STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Petitioner,
vs.
BEATRICE YAZBECK,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 05-1329
)
)
)
)
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case before Daniel M. Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 23, 2005, in Orlando, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Brian F. Moes, Esquire
Orange County School Board
445 West Amelia Street Post Office Box 271
Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
For Respondent: Donald D. Hockman, Esquire
Hockman, Hockman & Hockman 2670 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Respondent, Beatrice Yazbeck, a guidance counselor under contract with Petitioner, Orange County School Board, violated an express work rule of Petitioner's Management
Directive A-9; and whether Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d) and (e), by committing misconduct in office; and, if so, whether any such offense provides just cause for discipline up to, and including, dismissal of Respondent pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On March 8, 2005, Ronald Blocker, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools for the Orange County School District (the District), filed an Administrative Complaint against Beatrice Yazbeck, Respondent, alleging misconduct in office and other offenses. Respondent denied the allegations and requested a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). On March 15, 2005, the Orange County School Board, Petitioner, granted Respondent's request for a formal hearing and, thereafter, this matter was referred to DOAH on April 13, 2005. This matter was set for hearing and discovery ensued.
In her Answer, Respondent demanded Preservation of Evidence, specifically, all the e-mails of any Orange County Public School (OCPS) employees. In discovery, Respondent sought production of all e-mails in the OCPS system and, particularly, those on her computer at Winter Park High School (WPHS). Upon discovering that Petitioner has changed its computer server
hardware and that the e-mails were not economically available to her, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Administrative Complaint as the Sanction for Spoliation of Evidence. This motion was heard by telephone conference call on June 20, 2005, and denied.
The final hearing was conducted on June 23, 2005.
Petitioner presented four witnesses: Mary Brinson, WPHS math teacher; Kimrey Ross-Myers, WPHS assistant principal; William Gordon, WPHS principal; and Donald Shearer, senior manager in the Employee Relations Department. Petitioner offered
13 exhibits, all of which were received into evidence.
Respondent appeared and testified on her own behalf and offered one exhibit, which was received into evidence. Petitioner and Respondent jointly offered the deposition testimony of Superintendent Blocker.
The Transcript of the final hearing was ordered and filed with DOAH on July 26, 2005. Both parties waived the time for filing post-hearing submittals and filed Proposed Recommended Orders on August 22 and 23, 2005, respectively. Both parties' proposals have been given careful consideration in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made:
Petitioner is the governing board of the Orange County School District, and Ronald Blocker is the Superintendent of Orange County Public Schools and the executive officer of Petitioner.
Respondent is employed by Petitioner as a high school guidance counselor at the campuses of WPHS and the Winter Park Ninth Grade Center (Ninth Grade Center). She has held a Professional Services Contract with Petitioner for several years.
Respondent's employment is subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to as the "Contract Between the School Board of Orange County, Florida, and the Orange County Classroom Teachers' Association, 2004-2005."
Article XII of the Collective Bargaining Agreement pertains to employee discipline and provides:
An employee may be disciplined only for just cause and discipline shall be imposed only for a violation of an expressed rule, an expressed order, an expressed policy or reasonable expectation of management, which reasonably should have been known to the employee. This shall not be construed as to prohibit the administrator from questioning an employee and/or offering reasonable direction at the time of the occurrence of any incident, the result of which might later be dealt with in a disciplinary manner.
Any teacher may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the year, provided that the charges against him/her
are based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude where applicable, and in accordance with Florida Statutes.
Respondent, as a member of the instructional staff of Petitioner, is required to abide by the "Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Code of Ethics)." Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1.006(5).
The State Board of Education established "Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida (Principles of Professional Conduct)" that specifically require that educators:
shall not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected form such harassment or discrimination.
shall not make malicious or intentionally false statements about a colleague.
Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1.006(5).
At the start of the 2004/2005 school year, Respondent was provided a copy of the WPHS's Faculty Handbook, which contained Petitioner's Management Directive A-9. Management
Directive A-9 is a work rule prohibiting employees from misusing school computers and internet access for personal,
non-educational activities. Management Directive A-9 provides, in pertinent part:
Employee Access to Network
e. The District authorizes employees to use District computer technology resources and data bases for assigned responsibilities. These resources shall be used by employees to enhance job productivity as it relates to District business. These resources shall be used for District-related purposes and not for personal use or gain or for the benefit of private, "for profit" or "not for profit" organizations.
Network Security and Acceptable Use
b. Internet resources and e-mail shall be us ed by employees to enhance job productivity as they relate to District business and shall not be used to send abusive, threatening or harassing messages. Employees shall refrain from communications where the meaning of the message, or its transmission or distribution, would be illegal, unethical or irresponsible . . . .
* * *
6. Due Process
a. Any employee failing to comply with this Management Directive may be subject to disciplinary action as well as civil liability or criminal charges.
At the beginning of the 2003/2004 school year, Respondent was involuntarily transferred from Evans High School
(EHS) to WPHS. EHS is also racially diverse, however, both the student and faculty population is predominately African- American.
WPHS has a student population of approximately 3,800 students and 308 staff members. The student population at WPHS is racially diverse with between 18 percent and 19 percent of the students being African-American. The faculty at WPHS is equally diverse. Within the past two years, WPHS has had an increase in racial diversity among its students due, in significant part, to the advent of opportunity scholarships which enable students of underperforming schools to transfer to other schools within the District.
Mary Brinson is an African-American mathematics teacher at WPHS, who has been employed with Petitioner for
30 years.
At all times material, Kimrey Ross-Myers was employed as assistant principal for instruction for WPHS and was the assessing administrator of Respondent. William Gordon was employed as principal at WPHS.
Donald Shearer is a senior manager in the Employee Relations Department of Petitioner.
On January 7, 2005, Respondent, while on duty in the guidance counselor's office at the Ninth Grade Center, composed
a personal e-mail to her brother using the school's computer. Among other things, this e-mail contained the following passage:
Finally, this at the end of too many horrible experiences of struggle, stress and strife imposed by inept, incompetent, ignorant persons of color and this dike on our main campus whom I have finally discovered may be the culprit responsible for the problems I've had with this female administrator, Kimrey.
Funny, isn't it, after all the shit I've put up with at the hand of black folks, I still can't get myself to use the n word. Wonder why???? I'll try to talk to you soon.
On January 7, 2005, Respondent accidentally touched the print button, rather than the send button on her computer, which printed the e-mail at a printer networked to the WPHS campus. Recognizing this error, Respondent departed the Ninth Grade Center and drove to WPHS to retrieve the printed e-mail.
Unbeknownst to both Mary Brinson and Respondent, the e-mail printed among Ms. Brinson's school grade reports which Ms. Brinson had collected for processing. While reviewing her
student grade reports, Ms. Brinson came upon Respondent's e-mail of January 7, 2005, and was alarmed by its demeaning, discriminatory content.
Troubled by the fact that the e-mail was authored by a school guidance counselor with whom she had professional contact, Ms. Brinson took it home, and on Monday, gave the
e-mail to Kimrey Ross-Myers for handling within her discretion.
Ms. Brinson advised Ms. Ross-Myers of the e-mail because she regarded its content as evidencing discriminatory conduct directed at African-Americans and lesbians. Further, she advised Ms. Ross-Myers of the e-mail because she was required to abide by the Code of Ethics requiring that she protect against harassment and discrimination.
Ms. Ross-Myers took it to Principal Gordon, who, in turn, referred the e-mail to Mr. Shearer of Petitioner's Employee Relations Department.
Upon learning of the January 7, 2005, e-mail,
Mr. Shearer instructed the District staff to review Respondent's computer for other similarly offensive e-mails. Two such
e-mails were retrieved: one composed by Respondent on May 25, 2004, at 6:47 p.m., and the other on October 7, 2004, at 9:43 a.m., which was transmitted during school hours.
In the e-mail composed by Respondent on May 25, 2004, she criticized Ms. Ross-Myers, writing:
My work and my nemesis, this evil administrator from hell didn't want me to stay here, has me running around in circles.
Respondent, again, criticized her immediate supervisor, Ms. Ross-Myers, in her e-mail of October 7, 2004, writing:
Kimrey is the Assistant Principal who was on my case from day one. I was transferred to this school on short notice (one week before
the beginning of school) after a perfect evaluation and realignment to the school that transferred me.
Referring to her former principal at EHS, Elaine Scott, Respondent also wrote in her e-mail of October 7, 2004:
The principal, an ignorant black female, gave all the Counselors a serious ultimatum about our performance, although all of us had gotten impeccable evaluations.
The e-mails of May 25, 2004, and October 7, 2004, were transmitted via Petitioner's internet account to Respondent's brother.
Principal Gordon testified that after considering all three e-mails composed by Respondent, he became concerned that Respondent may be prejudiced against African-Americans. The ostensibly discriminatory content of the e-mails, combined with all reasonable inferences that could fairly be drawn from them, caused Principal Gordon to believe that Respondent's effectiveness to serve as a high school guidance counselor had been seriously compromised.
Petitioner has adopted a Code of Civility that applies to students and staff alike. During the 2004/2005 school year, the Code of Civility was published within the Student Code of Conduct. The Code of Civility specifically prohibits individuals from ethnic stereotyping and uttering slurs. The
Code of Student Conduct also prohibits demeaning, abusive, or obscene content in any communication.
The e-mails composed by Respondent on January 7, 2005, and October 7, 2004, violate standards of conduct expressly incorporated into the Code of Civility.
Ms. Brinson, Ms. Ross-Myers, Principal Gordon, and Superintendent Blocker testified that these e-mails, individually and collectively, caused them to question whether Respondent would interact with students in a fair and equitable fashion while serving in her role as a high school guidance counselor. These concerns were elevated to the extent that Principal Gordon, Ms. Ross-Myers, and Ms. Brinson testified that they would refrain from referring students to Respondent for counseling on matters of racial or sexual orientation sensitivity.
The "black" administrator Respondent referred to in her e-mail of October 7, 2004, as "ignorant" is EHS principal, Elaine Scott. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted she inaccurately characterized Principal Scott as being "ignorant."
When criticizing her previous administrators at EHS, Respondent associated their race with her finding that they were ignorant, inept, or incompetent. When offering criticism of Caucasian administrators, namely Ms. Ross-Myers, Respondent omitted any racial reference.
Respondent testified with respect to her e-mail of January 7, 2005, that the statements therein were true and that she "had many horrible experiences, struggles, stress and strife imposed by inept, incompetent, ignorant persons of color," while serving as a guidance counselor at EHS. Respondent further testified that she did not intend to stereotype
African-Americans in a derogatory manner and that she was referring to four specific African-American administrators with whom she worked: James Lawson, Elaine Scott, Chuck Rivers, and Joe Salsby.
Respondent gave credible testimony relating to her referring to the "n" word, but not using it. This explanation is that she considers the use of the "n" word to be racist and a horrible thing to say to a person of color and that is why she could not use it.
Both Ms. Ross-Myers and Principal Gordon testified that they have had professional contact with these four administrators and confirmed that they are regarded by their peers as being capable, competent, and professional. However, no additional investigation was conducted.
The term "dike [sic]," as used in the context of the
e-mail, is a disparaging term for a lesbian. Respondent refused to identify the female staff member who was the target of her slur and testified, "I would never put that label on anyone."
Despite this denunciation, Respondent did so use this term to disparage a co-worker and, further, did so without any knowledge of her co-worker's true sexual orientation.
Respondent testified that she does not use the term "dyke" in public to put labels on people. The term was suggested to her in a telephone conversation by her homosexual brother after she described the conduct of a specific person toward her. In the e-mail to her brother, Respondent used the word as an identifying term to refer to the person by the appellation which her brother had already used for that person. Respondent is so unfamiliar with the word that she misspelled it as "dike" in her e-mail.
Respondent assailed Ms. Brinson's motives in coming forward and reporting her accidental discovery of the January 7, 2004, e-mail. Respondent accused Ms. Brinson of "snooping" and of being an "intermeddler," who purposely schemed to get Respondent "fired." At the final hearing, Respondent further accused Ms. Brinson of having committed professional misconduct in reporting the e-mail to her supervisor.
Respondent admitted violating Management Directive A-9 when she used the District's computer and internet account to write and transmit a personal e-mail to her brother. Two of the subject e-mails were composed during school hours.
Prior to the filing of administrative charges against Respondent, Petitioner had discharged other employees for violating Management Directive A-9, by misusing the District's computer network to compose and send e-mails for personal gain or for transmitting e-mails with obscene and abusive content.
Superintendent Blocker further testified that he believed that Respondent's misconduct violated Petitioner's anti-discrimination policy that requires all OCPS employees to act with impartiality and fairness in dealing with co-workers, students, and the public at large.
In Petitioner's Administrative Complaint of March 8, 2005, Petitioner alleges that: 1) Respondent violated Management Directive A-9 in misuse of the District's computer network to compose and transmit e-mail that demeaned African- Americans and which contained a slur against lesbians;
2) Respondent violated Subsection 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes (2004), by committing misconduct in office, which seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee; 3) Respondent violated the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d) and (e); and
4) Respondent engaged in misconduct in office, willful neglect of duty, gross insubordination, and conduct unbecoming of an employee in breach of Respondent's employment agreement with Petitioner.
There is no evidence that Respondent committed any act of sexual discrimination against any person or group of persons.
There is no evidence that Respondent failed to deliver appropriate counseling services to any student or group of students.
There is no evidence that Respondent ever failed to deliver appropriate services to any student, allowed harm to any student, or committed harm to any student for any reason, including the racial or sexual orientation diversity of any student.
There is no evidence of harm to any student of diversity by Respondent during her entire career in education.
There was no investigation as to whether Respondent was, in fact, racially prejudiced or whether she was, in fact, prejudiced against persons of alternative sexual orientation. Rather, Petitioner ascribed racial and sexual prejudice to her based entirely on the content of the thoughts expressed in her e-mail, which was intended to be a private communication and was not intended for exposure by any person who might be offended by it.
All of Petitioner's witnesses admitted that their concern about Respondent's effectiveness as a counselor is anticipatory.
The preponderance of the evidence proves that Respondent violated Management Directive A-9 by misusing the District's computer network to compose and transmit e-mails that demeaned African-Americans and which contained a slur against lesbians.
Respondent violated Subsection 1012.795(1), Florida Statutes (2004), by committing misconduct in office, which seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee.
Respondent violated the Code of Ethics and Principles of Professional Conduct. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1.006(5)(d) and (e)
Respondent engaged in conduct unbecoming of an employee in breach of Respondent's employment agreement with Petitioner.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of these proceedings. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and 1012.33, Fla. Stat. (2004).
Petitioner has the burden of proof in this proceeding.
Petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the reasonableness of the proposed disciplinary action. Ferris v. Austin, 487 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
The standard for termination of a member of the instructional staff subject to a Professional Services Contract is just cause, including, but not limited to, misconduct in office. § 1012.33(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004). Just cause for discipline, up to and including termination, is not limited to the list of offensive conduct set forth in Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2004). Dietz v. Lee County School Board, 647 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (applying Section 231.36, Florida Statutes (2004), since renumbered as Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2004)).
Courts have found just cause to support a discharge where the employee violates a universal standard of behavior that an employer has a right to expect from its employees. See Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Department of Workforce Services, 29 P.3d 7 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (finding just cause to terminate an employee and deny benefits under the Employment Security Act for e-mail transmissions containing sexually explicit content).
Management Directive A-9 expressly incorporates universally-accepted minimum standards of professional conduct that Petitioner had a right to expect Respondent to conform during her employment as a high school guidance counselor. Petitioner has established that Respondent had actual knowledge of the conduct that Petitioner expected through her receipt of the faculty handbook. Additionally, the conduct standards at
issue here are so universally accepted within the public school setting that Respondent cannot persuasively argue that she was unaware of the hazard of transmitting offensive e-mails across the District's computer network. Autoliv, 29 P.3d at 11.
Petitioner has established a consistent practice of discharging employees for violating Management Directive A-9, where the employee misused the District's network during the course of their employment to transmit e-mails with inappropriate content. Therefore, Respondent's discharge would not be arbitrary. Cf. Osram Sylvania, Inc. v. Teamsters Local
Union 528, 87 F.3d 1261, 1265 (11th Cir. 1996).
Just cause, within the meaning of Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2004), exists to terminate Respondent's employment for misuse of the District's computer network to transmit e-mails with ostensibly abusive, discriminatory content in violation of Petitioner's Management Directive A-9.
Petitioner, as a public agency, has a lawful duty to protect its employees from harassment in the workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that employers Take affirmative steps to maintain a workplace free of harassment and investigate and take prompt, effective remedial action where potentially harassing conduct is discovered. A failure to discharge this duty would expose Petitioner and its employees to civil liability. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S.
775, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998). Upon the discovery of the e-mail composed by Respondent on January 7, 2005, Petitioner was obligated by law to act upon same and protect employees from potentially harassing conduct and protect itself from exposure to a civil action based on race or sex discrimination.
Petitioner has also established just cause to discharge Respondent for "misconduct in office," which is defined as any violation of the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct. Fla. Admin. Code R.
6B-4.009(3). The misconduct must rise to the level of causing Respondent's effectiveness in the school system to be seriously impaired. Id.
The Code of Ethics provides that Respondent:
Shall not engage in harassment or discriminatory conduct which unreasonably interferes with an individual's performance of professional work responsibilities or with the orderly process of education or which creates a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive or oppressive environment; and, further, shall make reasonable effort to assure that each individual is protected from such harassment or discrimination.
Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1.006(5)(d).
Petitioner has established that Respondent breached this Rule by failing to protect others from exposure to a hostile, offensive, or oppressive environment, as well. First, Respondent affirmatively engaged in discriminatory conduct when
she composed the January 7, 2005, e-mail, which, through her own negligence, did cause an offensive work environment for
Ms. Brinson, when it was accidentally discovered by her. Second and more importantly, Respondent did violate her duty to make a reasonable effort to protect against harassment or discrimination when she authored the e-mails of October 7, 2004, and January 7, 2005. Also, Respondent's assault upon
Ms. Brinson's character, accusing her of "snooping" and being an "intermeddler" motivated by ill-will to get her fired, given the record evidence, is further evidence of Respondent's breach of duty to protect against harassment and discrimination.
Ms. Brinson met her obligation to the education profession by making a discrete report of the ostensibly offensive e-mail authored by a colleague of hers. For Respondent to intentionally assail Ms. Brinson's motives without any reasonable basis in fact or reasonable inference, is seemingly retaliatory and offensive to this standard of professional conduct.1/
Petitioner has established that Respondent violated the Code of Ethics by making malicious or intentionally false statements about her colleagues. See Fla. Admin. Code
R. 6B-1.006(5)(e). Petitioner need not prove actual malice on behalf of Respondent in composing the subject e-mail. In the context of a written or oral statement, malice is presumed from
the defamatory nature of the remark if it tends to injure an individual's reputation or professional standing (defamation per se). Scott v. Busch, 907 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Respondent's statement describing her previous principal,
Ms. Scott, as an ignorant black women and her reference to other EHS administrators as inept, incompetent, and ignorant are injurious to their professional standing and reputation. As a matter of law, these statements are per se defamatory, and they are sufficient in and of themselves to evidence malice on behalf of Respondent at the time she composed the e-mail of January 7, 2005, and October 7, 2004. Although Respondent did not intend to publish the e-mail to anyone other than her brother, it does not excuse her misconduct. The Code of Ethics does not distinguish between a malicious statement purposely made in private to her brother from those that are negligently disclosed to another educator.
Petitioner has established that Respondent violated the Code of Ethics by making a false statement about a colleague. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-1.006(5)(e). Petitioner need not prove actual intent on behalf of Respondent for evidence of a state of mind is rarely subject to direct proof. Baker v. State, 639 So. 2d 103, 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) ("Intent is an operation of the mind and is not subject to direct proof, however, intent can be proven by circumstantial evidence.")
Intent may be inferred from Respondent's actions. See G.K.D. v. State, 391 So. 2d 327, 328-329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) ("Appellant testified that he did not intend to break the window, but the record indicates that he did willfully kick the window, and he may be presumed to have intended the probable consequences of his actions.")
Petitioner has established that Respondent did deliberately compose an e-mail referring to persons of color as inept, incompetent, and ignorant and, then, did deliberately either sent or printed it to WPHS. The record also establishes that this statement and the statement regarding the lesbian orientation of a co-worker were either false or made by Respondent without any knowledge of their truthfulness. Petitioner has carried its burden of proof, establishing that Respondent did intentionally make one or more false statements concerning her colleagues.
Government employees, such as Respondent, do not enjoy an absolute right to freedom of speech. The e-mails at issue are not protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Respondent's comments are constitutionally protected only if they satisfy both elements of the test set forth in Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School
District 205, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and refined in Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (In the "Pickering-Connick Test,"
as a threshold matter, the speech must be "fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern," Connick, 461 U.S. at 146; and 2) her First Amendment interest in commenting on matters of public concern must outweigh the government's interest, "as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees." Connick, 461 U.S. at 142.
Respondent's e-mails fail to satisfy either prong of the "Pickering-Connick Test," insofar as the statements therein contained matters of personal, not public, concern. Any First Amendment interest Respondent may have had in transmitting the e-mails is outweighed by Petitioner's interest in protecting against civil liability and maintaining an environment free of harassing or discriminatory conduct.
However, based on Respondent's professional work record, termination would be an unreasonably harsh outcome. Some lesser punishment would be more appropriate.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Orange County School Board, enter a final order as follows: 1) Find Respondent, Beatrice Yazbeck, guilty of violating Management Directive A-9, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(d) and (e); and
terminating the Professional Services Contract of Respondent.
It is further
RECOMMENDED that Respondent be returned to annual contract status and that she be suspended, without pay, for a period of two months.
DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 2005.
ENDNOTE
1/ Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(5)(o) provides that an educator "[s]hall seek no reprisal against any individual who has reported any allegation of a violation of the Florida School Code or State Board of Education Rules as defined in Subsection 231.28(1), Florida Statutes."
COPIES FURNISHED:
Brian F. Moes, Esquire Orange County School Board
445 West Amelia Street Post Office Box 271
Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
Donald D. Hockman, Esquire Hockman, Hockman & Hockman 2670 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789
Honorable John L. Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Ronald Blocker, Superintendent Orange County School Board
445 West Amelia Street Post Office Box 271
Orlando, Florida 32802-0271
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
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 | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 18, 2005 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 14, 2005 | Recommended Order | Respondent is guilty of violating the work rule and the Principles of Professional Conduct, as well as misconduct in the office by writing an e-mail containing anti-racial and anti-gay comments, which was transmitted on School Board equipment. |
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs DONNA HOBBS, 05-001329 (2005)
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs KIMBERLY HONAKER, 05-001329 (2005)
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs MILES MADISON, 05-001329 (2005)
CHARLOTTE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs NATALIE SANTAGATA, 05-001329 (2005)
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs MIGUEL NAVARRO, 05-001329 (2005)
