ST. LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
vs. ) Case No. 99-4481
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case before Larry J. Sartin, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Fort Pierce, Florida, on
June 5 and 6, 2000.
J. David Richeson & Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 4048
For Respondent: Lorene C. Powell, Esquire
Florida Education Association 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 5675
Petitioner, the St. Lucie County School Board, to terminate the employment of Respondent, Josephine Knight.
Petitioner informed Respondent in a letter dated October 6, 1999, that her employment with Respondent was being terminated. By letter dated October 7, 1999, Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing to contest Petitioner's decision.
Respondent's request for hearing was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 22, 1999, with a request that the matter be assigned to an administrative law judge. The request was designated Case No. 99-4481 and was initially assigned to Judge Linda M. Rigot. The case was subsequently transferred to the undersigned.
On February 10, 2000, a Motion for More Definite Statement was filed by Respondent. That Motion was granted on February 15, 2000. In compliance with the February 15, 2000, Order, Petitioner filed a Statement of Charges on February 23, 2000.
The formal hearing had initially been scheduled for March 1 and 2, 2000. The hearing was subsequently continued to give Respondent an opportunity to consider the Statement of Charges and was rescheduled for June 5 and 6, 2000.
At the formal hearing Petitioner presented the testimony of Terry Miller, Sergeant William D. Trimm, Jacqueline Davidson, Jane Grinstead, Carolyn Patterson, Richard Patterson, John David Morris, Russell Anderson, and Jayne Hartman, Ph.D. Petitioner offered three exhibits which were accepted into evidence.
Petitioner also called Dr. Hartman, Susan Ranew, Alice West, and Clara Cook in rebuttal.
Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of Carlton Hudson, Pamela Drayton, Harriet McGriff, Ms. Ranew, Mr. Anderson, and Dr. Hartman. Respondent offered two exhibits which were accepted into evidence.
A Transcript of the hearing was filed on July 5, 2000. Proposed orders were, therefore, required to be served on or before July 17, 2000. On July 13, 2000, Respondent requested an extension until July 20, 2000, of the due date for post-hearing submittals. That request was granted. Petitioner filed Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts, Petitioner's Proposed Conclusions of Law, and St. Lucie County school Board's Post- Hearing Brief. Respondent filed Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order. The post-hearing submittals of both parties were served on July 20, 2000. The post-hearing submittals have been fully considered in entering this Recommended Order.
Petitioner is the School Board of St. Lucie County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board").
Respondent, Josephine Knight, is employed by the School Board pursuant to a professional services contract. Ms. Knight has been employed as a teacher for approximately 15 years.
At all times relevant to this matter, Ms. Knight was assigned to work at St. Lucie Elementary School (hereinafter referred to as the "Elementary School").
At all times relevant to this matter, the principal of the Elementary School was Dr. Jayne Hartman.
Prior to the 1997/1998 school year, Dr. Hartman interviewed Ms. Knight for a position at the Elementary School and subsequently recommended her for a position.
Ms. Knight was assigned as a temporary fourth grade teacher during the 1997/1998 school year.
Ms. Knight was assigned as a third grade teacher for the 1998/1999 school year. Ms. Knight had been assigned to fourth grade class while employed by the School Board until this year. Ms. Knight was disappointed with her new assignment.
During her first two years of assignment to the Elementary School, Dr. Hartman observed Ms. Knight and made suggestions for improvement. Rather than accepting Dr. Hartman's efforts to constructively criticize her, Ms. Knight grew resentful and defensive. Although the evidence failed to support Ms. Knight's characterization of her treatment during the 1997/1998 and 1998/1999 school years, Ms. Knight felt that she was being subjected to "unremitting harassment from her principal."
Ms. Knight responded to Dr. Hartman's criticism by attempting to transfer from the Elementary School to another school within the School Board's district. Ms. Knight was unsuccessful in finding another school that would accept her.
Dr. Hartman recommended Ms. Knight's reappointment at the Elementary School for the 1999/2000 school year.
Prior to the commencement of the 1999/2000 school year Dr. Hartman directed all staff, including Ms. Knight, to attend a staff breakfast on August 16, 1999. The breakfast was to be followed by a meeting of all teachers in the media center of the Elementary School. Dr. Hartman had arranged for teachers assigned to teach the same grade to sit together during the meeting and had prepared handouts for each teacher. Those handouts were placed at each teacher's assigned seat.
Ms. Knight failed to attend the breakfast on August 16, 1999. She did attend the teachers' meeting, but arrived late and refused to sit at the table with the other third grade teachers.
On August 18, 1999, Ms. Knight again arrived late for a staff meeting. Later in the morning of August 18, 1999,
Ms. Knight wrote a note to Dr. Hartman informing her that she intended to use comp time during lunch. Rather than follow school policy, Ms. Knight left during lunch without first determining whether her use of comp time had been authorized.
On August 19, 1999, Dr. Hartman spoke to Ms. Knight in the morning and told her that she needed to speak with her.
Ms. Knight went to see Dr. Hartman later that same day.
Dr. Hartman verbally counseled Ms. Knight. Dr. Hartman spoke to Ms. Knight about her lateness in arriving at staff meetings, her use of comp time prior to getting approval, and her refusal to sit with other third grade teachers as she had been directed.
Dr. Hartman asked Ms. Knight to explain her actions, but Ms. Knight took notes and refused to answer Dr. Hartman.
Due to Ms. Knight's misconception that she was being harassed by Dr. Hartman and in anticipation of the August 19, 1999, counseling session, she had prepared a letter of resignation the night before the August 19th meeting with
Dr. Hartman. During the August 19th meeting, Ms. Knight gave Dr. Hartman the letter (hereinafter referred to as the "Resignation Letter").
In pertinent part, Ms. Knight wrote the following in the Resignation Letter:
The intended purpose of this letter is to inform you of my resignation from my present position as a third grade teacher so soon after starting my fifteenth year in the system.
After considering my remaining options, I decided to depart from this position because of YOU and the lack of professionalism displayed on your behalf. I have been subjective [sic] to an extraordinary amount
of harassment every [sic] since I've been under you supervision. This included lack if [sic] administrative support, extreme and undue stress, your trifling and vindictive ways, and last but not least, your prejudice and racist attitude towards students, minorities, and me. These are conditions in which no one should be subjective [sic] to in the workplace. In fact, it seems to almost define going postal.
You and I know the countless times I have tried to relocate to another school unsuccessfully. Which means as [sic] September 2, 1999 I will be resigning. [Emphases added].
The accusations Ms. Knight made in the Resignation Letter concerning Dr. Hartman, to include the allegations that she knew of Ms. Knight's unsuccessful efforts to transfer, are incorrect. Those accusations were the result of Ms. Knight's inability to deal with constructive criticism.
After fully considering the Resignation Letter and Ms. Knight's negative attitude toward her, Dr. Hartman reasonably concluded that Ms. Knight had threatened her and she reasonably became concerned for her personal safety.
On the evening of August 19, 1999, Dr. Hartman contacted Russell Anderson, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, and reported the incident to him. Dr. Hartman also contacted Jane Grinstead, her immediate supervisor, and read the Resignation Letter to her. Finally, Dr. Hartman contacted Dave Morris, the Coordinator of Safety/Security for
the School Board, and advised him of Ms. Knight's reference to "going postal."
The morning of August 20, 1999, School Resource Officer McGee met with Dr. Hartman. Officer McGee was assigned to stay with Dr. Hartman the entire day because of the threat contained in the Resignation Letter.
Mr. Russell, Dr. Hartman, and Officer McGee met with Ms. Knight and a union representative on August 20, 1999, to discuss the Resignation Letter. When asked about her reference to "going postal," Ms. Knight admitted that she understood that it meant to "kill or shoot your boss," or words to that effect.
Following the meeting of August 20, 1999, a Friday, Ms. Knight was informed that she would be placed on temporary duty assignment from Monday, August 23, 1999, until the effective date of her resignation, September 1, 1999.
On Monday, August 23, 1999, Ms. Knight withdrew her resignation. Because it had not been approved by the School Board, the resignation was considered rescinded.
In light of the threat of violence contained in the Resignation Letter, the School Board informed Ms. Knight on August 24, 1999, that she was suspended without pay pending a review and final resolution of the matter.
Based upon a review of Ms. Knight's personnel file, Mr. Russell concluded that Ms. Knight should be terminated from
employment with the School Board. In addition to the Resignation Letter, Mr. Russell considered certain incidents described in paragraph 7 of a Statement of Charges to Terminate Respondent Josephine Knight's Employment with Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "Statement of Charges").
Mr. Russell conferred with Dr. William Vogel, the Superintendent of Schools, concerning the matter. Mr. Russell recommended that Ms. Knight should be terminated from employment with the School Board. By letter dated October 6, 1999,
Dr. Vogel informed Ms. Knight that he would be recommending her termination from employment to the School Board due to her "violation of School Board Policies."
Ms. Knight timely requested a formal administrative hearing to contest Dr. Vogel's decision.
The Statement of Charges further defines the basis for the School Board's action in this case:
That the foregoing acts as set forth in this statement and attached exhibits, constitutes just cause under Fla. Stat. s 231.36(1)(a) to terminate Josephine Knight's employment with the St. Lucie County School Board. See Fla. Stat. s 231.36 and School Board policy
3.57 attached as Exhibit O.
School Board policy 3.57 provides, in pertinent part, the following anti-violence in the workplace policy:
All employees will refrain from any speech, conduct, activity, or behavior of any type that is reasonable interpreted as abusive,
profane, intolerant, menacing or intimidating. No speech, behavior, activity or other conduct shall occur or be made by any employee where it is reasonably interpreted that the primary motivating intent is to intimidate, threaten or abuse any person in the workplace.
The School Board has zero tolerance for violations of this policy. Any person employed by the School Board who communicates a threat of violence to any other School Board employee is subject to termination.
The particular incidents which the School Board considered in concluding that there was just cause for
Ms. Knight's termination and that the foregoing policy had been violated by Ms. Knight included the comment about "going postal" in the Resignation Letter and the incidents described in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Charges.
While the incidents described in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Charges may indicate a lack of judgment, unacceptable treatment of students, and a hot temper on
Ms. Knight's part, they are not relevant in considering whether Ms. Knight displayed conduct contrary to School Board policy
3.57 or just cause.
Ms. Knight's Resignation Letter, however, does support the School Board's decision. Based upon the events of August 16 and 18, 1999, Dr. Hartman reasonably concluded that Ms. Knight's comment about "going postal" in the Resignation Letter was
primarily motivated by an intent to "intimidate, threaten or abuse" her. The day after the Resignation Letter was provided to Dr. Hartman, Ms. Knight admitted to Dr. Hartman and Mr.
Russell that she knew what the terms meant and no other reasonable explanation has been offered by Ms. Knight to explain why she made the comment. Ms. Knight's suggestion at hearing that she was merely trying to get the School Board's attention so that she would be transferred to another school was not convincing and, even if true, would not diminish the reasonableness of Dr. Hartman's reaction to the threat.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Jurisdiction.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (1999).
The Burden and Standard of Proof.
The School Board is not seeking action against Ms.
Knight's teaching certificate. The School Board is only seeking to dismiss Ms. Knight from employment with it. The School Board, therefore, was required to prove the charges against Ms. Knight by a preponderance of the evidence. Allen v. School Board of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); and Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1990).
Just Cause for Ms. Knight's Termination.
Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, is the chapter governing teacher contracts and teacher discipline. Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that each person employed as a member of the instructional staff in any school district shall be employed pursuant to a written contract specified in Chapter 230 and that all such contracts, except continuing contracts specified in subsection (4), must contain a provision for dismissal during the term of the contract. The grounds for dismissal are limited to "just cause."
Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, defines "just cause" to include, in pertinent part, the following:
. . . misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The School Board has suggested that "just cause" is broader than the foregoing definition. In particular, the School Board has argued that Ms. Knight may terminated because she violated School Board policy 3.57(1) and the School Board has established a zero-tolerance for such violations. The policy, which has been adopted pursuant to the authority vested in the School Board by Section 213.001, Florida Statutes, prohibits any act which is reasonably interpreted as having been primarily motivated by an intent to "intimidate, threaten or
abuse any person in the workplace." Ms. Knight committed such an act in violation of School Board policy 3.57. The School Board argues, therefore, that "just cause" exists to terminate her employment because of the violation of the policy and its zero tolerance for such a violation.
The School Board has cited no Florida authority supporting its position. A violation of a school policy, absent proof that the violation comes within the definition of "just cause" specified in Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, does not constitute "just cause" for the teacher's termination from employment.
Despite the foregoing conclusion, the evidence in this case proved that "just cause" as defined in Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, does exist. In particular, the evidence proved that Ms. Knight's violation of School Board policy 3.57 constitutes "misconduct in office."
"Misconduct in office" is defined in Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, as follows:
. . . a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B-1.001, FAC., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, FAC., which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.
The Code of Ethics is contained in Rule 6B-1.001, Florida Administrative Code. Of pertinence in this case, are Rules 6B-1.001(3) and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.
The former requires that educators strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct based on the awareness of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, and the latter prohibits conduct which, among other things, creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment. The evidence supports a conclusion that Ms. Knight violated both standards when she threatened Dr. Hartman in violation of School Board 3.57.
After refusing to cooperate with Dr. Hartman during the first few days of the 1999/2000 school year, Ms. Knight gave Dr. Hartman a letter in which she attacked Dr. Hartman's character and professionalism. She accused Dr. Hartman of being the sole reason she was resigning from the School Board. Following these unsubstantiated allegations, Ms. Knight used the terms "going postal."
Ms. Knight's comment to Dr. Hartman in the Resignation Letter constituted a threat. That threat was primarily intended to intimidate, threaten, or abuse Dr. Hartman. Dr. Hartman interpreted the comment as a threat, as did other employees of the School Board who read the Resignation Letter. Dr. Hartman's interpretation of the primary intention of the threat was
reasonable. No credible evidence supporting a different interpretation was offered at hearing.
Ms. Knight subsequently admitted that she knew that the terms "going postal" meant the committing of violent acts by an employee against the employee's supervisor. Ms. Knight's admission further supports the conclusion that the Resignation Letter contained a threat against Dr. Hartman.
Ms. Knight's conduct and resulting violation of School Board policy 3.57 constituted a failure to strive to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct based on the awareness of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues in violation of Rules 6B-1.001(3) and 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code. Her conduct and School Board policy violation also created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment, especially for Dr. Hartman. Ms. Knight's conduct resulted in the principal of her school being forced to have security with her and left serious questions about Ms. Knight's state of mind. Ms. Knight's conducted was so serious as to impair her effectiveness in the school system.
Ms. Knight's suggestion that Dr. Hartman reaction to the Resignation Letter was one of "exasperation . . . rather than one of fear" is without merit.
Ms. Knight's suggestion that the School Board attempted to terminate her for incompetency or other reasons not properly charged is also without merit. Evidence admitted at hearing and considered in this case concerning events other than what was stated in the Resignation Letter was relevant solely to provide a context in which to consider Dr. Hartman's reasonable reaction to the Resignation Letter.
Based upon the weight of the evidence, Ms. Knight's violation of School Board policy 3.57 constituted "just cause" for her termination from employment from the School Board.
RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the St. Lucie County School Board finding just cause for the termination from employment by the School Board of Josephine Knight.
Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
LARRY J. SARTIN
J. David Richeson & Associates, P.A. Post Office Box 4048
Lorene C. Powell, Esquire Florida Education Association 1718 East 7th Avenue, Suite 301 Post Office Box 5675
Dr. William Vogel, Superintendent St. Lucie County School Board 2909 Delaware Avenue
Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education
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.
