STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-5985

)

RANDOLPH WILSON, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on April 20, 1994, in Largo, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Keith B. Martin, Esquire

Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 2942

Largo, Florida 34649

For Respondent: Mr. Randolph Wilson, pro se

1600 19th Avenue South

St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether cause exists for the Petitioner's proposed termination of the Respondent's employment for alleged misconduct occurring during bus driver training on September 21, 1993.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Respondent Randolph Wilson was employed as a bus driver trainee by the Petitioner School Board of Pinellas County.

By the Petitioner's letter dated October March 18, 1993, the Respondent was notified that he had been suspended with pay pending final action by the School Board. The letter stated that the action "is based on the fact that on September 21, 1993, you grabbed a female bus driver trainee in the groin and crotch as she participated in a bus evacuation drill. Your action constitutes misconduct and is a violation of School Board policy 6Gx52-7.12." The letter notified the Respondent of his right to a hearing. After the Respondent requested a formal hearing, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings.

At hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses and had exhibits numbered 1-2 admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of one witness, testified on his own behalf, had exhibits numbered 1-2 admitted into evidence.

No transcript of the hearing was filed. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders. Proposed findings of fact are ruled upon either directly or indirectly as reflected in this Recommended Order, and in the Appendix which is attached and hereby made a part of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On September 21, 1993, and at all times material to this case, Respondent Randolph Wilson (Respondent) was employed as a bus driver trainee by the Pinellas County School Board.

   
   

2. As part of the training provided to school bus drivers, instruction is given related to proper evacuation of busses during emergency conditions. After the evacuation procedure is discussed, the trainees participate in evacuation drills.

   
   

3. The Respondent was enrolled in the September 1993 driver training class.

   
   

4. As taught by the instructor during the September 1993 training class, standard procedure for evacuation of the bus is for the two trainees at the rear of the vehicle to exit through the rear emergency door and assist the remaining passengers out of the vehicle.

   
   

5. The evacuation assistants are instructed to stand to each side of the emergency exit with their backs to the bus and to face away from the exit. Each assistant extends the arm closest to the bus exit upwards and holds the hand, palm up, in a horizontal position. Each assistant uses the free arm to support the other arm by grasping it in the wrist or elbow area. This enables the exiting passengers to place their hands on the palms of each assistant for balance while exiting the vehicle.

   
   

6. The bus drills are conducted as quickly and safely as possible. The goal is to evacuate the vehicle within a period of 30 to 40 seconds.

   
   

7. The Respondent was present during the training session at which the bus evacuation procedure was discussed. The Respondent was chosen to sit at the rear of the bus and to be one of the two assistants during drills.

   
   

8. Martha Williams was in the bus training class with the Respondent and participated in the bus evacuation drills. During the relevant drill she was to be assisted in her exit by the Respondent.

   
   

9. As the drill began, the Respondent and the second assistant exited the vehicle and took up their positions. As the passengers exited the rear door, the Respondent stood to the left of the door and the second assistant stood to the right.

10. As Ms. Williams arrived at the rear exit, she placed her right hand onto the open palm of the second assistant, who was in proper position. As she looked for support to her left, the Respondent was out of the appropriate position. He had turned towards and was facing the door, standing diagonally to the left of the exit door. The Respondent's hand was not in position for her to brace herself.

    
    

11. The Respondent reached up with his right hand and grabbed Ms. Williams by her left hand. The Respondent placed his left hand on the inside of her left leg above her knee. Despite the improper support, and under the time pressure involved in completing a speedy evacuation, Ms. Williams jumped from the bus exit in a faltering manner.

    
    

12. As Ms. Williams jumped from the exit, the Respondent's hand moved from her knee, upwards along the inside of her thigh and towards her crotch.

    
    

13. When Ms. Williams landed on the ground, the Respondent's left hand remained at the upper part of her thigh and between her legs. She directed him to remove his hand and complained to him about his behavior.

    
    

14. Ms. Williams thereafter went to the course instructor and told him of her objection to the manner in which the Respondent had provided assistance to her during the drill. Within a short time after Ms. Williams complained, the instructor spoke to the Respondent about the matter.

    
    

15. The Respondent initially denied that he had placed his hand on Ms. Williams' leg, and then asserted that, because Ms. William's was a "big girl," he attempted to assist her with a "fireman's carry."

    
    

16. There is no evidence that the class received any instruction on a "fireman's carry." A "fireman's carry" is not part of the bus evacuation procedure taught to drivers. The assistants were not instructed to grab any part of an evacuee's body.

    
    

17. In assisting other trainees similar in size to Ms. Williams, the Respondent did not attempt to use a "fireman's carry" during the evacuation drill.

    
    

18. At the hearing, the Respondent denied that the incident occurred. The denial is not credible.

    
    

19. The Respondent's behavior during the incident constitutes misconduct serious enough to impair his effectiveness as a bus driver for school children being transported by bus to unit of the Pinellas County School System or to bring the service into disrepute.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

20. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

21. The employment of a non-instructional employee of the school board may be terminated for proper cause. Section 230.23(5)(f), Florida Statutes. In order to prevail, the Petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent's actions constitute proper cause for termination. Allen v. Dade County School Board, 571 So.2d 568 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).

22. The evidence establishes that on September 21, 1993, The Respondent grabbed a female bus driver trainee in the groin and crotch during a school bus evacuation drill. The Respondent did not follow the procedure taught by the driver training course instructor.

    
    

23. Pinellas County School Board policy 6Gx52-7.12(f) provides that misconduct, defined as conduct serious enough to impair the employee's effectiveness in the school district or which may bring the service of the School Board of Pinellas County into disrepute, is grounds for disciplinary action including dismissal.

    
    

24. The Respondent's behavior during the drill constitutes misconduct and is a violation of School Board policy 6Gx52-7.12.

    
    

25. Based on the evidence presented by the Petitioner, the Respondent's behavior during the incident constitutes misconduct serious enough to bring the service of the School Board of Pinellas County into disrepute and to impair his effectiveness as a bus driver for school children being transported by bus to units of the Pinellas County School System.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Randolph Wilson.

DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.

WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1994.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5985

The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties.

The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:

25-27. Rejected, unnecessary.

The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:

1. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Dr. J. Howard Hinesley, Superintendent School Board of Pinellas County

P. O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649

Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County School Board

P.O. Box 2942

Largo, Florida 34649

Mr. Randolph Wilson 1600 19th Avenue South

St. Petersburg, Florida 33712

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 93-005985

Orders for Case No: 93-005985