The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice when it failed to hire Petitioner for the position of Training and Safety Specialist in November 1998 and December 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner first began to work for Respondent as a substitute school bus driver in November 1988, approximately half-way through the 1987-88 school year. He worked as a substitute bus driver for the remainder of that school year and approximately half of the 1988-89 school year until he was hired as a full time bus driver in January 1989. He continued to work as bus driver through the 1993-94 school year, a total of six and a half school years. In August 1994 (the start of the 1994-95 school year), Petitioner was hired as a para-professional, i.e., teacher’s assistant, in Respondent's Adjudicative Youth Program. Petitioner is still employed in that position. The program serves students who have previously been in the juvenile justice system and are now being reintegrated into the school system. Petitioner does not hold a teacher’s certificate. However, Petitioner has gained some teaching experience in his current position because he occasionally serves as a substitute teacher. Petitioner received an associates degree in criminal justice in 1995. He has taken additional classes towards a bachelor's degree, in business administration and in exceptional student education. However, he is at least a semester short of a degree in either subject. After Petitioner left his position as a school bus driver in 1994, he did not maintain his certification by taking the required eight hours of annual “in service” training and by taking an annual physical as required by Rule 6A-3.0141(9), Florida Administrative Code. In November 1998, Respondent posted notice of a vacancy for the position of Transportation and Safety Specialist. The position was coming open because Joe Dixson, the Training and Safety Specialist at that time, was retiring. The Training and Safety Specialist supervises the bus driver trainers and is responsible for coordinating the initial and continuing "in service" training of the bus drivers. The Training and Safety Specialist also serves as a liaison with law enforcement officials in the event a school bus is involved in an accident and is responsible for maintaining the bus drivers' records, including the commercial drivers license (CDL) records, which were examined by the State annually. The minimum qualifications for the position, as set forth in the November 1998 job posting, were: Knowledge, Abilities, Skills: Considerable knowledge of school bus operation and training program. Considerable knowledge of the hazards and driving safety precautions relating to transportation of students. Knowledge of rules and regulations of the School Board, State Board of Education and of State and Federal laws. Ability to maintain a driver education program. Ability to implement and maintain an effective working relationship with school personnel and the public. Training and Experience: Graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent Vocational/Technical training or certification. Five years experience in school transportation. Licenses or Certifications: Appropriate State of Florida Driver’s license. Florida Department of Education teacher [sic] certificate in school bus driver training. Physical Requirements: Light Work: Exerting up to 20 pounds of force occasionally and/or up to 10 pounds of force as frequently as needed to move objects. Seven individuals submitted applications for the position, including Petitioner and Sharon Arnold. Petitioner, Ms. Arnold, and all of the other applicants were interviewed on November 20, 1998. The interviews were conducted by a five-member committee who scored each applicant on various issues. Petitioner's average score (82 out of 120) was the lowest of all of the applicants interviewed. By contrast, Ms. Arnold's average score (100.4 out of 120) was the third highest.1 Neither Petitioner nor Ms. Arnold were qualified for the position because they did not have a bachelor's degree or "equivalent Vocational/Technical training or certification." The certification was explained at hearing to be a teaching certificate issued by the Department of Education (DOE) to a plumber, for example, to teach a vocational class in plumbing. This explanation is consistent with DOE's rules. See, e.g., Rule 6A-4.076, Florida Administrative Code. None of the other applicants had these minimum qualifications either. Accordingly, Mr. Murphy recommended to the School Board that the minimum qualifications be changed to eliminate the requirement for a bachelor’s degree and to require only an “ability to obtain” the DOE certificate in bus driver training. The School Board approved Mr. Murphy’s recommendation. The purpose of the change in the minimum qualifications was to increase the pool of eligible applicants for the position. The effect of the change was to make Petitioner, Ms. Arnold, and potentially others eligible for the position. In December 1998, Respondent re-posted the notice for the Transportation and Safety Specialist position. The minimum qualifications for the position, as set forth in the December 1998 posting, were: Knowledge, Abilities, Skills: Considerable knowledge of school bus operation and training program. Considerable knowledge of the hazards and driving safety precautions relating to transportation of students. Knowledge of rules and regulations of the School Board, State Board of Education and of State and Federal laws. Ability to maintain a driver education program. Ability to implement and maintain an effective working relationship with school personnel and the public. Training and Experience: Graduation from high school or completion of GED. Five years experience in school transportation. Licenses or Certifications: Appropriate State of Florida Driver’s license. Ability to obtain a Florida Department of Education certificate in school bus driver training. Physical Requiriments: Light Work: Exerting up to 20 pounds of force occasionally and/or up to 10 pounds of force as frequently as needed to move objects. The major functions and illustrative duties of the position were not changed in the December 1998 posting. The salary grade (14) and salary range ($28,800–32,490) also remained the same. The salary for the Transportation and Safety Specialist position was based upon 12 months of work. Petitioner's salary in December 1998 was $17,518, but that was based upon a 194-day (i.e., school year) contract period. Seven individuals, including Petitioner and Ms. Arnold, applied for the position as re-advertised. Of the original applicants, Ms. Arnold and Petitioner were the only individuals who reapplied. Petitioner, Ms. Arnold, and the other applicants were interviewed on December 9, 1998. The applicants were interviewed by a four-member committee who scored each applicant in the same manner as before. Ms. Arnold received the highest average score from the interviewers, 107.5 out of 120. By contrast, Petitioner's average score was only 82.5 out of 120.2 Based upon the interviews, the committee recommended to Mr. Murphy that Ms. Arnold be hired for the position. Mr. Murphy accepted the committee’s recommendation and Ms. Arnold was hired as the Transportation and Safety Specialist starting in January 1999. She was hired at the minimum salary, and she is currently employed in that position. Ms. Arnold was first employed by Respondent in March 1987, as a substitute bus driver. She was hired as a full-time bus driver in May 1987, in advance of the 1987-88 school year. She continued to work as a bus driver until she was hired as Transportation and Safety Specialist, a total of 11 school years. In addition to her duties as a bus driver, Ms. Arnold served as a bus driver trainer since 1993. In that capacity, she provided on-road training to newly-hired and prospective bus drivers by observing their performance and helping them learn their routes. Ms. Arnold volunteered for these additional duties, although she was paid her hourly wage for conducting the training. She provided this training during the week between her morning and afternoon bus driving shifts, and sometimes on the weekends. Petitioner never served as a bus driver trainer. Ms. Arnold is certified by the State as a CDL trainer and examiner for Class A, B, and, C vehicles. As a result, she is authorized to teach and test persons applying for a CDL license to drive a school bus, tractor trailer, and other large vehicles. Ms. Arnold assisted the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles staff as a CDL examiner during the summers and received positive feedback on her work. Petitioner is not a certified CDL trainer or examiner. Ms. Arnold is also certified by DOE as a school bus driver trainer. She holds a Level 1 certification which allows her to administer classroom training, as well as a Level 2 certification which allows her to administer on-road training. Petitioner does not hold the DOE certifications, although he has the ability to obtain them. Ms. Arnold received the DOE certifications in October 1998 after a week-long seminar paid for by Respondent. Ms. Arnold was recommended for the seminar by Mr. Dixson and her area supervisor. Mr. Dixson recommended her because of the dedication and hard work that she exhibited when working as a bus driver trainer. Other drivers were recommended for the seminar as well; however, Petitioner was not one of those recommended. In addition to her formal duties as a school bus driver, Ms. Arnold volunteered at Frost Proof Elementary School prior to the start of each school year to help answer parents' questions about their child's school bus route. There is no evidence to support Petitioner's contention that the minorities are systematically overlooked for professional positions in Respondent's transportation department. To the contrary, the evidence shows that since 1993 when Mr. Murphy was hired as the administrator responsible for the transportation department, minority employment in advanced positions has increased significantly, from zero to six (out of 18) bus driver trainers and from zero to six (out of 27) professional staff.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s charge of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 May, 2002.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing was whether Respondent's employment as a school bus driver with the Pinellas County Schools should be terminated because of the matters alleged in the Superintendent's Charging Letter dated June 10, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County School Board, operated the system of public elementary and secondary education in Pinellas County Florida. Included within that function was the operation of the public school bus system. Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a school bus driver. On May 8, 1996, Respondent was operating his school bus as required on the afternoon run from school to disembarkation points along the routes. According to several students who were riding the bus that day, a male student, otherwise identified only as Nick, was misbehaving on the bus by standing up while the bus was moving and being unnecessarily noisy. This conduct prompted a censure by the Respondent, who told the student to sit down and be quiet. When the bus reached the stop at Winding Wood Road, just off Countryside Boulevard, Nick, while disembarking from the bus, called the Respondent a "nigger." This was overheard by several students, one of whom, Stephanie Erin Clark, also was to disembark at that location. Erin and two other students, both of whom were seated in the front row of seats, one on each side of the bus, observed Respondent get up from the driver's seat and, while the bus' engine was still running, push other children who were on the bus steps out of the way and chase Nick down the side of the street in front of the bus. While Respondent was off the bus, it started to roll down the hill with students still aboard. This resulted in a frightening situation for many of the students, some of whom began to scream. After he had gone about 30 feet from the bus, Respondent apparently heard the screaming and stopped chasing Nick. When he saw the bus moving, he ran back to it, climbed aboard, resumed his seat and brought the bus to a stop. By this time it had traveled between ten and twenty feet from where he had left it. Fortunately, no one was hurt as a result of this incident. When he resumed his seat on the bus, Respondent was overheard by students in the seats immediately behind his to comment to himself words to the effect, "I'm going to get him and break his neck. He called me Nigger." When this matter was reported to the appropriate authorities, an investigation was conducted into the allegations which investigation confirmed the substance of those matters alleged. According to the Pinellas County Schools' Director of Transportation, Mr. Fleming, himself an African-American with many years experience in public school transportation, both with this agency and in Maryland, Respondent's actions were not appropriate. The most important figure in the bus driver program is the driver. He or she must control the bus and the students and remain with the bus at all times to insure the safety of the students. Mr. Fleming has handled situations similar to that shown here in a much different way. When a student commented about him in a racially derogative way, he returned the bus with the student aboard to the school and took the student to the principal for appropriate action. Mr. Fleming considers the proposed action in this case to be appropriate to the circumstances. The allegations in this matter were investigated by James Barker, an administrator with the Board's Office of Professional Standards, who found Respondent's misconduct to be so serious as to jeopardize the safety of the students entrusted to him. This constituted a severe lapse in judgement on the part of the driver and amounted to employee misconduct in office which justifies dismissal under the provision of Board policy 6Gx52-5.31, Section 1v.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County sustain the Superintendent's action of June 5, 1996 suspending Respondent without pay and, further, dismiss him from employment with the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Kieth B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Mr. Larry Jackson 1482 Franklin Street, Apt 7 Clearwater, Florida 34615 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the School Board should terminate or take other disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Joe Thomas Alford, Jr., started working for the Bay County School Board in 1980, as a substitute school bus driver. His first full-time position with the School Board was as a "gasoline attendant," a position he assumed in 1981. After Larry Daniels became superintendent of transportation in July of 1985, he granted Mr. Alford's request to be permitted to resume driving a school bus. By all accounts, Mr. Alford did a good job as a full-time bus driver through the end of the school year 1986-87, except for the day he received a speeding ticket while driving a school bus. On another occasion, he exhibited great courage, even heroism, as one of the drivers in a convoy returning from an athletic contest. When the lead bus had an accident that made it impossible for students to get out of the bus in the usual way, Mr. Alford climbed in through a window and kicked out the emergency door, leaking gas tank notwithstanding. 1987-88 On the morning of October 16, 1987, Mr. Alford failed to report for work to drive school bus No. 340 on its three accustomed runs, necessitating the tardy dispatch of another driver. Later, in response to Mr. Daniels' questions, he explained that Harry Wells, a substitute school bus driver, had agreed to drive for him on the morning of the 16th (among other times), with the understanding that Mr. Alford would drive on a field trip for Mr. Wells. It was to an apparent misunderstanding that Mr. Alford attributed his absence without giving notice or arranging for a substitute on October 16, 1987. At the time, school board procedure required a bus driver who was to be absent for any reason to arrange for a substitute, as Mr. Alford apparently thought he had done, and to report the arrangement to the payroll clerk at the office of the superintendent of transportation. But the agreement went unreported, and no approval of the exchange was ever obtained. On October 26, 1987, Mr. Daniels, then superintendent of transportation, and Patricia Holland, route manager for routes including those Mr. Alford drove, Harry Wells and Mr. Alford gathered to discuss the lack of coverage on October 16, 1987. Mr. Alford told everybody present about his plan to drive on a field trip November 6, 1987, which would necessitate his missing the afternoon runs that day. He said (and Mr. Wells was there to deny it, if it had not been true) that Mr. Wells had agreed to substitute for him on the afternoon of November 6, 1987. Eventually this information reached Janet, who logged in Mr. Wells as a substitute for the afternoon runs on November 6, 1987. On the morning of November 6, however, Mr. Alford failed to appear, again without giving notice and without arranging for a substitute. Again it was necessary to make belated arrangements for another driver. Later that morning, Mr. Alford telephoned to report that his wife had locked him out of his house, and that he had lost access to his personal effects. He said that personal problems had prevented his driving that morning, and explained that, without clothes, he would be unable to drive on the field trip that afternoon, as well. In the afternoon, a substitute drove in his stead, without any report of inconvenience to anybody who went on the field trip. On Monday, February 8, 1988, somebody called from Mowat Junior High School with word that school bus No. 340 had not arrived as of quarter past two that afternoon. Ordinarily, and according to schedule, the bus arrived at the school by two o'clock, was loaded by five past, then left Mowat on the first of three runs the bus made each afternoon. When the report that school bus No. 340 had not arrived at Mowat reached the transportation office, Mr. Carter looked in the bus barn out back and saw that the bus was still there. He himself, despite his supervisory position as route manager for the Rutherford district, made two of the three runs for which Mr. Alford was responsible, while another driver drove children home from Hiland Park school. At no time on Monday afternoon did Mr. Alford communicate with the transportation office or with any of his supervisors or with anybody else employed by the school board. When he reported to work on Tuesday morning, he set out in school bus No. 340, without speaking to anybody in the transportation office. His supervisor, Patricia Holland, called Mr. Griffin, the assistant principal in charge of loading and unloading buses at Mowat and asked him to tell Mr. Alford to telephone. Later in the day Mr. Alford did call. He said he had missed work the afternoon before because, coming back from Tyndall Air Force Base, he had had a flat tire. He said he had given a hitchhiker (who he purportedly picked up just before the problem with the tire) 50 cents for a telephone call and asked him to call the school board's transportation office to say he could not get to work. He also said that he was worried about his wife and believed that she had a tumor in her arm. But nobody had telephoned the day before and, for the third time, respondent was orally reprimanded for not reporting for work and failing to give notice beforehand. At a meeting with his supervisors later in February of 1988, Mr. Alford declined to sign a document reciting these three lapses in his attendance record, although assigning the wrong date to one of them. No contemporaneous, independent, written records of counseling on October 16 and November 6 were prepared. On the morning of April 7, 1988, Mr. Tucker of Mosley High School called at half past seven to report that school bus No. 340 was late. As he spoke, it arrived, although it had been due at 6:55 a.m. Unmollified, Mr. Tucker complained that such a late arrival was disruptive because a number of the children ate breakfast at the school and had to be fed, even if they were late. Respondent's supervisors discussed these matters with him that day, and a record was made of the counseling on April 7, 1988. 1988-89 Before students returned for the next school year, all bus drivers hired for the 1988-89 term attended a meeting. In the future, the school bus drivers were told, they should report to the route manager for their district in an emergency or if, for some other reason, they would be unable to appear for work. Rather than making arrangements themselves, they were advised, they should let the route manager contact a substitute. On the morning of October 12, 1988, at quarter of seven, Clarice Rehberg, the route manager for the Bay High School District (which is not the district in which Mr. Alford's route was located) received a telephone call from Mr. Alford, who said that he was in Pensacola, and that his car had broken down. He also told her that school bus No. 340 was in the shop for repair, so that a substitute driver would need another bus. Finally, he let her know that the first scheduled pickup was to have been five minutes earlier at the cemetery on 17th Street. Despite Ms. Rehberg's prompt action, school children on all three runs to Mosley and Hiland Park were late for school that day. At all pertinent times, school bus drivers, including substitutes, were required to make a pre-trip inspection, which sometimes takes fifteen minutes, before driving a school bus in the morning. The following morning at about five o'clock Ms. Rehberg received a second telephone call from Mr. Alford, who again reported that he was calling from Pensacola. He said that he had called Harvey Childress in hopes that Harvey would substitute for him that morning, but that Harvey told him that he was already driving. As the "barn book" reflected, Ms. Rehberg had already scheduled Mr. Childress to drive Mr. Alford's route, morning and afternoon, just as he had done the day before. It was just as well Ms. Rehberg had the foresight to arrange for Mr. Childress to drive that afternoon because Mr. Alford never showed up. On Thursday, October 13, 1988, at about eight o'clock in the morning, Mr. Enterkin, who also drove a school bus for the Bay County School Board, spotted Mr. Alford and two friends in a car waiting at a stop sign. During the ensuing conversation, Mr. Alford told Mr. Enterkin that he was taking the rest of the week off. He also said something about having to go to Pensacola because he could not get the lights fixed on his new car. On Thursday afternoon, Mr. Alford telephoned Mr. Conway, the new supervisor of transportation, telling him that he was at a service station in Pensacola waiting for money to be wired to fix his car. On October 14, at about eight o'clock in the morning, Mr. Alford called and said that he was ready to go back to work. Mr. Conway asked him to come see him before he reported for any further duties as a bus driver. Missing a three o'clock appointment the following Tuesday, Mr. Alford appeared in Mr. Conway's office at three o'clock on Wednesday, saying that he must have gotten the days mixed up. The conversation between the men was short, to the point, and unpleasant. Mr. Conway suspended Mr. Alford with pay. On October 26, 1988, the school board suspended him without pay. The present proceedings followed.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner terminate respondent's employment. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0634 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 5 and 7 through 18 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, it was not clear that he needed approval from anybody other than the substitute at that time. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19 is properly a conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 15, 16, 23, and 26 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 5, 28 through 31, and 32 pertain to immaterial matters. Respondent's proposed findings of fact No. 10, 14, 17 through 20, 22, 27, and 33 relate to subordinate matters. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the evidence did not show any understanding that Mr. Wells had agreed to take the morning run on November 6, 1987. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, there was no morning route to Perry, and he supposedly stayed with the car. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13 the respondent did not give notice he was going to be absent. The hearing officer has not seen a hearing transcript. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 21, the weight of the evidence showed he did not place a call to Ms. Holland on October 12, 1988. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 24, the route was not "covered" on time. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 25, respondent did not tell Ms. Rehberg in advance that he was not going to report for the afternoon run on October 12, 1989. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 34, the evidence demonstrated knowing, intentional disregard of instructions to let people know of impending absences far enough ahead of time for other arrangements to be made. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 35 is properly a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Simonson Superintendent of Bay County Schools 5205 West Highway 98 Panama City, Florida 32401 The Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Franklin R. Harrison Sale, Smoak, Harrison, Sale McCloy & Thompson Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City, Florida 32401 Pamela L. Cooper Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A. Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent, a non-instructional employee of Petitioner, should be dismissed on charges that he made unwelcome and offensive sexual advances toward several female employees over whom he had authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dan Quinn, has been employed by the School Board for 16 years. From July 1981 until November 1985 (when he was charged with misconduct and suspended from duty), he was employed as a driver trainer. In that position he not only trained school bus drivers, but assigned them school field trips for which they received extra pay. His other job duties included assisting the Supervisor of Transportation in coordinating bus routes and communicating with bus drivers assisting bus drivers with disciplinary problems on buses and riding buses when necessary: assisting mechanics in maintaining service and gas records in gassing buses, obtaining parts, and taking buses to inspection stations: serving as a substitute bus driver when necessary: and "other duties as assigned by the Supervisor of Transportation." (Resp. Exh. 5) The job of bus driver trainer is a non-instructional position. Respondent did not have a written employment contract with the School Board. II. The School Board has adopted Rules 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, internal rules not published in the Florida Administrative Code; which provide grounds and procedures for suspending and dismissing non-instructional school employees: Suspension Procedure The Superintendent has the authority to suspend non-instructional school employees for emergency reasons, and shall notify the Board immediately of such suspension. The suspension shall be reviewed by the Board at its regular or special meeting, at which time the employee shall be restored to duty or the Superintendent shall be authorized to serve noticed on the employee of charges against him and the date and place of hearing before the Board; at which all parties shall be heard on all matters relevant to the suspension and the employee's continued employment. Upon conclusion of the hearing; the Board shall restore the employee to duty, dismiss the employee; or otherwise adopt the recommendations of the Superintendent. For the purpose of this rule the term "emergency" includes, but is not necessarily limited to; any situation arising from the conduct of any Board employee for which the Board may find cause to dismiss the employee, such as immorality, intoxication while on duty, gross insubordination; willful neglect of duty, assaults upon other persons, incompetency, unjustified interruption of the orderly conduct of a school or any school activity, conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude or other misconduct. * * * Dismissal of Employees Dismissal of non-instructional personnel from employment by the Board shall be as follows: * * * If the quality of the employee's work is unsatisfactory and unacceptable, the Superintendent may recommend dismissal of the employee. (Petitioner's Exh.2) III. J.F. has been a bus driver employed by the School Board since 1970. At approximately 6:15 a.m. on one morning in January or February 1983, while she was sweeping her school bus before leaving on her route, Respondent entered the bus and passed her in the aisle. After she was seated in the driver's seat, he approached her and, while standing to her right (in the bus aisle), put his left arm behind her neck and around her left shoulder and placed his hand on the side of her breast. He then tried to kiss her on the right cheek. She told him to "knock it off," and "get off the bus." He complied but, while stepping off the bus, told her that, "If you're not good to me, I don't have to give you all these field trips," referring to the lucrative field trips which he assigned to bus drivers. She was embarrassed and offended, but did not report the incident for fear that she would lose her job. (At that time, she did not know whether Respondent had made similar advances toward other bus drivers: she also believed Respondent to be a good friend of Charlie Horn, the Supervisor to whom she would address her complaint.) (Tr.9) There is no evidence that Respondent ever again made a sexual advance toward J.F. or touched her in an offensive manner. Nor did he carry out his threat to deny her field trips. In school years 1982-83, he assigned her six field trips; in 1983-84, seven. IV. Another incident involving Respondent occurred in 1979 or 1980--five or six years before it was used as grounds to suspend and dismiss him. In the bus garage--at approximately 2:00 p.m. on a school day--Respondent approached M.S., another female bus driver, and asked her what time she would return from her route. She told him and he replied, "well, I'm going to have the air turned on upstairs in the meeting room so you and I can go up there and have some fun," or words to that effect. (Tr.34, 41, 52) She interpreted this as a request for "some kind of sex," and was offended. (Tr.39) She told him that there would be "no way" she would go up there with him. (Tr.41) He laughed and walked away. V. The next incident involving Respondent occurred on a school day in November 1983--two years prior to its being used as a basis for suspending and dismissing him. A.H., another female bus driver, was in the bus barn in Kissimmee. She had recently been hired. As the other drivers left for a field trip to the Tupperware Auditorium, about 8:45-9:45 a.m., Respondent approached and asked her to go upstairs to a classroom with him so he could show her something. She complied and accompanied him to the classroom. Once inside he turned off the lights, shut the door, reached for her and tried to hug her. She switched the lights back on; he turned them off again. She protested that she didn't want to do this; and she didn't "play games like this." (Tr.63) He put his hand on her breast; she tried to push him away. He then tried to slip his hand inside her pants. She switched the lights back on; he switched them off. He then agreed to go downstairs, saying, "Don't be mad now, I was only kidding; only fooling around." (Tr.64) Although his actions were unwelcomed and offended her, she agreed to forget it. Later, he asked her if she was mad; although she was still angry; she said, "No." (Tr.64) She did not report the incident because she was a new employee and feared losing her job or being labeled as a troublemaker. Almost two years later, A.H. had another unpleasant encounter with Respondent. After inviting her to his office and resolving a problem she had with a newly assigned route, he said, "See what I did for you." (Tr.65) He then began hugging her and tried to kiss her. She pushed him away, and tried to go out the door. He held her by the arm; pushed her back against the closed door and began rubbing up against her. He then left, telling her not to be mad, he was just kidding. These advances, also, were unwelcomed and offended her. VI. Another incident occurred in October 1984. Respondent approached M.S., another female bus driver. She was standing in the hallway, he put his arm around her and "took a hold" of her right breast. (Tr.96) She considered this an unwelcomed sexual advance and was offended by it. Later in that school year, Respondent told her that he controlled the assignment of field trips and could "throw a lot of money [her] way." (Tr.97) She replied that she had a second job and did not need field trips. She reasonably interpreted his comment as an implied suggestion that if she submitted to his advances; she would receive employment benefits. VII. J.B. was another female bus driver employed by the School Board. At approximately 6:15 or 6:30 a.m., during a school day toward the end of 1983, she was sitting in the driver's seat on her bus; checking it out before leaving on her route. It was still dark. Respondent entered the bus and placed his hand on her thigh, with his fingers "going down between" her thighs. (Tr.119) She brushed his hand away. She did not report this incident because she thought she would not be believed. VIII. Respondent flatly denies that these incidents ever took place. His denial is rejected as unpersuasive. The testimony of the women who received his unwelcome advances is, however, accepted as credible and worthy of belief. These witnesses had no discernible bias or motive to falsify. They were candid and factual, though it was obviously difficult and embarrassing for them to testify. IX. Except for the complaint of incidents, there is no evidence that Respondent, over the last 16 years, has been other than a responsible and satisfactory employee for the School Board. He never received a bad evaluation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be suspended (without pay) from his employment for one year, commencing in November 1985, and that any reinstatement be conditional upon the availability of a comparable position for which he is qualified. He should not, however; be returned to his former position; and That; within 10 days of entry of a final order, Respondent pay the School Board the sum of $200.00 as attorneys' fees which it incurred in obtaining an order compelling discovery; dated April 15, 1986. D0NE and ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee; Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1986.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Lee County School Board, may terminate Respondent, Patricia Banks', employment as a school bus operator based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the matters officially recognized, the following findings are made: The School Board is the governing body of the local school district in and for Lee County, Florida. Since October 31, 2001, Respondent has been employed by the School Board as a school bus operator. Respondent's employment with the School Board is governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the Support Personnel Association of Lee County and the School Board (the "SPALC Agreement"). In September 2004, Respondent was assigned to drive a morning route and an afternoon route. Her morning route ended at about 10:00 a.m., and her afternoon route commenced at about 1:30 p.m. Respondent's daughter, India Miller, also worked as a school bus operator for the School Board. On September 20, 2004, between her morning and afternoon routes, Respondent drove her daughter to the Wal-Mart store on Colonial Boulevard in Fort Myers. Ms. Miller's car was not running, and she was in the process of moving into a new residence. She had asked Respondent to take her to Wal-Mart to purchase cleaning supplies and to look into buying a new computer. Respondent and Ms. Miller were wearing their School Board bus driver uniforms. Respondent parked her car in front of the store, but near the garden department, which is on the side of the building along with the automotive department. Respondent and Ms. Miller entered the building through the front or "general merchandise" ("GM") entrance. Respondent and Ms. Miller proceeded to the electronics department to look at computers. They were assisted by David Heady, a sales associate in the electronics department. Mr. Heady testified that Respondent asked him several questions about the functionality of a certain computer, an eMachines desktop model priced at $698.00. Each woman said she wanted one of the computers, but Mr. Heady had only one of them on the floor. He put that one in a shopping cart for Respondent, then proceeded to the storeroom to get a second computer for Ms. Miller. When he returned with the second computer, about three minutes later, Mr. Heady noticed that Ms. Miller and the first computer were gone. Respondent told him that Ms. Miller had taken the computer to the front of the store to check out. This disturbed Mr. Heady because it is Wal-Mart's policy that all computers should be paid for in the electronics department. Mr. Heady's suspicions were also somewhat aroused by the fact that it was Ms. Miller who took the first computer out of his department, when it was Respondent who had asked for it. According to Mr. Heady, Respondent started toward the front of the store with the second computer, but Mr. Heady stopped her and told her she had to pay for it in the electronics department. Respondent paid cash for the computer, a total of $739.88, then left the electronics department. Mr. Heady then called the loss prevention office and spoke with loss prevention officer, Bernard "Bo" Lee, to inform him that a computer that had not been paid for had been removed from the electronics department. He testified that he checked out Respondent before alerting loss prevention of the missing computer because he did not want a confrontation with Respondent. Mr. Heady also informed his supervisor in the electronics department, Terrell Russ, about the missing computer. Mr. Russ, in turn, made his own call to loss prevention and spoke with another loss prevention officer, Mickey Holman. Respondent testified that she and her daughter went into the electronics department because her daughter wanted a new computer. Respondent stated that she knows very little about computers and that it was Ms. Miller who was asking technical questions of Mr. Heady. Respondent did ask if Mr. Heady had a second computer because she was interested in placing one on layaway for her sons. Respondent testified that there was no computer on the floor of the electronics department. When her daughter told Mr. Heady she wanted to buy the model under discussion, he had to retrieve it from the storeroom. Respondent testified that she waited for Mr. Heady to bring the computer while Ms. Miller shopped for her cleaning supplies. Mr. Heady returned with the computer and told Respondent that she would have to pay for the computer before she could take it out of the electronics department. Respondent called Ms. Miller on her cell phone and told her that she had to come back to the electronics department to pay for the computer. Respondent also asked Ms. Miller if she could afford to lend her the money to place a computer on layaway. Ms. Miller responded that she would not know until she completed her purchases. Respondent could not recall whether Ms. Miller told her that she was coming back to purchase the computer. Respondent left the electronics department and walked to the in-store McDonalds to eat lunch. Finding the McDonalds too crowded, she went outside to smoke a cigarette. The one piece of documentary evidence available at the hearing was the Wal-Mart receipt for the purchase of the computer. The receipt indicates that the computer was purchased with cash in the electronics department, though it does not establish whether it was Respondent or Ms. Miller who made the purchase. Respondent's testimony agrees with that of Mr. Heady on one point: Ms. Miller left the electronics department and was separated from Respondent for at least several minutes. Messrs. Lee, Holman, and Russ all observed Ms. Miller during the time she was separated from Respondent. Mr. Lee testified that he was patrolling the floors of Wal-Mart to watch for shoplifters. He noticed three black women, including Ms. Miller and two unidentified women, placing an eMachines computer in a shopping cart. Mr. Lee stated that the eMachines computers were a "hot item," and he, therefore, paid special attention when customers placed them in shopping carts. Though he had seen Respondent with the other women in the electronics department, Mr. Lee did not see her touch the computer. Mr. Lee stated that he followed Ms. Miller to the front of the store. Respondent was still in the electronics department. Mr. Lee observed Ms. Miller push the cart holding the computer to the line of cash registers, through the line, past the greeter who checked her receipt, and out the GM entrance. Though he did not specifically observe Ms. Miller pay for the computer at the front registers, Mr. Lee assumed that it had been paid for because the greeter allowed her to leave the store without incident. From just inside the GM doors, Mr. Lee watched Ms. Miller walk to a car in the front parking lot. Mr. Lee did not see Ms. Miller load the computer into the car, but he did observe her re-enter the store a few minutes later, without the computer, but carrying a Wal-Mart receipt. He followed Ms. Miller to the toy department, where she met Respondent and the two unidentified women standing near a shopping cart containing a second eMachines computer. Mr. Holman testified that after being radioed by Mr. Russ that a computer had been taken from the electronics department by one of two women in school bus driver uniforms, he began searching the store. He observed Ms. Miller go through the checkout area and past the greeter, who signaled that Ms. Miller had a receipt for her computer. Mr. Holman radioed to the electronics department and told them there was no problem, that the woman had paid for the computer. The person in electronics who answered told Mr. Holman that there was a second computer. Mr. Holman went to look for the second computer while Mr. Lee maintained his surveillance on Ms. Miller. Mr. Holman found the missing computer sitting in an unattended shopping cart in the toy department. After a minute or two, he saw Respondent approach the cart. Then, two other women joined her, and they began talking. Mr. Holman stated that Respondent approached the cart several times, but did not actually touch or take hold of it. After a few minutes, Ms. Miller approached the group of three women. Mr. Lee followed her and maintained his surveillance apart from Mr. Holman. Both loss prevention officers were out of earshot of the four women. Mr. Lee recalled that Ms. Miller handed the receipt to Respondent at that point, though they later passed it back and forth more than once. After some conversation, the two unidentified women walked away. Ms. Miller began pushing the cart containing the computer toward the automotive department called the "TLE" for "Tire and Lube Express." Respondent walked in front of the cart. Mr. Lee noted that exiting through the TLE in the rear of the store would require Respondent and Ms. Miller to walk around the outside of the store to reach the front parking lot and that exiting through the GM entrance would be much more convenient. Mr. Lee testified that this behavior alone would have aroused his suspicions. The women guided the cart out through the TLE entrance. Ms. Miller pushed the cart, and Respondent lifted the front of the cart over the metal strip in the doorway. The electronic article surveillance ("EAS") system did not sound an alarm. Mr. Lee testified that it is not unusual for the EAS system not to sound, and he attached no significance to its silence. After the women were outside the store, Mr. Lee and Mr. Holman approached and asked them to return to the store. Ms. Miller told the men they had scared her. She said, "I pissed myself [sic]." Ms. Miller also told Mr. Lee that she had a receipt for a computer. Mr. Lee found it significant that she said "a computer," rather than "this computer." Mr. Lee and Mr. Holman escorted the women to the loss prevention office. Ms. Miller, ultimately, admitted to stealing the computer. Respondent denied doing anything wrong and was visibly upset when she was detained. In the loss prevention office, Respondent called her employer on her cell phone to arrange for someone to cover her afternoon bus route. None of the Wal-Mart employees present in the loss prevention office could recall Respondent's making any statement that could be construed as incriminating. The local police arrived, and both women were arrested. Ms. Miller subsequently resigned her employment with the School Board. At the time of the hearing, Respondent's criminal case had not been resolved. Again, Respondent told a different story. While she was smoking her cigarette outside, Respondent began to worry about finishing the shopping in time to drive her afternoon bus route. She called Ms. Miller on her cell phone and asked how much longer she would be in the store. Ms. Miller told Respondent that she was paying for her merchandise and asked Respondent whether she had seen her in-laws in the store. Respondent said that she had not seen them and asked where they were. Ms. Miller told her that she last saw them in the toy department. Respondent finished her cigarette, then walked back into Wal-Mart. She walked to the toy department and found her relatives where Ms. Miller had last seen them. Respondent noted that they had a computer in a shopping cart. One of the in-laws told her that it was Ms. Miller's computer, and they were waiting there for Ms. Miller to return. Ms. Miller arrived, took control of the shopping cart, and asked Respondent if she was ready to go. Respondent saw a Wal-Mart receipt in her daughter's hand. Ms. Miller told Respondent that she needed to buy something in the automotive department. Ms. Miller pushed the cart toward the rear of the store, where the TLE was located. When they reached the TLE, Ms. Miller began asking questions of the sales associate. Respondent interrupted her, saying they had to leave in order to make their afternoon bus routes. Ms. Miller pushed the cart out the TLE entrance, and they were approached by Messrs. Holman and Lee, who told them they needed to come back inside. Ms. Miller said, "Oh, shit. You're gonna make me piss on myself." Respondent wondered why Ms. Miller was reacting so strongly, if she had done nothing wrong. Respondent was adamant that she had no idea Ms. Miller was attempting to steal a computer. Respondent believed Ms. Miller had paid for the computer. Respondent testified that she and Ms. Miller had both worked for Wal-Mart in the past, and both knew that a customer is not allowed to take a computer from the electronics department without paying for it. Ms. Miller apparently had a receipt for the computer. Respondent testified that it never crossed her mind that Ms. Miller would steal a computer; that she believed her daughter "had better sense than that." Based upon the testimony of all the witnesses, including the deposition testimony of Messrs. Lee and Holman, and the documentary evidence, it is found that the School Board did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent stole a computer from Wal-Mart. The evidence certainly demonstrated that Respondent's daughter, Ms. Miller, attempted to steal a computer. However, even if the testimony of the School Board's witnesses were accepted in its entirety, no witness definitively linked Respondent to the computer in such a way as to demonstrate her guilty knowledge that it was being stolen. The testimony of Mr. Holman cannot be credited. After detaining Respondent and Ms. Miller, Mr. Holman prepared a written report attesting that he observed Ms. Miller purchase a computer in the electronics department and take it to her car, while Respondent selected another computer, put it in a shopping cart, and took it to the toy department. In his pre-hearing deposition, Mr. Holman testified that he saw Ms. Miller select and pay for a computer in the electronics department. During cross-examination during the final hearing, Mr. Holman conceded that he witnessed none of these events. Mr. Holman's efforts to explain his misleading statements were unconvincing. He essentially stated that his reporting practice was to write a first-person narrative commingling hearsay reports from other witnesses with his own personal observations. Thus, when Mr. Holman wrote, "I observed a female (India Miller) purchase a desktop PC in the electronics [department]," he actually meant that Mr. Lee observed the purchase and later told Mr. Holman about it. Mr. Holman's testimony must be disregarded because the undersigned cannot reliably distinguish between Mr. Holman's first-hand observations and the hearsay statements that he adopted as his own. The testimony of the remaining witnesses conflicted on key points. The evidence established that Mr. Heady was confused as to the time of day during which the relevant events occurred. Mr. Heady had no recollection of the two unidentified black women whom Mr. Lee stated were with Respondent and Ms. Miller in the electronics department. Mr. Lee stated that he saw Ms. Miller and the two unidentified women put a computer in a shopping cart. Mr. Heady testified that he placed the computers in the shopping carts. Mr. Heady testified that Respondent paid for the first computer. However, he also testified that it was Respondent who asked him technical questions about the computer's capabilities. Respondent credibly testified that she is ignorant about computers and that it was her daughter who was asking Mr. Heady the technical questions. It is likely that Mr. Heady's recollection was confused and that it was Ms. Miller who paid for the first computer. Respondent's narrative of the relevant events was not without its inconsistencies, but the burden was not on Respondent to establish her innocence. Respondent's narrative was credible as to the key point, that she did not know her daughter was attempting to steal a computer from Wal-Mart. The evidence presented by the School Board was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent ever gave any indication, through her words or her actions, that she knew Ms. Miller had not paid for the computer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Lee County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Termination of Employment, reinstating the employment of Respondent, and awarding her back pay and benefits retroactive to December 16, 2004. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 July, 2005.
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation of Fact, the parties agreed, and it is found, that: Respondent, Janet Shrader, has been employed by the School Board of SARASOTA County for approximately seven years as a school bus aide. The job responsibilities of a school bus aide include assisting the bus driver in dealing with discipline problems and doing everything possible for the comfort of the students. School bus aides are required to have good working relationships with drivers, teachers and parents. The school bus aide is supervised by the route coordinator. Bus aides are only assigned to buses which transport students participating in the exceptional student education program. The Board provides training courses for bus drivers and bus aides by a behavior specialist. This program is designed to assist employees in acquiring skills for disciplining students in an appropriate manner. This program is titled ACT, (Aggression Control Techniques), and was developed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Janet Shrader attended the training programs for ACT conducted by behavior specialist, Linda Hall. On the morning of October 19, 1989, Janet Shrader lost her temper with Roy Sanders, a Board employee employed at the Student Center. In the course of the ensuing intercourse, she tweaked his nose with her hand, dislodging his eyeglasses, and yelled at him to, "Fuck Off, Asshole." On the afternoon of October 19, 1990, the bus on which she was riding as an aide had to return to the school. Respondent and Tony Sanders, a child classified as Severely Emotionally Disturbed, and the son of the Roy Sanders previously mentioned above, got off the bus. Ms. Shrader went with Tony to speak with Mr. Marks, the school psychologist. At this point, Ms. Cocanower, a teacher, and an aide, Ms. Rizzo, got on the bus to attempt to calm down the students who appeared to be somewhat upset. Shortly thereafter, Respondent returned with Tony and boarded the bus. She began yelling and when Ms. Cocanower heard this, she got on the bus and observed Respondent yelling at Tony who, by then, was even more upset. He was standing up saying, "I didn't do it." He was not trying to harm anyone. Ms. Cocanower attempted to take Tony's wrist but was unable to do so because Respondent grabbed the boy by the elbow from behind in a modified ACT grip and pushed him forward, at the same time yelling at Ms. Cocanower to get off the bus. At this point, Mr. Marks boarded the bus and Ms. Cocanower got off. In the opinion of Ms. Cocanower, Respondent's use of the ACT procedure was not consistent with the training received and was improper, especially when accompanied by the yelling Respondent was doing at the time. It is so found. Subsequent inquiry revealed that the incident came about when Tony was assaulted by `another child, Bobby Resnick and was responding to the attack on him. He `had not initiated the incident. Respondent did not see Resnik's kick but only Tony's response. As Respondent pushed Tony down the aisle toward the bus entrance, in the course of resisting her efforts to put him off the bus, he apparently kicked her. Whether this was by accident or on purpose is unknown. Respondent, in response, kicked back at him as he exited the bus. Her attempt to kick Tony did not connect. Had it done so, according to Detective Bank, the school resource officer who saw the incident, he would have arrested her. As it was, in his opinion, Ms. Shrader was completely out of control. She was yelling and screaming at the children and was verbally abusive. He does not recall her exact words, and refers more to the inappropriate tone of voice she was utilizing with emotionally disturbed children. There was, according to Ms. Tucker, another unusual incident relating to Respondent that same day, but earlier, in the morning. Ms. Tucker had written a referral slip on Tony Sanders to which Respondent wanted to place an addendum to the effect that Tony had been good that day, except for the referral incident. While on the bus, in front of the children, Respondent began yelling at Ms. Tucker about that situation and walked off the bus leaving Ms. Tucker alone with the children. That upset Tony. As a result of this incident, two meetings were held between Board officials and Ms. Shrader. The first was held on November 1, 1989. It was called by Vincent Laurini, Board Director of Transportation, and attended by the Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and the union representative, as well as Respondent. The second was held on November 2, 1989,after Respondent had been given an opportunity to review witness statements regarding the incident. Ms. Shrader admitted that the statements were "pretty accurate" and in a conversation with Ms. Tucker, on the bus on October l9, 1989, after the incident took place, she commented to the effect that at least if they "got" her, she wouldn't have to ride with the kids for a year. As a result of this incident, Mr. Laurini subsequently recommended Ms. S~rader be terminated for her conduct on October 19, 1989 and this action was subsequently recommended to the Superintendent. Ms. Shrader was thereafter initially suspended with by Dr. Fowler, but on November 21, 1989, the Board suspended her without pay pending termination. There is no contest by Respondent regarding the fact that the incident took place or that it happened as described. Whereas Ms. Tucker, Ms. Cocanower, Ms. Rizzo, and Detective Bang all opined that her conduct was a severe overreaction which was inconsistent with the best interests of not only Tony but all of the exceptional children dn the bus, it may have been an isolated incident. This was the first year Ms. Tucker had been riding with Respondent. A written statement from another driver who worked with Respondent for three years, and who retired from bus driving in 1988, indicates she was always very good with the children, had a good rapport with the parents and teachers, and contributed greatly to making his/her job easier. On the other hand, there is some evidence of aberrant behavior on the part of the Respondent in early March,1989 which resulted in her being evaluated by a psychiatrist at Mental Health Associates in Sarasota. The physician's report, rendered on April 4, 1989, indicated that Respondent had had psychiatric contact as early as 1966 when she was 19 and has been under continuing psychiatric care, intermittently, since that time. Her psychiatric history reflects a diagnosis of a bipolar illness, (manic-depressive), and a history of alcohol abuse. Based on this evaluation by Respondent's own psychiatrist, she was also referred to the Suncoast Mental Health Center for evaluation. In his report dated June 1, 1989, Dr. Fosser confirmed the prior diagnoses, indicating both conditions were in remission, and concluding she was ready to restart work. Dr. Fosser related he could not see, at that time, that her psychiatric symptoms would endanger the safety of the children under her custody. This opinion appears not to have been borne out by the ensuing circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing bindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the $chool Board of SARASOTA County enter a Final Order confirming its action suspending her without pay effective November 12, 1989, and dismissing her from employment with the Board. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria D. Korn, Esquire Kunkel & Miller 290 Cocoanut Avenue SARASOTA, Florida 34236 Herbert W. AbeIl, Esquire 3224 Markridge Rd. SARASOTA, Florida 34231 Janet Shrader 22 Goodrich Street SARASOTA, Florida 34236 Dr. Charles W. Fowler Superintendent of Schools Sarasota County 2418 Hatton Street Sarasota, Florida 34237
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment contract due to repeated acts of harassment, gross insubordination, and violations of Petitioner's policies.
Findings Of Fact Until her last day of work on March 15, 2004, Respondent had worked for over 13 years at Stanley Switlik Elementary School (Switlik) in Marathon. Switlik is a public school. For most of her career with Petitioner, Respondent worked as an aid in the exceptional student education (ESE) prekindergarten program. During the 2003-04 school year, Respondent worked as a 1:1 aid to a student in a varying exceptionalities class. At all material times, Respondent was classified as noncertified instructional staff. For at least the past couple of years, Respondent was dissatisfied by much of what took place around her at work and in the local education community. In the past two years, Respondent has filed complaints with three federal agencies (Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), two state agencies (Department of Education and Department of Children and Family Services), and one local agency (Petitioner). The 13 subjects of these complaints include two principals of Switlik, two superintendents of Monroe County Public Schools, various teachers and teacher aids, and a relative of her husband. The record discloses no basis for finding any merit whatsoever in any of these complaints. In June 2002, Respondent walked into a classroom at the Grace Jones Day Care Center, which is a not-for-profit school in Respondent’s neighborhood, and entered a class with sleeping preschool children. Respondent approached the new director of Grace Jones and confronted her about the school's curriculum. The bewildered director spoke to Respondent for a few moments before realizing that Respondent had no children at the school. In the ensuing weeks, Respondent continued to challenge the director about the school’s curriculum, warning her that she needed to change the curriculum or Respondent would shut down the school. One time, Respondent warned the director that “you better watch your white ass.” Seeing the director smoking a cigarette on school grounds during breaks, Respondent began videotaping the director from the street to document what Respondent viewed as illegal behavior. The purpose of Respondent’s actions is unclear, but does not seem to have been the betterment of the educational program at Grace Jones. When children in the custody of a relative of her husband attended Grace Jones, Respondent never volunteered to help at the school. However unclear the purpose of Respondent’s actions, their effect was to frighten the director, the teachers, and the students and disrupt the educational process at the school. The director eventually obtained a judicial order prohibiting Respondent from trespassing onto the Grace Jones grounds. Respondent repeatedly involved herself with the education of the two children who were in the custody of a relative of Respondent's husband. When one of the children was later attending Switlik, while Respondent was employed at the school, Respondent telephoned the child’s guardian and informed her that the child had been misbehaving in school. When the guardian called the principal, the principal stated that the child had not been misbehaving. Respondent was not an aid in the child’s classroom, and she violated Petitioner’s policy in communicating in this fashion directly to the child’s guardian. Later, in January 2004, Respondent informed the guardian and the guardian’s sister, who is the biological mother of the children, that Switlik was failing one of the children. Again, Respondent was not an aid in the child’s classroom, and she violated Petitioner’s policy in communicating in this fashion. Despite receiving a warning from the principal not to disclose confidential student information, Respondent continued to try to obtain educational information about these children, even though she had no right to such information. Frustrated that the guardian would not remove one or both of the children from Switlik, Respondent threatened to call the Department of Children and Family Services and inform them that the guardian was engaged in illegal drug use. Although she may never have followed through on this threat, she did call the Department of Children and Family Services and inform them that the children’s biological mother was residing with them and the guardian, evidently in violation of some sort of prohibition against this living arrangement. The record permits no findings as to whether the guardian was engaged in illegal drug use or the biological mother was residing with her children and the guardian, but the record permits the finding that, in both cases, the intention of Respondent in threatening to call or calling the authorities was not to correct an intolerable situation, but was to coerce the guardian to accede to Respondent's demands. While employed at Switlik, Respondent had numerous confrontations with numerous employees, including superiors. Two of the more prominent confrontations involved Respondent’s confrontation with a school bus driver, who occupied a managerial role at Switlik as to transportation, and two aids, who worked in a Head Start prekindergarten classroom at Switlik. These incidents occurred during the 2002-03 school year. The problem with the school bus driver began in 2002. Escorting one or more children to or from the school buses, as was her responsibility, Respondent entered a bus loaded with children and began directing them to sit down. When the bus driver, who was on the bus, told Respondent to leave the bus, Respondent angrily accused the bus driver of failing to discharge her duty to protect the safety of the children. After receiving complaints from the driver about Respondent and from Respondent about the driver and the students standing in the bus, the principal met with Respondent and told her not to interfere with the bus driver and her supervision of the students already on the bus. Despite the warning, Respondent later engaged in a nearly identical confrontation during the 2002-03 school year. When the principal sided again with the bus driver, Respondent demanded a meeting with the superintendent to discuss her problems with the bus driver and, now, the principal. Ignored by the superintendent, Respondent contacted a school board member and asked for a meeting. Obtaining no satisfaction from the school board member, Respondent contacted the United States Department of Education, Civil Rights Office, and Florida Department of Education with her complaints about the bus driver and the refusal of Petitioner's representatives to resolve the situation. The problem with the Head Start aids initially involved their choice of classroom attire. They wore shorts, which Respondent considered to be cut too short. Possibly arising out of Respondent's frustration at not being allowed to wear a head scarf at school, Respondent complained to the principal that the two women were allowed to wear shorts. A picture of the shorts revealed that they were not suggestive or inappropriate in length or style. To the contrary, shorts permitted the aids to perform the physical activity imposed upon them in working with young children. After Respondent complained about the aids' shorts, the aids began to lock the classroom door to prevent Respondent from taking a short-cut through the room when students were present. Respondent complained about this, but, again, the principal sided with the aids and directed Respondent to stop cutting through the occupied classroom--a directive that Respondent repeatedly ignored. Twice bested by the aids, Respondent pressed her complaints about them to higher authorities. Respondent informed the Monroe County director of Head Start of the problem. When the county director referred Respondent back to the principal, Respondent threatened to contact the Southeast Director of Head Start in Atlanta and government representatives in Washington. On October 8, 2003, the principal and other of Respondent's employees, including the Human Relations Director, participated in a meeting requested by Respondent to discuss her concerns about events that had taken place at Switlik over a period of time. At some point, the principal warned Respondent about her disruption of the school environment and her confrontational behavior. The principal warned that Respondent's unprofessional behavior would lead to termination. Respondent became belligerent and loudly denounced the Human Relations Director as a liar. Two days later, Respondent refused to sign a memorandum outlining what had taken place at the meeting. The above incidents are largely drawn from Respondent's testimony. However, there were numerous other confrontations, such as with an office manager who asked that Respondent wait a moment before the woman could get her paycheck or repeated abuse of school email to hector Petitioner's employees. There were also numerous other examples of insubordination, such as Respondent's refusal to sign a statement acknowledging Petitioner's anti-harassment policy and her refusal to sign her evaluation at the end of the 2002-03 school year, which warned that her noncompliance with Petitioner's policies was disrupting school operations. Dissatisfied with the resolution of all of these matters, Respondent also filed complaints with the Department of Health and Human Services and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about at least some of them. Two principals over several years have tried patiently to counsel Respondent regarding her strident, uncooperative behavior. At meetings, Respondent routinely took the offensive, yelling and denouncing the participants by, among other things, claiming that the current principal was not doing her job. An endless pattern of complaints about problems perceived by no one but Respondent preceded complaints about never-commenced or incorrectly resolved investigations. The disruption upon the educational process was evident and substantial. Respondent has not been chastened by less severe job actions than termination. When Petitioner suspended Respondent for three days from April 30 to May 2, 2003, Respondent's response, upon her return to work, was to file a complaint about the principal and, after a month of inaction on her complaint, to email the superintendent and demand to know the status of his investigation of her complaint. Failing to obtain a satisfactory response from the superintendent, Respondent submitted complaints about the principal and superintendent to the Florida Department of Education. Finally, on August 14, 2003, Respondent emailed the School Board members and asked for a meeting about this problem. By undated letter in February or March 2004, Petitioner's superintendent advised Respondent that she was suspended with pay until the School Board meeting of April 1, 2004, at which he would recommend termination. The letter states that Respondent has violated Sections 1012.27(5) and 1012.33, Florida Statutes, The Code of Ethics for Education Professionals, and Petitioner's policies 6.37, 6.38, 2.70, 3.40, and 5.70. By letter dated March 22, 2004, Petitioner's superintendent advised that he would recommend at the April 1 School Board meeting that it convert Respondent's suspension with pay to a suspension without pay, pending final action on his recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment. Petitioner's policy 6.37 provides that Petitioner's superintendent may suspend an employee until the next meeting of the School Board. The policy provides a hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to any employee who has a property interest in his or her job.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 25th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: John Padget, Superintendent Monroe County School Board Post Office Box 1788 Key West, Florida 33041-1788 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Scott E. Siverson Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Scott C. Black Vernis & Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. 81990 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Diane Scott Post Office Box 501586 Marathon, Florida 33050
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, the Manatee County School Board (the "School Board"), may terminate Respondent's employment as a non-instructional employee for "just cause" as defined in Section 6.11 of the School Board's Policies and Procedures Manual, based upon the conduct alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 9, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Stephanie Waiters was hired by the School Board as a bus driver on August 6, 1996. In 2005, she was promoted to the position of area coordinator. The five "area coordinators" are first-line supervisors responsible for overseeing the daily operations of the buses within their assigned geographical districts. In December 2008, Terry Palmer was promoted from assistant director to the position of director of transportation. Upon his promotion, he was informed by the School Board that, due to budget constraints, his former position would not be filled, nor would the open position of operations coordinator. On January 23, 2009, Mr. Palmer issued a memorandum to all transportation employees regarding the additional duties that transportation department employees would be required to undertake in response to the budget cuts. Mr. Palmer's memorandum stated that, because he would not have administrative assistance, the area coordinators would report directly to him and would assume certain "additional responsibilities": The expanded role of the Area Coordinators will include: 1. employee evaluations; 2. parent conferences; 3. coaching and assisting employees on their buses; 4. observing bus operations at stops, schools etc. when needed; 5. following through on complaints from schools, parents and/or citizens and coordinating action with others inside and outside the department; 6. counseling employees on performance issues and documenting employee discipline; 7. ensuring all employees assigned to them have all of the training and coaching they need to succeed; 8. initiating, in conjunction with the director, involvement of the Office of Professional Standards on extreme issues of poor performance and/or misconduct. Ms. Waiters was the area coordinator for District 5, which includes Palmetto High School. Bus 537 was assigned to District 5 and ran routes to, among other schools, Palmetto High School. The regular operator of Bus 537 during the 2008-2009 school year was Carol Hindman. Ms. Waiters testified that there had been a lengthy history of student disciplinary problems on Bus 537. On Thursday, February 5, 2009, Ms. Waiters phoned Jose Rodriguez, a substitute bus driver employed by the School Board, and informed him that he would be driving Bus 537 on Monday, February 9, 2009.1 On the morning of Friday, February 6, 2009, Mr. Rodriguez rode Bus 537 with Ms. Hindman driving in order to familiarize himself with the route. Mr. Rodriguez testified that there were no problems on the bus until it reached the stop at 29th Street and 9th Avenue Drive East ("29th and 9th"). The students at this stop were rowdy and disregarded his instructions to put away their cell phones and iPods and to carry their backpacks in front of their bodies. From that stop onward, it became a "party bus," according to Mr. Rodriguez. The students informed Mr. Rodriguez that they run the bus, and that the "racist cracker bitch" Ms. Hindman just drives it. The students claimed to have hurt Ms. Hindman, and threatened to hurt Mr. Rodriguez if he attempted to control their behavior. One student began calling Mr. Rodriguez "Chico." Mr. Rodriguez testified that the situation was even worse on the afternoon route, with noise, screaming, radios playing and general horseplay making the situation dangerous. That night, Mr. Rodriguez phoned Ms. Waiters to tell her the Palmetto High School students on Bus 537 were "off the chain" and he was not sure he could handle the situation. She advised him to drive the bus on Monday and see how it went when he was alone. Ms. Waiters told Mr. Rodriguez to "write referrals" on the students who made trouble and she would back him up in any way necessary. Mr. Palmer explained the disciplinary authority of bus drivers and the related referral process as follows: From the standpoint of what they can do, is obviously they should try to work with the student on the bus, they can counsel them, they can move their seat, they can work with them on the bus. If that's unsuccessful, they then write a referral which is given to the school for processing, describing what the behavior has been that is disruptive or that is [in] violation of the safety rules, and then that's given to the school to take care of... Typically, [upon receipt of the bus driver referral,] the principal will assign the assistant principal or have parent liaisons that will meet with the individual students regarding behavior, talk about what that behavior is, why it's dangerous, and so forth, counsel them the first time, and then go through a series of progressive disciplinary steps which can lead to suspension from the bus and ultimately expulsion if it's not corrected. The referral form indicates the disciplinary action taken by the principal or his designee. (Section 1006.10(2), Florida Statutes, prohibits the principal from delegating to bus drivers the authority to suspend students from riding the bus.) If the student is to be suspended from riding the bus, the student's parent must first be notified. The school bus operator is also notified of the discipline resulting from the referral. Before a suspended student may ride the bus again, he is required to present the pink carbon copy of the referral form to the driver.2 Mr. Rodriguez drove Bus 537 on the morning of Monday, February 9, 2009. He testified that it was "the same routine" on Monday. Mr. Rodriguez said that he did not even attempt to control the students because his efforts to do so the previous Friday had been such a failure. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he was concerned for his and the students' safety at the three railroad crossings the bus had to traverse on the way to Palmetto High School. The proper procedure is to put on the signal flashers when the bus comes within 50 feet of the railroad crossing. Then, when the bus is within 25 feet of the crossing, the driver turns off everything but the motor to achieve as complete a silence as possible, because he must be able not only to see but to hear whether a train is approaching the crossing. Mr. Rodriguez testified that he tried to silence the students at the railroad crossings, telling them it was for their own safety. They laughed and carried on with their screaming and horseplay. After finishing the morning route, Mr. Rodriguez reported to Ms. Waiters, who told him to write referrals on the students for their behavior at the railroad crossings and the general mayhem described by Mr. Rodriguez. Ms. Waiters told Mr. Rodriguez to take a School Board vehicle and drive to Palmetto High School to turn in the referrals. Mr. Rodriguez testified that he went to Palmetto High School and gave the referrals to the assistant principal, Carl Auckerman. Mr. Rodriguez testified that Mr. Auckerman told him he would take care of the matter. Mr. Rodriguez testified that the situation was at least as bad on the Monday afternoon route of Bus 537. Ms. Waiters phoned him at home that evening, and advised him to write more referrals on the misbehaving students. She asked him if he needed someone else on the bus, but Mr. Rodriguez said he could handle the situation. Mr. Rodriguez testified that he wrote referrals on Monday evening. He drove the bus on Tuesday morning, experienced the "party bus" situation again, and then wrote more referrals. He testified that he and Ms. Waiters drove to Palmetto High School with the new referrals. They met with Mr. Auckerman and the SRO, Officer Douglas Marston of the Palmetto Police Department. Mr. Rodriguez testified that Mr. Auckerman told them he was going to issue bus suspensions of eight-to-ten days to all of the students who received referrals. Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Waiters were satisfied with this outcome, and left the office. Ms. Waiters generally supported Mr. Rodriguez' version of the events occurring on Monday, February 9 and Tuesday, February 10. However, Mr. Auckerman, the assistant principal, testified that he did not know Mr. Rodriguez, did not meet with him on February 9 or 10, and received no referrals related to Bus 537 prior to February 11, 2009. Officer Marston testified that he knew nothing of the situation on Bus 537 prior to the morning of Wednesday, February 11. The testimony of Mr. Auckerman and Officer Marston was consistent and credible. The testimony of Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Waiters was inconsistent. Their chronology of events constantly shifted and was unsupported by the documentary evidence, which was consistent with the testimony of Mr. Auckerman and Officer Marston.3 Mr. Rodriguez testified that he alone met with Mr. Auckerman on the morning of Monday, February 9. In a deposition, Ms. Waiters testified that she accompanied Mr. Rodriguez to Palmetto High School on February 9 and was in Mr. Auckerman's office with Mr. Rodriguez. At the hearing, Ms. Waiters testified that her only meeting with Mr. Auckerman on February 9 occurred that afternoon at the Palmetto High School bus loop. During cross-examination, when she was confronted with her contradictory deposition testimony, Ms. Waiters testified: With all the dates, the 9th, the 10th and the 11th, it's very vague, everything. I probably did, probably didn't, but I did go in to see Mr. Auckerman. I don't know if he came to the bus loop on Monday or whether I went, but I did go there two consecutive days with Mr. Rodriguez. The above quote is typical of Ms. Waiters' testimony at the hearing. She would make a definite, affirmative statement as to where and when an event occurred, but when pressed by opposing counsel or contradicted by her own prior statements, she would retreat into vagueness and uncertainty. During her interview with Debra Horne, the OPS investigator, Ms. Waiters stated that referrals were submitted to Mr. Auckerman on Tuesday, February 10 and Wednesday, February 11, then changed her story to state that the referrals were not submitted until Wednesday, February 11 and Thursday, February 12. Both versions contradict her testimony at the hearing that she oversaw Mr. Rodriguez' writing of referrals on Monday, February 9 and Tuesday, February 10. Ms. Waiters attributed her confusion to Ms. Horne's interviewing style.4 Mr. Rodriguez was similarly subject to confusion as to the timing of events. As noted above, he testified that he and Ms. Waiters met with Mr. Auckerman on Tuesday, February 10 and that at this meeting Mr. Auckerman announced that the misbehaving students would be suspended for eight to ten days. During cross-examination, Mr. Rodriguez was presented with the referrals that he claimed to have written on February 10, and was forced to concede that these referrals described events that actually occurred on Wednesday, February 11. He unconvincingly continued to claim that the meeting occurred on February 10, and that there existed other referrals that were actually written on February 9 and 10 that were not part of the documentary evidence. Mr. Rodriguez claimed to have his own copies of these referrals, but was unable to produce them at the hearing. In her interview with Ms. Horne, Ms. Waiters claimed that on the morning of Wednesday, February 11, she was enforcing bus suspensions issued by Mr. Auckerman at their meeting on the previous day. At the hearing, she conceded that she could not remember whether the meeting with Mr. Auckerman occurred on February 10 or 11, and further conceded that no student had been suspended from Bus 537 prior to Wednesday, February 11, 2009. Mr. Rodriguez testified that Bus 537 was worse than ever on the afternoon of Tuesday, February 10, because the students knew they had received referrals and had nothing to lose. He was afraid for his personal safety when crossing railroad tracks. On the phone that evening, Ms. Waiters told Mr. Rodriguez that she would be riding the bus on Wednesday morning. As to the events leading up to Wednesday morning, Ms. Waiters testified that Mr. Rodriguez had difficulty writing his initial referrals on Monday because, as a substitute driver, he did not know the names of the students. Ms. Waiters lives in the area served by Bus 537, and drove many of the same students on her bus when they were in elementary school. She suggested that they "pull the tape" from Monday morning so that she could name the misbehaving students for Mr. Rodriguez. The School Board maintains recording video cameras on its school buses. However, the video camera on Bus 537 was broken and in need of repair. A written repair request submitted by Mr. Rodriguez at 10:13 a.m. on Tuesday, February 10, 2009, stated, "Camera & tape don't work; tape pops out & stays out; no red light indicating camera is on." Nonetheless, Mr. Rodriguez testified that he and Ms. Waiters watched a video recording from Bus 537 on Monday, February 9. Ms. Waiters testified that there was no video tape from February 9 because the tape was "popped out," but that they were able to watch video after the morning route on February 10. She stated that "the tape was working fine, but the audio was totally messed up." No video tape documenting the events of the morning of February 10 on Bus 537 was presented at the hearing. The video camera was repaired and fully functional on the morning of Wednesday, February 11, 2009, and a video recording of the events of that morning on Bus 537 was entered into evidence.5 The undersigned viewed the videotape at the final hearing, and viewed a DVD version of the videotape twice more during the preparation of this Recommended Order. Ms. Hindman, the regular driver, drove Bus 537 on the morning of February 11. Mr. Rodriguez was already on the bus as the video commenced at 6:44 a.m. Mr. Rodriguez thought he was to drive the bus on Wednesday morning, but for some reason Ms. Hindman showed up and drove. Mr. Rodriguez decided to ride the bus because Ms. Hindman had no control over the situation, and he would be free to watch the situation and continue writing referrals on the troublesome students. Ms. Waiters testified that she decided to ride Bus 537 on Wednesday morning because Mr. Palmer had ordered her to "take care" of the situation, which she took as permission to do whatever was needed to bring order to the bus.6 At 6:47 a.m., Ms. Waiters boarded Bus 537 at the corner of 22nd Street and 2nd Avenue, one stop before 29th and 9th. As the bus proceeded, Mr. Rodriguez consulted Ms. Waiters as he attempted to identify some of the troublemaking students. He held a sheaf of papers. Ms. Waiters admonished him not to discuss what they were about to do in front of the students7 already on the bus, and stated her intent to move those students to the back of the bus before the students boarded at 29th and 9th. The bus was scheduled to reach the stop at 29th and 9th at 6:50 a.m. On February 11, 2009, the bus stopped at 29th and 9th at 6:53 a.m. When the bus came to a stop, Ms. Waiters directed the students already on the bus to move to the rear seats. After the bus had been stopped for approximately ten seconds, a student at the 29th and 9th stop, whom Ms. Waiters identified as J.P., knocked on the door. Ms. Waiters moved to the door and out of camera range, but could be heard stating authoritatively, "Get your hands off the window." At the hearing, Ms. Waiters testified that she suspected J.P. was carrying a weapon and that she feared for her safety and that of the students on the bus, but believed that the safest course was to allow him to board the bus rather than confront him about the suspected weapon. This testimony cannot be credited, as Ms. Waiters made no mention of such a suspicion to the Sheriff's deputies who were later dispatched to the bus, to Mr. Auckerman or SRO Marston when they arrived at the bus, or to Ms. Horne during the later investigation. Ms. Waiters' testimony that she did not reveal her suspicions due to fear of reprisals from J.P. or his confederates, based in part on an apparently unrelated and unsolved break-in that occurred at her home five years earlier, is not credited. After admonishing J.P., Ms. Waiters stated, "Everybody that rode yesterday, let's get on the bus, come on." Then, only seconds later, she stated, "Everybody who rode this bus yesterday still thinks they are going to get on the bus. They're not riding anymore." She stood just inside the door and began allowing a few students on the bus one at a time, directing them to their assigned seats. Ms. Waiters could be heard telling one unseen student, "Off the bus, off the bus," while his voice could be heard saying, "But I ride this bus." She began reading out names from a list provided by Mr. Rodriguez. The named students, apparently those who did not make trouble for Mr. Rodriguez the previous day, were allowed to board the bus.8 After these students were boarded and seated, Ms. Waiters directed them to move to the back of the bus. Then, Ms. Waiters began letting the rest of the students from 29th and 9th onto the bus. As they boarded, she said, "Enjoy this ride. This is y'alls last day riding the bus ever." The videotape shows that these students boarded the bus in orderly fashion and were seated without incident. As the students were boarding, Ms. Waiters stated that the bus would not be stopping at 29th and 9th any more. "You're within walking distance, you'll walk," she said to an unseen student. By 6:59 a.m., all of the students had boarded the bus at the 29th and 9th stop. The bus remained stopped. The students talked loudly among themselves, but were otherwise well behaved. Ms. Waiters phoned her dispatcher and told her to request that the Manatee County Sheriff's Office send deputies to the bus stop at 29th and 9th. At approximately 7:02 a.m., a male student attempted to disembark, telling Ms. Waiters that he had phoned his mother and she was coming to pick him up. Ms. Waiters told him to be seated because they had to wait for the Sheriff's deputies to arrive. The student complained, "What Sheriff? Nobody didn't do nothing," but obeyed Ms. Waiters' instruction. While they waited, the students in the front of the bus could be heard laughing and joking about what various parents or step-parents might do when they came to the bus, such as breaking the windows or tearing off the door.9 At approximately 7:06 a.m., Ms. Waiters spoke to some unseen parents through the closed door of the bus, saying, "Wait a minute. We'll release them in a second." A few seconds later, she addressed the students: "We'll either be releasing you to your parents or the Sheriff. So if you have a cell phone, you want to call your parents. You can go ahead and call them." At this point, no Sheriff's deputy had arrived at the scene. The evidence established that the first deputy to arrive, Deputy Kenneth Warner, was not even dispatched until 7:07 a.m. This fact is significant because during her interview, Ms. Waiters told Ms. Horne that law enforcement had directed her to tell the student to call their parents. At the hearing, Ms. Waiters testified that a Sheriff's deputy told her to have the kids call their parents, and that she was just repeating what the deputy told her. Ms. Waiters' testimony on this point is clearly not true. At approximately 7:07 a.m., Ms. Waiters stated to the students, "We're waiting to release you to the Sheriff or your parents." At this point, the students were still in high spirits, talking loudly to each other but not noticeably upset. At approximately 7:08 a.m., a call was made to the Sheriff's Office by a parent. The caller informed the dispatcher that her son had used his cell phone to call her from Bus 537. Her son told her that the students were locked on the bus and the driver refused to speak to parents who had arrived at the bus stop in response to their children's calls. Deputy Warner arrived at 29th and 9th at 7:10 a.m. His view of the situation, which is entirely supported by the videotape, was as follows: [The students] were all sitting in their seats, no one was up, but they were vocal, they were expressing their concerns about comments and stuff like that Ms. Waiters was stating... She was kind of instigating an issue. She was walking up and down, and making comments. Like if they made a comment to her, she would reply with a comment which would fire them up, and then they would all have comments back and forth... [The four or five parents who arrived] just didn't know what was going on, as me, I didn't know what was going on, either. They were wondering why they were getting calls from their children. So, I don't know. They were upset. Deputy Warner credibly denied that he gave any directives to Ms. Waiters, or indeed had much idea why he had been summoned to the scene: "It was my impression when I arrived that she just needed me there as support, and that she was handling the situation." The videotape shows Ms. Waiters meeting Deputy Warner at the door of the bus, and stating that this was a situation similar to the "one we had a couple of weeks ago that I took care of."10 She told the deputy that certain students on the bus must either be taken to the juvenile detention center ("JDC") or be released to their parents, because there have been "a lot of problems" on the bus. Ms. Waiters offered Deputy Warner no further details as to why the students could not ride the bus to school. Because he was confused by the situation, Deputy Warner radioed dispatch and requested that SRO Marston respond to his call. At 7:12 a.m., Ms. Waiters announced to the students, "You need to call your parents because you will not be riding the bus. The ones that have parents at work, you'll need to get your aunts or something, because you will not ride the bus." Ms. Waiters began releasing students whose parents were waiting outside the bus. At 7:20 a.m. and at 7:22 a.m., Ms. Waiters again told the remaining students that they needed to call their parents for a ride to school. Deputy Daniel Whidden was dispatched by the Sheriff's Office and arrived at the scene after Deputy Warner. Deputy Whidden, who was also a football coach at Palmetto High School and knew several students on the bus, testified that he gave Ms. Waiters no direction on how to handle the situation. Ms. Waiters told him that there had been problems on the bus the day before, and she was calling parents and having them pick up their children. At 7:23 a.m., Deputy Whidden boarded the bus and explained to the students that they were not allowed to disembark because the School Board was responsible for their safety. He told the students that SRO Marston was on his way to the bus stop to assist in transporting to school those students who were not allowed to ride the bus. Deputy Whidden testified that when he boarded the bus, the students were all in their seats. Some were protesting that they had done nothing wrong, but no one needed to be calmed down. This testimony is consistent with the evidence of the videotape. At 7:26 a.m., Ms. Waiters told Deputy Whidden that the students in the rear would be transported to school on the bus. As to the others, she stated, "I told them yesterday at the school they might as well find transportation in the morning. Well, they came here, and we can't leave them standing out at the bus stop." In conversation with Deputy Whidden, a female student confirmed that some of the students had been told they would not be allowed on the bus for the rest of the year.11 Officer Marston and Mr. Auckerman arrived at the bus stop at 7:31 a.m. When they arrived, most of the students had already disembarked. At no time did Mr. Auckerman tell Ms. Waiters that the students on the bus should call their parents or be transported by Sheriff's deputies. Ms. Waiters' testimony to the contrary is not credited. Mr. Auckerman, Officer Marston, and Deputy Whidden drove students to Palmetto High School. The bus began to run again at 7:37 a.m., 44 minutes after it stopped at 29th and 9th. The bus made only one more stop before arriving at Palmetto High School. This stop occurred at 7:43 a.m. Two students boarded the bus. Bus 537 is scheduled to make five stops after 29th and 9th. Because of the delay, Ms. Waiters called the driver of Bus 534 to cover some of Bus 537's stops. However, not all of Bus 537's stops were covered, and Bus 534 was 15 to 20 minutes late picking up some of the students. Further, Bus 537 was scheduled to make an elementary school run after it dropped off students at Palmetto High School. The bus made only one of its nine scheduled stops for elementary school students because the parents of most of those students had given up on the bus and either driven their children to school or had the children walk.12 During the 2008-2009 school year, classes began at Palmetto High School at 7:45 a.m. Bus 537 typically arrived at Palmetto High School at 7:20 a.m. On Wednesday, February 11, 2009, Bus 537 arrived at Palmetto High School at 7:57 a.m., twelve minutes after the final bell. After the bus arrived at Palmetto High School, Ms. Waiters and Mr. Rodriguez went into the school and spoke to Mr. Auckerman. They presented him with the list of names that they had used to identify the misbehaving students on Bus 537. Mr. Auckerman told them that he would need referrals before he could take any disciplinary action against the students. Ms. Waiters and Mr. Rodriguez submitted some referrals on Wednesday, February 11, then submitted additional referrals on Thursday, February 12. The referrals described student misbehavior, such as failing to be silent at railroad crossings and using cell phones, but gave no indication that either Ms. Waiters or Mr. Rodriguez ever feared for their safety on Bus 537. Mr. Rodriguez testified that the only time he feared for his physical safety was when he had to drive the noisy bus over railroad crossings. He did not fear any sort of physical assault by the students on the bus.13 Mr. Auckerman passed on the referrals to Palmetto High School's parent liaisons, Robert Kelly and Kevin Jackson. "Parent liaisons" are School Board employees responsible for general disciplinary referrals and communicating with parents regarding student behavior and discipline. The principal of Palmetto High School has delegated the authority to issue bus suspensions to the parent liaisons. On Friday, February 13, Mr. Kelly interviewed some of the students. He decided that the referred students would be suspended from riding the bus, commencing Tuesday, February 17. However, as Mr. Kelly and Mr. Jackson were about to finalize the suspensions by entering the referrals into the computer system, Mr. Auckerman halted the suspension process pending a School Board investigation into the events of the morning of February 11. Mr. Auckerman was reacting to parent complaints about Ms. Waiters' actions on Bus 537. Mr. Palmer, the director of transportation, also began receiving complaints. Mr. Palmer spoke with Ms. Waiters, safety officer John Searles, and school personnel, and was unsettled by the inconsistency of their stories. On or about February 18, 2009, Mr. Palmer referred the matter to the OPS. Ms. Horne then began her investigation of the incident. At the conclusion of her investigation, Ms. Horne presented a written OPS investigatory report to her supervisor and scheduled a meeting of all persons in Ms. Waiters' chain of command, up to Mr. Palmer, the transportation director. At a meeting on March 19, 2009, the School Board personnel met and recommended to the Superintendent that Ms. Waiters' employment with the School Board be terminated. The Superintendent concurred with the recommendation. Aside from contending that she was merely carrying out suspensions issued by Mr. Auckerman, which was completely at odds with the credible evidence produced at the hearing, Ms. Waiters' chief defense was that her actions on February 11, 2009, were consistent with the action she took in an incident that occurred on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, for which the bus driver received a laudatory write-up in the local newspaper and the praise of law enforcement and school officials. In the earlier incident, a substitute driver on a morning route to Lakewood Ranch High School pulled the bus over on State Road 64 and refused to continue because she believed the students' actions were placing her and the students in danger. In particular, the students were rocking the bus back and forth to the point that the driver feared losing control. Ms. Waiters drove out to the scene, followed shortly by at least six Sheriff's deputies. Ms. Waiters described the students as "out of control," "hanging out of the windows, yelling and cursing, throwing stuff out of the windows, rocking the bus." Ms. Waiters boarded the bus and was able to calm some of the students. The Sheriff's deputies called the parents of the troublemaking students and gave them the choice of picking up their children or having them taken to the JDC. According to Ms. Waiters, some students actually fought with their parents and had to be forcibly taken to the juvenile detention center. The next day, the local newspaper ran an article containing praise for the substitute bus driver. The principal of Lakewood Ranch High School and a spokesman for the Sheriff's Office were both quoted saying that she "did the right thing." Though Ms. Waiters was not mentioned in the article, it is clear from her testimony that she believed the praise was reflected on her. The differences between the incidents of January 28 and February 11, 2009, are clear. In the earlier incident, law enforcement was summoned to deal with an immediate, on-going dangerous situation. Sheriff's deputies took charge of the matter, with some assistance from Ms. Waiters, and concluded that the bus driver had done the right thing in stopping the bus when it became too hazardous to continue. In the February 11 incident, the videotape makes plain there was no danger whatever. Once allowed to board the bus, the students took their seats and talked among themselves. There were no threats, no disturbances, no rocking of the bus. Ms. Waiters' claim that she felt threatened was unsupported and not credible. The students, with good reason, appeared mostly puzzled as to what was happening. From the incident of January 28, 2009, Ms. Waiters apparently took the lesson that she was authorized to stop the scheduled running of a school bus for nearly an hour and to call out Sheriff's deputies to assist her in disciplining students for misbehavior that occurred on previous days. This was the wrong lesson. Ms. Waiters acknowledged that she did not have authority to suspend students from the bus, and claimed that she was not "suspending" the students; rather, she was restoring "order and control" on the bus for the students' safety.14 Ms. Waiters' actions might have been partially justified had there been some imminent danger such as that on the Lakewood Ranch High School bus on January 28, 2009, though even in that situation it was Sheriff's deputies, not Ms. Waiters, who removed the problem students from the bus. On Bus 537 on February 11, 2009, in the absence of any immediate threat or even untoward behavior by the students, Ms. Waiters took it upon herself to halt the bus and require students to phone their parents for rides to school well before law enforcement arrived on the scene. Ms. Waiters' actions were disproportionate to the situation on the bus, and constituted "suspensions" of the students under any reasonable understanding of that term. Ms. Waiters' actions on the morning of February 11, 2009, might merit discipline short of termination had Ms. Waiters fully and honestly cooperated in the subsequent investigation. However, Ms. Waiters stubbornly told a convoluted and contradictory version of events that made little sense on its face and was at direct odds with the consistent and credible testimony of School Board personnel and law enforcement officers who were present during the relevant events, and at odds with the direct evidence of the videotape from Bus 537. Ms. Waiters lack of candor throughout the process, coupled with the extremely poor judgment she employed in stopping the bus and suspending students without immediate cause or authority, fully justifies the School Board's decision to terminate her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Manatee County School Board, enter a final order that terminates the employment of Respondent, Stephanie Waiters. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 1st day of February, 2010.
The Issue Whether respondent is guilty of the acts charged in the specific notice of charges dated September 11, 1990, and, if so, whether petitioner should discharge him from his job as a school bus driver or take other disciplinary action?
Findings Of Fact After orientation and instruction beginning with his employment as a school bus driver trainee in September of 1987, respondent "was given [his] first bus" (T.383) on December 9, 1987. Formerly a truck driver, he became a permanent or non-probationary school bus driver in March of 1988. 1987-1988 After respondent drove his first route, No. 131, for two days, a supervisor shifted him to route No. 94, telling him "what a troubled bus it was." T.386. The supervisor told him the middle school students had already had plenty of warnings and exhorted him, "'Quit warning them. Write them up.'" Id. The rest of the 1987-1988 school year, respondent drove route No. 94, which entailed two separate runs, one for kindergarteners and one for middle schoolers. On the middle school run, "90 percent of the children wouldn't mind at all." T.392. The first of March or the end of February of 1988 (T.64), respondent Henderson told Rosalyn Brown, at the time the only black student on the bus, "to sit [her] black ass down in the seat." T.269. On other occasions, he told students to "[s]hut the hell up," (T.270) and said, "I won't put up with this bullshit." Id. He used the word "[f]uck . . . sometimes." T.256. Petitioner's official school board policies, a copy of which respondent received at or about the time he began work, state: Drivers shall at all times set good examples for the students riding their buses. Do not do on your bus that which students are not permitted to do. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, No. 6.44.9. Hernando County School Bus Rules, Instructions for Pupils Riding Buses provides, "Pupils must not use any abusive or profane language to other pupils, the driver, or pedestrians." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, No. 10(b). On May 23, 1988, middle school girls were seated on the right hand side of the bus and boys on the left, as usual. As the bus, with respondent at the wheel, passed prisoners at work on a shoulder of the road, "the girls started leaning out the window hollering." (T.396) Mr. Henderson had hardly told them to close their windows when, while waiting for a traffic light to change, a "car pulled up beside [him, and the driver] complained that the boys w[ere] throwing paper out the windows at the back," (T.397) so he "informed the boys to close their windows," (id.) too. When, windows closed (except for respondent's), the bus began to resound with the sound of "stomping . . . feet" (T.397), Mr. Henderson pulled the bus over and parked by the side of the road. Unable to restore order, he drove the bus back to middle school. There respondent allowed the students to lower their windows, and the "duty teacher" urged them to behave. To respondent, the duty teacher said "if they didn't quiet down, take them on into Brooksville," (T.398) to the bus barn. Because the students were still unruly five minutes later, respondent drove them from the school to the transportation compound, where a mechanic boarded the bus to help maintain order, while respondent drove the children home. No violation of school board policy on Mr. Henderson's part was proven, in connection with the events of May 23, 1988. Limbs protruding and various missiles leaving through open windows justified his directing that the windows be closed. The radio in respondent's bus at the time was not in working order. Petitioner's official policies require that each "bus driver shall be responsible for being familiar with all state and local laws and regulations in regard to safety and see that these are properly carried out." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, 6.44.4. At stop signs, respondent would "slow down, but he wouldn't come to a complete stop" (T.271) every time. When he failed to come to a complete stop, "the students would always yell at him about it." T.277. 1988-1989 Respondent resumed driving route No. 94 when school started in the fall of 1988. One day the first week back two fights broke out before the bus left middle school, and the new principal had to intervene. Later in the week, Joan Gear, petitioner's transportation coordinator told Mr. Henderson, "'Ray, we're going to prove a point to this principal. I want you to take another bus for a while.'" T.402 (Discipline problems persisted under respondent's successor on bus No. 94.) Mr. Henderson began the second week of the new school year driving route No. 108. After a week on route No. 108, he was transferred, without explanation, to route No. 73, one of the routes he had been on as a trainee and a less remunerative assignment than either No. 94 or No. 108. Only after the first Monday morning's run did he receive the No. 73 route report or route sheet, which listed twelve regularly scheduled stops. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12B. The tenth morning stop was listed as "White House on Right," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12B, on Ft. Dade Street. The white house meant stands north of Ft. Dade and slightly east of Little People's Day Care, which is on the south side of the street. Brandy Huntley, a niece of the day care center's proprietress, and two other middle schoolers were picked up mornings directly across the street from the white house, at the end of the day care center driveway. The first afternoon he drove, respondent stopped directly in front of the white house, and Brandy and the other middle schoolers disembarked there. But two afternoons that week (not in succession) he failed to stop in front of the white house (or across the street from Little People's Day Care.) Instead he stopped after turning left at the next intersection. Respondent's claim that a ditch made it necessary to stop in the middle of the road, if the bus stopped in front of the white house or across from the nursery afternoons, went unrebutted; but letting children out around the corner created other hazards. Nor was the spot respondent chose a "regularly scheduled stop" for any student. School board policy provides that "[a] driver shall not let any student off the bus at other than the student's regularly scheduled stop, unless permission has been given in writing by the child's parent." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, 6.44.18. No such permission had been given here. Under school board policy, bus drivers may never let students off between regularly scheduled stops. After a discussion about where to stop on Ft. Dade Street in the afternoons and before his first week on route No. 73 was out, respondent took a leave of absence through November 22, 1988. Once the leave was over, petitioner's initial refusal to put him back to work resulted in respondent's filing an unfair labor practice charge. On January 18, 1989, he returned to work. For the remainder of the school year, he drove route No. 75, without incident. Two Minutes Time allotted for regular routes includes a half hour for cleaning and paper work, but drivers on field trips are paid based on the time actually required to do the job. On July 18, 1989, Mr. Henderson drove on a field trip. Ordinarily, a field trip driver completes and submits a form showing how long he has worked, only after making the trip and cleaning the bus. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 11 and 13; T. 423. Rain made for an early end to the field trip. At five minutes after noon on the 18th, Mr. Henderson set out for the restroom in the transportation compound offices. He took with him a form on which he had written 12:30, his estimate of when he would finish cleaning the bus. Leaving the form on Miss Looper's desk, he returned to the bus and began cleaning. After he had cleaned the bus, he returned to the compound office, which he reached at 12:28. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 11, 13, T. 423. When Ms. Gear asked him to substitute 12:28 for 12:30 on the form, he responded, "Joan, if you want the time changed, change it." (T.424) When she said, "I won't pay you if you don't change it," Id., he replied, "Don't pay me." Id. A month later, the unaltered form was processed and respondent was paid. Whether two minutes made any difference in his compensation for the field trip the evidence did not show. 1989-1990 When the next school year began, Mr. Henderson drove route No. 200. One October afternoon after students had boarded, Mr. Henderson prepared to pull away from the high school. Before moving forward, the bus rolled back a few inches into the bus driven by Jose Santiago. Without respondent's knowing, a tail light lens struck (without damaging) a mirror on Santiago's bus, leaving a hole in the lens two inches across. T. 287-291, 376, 429. Accidents of this kind are not uncommon. To prevent students' walking in front of buses, the drivers park them tightly one behind another before school lets out. T. 287-291, 342, 376, 377, 426, 530. By the time Mr. Santiago finished his route and reached the transportation compound, Mr. Henderson had already left. Mr. Santiago reported the accident to the office staff and to one of the mechanics, who brought the bus respondent had driven to the garage to replace the lens. But Mark Tallent told the mechanic to return the bus unrepaired to its regular parking place, setting a "trap" he had never set for any other driver. T. 24, 58, 59, 288, 378. Bus drivers are required to perform a "pre-trip inspection" of their buses, and make records of the inspections by completing forms. Petitioner requires that all exterior lights be checked. The next morning respondent indicated that everything was in working order on his pre-trip inspection form. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7; T. 39. Ken Schill, petitioner's safety officer, followed respondent's bus in another vehicle and pulled him over. Together they inspected the broken lens. Petitioner suspended Henderson for three days and required him to take eight hours of in-service training, on account of the inspection form's inaccuracy. T. 40-41, 95-96, 428-429. In January or February, Mr. Henderson's bus was following bus No. 149 on a dusty rock or gravel road. After bus No. 149 made a newly scheduled stop, Mr. Henderson braked suddenly and steered his bus to the left to avoid hitting bus No. 149. By the time he came to a stop, the buses overlapped. T. 454, 498, 502. On the afternoon of February 28, 1990, Mr. Henderson had driven the school bus to the crest of a hill on Weatherley Road, when state trooper Lee Frye, who was sitting in his car at the bottom of (the other side of) the hill "clocked Mr. Henderson speeding." T.151. He was exceeding the 35-mile-per hour speed limit by at least ten miles per hour, although he told the trooper the speedometer had not indicated this. T. 151, 157, 430-433; Respondent's Exhibit No. 7A. Trooper Frye did not give Mr. Henderson a citation, but he told the Board's transportation department that the bus was going 52 miles per hour. Although not consistently enforced, school Board Policy 6.44(23) states: "Any bus driver guilty of a traffic violation involving a school bus will be dismissed." After Mr. Tallent checked Henderson's speedometer, he recommended and the School Board approved a suspension of ten days plus fifteen hours' retraining on account of this incident. T. 44-45, 151-157, 430-436. One afternoon on Willow Street respondent veered to avoid a car and knocked over at least two empty, lidless, rubber trashcans standing approximately one foot from the right edge of the road. When, back at the compound, Mr. Henderson told Mark Tallent about the accident, Mr. Tallent said to forget about it. T. 437-444, 496. On another afternoon, Scott Robinson, a student who had just gotten off bus No. 200, was approximately 6 or 7 feet in front of the bus when he heard the engine revving. Although Scott did not see the bus move forward, he was frightened, and the bus in fact "jerked." T. 133-148. The next morning, Mr. Henderson inquired "You really didn't think I was going to hit you, did you?" T.134. Another time the bus lurched forward while Kathy Black "was still in front of the bus" (T.252) "and about hit her." Id. Tom Ferris complained that Henderson almost hit another bus. Cathy Smith, a parent of a student on route No. 200 filed a complaint on April 30, 1990, claiming that he failed to stop for her daughter at her regularly scheduled stop. On May 3, 1990, petitioner received a three-page list of 21 complaints against Mr. Henderson, accompanied by a petition with 20 names on it, both written by Kim Lowe, a student on route No. 200 whom respondent had frequently disciplined. On May 4, 1990, another parent, Mr. Burris, complained to Mr. Tallent that he had observed respondent speeding and driving recklessly. T. 46-51, Petitioner's Exhibit 8. Earlier during the 1989-90 school year, petitioner's Department of Transportation had received still other complaints about Mr. Henderson. On May 3 or 4, 1990, without offering any explanation, Mr. Tallent told respondent he need no longer report for work. He did not tell Mr. Henderson of the complaints Ms. Smith and Messers. Burris and Ferris had made or give him an opportunity to refute their allegations prior to the filing of formal charges.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss respondent as a school bus driver. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 through 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 and 68 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the school year was 1987-1988. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the complaint included the words "god damn." With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 and 17, the evidence showed things were being thrown out of the bus. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 46, 48, 49 and 50, it was not proven that other drivers reported every accident, however minor, or did so before leaving the scene, and respondent did report hitting the trashcans. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 64 refers to a complaint that was not proven at hearing. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 65 is not supported by citation to the record. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 69, the evidence did not show what she thought other than that she was "stunned looking." Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39 through 44 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is a proposed conclusion of law. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, she testified she was the only black. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 17, a "duty teacher" boarded the bus and spoke to the children. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 24, the morning stop was across the street from the white house. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 31, students calling out alerted him the buses had collided. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 38, the policy has not been enforced consistently. COPIES FURNISHED: John T. Jaszczak, Esquire Hogg, Allen, North & Blue, P.A. Hyde Park Plaza, Suite 350 324 S. Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Sally C. Gertz, Esquire 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1700 Dr. Daniel L. McIntyre, Superintendent Hernando County School Board 919 U.S. 41 North Brooksville, FL 34601
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Pasco County ("Respondent") is an "employer" for purposes of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977 ("Act"). At all times material to this case, the Respondent has had a nondiscrimination policy and a policy prohibiting sexual harassment in effect. The policies are provided to all employees, including the Petitioner, upon hiring, and are posted throughout the workplace. Denise E. Hoedt ("Petitioner") at all times material to this case was a bus driver employed by the Respondent. As of the date of the hearing, the Petitioner was on worker's compensation leave. There is no evidence that the worker's compensation leave is related to the allegations at issue in this case. When the Petitioner was initially employed by the Respondent she was assigned to a regular bus route and was stationed in the "Northwest Garage" unit of the Respondent's transportation system. After having been employed for a sufficient period of time, she was provided with a contractual right to choose her route. She chose to transport exceptional education (ESE) students. As an ESE driver, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Jacqueline Dennis. Ms. Dennis did not work in the same garage from which the Petitioner was based. The Petitioner has been involved in a continuing series of grievances against Mr. Valentine Gallas, a "Route Specialist" for the Respondent. The grievances, filed prior to the complaint to the Florida Commission on Human Relations at issue in this proceeding, have been directed towards her discontent with work assigned to her by Mr. Gallas. Although Mr. Gallas was not the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, as a Route Specialist located in the Northwest Garage, he had supervisory authority over the Petitioner, as did Joanne Snodgrass, another Route Specialist in the same facility. One of the prior grievances was directed towards his request that she assume responsibility for opening a large metal gate at the entrance of the bus storage compound. The complaint was resolved by an agreement that she would not be asked to open the gate. Upon being requested by a different official to drive a later route and take responsibility to close the gate, the Petitioner complied with the request. Although she did not continue to drive the later route, there is no evidence that her decision was related to the request regarding gate closure. Another grievance centered on Mr. Gallas' directive that she drive a second bus run after she had completed her initial run. Mr. Gallas apparently did not provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to use the rest room prior to the second run. The Petitioner filed a grievance about the matter which was resolved by an agreement that, prior to being asked to take an additional route, she would be provided with a rest room break. The Petitioner asserted that because Mr. Gallas assigned her to a bus with a poor driver's seat, her back was injured. There is no credible evidence to establish that the seat caused or contributed to the claimed back injury. The Petitioner suggested that the clock in the bus driver's lounge was tampered with and resulted in her being reprimanded for tardiness. There is no credible evidence that the clock was intentionally tampered with to cause the Petitioner to be reprimanded. There is no evidence that any of the prior disputes between the Petitioner and Mr. Gallas were related to the Petitioner's gender or national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment of the Petitioner. When the Petitioner was driving a regular bus route, Mr. Gallas was responsible for her work assignments. When she began to drive an ESE route, she was no longer directly responsible to Mr. Gallas. In January 1993, the Petitioner, via a union representative, contacted school board officials and voiced her dissatisfaction with Mr. Gallas' alleged behavior. Late in January 1993, the Petitioner, accompanied by the union representative, met in an interview with the school board's personnel investigator. At the interview, the Petitioner stated that she believed she had been discriminated against on account of her gender and ethnic origin, and that she had been subjected to sexual harassment by Mr. Gallas. During the interview, the investigator attempted to obtain allegations of specific conduct, but other than as stated herein, the Petitioner was unable to offer such allegations. Although during the interview, the Petitioner alleged that Mr. Gallas had made derogatory comments regarding her ethnic origin and her weight, the only specific incident of which the Petitioner spoke was Mr. Gallas' alleged remark to her, "Oh, a Cuban." She offered no context for the remark. There was no specific remark regarding weight disclosed during the interview. The Petitioner also alleged that subsequent to Mr. Gallas' purchase of beverages for a group of bus drivers, he had repeatedly said she "owed him one" in a manner which the Petitioner interpreted as sexual. The remark continued until such time as the Petitioner purchased a beverage for Mr. Gallas. Further, the Petitioner alleged that in November 1992, Mr. Gallas came into the bus drivers' lounge and handed her an offensive written statement regarding intercourse which she interpreted as a request for sex. The investigator inquired as to whether Mr. Gallas had touched the Petitioner. She replied he had not. There was no mention of any other alleged inappropriate activity by Mr. Gallas towards the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the interview, the investigator expressed her concern about the serious nature of the charges. She assured the Petitioner that there would be no retaliation for the report of the complaints. She noted that the findings of the investigation would be confidential and requested that the Petitioner refrain from discussing the allegations pending the investigation. The investigator began her inquiry the day after meeting with the Petitioner. A meeting was scheduled with Mr. Gallas and with other persons who were aware of Mr. Gallas and the operation of the Northwest Garage. As to the investigator's request that the Respondent refrain from discussing the matter, the Petitioner failed to comply with this request. The matter became fodder for discussion in the workplace. A petition was initiated by several employees on Mr. Gallas' behalf. The Petitioner attempted to initiate her own petition drive without success. The matter was viewed by some coworkers as an attempt by the Petitioner to have Mr. Gallas' employment terminated. The investigator for the Respondent viewed the Petitioner's allegations with skepticism due to the "vagueness" of the specifics. The failure of the Petitioner to comply with the request to keep the matter confidential during the investigation did little to alleviate the investigator's initial concerns about the Petitioner's credibility. Despite the continuing controversy, the school board attempted to complete its investigation of the matters about which the Petitioner had complained. In an interview with the investigator, Mr. Gallas denied the charges. He stated that the remark regarding her origin occurred in the context of a discussion between the Petitioner and another driver overheard by Mr. Gallas, at which time the remark was made. He denied making any reference to her weight. Although acknowledging that he had seen the "intercourse" card in the garage, he denied having handed it to her. He denied any sexual intent in the "owe me one" remark. Other interviews were conducted with other persons who are knowledgeable about the operations of the Northwest Garage and Mr. Gallas' employment there. The investigator was unable to substantiate the allegations. Based on a review of the Petitioner's interview and allegations, Mr. Gallas' denial, and the inability to find further substantiation for the complaints, the investigator determined that there was no reasonable cause to believe that the complaints were credible. After the investigation and determination were completed, there was a time delay in providing notification of the determination to the Petitioner. The evidence establishes that the delay was not an attempt to deprive the Petitioner of any contractual or legal right but was due to nothing more than clerical error on the part of the personnel investigator. There is no evidence that there was any harm to the Petitioner related to the delay. In May 1993, the Petitioner filed the complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) which is at issue in this proceeding. As identified in the FCHR complaint, the Petitioner's allegations are addressed as follows: The November 1992 "intercourse" card incident-- The Petitioner asserts that in November 1992, as she was seated with two other bus drivers in the driver's lounge, Mr. Gallas entered the lounge, walked to the table where the Petitioner and her coworkers sat, and handed a card titled "intercourse" to the Petitioner. The card was an offensive attempt at humor and included a sexual invitation. Of the two coworkers at the table, only one saw the card. The Petitioner refused to permit the other coworker to see the card. All of the women testified at the hearing. Although the Respondent presented the investigator's recollection of Mr. Gallas' denial of the incident, Mr. Gallas was not called by either party to testify at the hearing. The testimony of the two drivers who were at the table when the incident occurred and who testified at the hearing substantiates the Petitioner's allegation. There is no credible evidence that prior to her January 1993 complaint about the incident, the Petitioner discussed the matter with any other person. The evidence fails to establish that Mr. Gallas' behavior regarding the "intercourse" card incident, although offensive and inappropriate, caused the Petitioner difficulty in performing her job duties or any other harm or injury. Offensive touching of the Petitioner by Mr. Gallas-- The Petitioner asserts that Mr. Gallas occasionally would stand too close to her and that on one occasion, he brushed against her breasts in passing her. There is no evidence that, prior to the filing of the FCHR complaint, the Petitioner had ever complained about unwarranted or offensive touching by Mr. Gallas. Upon direct inquiry by the school board's personnel investigator, the Petitioner denied that she had been touched by Mr. Gallas. The assertion is not supported by credible evidence. Mr. Gallas' sexual requests of the Petitioner-- There is no credible evidence that Mr. Gallas made any verbal sexual requests of the Petitioner. The only incident which may be viewed as a sexual invitation relates to the "intercourse" card addressed previously in this Recommended Order. The Petitioner "owed" Mr. Gallas-- The evidence establishes that at a luncheon attended by coworkers, Mr. Gallas purchased beverages for the group and made a statement to the effect that the recipients "owed him one." Mr. Gallas would occasionally repeat his "you owe me one" statement to the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the statement was made in a sexual manner or that such was intended by Mr. Gallas. Eventually, the Petitioner purchased a beverage for Mr. Gallas, stating "now I don't owe you one." After being bought a drink, Mr. Gallas no longer made the remark. Verbal slurs about the Petitioner's national origin-- The Petitioner is of Mexican, Spanish and Cuban origin. The Petitioner asserts that on one occasion, she became embroiled in an argument with Mr. Gallas during which he remarked, "Oh, You're nothing but a Cuban." There is no other evidence to support her assertion. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Mr. Gallas made such remarks to other employees or that such conversation was typical of him. The assertion is not credible. Terms and conditions of her employment-- The Petitioner asserts that the "terms and conditions' of her employment were different from other bus drivers with responsibilities similar to hers. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Drivers transporting ESE students generally have fewer students to transport than drivers of regular routes. It is possible that an ESE driver may transport only one or two children. ESE drivers often complete their routes before drivers of regular routes. Because the Petitioner was responsible for transportation of ESE students, her route was often completed earlier than other bus drivers. ESE drivers who have completed their routes may "stay on the clock" in which case they may be asked to provide assistance in clerical tasks or to complete other bus routes. In the alternative, drivers may "punch out" and leave. Additional work is assigned to drivers by the Route Specialist in the garage from which the drivers are based. Mr. Gallas was the Route Specialist in the garage from which the Petitioner was based. The Petitioner frequently remained on the clock and was accordingly assigned additional work to do. There is no evidence that any drivers who remained "on the clock" were treated any differently that was the Petitioner. On one afternoon, the Petitioner, suffering from back pain, returned from her route and laid down in her bus. Mr. Gallas came onto the vehicle and told her that she needed to be working. He suggested that she could be made to sweep the bus compound if she did not find other duties to complete. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner, who was on the payroll at the time she was resting in her bus, informed Mr. Gallas that she was not feeling well. The evidence fails to establish that Mr. Gallas' actions upon discovering the Petitioner at rest in her bus were related to her gender, national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment. There is no evidence that other drivers were permitted, while on duty, to rest in their busses. As previously addressed, on one occasion, Mr. Gallas directed the Petitioner, immediately upon her return from her normal bus run, to perform additional transportation duties. Mr. Gallas did not provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to use the rest room before beginning her second run. Subsequent to her complaint to appropriate authorities, Mr. Gallas was directed to permit the Petitioner to use the rest room before assigning additional responsibilities to her. Although Mr. Gallas' lack of concern about the Petitioner's personal needs was inconsiderate, the evidence fails to establish that the incident was related to gender, national origin, or were a form of sexual harassment. The Petitioner also asserts that other drivers or their spouses are permitted to bring personal vehicles into the bus compound and that she was not. The evidence fails to establish that other drivers or their spouses are routinely permitted to bring personal vehicles into the compound. The Petitioner complained that during a heavy storm one day, her husband came into the compound to pick her up and was asked to take his vehicle back outside the compound. On that day, Mr. Gallas offered to walk the Petitioner with an umbrella to her car but she declined. The Respondent's inquiry into the January 1993 grievance-- The Petitioner asserts that the school board's inquiry into her January 1993 grievance was incomplete and that the determination that the grievance was unfounded was inappropriate. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Petitioner's complaints, as they were communicated to the school board, were as fully investigated as was possible. The Petitioner's complaints to the Board did not include allegations related to unwarranted touching, according such allegations were not investigated. Further, the investigation was hampered by the spread of rumor and innuendo throughout the workplace regarding the Petitioner's sexual harassment allegations. Although the evidence is not entirely clear as to where responsibility lies for the generation of the rumor and internal bickering, school board personnel involved in the investigation specifically directed the Petitioner to refrain from discussing the allegations pending the board's investigation. As previously stated, she failed to comply with this request. Coworkers of the Petitioner were also involved in discussion about the pending investigation. At that point, the workplace appears to have become divided into factions and the board's investigation was compromised. The evidence establishes that the board's investigation of the Petitioner's grievance was conducted appropriately and that persons with direct knowledge related to the allegations (including Mr. Gallas who was inexplicably not called by either party to testify at the hearing) were contacted and interviewed. Although the investigation became compromised and was completed prematurely, there is no evidence that based on the information obtained by board personnel, the board's determination that the grievance was unfounded was outside the authority of the board or unsupported by the information which the board had obtained The Petitioner seeks to be "reimbursed for all the pain and suffering I have endured...." The evidence fails to establish that such an award is appropriate. The Petitioner offered no evidence related to "pain and suffering" or which would establish that such injury, if present, is related to employment conditions. The Petitioner also seeks to be reimbursed "for any and all money which was used to seek legal consultation." There is no evidence that the Petitioner, who has represented herself throughout this proceeding, has incurred any expenses related to legal consultation regarding this complaint; therefore such an award is not appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the complaint filed in this case. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th of June, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6652 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Proposed finding of fact paragraph six continues for approximately seven pages and consists largely of recitation of conflicting testimony. The testimony has been reconciled as indicated in this Recommended Order. The proposed finding is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, immaterial and not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 8-9. Rejected, subordinate. 10-16. Rejected, unnecessary. This unnumbered proposed finding consists of "examples of inappropriate sexual behavior" by Mr. Gallas and is treated as follows: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive testimony: a. Rejected as irrelevant: c, b, e. Rejected as immaterial: d, f, g, h. This proposed finding consists of "examples of inappropriate sexual behavior involving Mr. Valentine Gallas and Ms. Denise Hoedt" and is treated as follows: Rejected, there is no credible evidence that the offer of an umbrella was "inappropriate sexual behavior b, k. Rejected, immaterial l, m, n, o. Accepted as modified. Remainder is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected as not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence: a, g. Rejected, subordinate: d, h, i. Rejected, irrelevant: f. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. There is no credible evidence that the Petitioner or her husband have been subjected to restrictions regarding personal cars within the bus compound which are not generally applicable to all drivers, except when specific circumstances require otherwise. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected as to Pyles' attendance at meeting, unnecessary. Rejected as to note taking by the investigator, unnecessary. 12-13. Rejected, unnecessary. 16-18. Rejected, subordinate. 23-33. Rejected, subordinate, unnecessary. 34. Rejected as to ulterior motives of Petitioner, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Weightman, Superintendent Pasco County School System 7227 Land O' Lakes Blvd. Land O' Lakes, Florida 34639-2805 Denise E. Hoedt 11605 U. S. Highway 41 Spring Hill, Florida 34610 Mark Graves, Esquire 205 Brush Street Post Office Box 1427 Tampa, Florida 33601 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
