STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 07-3792
)
JORGE LI, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case on October 30, 2007, by video teleconference with connecting sites in Miami and Tallahassee, Florida, before Errol H. Powell, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Janeen L. Richard, Esquire
Miami-Dade County School Board
1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
For Respondent: Jorge Li, pro se
11458 Southwest 109th Road, Apt. X Miami, Florida 33176
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue for determination is whether Respondent should be suspended and dismissed from employment, as a Microsystems Technician, with Petitioner.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated June 14, 2007, the Miami-Dade County School Board, hereinafter School Board, notified Jorge Li, among other things, that the School Board, at its scheduled meeting on
June 13, 2007, took action to suspend him from employment without pay and commence dismissal proceedings against him. By letter dated June 27, 2007, Mr. Li contested the School Board's action and requested a hearing. On August 23, 2007, this matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
On September 27, 2007, the School Board filed a Notice of Specific Charges, consisting of five counts. The School Board charged Mr. Li as follows: Count I, committing gross insubordination, as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(4), constituting just cause for dismissal pursuant to Article II of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Contract; Count II, accumulating unauthorized absences, which resulted in excessive absenteeism and abandonment of position, constituting just cause for dismissal pursuant to Article XI of the AFSCME Contract; Count III, violating School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, in that Mr. Li’s conduct of gross insubordination, excessive absenteeism, and abandonment of position constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee and, therefore, just cause for dismissal pursuant to Article II of the AFSCME
Contract; Count IV, violating School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, in that Mr. Li’s conduct of gross insubordination, excessive absenteeism, and abandonment of position constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee and, therefore, just cause for dismissal pursuant to Article II of the AFSCME Contract; and Count V, violating School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves, in that Mr. Li’s conduct of gross insubordination, excessive absenteeism, and abandonment of position constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee and, therefore, just cause for dismissal pursuant to Article II of the AFSCME Contract and Section 1012.67, Florida Statutes.
At hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of four witnesses, including Mr. Li, and entered 22 exhibits (Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1-22) into evidence. Mr. Li testified in his own behalf and entered two exhibits (Respondent’s Exhibits numbered 1 and 2) into evidence.
A transcript of the hearing was ordered. At the request of the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for ten days following the filing of the transcript. The Transcript, consisting of one volume, was filed on December 17, 2007. Only the School Board filed a post-hearing submission, which was timely filed. The School Board’s post-hearing submission has been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, the School Board was a constitutional entity charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise the public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
In November 2001, Mr. Li was employed with the School Board as a Microsystems Technician. No dispute exists that, as a Microsystems Technician, Mr. Li is an educational support employee, and his employment is governed by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and AFSCME, hereinafter the AFSCME Contract.
In April 2004, Mr. Li was assigned to two worksites, Cypress Creek Elementary School, hereinafter Cypress Creek, and Blue Lakes Elementary School, hereinafter Blue Lakes. At both schools, his responsibilities included installing computers, running the network, maintaining the software for the computers, and training students and teachers on how to use the software.
At Cypress Creek, Mr. Li was assigned to work ten (10) days per month. He experienced problems with his attendance immediately at Cypress Creek, resulting in the principal, Faye Haynes, issuing an “Absence From Worksite Directive,” hereinafter AWS Directive, on May 27, 2004, to Mr. Li. The AWS Directive included, among other things, in detail his leave without pay, authorized (LWOA), and leave without pay,
unauthorized (LWOU). Further, the AWS Directive advised Mr. Li, among other things, that his absence from his duties adversely impacted the educational and work environment; and directed him, among other things, to be in regular attendance at the school and on time, to report his intent to be absent directly to the principal or assistant principal, and to provide to the principal or assistant principal written documentation, by way of a written medical note from the treating physician, of absences for illness. Additionally, Mr. Li was advised that future absences would be considered LWOU unless and until the documentation was provided.
Mr. Li signed the AWS Directive. However, his attendance failed to improve.
A second AWS Directive was issued by Principal Haynes to Mr. Li on September 7, 2004, as a result of his being absent on September 2, 2004. Mr. Li signed the second AWS Directive on the same date. The second AWS Directive included the same matters of which he was previously advised and the same directives. Moreover, Mr. Li was advised that his non- compliance with the directives would be considered a violation of professional responsibilities or insubordination.
Mr. Li’s absences failed to improve, and his absences adversely affected the worksite at Cypress Creek. Both teachers and students were suffering from the lack of timely computer-
associated activities that were dependent upon Mr. Li timely performing his responsibilities.
Mr. Li’s attendance was complicated even more on October 26, 2006. He was arrested for burglary, involving a vehicle, and battery. At the time of his arrest, Principal Haynes was not aware that the reason for Mr. Li’s immediate absence was that he was in jail; she was only aware that he had not reported to work at Cypress Creek.
Mr. Li testified at hearing that, while he was in jail, he was given one (1) telephone call and that he called his wife. He explained to his wife what had happened and requested her to call Cypress Creek. Further, Mr. Li testified that his wife called Cypress Creek and indicated that he had been arrested.
No testimony was presented contradicting the testimony that Mr. Li’s wife had contacted Cypress Creek. His testimony is found to be credible.
On November 1, 2006, Principal Haynes issued and mailed to Mr. Li an Employment Intention Memorandum, hereinafter EI Memorandum. The EI Memorandum indicated, among other things, the dates of Mr. Li’s absences; that the absences were unauthorized and warranted dismissal on the grounds of job abandonment; that several options were available (indicating the options); and that an immediate response was requested to any of the options. Principal Haynes was concerned that Mr. Li was in
danger of losing his job due to the number of unauthorized absences and, as a result, she included, as one of the options, a form requesting a leave of absence without pay. Mr. Li testified that he did not doubt that Principal Haynes was attempting to help him.
On November 3, 2006, after serving ten (10) days, Mr. Li was released from jail. He had missed seven (7) consecutive workdays. Mr. Li reported to work at Blue Lakes, where he was also the Microsystems Technician. However, he was informed by the principal at Blue Lakes that he was required to report to Regional Center V, as an alternate location, a consequence of his arrest. Being at Regional Center V, Mr. Li was not able to perform any duties and responsibilities at either Cypress Creek or Blue Lakes.
Regarding the EI Memorandum, Mr. Li testified at hearing that he received the EI Memorandum after he was released from jail, but did not complete the form requesting a leave of absence without pay because he was unsure as to whether he should complete and return it. He was not sure as to whether completing the form would benefit or harm him, so he did not complete it. His testimony is found to be credible. The evidence is clear and convincing that Mr. Li intentionally did not complete the form requesting a leave of absence without pay.
Not having the services of Mr. Li adversely impacted Cypress Creek. Principal Haynes needed the computer services for her school, and, to provide the needed services, she was forced to hire another school employee, a Microsystems Technician, on an hourly basis to work in the evenings to perform Mr. Li’s responsibilities. In order to pay for the needed services being provided by another Microsystems Technician, Principal Haynes had to redirect funds from other programs.
As a condition of his alternate placement, on November 3, 2006, Mr. Li executed a Terms and Conditions of Administrative Placement at Alternate Location, hereinafter Terms and Conditions, form. Included in the Terms and Conditions was a requirement that he report to his work assignment during his regular duty hours, which were 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; that he report his attendance by signing-in as directed; that, if he was to take leave due to illness or personal reasons, he must notify the person to whom he reports his attendance in the mornings, who was the administrative director, Melanie Fox, Ph.D., or, according to Dr. Fox, to an administrative secretary; and that he must complete and return work assignments in a timely manner.
Mr. Li had attendance problems immediately at Regional Center V, and Dr. Fox advised and reminded him that he was able
to apply for leave for a medical condition, if he had such a situation. Due to Mr. Li’s absences, while he was assigned to the Regional Center, on January 19, 2007, Dr. Fox issued him a second EI Memorandum, which was his second EI Memorandum in less than three months.
The EI Memorandum indicated that Mr. Li was absent from his worksite 34 times, beginning with September 15, 2006, and ending with January 18, 2007. Furthermore, Dr. Fox indicated, among other things, in the EI Memorandum that the absences were unauthorized and warranted dismissal on grounds of abandonment; that he had four options to which she requested his immediate reply, including notifying her of his need for leave and his intended date of return, requesting leave or resigning, using the forms provided; that he had three days in which to reply; that his absences were considered unauthorized until he communicated directly with her; and that his failure to respond would result in termination due to abandonment. Included with the EI Memorandum, per the School Board’s policy, was a Request for Leave for Absence Without Pay form and a Letter of Resignation form, as options for Mr. Li. He did not complete either form.
To determine whether Mr. Li’s absences were authorized or unauthorized, Dr. Fox was guided by the terms of the AFSCME Contract. No dispute exists that the AFSCME Contract was
applicable and controlling. Dr. Fox determined that, according to the AFSCME Contract, after the covered employee’s sick leave is expended, any subsequent absence becomes unauthorized unless the employee provides a note from an attending physician. As a result, Mr. Li had expended his sick leave and, therefore, his absences were leave without pay, unauthorized, but, when he provided notes from an attending physician, the absences were changed in the payroll reporting system to leave without pay, authorized.
Mr. Li returned to work. However, his absences did not cease.
As to Mr. Li’s arrest for burglary, involving a vehicle, and battery, on March 6, 2007, he pled nolo contendere to battery; adjudication was withheld; and his sentence included one-year probation, performing community service, and participating in an anger management program. Mr. Li testified at hearing that no burglary was involved, only a fight. His testimony is found to be credible.
On May 16, 2007, a conference-for-the-record, hereinafter CFR, was held to address Mr. Li’s attendance problems; violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E1.01, Absences and Leaves; abandonment of position; insubordination; a review of his record; and his future employment status with the School Board. He did not attend the CFR due to being ill, i.e.,
passing kidney stones and experiencing great pain. A written Summary of the CFR was prepared, and Mr. Li was provided a copy of it. He does not deny that he received a copy of the Summary of the CFR.
Included in the Summary of the CFR were Mr. Li’s absences for the 2005-2006 school year and from July 1, 2006 through May 3, 2007. For the 2005-2006 school year, he was absent six (6) sick days, six (6) personal days, nine (9) days LWOA, and one (1) day LWOU, totaling 22 days, excluding vacation days. From July 1, 2006 through May 3, 2007, he was absent two
(2) sick days, three (3) personal days, 68 days LWOU, and 37 days LWOA, totaling 110 days, excluding vacation days.
A copy of School Board Rules 6Gx13-4E1.01, Absences and Leaves, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, were attached to the Summary of the CFR.
Also, included in the Summary of the CFR were directives to Mr. Li concerning his absences, which was his third time he was being issued directives. The directives included being in regular attendance and on time at the worksite; communicating directly with Dr. Fox when he intended to be absent; documenting absences for illness through a written medical note from his treating physicians presented to Dr. Fox upon his return to the worksite, with a failure to do so resulting in the absences being recorded as LWOU; and adhering
to School Board rules, in particular 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences and Leaves, and 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties.
Furthermore, in the Summary of the CFR, Mr. Li was advised, among other things, that the number of absences were deemed excessive; that his absence from work had adversely impacted the educational program and the effective operation of the work unit; that, if he had attended, he would have been provided an opportunity to respond with reasons for his excessive unauthorized absences and insubordination; that noncompliance with the directives would necessitate a review by the Office of Professional Standards, hereinafter OPS; and that a legal review by the School Board attorneys might result in recommended action or disciplinary measures, including dismissal.
Even after receiving the Summary of the CFR, Mr. Li’s problem with absences continued. As of June 13, 2007, he accumulated an additional 29 unauthorized absences.
Subsequent to the CFR, Principal Haynes recommended the termination of Mr. Li because she determined that she could not depend upon him and that she needed a dependable Microsystems Technician at Cypress Creek. The Regional Superintendent for Region Center V concurred in her recommendation. OPS concurred in the recommendation because it considered Mr. Li’s conduct to violate the AFSCME Contract and
the School Board’s rules regarding Responsibilities and Duties, Code of Ethics, and Absences and Leaves.
As to the unauthorized absences, Mr. Li’s deposition was taken by the School Board, and, during the deposition, he presented documents purporting to excuse some of the unauthorized absences. Further, at hearing, he presented additional such documents. Mr. Li testified that his personnel file should have contained all of the documents that he had presented; that he requested his physicians to provide the documents to Cypress Creek; that his physicians informed him that they were not required to indicate the specific nature of the illness for which they were treating him but required only to indicate that they were treating him on the dates indicated; and that his physicians forwarded the documents to Cypress Creek, some by fax. The School Board agreed to accept the documents as demonstrating that the absences indicated on the documents should be excused and changed to authorized absences. Even with the changing of the documented absences from unauthorized to authorized, the School Board asserts that the total number of unauthorized absences is 74. The 74 unauthorized absences include 12 days that Mr. Li was in jail and appeared in court, which were brought to the attention of the School Board by Mr. Li.
No dispute exists that Mr. Li had exhausted all of his sick and personal leave.
Mr. Li does not contest that the total number of unauthorized absences is 74. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li had 74 unauthorized absences.
However, at hearing, Mr. Li testified that he wants the reason known as to the medical reason for his absence from the worksite. He testified that the reason for the unauthorized absences, excluding the aforementioned 12 days, was that he was suffering from depression, which caused his immune system to weaken, which lead to other health problems, such as being susceptible to viruses and infections. Also, he testified that he was being seen by a psychiatrist. Furthermore, Mr. Li testified that, prior to his arrest, he was participating in the Employee Assistance Program, hereinafter EAP, due to his depression, and was being seen by a counselor; and that he continued in the EAP until his termination. Additionally,
Mr. Li testified that he failed to complete the Request for Leave of Absence Without Pay form provided by Dr. Fox on January 19, 2007, because he was unsure as what might happen if he completed it since Dr. Fox had indicated to him that she did not believe that he was ill. Moreover, Mr. Li testified that he was not attempting to dispute the 74 unauthorized absences and to have the unauthorized absences changed to authorized
absences, but that he was attempting to demonstrate that he was not a “bad person,” that he was not faking his illness, that the absences were not on purpose, and that he was not insubordinate. The undersigned finds Mr. Li’s testimony to be credible.
The undersigned provided Mr. Li with the opportunity to continue the hearing in order for him to have his psychiatrist and counselor testify in this matter; however, Mr. Li decided not to take advantage of a continuance but to proceed with the hearing without the psychiatrist and counselor as witnesses. Even though the undersigned finds Mr. Li’s testimony regarding his depression credible, in particular, as
to the effect of his depression on his physical well-being, and even though depression undoubtedly affects one’s mental well- being, including one’s thinking process, no testimony was presented as to what extent Mr. Li’s depression affected his thinking process.
The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li was physically ill during the absences, except for the 12 absences he was in jail and appeared in court.
The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li was not in regular attendance and on time at his worksite.
As to the unauthorized absences, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li failed to provide documentation,
regarding his illness, through the production of written medical notes from his treating physicians.
The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li failed to communicate his unauthorized absences to Principal Hayes or Dr. Fox and that he intentionally failed to communicate his unauthorized absences to them.
The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Li refused to request a leave of absence. The evidence demonstrates that he did not request a leave of absence because he was unsure as to whether such a request would benefit or harm him, especially when Dr. Fox informed him that she did not believe that he was ill, but at the same time, providing him with the request. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Mr. Li’s failure to request a leave of absence was reasonable.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2007).
The School Board has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Li committed the offenses in the Notice of Specific Charges. McNeil v. Pinellas County
School Board, 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
No dispute exists that at all times material hereto, Mr. Li was subject to the rules and regulations of the School Board and that his employment was also subject to the terms and conditions of the AFSCME Contract. AFSCME’s Contract at Article II, Section 3 provides that certain rights are reserved exclusively to the School Board and the Superintendent, including the “separation, suspension, dismissal, and termination of employees for just cause ”
Further, AFSCME’s Contract at Article V, Section 27 provides that “Unauthorized Absence – Any absence without pay which has not been requested by the employee and approved by the supervisor, in writing, at least five days in advance. Absences of the employee, where notice of absence is made prior to the start of the workday, but are not covered by the employee having accrued sick or personal leave, shall be charged as unauthorized absence and may result in disciplinary action in accordance with Article XI. . . The work location supervisor has the authority to change an unauthorized leave; however, nothing herein precludes requested leave being determined to be unauthorized where the employee does not have available sick or sufficient personal leave.”
Moreover, AFSCME’s Contract at Article XI, Section 4 provides that an “unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position.
Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall constitute grounds for termination. ”
Section 1012.67, Florida Statutes (2006), provides that a “school board employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence, and his or her employment shall be subject to termination ”
The School Board contends that just cause exists for the suspension and termination of Mr. Li.
The School Board's interpretation of its own rules is given great deference unless it amounts to an unreasonable interpretation or is clearly erroneous. Woodley v. Department
of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 505 So. 2d 676, 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, provides in pertinent part:
Employee Conduct
All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system.
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01, Absences, Leaves and Vacations, provides in pertinent part:
The policies and rules governing absences and leaves of personnel are determined by and patterned after state laws and regulations. Except for sudden illness or emergency situations, any employee who is absent without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave.
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.213, Code of Ethics, provides in pertinent part:
INTRODUCTION
All members of The School Board of Miami- Dade County, Florida, administrators, teachers and all other employees of Miami- Dade County Public Schools, regardless of their position, collective bargaining status or role, because of their dual roles as public servants and educators are to be bound by the following Code of Ethics. . . .
* * *
Further, nonacademic and elected officials are bound to accept these principles since these groups reflect critical policy direction and support services for the essential academic purpose.
APPLICATION
This Code of Ethics applies to all members of The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, administrators, teachers, and all other employees. . . .
Employees are subject to various other laws, rules, and regulations, including but not limited to “The Code of Ethics for the Education Profession in Florida and the
Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida,” Chapter 6B-1.001 and -1.006, F.A.C., the “Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees,” found in Chapter 112, Part III of the Florida Statutes, and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.212, Conflict of Interest, which are incorporated herein by reference and this Code of Ethics should be viewed as additive to these laws, rules and regulations. To the extent not in conflict with any laws, School Board rules or governmental regulations, this Code of
Ethics shall control with regard to conduct. In the event of any conflict, the law, regulation or School Board Rule shall control.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
The fundamental principles upon which this Code of Ethics is predicated are as follows:
Citizenship – Helping to create a society based upon democratic values; e.g., rule of law, equality of opportunity, due process, reasoned argument, representative government, checks and balances, rights and responsibilities, and democratic decision- making.
Cooperation – Working together toward goals as basic as human survival in an increasingly interdependent world.
Fairness – Treating people impartially, not playing favorites, being open-minded, and maintaining an objective attitude toward those whose actions and ideas are different from our own.
Honesty – Dealing truthfully with people, being sincere, not deceiving them nor stealing from them, not cheating or lying.
Integrity – Standing up for your beliefs about what is right and what is wrong and resisting social pressure to do wrong.
Kindness – Being sympathetic, helpful, compassionate, benevolent, agreeable, and gentle toward people and other living things.
Pursuit of Excellence – Doing your best with the talents you have, striving toward a goal, and not giving up.
Respect – Showing regard for the worth and dignity of someone or something, being courteous and polite, and judging all people on their merits. It takes three major forms: respect oneself, respect for other people, and respect for all forms of life and the environment.
Responsibility – Thinking before you act and being accountable for your actions, paying attention to others and responding to their needs. Responsibility emphasizes our positive obligations to care for each other.
Each employee agrees and pledges:
1. To abide by this Code of Ethics, making the well-being of the students and the honest performance of professional duties core guiding principles.
* * *
5. To take responsibility and be accountable for his or her actions.
* * *
To cooperate with others to protect and advance the District and its students.
To be efficient and effective in the delivery of job duties.
Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(4) provides in pertinent part:
The basis for charges upon which dismissal action against instructional personnel may be pursued are set forth in Section 231.36,
F.S. The basis for each of such charges is hereby defined:
* * *
(4) Gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties is defined as a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority.
As to Count I, committing gross insubordination, Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(4), by its own terms, is applicable to instructional employees. Mr. Li is not an instructional employee. Applying such Rule to Mr. Li is unreasonable. Consequently, the evidence fails to demonstrate that he committed gross insubordination. Hence, just cause does not exist for dismissal on the basis of gross insubordination.
As to Count II, accumulating unauthorized absences, which resulted in excessive absenteeism and abandonment of position, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li had accumulated more than ten (10) unauthorized absences in a 12-month period. Even though his supervisor changed many unauthorized absences to authorized absences, he still accumulated unauthorized absences far exceeding ten (10) unauthorized absences in a 12-month period. Further, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li was
provided an opportunity to complete a leave of absence form but failed to complete the form due to his uncertainty as to whether completing the form would benefit or harm him. Moreover, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li’s absence from his worksite adversely impacted Cypress Creek. Consequently, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li’s unauthorized absences resulted in excessive absenteeism and abandonment of his position. Hence, just cause exists for dismissal pursuant to Article XI of the AFSCME Contract.
As to Count III, violating School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-
1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, the evidence demonstrates that, because Mr. Li’s unauthorized absences resulted in excessive absenteeism and abandonment of his position, his conduct constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee, thus, violating the said Rule. Hence, just cause exists for dismissal pursuant to Article II of the AFSCME Contract.
As to Count IV, violating School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.213, Code of Ethics, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Li’s excessive absenteeism and abandonment of his position was a violation of the said Rule and constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Hence, just cause for dismissal exists pursuant to Article II of the AFSCME Contract.
As to Count V, violating School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E- 1.01, Absences and Leaves, the evidence demonstrates that
Mr. Li’s excessive absenteeism and abandonment of his position was a violation of the said Rule and constituted conduct unbecoming a School Board employee. Hence, just cause for dismissal exists pursuant to Article II of the AFSCME Contract and Section 1012.67, Florida Statutes.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order suspending and dismissing Jorge Li from employment with it.
DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
ERROL H. POWELL
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 15th day of January, 2008.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Janeen L. Richard, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board
1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
Jorge Li
11458 Southwest 109th Road, Apt. X Miami, Florida 33176
Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School District 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912
Miami, Florida 33132-1394
Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education
Turlington Building, Suite 1244
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 25, 2008 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jan. 15, 2008 | Recommended Order | Petitioner demonstrated just cause for suspension and dismissal of Respondent due to his accumlation of unauthorized absences resulting in excessive absenteeism and abandoment of position. |
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs FREDERICK D. TUFF, 07-003792 (2007)
ST. LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs JAMES DAILEY, 07-003792 (2007)
BETTY SUAREZ PATTERSON vs. MONROE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 07-003792 (2007)
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs GLORIA P. ADAMS, 07-003792 (2007)
RALPH D. TURLINGTON, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs. OTIS WARD CARROLL, 07-003792 (2007)
