STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. )
)
ERIC COHEN, )
)
Respondent. )
Case No. 10-9414
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was conducted by video teleconference between Miami and Tallahassee, Florida, on December 8, 2010, before Administrative Law Judge Claude B. Arrington of the Division of Administrative Hearings
(DOAH).
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Arianne B. Suarez, Esquire
Miami-Dade County School Board
1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430
Miami, Florida 33132
For Respondent: Eric Cohen, pro se
2431 Trapp Avenue
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges filed October 11, 2010, and, if so, the
discipline, if any, that should be imposed against Respondent's employment.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
At its regularly scheduled meeting on September 7, 2010, the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, (Petitioner) voted to suspend the employment of Eric Cohen (Mr. Cohen or Respondent) without pay and to terminate his employment subject to his right to request a formal administrative hearing.
Respondent timely requested a formal administrative hearing to challenge Petitioner's action; the matter was referred to DOAH, and this proceeding followed.
Unless otherwise noted, each reference to a statute is to Florida Statutes (2010), and each reference to a rule is to the rule as published in Florida Administrative Code as of the date of this Recommended Order. There has been no material change to any statute or rule cited in this Recommended Order from the date the events occurred to the date of this Recommended Order.
At the times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Mr. Cohen as a classroom teacher. The Notice of Specific Charges seeks the termination of Mr. Cohen's employment pursuant to sections 1012.32, 1012.33(1)(a), (6)(a), and 447.209, Florida Statutes. Petitioner alleges that Mr. Cohen violated Petitioner's rules 6Gx13-4A-1.213 (Code of Ethics), 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Responsibilities and Duties), 6Gx13-4A-1.08
(Violence in the Workplace). Petitioner also alleges that Mr. Cohen was guilty of "misconduct in office" and "gross
insubordination" as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3) and (4), respectively. Petitioner's allegations are based on the assertions that Mr. Cohen has engaged a long history of unacceptable and unprofessional behavior, which will be discussed in detail below.
At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Valmarie Rhoden, Philippe Napoleon, Lavette Hunter, Ernesto Mantilla, Maria Rosmond, Carment Marinelli, Ana Sanchez, Julio
C. Miranda, and Milagros Hernandez. Each of these witnesses was either an employee or a former employee of Petitioner. Petitioner offered 41 sequentially-numbered exhibits, each of which was admitted into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf and offered eight exhibits, seven of which were admitted into evidence.
A Transcript of the proceedings, consisting of one volume, was filed on January 31, 2011. Each party filed a Proposed Recommended Order, and both have been duly-considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been on an annual contract that is subject to a professional service contract and collective bargaining agreement between Miami-Dade County Public Schools (hereinafter "M-DCPS") and the United Teachers of Dade (hereinafter "the UTD Contract"), applicable Florida Statutes, applicable rules adopted by the Florida State Board of Education as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code, and Petitioner's adopted policies and procedures.
Article XXI, Section 1.B(1)(a) of the UTD Contract provides that "Any member of the instructional staff may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year, provided that the charges against him/her are based upon Florida Statutes."
Santa Clara
Petitioner first employed Respondent as a classroom teacher beginning in 2004 and assigned him to teach fourth-grade math at Santa Clara Elementary School (Santa Clara).
In May 2007, Petitioner's Civilian Investigative Unit (CIU) investigated an allegation that Respondent made verbal threats, using profane language, towards the principal at Santa Clara. Respondent was placed on alternate assignment at the Region 3 Office on May 3, 2007, pending the outcome of the case. The allegation was substantiated for violation of School Board
Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 (Responsibilities and Duties). During a Conference for the Record, written directives were issued to Respondent. On November 1, 2007, Respondent was issued a written reprimand which contained the following directives:
Please abide by Miami-Dade County Schools (M-DCPS) School Board Rules at all times, specifically, School Board Rule, 6Gx13-4A-
1.21 Responsibilities and Duties; School Board Rule, 6Gx13-4-1.08, Violence in the Workplace; and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.23, Code of Ethics.
Conduct yourself, both in your employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon yourself and M-DCPS.
The Education Practices Commission filed a complaint against Respondent based on the incident at Santa Clara. That complaint was settled with Respondent receiving an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00. As part of the settlement agreement, Respondent did not admit or deny the alleged facts of the Santa Clara incident.
Turner Tech 2007-08 School Year
Petitioner transferred Respondent to Turner Technical Senior High School (Turner Tech) in November 2007, where he taught math. There were no adverse incidents during the balance of the 2007-08 school year.
Turner Tech 2008-09 School Year
Valmarie Rhoden was the principal of Turner Tech during the 2008-09 school year and part of the 2009-10 school year.
Phillipe Napoleon was an assistant principal at Turner Tech during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years.1
On November 18, 2008, one of Respondent's students told Respondent not to touch him and threatened to harm Respondent if he did so. Dr. Napoleon and Ms. Rhoden handled the situation for Respondent by giving the student two days of indoor suspension. Respondent became irate when he learned that the student was not to be more severely punished. After he learned of the student's punishment, Respondent yelled at Dr. Napoleon in the earshot of students and other school personnel. Respondent attempted to undermine Dr. Napoleon's authority. After that incident, Respondent and Dr. Napoleon had a very contentious relationship.
On February 19, 2009, Ms. Rhoden issued Respondent a memorandum entitled "Responsibilities and Duties" along with the Board Rule for his review regarding his unprofessional behavior because he had made an unprofessional outburst during a faculty meeting that Ms. Rhoden conducted and because Respondent had made unprofessional comments to other administrators. That memorandum provided, in part, as follows:
Please be reminded that it is your professional responsibility to conduct yourself in a manner that reflects credit upon yourself and the teaching profession. During the faculty meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 2009, you made an inappropriate comment and noise while I was addressing the
faculty on the respect shown teachers at the North Central Regional Center Teacher of the Year Breakfast.
On December 18, 2008, I met with you;
Mr. Hoffman (Lead Steward); Ms. Meyers (Steward); Mr. Mantilla, Vice Principal; and Mr. Napoleon, Assistant Principal, to discuss a series of verbal altercations you had with these administrators. We discussed the importance of being professional and respectful when addressing administrators and students. Please be advised that your conduct is a violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 and is unacceptable. Please refrain from addressing others in a manner that may be deemed unprofessional. A copy of the Board Rule is attached for your review. If you need further clarification, please see me. Your cooperation is expected and appreciated.
On April 27, 2009, Ms. Rhoden convened an Emergency Conference for the Record with Respondent to discuss reports of misconduct by Respondent during a UTD meeting that had occurred on April 23, 2009, and reports of inappropriate comments attributed to Respondent during a parent-teacher conference that occurred on April 24, 2009.
Participants at the UTD meeting reported that Respondent became uncontrollable and made disparaging remarks against the union representative who conducted the meeting. Teachers reported to Ms. Rhoden that they left the meeting because they had become afraid of Respondent.
The parent in the parent-teacher meeting reported that, in the presence of students, Respondent referred to
Ms. Rhoden as a "bitch" and to administrators as "three blind mice." The parent reported that Respondent had said "screw" administrators.
When Ms. Rhoden confronted Respondent about his behavior, he became enraged and engaged in an uncontrolled tirade.
A Conference for the Record was conducted at the school on Monday, April 27, 2009, and Ms. Rhoden issued the following directives to Respondent:
Adhere to all School Board rules, especially those related to Responsibilities and Duties.
Adhere to the Code of Ethics.
Conduct yourself in a professional manner at all times with all school personnel, parents and other stakeholders.
Do not use profanity in the presence of students, faculty, staff and other stakeholders.
Do not disrespect your administrators in your manner of speech or physical approach.
Do not use provocative language towards administrators, students, staff, or other stakeholders.
Respondent was the subject of a separate investigation based on an incident of misconduct that occurred on April 13, 2009, first in the hallway outside of Respondent's classroom and later in or near Dr. Napoleon's office.
The incident that triggered Respondent the confrontations on April 13, 2009, occurred when Dr. Napoleon, while conducting routine observations of classrooms, noticed
that a student in Respondent's classroom was wearing headphones. Dr. Napoleon entered Respondent's classroom and removed the headphones from the student. Respondent confronted Dr. Napoleon outside his classroom and said "how dare you come into my classroom and disrupt my classroom" in a "profoundly loud" manner in the hallway within earshot of school personnel and students.
Later in the day, Respondent confronted Dr. Napoleon in the office area. Respondent was upset and became aggressive towards Dr. Napoleon when he demanded an explanation of a memorandum relating to the earlier confrontation that Dr. Napoleon had issued to him. Ernesto Mantilla, a vice-principal at Turner Tech, stepped between Respondent and Dr. Napoleon because of Respondent's aggressive, threatening behavior. Mr. Mantilla, who has military training, put himself in what he referred to as "harm's way" because he felt it necessary to de- escalate the situation.
During that incident, Respondent told Dr. Napoleon that he was a "joke" and that he should leave the administration's efforts to Ms. Rhoden and Mr. Mantilla. Respondent threatened to tear up Dr. Napoleon's memorandum in front of Dr. Napoleon. Respondent asserted that his contract did not mandate him to be professional. He taunted Dr. Napoleon
by telling him that if Dr. Napoleon was going to fire him, to just go ahead and do it so he can collect a check and stay home.
Respondent refused to provide a statement during the course of that investigation stating that "it will take a year and a half to go through the process", and he would be resigning anyway at the end of the year.
On May 14, 2009, Ms. Rhoden issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for his behavior on April 13, 2009, which directed him to immediately refrain from displaying unprofessional, confrontational behavior. The letter of reprimand also directed Respondent to stop using abusive and profane language in the performance of his assigned duties.
Ms. Rhoden testified, credibly, that she and many of the staff members were afraid at times when Respondent "would go into his rage." His conduct "disrupted the environment" and impeded the workings of the school.
Turner Tech 2009-10 School Year
In September 2009, Dr. Napoleon conducted a training session for faculty at Turner Tech referred to as IPEGS training. Respondent was required to complete that training to maintain his teaching certification. Respondent left the room in which the training occurred and was absent for over half of the training session. Dr. Napoleon refused to award Respondent credit for the IPEGS training. Respondent became irate when
told he would not be given credit and believed that Dr. Napoleon was harassing him.
Ms. Rhoden retired in October 2009, and Lavette Hunter became the principal of Turner Tech.
On or about October 19, 2009, Respondent replied to a co-worker's email and sent it to all employees sarcastically commenting on the teacher's updating of the school on his involvement with a student internship program. Respondent stated, "please, no more e-mails about your presence. You're wonderful. Feel better?" The teacher complained to Ms. Vidal, and when she discussed the concern with Respondent, he was very irate and said that he was "tired of this bullshit" and was leaving for the day. Respondent told her to find coverage for his class and left school.
On October 26, 2009, Respondent went into
Dr. Napoleon's office "ranting and raving" because he said that Dr. Napoleon was talking about him. During that meeting, Respondent asked Dr. Napoleon whether he had gotten to be an assistant principal as a result of affirmative action. When Dr. Napoleon asked him to leave his office, Respondent refused, stating that he was going to leave when he got ready to leave. He thereafter left.
Dr. Napoleon believed that Respondent's comment was a racial slur and, on October 27, 2009, filed a complaint with the
M-DCPS Office of Civil Rights, which triggered an investigation (the civil rights investigation). Dr. Napoleon is African- American, and Respondent is Caucasian.
Respondent disrupted a faculty meeting conducted by Dr. Napoleon on October 27, 2009, and stormed out of the meeting causing his co-workers to feel uneasy and unsafe. Respondent got upset when Dr. Napoleon declined to interrupt his presentation to answer Respondent's question. Respondent was loud and disruptive (Dr. Napoleon described it as "ranting and raving"). Respondent made a threatening gesture towards
Dr. Napoleon as he left the room.
Dr. Napoleon testified, credibly, that Respondent's conduct undermined his authority to lead and to provide a safe learning environment for students and for teachers.
On October 28, 2009, Ms. Vidal (an assistant principal at Turner Tech) met with Respondent. During the course of the meeting, Respondent expressed that he thought he was being harassed and that he viewed himself as a disgruntled employee. He then made an implied threat that students would suffer on the FCAT because of the manner in which he was being treated.
Ms. Vidal was so disturbed by Respondent's comments that she felt that she immediately contacted her principal and put the incident in writing.
Respondent was removed from the school effective
November 5, 2009 and placed on alternate assignment during the course of the civil rights investigation.
On his last day at his worksite, Ms. Vidal and a security guard escorted Respondent to his classroom so he could collect his belongings before he was escorted out of the building. While in the classroom, in the presence of students, Respondent made demeaning comments to Ms. Vidal and told her that she and Ms. Hunter were responsible because they had not protected him from Dr. Napoleon.
Respondent's demeanor and his outbursts caused Ms. Vidal to fear for her safety.
Based on Respondent's conduct in October and November 2009, Ms. Hunter made a finding that "Probable Cause" existed that Respondent had violation of School Board Rule, 6Gx13- 4A- 1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. A Conference for the Record was conducted by Ms. Hunter on January 5, 2010, and Respondent was directed to "refrain from using inappropriate actions [sic] during the work day" and was issued copies of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.001, FAC, and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006, FAC, The Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession. He was also issued a letter of reprimand. Respondent was warned that "noncompliance with this directive will necessitate further
review for the imposition of additional disciplinary measures" and "any recurrences of the above infraction will result in further disciplinary action." The matter was referred to the Regional Office to for further review (the conduct investigation).
Administrative Placement
Respondent remained out on Administrative Placement pending the disposition of the conduct investigation and the civil rights investigation. On March 16, 2010, the School Board's Office of Civil Rights Compliance closed its civil rights investigation, concluding that "No Probable Cause" existed that a violation had occurred.
During his administrative placement for the civil rights investigation, Respondent was assigned to his residence and was not working. As part of his administrative placement, Respondent was instructed to call the Region Office twice each day at specific times, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. If he failed to call-in as instructed, he would not be entitled to payment for that day.
Respondent did not call either morning or afternoon on seven days on which he was assigned to his residence and not working. On four days he called in the morning, but not in the afternoon. Petitioner initially withheld pay from Respondent
for 11 days, but later issued him pay for the four days on which he called in the morning, but not the afternoon.
During his administrative placement, Respondent again began to exhibit abusive behavior by making numerous and repeated harassing telephone calls to administrative offices.
On March 17, 2010, at 1:00 p.m., M-DCPS Region I Secretary Maria Rosemond received a phone call from Respondent. Respondent asked to speak to Mr. Richard Vidal, who is the administrative director of Region I. Ms. Rosemond told Respondent that Mr. Vidal was not in. Mr. Cohen again asked to speak to Mr. Vidal, and Ms. Rosemond told him he was not there. Respondent then said, "I know Vidal is there. Tell him I will be there in half an hour to get his fucking ass out." Respondent then hung up the phone. Ms. Rosemond was afraid that he was going to actually come to region and harm Mr. Vidal or others at the Region I office.
An hour later, Respondent called again and asked to speak to Mr. Vidal. Ms. Rosemond transferred the call to Jennifer Andreu, Administrative Director, and Respondent explained that he was upset about a situation at Turner Tech. Ms. Andreu told Respondent that she would speak to the principal and rectify the problem. Respondent cursed at her and called her incompetent.
On March 4, 2010, Respondent called Turner Tech demanding to speak to Ms. Hunter. When the phone call was transferred to Dr. Napoleon, Respondent yelled out, "Why the fuck did they transfer the call to you. I want to speak with Ms. Hunter, not you."
When he spoke to Ms. Hunter, Respondent became irate and very loud. Ms. Hunter disconnected the line and never spoke to Respondent again (until the formal hearing). During the call, Respondent referred to Dr. Napoleon as an idiot and demanded that personnel at Turner Tech inform any caller asking about Respondent to respond by informing the caller that that he works at the Region I office. He further threatened that his lawyer would be calling and that the calls would be recorded.
Respondent does not dispute his confrontations on the phone with numerous secretaries with whom he spoke. Respondent admitted to the admissibility and the accuracy of the written statements from those secretaries taken during the course of the investigation(s).
Respondent believed that he should have been reinstated to the classroom at the conclusion of the civil rights investigation. Because the conduct investigation was still pending, it was not appropriate to place Respondent back into a classroom while the additional issues concerning his conduct were being reviewed. As such, Respondent remained out
on alternate assignment pending the disposition of this new investigation.
On April 22, 2010, Dr. Marinelli, the Region I superintendent, met with Respondent to discuss his employment status. They reviewed the disposition of the civil rights complaint and formally informed Respondent that a CIU investigation was being conducted regarding his alleged violations of School Board Rules and misconduct. During the meeting, Respondent referred to Dr. Marinelli as "dear," told her to be careful when reading and if she was nervous to relax, and tried to speak over her as she read the allegations of misconduct to him. He further goaded her by telling her that the complaint should have been filed by Mr. Vidal and to get with his attorney because she was getting bad advice.
When Dr. Marinelli read the allegation to him, he said "let me see that paper". She discussed the terms and conditions of his administrative placement and advised him that the conduct investigation was a separate proceeding than the civil rights case. Respondent became increasingly agitated as Dr. Marinelli read him his terms and conditions, and then yelled "just give me those papers". When she handed him the papers, he tore them in pieces and said in a loud voice "this is garbage, you are the queen of garbage". Respondent told Dr. Marinelli, "you may be able to click your fingers and your husband may do what you say,
but I don't have to do what you say. I'm not afraid of you." Police came into the room due to his loud and disruptive behavior.
During the course of the conduct investigation, Respondent was interviewed by CIU investigators. During his interview, he told one of the investigators to just fire him already, and he called the investigators liars. He took out his cell phone and represented that he was on the phone with an attorney and that he was recording their meeting. He even fabricated that one investigator was physically attacking him. Due to his belligerent and aggressive conduct and his verbal tirade, the meeting was terminated and a police officer was summoned to escort him out.
On June 8, 2010, CIU issued a report that concluded that "Probable Cause" existed that Respondent had violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties, 6Gx13-4A1.212, code of Ethics, and School Board Rule 6Gx13-4- 1.08, Violence in the Workplace.
Before Respondent was administered disciplinary action as a result of the conduct investigation, he again engaged in additional misconduct toward Dr. Marinelli that led to a final investigation conducted by the School Police.
On July 29, 2010, Dr. Marinelli received a phone call from Respondent wherein he was agitated and uttered profanity,
including the "F" word, at her. He further yelled, "Don't think I'm afraid of you. What I'm afraid is if you would sit on me." That call was disconnected. He called again, and Dr. Marinelli took the call. Prior to her taking the call, Respondent had told a secretary that Dr. Marinelli could not hide behind a secretary. During that call Respondent continued to yell at
Dr. Marinelli, stating "I dare you to do anything. You can't do anything to me." Dr. Marinelli told him to not call again, and he proceeded to call numerous times.
When an investigator questioned Respondent during his investigation of the calls on July 29, 2010, Respondent told the investigator that he had called Dr. Marinelli a "fucking fat cow." That investigation was concluded with a finding of probable cause that Respondent had violated the rules cited in the Notice of Specific Charges.
A Conference for the Record was held with Respondent on August 5, 2010, at the Office of Professional Standards. Following that conference, the superintendent of schools recommended to Petitioner that Respondent's employment be terminated.
Petitioner, at its regularly scheduled meeting of September 7, 2010, took action to suspend and initiate dismissal proceedings against Respondent for just cause, including but not limited to, misconduct in office, gross insubordination,
violence in the workplace, and violation of the School Board Rules cited in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Petitioner followed all relevant procedures in prosecuting this disciplinary proceeding.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this case pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.of 57(1), Florida Statutes.
Because the Petitioner seeks to terminate Respondent's employment and does not involve the loss of a license or certification, Petitioner has the burden of proving the allegations in its Administrative Complaint by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to the more stringent standard of clear and convincing evidence. See McNeill v. Pinellas Cnty. Sch. Bd., 678 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Allen v. Sch. Bd.
of Dade Cnty., 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. Sch. Bd. of Dade Cnty., 569 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
The preponderance of the evidence standard requires proof by "the greater weight of the evidence," Black's Law
Dictionary 1201 (7th ed. 1999), or evidence that "more likely than not" tends to prove a certain proposition. See Gross v. Lyons, 763 So. 2d 276, 289 n.1 (Fla. 2000)(relying on American
Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
quoting Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987)).
Section 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, sets forth grounds for the terminating the employment of a teacher who has an annual contract. Those grounds include "misconduct in office" and "gross insubordination."
The following definitions are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3) and (4):
Misconduct in office is defined as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.001, F.A.C., and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as adopted in Rule 6B- 1.006, F.A.C., which is so serious as to impair the individual's effectiveness in the school system.
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.
Subsections (1) and (2) of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida (Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001) provide as follows:
The educator's primary professional concern will always be for the student and for the development of the student's potential. The educator will therefore strive for professional growth and will seek to exercise the best professional judgment and integrity.
Aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, students, parents, and other
members of the community, the educator strives to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct.
Subsections (1), (2), and (3)(a) of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida (Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006) provide as follows:
The following disciplinary rule shall constitute the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
Violation of any of these principles shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual educator's certificate, or the other penalties as provided by law.
Obligation to the student requires that the individual:
Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's physical health and/or safety.
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4.108 prohibits violence in the workplace as follows:
Threats, threatening behavior, or acts of violence against students, employees, visitors, guests, or other individuals by anyone on M-DCPS property shall be removed from the premises as quickly as safety permits, and shall remain off M-DCPS premises pending the outcome of an investigation. M-DCPS employees have a right to work in a safe environment.
Respondent exhibited conduct that threatened and intimidated coworkers and administrators. Respondent's outrageous behavior caused numerous individuals, including
Ms. Rhoden, Dr. Napoleon, Ms. Vidal, Mr. Mantilla, Ms. Rosemond,
and Dr. Marinelli to fear for their safety. Respondent violated School Board Rule 6Gx13-4-1.08.
The School Board has adopted Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties which provides in pertinent that:
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. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited.
Respondent violated Petitioner's rule against violence in the workplace by his, threatening, intimidating, and confrontational behavior. Respondent violated the "Responsibilities and Duties" imposed upon him by School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 by his conduct and by his use of abusive and profane language.
Petitioner established by overwhelming evidence that Respondent was guilty of misconduct in office and gross insubordination within the meaning of section 1012.33(1)(a), and as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(3) and (4). Respondent conduct violated the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida by deliberately attempting to undermine the authority of school administrators and by verbally abusing school administrators and
other school personnel. Respondent repeatedly failed to exercise acceptable judgment or to reflect credit upon himself and the school system with his defiant and unprofessional conduct. Respondent used profanity in the workplace and in his dealings with administrators. Respondent attempted to goad and provoke others. Respondent demonstrated a lack of self-control on numerous occasions.
Respondent made no apparent effort to change his behavior despite repeated directives to do so. His failure to comply with those directives constituted gross insubordination.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order sustain the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay and terminate that employment based on misconduct in office and gross insubordination.
DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2011.
ENDNOTE
1 This witness earned his Ph.D. on June 12, 2011, and is referred to in this Recommended Order as Dr. Napoleon. Some of the exhibits refer to him as Mr. Napoleon. Those references are appropriate because he earned his doctorate after the exhibits were created.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue
Miami, Florida 33132-1308
Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education
Turlington Building, Suite 1244
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Dr. Eric J. Smith Commissioner of Education Department of Education
Turlington Building, Suite 1514
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Arianne B. Suarez, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board
1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 430
Miami, Florida 33132
Eric Cohen
2431 Trapp Avenue
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 15, 2011 | Agency Final Order | |
| Mar. 08, 2011 | Recommended Order | Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office and gross insubordination, and his employment should be terminated. |
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs ANGEL GUZMAN, 10-009414TTS (2010)
BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs KENNETH W. MILLER, 10-009414TTS (2010)
FRANK T. BROGAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs RICHARD V. POWELL, 10-009414TTS (2010)
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs SHAVONNE ANDERSON, 10-009414TTS (2010)
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs ROBERT BOUNDY, 10-009414TTS (2010)
