)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Administrative Law Judge, David M. Maloney, held a hearing in the above-styled cause on February 19, 1997, in Largo, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Robert G. Walker, Jr., Esquire
Attorney for Pinellas County School Board 1421 Court Street, Suite F
Clearwater, Florida 34616
For Respondent: Elihu H. Berman, Esquire
Berman & Hobgood, P.A. 1525 South Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 34624
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment by the Pinellas County School Board as a painter in the School Board’s Maintenance Department for any or all of the following: excessive absenteeism, failure to report absences according to established procedures, failure to provide required medical
documentation for absences, tardiness, insubordination, driving under the influence of alcohol and criminal conviction of driving while intoxicated?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On July 12, 1996, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a letter from the Pinellas County School Board requesting that a hearing officer be assigned to conduct an administrative hearing in the matter of Pinellas County School Board v. Dwayne Goodrow.
Attached to the letter was a June 19, 1996 letter from the Superintendent of the School Board setting forth allegations and notifying Mr. Goodrow of the charges against him. Also attached was a request for hearing signed by Mr. Goodrow. The Superintendent’s charging letter to Mr. Goodrow stated:
This is to advise you that you were suspended with pay effective June 13, 1996, until the School Board meeting on July 10, 1996 . . .
At that meeting I shall recommend that the Board sustain your suspension and dismiss you. . . . . My recommendation for dismissal is based on the fact that subsequent to your suspension without pay for the three (3) days on March 19, 20, and 21, 1996, for failing to report your absences according to established procedures, you have been late to work (3) times and absent five (5) days. You failed to provide required medical documentation for your absences and failed to report four (4) absences according to established procedures. In addition, you received a reprimand dated October 5, 1990, for excessive absenteeism and letters of reprimand dated March 23, 1995, and December 14, 1995, for insubordination for failing to provide medical documentation for absences. Your actions are a violation of School Board
Policy 6Gx52-5.31(1)(r)(u), and constitute grounds for your dismissal.
The letter goes on to advise Mr. Goodrow of his entitlement to a public hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
The undersigned was assigned to the proceeding and the case was set for hearing in November of 1996. On October 28, 1996, the School Board served a motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Mr. Goodrow did not respond and an order was entered granting the motion on November 14, 1996. In the meantime, on November 7, 1996, the Superintendent amended the charges against Mr. Goodrow "to include . . . that on March 30, 1996, you were driving while intoxicated which is a violation of School Board Policies 6Gx52- 5.27(3)(e)(6) and 6Gx52-5.31(1)(g)."
Following Mr. Goodrow's retention of Mr. Berman to represent him in this proceeding and the filing of an amended request for hearing, the case was reinstated and set for hearing on February 19, 1997.
At the final hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of six witnesses, including Mr. Goodrow, and offered 21 exhibits all of which were admitted into evidence. Mr. Goodrow presented the testimony of two witnesses and offered one exhibit which was admitted into evidence.
The transcript of the proceeding was filed March 10, 1997 and the petitioner and respondent filed their proposed recommended orders on April 2 and 3, 1997, respectively.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, the School Board of Pinellas County, is the authority that operates, controls and supervises all free public schools in the Pinellas County School District.
Dwayne Goodrow has been employed as a painter in the Maintenance Department for the Pinellas County School Board since April 18, 1989. His work has always been satisfactory and sometimes better than satisfactory. Over the years of his employment, however, he has had chronic and serious attendance problems.
On August 2, 1990, Mr. Goodrow received a memorandum the subject of which was "Record of Counseling for Excessive Absenteeism." The memorandum stated that since the beginning of the school year, Mr. Goodrow had been absent an excessive number of times, including 17 hours of leave without pay. It informed Mr. Goodrow that, "[t]his absenteeism is unacceptable and you must make an immediate and permanent correction of this behavior." (Petitioner's Ex. No. 1) It further advised him that the memorandum would be placed in his file as a record that he had been counseled about the matter and that he fully understood that any reoccurrence of excessive absenteeism would result in a letter of reprimand. The memorandum warns:
In the event you receive a letter of reprimand and the excessive absenteeism continues, you will become subject to more
severe disciplinary action, which could include suspension or dismissal.
Id. The memorandum is signed first by Mr. Goodrow and then by school board personnel: Mr. Goodrow's foreman and general foreman as well as the Superintendent of the School District.
On October 5, 1990, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for excessive absenteeism. The letter informs Mr. Goodrow of his General Foreman's belief that he has not realized the seriousness of his problem with absenteeism because in the interim since the August 2 memorandum he had been absent 29 and ½ additional hours. The letter warns, "if your absenteeism continues, it will be cause to recommend you for suspension or dismissal." Petitioner's Ex. No.2. It concludes, "Your signature below will acknowledge that you have received and understand this letter of reprimand." Id. Just as the August 2, 1990 memorandum, the letter is signed by Mr. Goodrow and school board personnel.
On a Supporting Services Personnel Performance Appraisal signed by Mr. Goodrow January 18, 1991, he received a rating of unsatisfactory in the area of attendance and "needs improvement" in the area of punctuality. The remarks section of the appraisal states with regard to attendance, "[h]as received letters warning him of this, must be corrected." Petitioner's Ex. No. 17. The appraisal also states, "Dwayne has good painting abilities and knowledge, can be trusted to complete any job given him." Id.
On June 10, 1991, Mr. Goodrow received a memorandum the subject of which was "Record of Counseling for Excessive Absenteeism." With the exception of stating that he had taken 15 hours of leave without pay, the memorandum is identical to the August 2, 1990 memorandum.
On a supporting Services Personnel Performance Appraisal dated February 14, 1992, Mr. Goodrow was again rated unsatisfactory under the performance factor of attendance. The remarks section reflects that he received counseling on December 19, 1991, for frequent tardiness but also that "[j]ob knowledge is adequate," "[c]ompletes assigned work on time," "[h]as the ability to be a self-starter," and "[c]an be a good team worker." Petitioner's Ex. No. 16.
On September 15, 1994, Mr. Goodrow received an Attendance Deficiency Notification Letter. The letter states "[y]ou are required to bring in doctor's documentation of your illness on all further sick leave absence requests." Petitioner's Ex. No. 4. Although there is a place on the letter for Mr. Goodrow's signature and a notation that signature by the employee does not imply agreement with statements in the letter, the letter reflects that Mr. Goodrow refused to sign it.
On October 3, 1994, Mr. Goodrow received a Record of Counseling. It noted deficiencies in his performance in that,
INSUBORDINATION - You were told to furnish doctors excuses for any sick leave taken as per letter dated 9/15/94. On 9/26/94 you
used 2 hours sick leave and failed to provide Doctor's excuse upon request of your Foreman.
Petitioner's Ex. No. 5. To bring his performance to the satisfactory level, Mr. Goodrow was advised he would have to supply a doctor's documentation of illness whenever he took sick leave in the future.
On February 17, 1995, Mr. Goodrow was rated as "Needing Improvement," in the area of attendance on his performance appraisal by his supervisor. The remarks section of the appraisal reflects that he was counseled for not following leave policy but also that "Dwayne has shown a more positive attitude recently, he has the potential to progress." Petitioner's Ex. No. 15. Furthermore, Mr. Goodrow was rated "better than satisfactory, in the area of "job knowledge." Consistent with this rating, in the remarks section, the following appears, "Dwayne exhibits his job knowledge by identifying problems and solving them . . . ." Id.
The potential for progress noted in February did not last long. On March 24, 1995, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for insubordination for failing to provide a doctor's excuse for sick leave absences contrary to previous instructions. The letter warned that failure to provide doctor's excuses in the future to justify sick leave will result in "further disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment." Petitioner's Ex. No. 6.
Over the next 6 months, Mr. Goodrow began again to show progress. By early September, 1995, his attendance had "improved considerably," Petitioner's Ex. No. 7, and the requirement for a doctor's excuse for every sick leave absence was lifted.
The procedure for reporting absences in the School Board's Maintenance Department is for employees to call in at least one-half hour prior to their normal starting time. There is an answering machine upon which a message can be recorded when there is no person available to take the call.
Shortly after the lifting of the requirement for a doctor's excuse to justify sick leave, Mr. Goodrow, on Wednesday, September 13, 1995, was absent from work. He did not call in consistent with the procedure for reporting absences. He was absent again two days later.
In addition to the failure to call in on September 13, 1995, Mr. Goodrow was absent without calling in on three other days in the fall of 1995: October 18 and 26, and November 9. Each time he failed to call in, Mr. Goodrow was verbally warned by Trades Foreman Al Myers of the requirement for calling in and was given a review of proper procedure.
On December 14, 1995, Mr. Goodrow received a letter of reprimand for failure to follow proper procedure with regard to the four absences in the fall of 1995. The letter was the result of an agreement with Mr. Goodrow that the letter was the appropriate response by the maintenance department for the
absences and failure to follow procedure. A stipulation was added, however, to the agreement: "[A]nother attendance incident within one year will result in recommendation for 'Time off without pay' or possible 'Dismissal'.". Petitioner's Ex. No. 7. The letter concludes, "Also, as of this date you are again required to provide medical proof of your [inability to attend work] . . . and you are required to notify your supervisor prior to the start of work shift you are going to be absent." Id. The letter is signed by Mr. Goodrow.
On February 26, 1996, Mr. Goodrow and the School Board entered a Stipulation Agreement. The agreement reviewed Mr. Goodrow's performance appraisals for unsatisfactory attendance, and insubordination for taking sick leave without doctor's excuses. Furthermore, it stated that Mr. Goodrow:
On December 15, 1995, . . . left work early without proper notification or required medical documentation. On January 3, 1996, Mr. Goodrow failed to report his absence according to established procedures, and on January 17, 1996, he failed to report his absence according to established procedures and requested 3.5 hours of sick leave without providing required medical documentation.
Petitioner's Ex. No. 8. As an expression of regret and to affirm his commitment to notify his supervisor in the future regarding absences, Mr. Goodrow agreed to a three day suspension without pay effective March 19, 20 and 21, 1996. The stipulation also states that Mr. Goodrow, once again, understands that further
problems could result in more serious disciplinary action, including dismissal.
On April 16, 1996, Mr. Goodrow received a performance review finding him to have continued to demonstrate unsatisfactory attendance and judgment in that on March 6, 1996, he was late 3 hours with no explanation, on March 28, 1996, he was late one-half hour with no explanation, on April 3, 1996 he took eight hours sick leave without doctor's justification, on April 9, 1996, he was arrested and charged with DUI, and on April 11, 1996, he took eight hours sick leave without a doctor's justification.
The job description for a painter employed with the Pinellas County School Board includes the requirement that the employee possess a valid State of Florida Class B commercial driver's license ("CDL"), to include "air brake" qualifications, and any other license as may be required by law.
On March 30, 1996, while driving a motor vehicle off- duty, Mr. Goodrow was stopped by a law enforcement officer for failing to maintain his vehicle in a single lane of traffic.
Deputy Howard Skaggs, a member of the Sheriff Department's DUI unit, was summoned to the scene to conduct filed sobriety tests to determine whether Mr. Goodrow was driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol.
Deputy Skaggs smelled a strong odor of alcohol on the breath of Mr. Goodrow, who, in turn, admitted that he had consumed at least six beers at two different taverns. While at the roadside, three field sobriety tests were performed by Deputy Skaggs, all of which Mr. Goodrow failed. Deputy Skaggs concluded that Mr. Goodrow was without doubt impaired.
At the jail, Mr. Goodrow was asked to submit to a breathalyzer. He refused with the statement that he had had too much to drink and the test would only incriminate him. Mr. Goodrow was arrested.
On September 17, 1996, Mr. Goodrow entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation for 12 months, required to enroll in DUI school, fined
$1000.00, and his driver's license was revoked for one year.
Without a driver's license and a CDL, Mr. Goodrow no longer meets the job description of a painter in the School Board's Maintenance Department.
On June 19, 1996, Mr. Goodrow was notified that Superintendent Hinesley would recommend to the School Board that he be dismissed due to excessive absenteeism and insubordination. The DUI conviction, not having yet occurred, was not, of course, a factor in the superintendent's decision.
Brett Paul, a painter in the Maintenance Department like Mr. Goodrow, also had attendance problems very similar to Mr. Goodrow's. He was suspended for three days without pay on the very same dates as Mr. Goodrow. Since the March suspension, however, unlike Mr. Goodrow, Mr. Paul's attendance has improved with the exception on an isolated instance in which his absence was due to a "major life event," the purchase of a house. He has not been convicted of DUI.
Tom Appold was arrested for DUI during a time that he was employed as a painter in the School Board's Maintenance Department. After his conviction for DUI, he requested that he be allowed to transfer to another department, presumably because he could no longer meet the job description requirement that he hold a CDL. The request was honored and he is now employed by the School Board in another section of the Maintenance Department for which a CDL is not required. Mr. Appold, however, unlike Mr. Goodrow, has never been reprimanded or suspended for attendance problems. His attendance has always been found by the School Board's Maintenance Department to be within acceptable limits.
Mr. Goodrow is an alcoholic. His excessive absenteeism, refusal to follow proper procedures with regard to work absences, insubordination, driving while intoxicated, arrest and conviction for DUI, and virtually every other work problem he had experienced over his seven years of employment with the
School Board's maintenance department stems from alcoholism. For example, many of the days he missed at work were days following dart tournaments the night before at local establishments that served alcohol.
Until the aftermath of his DUI conviction, Mr. Goodrow was ashamed and embarrassed to admit he suffers alcoholism. Today, with the assistance of professional counseling required as condition of probation for the crime of which he has been convicted, Mr. Goodrow is able to admit and freely did so at hearing that he is an alcoholic. The ability to make this admission is a major step forward for Mr. Goodrow.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Goodrow's ability to face up to his problem has come so late. Had he admitted the condition when he was encountering problems with attendance at work, there were a number of options available to him and the School Board short of poor performance appraisals, letters of reprimand and suspension. As Dr. Martha O'Howell , Administrator of the School Board's Office of Professional Standards testified,
We would have talked to him about the extent of that drinking problem. We would have referred him to . . . Cigna, the health provider. At that time, there was no formalized EAP [Employee Assistance Program] in place that the employee could go directly to, but there was . . . substance abuse counselling (sic) through Cigna that was available. We would have referred him or put him in contact with our risk management department. We would have encouraged him to take a leave of absence while he was seeking treatment,
(Tr. 78).
depending on the nature of the treatment, the severity, the length and so forth. We would have worked with him to provide a medical leave of absence if that had become necessary.
If Mr. Goodrow's suspension were lifted and his employment was reinstated, the School Board's Employee Assistance Program would be available now to help him cope with his alcoholism.
School Board personnel are not willing to make such a recommendation, however, in light of all that has occurred in Mr. Goodrow's case. A supervisor in the Maintenance Department expressed concern over the precedent that would be set if Mr. Goodrow were allowed to return to work, particularly in the minds of employees who might think that conduct like Mr. Goodrow's resulted in no meaningful consequences on the part of the School Board.
Contrary to the concern of the Maintenance Department, the action taken to date, a suspension without pay that has been in effect now for more than eight months, has resulted in very definite consequences to Mr. Goodrow. In the main, he has been unemployed. He has made reasonable efforts to gain employment. But the loss of his driver's license has held him back. At the time of hearing, what little money he had been able to earn from the time of his suspension was certainly far below what he would
have earned had he not been suspended from the employment he had held for more than seven years.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Pinellas County School Board has the burden of proof in this non-instructional employee dismissal hearing and the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So.2d 883 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990).
The Superintendent of Pinellas County School District has the authority to suspend and recommend for dismissal School Board employees under certain circumstances pursuant to Section 230.33(7), Florida Statutes. The School Board has authority to suspend or dismiss school employees, including non-instructional employees such as Mr. Goodrow. Section 230.23(5)(f), F.S.
Article 29, Section G.(4) of the collective bargaining agreement between the Pinellas County School Board and the School Employees Union, requires that the School Board follow a system of progressive discipline with regard to employees. The system may include the use of (a) verbal or written counseling or warnings; (b) written reprimands; (c) suspension without pay; and
(d) dismissal. If the problem is severe enough in the first instance, progressive discipline need not be followed.
Certainly, it was followed in this case as to the issue of absenteeism.
Pinellas County School Policy 6Gx52-5.27, entitled "Drug-free and Alcohol-free Workplace," defines a "covered employee" as one required to hold a CDL as a condition of employment. Section 6Gx-52(3)(e)(6) states that a covered employee convicted of driving under the influence will be recommended for dismissal. Thus, upon Mr. Goodrow's conviction for DUI, a recommendation for dismissal is policy and progressive discipline is inapplicable.
Pinellas County School Board Policy 6Gx52-5.31(1)(g), Disciplinary Guidelines for Employees, Policy Manual of Pinellas County School Board, June 1995, provides that excessive absenteeism or tardiness is an offense with a penalty range of caution to dismissal.
Pinellas County School Board Policy 6Gx52-5.31(1)(u) of the School Board's policy manual, provides that insubordination is the continuing or intentional failure to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority. The penalty range for this offense is caution to dismissal.
The School Board has ample justification for suspending and dismissing Mr. Goodrow on any of the three grounds advanced:
a) excessive absenteeism and b) insubordination, following progressive discipline; or c) conviction of DUI while a covered
employee whose job description requires a commercial driver's license now lost for at least one year.
Indeed, Mr. Goodrow recognizes the serious jeopardy in which he has placed his employment. He does not contest his suspension. Nor does he seek back pay. He asks only that he be reinstated as an employee of the School Board in the painting section of the Maintenance Department in the wake of his public admission that he is an alcoholic and the commencement of his coming to grips with alcoholism. He also seeks to draw some comparison of his case with both Mr. Paul's and Mr. Appold's. Those two are a far cry, however, from the situation in which Mr. Goodrow has put himself.
Nonetheless, at long last, after seven years of progressive discipline, Mr. Goodrow has turned a corner: he has recognized and admitted to himself and others the basis for his attendance and insubordination problems. The same basis exists for his conviction of DUI: alcoholism. The questions are whether Mr. Goodrow's recognition and admission are soon enough to save his employment and whether they are a foundation solid enough to support his reinstatement and return to work without re- experience of the past.
The answer is "perhaps." If Mr. Goodrow were to be allowed to return to employment, morale problems or fears that his return would be greeted with the perception that there are no consequences for a School Board's employee's misbehavior are
misplaced. Mr. Goodrow has suffered serious consequences because of his destructive behavior. The more weighty concern is what assurance exists that Mr. Goodrow will not lapse into this behavior once more. If Mr. Goodrow were allowed to return to work in the Maintenance Department it could be only under circumstances such as participation in the Employee Assistance Program, enrollment in Alcoholics Anonymous and frequent monitored attendance and then only under the stipulation that his return is probationary. In other words, his return would be conditional and moreover, it would be his last chance. The School Board has certainly endured enough of Mr. Goodrow's absenteeism. But, it has also benefited from his employment. It would be a shame to lose Mr. Goodrow as an employee capable of performing satisfactory and above-satisfactory work because of attendance problems if he has now finally set forth on the road to curing those problems. He would not be able to work in the paint department until he has regained his commercial driver's license. But he could be reinstated in another job within the Maintenance Department and then transferred back to the paint section once he regained his CDL. In the meantime, the Maintenance Department would be able to judge whether he has proved himself during this probationary period. Conditions adequate to offer more than just hope but a basis for belief that Mr. Goodrow's return would not be marred by behavior similar to
the past would have to be worked out by the parties before he could be reinstated.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby,
That the suspension of Dwayne Goodrow be sustained by the Pinellas County School Board but that he be reinstated without back pay if adequate conditions for his return to work can be agreed-to by the parties. If conditions of reinstatement cannot be agreed-to, Mr. Goodrow should be dismissed.
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (904) 921-6847
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1997.
Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent
Pinellas County Schools
301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 33770-2942
Robert G. Walker, Jr., Esquire Pinellas County School Board Attorney 1421 Court Street, Suite F Clearwater, Florida 34616
John W. Bowen, Esquire
Pinellas County School Board Attorney
301 4th Street Southwest Largo, Florida 34649-2942
Elihu H. Berman, Esquire Berman & Hobgood, P.A.
1525 South Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 34624
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 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.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 19, 1997 | (Petitioner) Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 24, 1997 | Letter to E. Berman from R. Walker Re: Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 02/19/97. |
| Apr. 03, 1997 | (Respondent) Recommended Order filed. |
| Apr. 02, 1997 | (Petitioner) Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Supporting Memorandum w/cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 10, 1997 | Transcript of Proceedings filed. |
| Feb. 19, 1997 | Hearing Held; applicable time frames have been entered into the CTS calendaring system. |
| Feb. 07, 1997 | Respondent`s Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Feb. 04, 1997 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 2/19/97; 9:00am; Largo) |
| Jan. 29, 1997 | Letter to DMM from Elihu Berman (RE: agreeable dates for hearing) (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 27, 1997 | Letter to E. Berman from K. Martin Re: No response for request for production and interrogatories filed. |
| Jan. 23, 1997 | Order sent out. (proceeding is reinstated; parties to file agreeable hearing dates within 10 days) |
| Jan. 16, 1997 | Amended Request for Hearing of Respondent Dwayne Goodrow (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 10, 1996 | (Petitioner) Status Report (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 05, 1996 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (hearing cancelled; parties to file status report by 12/23/96) |
| Dec. 05, 1996 | Amended Order sent out. (Respondent has 20 days to amend his request for hearing) |
| Nov. 27, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Nov. 14, 1996 | Order sent out. (Respondent has 20 days to amend request for hearing) |
| Nov. 08, 1996 | (Petitioner) Motion to Amend Charge (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 31, 1996 | (Petitioner) Motion for Order Dismissing Request for Hearing With Leave to Amend filed. |
| Oct. 28, 1996 | Petitioner`s Notice of Propounding Interrogatories to Respondent; Petitioner`s First Request for Production to Respondent; Petitioner`s Request for Admissions to Respondent filed. |
| Sep. 26, 1996 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 12/18/96; 10:00am; Largo) |
| Sep. 13, 1996 | Order Continuing and Rescheduling Formal Hearing sent out. (hearing reset for 12/17/96; 10:00am; Largo) |
| Aug. 29, 1996 | (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Aug. 14, 1996 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 11/22/96;10:00AM;Largo) |
| Jul. 23, 1996 | (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Jul. 16, 1996 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jul. 12, 1996 | Agency Action Letter; Agency referral letter; Request for Hearing, letter form filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 14, 1997 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 11, 1997 | Recommended Order | Painter in School Board's maintenance Department recommended for reinstatement if conditions of employment can be agreed-to by parties. |
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs TAMARA SNOW, 96-003255 (1996)
SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs MARY A. WILLIAMS, 96-003255 (1996)
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs JAMES DAILEY, 96-003255 (1996)
HERNANDO COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs KIMBERLY ROSARIO, 96-003255 (1996)
MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs JANE WOOTEN, 96-003255 (1996)
