Pursuant to notice, a hearing was conducted in this case on April 6, 2010, at video teleconferencing sites in Miami, and Tallahassee, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge June C. McKinney of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to the authority set forth in Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2009).
For Petitioner: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire
Arianne B. Suarez, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board
Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A.
29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110
The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has just cause to suspend Respondent for 30 workdays without pay?
By letter dated September 10, 2009, Jamillah Peters ("Respondent" or "Peters") was notified that the School Board of Miami-Dade County ("Petitioner" or "School Board") at its scheduled meeting of September 9, 2009, took action to suspend Respondent 30 days without pay for just cause including, but, not limited to, gross insubordination and violations of School Board Rules.
The Respondent elected to dispute the reasons for the suspension. Respondent requested a formal proceeding, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
No reason was given for Peters' suspension in the September 10, 2009, letter, but the School Board filed a Notice of Specific Charges with the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 15, 2010, in which it charged Peters with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, and 6Gx13-4A-
1.213, Code of Ethics.
At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of three witnesses: Lucy Iturrey, Sandra Cue, and Kathleen John- Louissaint. Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1 through 47 were
admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on her own behalf and offered no additional exhibits.
At the request of Petitioner, the undersigned took official recognition of Florida Statutes 1012.33(1)(a), 1012.33(6)(a),and 447.209; Florida Administrative Code Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009; and School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A- 1.213.
The proceedings were transcribed and the parties availed themselves of the right to submit proposed recommended orders after the filing of the transcript. The Transcript of the final hearing was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 30, 2010. Upon the granting of an extension to the proposed recommended order filing deadline, both the Petitioner and Respondent filed timely Proposed Recommended Orders, which have been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Article IX, Florida Constitution; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. (2009).1 Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat.
Peters has been employed by Petitioner as a Special Education Teacher for eight years. Her first two years of employment as a full-time teacher were at Edison Park Elementary School.
Peters has been assigned to Morningside Elementary School ("Morningside") as a full-time Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") teacher for approximately six years. She remains employed at Morningside presently.
During the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, Respondent worked as an ESE teacher dealing with kindergarten and first grades. Even though Peters had a room, she went to the classrooms of the students assigned to her to perform her duties.
Peters' job duties and responsibilities included but were not limited to developing IEPs, maintaining attendance and grade records, keeping students records, participating in various meetings and in-services, and performing work as required or assigned by the supervising administrator or his/her designee.
At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was provided with an assigned class schedule.
During Peters' employment at Morningside from August of 2005 through March of 2009, Respondent was disciplined numerous times for not complying with her job duties. Peters
repetitively failed to adhere to her class schedule; failed to request administrative permission to leave the worksite; failed to follow faculty sign in/out procedures; left the school site during scheduled classroom work time; failed to complete student IEPs; failed to keep student grading, attendance, and other student records; and continually refused to obey the direct and reasonable orders given by her supervisors, Morningside Principal Ms. Kathleen John-Lousissaint ("Principal" or "John- Lousissaint"), and Morningside Assistant Principal Ms. Sandra Cue ("Assistant Principal" or "Cue").2
The School Board kept a record of the occurrences in Peters' personnel file and went through all the required procedures for disciplining Peters, including repetitive verbal directives, approximately 47 written directives by memorandums, numerous Conferences-for-the-Record ("CFR"), and ultimately written reprimands after Respondent continuously refused to comply with previously given directives.
From October 4, 2006, to March 16, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written and was issued 16 written directives, including two written reprimands, to adhere to her class schedule and not to make any changes to the class schedule unless approved by the Principal or Assistant Principal.3 On September 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2008, Peters did not adhere to her daily schedule as written when she didn't report
to her assignment. Peters received her first written reprimand for failing to adhere to her schedule on September 21, 2008.4
The Principal went out of her way to work with Peters constantly and met with her numerous times providing verbal directives to follow the school policies including adhering to the class schedule.
After the first reprimand, Peters continued to fail to adhere to her class schedule numerous times in November and December 2008 and January 2009. Peters received a second written reprimand for failing to adhere to her class schedule on March 16, 2008.
Peters signed both of the written reprimands dated September 21, 2008, and March 16, 2008. Each informed Peters that "Any recurrence of the above infraction [would] result in further disciplinary action."
By failing to adhere to her schedule, Peters burdened the Morningside administrators and other teachers who had to cover for Respondent or do her work. Peters also impaired the learning environment for the ESE students when she didn't show up, since she was responsible for educating the students assigned to her. Further, when Peters did not report to her assigned classes, she jeopardized the health, safety, and welfare of the children assigned to her care.
From November 8, 2006, to February 16, 2009, Peters was issued several written directives including one written reprimand for failing to request authorization from the administration before leaving the school site, and three written directives for failing to sign in and out when leaving and returning to the school site, as per school site policy.5
Peters received two written reprimands on March 27, 2007, and on March 16, 2008, for failing to comply with the established timelines in the execution of a variety of her duties including, but not limited to, recording student grades, failing to complete IEPs in a timely manner, and failing to utilize the WISE system to complete IEPs. When Peters failed to complete her IEPs, the Morningside administrators had to get other teachers to complete Peters' job in addition to their own assignments.
On February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, Peters failed to adhere to her schedule as written.
Peters was reprimanded on February 20, 2009, for numerous violations of school policy. The reprimand was entitled RESPRIMAND-INSUBORDINATION and stated:
On the following dates, November 3, 6, 18,
20, and 25, 2008, December 1, 5, 8, and 9,
2008, January 12, 13, 15 and 21, 2009 and
February 2, 3, and 4, 2009, you did not adhere to your schedule as written. On December 10 and 11, 2008, you attended a two day WISE training without prior approval
from this administrator. On January 13, 2009, you refused to meet with this administrator. On January 14, 2009, you did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting.
Since your Conference-For-[the-]Record meeting in September, you have failed to follow your schedule on 16 occasions, did not attend a scheduled faculty meeting, and have refused to meet with this administrator on five different occasions and refused to meet with the Assistant Principal on one occasion. Your continuous defiance and compliance with the site directives issued on September 25, 2008 and reissued on October 20, 2008, is considered insubordination.
It is your professional responsibility as a Miami-Dade County Public School employee to comply with directives issued by the site supervisor.
You are hereby officially reprimanded for the following violations of your professional contractual responsibilities:
Non-compliance with Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6GX13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties.[6]
Refusal to meet with this administrator.
Failure to adhere to school site procedures.
Failure to adhere to assigned schedule as written.
At hearing, Respondent answered in the affirmative that she believed that the directives relating to adhering to a work schedule, seeking administrative approval before leaving a school site, and signing in and out when leaving campus were reasonable.
Peters' journal, submitted to the School Board detailing her responses to the disciplinary action of February 20, 2009, stated “I’m not following the schedule because it doesn’t make sense.”7
After receiving the reprimand of February 20, 2009, Peters failed to secure approval from an administrator on either February 26, 2009, or March 3, 2009, when she signed out on the staff sign out log and left the building at a time when she was scheduled to work with students.
On March 5, 2009, Peters refused to sign the memorandum dated March 4, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that the Assistant Principal provided Peters. The memorandum advised Peters that she had been told on February 20, 2009, to "adhere to [her] schedule and secure administrative approval prior to leaving the building at a time other than the scheduled lunch time.” It also stated:
This memorandum serves as a final reminder that you are to adhere to your schedule and you are to request prior approval from this administrator to leave the building at anytime other than your scheduled duty free half hour lunch block.
On March 16, 2009, John-Lousissaint observed Peters in the hallway at approximately 8:30 a.m. and instructed her to report to her scheduled assignment. At approximately 8:40 a.m., the Assistant principal saw Peters and told her several more
times to report to her scheduled assignment. At 9:00 a.m. Peters was not in her scheduled classroom assignment.
On March 16, 2009, the Assistant Principal gave Peters a memorandum dated March 16, 2009, entitled RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES that stated, "You are reminded that you are to adhere to school site procedures and your schedule as outlined unless notified by an administrator."
As a result of Peters actions described in paragraphs
21 and 22 above, on or about April 16, 2009, a CFR was held with Peters. Administrators addressed Peters' gross insubordination and misconduct at the CFR. Peters was instructed yet again to adhere to the directives previously issued by the Principal on numerous occasions, and to comply with the reasonable requests of the Principal.
Peters testified at hearing that her personal relationship with the school administrators has become strained and she felt she was being singled out. Peters felt as though she were not being treated like a teacher. Peters asserted that she should work with higher level students and didn't feel like she was part of the Morningside team since she didn't have a homeroom.8
On or about May 18, 2009, Morningside's Principal observed Peters in the school's resource room, sitting in front of a laptop, during a time when Respondent was scheduled to be
instructing students. John-Louissaint instructed Respondent to follow her schedule and report to room 103. Peters refused and replied, "No, I don't think I will be going." The Principal left and went and brought a union steward back to the resource room, and repeated to Peters, "Ms. Peters as your supervisor and in front of your union steward, you are directed to report to your scheduled assignment." Peters was insubordinate and refused to go stating again, "No, I am not going." The students in room 103 were unattended.
On May 20, 2009, the Principal issued a memorandum to Peters regarding the May 19, 2009, incident stating that Respondent's "continuous defiance and non-compliance with previously issued directives is considered blatant and gross insubordination."
On or about August 26, 2009, Peters was notified by letter that the Superintendent of Schools was recommending to the School Board to suspend her without pay for 30 workdays. The letter further notified Respondent the reasons for the recommendation included, but were not limited to: gross insubordination and violations of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4A-
1.21, Responsibilities and Duties and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Code of Ethics.
At a regularly scheduled meeting on September 9, 2009, the School Board of Miami-Dade County took action to suspend
Respondent for 30 workdays without pay for just cause including, but not limited to, gross insubordination and violations of those School Board Rules as set forth above in paragraph 28.
Respondent was notified of the School Board's action by letter dated September 10, 2009.
On March 15, 2010, the School Board filed its Notice of Specific Charges charging Respondent with misconduct in office, gross insubordination, and violation of School Board rules regarding responsibilities and duties, and ethics.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the parties hereto pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner has the burden of proving that it has just cause to suspend the Respondent's employment as a Special Education teacher.
"Just Cause" is defined to include misconduct in office and gross insubordination by Section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Moreover, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009 identifies the criteria necessary for suspension or dismissal of instructional personnel.
Petitioner's burden to prove the charges against Respondent must be met by a preponderance of the evidence.
Allen v. School Board of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
The Notice of Charges filed against Respondent charged her with the following four counts: 1) violation of State Board Rule 6B-4.009(3), Misconduct in Office; 2) Section 6B-4.009(4), F.A.C., Gross Insubordination; 3) School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21 Responsibilities and Duties; and 4) 6Gx13-4A-1.213 Code of Ethics.
Misconduct in Office
The State Board has defined the term "misconduct in office" by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3), which provides in pertinent part:
(3) Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the education profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.
In prosecuting Count I, Petitioner relies on Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001, which sets forth the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida. Subsections (2) and (3) of the rule provide:
The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's
potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.
Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct.
Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006 is entitled Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida and it provides in relevant part, as follows:
The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law.
Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and /or physical health and /or safety.
The evidence, taken as a whole, demonstrated that Respondent's actions are misconduct in office. Peters' repetitive failure to adhere to her class schedule and failure to report to her assigned classes jeopardized the health, safety, and welfare of the children assigned to her care.
Peters misconduct was further demonstrated by her failure to protect the students from conditions harmful to learning. Respondent directly impaired the learning environment by not showing up and teaching her assignments. Respondent also failed to service the students' educational needs when she repetitively did not complete IEPs or record student grades and attendance records.
Therefore, the Petitioner has proven that Peters engaged in misconduct in office.
Gross Insubordination
Section 6B-4.009(4), Florida Administrative Code provides:
Gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties is defined as a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority.
Petitioner proved Respondent was given approximately
47 written directives for numerous violations of School Board policies and rules. Each successive directive was issued after Respondent refused to comply with the previously given directive. Out of those directives at least four were written reprimands from either the Morningside principal or assistant principal admonishing and specifically instructing Peters to follow Miami-Dade County School Board Rule 6GX13-4A-1.21,
Responsibilities and Duties; adhere to school site procedures; and adhere to assigned schedule as written.
Peters' constant and continuing intentional refusal to obey administrators' reasonable requests to adhere to her work schedule at least 25 times was gross insubordination. Further, Peters' defiant behavior of refusing to go to classroom 103 on or about May 18, 2009, and telling the principal, "No, I am not going" twice is even more egregious than her previous flagrant displays of gross insubordination.
Therefore, Petitioner has met its burden to demonstrate gross insubordination.
School Board Rules
Responsibilities and Duties
At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 has provided as follows:
Permanent Personnel RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES
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 workplace is expressly prohibited.
Peters' conduct, as described above, has been deemed inappropriate. Even after having received numerous written directives to uphold the School Board’s Responsibilities and Duties rule, Respondent failed to bring credit upon herself and the school system with her intentional inaction. Respondent acted contrary to the established school standards and impeded in the education of the students and operation of the school. Further, Peters' unseemly conduct was not suitable for the school for it impaired the administrators effectiveness in the school.
Therefore, Petitioner met its burden and showed how Peters' violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21.
Code of Ethics
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213 provides:
* * *
The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.
Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, students, parents, and other members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct.
As found above, the evidence demonstrates that Peters disregarded numerous reasonable directives and School Board rules and policies. Rules and policies are in place for a reason. Peters is not permitted to decide which ones, if any, she arbitrarily wants to follow or when she wants to follow them.
Petitioner demonstrated that Respondent failed to make her primary concern the development of her students' potential. The evidence shows that on numerous occasions Peters neither provided the students the services needed, nor supervised students when assigned because she was not following her assigned schedule. Further, Petitioner demonstrated that Peters' continuous pattern of failing to teach the students because of her frequent unexcused absences from her assigned classroom, and her repeated failure to complete students' IEPs, grade sheets, and attendance records were inappropriate actions. And, even after the Principal and Assistant Principal’s numerous efforts to try to get Respondent to follow the right principles of the school, Respondent never conformed to the standard behavior and continued to be unethical.
Therefore, Petitioner also demonstrated that Peters violated the Code of Ethics.
Petitioner has met its burden and proven it has just cause to discipline Peters in that her behavior was misconduct
in office and she was grossly insubordinate. Each of the four counts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges was proven in this matter.
Given the remarkable history of inappropriate behavior and the egregious nature of Peters' conduct, the undersigned finds it remarkable that the School Board is only proposing a
30-day suspension without pay. Under the circumstances found by the undersigned, the disciplinary action should be more severe than a 30-workday suspension without pay.
Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending Peters without pay for 30 days.
DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
JUNE C. McKINNEY
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2010.
1/ References herein to the Florida Statutes shall be to the 2009 edition unless otherwise indicated.
2/ There are many more disciplinary incidents that occurred during Peters employment at Morningside, but the undersigned chose to detail and highlight only some. Similar actions are grouped together.
3/ Peters' written directives to adhere to her work schedule as written included memorandums dated October 4, 2006, March 9,
October 17, 2009, January 15, 2009, March 4, 2009, and March 16, 2009. Respondent also received five CFRs on February 23, 2007, March 28, 2007, March 16, 2008, September 24, 2008, and February, 2009, that instructed Respondent to adhere to her written work schedule unless the changes were approved by the Principal or Assistant Principal. Each successive directive was issued in response to Peters' refusal to comply with the previously given directives.
4/ The reprimand also addressed Peters' not attending a scheduled Professional Learning Community and refusing to meet with the Principal on September 8, 2008. The reprimand directed Peters to attend all scheduled faculty meetings, department meetings, committee meetings, and all Professional Learning Communities meetings. Peters signed the reprimand on
September 25, 2008.
5/ Peters asserted during the hearing that she was never told to sign in and out. The Principal's testimony is held to be more credible since several written directives bolster the Principal's testimony by specifically instructing Peters as to the sign in and out policy.
6/ Respondent had been instructed about the School Board rule regarding Responsibilities and Duties in numerous previous written directives.
7/ The undersigned deems such an explanation unpersuasive. As a School Board employee Peters is required to comply with her
assigned duties and schedule whether she agrees or not and she had been warned as such numerous times.
8/ Such testimony is accorded little weight. Respondent’s feelings do not justify her purposely repetitively refusing to perform her job duties as instructed and assigned.
Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A.
29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110
Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Arianne B. Suarez, Esquire
Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board
Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education
Deborah K. Kearney, 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.
