STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 95-2884

)

TINA KING, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Hearing Officer, Joyous D. Parrish, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on October 31, 1995. The parties were to appear by videoteleconference from West Palm Beach with the Hearing Officer in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Lee M. Rosenberg

School District of Palm Beach County Office of the General Counsel

3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406

For Respondent: No appearance.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The central issue in this case is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment with the school district.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on April 19, 1995, when the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida (Board) initiated proceedings to terminate the employment of the Respondent, Tina King. The dismissal was based upon allegations that Respondent had failed to provide accurate information on her employment application. More specifically, it was alleged that Respondent had failed to disclose a prior arrest for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon. Thereafter, Respondent timely requested a hearing and the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on June 7, 1995.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Paul Lachance, an administrative assistant employed in the Board's department of employee relations and services. Its exhibits numbered 1 through 5 have been admitted into evidence. Petitioner requested, and official recognition has been taken, of Sections 231.001, 231.02, 231.33, and 230.23(5)(f), Florida Statutes, as well as Board policy 3.27.

The Respondent did not appear at the hearing and no evidence was received in her behalf. Notice of the hearing was provided to Respondent at her address of record. As the notice has not been returned as undeliverable, it is presumed Respondent received notice of the hearing.

The transcript of the proceeding was filed on November 27, 1995. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this cause are included in the appendix at the conclusion of this order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On January 4, 1994, Respondent completed an applicant security check form for employment with the Petitioner.

   
   

2. The form specified a series of questions related to past or pending criminal charges to which Respondent was to check either a "yes" box or a "no" box.

   
   

3. On each occasion, Respondent checked the "no" box.

4. At the conclusion of the form is a certification as follows: I certify that the above responses are true,

   complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge

   and are made in good faith. I understand that any incompleteness or false information on this form may be just cause for a rejection of my application for employment or dismissal in the event I am employed by the School Board of Palm Beach County.

   
   

5. Respondent did not disclose that in 1987 she was charged with aggravated assault and possession of a weapon. As a result of the charges, Respondent was sentenced to one year probation, required to pay a fine and court costs, and fifty hours of community service.

   
   

6. When Mr. Lachance learned of the results of the background search (which differed from Respondent's application), he met with Respondent who admitted the criminal charges but who alleged that she had believed them to be resolved.

   
   

7. The recommendation was then made to the Board to terminate Respondent's employment as a bus driver.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

   
   

9. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish cause for the termination of an employee of the Board. Respondent was not a member of the instructional staff, was not a supervisor, nor a principal.

   
   

10. The Board is empowered to suspend and dismiss its employees in accordance with Chapters 230 and 231, Florida Statutes.

11. In this case, the application for employment security check form clearly stated that Respondent could be dismissed for a failure to completely disclose all requested information. The Petitioner has established that the Respondent did, in fact, fail to disclose a criminal history.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED:

That School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida enter a final order dismissing the Respondent from her employment with the school district in accordance with the Board action of April 7, 1995.

DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1996.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2884

Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted.

Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent:

1. None submitted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Lee M. Rosenberg, Esq.

School District of Palm Beach County Office of the General Counsel

3318 Forest Hill Boulevard Suite C-302

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406

Ms. Tina King

5030 Elcharo North

West Palm Beach, Florida 33415

Dr. Bernard Shulman Superintendent

Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869

Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

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 10 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: 95-002884

Orders for Case No: 95-002884