STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, ) FLORIDA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 97-4039
)
JENNIFER M. GARDNER, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a Section 120.57(1) hearing was conducted in this case on January 15, 1998, by video teleconference at sites in Miami and Tallahassee, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Heidi N. Shulman-Pereira, Esquire
The School Board of Dade County
1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
For Respondent: Jennifer M. Gardner, pro se
1237 Northwest 13th Street Homestead, Florida 33034
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.
If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Dade County with just or proper cause to take disciplinary action
against her.
If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On July 23, 1997, the School Board of Dade County (School Board) suspended Respondent from her position as a school bus aide and initiated a dismissal proceeding against her.
Respondent thereafter requested a hearing on the matter. On August 29, 1997, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division) for the assignment of a Division administrative law judge to conduct the hearing Respondent had requested.
On or about October 22, 1997, the School Board served on Respondent (by United States Mail) its Notice of Specific Charges, which contained the following five counts:
COUNT I
EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM/ABANDONMENT OF POSITION
Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
49 above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
Pursuant to Article XI of the AFSCME Contract, "[a]n unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position [and] [u]nauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination."
Pursuant to Section 231.44, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996), "any district school board
employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave . . . shall be subject to termination by the school board."
Pursuant to School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E- 1.011, an employee shall be deemed to be willfully absent without leave if the employee is ". . . absent for other than reasons of sudden illness, emergency or without such prior approval."
Based on the facts as set forth herein, Respondent was absent without authorization for three (3) consecutive days, and she was absent without authorization for ten (10) or more workdays during the twelve-month period preceding March 11, 1997, and April 30, 1997. Accordingly, Respondent violated Article XI of the AFSCME Contract, and Section 231.44, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996).
Failure to comply with the preceding contractual and statutory provisions constitute just cause and are sufficient grounds to warrant dismissal of Respondent pursuant to Articles II and XI of the AFSCME contract, and pursuant to Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605 and 447.209, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996).
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD'S DRUG-FREE WORK PLACE POLICY
Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
49 above, with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
Pursuant to School Board Rule 6Gx13-4- 1.05, Drug-Free Work Place General Policy Statement, employees on duty or on School Board property shall be free from alcohol intoxication and illegal drugs.
Pursuant to Article IX, Section 14F4e of the AFSCME labor contract and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.05, disciplinary action may be instituted against employees who have violated the standards of conduct cited in
this School Board rule and whose conduct has negatively impacted students and/or staff.
Respondent's actions as set forth herein, which include her reporting to work under the influence of alcohol, marijuana and cocaine, constitute a failure to comply with the School Board policy requiring a drug-free work environment, a failure to observe established federal regulations, and a continued failure to perform the duties and responsibilities of a School Board employee, each alone constituting just cause to warrant dismissal pursuant to School Board Rule
6Gx13-4-1.05, Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605
and 447.209, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996), and Articles II, IX, and XI of the AFSCME contract
COUNT III
DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE
Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
49 above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
Pursuant to Article XI, Section 4C of the AFSCME contract, an employee may be terminated because of the employee's deficient performance or non-performance of job responsibilities.
Based on the facts as set forth herein, Respondent's actions resulted in her non- performance and/or deficient performance of job responsibilities in violation of Article XI, Section 4C of the AFSCME contract.
Failure to comply with Article XI, Section 4C of the AFSCME constitutes just cause and is sufficient grounds to warrant dismissal pursuant to Articles II and XI of the AFSCME contract and pursuant to Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605 and 447.209, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996).
COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD RULES
Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
49 above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
Respondent's conduct as set forth herein violates School Board rules and departmental rules and regulations, including but not limited to the following: School Board Rule 6Gx13-3E-1.10, Transportation, and the Transportation Operations Procedures incorporated by reference therein; School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Permanent Personnel, Responsibilities and Duties; and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.06, General Personnel Policy Statement, Tobacco-Free Work Places.
Violations of School Board Rules 6Gx13- 4A-1.21, 6Gx13-3E-1.10, and 6Gx13-4-1.06, constitute just cause and are sufficient grounds to warrant dismissal pursuant to Articles II and XI of the AFSCME contract, and Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605 and 447.209, Fla. Stat. (1996).
COUNT V
GROSS INSUBORDINATION AND WILLFUL NEGLECT OF DUTY
Petitioner repeats each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
49 above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
Pursuant to Rule 6B-4.009(4), F.A.C., gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty is defined as ". . . a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority."
Based on the facts as set forth herein, Respondent's conduct which includes her defiance of her administrator's authority was in violation of 6B-4.009(4), F.A.C.
Respondent's actions as stated hereinabove constitute sufficient grounds and just cause to warrant dismissal pursuant to
Articles II and XI of the AFSCME contract, [and pursuant to] Sections 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605 and 447.209, Fla. Stat. (Supp.
1996).
As noted above, the final hearing in this case was held before the undersigned on January 15, 1998. At the outset of the hearing, the undersigned granted the School Board's request that official recognition be taken of the following: Article IX, Section 4(b), of the Florida Constitution; Sections 230.03, 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605, 231,44, 386.205, and 447.209, Florida
Statutes; Rule 6B-4.009(4), Florida Administrative Code; School Board Rules 6Gx13-3E-1.10, 6Gx13-4-1.05, 6Gx13-4-1.06 , 6Gx13-4A-
, and 6Gx13-4E-1.011; pages 21, 22 and 41 through 43 of the School Board's Transportation Rules and Policies Manual; and the current collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and Respondent's collective bargaining representative.
The School Board presented the testimony of five witnesses at the final hearing: Patricia Snell, the director of the School Board's South Regional Transportation Center; Jerry Klein, the senior executive director of the School Board's Department of Transportation; Susan Lilly, a payroll officer with the School Board; Barbara Moss, an executive director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards; and Sidney Poitier, the clinical coordinator of the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. The School Board also offered numerous exhibits (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 60 and 62 through 67) into evidence, all of which were received by the undersigned. Among
these exhibits were the transcripts of the depositions of Bertram Lee, M.D., of California, the assistant director of medical review for National Medical Review Offices, Inc.; and Steve Van Nus of North Carolina, a senior certifying scientist with LabCorp. Respondent presented no evidence at the final hearing.
At the close of the evidentiary portion of the hearing on January 15, 1998, the parties were advised of their right to file proposed recommended orders and a deadline was established (10 days from the date of the undersigned's receipt of the transcript
of the final hearing) for the filing of proposed recommended orders.
The undersigned received the transcript of the final hearing on February 9, 1998. On February 17, 1998, the School Board filed its proposed recommended order, which the undersigned has carefully considered. To date, Respondent has not filed any post-hearing submittal.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made:
The Parties
The School Board
The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through
12) in Dade County, Florida. Respondent
Respondent has been employed by the School Board since May of 1984.
She is currently under suspension pending the outcome of this disciplinary proceeding.
For the duration of her employment with the School Board, Respondent has held a school bus aide position and been assigned to the School Board's South Regional Transportation Center (Center), the director of which, since May of 1994, has been Patricia Snell.
At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was scheduled to work a total of six hours a day: three hours in the morning (morning shift) and three hours in the afternoon (afternoon shift). (In between the morning and afternoon shifts, she was off duty for several hours.)
The Collective Bargaining Agreement
As a school bus aide employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by AFSCME and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME (AFSCME Contract).
Article II, Section 3, of the AFSCME Contract provides as follows:
ARTICLE II- RECOGNITION
SECTION 3. The provisions of this Contract are not to be interpreted in any way or manner to change, amend, modify, or in any other way delimit the exclusive authority of the School Board and the Superintendent for the management of the total school system and any part of the school system. It is expressly understood and agreed that all rights and responsibilities of the School Board and Superintendent, as established now and through subsequent amendment or revision by constitutional provision, state and federal statutes, state regulations, and School Board Rules, shall continue to be exercised exclusively by the School Board and the Superintendent without prior notice or negotiations with AFSCME, except as specifically and explicitly provided for by the stated terms of this Contract. Such rights thus reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, by way of limitation, include the following:
selection and promotion of employees;
separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause;
the designation of the organizational structure of the DCPS and the lines of administrative authority of DCPS.
It is understood and agreed that management possesses the sole right, duty, and responsibility for operation of the schools and that all management rights repose in it, but that such rights must be exercised consistently with the other provisions of the agreement. These rights include, but are not limited to, the following:
Discipline or discharge of any employee for just cause;
Direct the work force;
Hire, assign, and transfer employees;
Determine the missions of the Board agencies;
Determine the methods, means, and number of personnel needed or desirable for carrying out the Board's missions;
Introduce new or improved methods or facilities;
Change existing methods or facilities;
Relieve employees because of lack of work;
Contract out for goods or services; and,
Such other rights, normally consistent with management's duty and responsibility for operation of the Board's services, provided, however, that the exercise of such rights does not preclude the Union from conferring about the practical consequences that decisions may have on terms and conditions of employment.
Article IX, Section 13, of the AFSCME Contract addresses the School Board's Employee Assistance Program. It provides as follows:
AFSCME and the Board recognize that a wide range of problems not directly
associated with an employee's job function can have an effect on an employee's job performance and/or attendance.
AFSCME and the Board agree that assistance will be provided to all employees through the establishment of an Employee Assistance Program.
The Employee Assistance Program is intended to help employees and their families who are suffering from such persistent problems as may tend to jeopardize an employee's health and continued employment. The program goal is to help individuals who develop such problems by providing for consultation, treatment, and rehabilitation to prevent their condition from progressing to a degree which will prevent them from working effectively.
Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure the confidentiality of records for any person admitted to the program, according to established personnel guidelines and federal regulations.
The Guidelines for the Employee Assistance Program, by reference, are made a part of this Contract.
Employee Rights:
Job security will not be jeopardized by referral to the Employee Assistance Program, whether the referral is considered a voluntary referral in which an employee elects to participate in the program, or a supervisory referral in which a supervisor uses adopted guidelines to refer an employee into the program.
An employee has the right to refuse referral into the program and may discontinue participation at any time. Failure by an employee to accept referral or continue treatment will be considered in the same manner as any factor that continues to affect job performance adversely.
Article IX, Section 14F, of the AFSCME Contract essentially recites the provisions of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4- 1.05, which is the School Board's "Drug Free Work Place General Policy Statement." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
DCPS [Dade County Public Schools] and AFSCME recognize that substance abuse in our nation and our community exacts staggering costs in both human and economic terms. Substance abuse can be reasonably expected to produce impaired job performance, lost productivity, absenteeism, accidents, wasted materials, lowered morale, rising health care costs, and diminished interpersonal relationship skills. DCPS and AFSCME share a commitment to solve this problem and to create and maintain a drug-free work place.
DCPS is responsible for the instruction and well-being of the students entrusted to its care. A consistent message needs to be communicated to DCPS students: the use of illegal drugs, the abuse of alcohol, and the misuse of prescription drugs is unacceptable.
Policy Objectives
To promote a healthy, safe working and learning environment;
To seek the rehabilitation of employees with a self-admitted or detected substance abuse problem;
To eliminate substance abuse problems in the work place;
To provide a consistent model of substance-free behavior for students;
To provide a clear standard of conduct for DCPS employees; and
To hire drug-free employees.
Policy Statement- Illegal Drugs
Drug abuse by employees interferes with the educational and work process and compromises the safety and well-being of staff and students. Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the following provisions:
a. Employees on duty or on School Board property will not manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess, or use illegal drugs, nor will they be under the influence of such drugs. . . .
Policy Statement- Alcohol and Prescription Drugs
Alcohol, prescription, and over-the-counter drugs are legal and readily available.
Generally safe and acceptable, these drugs, when abused over time or used in combination with one another, can result in chemical dependency or poly-drug addiction. Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the following provisions:
Employees on duty or on School Board property will be free of intoxication from alcohol. Employees in safety-sensitive positions, as defined herein, will be free of measurable alcohol concentrations. Further, employees will not manufacture or use alcoholic beverages while on School Board property or on duty. . . .
Policy Statement- Employee Physical Examination/Screening Health Services
Drug screening will be included in all physical examinations; existing employees and contracted persons in covered positions will be screened under the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act (OTETA) of 1991, and as required under existing labor contracts, statutes, State Board Rules, and Dade County Public Schools Board Rules.
Circumstances under which testing may be considered include, but are not limited to, the following:
observed use of illegal drugs and/or abuse of alcohol during work hours;
apparent physical state of impairment of motor functions;
marked changes in personal behavior on the job not attributable to other
factors; . . .
Drug and/or alcohol screening shall be conducted by Board approved, independent, certified laboratories utilizing recognized techniques and procedures as described in the DCPS Drug-Free Work Place Technical Guide, which is incorporated by reference into this Contract, and made a part thereof. The protocol for drug screening shall include a split sample and chemical immunoassay screening procedure. In the event initial test results are screened positive, such results will be confirmed and verified by the Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) Test.
Medical records and information relating directly thereto will be maintained in strict confidentiality. Any laboratory contract shall provide that the contractor's records are to be kept confidential under provisions of Florida laws. DCPS shall establish a system of maintaining records to include both the district's and the contractor's record of applicant and employee urinalysis and blood alcohol results.
The contract and the record maintenance system must have specific provisions that require that employee records are maintained and used with the highest regard for employee privacy consistent with Florida's Public Records Act and the purpose of achieving a drug-free work place.
DCPS recognizes that chemical dependency is an illness that can be successfully treated. It is the policy of DCPS, where possible, to seek rehabilitation of employees with a self-admitted or detected drug
problem. Disciplinary action may be instituted against employees who the Board believes will not be assisted by rehabilitation or who have negatively impacted students and/or staff. Employees who have previously been referred for assistance or employees unwilling or unable to rehabilitate may be subject to appropriate action, pursuant to School Board policy, applicable Florida Statutes, State Board of Education Rules, Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act (OTETA) of 1991, and applicable provisions of collective bargaining agreements.
Article XI of the AFSCME Contract addresses the subject of "disciplinary action."
Section 1 of Article XI is entitled "Due Process." It provides as follows:
A. Unit members are accountable for their individual levels of productivity, implementing the duties of their positions, and rendering efficient, effective delivery of services and support. Whenever an employee renders deficient performance, violates any rule, regulation, or policy, that employee shall be notified by his/her supervisor, as soon as possible, with the employee being informed of the deficiency or rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur prior to the issuance of any written disciplinary action. Progressive discipline steps should be followed:
verbal warning;
written warning (acknowledged); and,
Conference-for-the-Record.
Conference-for-the-Record shall be held as the first step when there is a violation of federal statutes, State Statutes, defiance of the administrator's authority, or a substantiated personnel investigation.
The parties agree that discharge is the extreme disciplinary penalty, since the employee's job, seniority, other contractual benefits, and reputation are at stake. In recognition of this principle, it is agreed that disciplinary action(s) taken against AFSCME bargaining unit members shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline (i.e., in administering discipline, the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record).
The employee shall have the right to representation in Conferences-for-the-Record held pursuant to this Article. Such a conference shall include any meeting where disciplinary action will be initiated.
The employee shall be given two days' notice and a statement for the reason for any Conference-for-the-Record, as defined above, except in cases deemed to be an emergency.
The Board agrees to promptly furnish the Union with a copy of any disciplinary action notification (i.e., notification of suspension, dismissal, or other actions appealable under this Section) against an employee in this bargaining unit.
Section 2 of Article XI is entitled "Dismissal, Suspension, Reduction-in-Grade." It provides as follows:
Permanent employees dismissed, suspended, or reduced in grade shall be entitled to appeal such action to an impartial Hearing Officer. The employee shall be notified of such action and of his/her right to appeal by certified mail. The employee shall have 20 calendar days in which to notify the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action. The Board shall appoint an impartial Hearing Officer, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the Hearing Officer shall present the findings. The findings of the Hearing Officer shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals, suspensions, and
reductions-in-grade. The employee shall not
be employed during the time of such dismissal or suspension, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or reduction-in-grade. Dismissal, suspension, reduction-in-grade, and non-reappointments are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures.
Section 3 of Article XI is entitled "Cause for
Suspension." It provides as follows:
In those cases where any employee has not complied with Board policies and/or department regulations, but the infraction is not deemed serious enough to recommend dismissal, the department head may recommend suspension up to 30 calendar days without pay. All suspensions must be approved by the Superintendent.
Section 4 of Article XI is entitled "Types of Separation." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any four distinct types of separation. . . .
Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of up to 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence.
Disciplinary-- The employee is separated by the employer for disciplinary cause arising from the employee's performance or non-performance of job responsibilities. Such action occurs at any necessary point in time. . . .
According to Article V, Section 18, of the AFSCME Contract, the term "workday," as used in the agreement, means "the total number of hours an employee is expected to be present
and performing assigned duties."
The definition of "unauthorized absence," as used in the AFSCME Contract, is found in Article V, Section 27, thereof, which provides as follows:
Unauthorized Absence-- Any absence without pay which has not been requested by the employee and approved by the supervisor, in writing, at least five days in advance.
Employees are required to notify the work location, prior to the beginning of the workday, when they are unable to report to work or intend to be absent.
Absences of the employee, where notice of absence is made prior to the start of the workday, but are not covered by the employee having accrued sick or personal leave, shall be charged as unauthorized absence and may result in disciplinary action in accordance with Article XI. Upon the employee reporting back to work, the employee shall be apprised of the unauthorized leave status; however, if the employee can demonstrate that there were extenuating circumstances (e.g., hospitalization or other unanticipated emergency), then consideration will be given to changing the status of leave. The work location supervisor has the authority to change an unauthorized leave; however, nothing herein precludes requested leave being determined to be unauthorized where the employee does not have available sick or sufficient personal leave.
The School Board's Rules
As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board rules and regulations,1 including the aforementioned School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.05, as well as School Board Rules 6Gx13-3E-1.10, 6Gx13-4-1.06 , 6Gx13- 4A-1.21, and 6Gx13-4E-1.011.2
School Board Rule 6Gx13-3E-1.10
School Board Rule 6Gx13-3E-1.10 incorporates by reference the provisions of the School Board's Transportation Rules and Policies Manual (Manual), including those set forth below, of which Respondent was timely made aware.
Section 4 of the Manual describes "school bus aide responsibilities" and provides as follows:
There is no requirement in either the law or the regulations that require the assignment of school bus aides to school buses. Dade County however, has elected to assign aides to some but not all of its school bus routes. Aides are not automatically placed on a bus because it is carrying exceptional education students.
School bus aides are assigned to act as attendants on the school bus with the primary duty of maintaining order on the bus to allow the driver to give full attention to driving. Under the direction of the driver the aide works with children, school staff and parents in loading and unloading operations and in seeing to the needs of exceptional education students. The work of the aide must allow the driver to devote full time and attention to the safe operation of the vehicle. The aide must understand that the driver is in charge of the bus and is responsible for its safe operation.
School Bus Aide responsibilities are:
Bus aides must be clean and neat in appearance at all times (in prescribed uniform while on duty), must not use profane language, nor be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, nor use tobacco in the presence of students.
Bus aides must abide by all safety rules and regulations which pertain to drivers but which do not relate specifically to driving
tasks.
Bus aides must be familiar with the rules of student conduct in order to assist in student behavior management and should have a working knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of the various categories of exceptional children. The aide shall prepare and maintain an accurate seating plan.
Bus aides should be familiar with the use and location of all safety or emergency equipment (e.g., first aid kit, fire extinguisher, reflector) and should assist the driver in using this equipment should the need arise.
The school bus aide must understand and learn how to assist the driver should it become necessary to evacuate the bus in an emergency.
In dealing with physically handicapped students, bus aides will assume primary responsibility for loading and unloading students, must be familiar with the operation of wheelchair lifts and use of restraining devices and other equipment used in the transportation of the handicapped. Additionally, bus aides must ensure that wheelchairs are properly attached to their tie-down devices, and that use of such devices is consistent with the specification requirements as determined by the year of the school bus.
The school bus aide should assist the driver in preparing reports, checking the working condition of safety equipment, and performing routine cleaning jobs. The bus aide and driver must have a good working relationship.
The school bus aide should become familiar with the route, with the loading and unloading procedures, and be attentive to the location of the bus at all times along the route. The aide should be able to guide a substitute driver when this becomes necessary.
The school bus aide shall render first aid, if necessary, to the limits of his/her training and abilities, and seek prompt aid by the best possible means available. This assistance shall be limited to that which may be normally expected of a reasonably prudent person.
The school bus aide shall check under every bus bench at the end of every run.
The school bus aide shall sit with or behind the last student on the bus in order to observe and monitor all the students on the bus.
As a reading of Section 4 of the Manual reveals, the duties of a school bus aide are safety-sensitive and involve direct contact with students.
Section 9 of the Manual describes the Department's "attendance policy" and provides as follows:
ATTENDANCE RESPONSIBILITES
School bus driver/aides are expected to be prompt and punctual in their attendance on all work days in accordance with the current calendar and their assigned schedule or contract.
ABSENCES, AUTHORIZED
For absences to be authorized, they must be reported to the driver's/aide's Transportation Center Dispatch Office in advance. This notice shall be made at the earliest possible time but not later than prior to the next scheduled report time.
Even in an emergency every possible effort must be made to inform the Dispatcher. The supervisory staff evaluates the driver's adherence to this rule. Intent to return should be treated in the same manner. Proper forms shall be completed promptly for payroll purposes.
ABSENCES, UNAUTHORIZED
Unauthorized absences are subject to disciplinary action as prescribed under existing labor contracts. If a driver/aide does not report to work fifteen (15) minutes after the scheduled report time, or does not call in absent before their report time, the absence will be considered unauthorized. If time off is taken during a regular working school day without a supervisor's approval, this absence may also be considered unauthorized.
NOTIFICATION OF ABSENCE
Drivers/aides must notify their Transportation Center's Dispatch Office as soon as they have determined they cannot report to work. Do not make arrangements on your own for a substitute! All arrangements must be made by the Dispatch Office.
If you will not be reporting for work on regular school days, call in immediately. Speak with the Dispatcher, or your Field Operations Specialist.
If you cannot report to work because of an emergency situation, contact the Dispatch office as soon as you possibly can. If the situation requires you to leave the area, have a relative or friend contact the office in your place.
If your absence will occur sometime in the future, give the Dispatch Office as much advance notification as possible.
When you contact the dispatch office, explain the reason for your absence, how long you will be off, and the estimated date of your return.
If you will be off work for more than one
(1) day, you must contact the office each day, prior to your report time, with a complete update of the situation. The only times you do not have to contact the office on a daily basis are as follows:
Admission to a hospital as a patient.
Maternity leave
A doctor's work release for a specified number of days
Extended sick leave
Approved leave of absence
If you are out of town
CHECK-IN POLICY
All employees are expected to arrive at work on or before their scheduled report time.
Drivers/aides will be given a five (5) minute grace period to report to work, during which no disciplinary or financial action will be taken. For example, if you are scheduled to report for work at 6:00 a.m., as long as you sign-in by 6:05 a.m. you will be allowed to go out on your assigned route, with no repercussions.
Drivers/aides who report to work 6-15 minutes after their scheduled report time will be considered "tardy." Tardy drivers/aides will be permitted to work. However, the Dispatch Office may assign a stand-by or substitute driver/aide to the
route of the tardy driver/aide. Driver/Aides more than 10 minutes late, but less than 16 minutes late, will be used as substitute drivers/aides and not allowed to drive their route. A record will be kept of the amount of time the employee was late. Lost time will be accumulated, and employees will be docked pay in 1/2 day increments.
Drivers/aides who report to work 16 or more minutes after their scheduled report time will be considered "absent without leave" (AWOL). These persons will not be permitted to work. They will be placed on unauthorized leave-without pay (ULWOP) and shall be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the AFSCME Contract.
Extenuating circumstances will be evaluated by the Center Director, and upon proper documentation, may not be held against the employee. Repeated occurrences, such as "car broke down for the third time this week," will not be considered extenuating.
PAPERWORK
It is the driver's/aide's responsibility to report to the supervisor to complete and/or produce all required paperwork related to their absence on the first workday upon their return to work. Failure to comply with this procedure may result in an unauthorized absence regardless of extenuating circumstances.
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.06
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.06 is the School Board's "tobacco-free work place" rule. It provides, in pertinent part, that, as of September 1, 1989, the "[u]se of tobacco products is not permitted . . . on school buses."
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides, in pertinent
part, as follows:
Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES
I. EMPLOYEE CONDUCT
All persons employed by The School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system.
Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited.
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.011
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.011 addresses the subject of "absences and leaves" and provides as follows:
No leave shall be granted for any reason without prior approval of the Superintendent of Schools except leave occasioned by sudden illness or emergency. Any employee who is absent for other than reasons of sudden illness, emergency, or without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave.
The Center's Check-In Procedures
In August of 1994, a few months after she assumed her position as the director of the Center, Patricia Snell sent the following memorandum concerning "check-in procedures" to all of the school bus drivers and school aides assigned to the Center:
All drivers and aides must pick-up their bus keys or tag from the key board in the Dispatch office. This is the method of checking in for your shift. If you do not check in, your route will be given to a
substitute driver and you will be considered NO CALL/NO SHOW for that shift.
All drivers and aides must return their keys and tags to the key board immediately after each shift. Dispatch will have a list of field trips and those drivers and aides will then turn their keys and tags in the slot in the dispatch office if after hours.
If there is a problem with your bus, turn in bus keys with the D.R.R. to Dispatch.
If you are assigned a spare, then the spare bus keys will be placed on your assigned key hook prior to your shift.
Your regularly assigned bus will not be returned until your assigned spare bus is fueled, swept, trash is emptied, windows up and parked in the proper parking space.
You need not sign in. The Office Helpers and Dispatchers will keep track of your arrival times by use of the key board. The Tardy Policy will be strictly enforced.
Employees who are 6-15 minutes late
These employees are "late" or "tardy" and appropriate progressive discipline will be initiated. Such employees will be permitted to work their shift.
Employees who are 16 or more minutes late
These employees are recorded as "unauthorized leave without pay" and are not permitted to work that shift. Appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated.
Respondent received her copy of this memorandum on August 25, 1994.
Previous (Pre 1994-1995 School Year) Warnings Given Respondent Regarding Attendance and Leave
Unauthorized leave was a subject with which Respondent should have been familiar at the time she received Snell's memorandum inasmuch as Respondent had received disciplinary warnings from her supervisors concerning the matter in the past.
For instance, on February 11, 1988, she had received a memorandum (dated February 3, 1988) from Jack Schee, the then- director of the Center, which read as follows:
While signing the payroll on January 29, 1988, I became very disappointed to discover that you had already started the new fiscal year with unauthorized leave without pay.
This carefree, unresponsible attitude has got to change. The department, and more specifically your co-workers, count on your presence daily to accomplish our mission to provide the students of the Dade County schools with whatever is necessary to enhance their education.
All employees in the Department of Transportation are being monitored for poor attendance and unauthorized leave without pay. In order to improve attendance, I am prepared to follow-through with any necessary action, such as conferences or suspensions, as the situation merits.
Our records indicate that this is your 1[st] unauthorized absence. Per AFSCME Contract, Article XII, Section I, item D, states:
"An unauthorized absence for three consecutive work days shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling ten or more work days during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination."
In addition, Respondent had received written Operational Reminders for unauthorized absences on July 6, 1988,
and September 5 and 7, 1989.
Furthermore, on May 10, 1990, Schee had held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's attendance record. Schee subsequently prepared and furnished to Respondent a memorandum in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference. Schee's memorandum read as follows:
A conference-for-the-record was held in my office on May 10, 1990 to discuss the attendance record of Ms. Jennifer Gardner, bus aide. In attendance at this conference were Ms. Gardner, Ms. Karen Crapps, route manager, and myself. Ms. Gardner stated that she did not want to have a representative present at the conference after I explained that she had the right to representation. I explained that on numerous occasions, the most recent being May 4, 1990, Ms. Gardner had failed to report to work and did not call the office to inform us of her absence. In addition, on May 4, 1990 Ms. Gardner reported to work thirty-five minutes late and missed her work assignment. On May 8, 1990, her assigned driver, Ms. Helen Spence, informed the office that Ms. Gardner reported to work on May 7, 1990[,] but that she fell asleep during most of her Southwood run. Ms.
Gardner then stated that she had no comment
to make concerning her attendance record. She stated that she did fall asleep on the bus but did not sleep the entire Southwood run.
I concluded the conference by stating that her attendance record would be closely monitored and that if improvement was not made stronger disciplinary action would follow. I also informed Ms. Gardner that she would receive a memorandum of understanding concerning her attendance.
The "memorandum of understanding" to which Schee referred was
received by Respondent on May 16, 1990. It read as follows:
On May 10, 1990 we held a conference-for-the- record concerning your attendance on the job and your failure to inform the office when you are not coming to work. I expressed the fact that I was extremely disappointed that your attendance has not improved since we have discussed this problem many times before. I then explained to you that if you continue to fail to report to work and do not inform the office then I would forced to request more serious disciplinary action.
By way of this memorandum I am instructing you to inform the office at least 30 minutes before your reporting time on any occasion in which you cannot come to work. I am also instructing you that you will not be allowed to report to work late and expect to be paid for that time. If your performance does not improve I cannot guarantee your employment for summer school session. As acknowledgment that you have received this memorandum, and understand it, please sign below and return to me. A copy is provided for your purpose.
Respondent had also received written Operational Reminders for unauthorized absences on May 6, 7 and 8, 1991. On May 15, 1991, she received a memorandum (dated May 9, 1991) from Schee concerning these unauthorized absences. The memorandum read as follows:
During the payroll period ending May 9, 1991, you chose to take Unauthorized Leave Without Pay on May 6, 7 and 8th. You are professionally accountable to report to work on time and/or call the operations office no less than one-half hour prior to your check- in time, to inform them of your absence.
Failure to call within the prescribed time constitutes Unauthorized Leave Without Pay.
The attendance of all employees in our department is monitored daily. In order to improve attendance, I am prepared to follow
through with any necessary action, such as a conference-for-the-record or suspension, as the situation merits.
Our records indicate that this is your 3rd unauthorized absence. Per AFSCME Contract: Article XI, Section I, item D, states:
"An unauthorized absence for three consecutive work days shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totalling ten or more working days during the previous twelve-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination."
Warnings Given Respondent Regarding Attendance and Leave During the 1994-1995 School Year
On November 16, 1994, Respondent received a written Contact Report from the Center's coordinator, Wynona Sleeth, concerning Respondent's unauthorized absences, in which the following "reason for contact" was given:
Six half days NCNS [No Call/No Show]. One whole [day] unauthorized. Any day you do not have time available is unauthorized. Any time you call in after due time is NCNS.
Sleeth subsequently, on or about December 21, 1994, provided Respondent with the following Letter of Deficiency:
This is to inform you that you have accumulated 17 Absences Tardies NC/NS 9 ULWP [unauthorized leave without pay] since 8-29-94. I am reminding you that 3 consecutive days of ULWP constitutes
abandonment of position and may be subject to a recommendation for disciplinary action not excluding suspension and/or termination. An accumulation of 10 or more days of ULWP may warrant a recommendation for termination.
Your job performance is important to us and
we would like to assist you to improve. If you need assistance, please come to the operations office to discuss this matter.
On May 11, 1995, Snell and Sleeth held a conference- for-the-record with Respondent concerning Respondent's attendance record. Snell prepared and provided to Respondent on May 17, 1995, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows:
A Conference-for-the-Record was held in my office on May 11, 1995. Yourself, Ms. Wynona Sleeth, Coordinator and this administrator were present. The conference was held to discuss your attendance to date. You had notification of [your] right to union representation. You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed by the District since May 2, 1984.
You were reminded of memos you had received and signed notifying you of this school year's absenteeism. A calendar highlighting the days you were absent was explained to you and you were given a copy of Article XI, Section 1(D) of the union contract.
You were asked if you needed the Employee Assistance Program. You replied that you did not need it. I then read the [written absence from] worksite directive to you and what you were required to do from this point on and that non-compliance could lead to further disciplinary measures up to and including suspensions or termination.
Respondent had received a copy of the "[written absence from] worksite directive" the day of the conference-for-the- record. It read as follows:
Please be advised that you have been absent forty-four days (44) days from the worksite during the 1994/95 school year.
Since your absence from duties adversely affects the effective operation of this worksite, you are apprised of the following procedures concerning future absences:
Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to this administrator or the administrator on duty before your assigned shift.
Absence for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note presented to this administrator upon your return to the site.
These directives are in effect upon receipt of this notice and are necessary to maintain effective worksite operations.
Please be assured that assistance will continue to be provided to facilitate your regular attendance. Non-compliance with the directives will be considered a violation of professional responsibilities and could lead to further disciplinary action up to and including suspensions or termination.
No "disciplinary action" (as that term is used in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract) was taken against Respondent during the 1994-1995 school year notwithstanding her poor attendance record that year, which included unauthorized absences on the following 26 days: August 30, 1994; September 28, 1994; October 19, 20, 26 and 31, 1994; November 2, 10 and 28, 1994; December 22, 1994; January 25, 1995; February 8, 9, 14 and 16, 1995; March 7, 10 and 22, 1995; April 17, 26 and 28, 1995; May 1, 3, 17 and 26, 1995; and June 5, 1995.3
Respondent was offered a contract for the following school year and she accepted the offer.
The 1995-1996 School Year
On October 2, 1995, Respondent received a written Contact Report from Sleeth concerning Respondent's unauthorized absences, in which the following "reason for contact" was given:
You had 9 hours of unauthorized absences for the pay period 8/25-9/7/95.
You need to work on having a good attendance record.
On October 18, 1995, Snell observed Respondent smoking a cigarette on a school bus. Respondent knew or should have known that such conduct was prohibited. Snell confronted Respondent and reminded her that smoking tobacco products on a school bus was forbidden.
On December 12, 1995, Respondent received a written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminder from Sleeth concerning unauthorized absences on August 28 and 30, 1995; September 14, 1995; October 6 and 26, 1995; and November 6 and 29, 1995.
On March 5, 1996, Snell held a conference-for-the- record with Respondent at which Respondent's attendance record was discussed. Snell prepared and provided to Respondent on March 14, 1996, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows:
On March 5, 1996, at 10:15 a.m. a Conference- for-the-Record was held with you in the Office of the Director, South Regional Transportation Center. In attendance were Mr. Keith White, Administrative Assistant, South Regional Transportation Center, and this administrator. You stated that you did not want union representation.
You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed as such since February [sic] 5, 1984. You verified your current address and phone number as: . . . .
The conference was held to review your record of Unauthorized leave. Since August 28, 1995, you have accumulated 15 unauthorized absences; they are as follows: 8/28, 8/31, 9/14, 10/6, 10/26, 11/6, 11/29, 12/4/95,
1/5/96, 1/8, 1/10, 1/12, 1/18, 1/19 and 1/23/96. Your absence from your duties directly impacts the effective operation of this worksite.
You received a copy of Section 7 of the Drivers Handbook and Article XI, Section 4 of the AFSCME contract and these documents were reviewed with you. District Support Programs are available for you to contact at 995-7111 if you so desire. You stated that you understand the seriousness of the problem and will try to improve your attendance.
Any further instances of Unauthorized Absences may result in disciplinary action, up to and including suspension or termination.
You may clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary and request to have any such response appended to your record.
Respondent also received from Snell on March 14, 1996, the following written warning (dated March 11, 1996):
As of January 23, 1996, you have been absent on 15 occurrences without authorization. As
per the AFSCME contract, Article XI, Section 4-B[:]
"Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. An employee recommended for termination under these provisions shall have the right to request of the Deputy Superintendent for Personnel Management and Services a review of the facts concerning the unauthorized leave. Such right shall exist for a period of 10 working days after the first day of notification of the unauthorized absence."
You are hereby officially warned that if you continue to have unauthorized absences disciplinary action my result, up to and including suspension, termination, or non- reappointment.
On April 30, 1996, Respondent received a written directive from Snell to report for another conference-for-the- record in Snell's office at 9:15 a.m. on May 7, 1996, to discuss her "unauthorized leave and job performance." Respondent failed to report as directed.
The conference-for-the-record was rescheduled for May 17, 1996,and ultimately held on that date. Snell prepared
and provided to Respondent on May 28, 1996, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows:
On Friday, May 17, 1996, at 9:15 a.m. a conference-for-the-record was held with you in the Office of the Director, South Regional
Transportation Center. In attendance were Mr. Keith White, Administrative Assistant, South Regional Transportation Center, and this administrator. You stated that you did not desire union representation.
You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed as such since February [sic] 5, 1984. You verified your current address and phone number as: . . . .
The conference was held to review your record of unauthorized leave. Since August 28, 1995, you have accumulated 23 occurrences of unauthorized leave which total 12 1/2 days; they are as follows: 8/28, 8/31, 9/14, 10/6, 10/26, 11/6, 11/29, 12/4/95, 1/5/96, 1/8,
1/10, 1/12, 1/18, 1/19, 1/23/96, 4/2, 4/4,
4/17, 4/26, 4/29, 5/3, 5/13, and 5/16/96.
Your absence from your duties directly impacts the effective operation of this worksite.
Section 7 of the Drivers Handbook and Article XI, Section 4 of the AFSCME contract were reviewed. The District Support Agency was offered and is available for you and may be contacted at 995-7111 if you so desire.
You agreed to call in as soon as you know you are going to be out and to bring documentation in the next working day.
Your record of unauthorized absences will be reviewed and this review may result in disciplinary action, up to and including suspension or termination.
You may clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary and request to have any such response appended to your record.
No "disciplinary action" (as that term is used in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract) was taken against Respondent during the 1995-1996 school year notwithstanding her poor
attendance record that year, which included unauthorized absences on the following 30 days during the regular school year:
August 28 and 31, 1995; September 14, 1995; October 6 and 26,
1995; November 6 and 29, 1995; December 4, 1995; January 5, 8,
10, 12, 18, 19 and 23 1996; February 16, 1996; March 19, 21, 26
and 28, 1996; April 2, 4, 17, 26, and 29, 1996; May 3, 13, 16 and
17, 1996; and June 4, 1996.4
Respondent was offered a contract for the following school year and she accepted the offer.
The 1996-1997 School Year
On September 4, 1996, and October 2, 1996, respectively, Respondent reported to work six and ten minutes after the scheduled starting time (6:00 a.m.) of her morning shift.
On both of these occasions she received a written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminder regarding her obligation to report to work on time.
Respondent also received written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders for unauthorized absences in November of 1996, on the 5th (afternoon shift), 13th (afternoon and morning shifts), 14th (afternoon and morning shifts), 15th (afternoon shift), 20th (afternoon and morning shifts) and 26th (afternoon shift) of that month, and for reporting eight minutes late to work for her afternoon shift on November 25, 1996.
Along with the written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders concerning her November 5 and 13, 1996, unauthorized absences, Respondent was given an explanation of the provisions of Section 9 of the School Board's Transportation Rules and Policies Manual and Article V, Section 27, of the AFSCME Contract, as well as copies of these provisions.
The written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders concerning Respondent's November 14, 15, 20, and 26, 1996, unauthorized absences, and her tardiness on November 25, 1996, were each accompanied by the following "verbal warning" (as that term is used in Article XI, Section 1A, of the AFSCME Contract): "Must adhere to attendance requirements per AFSCME Contract and Drivers Handbook."
On December 6, 1996, Respondent was referred by Keith White, an administrative assistant at the Center, to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program because of his "concerns" regarding Respondent's unauthorized absences. Respondent was advised of this supervisory referral on December 9, 1996.
Respondent declined to participate in the School Board's Employee Assistance Program and continued to have erratic attendance.
Respondent received, on January 5, 1997, and March 6, 1997, written Transportation Operations Procedures Reminders concerning her unauthorized absences and tardiness, each of which contained the following "written warning" (as that term is used
in Article XI, Section 1A, of the AFSCME Contract): "Must adhere to attendance requirements per AFSCME Contract and Drivers Handbook."
On March 11, 1997, Snell held a conference-for-the- record with Respondent, at which Respondent's attendance record was discussed. Snell prepared and provided to Respondent on March 20, 1997, a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. Snell's memorandum read as follows:
On Tuesday, March 11, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. a conference-for-the-record was held with you in the office of the Director, South Regional Transportation Center. In attendance were Ms. Willie McKinney, Coordinator, South Regional Transportation Center, and this administrator. You stated that you did not desire union representation.
You are currently an active school bus aide for Dade County Public Schools and have been employed as such since 5/2 1984. You verified your current address and phone number as: . . . .
The conference was held to review your record of unauthorized leave and job performance.
Since March 19, 1996 you have accumulated 28 whole days of unauthorized leave from 42 occurrences. Your absence from your duties directly impacts the effective operation of this work site.
Section 7 of the Drivers Handbook and Article XI, Section 4 of the AFSCME contract, along with all attached warnings were reviewed.
A referral to the District Support Agency [Employee Assistance Program] was made on December 6, 1996. The case was closed due to the fact that you declined to participate.
You agreed to call in as soon as possible when you must be absent and to bring documentation in the next working day. You also agreed that you would not be absent unless absolutely necessary.
Your record of unauthorized absences will be reviewed with Transportation Administration and the Office of Professional Standards and may result in disciplinary action, up to and including suspension or termination.
You may clarify, explain and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary and request to have any such response appended to your record.
By memorandum dated March 27, 1997, Snell brought the matter of Respondent's "attendance problems" to the attention of Jerry Klein, the senior executive director of the School Board's Transportation Department, and inquired of Klein if he "would like to move forward with [the] dismissal of Ms. Gardner."
Klein, on April 1, 1997, sent the following memorandum to Barbara Moss, an executive director in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards:
Ms. Jennifer M. Gardner, School Bus Aide, South Transportation Center, employee #145489, has accumulated 28 days of Unauthorized Leave Without Pay (ULWP) in the last 12 months. Attached please find supportive documentation from Ms. Pat Snell, Director, South Transportation Center.
It is requested that Ms. Gardner be recommended for dismissal for violation of Article XI, Section 4(B) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, excessive absenteeism.
Your assistance in obtaining Board approval is appreciated.
After reviewing the matter, Moss (by memorandum received by Respondent on April 17, 1997) directed Respondent to appear at a conference-for-the-record on April 30, 1997, in the Office of Professional Standards to discuss Respondent's "attendance to date, and [her] future employment status with the Dade County Public Schools."
The conference-for-the-record was held on April 30, 1997, as scheduled.
Moss subsequently prepared and later, on June 3, 1997, provided to Respondent a memorandum in which she summarized what had transpired at the conference. In those portions of the memorandum addressing the "action taken" and the "action to be taken," Moss wrote the following:
Action Taken
You were offered an opportunity to resign your position with Dade County Public Schools.
The following directives are herein delineated which were issued to you during the conference concerning future absences:
Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to the designated supervisor.
Absences for illness must be documented by your treating physician and a written medical note presented to the designated supervisor upon your return to the site.
If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be considered and procedures for Board approved leave implemented if eligible to apply for leave.
These directives are in effect as of the date of the conference and will be implemented to prevent adverse impact to the operation of the work unit, to the services provided to students, and to insure continuity of the educational program. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review [by] the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of disciplinary measures.
During the conference, you were provided with a copy of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Employee Conduct, and School Board Rule
6Gx13-4C-1.02, Non-instructional Personnel. You were advised of the high esteem in which employees are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely affects performance. You were reminded of the prime directive to maintain a safe working environment for all students and that your actions violated this directive.
Action To Be Taken
You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Senior Executive Director in the Office of Professional Standards and the Associate Superintendent in the Office of Labor Relations and Personnel Management.
Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of their recommendations will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include: a letter of reprimand, suspension, demotion, or dismissal.
You were apprised of your right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by summary, and to have any such response appended to your record.
On June 5, 1997, Respondent reported for work with the
smell of alcohol on her breath. Furthermore, she was unsteady on her feet and her speech was slurred.
After conferring with Klein and Moss, Snell directed Respondent to submit to alcohol and drug testing at the Baptist Medical Group's facility in Homestead, Florida.
Respondent went to the facility that same day5 and submitted to breath-alcohol testing, which revealed that Respondent had a breath-alcohol level of .191 and that she was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired.
At the facility that day (June 5, 1997), Respondent also provided a urine specimen for testing.
The bottle containing the specimen was labeled and sealed in a manner that made it highly improbable that the sample could be tampered with without the tampering being obvious. It was then sent, along with a partially filled out (by the collector and donor) D.O.T. Custody and Control Form, to LabCorp's laboratory in North Carolina for analysis and testing.
The labeled and sealed container with the specimen and accompanying form were received by LabCorp on June 7, 1997.
Adequate procedures were employed to ensure that the specimen was properly identified, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that there had not been any tampering with the specimen.
An initial immunoassay screening of Respondent's urine
specimen indicated the presumptive presence of the unique metabolites produced when cocaine and marijuana are ingested and metabolized in the body.
Additional laboratory testing of the specimen was then performed to verify the results of the immunoassay screen previously performed. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, a reliable and accurate method of confirmatory testing, was utilized.
The gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of Respondent's urine specimen was positive for the presence of the cocaine and marijuana metabolites in concentrations consistent with, and indicative of, Respondent's ingestion of cocaine and marijuana prior to the collection of her urine specimen.
The drug test results were reported to the School Board and the Medical Review Officer (at the National Medical Review Offices, Inc., in Los Angles, California).
On June 10, 1997, Respondent received a memorandum from Snell directing Respondent to contact the Medical Review Officer "as soon as possible."
On June 10, 1997, after examining the test results and speaking with Respondent, who admitted that she had used both cocaine and marijuana, the Medical Review Officer verified the test results. He determined, based upon his conversation with Respondent, that there was no legitimate medical explanation for
the presence of the cocaine and marijuana metabolites in the urine specimen Respondent had provided.
On June 11, 1997, Moss held a conference-for-the-record with Respondent.
The results of the alcohol and drug tests to which Respondent had submitted were discussed at the conference. Upon being told of the test results, Respondent stated, "I don't know about the cocaine, but I am aware of the marijuana. I was very depressed and was with some friends who were using marijuana and joined them in using." She further stated that she did not drink alcoholic beverages when she worked.
Also addressed at the conference were Respondent's unauthorized absences. During the 12-month period preceding the conference (June 12, 1996, to June 11, 1997), she had been absent without authorization on the following 37 days for a total of 147 hours or 24.5 "workdays," as that term is defined in Article V, Section 18, of the AFSCME Contract: July 2, 1996 (3 hours);
July 29, 1996 (3 hours); October 31, 1996 (3 hours); November 5,
1996 (3 hours); November 13, 1996 (6 hours); November 14, 1996
(6 | hours); | November | 15, 1996 | (3 hours); November 19, 1996 |
(3 | hours); | November | 20, 1996 | (6 hours); November 26, 1996 |
(3 hours); December 4, 1996 (3 hours); December 11, 1996
(6 hours); December 13, 1996 (3 hours); December 18, 1996
(6 hours); December 19, 1996 (3 hours); December 20, 1996
(3 hours); January 8, 1997 (3 hours); January 22, 1997 (3 hours);
January 23, 1997 (6 hours); January 27, 1997 (6 hours);
February 3, 1997 (6 hours); February 7, 1997 (3 hours);
February | 12, | 1997 | (6 | hours); | February | 18, | 1997 | (3 | hours); |
February | 19, | 1997 | (6 | hours); | February | 20, | 1997 | (3 | hours); |
February | 24, | 1997 | (3 | hours); | February | 26, | 1997 | (3 | hours); |
March 3, 1997 (3 hours); March 20, 1997 (3 hours); March 24, 1997
(6 hours); April 15, 1997 (3 hours); April 21, 1997 (6 hours);
April 24, 1997 (3 hours); May 12, 1997 (3 hours); May 23, 1997
(3 hours); and June 5, 1997 (3 hours).
Respondent was given another assignment at the Center pending further School Board review of her employment
At its July 23, 1997, meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated a dismissal proceeding against her "for just cause, including but not limited to excessive unauthorized absence and violation of Drug-Free Work Place Policy."
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"In accordance with the provisions of s. 4(b) of Art. IX of the State Constitution, district school boards [have the authority to] operate, control, and supervise all free public schools in their respective districts and may exercise any power except as expressly prohibited by the State Constitution or general law." Section 230.03(2), Florida Statutes.
Such authority extends to personnel matters. Section
231.001, Florida Statutes("Except as otherwise provided by law or the State Constitution, district school boards are authorized to prescribe rules governing personnel matters, including the assignment of duties and responsibilities for all district employees.").
"[R]ules governing personnel matters" that have been adopted by the School Board include: Rule 6Gx13-3E-1.10 (which adopts and incorporates by reference the provisions of the School Board's Transportation Rules and Policies Manual, including those relating to attendance and leave); Rule 6Gx13-4-1.05 (which prohibits School Board employees, while "on duty or on School Board property," from "possess[ing] or us[ing] illegal drugs," or being "under the influence of such drugs"); Rule 6Gx13-4-1.06 (which prohibits School Board employees from using tobacco products on school buses); Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I) (which requires School Board employees, as "representatives of the Dade County Public Schools," to "conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system");6 and Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.011 (which provides that employees who are absent without prior approval "shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave," except where the absence is "occasioned by sudden illness or emergency"7).
A district school board is deemed to be the "public employer," as that term is used in Chapter 447, Part II, Florida Statutes, "with respect to all employees of the school district."
Section 447.203(2), Florida Statutes.
As such, it has the right "to direct its employees, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons." Section 447.209, Florida Statutes.
It, however, must exercise these powers in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of law.
"Under Florida law, a school board's decision to terminate an employee is one affecting the employee's substantial interests; therefore, the employee is entitled to a formal [administrative] hearing under section 120.57(1) if material issues of fact are in dispute."8 Sublett v. District School Board of Sumter County, 617 So. 2d 374, 377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
A district school board employee against whom a dismissal proceeding has been initiated must be given written notice of the specific charges prior to the Section 120.57(1) hearing. Although the notice "need not be set forth with the technical nicety or formal exactness required of pleadings in court," it should "specify the [statute,] rule[, regulation, policy, or collective bargaining provision] the [district school board] alleges has been violated and the conduct which occasioned [said] violation." Jacker v. School Board of Dade County, 426 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(concurring opinion of Judge Jorgenson).
Any disciplinary action taken against the employee may
be based only upon the conduct specifically alleged in the written notice of specific charges. See Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Chrysler v. Department of Professional Regulation, 627 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Klein v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 625 So. 2d 1237, 1238-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993);
Arpayoglou v. Department of Professional Regulation, 603 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Willner v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 563 So. 2d 805, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Celaya v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 560 So. 2d 383, 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Kinney v.
Department of State, 501 So. 2d 129, 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Hunter v. Department of Professional Regulation, 458 So. 2d 842, 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
At the Section 120.57(1) hearing, the burden is on the district school board to prove the allegations contained in the notice. Inasmuch as it is a disciplinary proceeding that does not involve licensure, the district school board's proof need only meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. See Section 120.57(1)(h), Florida Statutes("Findings of fact shall be based on a preponderance of the evidence, except in penal or licensure disciplinary proceedings or except as otherwise provided by statute."); see also McNeil v. Pinellas County School Board, 678 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)("The School Board bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
evidence, each element of the charged offense which may warrant dismissal."); Sublett v. Sumter County School Board, 664 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)("We agree with the hearing officer that for the School Board to demonstrate just cause for termination, it must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, as required by law, that the allegations of sexual misconduct were true . . ."); Allen v. School Board of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)("We . . . find that the hearing officer and the School Board correctly determined that the appropriate standard of proof in [School Board employee] dismissal proceedings was a preponderance of the evidence. . . .
The instant case does not involve the loss of a license and, therefore, Allen's losses are adequately protected by the preponderance of the evidence standard."); Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)("We disagree that the required quantum of proof in a teacher dismissal case is clear and convincing evidence, and hold that the record contains competent and substantial evidence to support both charges by a preponderance of the evidence standard.").
Where the employee sought to be terminated is an "educational support employee," the district school board must also act in accordance with the provisions of Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes,9 which provides as follows:
As used in this section:
"Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system
who is so employed as . . . a member of the transportation department . . ., or any other person who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or school board pursuant to s. 231.1725. This section does not apply to persons employed in confidential or management positions. This section applies to all employees who are not temporary or casual and whose duties require
20 or more hours in each normal working week.
"Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee.
"Superintendent" means the superintendent of schools or his or her designee.
(2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist.
Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist, or reduces the number or employees on a districtwide basis for financial reasons.
In the event the superintendent seeks termination of an employee, the school board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination. The appeals process shall be determined by the appropriate collective bargaining process or by school board rule in the event there is no collective bargaining agreement.
Respondent is an "educational support employee," within
the meaning of Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, who is covered by a collective bargaining agreement (the AFSCME Contract).
Pursuant to Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, her employment may be terminated only "for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement."
An examination of the provisions of the AFSCME Contract reveals that a bargaining unit member covered by the agreement may be disciplined for "excessive absenteeism," "deficient performance," "non-performance of job responsibilities," "violation of federal statutes [and] State Statutes," "violat[ion of] any rule, regulation or policy," or "defiance of the administrator's authority,"10 provided that the disciplinary action taken is "consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline" (as described in the agreement).
The Notice of Specific Charges served on Respondent alleges that Respondent's dismissal is warranted under the provisions of the AFSCME Contract because of her "excessive absenteeism," as defined in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract (Count I); her "violation of the School Board's Drug-Free Work Place Policy," which is set forth in School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-
1.05 and described in Article IX, Section 14F of the AFSCME Contract (Count II); "deficient performance" (Count III); "violation of the School Board rules," specifically Rules 6Gx13- 3E-1.10, 6Gx13-4-1.06, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Count IV); and "gross
insubordination and willful neglect of duty" (Count V).
The preponderance of the record evidence establishes that, as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges, these violations were indeed committed by Respondent and they are offenses for which a bargaining unit member may be disciplined under the AFSCME Contract. Furthermore, it does not appear that there has been any material departure from the procedural requirements (prescribed by Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, and the AFSCME Contract) which must be followed before the School Board may take final action to impose "disciplinary action" (as
that term is used in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract) against Respondent.
Taking into consideration (as Article XI, Section 1B, of the AFSCME Contract mandates) the seriousness of Respondent's offenses (particularly when viewed in light of her safety- sensitive duties as a school bus aide) and her employment record with the School Board (which reflects, among other things, a long history of attendance-related deficiencies that she was either unwilling or unable to cure despite having been given an overly generous opportunity to do so by the School Board11), it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the School Board exercise its authority to terminate Respondent's employment for having committed these offenses. While termination is the "extreme disciplinary penalty" (as is observed in Article XI, Section 1,
of the AFSCME Contract), it is not in the instant case an excessive "disciplinary penalty" given the seriousness of Respondent's offenses, her blemished employment record, and the apparent absence of any mitigating circumstances justifying a less severe punishment.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board.
DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
STUART M. LERNER
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1998.
ENDNOTES
1 These rules and regulations are referred to in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract. Pursuant to Article XI, violation of these
rules and regulations can lead to disciplinary action.
2 An employee who does not meet his responsibility of complying with School Board rules and regulations is guilty of "non- performance of job responsibilities," as that term is used in Article XI, Section 4C, of the AFSCME Contract.
3 Respondent had also been absent without authorization on the following five days during the 1994 summer school session: July 7, 13, 19, 20 and 27, 1994.
4 Respondent had also been absent without authorization on one day (July 24, 1995) during the 1995 summer school session.
5 Snell offered Respondent a ride to the facility, but Respondent refused the offer.
6 Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I), which imposes a reasonable standard of employee conduct, is not beyond the scope of the School Board's personnel rule-making authority simply because it seeks to regulate not only on-duty conduct, but off-duty conduct as well. The School Board is entitled to require that its employees adhere to standards of social conduct that the School Board deems to be acceptable, provided these standards are reasonable. See Kennett v. Barber, 31 So. 2d 44, 46-47 (Fla. 1947); Seminole County Board of County Commissioners v. Long, 422 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Richter v. City of Tallahassee, 361 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Metropolitan Dade County v. Mingo, 339 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
7 Respondent presented no evidence at the final hearing indicating that any of her unauthorized absences were "occasioned by sudden illness or emergency."
8 "A county school board is a state agency falling within Chapter
120 for purposes of quasi-judicial administrative orders." Sublett v. District School Board of Sumter County, 617 So. 2d 374, 377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
9 Notwithstanding the holding in Rosario v. Burke, 605 So. 2d 523, 524 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the termination of a non- certified School Board employee is not governed by the provisions of Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes. In Rosario, the Second District Court of Appeal provided the following explanation for its holding that the provisions of Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, were applicable to non-certified district school board personnel:
We are not completely convinced that the legislature initially intended the narrow grounds for dismissal described in section
231.36(6)(b) to apply to nonprofessional supervisory staff, as compared to principals, assistant superintendents and other certified positions. Nevertheless, the statute was interpreted to include such public employees in 1981, after the enactment of section 447.201-.609, which applies generally to public employees. See Smith v. School Bd. of Leon County, 405 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Section 231.36 was amended after the Smith decision without any disapproval of that decision. If the statute requires modification or clarification concerning nonprofessional supervisory school personnel, that change should occur in the legislature.
Subsequent to the Second District's decision in Rosario, the 1994 Florida Legislature enacted Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, which provides that an "educational support employee" may be terminated "for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist" and further prescribes the procedure that must be followed "[i]n the event a superintendent seeks termination of an [educational support] employee." In view of the enactment of Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, the provisions of Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, can no longer be reasonably construed as being directly applicable to non-certified school board personnel.
10 "Defiance of the administrator's authority" includes acts which constitute "gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty," as defined in Rule 6B-4.009(4), Florida Administrative Code ("a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority").
11 Although the School Board made numerous offers to assist Respondent in dealing with any personal problems that may have been contributing to these attendance-related deficiencies, Respondent refused these offers of assistance.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Heidi N. Shulman-Pereira, Esquire The School Board of Dade County
1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
Jennifer M. Gardner, pro se 1237 Northwest 13th Street Homestead, Florida 33034
Roger C. Cuevas Superintendent of Schools
The School Board of Dade County
1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Suite 403
Miami, Florida 33132
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.
1 These rules and regulations are referred to in Article XI of the AFSCME Contract. Pursuant to Article XI, violation of these rules and regulations can lead to disciplinary action.
2 An employee who does not meet his responsibility of complying with School Board rules and regulations is guilty of "non- performance of job responsibilities," as that term is used in Article XI, Section 4C, of the AFSCME Contract.
3 Respondent had also been absent without authorization on the following five days during the 1994 summer school session: July 7, 13, 19, 20 and 27, 1994.
4 Respondent had also been absent without authorization on one day (July 24, 1995) during the 1995 summer school session.
5 Snell offered Respondent a ride to the facility, but Respondent refused the offer.
6 Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I), which imposes a reasonable standard of employee conduct, is not beyond the scope of the School Board's personnel rule-making authority simply because it seeks to regulate not only on-duty conduct, but off-duty conduct as well. The School Board is entitled to require that its employees adhere to standards of social conduct that the School Board deems to be acceptable, provided these standards are reasonable. See Kennett v. Barber, 31 So. 2d 44, 46-47 (Fla. 1947); Seminole County Board of County Commissioners v. Long, 422 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Richter v. City of Tallahassee, 361 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Metropolitan Dade County v. Mingo, 339 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
7 Respondent presented no evidence at the final hearing indicating that any of her unauthorized absences were "occasioned by sudden illness or emergency."
8"A county school board is a state agency falling within Chapter
120 for purposes of quasi-judicial administrative orders." Sublett v. District School Board of Sumter County, 617 So. 2d 374, 377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
9 Notwithstanding the holding in Rosario v. Burke, 605 So. 2d 523, 524 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the termination of a non- certified School Board employee is not governed by the provisions of Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes. In Rosario, the Second District Court of Appeal provided the following explanation for its holding that the provisions of Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, were applicable to non-certified district school board personnel:
We are not completely convinced that the legislature initially intended the narrow grounds for dismissal described in section 231.36(6)(b) to apply to nonprofessional supervisory staff, as compared to principals, assistant superintendents and other certified positions. Nevertheless, the statute was interpreted to include such public employees in 1981, after the enactment of section 447.201-.609, which applies generally to public employees. See Smith v. School Bd. of Leon County, 405 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Section 231.36 was amended after the
Smith decision without any disapproval of that decision. If the statute requires modification or clarification concerning nonprofessional supervisory school personnel, that change should occur in the legislature.
Subsequent to the Second District's decision in Rosario, the 1994 Florida Legislature enacted Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, which provides that an "educational support employee" may be terminated "for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist" and further prescribes the procedure that must be followed "[i]n the event a superintendent seeks termination of an [educational support] employee." In view of the enactment of Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes, the provisions of Section 231.36(6)(b), Florida Statutes, can no longer be reasonably construed as being directly applicable to non-certified school board personnel.
10 "Defiance of the administrator's authority" includes acts which constitute "gross insubordination or willful neglect of duty," as defined in Rule 6B-4.009(4), Florida Administrative Code ("a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority").
11 Although the School Board made numerous offers to assist Respondent in dealing with any personal problems that may have been contributing to these attendance-related deficiencies, Respondent refused these offers of assistance.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 23, 1998 | Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 20, 1998 | Final Order of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida filed. |
| Feb. 24, 1998 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 01/15/98. |
| Feb. 17, 1998 | Petitioner School Board`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Feb. 09, 1998 | (I Volume) Transcript filed. |
| Jan. 20, 1998 | AFSCME contract effective 7/1/94 through 6/30/97 filed. |
| Jan. 15, 1998 | Video Hearing Held; see case file for applicable time frames. |
| Jan. 12, 1998 | Letter to SML from Heidin Shulman-Pereira (RE: enclosing certified copies of School Board Rules for official recognition/tagged) filed. |
| Jan. 12, 1998 | Telephonic Deposition of Steve Van Nus ; Deposition of Bertram J. Lee, M.D. ; (2) Notice of Filing Transcript filed. |
| Jan. 06, 1998 | Petitioner`s Second Amended Exhibit List (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 05, 1998 | Petitioner`s Amended Exhibit List (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 26, 1997 | Petitioner`s Motion to Introduce the Deposition of Dr. Lee and Mr. Van Nus as Substantive Evidence in This Case; (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Depositions filed. |
| Dec. 23, 1997 | Petitioner`s Request for Official Recognition filed. |
| Dec. 22, 1997 | Petitioner`s Exhibit List filed. |
| Nov. 03, 1997 | Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference sent out. (Video Final Hearing set for 1/15/98; 9:00am; Miami & Tallahassee) |
| Oct. 24, 1997 | Petitioner`s Notice of Specific Charges filed. |
| Oct. 06, 1997 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 1/15/98; 9:00am; Miami) |
| Sep. 19, 1997 | Letter to J. Gardner from H. Shulman-Pereira Re: Initial Order filed. |
| Sep. 18, 1997 | Petitioner`s Unilateral Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Sep. 08, 1997 | Initial Order issued. |
| Aug. 29, 1997 | Agency Referral Letter; Request For Hearing, Letter Form; Agency Action Letter (filed via facsimile). |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 15, 1998 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 24, 1998 | Recommended Order | School bus aide guilty of excessive absences, smoking on school bus, and reporting to work under influence of alcohol, cocaine and marijuana; dismissal recommended. |
BAY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. GEORGE M. CULBERT, 97-004039 (1997)
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, 97-004039 (1997)
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs PATRICIA DAVIS, 97-004039 (1997)
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs LINDA HOGANS, 97-004039 (1997)
SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs MIRELLA HERNANDEZ, 97-004039 (1997)
