STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

SHEDEIDRA EDGE, )

)

Respondent. )

Case No. 07-4012

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to Notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on November 7, 2007, by video teleconference with sites in West Palm Beach and Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Vicki L. Evans-Pare, Esquire

Palm Beach County School Board Post Office Box 19239

West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239

For Respondent: Shedeidra Edge, pro se

1460 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue presented is whether Respondent Shedeidra Edge should be suspended without pay and dismissed from her employment with Petitioner School Board of Palm Beach County,

Florida, for the reasons set forth in the Petition filed in this

cause.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By correspondence dated July 16, 2007, the Superintendent of Schools for the School District of Palm Beach County, Florida, advised Respondent that he would recommend to the School Board that Respondent be suspended without pay on

July 31, 2007, and that her employment be terminated on August 15, 2007, for insubordination. Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing regarding that proposed disciplinary action. On September 5, 2007, this cause was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to

conduct the evidentiary proceeding to resolve the allegations in the Petition for suspension without pay and dismissal from employment, filed that same date.

At the commencement of the final hearing, Respondent clarified that she was contesting the allegations in the Petition that relate to insubordination but was not denying the allegations in the Petition as to the specific dates on which she arrived at work late or the amount of time she was late on each of those dates.

Petitioner presented the testimony of Kenyetta Haywood, Kimberly Barker, Kent Heitman, Joan Crawford, and

Paula Nessmith. Respondent testified on her own behalf.

Additionally, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 2, 3, 5, 11, 12,

15, 17, 20, 24, 27, 29-31, 34a, 39, 41, 43, 47, 50, 53, 57, 61-

63, and 68 were admitted in evidence.

The Transcript of the final hearing was filed on December 5, 2007. By agreement, both parties filed their proposed recommended orders on December 14, 2007. Those

documents have been considered in the entry of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent Shedeidra Edge has been employed by Petitioner School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, since 1999.

2. Prior to August 2006 Respondent interviewed for an opening as a secretary in the student services office at Jupiter High School. During her interview she was advised that the busiest time of the day in that office was when the students arrived at 7:00 a.m. until the first class began at around 7:30. She was advised that there would be two secretaries in that office, each of whom would be responsible for certain of the duties required in that office. Since there were four assistant principals working in that office, each of the secretaries was informally assigned to two of them to prevent all four from assigning all of their work to only one secretary.

3. She understood that one of the secretaries would begin work at 6:45 a.m. and the other at 7:00 a.m. Respondent was offered the 7:00 a.m. starting time since she would be the first of the two secretaries for that office to be hired. Respondent advised the principal and head secretary during the interview that she did not know if she could accept a job starting at

   7:00 a.m. She subsequently telephoned the head secretary and advised her that she could accept the job and that she had worked out her transportation and daycare concerns.

4. Respondent began working as a secretary at Jupiter High School in the student services office in August 2006. From the beginning she was late arriving at work almost daily. In an effort to assist Respondent and since Respondent was only a few minutes late, the principal adjusted Respondent's start time to 7:10 a.m.

5. Respondent started arriving even later, and the principal, thinking that a slightly-later start time would solve the problem, adjusted Respondent's start time to 7:20 a.m., starting September 11, 2006. With that adjustment, Respondent began arriving even later most mornings. By January 2007 she was arriving an hour late regularly.

6. Although Respondent sometimes called to say she would be late, sometimes she did not. She simply came in, carrying

   her breakfast which she had stopped to pick up on her way to work even though she was late.

7. The impact of Respondent's regular tardiness on the operation of Jupiter High School was negative and significant. The before-school rush of business in the student services office could not be handled by one secretary. Accordingly, when Respondent was late, an employee from another office was taken away from that employee's duties to cover for Respondent. Those employees were unhappy about having to cover for Respondent, who appeared to them to be permitted to arrive at work whenever she felt like it with impunity.

8. One of the responsibilities of the student services office involved retrieving textbooks from students withdrawing from school and accounting for lost or missing textbooks. Since Jupiter High School had to reimburse the school district for textbooks not returned, which would, in turn, impact the School's operating budget, Kent Heitman, one of the assistant principals to whom Respondent was informally assigned, was in charge of making sure that textbooks were returned to the school before approving a student's withdrawal and release of that student's records.

9. It was Respondent's job, assigned to her by Assistant Principal Heitman, to make the initial contact with a student's parents when a student failed to return a textbook. She was to

   provide the parents with the information on the unreturned textbook, including the price for the parent to replace it. She was to record the information regarding her contact in a log set up for that purpose. She was responsible for keeping that log current, along with the student obligation list of students who owed money to the school for missing or lost textbooks, utilizing information obtained from teachers and the school's cashier. Heitman told Respondent that if she had a problem with any parent as a result of the initial contact she made, she was to turn that particular matter over to him, and he would handle

   it.

   
   

10. Respondent refused to make the phone calls and refused

    
    

    to make the required entries on the log. She took the position that it was Heitman's job to do these things and not hers.

11. Although Respondent was counseled regularly about the need to arrive at work on time, she failed to do so. Therefore, on November 10, 2006, Dr. Paula Nessmith, the Principal of Jupiter High School, issued to Respondent a Memorandum of Specific Incident regarding her continuing late arrivals at work. That Memorandum pointed out that from Friday, October 20, 2006, through Wednesday, November 8, 2006, Respondent had arrived at work on time only once. The Memorandum further advised Respondent that her failure to comply with the

    directives to arrive at work on time might result in further disciplinary action.

12. On December 4, 2006, Principal Nessmith issued a Written Directive to Respondent, advising her that she had been late all but two days from November 13 through December 1, 2006. That Written Directive further advised Respondent that her continued late arrival would constitute insubordination and result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.

13. On December 14, 2006, Assistant Principal Heitman again directed Respondent to call parents of withdrawing students to retrieve unreturned textbooks. He sent her three e- mail directives with the same instruction on December 15, 18, and 19, 2006.

14. On December 22, 2006, Principal Nessmith gave Respondent a Written Directive as a result of Respondent's continued failure to call parents of withdrawing students who had not returned textbooks in accordance with Assistant Principal Heitman's directives of December 14, 15, 18, and 19 and Principal Nessmith's verbal directive of December 19. The Written Directive detailed the procedures that Respondent was to follow in performing that duty. It also advised Respondent that her continued refusal to comply would be considered insubordination and could result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.

15. On January 16, 2007, Principal Nessmith gave Respondent a Verbal Reprimand with Written Notation for failing to follow the directives given Respondent on December 4 and 22, 2006. That Verbal Reprimand advised Respondent that her continued refusal to comply would result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination.

16. On January 17, 2007, Principal Nessmith gave Respondent a Written Directive: Textbook and Student Obligation List Procedures and Responsibilities, detailing the procedure for Respondent to follow regarding textbooks and student obligations. The Written Directive again advised Respondent that her continued refusal to perform her job duties would be viewed as insubordination and would result in discipline up to and including termination.

17. On January 25, 2007, Principal Nessmith gave Respondent a Written Reprimand for not complying with the January 17, 2007, Verbal Reprimand with Written Notation. The Written Reprimand noted that Respondent had arrived at work at least 40 minutes late every day since she had received the verbal reprimand and had failed to place and log telephone calls to the parents of withdrawing students who had not returned textbooks. It further advised Respondent that her continued refusal to comply with directives constituted gross

    insubordination and her continued failure would result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination.

18. On February 2, 2007, Principal Nessmith issued to Respondent another Written Reprimand for not complying with the directives of January 17 and 25. The Written Reprimand noted that Respondent had arrived at work at least 40 minutes late every day since the January 25 Written Reprimand. It noted that Respondent still refused to follow the required procedures regarding unreturned textbooks as contained in the previous directives and reprimands. It noted that Respondent's continuing late arrivals and refusal to follow required procedures constituted gross insubordination, and that Respondent's failure to comply would subject her to further disciplinary action up to and including termination.

19. Respondent continued to fail to comply.

    
    

20. By correspondence dated March 7, 2007, Respondent was advised that a pre-disciplinary meeting to address her insubordination was scheduled. Respondent attended the meeting on March 12, 2007. At the conclusion of the meeting, the matter was referred to the Superintendent.

21. By letter dated July 16, 2007, the Superintendent of Schools issued his Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Termination from Employment advising Respondent that at the August 1, 2007, School Board meeting he would recommend that she

    be suspended without pay as of July 31, 2007, and terminated from employment as of August 15, 2007, for insubordination, subject to her timely request for an administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings.

22. Upon the School Board's approval of the Superintendent's recommendation and upon Respondent's timely request for a hearing, this matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and the hearing was conducted as set

    forth above.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

23. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof and the parties hereto. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

24. Section 1012.27(5), Florida Statutes, authorizes school superintendents to recommend employees for dismissal, and Section 1012.22(1)(f), Florida Statutes, places the ultimate responsibility for suspending or dismissing employees on the School Board.

25. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between The Palm Beach County School District, Florida, and The Association of Educational Secretaries and Office Professionals, effective July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008, requires in Article 3,

    Section B.15.(c) that an employee who is performing in an unsatisfactory manner be given 30 days' notice to improve his or

    her performance before the employee can be recommended for suspension or termination. Respondent was given many months in which to improve her performance, but she did not do so.

26. Article 3, Section C, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides for progressive discipline of an employee, commencing with a verbal warning, then a written reprimand, then suspension without pay with Board approval, followed by dismissal with Board approval. It also provides that the suspension or dismissal of an employee must be for just cause.

27. Respondent was given many verbal warnings and written reprimands for the same two deficiencies before the Superintendent made his recommendation to the School Board that Respondent be suspended and then terminated. By that time it was clear that Respondent had no intention of arriving at work on time and no intention of following the instructions of an Assistant Principal and the Principal to follow the procedures set forth for contacting parents of withdrawing students to retrieve unreturned textbooks and of working with the student obligation list.

28. In this proceeding Respondent did not dispute her continuing late arrival for work, which behavior constituted insubordination and was just cause for suspending and dismissing her from her employment. She also gave no rational explanation for her continued refusal to follow the procedures for calling

    and logging contact with parents of withdrawing students, which refusal constituted insubordination and was just cause for suspending and dismissing her from her employment. Her supervisors gave her more than a reasonable time to improve her performance but it was clear that she did not want to improve.

29. By the time of the final hearing, Respondent appeared to not yet understand that it is reasonable for an employer to expect an employee to come to work on time and to carry out the duties assigned to that employee. She considers herself to have been "a positive role model" at Jupiter High School. However, the evidence is clear and convincing that she was the opposite.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending Respondent without pay as of July 31, 2007, and terminating her employment as of August 15, 2007, for insubordination.

DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2008, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LINDA M. RIGOT

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 7th day of January, 2008.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Arthur C. Johnson, Ph.D.

Palm Beach County School Board Post Office Box 19239

West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239

Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Dr. Eric J. Smith, Esquire Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Vicki L. Evans-Pare, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Post Office Box 19239

West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-9239

Shedeidra Edge

1460 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

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.

Docket for Case No: 07-004012

Orders for Case No: 07-004012