately failed or refused to perform assigned duties within the parameters established by her department chairperson.
This charge may overlap with charges contained in paragraphs B and C above. The only additional incident of any significance offered by the College in substantiation involves respondent's purported attempt to use the psychology laboratory for therapy purposes.
In June, 1978, respondent served as coordinator of the department's psychology laboratory with the assignment to expand its uses. On June 22, 1978, she circulated a memorandum to faculty members announcing a new laboratory program called "Positive Personal Programming," which would be carried out by Kenneth Forrest; she believed he was a student in an honors-level psychology course taught by Dr. Cecil B. Nichols. The program involved treating subjects with weight control or smoking habits by means of hypnosis and biofeedback techniques. Since regulations allegedly precluded use of the laboratory for therapy purposes, Mr. Sicard instructed respondent that this proposed program could not be implemented. Although she protested that the proposed program would be beneficial and should be allowed, she complied with his directive and immediately cancelled the program. The program was never implemented.
Mr. Sicard testified that he did not know whether the program described in respondent's memorandum to faculty was ever implemented, but he "assumed" it was. (Tr.160.) He considered respondent's memorandum as an act of insubordination justifying her termination. (P-368.) The evidence does not establish that the proposed use would violate applicable regulations. 2/ In any case, it has not been shown how a program which was never instituted could violate any limitations on use of the psychology laboratory.
The College has not shown any deliberate failure or refusal by respondent to perform her duties within the parameters established by her department chairperson. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.)
Alleged: Respondent failed to satisfy established criteria for the performance of assigned duties.
No objective criteria have been promulgated to assess the performance of College faculty members. In the absence of such criteria announced prospectively, the College seeks to establish by expert testing that respondent did not cover the material required in an introductory psychology course; that she placed undue emphasis on biofeedback techniques; and that the grading system she used was inadequate.
Although there is conflicting testimony on these matters, the testimony of Ronald F. Tikofsky is accepted as persuasive. Now a departmental chairperson at the University of Wisconsin, he obtained a master's degree in psychology, and took a minor in psychology for his doctorate. He taught in the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan, where he became a full professor, and later served as chairperson of the Department of Psychology at Florida International University from 1971 through 1979. He has participated in the development of college curriculum, helped college instructors develop teaching techniques, and evaluated the performance of faculty members. His academic credentials are impressive, his testimony was objective, forthright, and credible. (Tr. 967-1017; R-48.) His opinions are accorded great weight.
He opined that, in his profession, there is no consensus on any set number of concepts which should be taught in college level introductory psychology courses, that this properly follows within the discretion of the individual instructor. His review of the topics respondent covered during the fall and winter semesters of 1980 led him to conclude that she covered the basic materials of an introductory psychology course, and that the time she devoted to biofeedback theory and demonstrations was appropriate. After reviewing respondent's grading records, he concluded that her grading method was not unusual or unacceptable. Development of grading curves is an art, not a science; it involves the interplay of several variables and the subjective judgment of the instructor. Generally, respondent would take the class average, note the distribution, establish cutoff points for various grade levels, apply them to the data, and then apply a subjective factor. Mr. Tikofsky testified that the number of credit points assigned for completing outside projects was neither excessive nor inappropriate. These opinions of Mr. Tikofsky are expressly adopted.
The College has not shown that respondent failed to satisfy any meaningful performance standard, announced either prospectively or retroactively. (Testimony of Tikofsky, Sicard, Humphries.)
Alleged:. Respondent failed to comply with directives for required improvements that were set forth in her yearly personnel evaluations.
As already mentioned above, the yearly personnel evaluations contained "goals and objectives," not "directives." These goals and objectives were the product of discussion and negotiation between the department chairperson and instructor; some were considered mandatory, others not.
Those that originated with the instructor lacked mandatory effect.
The three goals and objectives concerning biofeedback--contained on respondent's 1979 personnel evaluation form--originated with the respondent. She made a good faith effort to complete or completed each of those biofeedback goals. The remaining six goals and objectives were satisfied by respondent.
As to the 1978 personnel evaluation, most, if not all, of the listed goals and objectives were satisfied. Her next evaluation--where she was rated unsatisfactory--does not fault her for failing to meet any 1978 goal or objective.
The evidence does not show that respondent failed to satisfy any goal or objective which was listed on her evaluation and clearly understood--at the time--to be a directive, rather than an end toward which effort should be directed. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries; P-315, P-474.)
Alleged: The level of instruction in respondent's classes was below reasonable minimum standards.
This charge overlaps with paragraph E above, and H below. The College has not established or published any objective minimum standards to measure an instructor's performance.
Respondent used a standard approach to teaching introductory psychology: she used a vocabulary or concept list for each chapter of the textbook and gave frequent objective tests. Her classes were structured and well-disciplined. Her students were generally satisfied with her performance and compared her favorably to other instructors at the College. Those who went on to take more advanced psychology courses made grades similar to or better than those they received from respondent.
Ms. Fleckman helped her to improve her teaching techniques. When Ms. Fleckman observed her teaching in 1979, she could offer only a few suggestions and rated her 8 on a 10-point performance scale.
Videotapes of respondent teaching her classes were viewed at hearing. After reviewing the tapes, Mr. Tikofsky opined that respondent was an adequate and competent classroom instructor. His opinion is accepted as persuasive. The videotapes demonstrate convincingly that respondent delivers lectures in an organized, methodical fashion and that she has the attention of her students. The tapes further show that she takes her teaching responsibilities seriously, is genuinely interested in the subject matter, and that she tries to relate and respond to her students.
In light of the above, and the findings contained in paragraph E above, it is concluded that respondent's level of instruction in her classes did not fall below reasonable minimum standards, either announced prospectively or applied retroactively. (Testimony of Humphries, Tikofsky, Fleckman, Signorelli.)
Alleged: Students in respondent's classes were deprived of required course material.
This charge overlaps charges contained in paragraphs E and G above, and the findings relating to those charges also apply here.
During the fall and winter of 1980, Mr. Tikofsky opined that respondent covered the topics appropriate to a college level introductory psychology course. His opinion is accepted as persuasive.
The topics which should be covered are left up to the individual psychology instructor. The College does not specify the topics and materials that must be covered. When respondent was suspended near the end of the 1980 winter quarter, she had covered the material which--according to her own class syllabus-- should have been covered at that time.
The charge that her students were deprived of required course material is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Tikofsky; P-2.)
Alleged: Respondent's classes were unstructured.
As already mentioned, respondent's classes were structured and well disciplined. Ms. Fleckman conceded that her classes were structured. Students
took copious notes and were able to organize her lectures into outline form (see paragraph G above).
This charge is unsubstantiated by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Signorelli, Stipulated testimony of Students.)
Alleged: Respondent maintained little control over students.
Respondent conducted her classes in a no-nonsense, businesslike manner. She welcomed questions from students, but she did not tolerate disruption. She was a disciplinarian and was respected by her students.
This charge is unsupported by the evidence. (Testimony of Humphries, Classroom Videotapes, Signorelli, Stipulated testimony of Students.)
Alleged: Respondent failed to maintain enrollment and completion rates at acceptable levels.
The College has not established, prospectively, criteria to determine acceptable student attrition rates. Never before has a College instructor been recommended for termination because of an unacceptable attrition rate.
Respondent's 1979, 1980, and 1981 evaluations--where she was rated unsatisfactory--concluded that she failed to "maintain enrollment and course completion at acceptable levels." (P-380, P-474.) Although she repeatedly asked Mr. Sicard for a specific attrition figure which she should meet, no figure was ever supplied.
Mr. Sicard concluded that her attrition rate was "too high in relation to her peers." That conclusion is unsubstantiated. Her completion rate, over the years, was 51.7 percent, a figure which compares favorably with her fellow instructors: Alan Winet (56.3); James Killride (50.6); Margaret Casey (54.3); Dorothy O'Conner (44.4); Peter Diehl (44.4); Royal Grumbach (51.5); Lawrence Chernoff (45.2); Ronnie Fisher (42.5); and Harold Andrews (47).
Moreover, between 1978 and 1980, her attrition rate was improving, sometimes exceeding 60 percent. It is concluded that, when compared with her peers, respondent maintained an acceptable student course-completion rate. (Testimony of Hansen, McCabe.)
Respondent's Relationship with College Administrators
Respondent was frequently at odds with College administrators. She petitioned the College for a four-day work week and a female professor's bill of rights. She appealed the College's failure to promote her and repeatedly accused the College of sexual discrimination. She was an outspoken critic, questioning and challenging the actions of College administrators. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.)
Her relationship with administrators was marked by mutual distrust and became adversarial in nature. To avoid misunderstandings, she resorted to tape- recording her meetings with supervisors; her communications with administrators were increasingly reduced to writing. (Testimony of Sicard, Humphries.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (1981).
The standards which govern the dismissal of community college personnel under continuing contracts are found in Rule 6A-14.411(6), Florida Administrative Code:
An employee . . . may be suspended or dismissed by the board upon recommendation of the president . . . provided further that the charges must be based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude.
See, also Rule 6B-4.09, F.A.C.
This rule is penal in nature since it imposes sanctions, including dismissal, against an employee under continuing contract. Cf., School Board of Pinellas County v. Noble, 384 So.2d 205, 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Consequently, the rule "must be strictly construed, and, if there are any ambiguities within it, they must be construed in favor of the employee." Id.
In Bowling v. Department of Insurance, 394 So.2d 165, 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the court required an elevated standard of competent, substantial evidence when an agency sought to enforce a standard of conduct not contained within a statute or rule:
[W]hen the standards of conduct to be enforced are not explicitly fixed by statute or rule, but depend on . . . debatable expressions . . .; when the conduct to be assessed is past, beyond the actor's power to conform it to agency standards announced prospectively; and when the proceeding may result in the loss of a valuable business
or professional license, the critical matters in issue must be shown by evidence which is indubitably as "substantial" as the consequences.
Measured by these standards, it is concluded that the College has failed to establish, with the requisite substantiality of evidence, that respondent is guilty of incompetency, willful neglect of duty, and gross insubordination. 3/
While it is true that, over a period of time, friction developed between College administrators and respondent, this is not a lawful ground for suspending or dismissing her. Lively inquiry, debate, and exchange of ideas are indispensable to a university. In such a robust and unfettered environment, it is foreseeable that relations between participants will sometimes become strained and difficult.
The parties' proposed findings of fact which are incorporated in this recommended order are adopted; otherwise, they are rejected as unsupported by the evidence, immaterial, or unnecessary to resolution of the issues presented.
Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:
That respondent be reinstated as a continuing contract employee at Miami- Dade Community College with full back pay for the period of time of her suspension.
DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.
R. L. Caleen, Jr. Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1982.
ENDNOTES
1/ Petitioner's and Respondent's Exhibits will be referred to as "P- ," and
"R- ," respectively. Pages of the transcript of hearing will be referred to
as "Tr. ."
2/ These regulations were never offered into evidence.
3/ See, Smith v. School Board of Leon County, 405 So.2d (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), defining the phrase, "gross insubordination."
COPIES FURNISHED:
Arthur M. Simon, Esquire
25 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130
Elizabeth J. du Fresne, Esquire 1782 One Biscayne Tower
Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
Robert H. McCabe, President Miami-Dade Community College 11011 Southwest 104 Street
Miami, Florida 33176
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 19, 1982 | Final Order filed. |
| Jun. 01, 1982 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jul. 12, 1982 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 01, 1982 | Recommended Order | Community college professor reinstated with back pay for disciplinary action where she was suspended for not getting along with administration. |
MITCHELL ABRAMS vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 81-001340 (1981)
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY vs. CARLOS VICIEDO, JR., 81-001340 (1981)
TOM GALLAGHER, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs ERIC L. STEPHEN, 81-001340 (1981)
ILENE R. BERSON vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, 81-001340 (1981)
DR. ERIC J. SMITH, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs DOREEN MAYNARD, 81-001340 (1981)
