STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF ALACHUA COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 86-0488
)
LEO WILLIE JOHNSON, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Final Hearing in the above-styled case was held on June 17, 1986, in Gainesville, Florida, before Mary Clark, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Thomas L. Wittmer, Esquire
School Board of Alachua County 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
For Respondent: Leo Willie Johnson
1209 Northeast 17 Terrace
Gainesville, Florida 32601
By letter dated January 22, 1986, Respondent was notified that he was suspended without pay as custodian at Citizens Field. He responded with a timely request for hearing on whether he should be terminated by the School Board. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the School Board.
At the hearing Petitioner presented its case through four witnesses and Exhibits #1-22. Respondent presented the testimony of three witnesses and submitted Exhibits #R-1 through R-12, of which two, #R-7 and #R-11 were withdrawn; and one, #R-4, was partially rejected as irrelevant (the Notice of Decision of Appeals Referee dated October 8, 1985).
After the hearing Petitioner submitted a brief and proposed recommended order with proposed findings of fact. Respondent submitted his written final argument and a document dated June 30, 1986, an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission. This latter document was not considered as it is additional evidence prohibited by the instructions given at the close of hearing (tr-210). All other submittals were carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order and Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in an abbreviated form in the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Leo Willie Johnson commenced work as a custodian at Citizens Field on September 23, 1985, under inauspicious circumstances. For reasons not germane to this proceeding he had been discharged as a school bus driver and was reinstated by the Superintendent. As part of the reinstatement he was transferred from the Transportation Department to a custodial position. Since he didn't want a full-time position and the Citizen's Field assignment was part- time, he was assigned to that site. (tr-16, 127, Exhibit #R-2)
Citizen's Field is a football stadium owned by the City of Gainesville and leased by the Alachua County School Board (SBAC). There are two concrete bleachers, an east side and a west side, accommodating a total of 6500 persons. The fall months are extremely busy with frequent football games and some use of the field by the City of Gainesville. (tr-16, 39, 70, 73)
On Mr. Johnson's first day of work he was given a brief orientation to the job by his immediate supervisor, Dave Waters, who has been in charge of maintenance of Citizens Field for 26 years. He was also given a "pep" talk by Kirby Stewart, who is Mr. Waters' supervisor and the individual in charge of health education, drivers education and athletics for the SBAC. Mr. Stewart told Willie Johnson the work would be hard but rewarding, since parents, students and administrators are quick to acknowledge how great the field looks. (tr-16, 17, 69, 70)
Mr. Johnson's assigned work day was from 8:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a 10-minute break at 10:00 a.m. His duties included general cleaning and field maintenance: using a blower to remove papers and trash from the bleachers, sweeping the restrooms and walks, removing paper from the ground, raking, and similar functions. None of the duties required training or preparation on the part of the worker. (tr- 17, 38, 48)
From the first day on the job, Leo Johnson's performance was substandard, and by his words and actions he made it clear that he was not remotely interested in fulfilling his duties.
On September 23, 1986, he spent his entire work day using the blower to clean the east bleachers. He accomplished in five hours what an experienced worker could do in forty-five minutes and an inexperienced worker could do in two hours. (tr- 17-18, 71, Exhibit #P-1)
On September 24, 1986, he spent five hours cleaning the restrooms, a concession stand and one locker room. In Dave Waters' opinion, based upon twenty-six years experience and the supervision of many different workers, these tasks should take a new man approximately two hours. (tr-18)
On the third day, Leo Johnson spent four hours washing out two bathrooms and one locker room. He then sprayed out one restroom with a waterhose. At 12:30 Dave Waters gave him a short, fifteen minute assignment, but he laid down his tools and walked away. He returned after about fifteen minutes and Dave Waters told him that he must keep working until his work time was up. Mr. Johnson responded that there was too much work to do, that he didn't think the job would work out for him and that he would talk to Mr. Griffin in personnel about another assignment. He then left the work site. (tr-18-20, Exhibit #P-1)
Tile next two days, Mr. Johnson was cut on sick leave. He came to work on Monday, September 30th, but left after two hours. He was out then until Monday, October 14th and worked four full days Friday, the 18th was a Homecoming holiday. He was not very productive that week as he had a portable radio plugged into his ears. Dave Waters asked him to remove the earphone so that he could give him instructions, but he replaced it later. (tr-21-23)
Because of the concerns expressed by both Dave Waters and the employee, Wilfred Griffin (Career Service Specialist, and the School Board Superintendent met with Mr. Johnson on October 2, 1985. Mr. Johnson was told again the duties of his job and was told that he was expected to carry out those duties. Mr. Johnson complained about having problems with his feet due to having to stand in water. Later, when Mr. Griffin had the safety officer investigate to see if boots should be purchased, the report back to him was that the field had good drainage and there was no standing water. In addition, boots had already been made available to the workers. (tr-l28-129)
At Mr. Griffin's direction, On October 7, 1985, Kirby Stewart asked Mr. Johnson to bring in a note from his doctor. Mr. Johnson replied that it would be "no problem". Thereafter, Kirby Stewart repeated the request on several occasions. The only thing he received was a note from the A.C.O.R.N. Clinic secretary that Leo Johnson was examined on October 8, 1985. (tr-74, Exhibit #P-7, and #P-17)
On Monday, October 21, 1985, Mr. Johnson worked four and a half hours. He left the work site without permission for 30 minutes. When he returned and was told by Dave Waters that he was not to leave without permission, he replied that he would leave and sign out whenever he wanted and would not change his work pace for anyone. Later that same day, Kirby Stewart came to the work site since Dave Waters had called to tell him that Leo Johnson left. Mr. Stewart reminded Mr. Johnson about the doctor's note and he wanted to leave immediately to go get it. He and Mr. Stewart walked the grounds while Mr. Stewart pointed out areas where his work was not satisfactory. Leo Johnson replied in a loud and abusive manner that "I beat the transportation department, and now ... [he didn't finish the sentence]" (tr-25,26,27, 113-115, 118, Exhibits #P-7 and P-13)
Mr. Johnson did not return to work until December 12, 1985. In the meantime he called in sick every day. He was reminded several times that a doctor's note was required and he responded that the doctor would call. The doctor did not call. He complained of headaches, backaches and swollen feet. Yet on payday, November 27th, he was observed by Mr. Stewart jogging into the Administration building to get his paycheck. (tr-27, 28, 82, Exhibits #P-7, P- 15)
When Mr. Johnson appeared for work on December 12, 1985, Mr. Waters gave him the message that he must go see Kirby Stewart. He called Kirby Stewart instead, and was told that since he missed so many days Kirby Stewart needed to talk with him about whether he was physically able to work. Leo Johnson did not go to see Kirby Stewart. Mr. Stewart wrote a memo to Wilfred Griffin detailing the call from Leo Johnson and expressing his need for a resolution of the problems. (Exhibit #P-9)
By January 6, 1986, after the holiday break, Mr. Johnson had the impression that he was dismissed. While the record is not at all clear who told him that, Kirby Stewart also thought that Leo Johnson was dismissed as of December 20, 1985 (tr.100, Exhibit #R-6(e))
On January 6, 1986, Leo Johnson called School Board member, Charles Chestnut III, to complain that he was discharged. Charles Chestnut called the School superintendent, Dr. MaGann, who said that It must be a mistake because he didn't know anything about it. Charles Chestnut had been involved in the earlier disciplinary action that the superintendent corrected regarding Leo Johnson. Mr. Chestnut had no personal knowledge regarding Leo Johnson's performance. (tr-174-177)
Leo Johnson returned to work at Citizen's Field on January 13, 1986. He took numerous breaks and left in his car at one point during the work day. He was absent for approximately 20 minutes. When he was told to hoe the grass under the bleachers he dragged an iron rake around the area with the teeth up. He put away his tools early and left before 1:00 p.m.. (tr. 30-34)
On Tuesday, January 14, 1986, Leo Johnson was also at work but took breaks frequently all day. (tr.34-36)
On Wednesday, January 15, 1986, Leo Johnson came to work at 8:00 a.m. Between 8:00 and 10:27, he worked 92 minutes and took breaks totaling 55 minutes. He left at 10:27 after telling Dave Waters that he had a headache. (tr-37) Kirby Stewart saw him at the County Office around 11:00 a.m. and asked why he was there. He replied that the had come to see Wil Griffin because his feet were too swollen to work. (tr.89) On January 17th, Kirby Stewart wrote a memo to his supervisor, Jack Christian reiterating the numerous problems with Leo Johnson and stating that had Mr. Johnson returned to work that morning, he would have officially reprimanded him. (Exhibit #R-10)
Leo Johnson never returned to Citizens Field, and on January 21, 1986 he was suspended pending a hearing on his termination. (Exhibit #P-14)
Between September 23, 1985 and January 21, 1986, there were a total of
73 school board work days. Leo Johnson was at work for 8 full days, was present for 4 partial days and was absent for 61 full days. (tr. 90-91, Exhibit #P-15)
Mr. Johnson was a regular, part-time career service employee of SBAC while he was assigned to citizen's Field. Wilfred Griffin, a Career Service Specialist had the authority to interview, recruit, hire, fire and counsel career service employees. While Dave Waters was responsible for directing Johnson's work in the field and Kirby Stewart was Mr. Johnson's supervisor for administrative purposes, Wilfred: Griffin had the most substantial authority over this employee. As revealed by the record, both Superintendent MaGann and a school board member, Charles Chestnut III, had hand in dealing with Leo Johnson. This complicated hierarchy contributed to confusion and delays but did not prejudice or result in detriment to Mr. Johnson.
He used the 57 sick days he transferred from the Department of Transportation, plus the days he earned on the payroll for his time assigned at Citizen's Field and ended with a full paycheck for the month of January.
Despite repeated requests by Kirby Stewart and Wilford Griffin, Leo Johnson never produced a doctor's statement explaining his protracted absences. At the hearing he produced a photocopy of an "Illness-in-line-of-duty-leave" form with two lines completed by a Dr. Guido, whom Mr. Johnson contended was a
foot doctor. The form is dated and signed by Leo Johnson on January 15, 1986, but the form is incomplete and there is no evidence that anyone at the school board has ever seen it. (tr- 212, 213) Further, the almost illegible statement by the doctor appears to be a diagnosis with nothing about Mr. Johnson's ability to work. (Exhibit #R-9)
The verification of his visits to A.C.O.R.N. Clinic provide no information about his ability to work. By letter dated February 25, 1986, Bonnie Coats, RN, the clinic coordinator, responded to Mr. Johnson's request for the dates and reasons for his clinic visits. They are as follows:
08/23/83 Physical Exam for Work 08/07/84 Physical Exam for Work 10/08/85 1. Dizziness
Calluses of feet
Muscle Spasm
08/22/85 Blood Pressure evaluation 11/19/85 Blood Pressure evaluation 11/26/85 Blood Pressure evaluation 12/10/85 Blood Pressure evaluation
(Exhibit #R-5(b))
Leo Johnson had ample notice of his deficient performance, although none in the supervisory chain wrote up a Job Performance Warning Record. Dave Waters did not because Mr. Johnson simply was not on the job enough. (tr-58) Kirby Stewart intended to formalize his complaints in an official reprimand, but Mr. Johnson failed to return to work again. (Exhibit #P-13)
Wilfred Griffin orally warned Mr. Johnson about his job performance, leaving the job, excessive breaks and absenteeism. He met with Mr. Johnson on six or seven occasions and shared with him the detailed written memos about his work from Dave Waters and Kirby Stewart. (tr-129, 130, 154, 155)
As a career service employee Leo Johnson was subject to the rights and responsibilities found in the SBAC Career Service Employee Handbook. (Exhibit #P-18) Leo Johnson was thoroughly familiar with the provisions of the handbook.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
The SSAC has statutory authority to suspend or dismiss instructional staff and other school employees. Section 230.23(5)(f), Florida Statutes.
The SBAC is a "public employer" as defined in Section 447.203(2) Florida Statutes, and has the right to direct its employees, take disciplinary action for proper cause and relieve its employees from duty for legitimate reasons. Section 447.209, Florida Statutes, Jacker v. School Board of Dade County 426 So 2nd 1149 (Fla App. 3rd DCA 1983)
Preponderance of the evidence is the standard applied in reviewing sufficiency of evidence proffered to support discharge of a public employee. South Florida Water Management District v. Caluwe, 459 So 2nd 390 (Fla. App. 4th DCA 1984)
The SBAC met its burden of proving that Leo Johnson:
performed unsatisfactory work;
took excessive unauthorized breaks;
left work without authorization; and
was excessively absent from work.
The prior rulings with regard to Mr. Johnson's eligibility for unemployment compensation as a result of his January 1986 suspension are neither binding nor relevant to the instant proceeding. The standard for misconduct contained in the Unemployment Compensation law is different and more stringent than the standard for "proper cause" for dismissal applied here. See State of Florida, Department of HRS v. Vernon, 379 So 2nd 683 (Fla App 2nd DCA 1980)
Mr. Johnson argues that he cannot be discharged because he was never warned in writing of his shortcomings. He bases this contention on the following provision of the SBAC Career Service Handbook:
Evaluations
Career service personnel will be evaluated annually by their immediate supervisor.
The evaluation will be in writing and will be placed in the employee's personnel file.
Assessments will be shared privately with each employee. Employees will sign the assessment indicating only that the assessment has been read. Employees will be given an opportunity to refute, in writing, any statements made and to have the refuted statements attached to the assessment.
When an employee is identified by the supervisor as needing improvement, a Job Performance Warning Record will be completed by the supervisor, discussed with the em- ployee, and signed by the employee and
the supervisor. (Exhibit #P-18, pgs 6-7)
Nothing in the Handbook requires a Job Performance Warning Record as a condition precedent to suspension and dismissal. An employee is entitled to adequate notice of charges. Jacker, supra. Leo Johnson had ample notice of his employer's concern through the continuous discussions with Dave Waters, Kirby Stewart and Wilfred Griffin. He saw the detailed memos written by Dave Waters and Kirby Stewart. The letter of suspension by Wilfred Griffin was specific and unambiguous.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED:
That the School Board of Alachua County issue a Final Order finding Leo Willie Johnson guilty of the charges in the January 22, 1986, letter of suspension and terminating his employment.
DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of August, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida.
MARY CLARK
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1986.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Thomas L. Wittmer, Esquire Staff Attorney
School Board of Alachua County 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
Leo Willie Johnson
1209 Northeast 17 Terrace
Gainesville, Florida 32601
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
================================================================= BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
SCHOOL BOARD OF ALACHUA COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) DOAH Case No. 86-0488
) School Board Case No. 86-1
LEO WILLIE JOHNSON, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
THIS CAUSE, having come on for hearing before the School Board of Alachua County, Florida, at its special meeting on December 2, 1986, and the Board having received and reviewed the Recommended Order of the Division of
Administrative Hearing Officer, Mary Clark, the Respondent's Exceptions to Recommended Order, and the Board having heard additional argument from the Respondent and the attorney representing the Superintendent of Schools, over a two (2) hour period, and being legally advised by its own attorney, did, at said meeting, consider all of such Exceptions and thereupon voted on and announced its ruling, as hereinafter provided. This Final Order is being adopted by the School Board at its regular meeting held on this day, after the same has been prepared in writing based upon such announced rulings.
IT IS THEREUPON ORDERED by the School Board of Alachua County, Florida, that:
The exception to paragraph 1 is denied. The Board finds no evidence in the record that the Respondent's placement at Citizens Field was due to the settlement of a grievance, The findings of paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order are supported by testimony of Dave Waters at page 16 that Respondent began work at Citizens Field on September 23, 1985, and by testimony of Wil Griffin at page
127 that Respondent chose the part-time position at Citizens Field instead of a full-time position, Additionally, Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 states that the Respondent was reinstated and administratively assigned to Citizens Field. However, the Board deletes from lines 2 and 3 of paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order the words "under inauspicious circumstances," since there is not competent substantial evidence in the record to support the finding.
The exception to paragraph 3 is denied. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's findings. Mr. Waters testified at pages 16 and 17 as to his qualifications and work experience at Citizens Field and his explanation of the job to the Respondent. Dr. Stewart testified at page 70 that he also explained the job to the Respondent. The record does not show either that Mr. Waters' qualifications were questioned at the hearing, or that Mr. Waters felt threatened or intimidated by the Respondent
The exception to paragraph 5 is denied. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's findings. The supervisor, Mr. Waters, testified at pages 17-20 of the specific tasks assigned to the Respondent during his first three days, and of the time spent on each task. The supervisor testified that the Respondent himself told him that he did not want to work at Citizens Field, at page 20. The testimony of Mr. Waters, at page 38, and Mr. Griffin, at page 135, that Mr. Johnson was able to perform the work required, is unrebutted in the record. The second paragraph of the exception to paragraph 5 is not responsive to any finding made by the Hearing Officer in paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order.
The exception to paragraph 7 is denied. There is competent Substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's findings. Mr. Griffin testified at page 128 that the subject of the meeting on October 2, 1985, was the Respondent's assignment at Citizens Field and the duties and expectations at the assignment Mr. Griffin also testified at page 127 as to the question about standing water. This evidence was unrebutted at the hearing.
The exception to paragraph 8 is denied. Dr. Stewart's testimony at pages 74 and 75 and Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 7 and 17 establish that the Respondent was asked several times to bring in a doctor's note, that the Respondent indicated it would be "no problem," but that a doctor's note was never received. This evidence supports the Hearing Officer's findings, and was unrebutted in the record.
The exception to paragraph 9 is denied. The findings of the Hearing Officer are Supported by Mr. Waters' testimony at pages 25 and 26 regarding the Respondent's work times, his leaving in his car, and the conversation with Respondent upon his return, and Dr. Stewart's testimony at pages 113 to 115 regarding his visit to Citizens Field and his conversation with the Respondent Such testimony reflects competent substantial evidence in the record which supports the findings of the Hearing Officer.
The exception to paragraph 10 is denied. The testimony of Mr. Waters at pages 27 and 28 supports the Hearing Officer's findings as to the Respondent's dates on the job. The testimony of Kirby Stewart at pages 74 and
78 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 support the Hearing Officer's findings as to the requests for a doctor's note, and the testimony on page 82 supports the finding as to the Respondent's jogging on November 27, 1985. Kirby Stewart's testimony at pages 79-80 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9 support the findings in the second part of paragraph 10.
The exception to paragraph 11 is denied. The record contains competent substantial evidence which would support the findings of the Hearing Officer, although they are not particularly relevant to the issues. The Respondent's testimony at page 162 indicates that after the holiday break he had the impression he had been dismissed. Dr. Stewart's testimony at page 100 was that he also believed the Respondent has been dismissed. The testimony of Charles S. Chestnut, III, at pages 174 to 176 fully supports the findings in the second part of paragraph 11.
The exception to paragraph 12 is denied. Respondent was present at the work site as testified by Dave Waters at page 29. The record contains competent substantial evidence that the Respondent took numerous unauthorized breaks throughout the day, in the testimony of Dave Waters at pages 30, 31, 32, 34 and Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 3, 12 and 13. The testimony of Dave Waters at page 30 supports the finding that the Respondent left in his car during the work day for approximately 20 minutes. The testimony of Dave Waters at page 33 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 support the finding as to the Respondent's way of raking or hoeing the grass.
The exception to paragraph 13 is denied. The record contains competent Substantial evidence in Mr. Waters' testimony at pages 35 and 36 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 which support the findings of the Hearing Officer. The record shows that during one 90-minute period, the Respondent only worked 40 minutes and took breaks during the other 50, and that this was typical of his work pattern.
The exception to paragraph 14 is denied. Mr. Waters' testimony at page 37 and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 support the finding as to the amount of time Respondent was at work and on breaks, and that Respondent left work at 10:27 a.m. The testimony of Kirby Stewart at page 89 supports the finding that Dr. Stewart saw Respondent at the county office that morning and that Respondent stated his feet were swollen. Respondent's Exhibit No. 10 (also Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13) is the memo of January 17 referred to in paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order.
The exception to paragraph 18 is denied. The findings that there were repeated requests made to the Respondent for a doctor's note and that none was ever produced are Supported by Kirby Stewart's testimony at pages 74, 75, 76, 79 and 90, Wil Griffin's testimony at page 130, and Petitioners Exhibit No, 7. Further, there was evidence that the "illness-in-line-of-duty- leave-form,"
Respondent's Exhibit No. 9, had not been received by school personnel, in the testimony of Kirby Stewart at page 124 and Wil Griffin at page 212. The verification of Respondent's visits to the A.C.O.R.N. Clinic appears in Respondent's Exhibit No. 5(b), a portion of which is accurately set forth in the Hearing Officer's findings.
The exception to paragraph 19 is denied. The finding that the Respondent had ample notice of his deficient performance is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Dave Waters testified of the times he had asked Respondent to complete his jobs and warned him about his performance at pages 20, 23, 25 and 26. Kirby Stewart testified of his going to Citizens Field on October 21 and pointing out specific deficiencies in the way Respondent fulfilled his duties at pages 113 and 114. Wil Griffin testified at page 128 that he had met with Respondent and the Superintendent on October 2 and specifically discussed the duties and expectations on the job. In addition, Wil Griffin testified at pages 129, 130, and 148 that he had met with and counseled the Respondent on October 3, November 18, January 6, January 8, and January 10. Wil Griffin testified at page 154 that he had shared with the Respondent copies of all the memos pertaining to work performance and absenteeism and excessive unauthorized breaks.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Respondent excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion in paragraph 5 that the Petitioner met its burden of proving the charges.
The finding that Respondent performed his work in an unsatisfactory way is substantiated by the testimony of Mr. Waters at pages 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 27, 32 and 33; by the testimony of Kirby Stewart at pages 77, 78, 85, 86, 87, 109 and 202; by the testimony of Jim Weeks at page 64; and by Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 14. The Board denies Respondent's exception to the conclusion in Sub-paragraph 5a).
The finding that Respondent took excessive Unauthorized breaks is Substantiated by the testimony of Mr. Waters at pages 19, 20, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36 and 37; by the testimony of Mr. Weeks at page 64; by the testimony of Kirby Stewart at page 84, 85 and 86; and by Petitioners Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Board denies Respondents exception to the conclusion in Sub-paragraph 5b).
The finding that the Respondent left work without authorization is Substantiated by the testimony of Mr. Waters at page 20, 21, 26, 30 and 34, and by Petitioners exhibit Nos. 1 2, 3, 4, 13 and 15. The record shows at page 20 that the Respondent had been told by his supervisor about the employer's policy forbidding such leaving during working hours. The Board denies the Respondent's exception to the conclusion in Sub-paragraph 5c).
The Board finds that, although it is clear that the Respondent was absent from work during the majority of
the time he was assigned to Citizens Field, the record also shows that he was paid for an accumulated 57 days of sick leave. The Respondent claimed that he was sick during that time, and no finding was made by the Hearing Officer that the Respondent was not sick during those 57 days. There- fore, the School Board concludes that Respondent was not
excessively absent from work, and amends the hearing Officer's conclusion in paragraph 5 to omit the charge in Subparagraph d) "was excessively absent from work."
The Respondent excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion in paragraph 6 that the standard for misconduct which applies to unemployment compensation proceedings is different from the standard for "proper cause" in this proceeding. Respondent has apparently assumed it is he who has the burden of proof, and that if he met a more stringent standard in the unemployment compensation case, he should be able to meet a less stringent standard in the termination case. Respondent has misconstrued the Hearing Officer's conclusion, since it is the Petitioner who has the burden of proof. The Board concludes that the law of this state is that different standards do obtain, and therefore Respondent's exception to paragraph 6 is denied.
The Respondent excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion in paragraph 7 that a written job performance warning record was not required in this case. The Board concludes that the Career Service Employees' Handbook, which applied to this case, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 18, did not require a written Job Performance Warning Record as a condition precedent to suspension and dismissal and therefore, the Board denies the exception to this conclusion of the Hearing Officer. However, the Board believes that such a written warning would have been useful.
The Recommended Order dated August 10, 1986, as modified herein, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, be and the same is hereby adopted as the Final Order of the School Board.
The Respondent, Leo Willie Johnson, is hereby dismissed as an employee of the School Board of Alachua County, effective January 21, 1986.
DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of December, 1986.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: Charles S. Chestnut III Chairman
This Final Order was filed with me on this 17th day of December, 1986 and conformed copies of the same were furnished to the parties on said date by regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid.
Douglas P. Magann, Clerk of the Board
COPIES FURNISHED:
Douglas P. Magann, Superintendent of Schools School Board of Alachua County
620 E. University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601
Leo Willie Johnson 1209 SE 17 Terrace
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Division of Administrative Hearings Attention: Mary Clark, Hearing Officer Oakland Building, 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
All parties are hereby notified that either party has the right of judicial review of the Final Order in accordance with Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. If a party determines to appeal the Final Order, the Proceeding for review shall be instituted by filing a petition in the First District Court of Appeal, Tallahassee, Florida, within thirty (30) days after rendition of the Final Order, which occurred on the date such Final Order was filed with the Clerk as set forth on the immediately Preceding page. All review Proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida Appellate Rules.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 20, 1986 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 16, 1986 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 20, 1986 | Recommended Order | Employee properly disciplined for unsatisfactory work, excessive absences, leaving work without authority. |
LEONARD D. JACKSON vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, 86-000488 (1986)
MICHAEL SIMMONS vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 86-000488 (1986)
MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 86-000488 (1986)
EMILY D. MCGEE vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 86-000488 (1986)
EDWIN DANIEL STEVENS vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, 86-000488 (1986)
