STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 02-3502
)
CHARLES M. KEPLER, JR., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was conducted in this case pursuant to Section 120.569, Florida Statutes (2002), and Subsection (1) of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2002), before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly-designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on December 2, 2002, by video teleconference at sites in Miami and Tallahassee, Florida, and on December 20, 2002, by telephone conference call.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Joel A. Bello, Esquire
Luis M. Garcia, Esquire
Miami Dade-County School Board
1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
For Respondent: Charles M. Kepler, Jr., pro se
1421 Northwest 1st Street, Number 3
Miami, Florida 33125
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.
If so, what action, if any, should be taken against Respondent.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On August 21, 2002, the School Board of Miami-Dade County (School Board) suspended Respondent from his position as a Roofer II and initiated a dismissal proceeding against him. By letter received by the School Board on September 6, 2002, Respondent advised the School Board that he "wish[ed] to contest [his] suspension and dismissal." On September 10, 2002, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge.
On or about November 20, 2002, the School Board served on Respondent (by United States Mail) its Notice of Specific Charges (Notice). The Notice alleged that Respondent was guilty of: Count I- "excessive absenteeism and abandonment of position," as those terms are described in Article XI of the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and Respondent's collective bargaining representative, in that, within the 12-month period ending November 7, 2001, "he had accumulated over 83 absences from the worksite[,] [o]ver 40 of [which] were classified as LWOU [unauthorized absences]" and
that, "between November 7, 2001 and on or about May 23, 2002, [he] had been absent from work for 122 days[,] 121 of [which] were classified as unauthorized absences or LWOU"; Count II- "conduct unbecoming a School board employee," in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, in that he "submitted numerous documents allegedly from his treating physician to [supervisory personnel], providing notice of [his] alleged inability to report to work due to an injury [which] were in fact forged"; Count III- "deficient performance and/or non-performance of duties" as a result of his "repeated and unauthorized absenteeism," which "constitutes just cause to warrant dismissal pursuant to Article IV of the [collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and Respondent's collective bargaining representative] and pursuant to §§ 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605, and 447.209, Fla. Stat. (2001)"; and Count IV- "gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty" as a result of his "constant and/or continuing intentional refusal to obey direct orders, reasonable in nature given by and with proper authority, [his] chronic failure to comply with administrative directives regarding maintenance of appropriate attendance and reporting his absences and [his] repeated failure to comply with School Board rules, administrative directives, and policies," which, collectively, "warrant Respondent's dismissal from employment pursuant to Article IV of the [collective bargaining agreement
between the School Board and Respondent's collective bargaining representative]" and pursuant to §§ 230.23(5)(f), 231.3605, and 447.209, Fla. Stat. (2001)."
As noted above, the final hearing in this case was held before the undersigned on December 2 and 20, 2002. Eight witnesses testified at the final hearing: Berny Blanco, Robert Goldberg, Susan Lilly, Detective Richard Robinson, Reynaldo Benitez, Charles Kepler (Respondent's son), Respondent, and
Dr. Nancy Erickson. In addition to the testimony of these eight witnesses, 29 exhibits (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 27, and Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2) were offered and received into evidence. 1/
On December 23, 2002, the undersigned issued an Order Directing Response, which provided as follows:
On December 11, 2002, the undersigned issued a Notice advising the parties that "that the final hearing in this case, which commenced on December 4, 2002, w[ould] resume on December 20, 2002, starting at 10:00 a.m., by telephone conference call, for purposes of taking the testimony of Petitioner's witness, Dr. Nancy Erickson; providing Respondent the opportunity to present additional medical documentation; and allowing Petitioner to present rebuttal evidence directed to any such medical documentation offered by Respondent." The hearing resumed as scheduled on December 20, 2002. Dr. Erickson's testimony was taken, but no other evidence was offered since Respondent had not been able to obtain the medical documentation he had hoped to present. The evidentiary record was left
open to give Respondent more time to obtain this medical documentation.
A second telephone conference call will be held to give Respondent yet another opportunity to present additional medical documentation and to allow Petitioner the chance to present rebuttal evidence directed to any such medical documentation offered by Respondent.
Respondent shall furnish counsel for Petitioner, no later than December 30, 2002, a copy of any document that Respondent wants to offer into evidence during this second telephone conference call.
No later than January 3, 2003, the parties shall advise the undersigned in writing as to the dates on which they will be unavailable for this second telephone conference call and the amount of time that they believe will be needed. If such a written advisement is not timely filed, the undersigned will assume that there is no additional evidence to be offered and he therefore, under such circumstances, will issue an order closing the evidentiary record and establishing a deadline for the filing of proposed recommended orders.
On January 2, 2003, the School Board filed a Status Report, in which it stated the following:
This status report is submitted on behalf of Petitioner.
On the 20th of December, 2002, the hearing in the matter resumed by telephone conference call.
By order of the court, the evidentiary record was left open to give Respondent time to obtain further medical documentation.
By order of the court, Respondent was to furnish counsel for Petitioner the additional medical documentation no later than December 30, 2002.
To date, counsel for Petitioner has yet to receive Respondent's additional medical documentation.
As a result, Petitioner respectfully requests that the court close the evidentiary record and set a date establishing a deadline for the filing of proposed recommended orders.
Respondent having filed neither a written advisement in response to the undersigned's December 23, 2002, Order Directing Response, nor a response to Petitioner's Status Report, the undersigned, on January 16, 2003, issued an order closing the evidentiary record in the instant case and setting the deadline for the filing of proposed recommended orders at "20 days from the date that the complete transcript of the final hearing (that is, the transcript of both the December 2, 2002, and
December 20, 2002, sessions) is filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings."
The Transcript of the December 20, 2002, session of the final hearing (consisting of one volume) was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 13, 2003. The Transcript of the December 2, 2002, session of the final hearing (also consisting of one volume) was filed with Division of Administrative Hearings on January 27, 2003. On January 29,
2003, the undersigned issued an Order Advising Parties of Filing of Complete Transcript, in which he stated that, in light of such filing, "proposed recommended orders shall be filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings no later than Monday, February 17, 2003."
On February 18, 2003, 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 Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Respondent
Respondent began working for the School Board approximately 12 years ago.
He is presently under suspension pending the outcome of this disciplinary proceeding.
For the duration of his employment with the School Board, he has done roofing work.
He was hired as a Roofer II, was subsequently promoted to a Roofing Foreperson position, and then took a voluntary demotion back to a Roofer II position, the position he currently occupies.
The School Board's job description for Roofer II provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
BASIC OBJECTIVES
The Roofer II (journey person) will work independently under the guidance of a foreperson or other supervisory personnel and in accordance with the standard practices of the roofing trade. Journey person level work includes, but is not limited to:
installing, altering, maintaining and repairing all hot and/or cold roofing systems and their related components;
using knowledge and experience of the trade to determine a method or to devise a means to accomplish the assigned job; and
interpreting technical data from sketches, blueprints, schematics and service manuals. . . .
PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS
This is very heavy work which requires the following physical activities: climbing, balancing, bending, stooping, kneeling, crouching, twisting, reaching, standing, walking, pushing, pulling, lifting, finger dexterity, grasping, repetitive motions, talking, hearing, and visual acuity. The worker is exposed to heat, noise, hazards, atmospheric conditions and oils. The work is performed outdoors.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
* * *
5. Possession of a valid CDL Class A (6331) or Class E (6056) driver's license.
* * *
NOTE: This is an Omnibus Transportation Employees Testing Act (OTETA) monitored position. Employees with this job description may be required to drive or road test a motor vehicle weighing over 26,000 pounds, transport 16 or more persons, or carry hazardous materials.
At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was assigned to the School Board's South Central Maintenance Satellite (South Central).
At all times material to the instant case, Robert Goldberg was the director of South Central.
At all times material to the instant case, Berny Blanco was a Coordinator III at South Central and Respondent's immediate supervisor.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement
As a Roofer II employed by the School Board, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Dade County School Maintenance Employee Committee (DCSMEC) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and DCSMEC (DCSMEC Contract).
Article XI of the DCSMEC Contract addresses the subject of "disciplinary action."
Section 1 of Article XI is entitled, "Notification." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Whenever an employee 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 rule, regulation, or policy violated. An informal discussion with the employee shall occur whenever the employee[']s conduct or the nature and severity of the alleged infraction/violation does not warrant formal disciplinary action.
Section 2 of Article XI is entitled, "Types of Separation." It provides as follows:
Dissolution of the employment relationship between a permanent unit member and the Board may occur by any of three distinct types of separation.
Voluntary-- The employee initiates the separation by resigning, retiring, abandoning the position, or other unilateral action by the employee.
Excessive Absenteeism/Abandonment of Position-- An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays, where such absence is not reported as prescribed by bureau/office procedures, shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling five or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for which the School Board may terminate employment. Absences due to emergencies, or circumstances beyond the employee's control, will be given full consideration.
An employee recommended for termination under this provision 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 first being notified by the Office of Professional Standards.
Dismissals, Suspensions, Demotions-- Employees dismissed, suspended, or demoted 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, in writing, of the employee's intent to appeal such action.) Failure to request a hearing for appeal of disciplinary action in the manner prescribed herein shall be deemed a waiver of rights to any such hearing. The Board shall provide for 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. All such proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with School Board Rule 6Gx13-8C-
1.64. 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 demotions. If the employee is not employed or has had a reduction in salary during the time of appeal of such dismissal, suspension, or demotion, and if reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked, or salary not received, and shall not lose any longevity or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal, suspension, or demotion.
Section 4 of Article XI is entitled, "Cause for Suspension." It provides as follows:
In those case 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.
School Board "[R]ule[s], [R]egulation[s], [and] [P]olic[ies]"
As a School Board employee, Respondent is obligated to act in accordance with School Board "rule[s] regulation[s], [and] [p]olic[ies]" and, if he does not, he may be disciplined in accordance with the DCSMEC Contract.
Among the School Board's rules are School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01.
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 Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, 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-1.01 addresses the subject of "[a]bsences and [l]eaves." It provides, in pertinent part, that, "[e]xcept for sudden illness or emergency situations, any employee who is absent without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave."
Pre-2001-2002 Regular School Year Warnings and Conferences-for- the-Record Regarding Respondent's Attendance and Leave
On December 13, 2000, in response to Respondent having been absent without authorization a total of three and a half days since the beginning of the previous month, Mr. Blanco sent a memorandum to Respondent, which read as follows:
SUBJECT: Notice of Performance Expectation/Requirement
Consider this notice a reminder of the importance of your performance expectation in the area of attendance. A review of the most recent Leave Without Pay (LWOP) Report indicates that you have accumulated three and one half (3.5) days (11/2/00- 1 day, 12/4/00- 1 day, 12/7/00- 1/2 day, 12/1/00- 1/2 day and 12/12/00 1/2 day) of unauthorized leave without pay (ULWOP) during the previous twelve months.
Be advised that Article XI, Section 2-A.2 of the Bargaining [A]greement between the School Board of Miami-Dade County and Dade County School Maintenance Employee Committee (DCSMEC) states that " . . . Unauthorized absences totaling five or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism . . . shall constitute grounds for which the School Board may terminate employment . . ."
This provision serves to insure the required job performance, and prevent any unnecessary impact on other staff members and contributes to the effective operation of this department. Your unauthorized absences adversely impact this department's ability to provide timely service. When you fail to report to work, the projects you are assigned are disrupted and must be either rescheduled or reassigned to other staff members. This in turn causes them to disrupt their work schedules to perform your assignment.
In conclusion, you are hereby warned that should you continue to accumulate ULWOP's, appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.
Respondent signed the memorandum, acknowledging his receipt thereof.
On that same date (December 13, 2000), Mr. Goldberg formally referred Respondent to the School Board's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) based upon, among other things, Respondent's "excessive absences"; his "unauthorized absences"; and his "absences on Monday[s] and/or Fridays."
Despite the School Board's efforts to help him, Respondent continued to have attendance problems, which adversely impacted South Central's maintenance operations. For example, he was absent without authorization on July 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18, 2001.
On August 7, 2001, Mr. Goldberg held a Conference-for- the-Record with Respondent to discuss Respondent's "excessive
absences" and "performance-related issues." Mr. Goldberg subsequently prepared and furnished to Respondent a memorandum, dated August 28, 2001, in which he summarized what had transpired at the conference and indicated what actions Respondent needed to take in the future. Mr. Goldberg's memorandum read as follows:
A conference for the record was held on Tuesday, August 7, 2001. In attendance at this conference were Dr. James Monroe, Executive Director, Maintenance Employment Standards, Mr. Berny Blanco, Coordinator, South Central Satellite, Mr. George Ellis, DCSMEC, Representative, yourself, and this administrator.
Your employment history indicates that you were first employed in December of 1990 as a Roofer II, Maintenance Operations South Central Satellite.
I verified that your home address is: . . . .
The purpose of this Conference was to address your excessive absenteeism: nine and one half unauthorized absences, which you have accumulated in the past twelve months. Also discussed were performance- related issues and the adverse effect your unsatisfactory performance has on your employment status as a Maintenance Operations Employee.
You were on unauthorized leave on the following days: July 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18,
2001, December 4, and 7(.5), 2000, November
2, 2000, October 23(.5), 18(.5).
You were given a written warning for attendance in December 2000 when you
accumulated three and one half absences without authorization.
You were previously referred to the District's Support agency on two separate occasions, and you declined to avail yourself of this service. You will again be administratively referred to this agency.
You are directed to:
To be in regular attendance.
If in the event of further abs[ences], you are to contact Mr. Blanco or in his place Mr. Louis Martinez.
If your absences are due to illness, immediately upon your return to duty, you must submit a note from your treating physician. Failure to comply will result in the absence being recorded as leave without pay, unauthorized (LWOP).
To honor the workday by arriving on time.
You submitted the attached letter dated August 1, 2001 requesting a career redirection back to [a] Roofing Journeyperson position. Dr. Monroe and I indicated that we would recommend to
Mr. Woodson that this request be accepted and you be placed in a Journeyperson's position effective immediately. It was explained to you that this request does not relieve you of your responsibility to improve your attendance nor does it allow you to interfere with the daily operation of the roofing crew under the supervision of an acting or temporary foreperson.
Please be aware of your right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference summary, and to have any such response appended to this document.
Respondent signed the memorandum, acknowledging his receipt thereof.
Respondent's request to be placed back in a Roofing II position was granted.
In a further attempt to assist Respondent to become a more productive employee, the School Board again referred him to the EAP.
The 2001-2002 School Year
The School Board's efforts to help Respondent were unavailing.
Respondent's poor attendance persisted. Moreover, contrary to the instructions he had been given, he failed to notify supervisory personnel of his absences.
Not having "heard from [Respondent]," who had been absent without authorization for an extended period of time, Mr. Goldberg, on October 15, 2001, sent the following memorandum, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent's residence:
SUBJECT: EMPLOYMENT INTENTION
Please be advised that you have been absent from the worksite on the following days:
9/14/01, 9/17/01, 9/18/01, 9/19/01, 9/20/01,
9/21/01, 9/24/01, 9/25/01, 9/26/01, 9/27/01,
9/28/01, 10/1/01, 10/2/01, 10/3/01, 10/4/01,
10/5/01, 10/8/01, 10/9/01, 10/10/01,
10/11/01
Because these absences have caused . . .
__x__ effective operation of the worksite to be impeded . . .
I am requesting your immediate review and implementation of any of the following options.
Notify the worksite or your intended date of return;
Effect leave procedures (request for leave form attached);
Implement resignation from Miami-Dade County Public Schools (resignation letter attached);
Implement retirement process (if applicable).
You are directed to notify the worksite in writing within 3 days of the date of this memorandum as to your employment intention. Your absences will be considered unauthorized until you communicate directly with this administrator.
Respondent failed to comply with the directives contained in this memorandum; however, he did attend a meeting on October 23, 2001, at which his "leave history for the past 12 months was presented to [him] and reviewed with [him]." During this 12-month period, Respondent was absent a total of 83.5 days, 40.5 of which he was absent without authorization.
Respondent attended a Conference for-the Record held on November 7, 2001, in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. Also in attendance at the conference
were Renaldo Benitez, the Executive Director of the Office of Professional Standards; Dr. James Monroe, the Executive Director of Facilities Operations; Mr. Goldberg; and a DCSMEC representative. The conference was held to address Respondent's "performance assessments-to-date; attendance-to-date; non- compliance with site directives regarding attendance;
and . . . future employment status with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools."
On November 13, 2001, Mr. Benitez prepared a summary of what had transpired at the conference. The summary, a copy of which was provided to Respondent, read, in pertinent part as follows:
You have exceeded the number of days accrued and have failed to follow directives and reminders issued to you at your worksite in reference to your excessive absenteeism.
You were provided an opportunity to respond and you said:
"I was out on back injury and knee surgery. I thought that the worksite would grant me authorized leave. I knew it would be leave without pay, but not unauthorized. I provided all the doctor's notes to
Mr. Goldberg."
This administrator told you that if that was the case, you should have effected a medical leave with the leave office. You said, "I didn't know anything about the leave office. I was not aware of those procedures."
Dr. Monroe asked you if you were in possession of your Maintenance Employee Handbook, which includes procedures to
effect leave and you said, "Yes, I did not read the employee book and that is my fault."
Mr. Goldberg showed you the employee intention letter sent to you on October 15, 2001, which you admitted having received, and pointed out that one of the options is for you to implement leave procedures and a Request for Leave Form was attached. You said, "I did get the letter, but there was no form attached."
This administrator asked you if you had attempted to contact your union and seek advice from them and you said, "No."
You also said: "I just went through a divorce. I don't want to be a bad employee. I have tried to see Mr. Abin with the District's support referral services. He just has not been able to see me. I want to participate."
You provided a note from your physician, Dr. Nancy L. Erickson, releasing you for full duty and restricting you to only wearing a knee support.
Dr. Monroe said, "This note is satisfactory, but you have to be in attendance and on time every day. It is very important for you to schedule any pending doctor's appointments after work hours because of the large number of absences you have amassed."
This administrator reminded you that 40.5 days of leave without pay unauthorized within the last 12 months is more than excessive. According to contractual stipulations, "Unauthorized absences totaling more than five or more workdays during the previous 12 month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism."
Action Taken
You were advised of the availability of services from the District's support referral agency. You were provided the option to resign your position with Miami- Dade County Public Schools. You said, "No. sir."
The following directives were issued to you during the conference concerning your future absences:
Be in regular attendance and on time.
Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to Mr. Goldberg.
If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be considered and procedures for Board-approved leave implemented. Resignation must be tendered if no leave options are available.
Should future absences exceed the number of days accrued, the absences will be considered Leave Without Pay Unauthorized (LWOU).
You must advise Mr. Goldberg in advance of any doctor's appointments and try to schedule them after working hours.
Pending further review of this case and formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to be taken, these directives are reiterated and will be implemented immediately to prevent adverse impact on the operation of the work unit, as well as to insure continuity of the program. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review by the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of action.
During the conference you were provided with a copy of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21,
Responsibilities and Duties/Employee Conduct and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves.
You were advised of the high esteem in which M-DCPS employees are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely affects this level of professionalism. Mr. Goldberg was apprised as to your return to the worksite immediately after this conference, to assume your duties. . . .
Please be aware of your right to clarity, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any such response appended to your record.
The "note from . . . Dr. Nancy L. Erickson" that Respondent submitted during the conference was a forgery. It read as follows:
To whom it may concern:
I apologize. Mr. Kepler's rehabililative [sic] therapy completion date was incorrect. The correct date in [sic] November 1st. He kept his appointment with me on October 31st which was the completion of his therapy. He is released for full duty and only restriction is to wear knee support.
The second sentence of the note referred to a previous note that Dr. Erickson had purportedly written. This previous note, which had been sent, by facsimile transmission, to Mr. Goldberg, was also a forgery. It read as follows:
October 16, 2001 Re: Charles Kepler
To Whom It May Concern:
Mr. Charles Kepler has been under my care for an injury to his left knee.
Mr. Kepler has been under going [sic] rehabilitative physical therapy which he will complete the end of this week.
Mr. Kepler is released to return to work on Monday October 22, 2001.
Respondent was a patient of Dr. Erickson's, but the last time he had seen her was March 29, 2001, and he had only received treatment from her for back pain, not for any knee problems.
Mr. Goldberg received other notes concerning Respondent's physical condition and medical needs, in addition to the two mentioned above, purporting to be from Dr. Erickson that were also forgeries.
While he may have had the assistance of others, Respondent was the driving force behind this scheme to defraud the School Board through the submission of forged doctor's notes. 2/
Following the November 7, 2001, Conference-for-Record,
Respondent continued his "pattern of excessive absenteeism and . . . violation of . . . attendance procedures," which
prompted Mr. Goldberg to recommend, in writing, that Respondent be fired. Mr. Goldberg's written recommendation, which was dated November 30, 2001, read, in pertinent part, as follows:
I hereby recommend that Mr. Charles Kepler be terminated from his employment with the
Miami-Dade County School District Maintenance Operations, South Central Satellite. Mr. Kepler has a continuing pattern or excessive absenteeism and has recurring violations of Maintenance and Operations attendance procedures. He has failed to comply with School Board rules, responsibilities and duties even after he was given specific instructions and directives regarding future absences.
* * *
On November 26, 2001, he requested one-day sick leave but only had 1/2 day available leave. On November 29 and 30, 2001, he again called in for sick leave with no available time. He never personally notified Mr. Blanco or this administrator of this request for leave time.
On three separate occasions, Mr. Kepler was referred to the District Support Agency. He declined to avail himself of its service on every occasion. . . .
No immediate action was taken on Mr. Goldberg's recommendation.
Respondent was absent without authorization on December 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28 and 31, 2001, January 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 31, 2002, and February 1 and 4, 2002.
On February 4, 2002, Mr. Goldberg sent a memorandum, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent's residence containing the following instructions:
I am requesting your immediate review and implementation of any of the following options:
Notify the worksite of your intended date of return;
Implement resignation from Miami-Dade County Public Schools (resignation letter attached);
Implement retirement process (if applicable).
You are directed to notify the worksite in writing within 3 days of the date of this memorandum as to your employment intention. Your absences will be considered unauthorized until you communicate directly with this administrator.
On or about February 7, 2002, Mr. Goldberg received the following letter from Respondent:
This is to inform you that I will be returning to work on Feb. 11, 2002. I will be completing my therapy for my knee on Feb. 9, 2002. I will bring a release from the doctor and she will fax you one. Her assistant has been faxing you updates every
week. I will be moving this weekend; my new address is . . . and my new phone number
is . . . . If there are any changes with my injury I will contact you Friday after therapy.
Respondent did not report to work on February 11, 2002, or at any time thereafter, and he failed to comply with the directive he had been given to "communicate[] directly to Mr. Goldberg" his "intent to be absent." (On numerous occasions, Mr. Goldberg telephoned Respondent's residence in an effort to "contact [Respondent] directly," but he was never able to reach Respondent.)
During the week of February 11, 2002, and the several weeks that followed, Mr. Goldberg received, by facsimile transmission, notes, purportedly signed by Dr. Erickson, concerning Respondent's physical ability to report to work.
Mr. Goldberg, suspecting (correctly) that the notes might not be genuine, contacted Dr. Erickson's office by telephone and, in response to the inquiries he made, was told that the last contact Dr. Erickson had with Respondent was in late March of 2001.
Following this telephone conversation, Mr. Goldberg referred the matter to the School Board's Police Department for investigation.
The investigation was conducted by Detective Richard Robinson.
After completing his investigation, Detective Robinson issued a written report (Investigative Report G-13852) on May 1, 2002, which contained the following accurate conclusion:
Based on statements and evidence gathered during this investigative process, there is sufficient evidence to prove between the dates of July 25, 2002, Mr. Charles Kepler, Jr., Roofer II at South Central Maintenance Satellite, allegedly submitted forged documents stating his inability to return to work, due to an injury.
During an interview with Mr. Kepler's physician, Dr. Nancy Erickson, it was confirmed that the physician notes faxed to Mr. Goldberg from Mr. Kepler, and allegedly
signed by Dr. Erickson, were forged. Dr. Erickson stated she has not seen Mr. Kepler since March 29, 2001.
The allegation of the Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, against employee, Mr. Kepler, Jr., is Substantiated.
From November 7, 2001, the date of the last Conference-for-the-Record, to May 23, 2002, Respondent was absent a total of 122 days. All but one of these absences were unauthorized. Respondent repeatedly disregarded the directive he had been given to "communicate[] directly to Mr. Goldberg" his "intent to be absent."
Sometime prior to May 31, 2002, Mr. Goldberg learned that Respondent's driver's license had been suspended since December 31, 2001 (as a result of Respondent being arrested for driving under the influence) and that therefore Respondent no longer (and had not since December 31, 2001) met the minimum qualifications to be a Roofer II.
Respondent attended a Conference-for-the Record held on May 31, 2002, in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards. Also in attendance at the conference were
Mr. Benitez, Mr. Goldberg, and representatives of DCSMEC. The conference was held "to address Investigative Report
G-13852 . . . ; [Respondent's] record; and [his] "future employment status with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools."
On June 17, 2002, Mr. Benitez prepared a summary of what had transpired at the conference. The summary, a copy of which was provided to Respondent, read, in pertinent part as follows:
You were provided an opportunity to respond to your excessive absences and your suspended driver's license. You said, "I was sick. I could not bend my knees, but I still called the tape. My driver's license is suspended, but I'm not guilty. That's why I'm fighting it. I'm in the process of clearing all this up."
Mr. Goldberg said, "The directives that you were given were specific, that is, to contact me and not to call the tape.
Furthermore, your job requires you to have a valid driver's license in order to perform your duties. You need to take care of your driver's license and submit a letter from your doctor that you can return to work without any restrictions."
Investigative Report- G-13852, Violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities- Substantiated
A copy of the aforementioned investigative report was presented to and reviewed with you in its entirety. You were provided an opportunity to respond to the allegation that:
"Between July 25, 2001 and February 25, 2002, Employee Charles Kepler, Jr., Roofer II at South Central Maintenance Satellite, allegedly submitted forged documents, stating his inability to report to work, due to injury."
You said, "I did not submit anything forged. Everything came from her office as far as I
know. I have never forged any doctor's letter."
This administrator asked, "Why were these medical notes faxed from a different medical center and some even had misspellings."
You said, "I don't know. It was the girl in the office that wrote them."
I reminded you that Dr. Nancy L. Erickson,
O., is an anesthesiologist and she stated that she has only seen you three times.
You said, "That's because they don't want to deal with me anymore. The other doctor that she sent me to was afraid that I would sue him."
I asked you again if any of these notes were false and you said, "No."
Mr. Bell [a DCSMEC representative] said, "He will submit documentation of his knee surgery."
Action Taken
You were advised of the availability of services from the District's support referral agency. You were provided the option to resign your position with M-DCPS. You said, "No, sir."
Should you return to work, the following directives were re-issued to you during the conference concerning future absences:
Be in regular attendance.
Intent to be absent must be communicated directly to Mr. Goldberg.
If it is determined that future absences are imminent, leave must be considered and procedures for Board-approved leave
implemented. Resignation must be tendered if no leave options are available.
Should future absences exceed the number of days accrued, the absences will be considered Leave Without Pay, Unauthorized (LWOU).
You must advise Mr. Goldberg in advance of any doctor's appointments and try to schedule them after working hours.
In addition, the following directives herein delineated were also issued to you during the conference:
Adhere to all (M-DCPS) School Board Rules and regulations at all times.
Do not forge any documents related to your employment with M-DCPS.
Do not submit any forged documents for any reason to M-DCPS.
Pending further review of this case and formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to be taken, these directives are reiterated and will be implemented immediately to prevent adverse impact to the operation of the work unit, as well as to insure continuity of the program. Noncompliance with these directives will necessitate review by the Office of Professional Standards for the imposition of action.
During the conference, you were provided with a copy of School Board Rule[] 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties/Employee Conduct.
You were advised of the high esteem in which M-DCPS employees are held and of the District's concern for any behavior which adversely affects this level of professionalism. Mr. Goldberg was apprised
as to your return to the worksite immediately after this conference to assume your duties. You were advised to keep this information presented in this conference confidential and not discuss this with co- workers.
Action To Be Taken
You were advised that the information presented in this conference, as well as subsequent documentation, would be reviewed with the Assistant Superintendent in the Office of Professional Standards, the Chief Facilities Officer of Maintenance, and the Director of South Central Satellite.
Upon completion of the conference summary, a legal review by the School Board attorneys would be requested. Receipt of legal review with the endorsement by the Chief Facilities Officer of Maintenance will compel formal notification of the recommended action or disciplinary measures to include dismissal.
Please be aware of your right to clarify, explain, and/or respond to any information recorded in this conference by this summary, and to have any response appended to your record.
Respondent did not provide supervisory personnel with proof that his driver's license had been reinstated, nor did he "submit a letter from [his] doctor that [he] c[ould] return to work without any restrictions," as he had been instructed to. He remained out of work, accumulating additional unauthorized absences.
On June 23, 2002, Respondent attended a meeting in the Office of Professional Standards, along with Mr. Benitez and Mr. Goldberg, at which he was advised of the following:
A legal review of the case file and the summary information determined that you, Mr. Charles M. Kepler, be recommended for dismissal for the following charges:
Just cause, including, but not limited to: excessive absenteeism; abandonment of position; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; non-performance and deficient performance of job responsibilities; gross insubordination; and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves. This action is taken in accordance with Sections 230.03(2); 230.23(5)(f); 231.3605; 231.44; and 447.209.
On August 9, 2002, Merrett Stierheim, the School Board's Superintendent of Schools, sent Respondent the following letter:
I am exercising my responsibility as Superintendent of Schools and recommending to The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, at its scheduled meeting of August 21, 2002, that the School Board suspend you and initiate dismissal proceedings against you from your current position as Roofer II at South Central Maintenance effective at the close of the workday, August 21, 2002, for just cause, including, but not limited to: excessive absenteeism; abandonment of position; conduct unbecoming a School Board employee; non-performance and deficient performance of job responsibilities; gross insubordination; and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties; and 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves. This action is taken in accordance
with Sections 230.03(2); 230.23(5)(f); 231.3605; 231.44; and 447.209.
If you wish to contest your suspension and dismissal, you must request a hearing in writing within 20 calendar days of the receipt of notice of the Board action, in which case, formal charges will be filed and a hearing will be held before an administrative law judge.
At its August 21, 2002, meeting, the School Board took the action recommended by Mr. Stierheim.
At no time from May 23, 2002, until the date of his suspension did Respondent report to work. All of his absences during this period were unauthorized.
Although Respondent had accumulated an extraordinary number of unauthorized absences at the time of his suspension, the number would have been even greater had Mr. Goldberg not "worked with [Respondent]" and converted some absences, which were initially unauthorized, to "vacation or sick days when [Mr. Goldberg] could" (following his review of medical documentation belatedly provided by Respondent).
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 1001.32(2), Florida Statutes (2002) (formerly Section 230.03(2), Florida Statutes (2001)).
Such authority extends to personnel matters and includes the power to suspend and dismiss employees. See Section 1001.42(5), Florida Statutes (2002) (formerly Section 230.23(5)(f), Florida Statutes (2001)) ("The district school board, acting as a board, shall exercise all powers and perform all duties listed below: PERSONNEL.--. . . provide for
the . . . suspension, and dismissal of employees . . . ."); and Section 1012.23(1), Florida Statutes (2002)) (formerly Section 231.001, Florida Statutes (2001))("Except as otherwise provided by law or the State Constitution, district school boards may adopt rules governing personnel matters, including the assignment of duties and responsibilities for all district employees.").
The "rules governing personnel matters" that have been adopted by the School Board include School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-
1.21 and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01.
A district school board is deemed to be the "public employer," as that term is used in Chapter 447, Part II, Florida Statutes (2002), "with respect to all employees of the school district." Section 447.203(2), Florida Statutes (2002).
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 (2002).
It, however, must exercise these powers in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of law and the provisions of any collective bargaining agreements into which it has entered with the bargaining unit representatives of its employees. See Chiles v. United Faculty of Florida, 615 So. 2d 671, 672-73 (Fla. 1993)("Once the executive has negotiated and the legislature has accepted and funded an agreement [with its employees' collective bargaining representative], the state and all its organs are bound by that [collective bargaining agreement] under the principles of contract law."); and Hillsborough County Governmental Employees Association v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 522 So. 2d 358, 363 (Fla. 1988)("[W]e hold that a public employer must implement a ratified collective bargaining agreement with respect to wages, hours, or terms or conditions of employment ").
"Under Florida law, a [district] school board's decision to terminate an employee is one affecting the employee's substantial interests; therefore, the employee is entitled to a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) if material issues of fact are in dispute." 3/ Sublett v. District School
Board of Sumter County, 617 So. 2d at 377.
The employee must be given written notice of the specific charges prior to the "formal 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)(Jorgenson, J., concurring).
Any adverse action taken against the employee may be based only upon the conduct specifically alleged in the written notice of specific charges. See Lusskin v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 731 So. 2d 67, 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); and Delk v. Department of Professional Regulation, 595 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
At the "formal hearing," the burden is on the district school board to prove the allegations contained in the notice.
Unless the collective bargaining agreement covering the bargaining unit of which the employee is a member provides otherwise (which Article XI of the DCSMEC Contract does not), 4/ the district school board's proof need only meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. See McNeill 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 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."); and 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 is an "educational support employee" who has successfully completed his or her probationary period and the adverse action sought to be taken against the employee is termination, the district school board must act in
accordance with the provisions of Section 1012.40, Florida Statutes (2002) (formerly Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes (2001)), which provides as follows:
(1) As used in this section:
"Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system who is employed as a teacher assistant, an education paraprofessional, a member of the transportation department, a member of the operations department, a member of the maintenance department, a member of food service, a secretary, or a clerical employee, 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 district school board pursuant to s. 1012.39. 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.
(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 district 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 district school superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining
agreement does not exist, or reduces the number of employees on a districtwide basis for financial reasons.
In the event a district school superintendent seeks termination of an employee, the district 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 district school board rule in the event there is no collective bargaining agreement.
Respondent is an "educational support employee," within the meaning of Section 1012.40, Florida Statutes (2002), who is covered by a collective bargaining agreement (the DCSMEC Contract).
Pursuant to Section 1012.40, Florida Statutes (2002), his employment may be terminated only "for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement."
An examination of the provisions of Article XI of the DCSMEC Contract (the only portion the collective bargaining agreement in evidence) reveals that it allows the School Board, among other things, to terminate the employment of a bargaining unit member covered by the agreement on the grounds of "abandonment of position" and "excessive absenteeism," and it further authorizes the School Board, where a bargaining unit member has "violate[d] any rule, regulation, or policy," to take appropriate disciplinary action against that bargaining unit
member, including dismissal where the "infraction
is . . . deemed serious enough" to warrant such action.
The Notice of Specific Charges served on Respondent alleges that Respondent's termination is warranted because of his "excessive absenteeism and abandonment of position," as those terms are described in Article XI of the DCSMEC Contract (Count I); his engaging in "conduct unbecoming a School Board employee," in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Count II); his "deficient performance and/or non-performance of duties" (Count III); and his "gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty" (Count IV).
The preponderance of the record evidence establishes that, during the 12-month period ending November 7, 2001, as well as between November 7, 2001, and May 23, 2002, Respondent was absent without authorization well in excess of a total five workdays (as alleged in Count I of the Notice of Specific Charges) and for periods of time extending over three or more consecutive workdays (as further alleged in Count I of the Notice of Specific Charges). These unauthorized absences constitute "excessive absenteeism" and "abandonment of position," respectively, within the meaning of Article XI of the DCSMEC Contract. Standing alone, they provide "grounds for termination" of Respondent's employment with the School Board
pursuant | to Article XI of the DCSMEC Contract, | 5/ | as alleged |
in Count | I of the Notice of Specific Charges. |
The preponderance of the evidence also establishes that Respondent knowingly submitted "false medical documentation" (as alleged in Count II of the Notice of Specific Charges). In so doing, he engaged in "conduct unbecoming a School Board employee," in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13- 4A-1.21 (as further alleged in Count II of the Notice of Specific Charges). Such "conduct unbecoming a School Board employee" is of a sufficiently serious nature to give the School Board an additional ground to terminate Respondent's employment. 6/ Cf. Cain v. Administrator, 1999 WL 588234 (Ohio. App. 1999)("The passing of forged medical releases by the employee to the employer is a deceitful and fraudulent act and constitutes just cause for termination.").
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 terminating his employment with the School Board pursuant Article XI of the DCSMEC Contract.
DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2003, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 26th day of February, 2003.
ENDNOTES
1/ Article IV of the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and Respondent's collective bargaining representative was not among these exhibits. Article XI was the only portion of this collective bargaining agreement offered into evidence.
2/ The undersigned has rejected as unworthy of belief Respondent's testimony that he had no involvement whatsoever in this fraudulent scheme. Compare with The Florida Bar v.
Massari, 832 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2002)(despite absence of "direct
proof . . . showing who was responsible for concocting the [forged escrow] document," court upheld referee's finding that bar member was the forger where bar member was "the only person who had motive and reason" to commit forgery); and Department of Education, Education Practices Commission v. Strange, Nos. 83- 2899 and 83-3445, 1984 WL 276139 (Fla. DOAH 1984)(Recommended
Order)("The evidence forcefully, and convincingly, supports the inference[s], now drawn, that respondent either alone or in combination with another--forged the signatures . . . on the IEP annual review forms described above. . . . These inferences are based on circumstantial evidence which is compelling. No other theory or hypothesis has been posited which is plausible, or even rational. The falsified forms were in respondent's control and it was her duty to see that they were complete and
accurate. . . . [S]he had not only the opportunity but a clear motive to 'correct' her records by forging, either alone or in concert with another, the required signatures. . . . There is no evidence that anyone, other than respondent, had anything to gain from falsifying the records in question.").
3/ "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).
4/ Where the district school board, through the collective bargaining process, has agreed to bear a more demanding standard, it must honor, and act in accordance with, its agreement. See Palm Beach County School Board v. Auerbach, Case No. 96-3683, 1997 WL 1052595 (Fla. DOAH 1997)(Recommended
Order)("Long-standing case law establishes that in a teacher employment discipline case, the school district has the burden of proving its charges by a preponderance of the evidence. . . .
However, in this case, the district must comply with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, which, as found in paragraph 27, above, requires the more stringent standard of proof: clear and convincing evidence.").
5/ Section 2.A.2. of Article XI of the DCSMEC Contract makes clear that "excessive absenteeism" (evidenced by "unauthorized absences totaling five or more workdays during the previous 12- month period") and "abandonment of position" (evidenced by "[a]n unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays, where such absence is not reported as prescribed by bureau/office procedures") are considered to be so deleterious to the operations of the School Board that they "shall constitute grounds for which the School Board may terminate employment." (The Florida Supreme Court has observed that "excessive unauthorized absenteeism presumptively hampers the operation of a business and is inherently detrimental to an employer." Tallahassee Housing Authority v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 483 So. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 1986); see also Pericich v. Climatrol, Inc., 523 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)("Employers still retain their traditional right to terminate employees for legitimate business reasons, such as . .
. excessive absenteeism.")).
6/ Whether Respondent may also be terminated for "deficient performance and/or non-performance of duties" (as alleged in Count III of the Notice of Specific Charges) and for "gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty" (as alleged in
Count IV of the Notice of Specific Charges) are issues that need not, and have not, been addressed in this Recommended Order.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Joel A. Bello, Esquire Luis M. Garcia, Esquire
Miami Dade-County School Board
1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
Charles M. Kepler, Jr.
1421 Northwest 1st Street, Number 3
Miami, Florida 33125
Merrett R. Stierheim Interim Superintendent
Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast 2nd Avenue, No. 912
Miami, Florida 33132-1394
Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Daniel W. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education
1244 Turlington Building
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 11, 2003 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 26, 2003 | Recommended Order | School Board maintenance employee had excessive absences, abandoned position, and submitted forged doctor`s notes to supervisory personnel; recommended for termination under collective bargaining agreement. |
