STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 96-4004
)
KATHLEEN FINNERTY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on August 19 and 20, 1997, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire
Haliczer, Pettis & White, P.A.
101 Northeast Third Avenue Sixth Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
For Respondent: Francisco M. Negron, Jr., Esquire
Tom Young, Esquire FEA/United
118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against her, and, if so, whether her employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In August 1996 Petitioner determined that Respondent's employment should be terminated, and Respondent timely requested an evidentiary proceeding regarding that determination. This cause was thereafter transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the proceeding. An Amended Administrative Complaint was filed on December 18, 1996.
Petitioner presented the testimony of Layne F. Polakoff; Carolyn Koesten; Warren D. Smith; Gale Daly, Ph.D.; Mark Seigle; Roger J. Beaumont, Ph.D.; Josetta Royal Campbell; Ronald S. Wright, and, by way of deposition, Fernando V. Mata, M. D.; Clara Barnes, and Jack N. Singer, Ph.D. Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of Donald Nelson, Amy Nelson, and Adele Antonino. Additionally, Petitioner's exhibits numbered 1-24 and Respondent's exhibits numbered 1-6 were admitted in evidence.
Both parties submitted post hearing proposed recommended orders which have been considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent has been employed by Petitioner as a teacher for 16 1/2 years. She holds a Florida teaching certificate in the areas of specific learning disabilities and educable mental retardation. Throughout her employment by Petitioner, she has
been assigned to teach exceptional student education classes.
For the 1995-96 school year, she was assigned to teach a varying exceptionalities class at Winston Park Elementary School. At that school, the principal and the assistant principal have a practice of visiting every classroom every day whenever possible. The visits usually consist of a general walk-through. As a result of his visits to Respondent's classroom, Assistant Principal Polakoff, an experienced varying exceptionalities teacher, became concerned about the lack of discipline in Respondent's classroom. Respondent made a large number of referrals of students to the administrators for disciplinary action. Polakoff discussed his concerns with Respondent.
In late September or early October, the administration at Winston Park Elementary School requested Rene Miscio, an Exceptional Education Program Specialist from the area office to come and assist Respondent. Miscio identified concerns with Respondent's classroom performance and gave Respondent suggestions for improving her areas of deficiency. Miscio took Respondent to a different school so Respondent could observe that teacher. Respondent later advised her administrators that she was implementing the suggestions made by Miscio.
On November 2, 1995, Respondent referred a student to the office. Assistant Principal Polakoff went to Respondent's classroom and observed for 30 to 40 minutes. He wrote detailed notes while he was in Respondent's classroom and later discussed
his observations with Principal Smith. They determined that Respondent's performance was deficient in three areas: behavior management, classroom management, and lesson presentation.
By letter dated November 2, Assistant Principal Polakoff advised Respondent that she was moved from the development phase to the documentation phase of the Instructional Personnel Assessment System (hereinafter "IPAS") because deficiencies had been identified. In the documentation phase strategies are formulated for remediating the identified deficiencies. The goal is to provide the teacher with strategies to become successful in helping students learn.
Principal Smith and Assistant Principal Polakoff worked with Respondent in writing a Performance Development Plan. Such a Plan envisions ongoing contact between the administrators and the teacher to address the teacher's deficiencies over the course of a defined time period. Respondent was given a February 29, 1996, deadline for remediating her deficiencies.
Assistant Principal Polakoff began working with Respondent to develop behavior plans for specific students because of his background in exceptional student education. The administrators also assigned the exceptional student education specialist at Winston Park to observe and assist Respondent to overcome her areas of deficiency.
Principal Smith also assigned Carolyn Koesten, another special education teacher at Winston Park, to "model" in
Respondent's classroom from November 27 through December 7, 1995. Koesten had "modeled" before. "Modeling" means that an experienced teacher teaches another teacher's class in order to demonstrate to that teacher classroom management skills, behavior skills, and academic skills. Principal Smith instructed Koesten to establish a classroom management system, to establish a
behavior management system, and to teach the students. When Koesten took over Respondent's classroom, Respondent was on leave.
Koesten assessed Respondent's class when she started her modeling. Respondent's lesson plans were sketchy, and no routine had been established in Respondent's classroom. Koesten conducted a class meeting to develop a schedule for daily activities. She, together with the students, set up a behavior management system, establishing the rules of conduct, consequences, and rewards. She experienced no problems with Respondent's students once they had established rules for that classroom.
"Running reading records" was a school-wide system being implemented that year to help measure a student's progress in reading. Respondent had no running reading records when Koesten began modeling in Respondent's class. Koesten set up running reading records for Respondent's class, established a
reading program using those records, and began using spelling words from the reading program. She also set up learning centers within the classroom so students who had finished an activity could begin other work rather than beginning to misbehave.
Respondent did not have any learning centers in her classroom.
Respondent returned to school on December 6. Koesten met with her in the morning to explain the changes which had been implemented. Respondent then spent the day observing Koesten teaching Respondent's class. At the end of the day, she again met with Koesten to discuss the reading program and learning centers which Koesten had established. On the next day, Respondent took over the class, and Koesten observed her teaching.
During the time that Koesten was in charge of Respondent's class, the class ran smoothly with the classroom management system and the behavior management system she had put in place. The students liked the systems because they had participated in developing them. Neither the number of students in the class nor the mix of students presented Koesten with any problem.
During the morning of February 13, 1996, Assistant Principal Polakoff received a referral on one of Respondent's students for whom they had just recently developed an individual behavior plan. He told Principal Smith about the referral, and Smith went into Respondent's classroom. Smith determined that
Respondent had ignored the individual behavior plan which they had developed for that student.
Principal Smith summoned Respondent to his office that afternoon to meet with him and Assistant Principal Polakoff so he could give her feedback on what he had observed regarding the deficiencies in her performance that still existed. When she arrived, Smith asked her to describe her behavior management plan, and she did. Smith then advised her that she was not following that plan when he was in her classroom. She told him she was not able to follow her behavior management plan because
the children were misbehaving. Smith also told her she had not followed the individual behavior plan for the student whom she had referred that morning.
Respondent became very loud, angry, and agitated while Smith was trying to discuss her failure to follow the behavior plans. She alternated between being very angry and calming herself. When she calmed herself, she sat down. When she became angry, she got up and leaned on Smith's desk and leaned toward him.
Smith kept trying to focus on how Respondent could improve her classroom performance but Respondent would not discuss that subject. She began attacking Smith verbally. She told him he reminded her of her parents. She told him he was a
terrible person and a terrible father. She told him she hated him and that everyone hated him. She told him she would not talk to him but would only talk to Assistant Principal Polakoff.
Polakoff told Respondent she needed to talk with Smith because Smith was her boss.
Smith remained very calm and "matter of fact." He did nothing to cause Respondent to become agitated. He continued to try to focus on what was needed in order for Respondent to correct her deficiencies. At the end of the conference, Respondent told Smith that he was treating her "shitty". Smith calmly responded that at that point her teaching was "shitty" and that it was "a joke".
Also at the end of the conference which had lasted for an hour or more, Respondent told Smith that she was "going to get him". Smith asked her what she meant by that, and Respondent told him that he was just going to have to wait to find out, that he would not know when or where she was going to get him, but that she would. The meeting ended when Respondent walked out of Smith's office.
Polakoff was so uneasy about Respondent's threats that he followed her when she left the building and locked the building behind her so she could not return. Smith was concerned for his safety, Respondent's safety, and the safety of the other employees due to Respondent's threats and her agitation level. Just a few weeks before, a Broward County employee had killed his
co-workers. Smith was concerned regarding Respondent's emotional stability and whether she should be in a classroom.
Principal Smith telephoned his supervisor, Area Superintendent Dr. Daly, and told her what had transpired. She gave him an oral reprimand for using the word "shitty" and told him to call Director of Professional Standards Ronald Wright.
Wright also orally reprimanded Smith for using that word and told him to send Respondent a memo asking her to clarify what she meant by her statements that she was going "to get" Smith and that he would not know when or where. Wright also explained to Smith the procedures for requesting that an employee undergo a psychiatric and/or psychological evaluation to determine fitness to remain in the classroom.
Principal Smith wrote such a memo to Respondent the following day. Two days later, Respondent replied in writing and stayed out of school for the next several days saying she was too depressed to function. Her written explanation is not accurate, does not reflect the tone of her voice or her anger, and is not believable.
On February 14, 1996, Principal Smith initiated the procedure for requiring Respondent to undergo psychological and/or psychiatric testing. He also re-assigned her so that she would assist in the school's media center and not return to her classroom until completion of the psychiatric evaluation.
While Respondent was assigned to the media center, she
was very disruptive. She kept trying to involve students and parents in her anger toward Principal Smith.
On Friday, March 1, Respondent initiated a conversation with Josetta Royal Campbell who was in the media center. Although Campbell was a fellow teacher, she had no personal relationship with Respondent. Respondent asked Campbell if she had been evaluated by Principal Smith, and Campbell replied that she had been. Respondent asked if Campbell had heard that Respondent had received a bad evaluation, and Campbell replied that she had not. Respondent followed her to Campbell's classroom.
Inside Campbell's classroom, Respondent became very excited and loud and was easily heard by the custodian cleaning the classroom. Respondent told Campbell that she and Smith had a big argument, that Smith was "out to get" her, and that she was going to kill him. Respondent said she thought Polakoff was her friend but he was a "backstabber" and that Koesten was also "out to get" her. She told Campbell that she was "going to get them all", that Smith had ruined her life, and that "everybody involved would pay for it". She also said that she could not return to her classroom until after she had undergone psychological testing but that since she had been under psychological treatment for ten years, she could pass the test with "flying colors".
Over the weekend Campbell thought about what Respondent
had said. She was concerned about the threats Respondent had made toward Principal Smith and the others. She took Respondent's threats seriously. On Monday she wrote a letter to Principal Smith telling him what had happened.
On March 6, Principal Smith re-assigned Respondent to temporary duty with pay in her own home.
Respondent selected a psychiatrist from a list given to her by the Director of Petitioner's Instructional Staffing Department. She selected Dr. Fernando Mata and was evaluated by him on March 7, 1996. After seeing Respondent on that date, he recommended that she undergo psychological testing.
Respondent was given a list of psychologists to choose from, and she selected Dr. Jack Singer. He evaluated her on March 22, conducting a personal interview and administering the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory II, the Thematic Apperception Test, and the Holtzman Inkblot Technique. Dr. Singer concluded that Respondent is unstable and unpredictable. He opined that Respondent cannot safely handle a classroom full of children at this time. Upon review of Dr. Singer's report,
Dr. Mata issued a supplemental report agreeing with Singer's opinions and concluding that Respondent "should not be returned to a classroom setting at this time".
A conference was held with Respondent, her union representative, Petitioner's Director of Personnel, Petitioner's
Director of Professional Standards, and Petitioner's Director of Instructional Staffing to discuss with Respondent the options available to her under Petitioner's policies and the union contract due to the medical report determining that Respondent was not fit to teach at that time. Respondent was advised that she could elect: (1) family/medical leave of up to 12 weeks; (2) disability leave for up to two years; or (3) a personal leave of absence. The financial impacts of each type of leave were explained to Respondent. Respondent declined all leave options.
By letter dated May 15, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards wrote to Respondent asking her to confirm that she still declined all leave options. By letter dated May 22, 1996, Petitioner's Director of Professional Standards again wrote to Respondent confirming that they had spoken on May 20 and that Respondent still declined all leave options and that Respondent understood that her refusal to take any type of leave would force Petitioner to terminate her employment.
Petitioner does not second-guess medical opinions. When Respondent declined all leave options, Petitioner had no choice but to initiate termination of Respondent's employment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof. Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that a teacher may be dismissed from employment at any time for just cause as provided in Section 231.36(1)(a). That latter section provides that just cause includes incompetency and misconduct in office.
The Amended Administrative Complaint filed in this cause alleges that Respondent is guilty of incompetency as defined in Rule 6B-4.009(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which provides, in part, as follows: "Incompetency is defined as inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity. . . ." The term "incapacity" is further defined to include a lack of emotional stability.
Petitioner has exceeded its burden of proof in this proceeding and has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent lacks emotional stability and is, therefore, incompetent to carry out her duties as a teacher. The medical evidence is uncontroverted. Both the psychiatrist and the psychologist who evaluated her have opined that Respondent is emotionally unstable and, therefore, unfit to teach at this time.
The Amended Administrative Complaint also alleges that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office as that term is defined in Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code. That rule provides as follows:
(3) Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession
as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001 . . . and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B-1.006 . . . which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.
The Amended Administrative Complaint does not allege any violations of Rule 6B-1.00l as the basis for Petitioner's allegation that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office.
It does, however, allege a number of violations of Rule 6B-l.006, specifically Rule 6B-l.006(3)(a), (e), (f), and (g), (4)(a) and (b), and (5)(b) and (c).
Subsection (3) involves a teacher's obligations to students, and the specific sub-sections alleged prohibit a teacher from exposing a student to harmful conditions, exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment, violating a student's legal rights, or discriminating against a student. However, the charges in this case involve Respondent's actions as to her supervisors and co-workers, not as to her students. Whether Respondent would have corrected any deficiencies in her performance by the deadline contained in her Performance Development Plan is not known since the meeting of February 13 wherein she threatened Principal Smith and raised the issue of
her emotional stability occurred before that date, and she was removed from her classroom before that deadline. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent violated her duty to her students.
Subsection (4) involves a teacher's obligations to the public, and the specific sub-subsections alleged prohibit a teacher from failing to distinguish between personal views and those of the educational organization and prohibit a teacher from misrepresenting facts concerning an educational matter. Although Petitioner offered evidence that Respondent was disruptive while assigned to the media center by trying to involve students and parents in her anger toward Principal Smith, Petitioner did not offer evidence as to any specific matter that Petitioner discussed with any specific person.
Subsection (5) involves a teacher's obligation to the teaching profession, and the specific sub-subsections alleged prohibit a teacher from denying a colleague professional benefits or interfering with a colleague's exercise of rights and responsibilities. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent engaged in such conduct.
Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent committed misconduct in office based upon the subsections alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. However, the clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is incompetent to teach due
to her lack of emotional stability leads to only one possible response by Petitioner--termination of Respondent's employment.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED THAT a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and dismissing her from her employment with Petitioner.
DONE AND ENTERED this day of November, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
LINDA M. RIGOT
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of November, 1997.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire Haliczer, Pettis & White, P.A.
101 Northeast Third Avenue Sixth Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Francisco M. Negron, Jr., Esquire Tom Young, Esquire
FEA/United
118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1700
Dr. Frank R. Petruzielo, Superintendent Broward County School Board
600 Southeast Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
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.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Nov. 12, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 08/19-20/97. |
| Oct. 03, 1997 | Petitioner`s Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 02, 1997 | Respondent, Kathleen Finnerty`s, Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1997 | (I Volume) Transcript (Condensed Version) filed. |
| Aug. 19, 1997 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Aug. 19, 1997 | (Petitioner) Motion in Limine to Prevent References to Specific Student`s Behavior (filed w/ judge at hearing) filed. |
| Aug. 18, 1997 | Respondent, Kathleen Finnerty`s, Motion in Limine to Exclude Similar Fact Evidence; Respondent, Kathleen Finnerty`s Motion in Limit to Exclude Expert Testimony of Ronald Wright (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 15, 1997 | Petitioner`s Notice of Filing Amendment to Exhibit List; Exhibit List; Petitioner`s Request to Produce at Hearing filed. |
| Aug. 15, 1997 | (From E. Pettis) (3) Subpoena Duces Tecum Without Deposition Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 1.351 filed. |
| Aug. 12, 1997 | Respondent`s Pre-Hearing Statement filed. |
| Aug. 11, 1997 | (Petitioner) Unilateral Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed. |
| Aug. 11, 1997 | Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Request for Production filed. |
| Aug. 11, 1997 | Notice of Service of Response to Petitioner`s Supplemental Expert Interrogatories to Respondent; Notice of Service of Response to Petitioner`s Interrogatories to Respondent filed. |
| Aug. 11, 1997 | (Petitioner) Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition filed. |
| Aug. 07, 1997 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 04, 1997 | Order sent out. (motion to remove confidentiality from medical records is denied; motion to shorten time is granted) |
| Jul. 31, 1997 | Petitioner`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jul. 30, 1997 | Letter to E. Petitis from F. Negron Re: Deposition of J. Singer filed. |
| Jul. 29, 1997 | (Petitioner) Second Amended Notice of Taking Telephone Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 29, 1997 | (Respondent) Response in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion to Shorten Time (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 29, 1997 | (Respondent) Response in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion to Remove Confidentiality From Mental Health Records (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 28, 1997 | CC: Letter to Eugene Pettis from Francisco Negron (RE: response to request for client`s psychiatric and treatment records) (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 28, 1997 | Petitioner`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 25, 1997 | (Respondents) Notice of Production From Non-Party; (3) Subpoena Duces Tecum Without Deposition Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 1.351 filed. |
| Jul. 23, 1997 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Taking Depositions (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 22, 1997 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Taking Telephone Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 22, 1997 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Telephone Deposition; (Respondent) Notice of Taking Depositions (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 21, 1997 | Petitioner`s Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Respondent; Petitioner`s Interrogatories to Respondent; Petitioner`s Motion to Shorten Time; Motion to Remove Confidentiality From Medical Records filed. |
| Jul. 21, 1997 | Petitioner`s First Request to Produce to Respondent; Petitioner`s Notice of Service of Supplemental Expert Interrogatories to Respondent; Petitioner`s Supplemental Expert Interrogatories to Respondent filed. |
| Jul. 21, 1997 | Petitioner`s Motion to Shorten Time; (Petitioner) Motion to Remove Confidentiality From Medical Records (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 10, 1997 | Petitioner`s Notice of Conflict filed. |
| May 30, 1997 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| May 30, 1997 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition (filed via facsimile). |
| May 19, 1997 | Order sent out. (motion for protective order denied; motion for sanctions denied) |
| May 09, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Compliance filed. |
| May 08, 1997 | (Petitioner) Motion for Protective Order filed. |
| May 08, 1997 | (Respondent) Response in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions filed. |
| Apr. 24, 1997 | Letter to LMR from Francisco Negron (RE: available dates for hearing) (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 24, 1997 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Depositions (filed via facsimile). |
| Apr. 23, 1997 | Second Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Aug. 19-21, 1997; 9:30am; Ft. Lauderdale) |
| Apr. 17, 1997 | Order sent out. (Petitioner`s motion to compel answers to expert interrogatories is granted) |
| Apr. 04, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Telephone Deposition filed. |
| Apr. 03, 1997 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Depositions (filed via facisimile) filed. |
| Mar. 28, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Compliance filed. |
| Mar. 25, 1997 | Petitioner, School Board of Broward County`s Motion to Compel Answers to Expert Interrogatories filed. |
| Mar. 24, 1997 | (Respondent) Notice of Service of Response to Petitioner`s Interrogatories (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 24, 1997 | Petitioner`s Supplemental Response to Respondent`s First Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Feb. 18, 1997 | Order sent out. (Respondent`s renewed motion to dismiss for failure to comply with court order & Rule 60Q-2.004(3)(d) & (e) FAC is denied) |
| Feb. 12, 1997 | (Petitioner) Notice of Service of Interrogatories filed. |
| Jan. 31, 1997 | Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply With Court Order and Rule 60Q-2.004(3)(d) and (e), Fla. Admin. Code; Cover Letter (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 27, 1997 | Order sent out. (parties to file mutually agreeable hearing dates by 3/24/97) |
| Jan. 22, 1997 | Joint Status Report (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 15, 1997 | (Petitioner) Response Memorandum in Opposition to Respondent`s Renewed Motion to Dismiss filed. |
| Jan. 10, 1997 | Petitioner`s Notice of Answers to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories; Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s First Request for Production of Documents; Petitioner`s Objections to Respondent`s First Request for Production; Objections to Interrogatori |
| Dec. 20, 1996 | Order of Continuance sent out. (hearing cancelled; parties to file status report by 1/21/97) |
| Dec. 19, 1996 | Joint Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 18, 1996 | (Petitioner) Amended Administrative Complaint filed. |
| Dec. 09, 1996 | Letter to LMR from F. Negron Re: Motion to Dismiss; Letter to D. Robertson from F. Negron Re: Filing amended complaint filed. |
| Dec. 09, 1996 | Respondent, Kathleen Finnerty`s First Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Dec. 09, 1996 | Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1996 | Order sent out. (re: motion to dismiss; motion for more definite statement) |
| Nov. 14, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion to Dismiss Count II, Paragraph B of the Administrative Complaint or, In the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 21, 1996 | Subpoena Duces Tecum (from E. Pettis); Affidavit "Return of Service" filed. |
| Oct. 15, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Oct. 15, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition (Unsigned) filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1996 | (From F. Negron) Notice of Appearance; Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Sep. 19, 1996 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Jan. 8-10, 1996; 9:30am; Ft. Lauderdale) |
| Sep. 19, 1996 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out. |
| Sep. 13, 1996 | Response to Initial Order (Petitioner) filed. |
| Sep. 10, 1996 | (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 09, 1996 | Administrative Complaint (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 30, 1996 | Initial Order issued. |
| Aug. 26, 1996 | Agency referral letter from E. Marko; Request for 120 Hearing, letter form; Agenda Request Form; Agency Action letter; Administrative Complaint filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 12, 1997 | Recommended Order | Termination of employment is appropriate action where teacher is emotionally unstable and lacks the capacity to safely teach. |
JOHN L. WINN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs CYNTHIA B. FOY, 96-004004 (1996)
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs DONNA BURNEY, 96-004004 (1996)
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs DOROTHY D. CLEMONS, 96-004004 (1996)
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY vs. WILLIAM D. SULLIVAN, 96-004004 (1996)
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs PAMELA KAY PORTILLO, 96-004004 (1996)
