STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANGE )
COUNTY, FLORIDA, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 80-1884
)
RAZZI LUKE SMITH, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in this case on November 7 and 10, 1980, 1/ in Orlando, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: John W. Bowen, Esquire
217 North Eola Drive Post Office Box 3462 Orlando, Florida 32802
For Respondent: Julius Williams, Esquire
PILACEK, EGAN, COHEN & WILLIAMS
918 Lucerne Terrace Post Office Box 2969 Orlando, Florida 32806
ISSUE
The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner's, Orange County School Board, suspension without pay of Razzi Lee Smith from his position of classroom teacher is warranted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, posthearing briefs and memoranda, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found.
During times material to the allocations herein, Respondent, Razzi Lee Smith, was employed by the Petitioner, School Board of Orange County, Florida, as a classroom teacher at Rock Lake Elementary School. On October 7, 1980, Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay from his position as a teacher pending a hearing. Respondent requested a hearing pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 120.57(1) and 231.36, Florida Statutes (1979).
The charges upon which the suspension is based are, in summary fashion, that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office.
The specific charges are based upon the following grounds:
On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent twice refused a lawful and reasonable order of his Principal.
On or about September 24, 1980, Respondent threatened his Principal.
During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent evidenced in the presence of others, a continuing belligerent and hostile attitude towards his Principal.
During the months of August and September, 1980, Respondent failed to follow the established written procedures for calling in if he was to be late or not present.
5. On September 2, 19, 22, 24 and 25, 1980, Respondent failed to report to the school by 8:00 o'clock a.m. as required in the Faculty Handbook.
Additionally, Respondent was charged with misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty based upon the following grounds:
On August 29, 1980, Respondent was absent from his assigned work location at Rock Lake Elementary School.
On September 12, 1980, Respondent took sick leave for one half day claiming
that he was too sick to finish the school day at Rock Lake Elementary School but later attended a football game in Tampa, Florida.
On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave claiming to be too sick to teach at Rock Lake Elementary School but attended football practice at Jones High School as a coach.
On September 26, 1980, Respondent provided the Superintendent with a false oral statement, to wit, that he did
not leave to go to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, until
approximately 7:00 o'clock p.m., arriving at the game around half time at
8:30 p.m., when in fact Ice left to go to the game with the Jones High School football team.
Lois Begley has been the acting principal at Rock Lake Elementary School since approximately February, 1980. Upon assuming the duties of acting principal, Ms. Begley immediately advised teachers at Rock Lake to report for work at 8:00 o'clock a.m. and leave at 3:30 p.m. Petitioner has a policy whereby teachers who find it necessary to be absent must report such intentions
by 6:30 a.m. by notifying either Ms. Begley or an office employee at Rock Lake, Caroline Johnson. Respondent was advised of this policy; was warned of his breach of said policy on two occasions during February and March of 1980, and admitted that he was aware of the policy. (Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4 and
5) Ms. Begley stressed the need to know of a teacher's intended absence prior to 7:00 o'clock a.m. in order to recruit a substitute teacher. Subsequent to March, 1980, Respondent was again advised of Petitioner's policy respecting timely reporting for duty at Rock Lake Elementary School. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6)
During a faculty meeting held during the afternoon of the last day of preplanning, August 29, 1980, Ms. Begley observed that Respondent was not present. She inquired of Respondent's whereabouts and was advised by an office employee that Respondent had called and reported that he was experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley observed Respondent at Jones High School later that same afternoon.
During the last week of August, 1980, Respondent advised Ms. Begley that he had been leaving Rock Lake approximately one hour early each day during the preplanning week to assume coaching duties at Jones High and that this was cleared prior to Ms. Begley's tenure as acting principal at Rock Lake. Ms. Begley reluctantly agreed to Respondent's early departure during that school year, however, she made clear to Respondent that he would be expected to teach a full day the following year. Respondent and Ms. Begley made an agreement whereby he would report to work one half hour early, i.e., at 7:30 a.m., in order to make up for one half of the time lost due to his early departure from Rock Lake to coach at Jones High School. Respondent failed to report for duty at 7:30 a.m. as was his agreement with Ms. Begley.
September 2, 1980, was the first school day for students at Rock Lake. Respondent reported for work at approximately 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980, and several students were observed milling around in the hallways attempting to find Respondent to enter their homeroom class. Respondent called the office at Rock Lake at approximately 8:30 a.m. on September 2, and advised that he was again experiencing transportation problems. Ms. Begley offered to assist Respondent in getting a ride to school. Within minutes, Ms. Begley had located a ride for Respondent. Ms. Begley called to so advise Respondent, whereupon Respondent told Ms. Begley that he had found a ride. As stated, Respondent reported for duty at 9:00 a.m. on September 2, 1980.
Ms. Begley counselled Respondent regarding his claimed transportation problems again and stressed the reasons for her need to be alerted when he would be reporting late for work. Respondent generally discussed his problems with Ms. Begley on September 12, indicating that he was encountering personal problems that he did not care to divulge and that there were rumors about him being circulated around the school amongst other faculty members. Ms. Begley later discussed the problem regarding that fact that he had failed to make up
150 of the 300 minutes that he owed the School due to his early departure to coach at Jones High Sclcool during the week of preplanning.
Ms. Begley did not take disciplinary action against Respondent due to his lateness in reporting for duty on the first day of school.
Respondent requested the services of a substitute teacher to "fill in" for him during the afternoon of September 12, 1980, because he was ill. Respondent initially refused to divulge to school officials the nature of his
illness. He attended and coached a football game between Jones High School and a local high school in Tampa that night.
On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. As late as 8:30 a.m. on that day, several students were unable to get in class and Respondent failed to call to advise Ms. Begley or the designated official that he would report for work late. When questioned as to the reason for his tardiness by Ms. Begley, Respondent replied that he had earlier advised her that he was having transportation problems. Ms. Begley again counselled Respondent regarding his continued tardiness in reporting to work. At that time, he was also directed not to use school supplies to photocopy football plays for use at Jones High School without proper authorization.
On September 19, office aides, Ann Green and W. Oliver, work situs was in the immediate area where Respondent was counselled by Ms. Begley and were in earshot of the conversations. Respondent balked and became vocal about being counselled by Ms. Begley for reporting late. Ms. Begley reported the incident to Dr. Skaggs, Superintendent in charge of employee relations and Ron Blocker, Area Superintendent, who serves as a liaison between the superintendent and individual school principals. During the conference with Ms. Begley on September 19, Respondent voiced displeasure about the working conditions at Rock Lake and expressed a desire to transfer when Ms. Begley reported what she termed to be threatening remarks by Respondent to Dr. Skaggs.
On September 19, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:50 a.m. and was summoned for a conference with Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. During the conference, Respondent expressed disagreement or displeasure regarding the atmosphere in which he was being questioned and indicated that he preferred to leave. Respondent was warned of the consequences that might flow from his acts and conduct which could include either disciplinary action by way of a suspension or a failure to be reappointed for another term should he not heed the advice and warnings given him by his Principal, Ms. Begley. 2/
On September 22, 1980, Respondent reported for duty at approximately 8:14 a.m. Respondent did not call to advise Ms. Begley or the other designated official. Ms. Begley spoke to Respondent about his reporting tardy at approximately 2:00 p.m. on September 22, 1980. Present during the conference were Respondent, Ms. Begley and Ron Blocker. Respondent was invited to offer and explanation or statement with reference to his continued pattern of reporting for duty late, however, he refused to make any verbal response. Ms. Begley reduced the oral reprimand to writing and delivered it to Respondent who failed to accept or verify that he was issued a reprimand.
On September 23, 1980, Respondent took sick leave and, therefore, did not report for work at Rock Lake. On that same day, however, Ms. Begley observed respondent at the football field at Jones High School between the hours of 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. working with a small group of football players.
On the following day, September 24, 1980, Respondent reported for work at approximately 8:07 a.m. Ms. Begley summoned Respondent to a conference, explaining to him at the outset of the possible consequences that might result from the conference. Given the gravity of the possible consequences, Ms. Begley inquired if Respondent cared to bring a witness or other representatives to be present with him during the conference. During the conference, Ms. Begley advised Respondent that she regreted having to give him a written reprimand but that his acts and conduct gave her no alternative. A copy of a reprimand was then given Respondent which he refused to sign acknowledging acceptance
(Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7). The parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement requires that written reprimands respecting lateness or failure to report for work be documented by a letter to that effect (Petitioner's exhibits Nos. 8 and 9). Ms. Begley, then, during the conference, asked Respondent if she could be of any further assistance to him, whereupon, Respondent in a hostile manner advised that he did not need or want any assistance and began pointing his finger at Ms. Begley telling her to "leave him alone." Respondent was told by Ms. Begley that that kind of conduct (vocal and belligerent outbursts) could result in disciplinary action to him.
Ms. Begley inquired of Respondent what type leave he took on September 23, 1980, whereupon, Respondent advised that he went to see a doctor. Ms. Begley then asked Respondent to provide her with a doctor's statement to document that claim. Respondent never provided Ms. Begley with a medical excuse for his absence as requested.
Ms. Begley considered that Respondent's demeanor and mannerism during the conference of September 24, 1980, constituted a threat based on the tone of his voice and the message, i.e., "quit messing with me. Stop bothering me--I'll do more than threaten you" (when Ms. Begley asked Respondent if he was threatening her). She also considered that Respondent's failure to signify acceptance of the reprimand constituted a compromise of her authority. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, pages 22, 23). Respondent later discussed the decision to discipline Respondent and ultimately decided to recommend his dismissal to Superintendent Skaggs and Area Superintendent Blocker during the evening of September 25, 1980. The possibility of a transfer was considered by Ms. Begley but rejected inasmuch as she was of the opinion that a transfer would not serve any useful purpose in correcting the problems evidenced by Respondent's erratic work habits. Ms. Begley considered that her attempt to reprimand Respondent was ineffective and incomplete based on his refusal to sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the reprimand plus the combination of the insubordinate attitude displayed by him in the presence of his peers, his neglect of duty and tardiness in reporting for work, when combined, warranted a recommendation to the Superintendent that Respondent be dismissed as opposed to a transfer or some other lesser form of reprimand or discipline.
Ron Blocker, the area administrator and liaison between the Superintendent and the Principal were summoned to Rock Lake Elementary School to assist Ms. Begley in what was once thought to be a possible teacher resignation. During the conference on September 24, 1980, Administrator Blocker advised Respondent that his failure to sign for receipt of a written reprimand could have grave disciplinary consequences in view of the gravity of the charges and Respondent's hostile conduct as manifested throughout the conference. Administrator Blocker recalled the forceful tone used by Respondent in telling Ms. Begley that he was "doing more than threatening her."
Administrator Blocker also recalled Respondent's refusal to advise Begley of the reason for his absence the day prior to the conference indicating instead that she would know at the end of the work day. During the conference, Administrator Blocker recalled that he twice cautioned Respondent that his (Respondent's) refusal to follow an administrative directive may be interpreted as "gross insubordination" which could lead to possible termination or failure to be reappointed (as a teacher) the following school year.
Calvin Perry is Director of Drivers Education and is the head football coach at Jones High School. As head football coach, Coach Perry is familiar
with the duties of Respondent, a paid assistant coach assigned to coach the defensive team at Jones High School.
Coach Perry confirmed that Respondent was present at the September 12, 1980, game in Tampa indicating that Respondent was present during the pre-warm ups and was present throughout the entire game. Coach Perry credibly testified that Respondent was present for football practice on September 23, 1980, having reported at the start of practice at approximately 3:00 p.m. and remained throughout the practice session which lasted until approxiately 5:15 p.m. However, Coach Perry also acknowledged that Respondent indicated that Respondent was ill at the game in Tampa.
James L. Schott, Petitioner's Superintendent was shown copies of the letters sent to Respondent bearing the dates September 26, and October 4, 1980, respecting his suspension of Respondent without pay. Superintendent Schott explained that a conference was called to hear the nature of the charges; to hear both sides; to evaluate the evidence and determine the nature of, if any, recommended penalty he would make to the School Board, prior to making any recommendation based on the subject charges.
Superintendent Schott recalled that while Respondent explained that he was ill on September 12, 1980, he was able to attend a football game in Tampa although he arrived during halftime because he was not feeling well and was uncertain as to whether he would attend the game at all. Respondent maintained his "story" to Superintendent Schott about attending the Tampa game during halftime.
When Respondent advised Superintendent Schott that he also took sick leave on September 23, 1980, Superintendent Schott reminded Respondent of the similar situation by him on September 12, and, therefore, asked that he bring any documentary evidence of illness that he had so that it could be considered prior to his making any decision on the pending charges against him. Therefore, Superintendent Schott counselled Respondent regarding his failure to follow what he considered to have been lawful and reasonable requests regarding his attendance and timely reporting to work.
During the Superintendent's conference with Respondent on September 26, 1980, he determined that Respondent was late approximately 50 minutes on September 19; approximately 14 minutes on September 20th and several minutes late on September 21 and 22. On September 23, respondent was absent for work claiming sick leave. According to Superintendent Schott, Respondent acknowledged that he might have made a threat to Ms. Begley during the conference on September 24, 1980.
Superintendent Schott was able to independently determine from an investigation of the charges that Respondent had offered false information regarding his attendance to the football game in Tampa on September 12, 1980, inasmuch as other credible evidence indicated Respondent's presence at that game throughout its entirety.
After considerable deliberation, Superintendent Schott determined that termination was the only appropriate remedy that he should recommend to the full School Board to discipline Respondent. In making this decision, Superintendent Schott reflected on the facts that Respondent had obviously been terminated for failure to report to work as assigned and that to transfer Respondent would merely pass the problem to another Administrator to grapple with.
Superintendent Schott, after much consideration, made the decision to recommend
Respondent's termination without animosity and with much sensitivity to the problem based on the rapport that Respondent appeared to have with the youth and his peers at Rock Lake Elementary School. Superintendent Schott offered that teaching was more by example than by class room actions and that the responsibility of a teacher included getting to work promptly and was more than the usual duties expected once a teacher gets to class such as adding columns, deciphering words, reading etc.
RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE
Respondent is a 1975 graduate of South Carolina State College and as stated, has been employed as a sixth grade teacher at Rock lake since the 1979-
80 school year. While so employed, Respondent has been involved in several school related activities outside his normal teaching duties, including Chairman of the Student Council; contact or liaison for Career Education; Chairman of the Safety Patrol; Scout leader and CTA representative. 3/
Respondent admits to not returning for duty on August 29, 1980, as charged. However, he exclaimed that he encountered car trouble enroute to his mother's home for lunch and consequently had to walk a distance of approximately two miles.
Respondent also reported late for duty on September 2, due to transportation problems and did not arrive until approximately 8:45 a.m.
Respondent also left school on September 12, 1990, at approximately 12:50 p.m. due to illness. Respondent admitted that he attended the game in Tampa on the evening of September 12, 1980. Respondent explains that this was possible because his health improved from the nauseated condition that he had suffered earlier during the day.
Respondent rode to the game in Tampa with scouting coaches Smith and Robertson and arrived at the stadium in time for program warm-ups. 4/
Respondent also admitted reporting for work late on September 19 and 22, 1980.
Respondent refused to sign a statement acknowledging acceptance of the written reprimand by Ms. Begley on September 24, 1980, based on his claimed "lack of trust" for Ms. Begley. In this regard, however, Respondent admits that Ms. Begley explained to him that signing the statement attached to the reprimand in no way signified agreement with the contents of the reprimand.
Respondent claimed to have felt pressured to tell the Superintendent that he left Orlando at approximately 7:00 p.m. on the evening of September 12, 1980, and arrived at the game at halftime but that there was no willful attempt by him to misstate or otherwise misrepresent the facts to Superintendent Schott. The facts do not evidence a basis for Respondent's feeling. In this regard, Respondent admitted that he arrived at the game on September 12, 1980, before it started and remained for the duration of the game. Respondent did not verbally respond to inquiries by Ms. Begley during the conference with Ms. Begley and Area Superintendent Blocker because he considered Ms Begley's inquiry to be a form of harassment and an attempt by her to treat him as a "child."
Finally, Respondent considered that by telling Ms. Begley that he was initially experiencing transportation problems excused his reporting requirements when he subsequently reported for work late.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
The authority of the Petitioner is derived from Chapter 231, Florida Statutes.
Chapter 231.36(6), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that: ". . . any member of . . . the instruc-
tional staff . . . may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year; provided that the charges against him must be based on . . . misconduct in office . . . gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty "
Whenever such charges are made against an employee of the School Board, the School Board may suspend such person without pay, but if charges are not sustained he shall be immediately reinstated, and his back salary shall be paid. In cases of suspension by the School Board or by the Superintendent, the School Board shall determine upon the evidence submitted whether the charges have been sustained and, if said charges are sustained, either to dismiss that employee or fix the terms under which said employee may be reinstated. If such charges are sustained by a majority vote of the full membership of the School Board and such employee is discharged, his contract of employment shall be thereby cancelled.
Chapter 6B-4.09, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the criteria for suspension and dismissal of instructional personnel upon whom charges have been brought as set forth in Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes. Subsection
(3) of that Chapter provides that misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the education profession so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.
Subsection (4) thereof, provides that gross insubordination or wilfull neglect of duty is defined as a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority. In this regard, Respondent, an annual contract teacher is subject to the above cited rule criteria and the specific authority set forth in Chapter 231.36, Florida Statutes. Ms. Begley, the acting principal was Respondent's supervisor and was authorized to issue direct orders with proper authority. Without question, Respondent was aware of the School Board's policy with respect to reporting for work. In fact, Respondent had been repeatedly warned of his prior breaches of the reporting policy by his superior, Ms. Begley. Despite these breaches of the reportinq requirements, Respondent during August and September, 1980, consistently and continuously refused to obey his responsibility of reporting to work on time. As such, Respondent willfully neglected his duties in violation of Chapter 231.36(6), Florida Statutes, and violated reasonable, authorized, direct orders of his Principal in contravention of Chapter 6B-4.09(4), Florida Administrative Code.
In addition, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association, Inc., and the Petitioner contains a provision which requires that letters of reprimand and/or complaints shall not be placed in a teacher's personnel or school file unless the teacher has had the opportunity to review such material by affixing his signature to the copy to be filed with the express understanding that such signature in no way indicates agreement with the contents thereof. Anonymous items may not be placed in a teacher's personnel file. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8) In this regard, Respondent's refusal to affix his signature to the reprimand which Ms. Begley attempted to issue him was thwarted by his actions and amounted to a refusal by Respondent to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority as provided in Chapter 6B-4.09(4), Florida Administrative Code. 5/ As such, Respondent's conduct amounts to gross insubordination violative of Chapter 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Respondent's refusal to provide Ms. Begley with a written doctor's excuse to support his claimed illness also represents a refusal by Respondent to obey a direct order amounting to gross insubordination within the meaning of Chapter 6B-4.09(4), Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 231.36(6), Florida Statutes. 6/
As stated above, misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the education profession so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system. In this regard, the preamble to the Code of Ethics which is set forth in Chanter 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part that "the educator . . . recognizes the supreme importance of the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence and the nurture of democratic citizenship. He regards as essential to these goals, the protection of freedom to learn and teach and the guarantee of equal educational opportunity for all. The educator accepts [the] responsibility to practice his profession according to the highest ethical standards." (Emphasis added) In this regard, Respondent's conduct as set forth herein above in the Facts section reveals that Respondent was less than truthful when he reported to the Superintendent that he did not arrive at the Tampa game on September 12, 1980, until approximately half time. Additionally, Respondent's repeated failure to report timely for work provides a reasonable basis to conclude that he foiled to accept his responsibility to practice his profession as he is required in Chapter 6B-1.81, Florida Administrative Code. As such, Respondent, based on a preponderance of the evidence introduced herein, is guilty of misconduct in office as set forth in Chapter 231.26(6), Florida Statutes, and defined in Chapter 6B-4.09(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Chapter 6B-4.05 sets forth the criteria for the transfer of instructional personnel. That criteria provides in pertinent part that "recommendations for transfers shall be based on professional reasons and should be for the good of the school system with appropriate consideration given to the rights and wishes of the indivdual being transferred.
In view of Respondent's egregious conduct and actions as set forth hereinabove, there is no reasonable basis upon which a conclusion can be drawn that a transfer of Respondent to another school would have been based on personal reasons or would have been for the good of the school system in keeping with the rights and wishes of Respondent. Respondent's difficulties were not the result of personal differences. In fact, the weight of the evidence tends to support a conclusion that the transfer of Respondent to another school would have created additional problems or at host would have merely transferred the problem in view of the compromise which Ms. Begley had entered with Respondent
by allowing him to leave his regular teaching duties one hour early to coach at Jones High. This could have indeed worked a hardship on any school that Respondent was transferred to in view of the fact that the reporting requirement appeared to have been uniform throughout the school system and it is expected that all teachers timely report for work and follow reasonable direct orders given them by their respective principals. Accordingly, it is concluded that a transfer of Respondent to another school would not have served any useful purpose in view of his conduct as set forth herein.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby,
RECOMMENDED:
That Respondent be dismissed as an instructional employee of the Orange County School System.
RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.
JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
ENDNOTES
1/ The parties waived the thirty (30) day requirement for issuance of the Recommended Order as set forth in Chapter 28-5.402, Florida Administrative Code.
2/ The conference with Superintendent Blocker followed an earlier conference (that same day) with Respondent and Ms. Begley. During that conference, after Ms. Begley inquired of Respondent, the reason for his continued tardiness in reporting for work, Respondent in an angry and indignant tone of voice, shouted that he did not need the job; that Ms. Begley could find herself another teacher and that she should not talk to him like a little boy. Based on Respondent's attitude and the uncertainty as to whether he was resigning his position, Ms Begley sought the assistance of Area Superintendent Blocker.
3/ As a CTA representative, Respondent, in fulfilling the duties of the representative, is expected to know the operative provisions or the party's Collective Bargaining Agreement as related to employee rights, responsibilities and duties.
4/ To the extent that Respondent's testimony differs from the version testified to by Coach Perry, that version of testimony offered by Coach Perry is credited based on numerous inconsistencies in Respondent's testimony. Also, neither Coach Smith nor Coach Robertson appeared to corroborate or otherwise explain the inconsistencies between Respondent's testimony and the credited portion of Coach Perry's testimony to the effect that Respondent was present throughout the September 12, 1980, football game in Tampa, Florida. Respondent's testimony is also suspect in that he claimed to have left school during the afternoon of
September 12, 1980, because he felt ill and his later testimony indicates that when he left the school, he stopped by a sporting goods store to purchase an outfit.
5/ Respondent's claimed refusal to affix his signature to the referenced written reprimand is unpersuasive in view of his duties as CTA buildinq representative who, as such, is charged with ensuring that his rights and those of his fellow profes- sionals provided under the Collective Bargaining Agreement are protected.
6/ Although Respondent tendered an excuse which was purportedly prepared by Dr. Harrison to substantiate the sick leave taken on September 12 and 23, 1980, that document merely provided that he (Dr. Harrison) had attended Respondent on the days in question without any indication as to the nature of the alleged illness. Significantly, that excuse further indicated that Dr. Harrison requested that Respondent "stay home on those days. "Given Respondent's actions on the 12th of September and the doctor's directive the stay at home, cast doubts on whether or not Respondent was actually feigning sickness in view of the other inconsistencies based on his other actions on that day.
COPIES FURNISHED:
John W. Bowen, Esquire
217 North Eola Drive Post Office Box 3462 Orlando, Florida 32082
Julius Williams, Esquire PILACEK, EGAN, COHEN
& WILLIAMS
918 Lucerne Terrace Post Office Box 296 Orlando, Florida 32806
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 17, 1981 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 17, 1981 | Recommended Order | Dismissal recommended for willful neglect of duty and charge of misconduct including leave violations, belligerence and refusal to obey orders. |
