Findings Of Fact The Business of Respondent The Respondent is a public employer with its principle place of business located in Orange County, Florida, where it is engaged in the business of operating a school system. Respondent is created directly by the Florida State Constitution or legislative body so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the government and is administered by individuals who are responsible to the public officials or to the general electorate. Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203(2) of the Act. The Employee Organization Involved The Orange County Classroom Teachers Association is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. Background During April, 1975, PERC certified the employee organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the following collective bargaining unit: INCLUDED: All certified non-administrative personnel including the following: teachers, teachers-countywide, teachers-exceptional, teachers-gifted, speech therapist, teachers- specific learning disabilities, teachers-adults full-time, guidance personnel, occupational specialist, teachers-adult basic education, librarians-media specialist, deans, department chairpersons, physical therapist. EXCLUDED: All other positions of the Orange County Public Schools. Soon thereafter, the CTA and the School Board began negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement. Each party submitted written proposals or counter proposals. (See Joint Exhibit #3 and #4, received in evidence). When negotiations began, teachers in the bargaining unit represented by the CTA were employed in one of the following categories: 10, 11, or 12-month contract. While most bargaining unit members were on 10-month contract status, some guidance counselors and approximately 90 teachers commonly referred to as vocational/technical teachers were on 12-month contract status. `These 90 vocational/technical teachers had been on 12-month contract status since at least 1970 and some since at least 1965. The negotiations resulted in a collective bargaining agreement which became effective on October 1, 1975. (Joint Exhibit #1). Neither the CTA's proposals nor the School Board's counter proposals for the 1975-76 contract contained a provision expressly granting the School Board the right to unilaterally change 12-month employees to 12 month status. Additionally, there was no specific discussion during negotiations regarding the alteration of the vocational/ technical teachers' 12-month contract status. During late spring, 1975, the Charging Party, and others similarly situated, were informed that during the 1975-76 fiscal year (which runs from July 1, 1975 through June 30, 1976) they would be employed for a full twelve months. They began their twelve month period of employment on July 1, 1975, prior to the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement-between the Board and the teachers' union. At that time there were approximately 200 teachers employed within the vocational/technical and adult education department. During the 1975-1976 school year, the school system with the exception of the post-secondary programs operated for two full semesters plus a summer school. Portions of the post-secondary programs, such as the vocational/technical and adult educational programs operated on a year-round basis. During the school year, the School Board decided to institute a system- wide program of year-round schools by adopting the quinmester system. Under the quinmester system the year is divided into five terms, each consisting of forty- five (45) days of student class time. Students can attend all five terms (or quins) thereby allowing them to graduate early, take extra courses or make up failed courses. Respondent takes the position that it was not possible to employ teachers on the 12-month basis as they would not be available for the required number of days. This is based on the fact that, as stated during the hearing under the 12-month system of employment, employees were only available for a total of 233 working days. Such a figure is derived by taking the number of days in a year, 365, and subtracting the number of Saturdays and Sundays, 104, which leaves 261 days. The School Board allows up to nineteen (19) days annual leave each year. Further, employees did not work on nine legal holidays on which the school system was closed which together with the 19 days annual leave made an additional 28 days that the employees would not be available for work in addition to the 104 Saturdays and Sundays. Thus when Saturdays, Sundays, Holidays and leave time are subtracted from the total 365 days, there are 233 available working days that employees working on a 12-month basis would be available. Therefore, the Board contended that in making its operational decision to change to a year-round school system, by adoption of the quinmester program, it needed employees to be available for 237 days if the teacher would be available to work all five quinmesters. Such a figure is derived by computing the number of days that the student will attend and the number of days that the teacher would therefore be required to be in attendance. Under the quinmester system, the student attends classes forty-five (45) days each quinmester, which means that the teacher needs to be present at least 225 days when the students are going to be present. Additionally, the Respondent urges that the collective bargaining agreement (Joint Exhibit #2) requires that teachers be on duty twelve (12) days when the students are not in attendance. These twelve days consist of five days of preplanning, five days of in-service training and two days of post-planning. With these figures, it is apparent that the teacher who is to work the entire year must be available the 225 days which the students are to be present together with the twelve days which the students are not present. Thus, wider this system, the teachers must be available 237 days during the school year. It is based on these figures that the Respondent contends that it made the operational decision to convert to a year-round school system, during the spring of 1976. In so doing, the Board advised its employees in the bargaining unit that they would be employed for an initial period of ten (10) months and given an extended contract for services rendered in programs extending beyond the regular school year. The regular school year comprises 196 days during a 10-month period of employment. Under the 10-month appointment, the teacher would be employed for an initial period of 196 days as provided for by the collective bargaining agreement and by statute. Out of the 196 days, the teacher earns 4 days leave which leaves available 192 work days in the initial employment period. The 192 work days include the 12 days that teachers are present and students are not. It also includes 180 days that the teacher is present with the students. This of course equals the first 4 quinmesters. The teacher employed to work year-round during the fifth quinmester would, under the operation of the quinmester system, be issued an extended contract to cover the additional 45 days of the fifth quinmester. By so doing, the 45 working days of the fifth quinmester with the 192 working days of the initial employment period provided for in the 10-month contracts provides the total 237 days needed to implement the year-round school system. It suffices to say that the neither the employee organization nor Respondent bargained about the implementation of the year-round school system. The teachers' union was not given advance notice of this action by the school board nor was there any attempt by the school board to bargain the impact of this decision with the teachers' union. During the course of the hearing, the Respondent introduced evidence to establish that the Charging Party and others similarly situated who are employed on a 10-month basis would receive a salary of $17,629.00 whereas the salary for the same services rendered under the 10-month plus extended contracts for the fifth quinmester would be $18,063.75. Respondent also introduced evidence establishing that the sick leave under either system was identical and that the Charging Party and others similarly situated are able to work 4 more work days under the 10-month plus extended contract than was available under the 12-month system. As stated, Respondent does not deny that it made its decision to employ vocational/technical teachers on a 10 month plus extended contract basis and that such was a departure of the contract status which said teachers had received in the past. In making its decision, Respondent contends that its acts were permissible under Chapter 447.209,F.S., since it is clothed with the statutory authority to unilaterally "determine the purpose of each of its constituent agencies, set standards of services to be offered to the public, and exercise control and discretion over its organizations and operations It contends further that armed with this authority, it was not required to bargain concerning its management rights (which it contends that this was) in that here there is no violation of any contractual provision or of any other section of Chapter 447, Florida Statues, since Chapter 447 does not call for year-round bargaining. Chapter 447.309, F.S., provides in pertinent part that a certified employee organization and the public employer shall jointly bargain collectively in the determination of the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. Respondent contends that since a collective bargaining agreement "shall contain all the terms and conditions of employment for the bargaining unit employees" and that since the current collective bargaining agreement does not provide in any part that bargaining unit employees are given a contractual right to a 12 month contract, there has been no violation of Chapter 447, F.S. While research reveals no reported decisions in Florida defining or otherwise interpreting terms and conditions of employment, other public employment relations boards aid state courts have determined that terms and conditions of employment means "salaries, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment". The length of the work year is a function of hours or work and thus has been determined to be a term of employment, and thus a public employer is required to negotiate with its employees concerning all terms and conditions unless a specific statutory provision prohibits negotiations on a particular item. See for example, Board of Education of Union Free School District #3 of the Town of Huntington v. Associated Teachers of Huntington, 30 N.Y. 2nd 122 at 129. First of all it is clear in this case that there has been no bargaining on this item and further that there has been no express waiver to bargain regarding the employment term. It is also clear that the employees in question had been granted 12 month contracts during previous years and that they were not advised of the alteration of the term of their contracts until Respondent had unilaterally made its decision to employ said teachers on a 10 month plus extended contract basis. Finally, there is no specific statutory provision which prohibits the parties from negotiating the term of the employment contract other than Section 447.209(5), F.S., which is inapplicable here. Based thereon, I find that the Respondent's actions in unilaterally adopting a year round instructional program by terminating the 12 month contract status of teachers-adult full-time and teachers-adult basic education by placing such teachers on 10 month plus extended contract status was a unilateral alteration of a term and condition of said employees' employment relationship in violation of Sections 447.501(1)(a) and (c) and is a derivative violation of Section 447.301(a) of the Act.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent has violated the Act as stated above, I shall therefore recommend that it: Bargain collectively upon request, with the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association as the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit described above. Such duty to bargain shall extend to all mandatory subjects of bargaining including changes in the term of the contract year of said bargaining unit employees. Post at its facilities, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are usually posted, on forms to be provided by PERC, a notice substantially providing: that it will not refuse to bargain, upon request, with the Orange County Classroom Teachers Association, as exclusive representative of the employees in the unit described above; and that its duty to bargain shall extend to all mandatory subjects of bargaining including, but not limited to, any changes in the term of the employment contracts of bargaining unit employees. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of February, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Rowland, Petruska, Bowen & McDonald by John W. Bowen, Esquire 308 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Staff Attorney for the Public Employees Relations Commission 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John W. Palowitch, President Orange County Classroom Teachers Association 6990 Lake Ellenor Drive Orlando, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges. If so, whether such conduct provides the School Board of Miami-Dade County with just or proper cause to terminate his employment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The School Board is responsible for the operation, control, and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Respondent is now, and has been since 1986, employed by the School Board as a Data Input Specialist II. Prior to the effective date of his suspension pending the outcome of the instant dismissal proceeding (that is, prior to the close of business on June 21, 2000), Respondent was assigned to the D. A. Dorsey Educational Center (Dorsey), an adult education center. His suspension pending the outcome of the instant dismissal proceeding is the only disciplinary action that has been taken against him in the approximately 15 years he has worked for the School Board. In discharging his duties as a Data Input Specialist II at Dorsey, Respondent was not responsible for supervising students, nor did he have reason to be with them alone. As a noninstructional employee of the School Board occupying a Data Input Specialist II position, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the United Teachers of Dade (Union) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and the Union (Union Contract), effective from July 1, 1999, to June 30, 2002. Article XXI, Section 3, of the Union Contract contains "[p]rocedures for [c]ontinued [e]mployment of [e]ducational [s]upport [p]ersonnel." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Upon successful completion of the probationary period, the employees' employment status shall continue from year to year, unless the number of employees is reduced on a district-wide basis for financial reasons, or the employee is terminated for just cause. Just cause includes but is not limited to, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, immorality, and/or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such charges are defined, as applicable, in State Board Rule 6B-4.009. The employee is entitled to be represented by up to two representatives of the Union at any conference dealing with disciplinary action(s). Where the Superintendent recommends termination of the employee, the Board may suspend the employee with or without pay. The employee shall receive written notice and shall have the opportunity to formally appeal the termination by notifying the School Board Clerk of the employee's intent to appeal such action within 20 calendar days of receipt of the written notice. Following receipt of an appeal, the Board shall appoint an impartial administrative law judge, who shall set the date and place mutually agreeable to the employee and the Board for the hearing of the appeal. Prior to the hearing, the Board will file and serve the employee with a Specific Notice of Charges. The Board shall set a time limit, at which time the findings of the administrative law judge shall be presented. The findings of the administrative law judge shall not be binding on the Board, and the Board shall retain final authority on all dismissals. The employee shall not be employed during the time of such dismissal, even if appealed. If reinstated by Board action, the employee shall receive payment for the days not worked and shall not lose any seniority or be charged with a break in service due to said dismissal. Dismissals are not subject to the grievance/arbitration procedures. Respondent has a seven-year-old daughter, J. Since his wife passed away in 1994, he has raised J. as a single parent. Four years ago, Respondent opened his home to a 13- year-old boy, D. J. J., whose family had been evicted from the apartment in which they had been living. D. J. J.'s stepmother had just died and his father was unable to properly care for him. From the time that D. J. J. first became a member of Respondent's household until the incident that is the focus of the instant case (Subject Incident), Respondent treated D. J. J. like a son. D. J. J., however, did not always reciprocate and act like a dutiful son. At times, he was rude and disrespectful toward Respondent and refused to follow Respondent's instructions. On three or four occasions prior to the Subject Incident, he even used physical force against Respondent. Respondent responded to these physical attacks, not by hitting D. J. J. back, but with words designed to impress upon D. J. J. that he needed to act appropriately and respect Respondent. While Respondent's words may not have had any long-lasting impact on D. J. J., by talking to D. J. J., Respondent was able to resolve the situation without the use of any force. D. J. J. was also physically aggressive toward Respondent's sister, Sara Payne, and Respondent's niece, Shara Payne. On one occasion, during a visit to Sara's home, D. J. J. asked Sara "to have sex with him." When Sara attempted to get D. J. J. to leave, he refused and grabbed Sara by the arms. Sara, however, was able to free her arms from D. J. J.'s grasp and push D. J. J. out the door. Sara reported to Respondent, prior to the Subject Incident, what had happened during D. J. J.'s visit. Respondent was also made aware, prior to the Subject Incident, of an instance where D. J. J. had walked into his niece's, Shara's, classroom at Miami Northwestern High School, demanded that she leave with him, and, when she refused, pulled her by arm, until a teacher intervened by calling school security. There is no indication that either Sara or Shara suffered any injuries as a result of the above-described incidents. The Subject Incident occurred on September 8, 1999. On that date, D. J. J. was 16 years of age, stood approximately five feet, two inches tall, weighed 160 pounds, 1/ and had a muscular build. Respondent was approximately 25 years older, 13 inches taller, and 40 pounds heavier than D. J. J. Upon returning home from work on September 8, 1999, Respondent reprimanded D. J. J. for not having done his chores around the house. D. J. J., in turn, without saying anything, picked up his house key and headed to the front door "as if he was going to leave." When he saw D. J. J. walking toward the door, Respondent asked D. J. J. for the house key. D. J. J. ignored Respondent's request. He continued walking, silently, toward the door. Respondent followed D. J. J., "sticking close to [D. J. J.] because [Respondent] didn't know [D. J. J.'s] intention." As Respondent repeated his request that D. J. J. hand him the key, D. J. J. went into the kitchen, took a hammer, laid the key down on the counter, and struck the key with the hammer with sufficient force to bend the key. D. J. J. then threw the key to the floor, moved toward Respondent, and struck Respondent in the jaw with a closed fist. After punching Respondent, D. J. J. walked into the living room and picked up a key chain containing Respondent's house and car keys. (Respondent did not have another key to the house.) The front door was locked from the inside 2/ and therefore D. J. J., if he wanted to exit the house (by conventional means), needed the house key to unlock the front door. (All of the house's windows, except for the "safety window," had bars on them, and the safety window was locked, with no key readily available to unlock it.) Concerned that he and his daughter (who was also in the house at the time) might be locked in the apartment if D. J. J. left with the house key, 3/ Respondent repeatedly requested that D. J. J. give him back his keys. Without saying a word, D. J. J. walked into his bedroom and sat down on his bed. Respondent followed him, demanding that D. J. J. return the keys. He told D. J. J., "you can leave and it won't be no trouble, just give me the keys." Maintaining his silence, D. J. J. stood up and started walking toward the bedroom door where Respondent was standing. As D. J. J. approached Respondent, 4/ Respondent took a hot (plugged-in and turned-on) iron that was on a nearby ironing board in the bedroom and struck D. J. J. with the iron in the face, thereby bruising and burning the side of D. J. J.'s face. A scuffle ensued, with D. J. J. trying to take the iron away from Respondent. During the scuffle, Respondent was burned on the leg by the iron, as it fell to the floor. D. J. J. then exited his bedroom and walked into the hallway, with Respondent following behind him. 5/ The hammer that D. J. J. had used to bend his house key was in the hallway. Respondent picked the hammer up and hit D. J. J. on the back of head with it. Neither Respondent's hitting D. J. J. on the back of the head with the hammer, nor Respondent's striking D. J. J. on the side of the face with the hot iron, was reasonably necessary to protect Respondent or his daughter against D. J. J. or to further any other legitimate purpose. Bleeding from the head wounds Respondent had inflicted, D. J. J. went to the telephone that was in the hallway and called the police, who shortly thereafter arrived on the scene. After speaking with D. J. J. and Respondent, and then examining D. J. J.'s injuries, the police placed Respondent under arrest for "aggravated child abuse." The police waited until Respondent's sister, Tatiana (who had agreed to care for J. in Respondent's absence), arrived at the house before transporting Respondent from the scene. Respondent spent the night in jail. The following day, September 8, 1999, Respondent was released pursuant to an Order of Pretrial Release Conditions, which, among other things, prohibited Respondent "from having any contact with" D. J. J. and required Respondent to "stay at least 500 feet away from [D. J. J.], [D. J. J.'s] home, place of employment and/or school at all times." On October 18, 1999, the State Attorney's Office filed, in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 99-30932, an "information for aggravated child abuse" against Respondent alleging the following: GREGORY PAYNE, on or about SEPTEMBER 8, 1999, in the County [of Miami-Dade] and [the] State [of Florida], did unlawfully feloniously commit an aggravated battery upon D. J. J., a child of sixteen (16) years of age, by HITTING HIM IN THE HEAD WITH A HAMMER AND BY PLACING A HOT IRON ON HIS FACE, and during the commission of such felony the defendant committed an aggravated battery in violation of s.827.03(1), Fla. Stat., 6/ contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida. That same day, Respondent was arrested and taken into custody for violating the requirement of the September 8, 1999, Order of Pretrial Release Conditions that he "stay away" from D. J. J. Respondent remained in jail until October 26, 1999. On that date, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the "aggravated child abuse" charge filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case No. 99-30932, after having discussed the matter with his attorney and determined that it was in his best interest to enter such a plea. Respondent was thereafter adjudicated guilty of the crime and ordered to serve one year of community control, followed by one year of probation, during which he was required to "enter and successfully complete the Anger Control Program." 7/ The School Board learned of Respondent's "aggravated child abuse" conviction through a records check (Records Check E-02988). A conference-for-the-record with Respondent was held on February 23, 2000, "to address Records Check E-02988 concerning Aggravated Child Abuse, noncompliance with School Board policy and rules regarding Employee Conduct, a review of the record, and [Respondent's] future employment status with Miami-Dade County Public Schools." At the conference, Respondent was provided a copy of the records check findings and provided the opportunity, of which he took advantage, to "respond to the allegation that [he] 'w[as] arrested and later convicted of Aggravated Child Abuse.'" After doing so, he was advised that further review of the matter would be undertaken and that he would remain in his current assignment pending the outcome of such further review, provided he did the following: Remain in control of [him]self at all times and, specifically, during work hours. Comply with School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A- 1.21, Employee Conduct, a copy of which was provided to [him]. At all times material to the instant case, School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21(I), Employee Conduct, has provided as follows: All persons employed by the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the workplace is expressly prohibited. A pre-dismissal conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent on May 19, 2000. At the conference, Respondent was told that a recommendation for his dismissal would be made based upon the following charges: Just cause, including but not limited to, immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. The Superintendent of Schools subsequently made such a recommendation to the School Board. At its June 21, 2000, meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated a proceeding to terminate his employment "for just cause, including, but not limited to, immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Responsibilities and Duties. Respondent formally appealed his proposed termination pursuant to Article XXI, Section 3F. of the Union Contract, and the School Board subsequently referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a hearing on the appeal. Prior to the hearing, the School Board filed and served on Respondent a Notice of Specific Charges, as required by Article XXI, Section 3F. of the Union Contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment on the grounds set forth in Counts I through III of the Notice of Specific Charges. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 5th day of January, 2001.
Conclusions Objections 3B, 3C and 3D involve factual questions which can only be resolved by an evaluation of the credibility of various witnesses. Consequently, pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code Rule 8H- 3.28, a hearing shall be held where the underlying facts can be determined prior to ruling on the merits of those objections and the remainder of CWA's Objections are dismissed. It is so ordered. LEONARD A. CARSON CHAIRMAN 77E-207 THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on April 21st, 1977, this document was filed in the office of the Public Employees Relations Commission at Tallahassee and a copy served on each party at its last known address by certified mail. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION BY: Judy N. Collins Deputy Clerk
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds teaching certificate number 394824, which was issued on July 1, 1982, and is valid until June 30, 1992. At all times relevant, Respondent was an employee of the Duval County School Board. Respondent is an English teacher and also a coach for baseball, basketball and football teams. During the 1986-1987 school year, Respondent taught English at Jeb Stuart Junior High School. While at Jeb Stuart, Respondent befriended Ms. Westerman, a ninth grade student. The friendship resulted in Respondent and Ms. Westerman talking and exchanging handwritten notes often. The notes Respondent wrote to Ms. Westerman during this period appear to be a little too personal for a student-teacher relationship, but cannot be said to constitute inappropriate behavior. When the 1986-87 school year ended, the relationship was interrupted by the summer break. Respondent thought he would not see Ms. Westerman again, since she would be going to a different school, Forrest Senior High School, for the 1987-88 school year. Respondent, however, also transferred to Forrest Senior High School because he wanted to coach high school sports teams and an opportunity to do so presented itself. At the beginning of the 1987-88 school year, Respondent and Ms. Westerman reestablished their relationship and started talking and exchanging notes. Beginning in September, Respondent's notes to Ms. Westerman became more personal, containing statements such as: . . . do you love and appreciate me. . . you're the mayonnaise on my cheeseburger.! * * * I like to talk to you. My only problem is that I want to talk to you the way a man talks to a woman (nothing nasty) and I can't because of this student- teacher relationship. Petitioners Exhibit 1, pages 25 and 26. While at Jeb Stuart, Respondent had given Ms. Westerman a metal bookmarker. During the period from approximately early October 1987 to December 16, 1987, Respondent gave Ms. Westerman the following items: 1 pink Panasonic cassette player 1 vase containing sixteen roses stuffed bear in karate suit tee shirts (1 blue and 1 white w/Minnie Mouse design) 1 picture - fish 3 cassette tapes 1 Chinese Scent fan small straw basket bags of scented potpourri 1 football jersey #55 small bottle of scented Rose liquid pictures of Mr. Tackett 1 blue plastic sun visor with "Moi Gata" written on it Also, Respondent would occasionally give or loan Ms. Westerman lunch money and money to buy sodas after school. Sometime in October, Respondent realized that he was getting "feelings" for Ms. Westerman and that the relationship was becoming more than a teacher-student relationship. Respondent also became jealous of Ms. Westerman's male friends. Ms. Westerman became concerned about the tone of some of Respondent's notes and statements. In November 1987, Respondent and Ms. Westerman decided it would be best to end the relationship and attempted to do so. However, the attempt was unsuccessful and Respondent and Ms. Westerman resumed exchanging notes and talking. On December 15, 1987, Ms. Westerman's sixteenth birthday, Respondent gave her a note containing written instructions. The instructions directed Ms. Westerman to go to the Burger King near the school and ask for the manager. Upon doing so, the manager gave Ms. Westerman the vase containing sixteen roses. Ms. Westerman was accompanied by a friend and was embarrassed to receive the roses under such circumstances. Respondent also gave Ms. Westerman the cassette player for her birthday. Respondent told Ms. Westerman to bring a black bag to school and leave it with him. When Ms. Westerman received the bag back, the cassette player was in it. The bag was needed to hide the cassette player, since it was against school rules to have a cassette player at the school. On December 16, 1987, Ms. Westerman's mother discovered the notes and gifts. On the following day, Ms. Westerman's mother went to the school and met with the assistant principal regarding the notes and gifts. After this meeting, the school began the investigation which led to this hearing. The investigation was supposed to be confidential. However, when school began in 1988, after the Christmas break, it became known around the school that Mr. Tackett was being investigated and that Ms. Westerman was part of the investigation. Ms. Westerman was harassed by students who liked Mr. Tackett and believed Mr. Tackett's problems were Ms. Westerman's fault. After her mother discovered the letters, Ms. Westerman began having nightmares, developed sleeping and eating problems and her grades deteriorated. These problems disappeared with time, but resumed as the time for this hearing drew near and Ms. Westerman received a subpoena to appear at the hearing. Respondent never made oral, written or physical advances of a sexual nature toward Ms. Westerman. Respondent has given gifts and lunch money to other students. However, he has never given 19 gifts to another student. In those instances where gifts to students were substantial, e.g., a radio or a television set, the gifts were rewards for good school work and not outright gifts as in Ms. Westerman's case. Respondent is an excellent teacher who takes a great interest in his students and is able to inspire them to want to do better in school. On several occasions, Respondent has been directly responsible for bad or mediocre students being able to better their academic performance. In September 1987, Respondent was 42 years old. At the hearing, Respondent was not willing to recognize that what he had done was improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered placing Respondent on probation for two years during which Respondent's teaching activities are supervised and he receives counselling regarding what a proper teacher-student relationship should be. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 16th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NO. 88-2990 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact with exception of some proposed facts which are subordinate to facts found, the proposed findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1-25 are accepted. Paragraphs 26-30 are rejected as recitations of testimony. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact 1-10. Accepted. True for face-to-face conversations, but Respondent encouraged the relationship through his notes where he asked Ms. Westerman to respond and write back. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as recitation of testimony. 15-19. Subordinate to facts found. 20-22. Rejected as irrelevant. 23. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lane Burnett, Esquire 331 East Union Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Al Millar, Esquire 2721 Park Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Karen B Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Marion County School Board (“Petitioner” or “Board”), had just cause to discipline Respondent for misconduct as alleged in the Administrative Complaint (“Complaint”) dated March 10, 2020.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools within Marion County. See Art. IX, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; § 1001.32(2), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is authorized to discipline instructional staff and other school employees. See § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. At the time of the alleged incident, Respondent was employed as a testing coordinator at Dunnellon Middle, pursuant to a professional services contract with the Board. During the 2018-2019 school year, Respondent served as a dean of discipline at Dunnellon Middle. As dean, she had dealt with discipline of students possessing drugs on campus, as well as students suspected of smoking marijuana either on a school bus or at the school bus stop. Leah Grace is a guidance counselor at Dunnellon Middle. Michelle Reese is the guidance office clerk. On January 30, 2020, student L.L. came to the guidance office and told Ms. Reese he wanted to speak with Ms. Grace about enrollment in a magnet program for the following school year. However, when L.L. entered Ms. Grace’s office, he sat down and began crying. L.L. confided in Ms. Grace that he “had something he was not supposed to have at school.” L.L. stated that he did not know who to trust. L.L. was distraught and Ms. Grace was unable to calm him. She decided to contact his mother to pick him up from school. Aware that L.L.’s mother does not speak English, Ms. Grace sought help from someone at the school who spoke Spanish. Respondent speaks Spanish. Ms. Grace contacted Respondent and asked her to come to the guidance office to help her with a student. When Respondent arrived at Ms. Grace’s office, she observed L.L. visibly upset, sobbing with his face in his hands, rocking back and forth. Ms. Grace relayed to Respondent what L.L. had shared with her—that he “had something he was not supposed to have at school.” Respondent recognized L.L. and asked him three questions in quick succession: Do you have a weapon? L.L. shook his head “no” in response; Do you plan to hurt yourself or someone else? L.L. shook his head “no” in response; and Do you have weed? L.L. nodded his head in response to the third question, indicating that he did have marijuana. L.L. confided that another student, D.G., had given the marijuana to L.L. in the cafeteria that morning to “hold on to” for him. L.L. had grown anxious during the school day about having the drugs in his possession and had come to the guidance office for help. When L.L. nodded in the affirmative that he had weed on him, Respondent stated something to the effect of “that is no reason to go home.” Respondent suggested L.L. just flush the marijuana down the toilet. L.L. promptly went into a small restroom attached to Ms. Grace’s office, flushed the toilet, washed his face, and began to compose himself. Afterward, Respondent told L.L. he needed to find better friends. As Respondent was no longer needed for translation, she left the guidance office and returned to her duties in the testing lab. Ms. Grace allowed L.L. to go to his next class, a grade-recovery course for which he was already late. Julia Roof teaches the class and had been concerned that L.L. was not in class on time. L.L. arrived at the classroom toward the end of the class period, and Ms. Roof observed that L.L. was upset. L.L. initially insisted that he was “fine,” but Ms. Roof pressed him because he was visibly upset. L.L. confided in Ms. Roof about the incident. He admitted that he had marijuana in his possession at school that day, that another student had asked him to hold it, and that he had been to the guidance office where the marijuana had been “flushed.” Neither Ms. Grace nor Respondent reported the incident to the school resource officer or anyone in school administration. Nor did either of them notify L.L.’s mother. Ms. Roof reported the incident to Delbert Smallridge, principal at Dunnellon Middle, at the end of the school day. Principal Smallridge’s Investigation Mr. Smallridge has served as principal at Dunnellon Middle for nine years, and has worked in the Marion County school system in various positions for 31 years. Ms. Roof reported the incident to Mr. Smallridge after school at car pickup. Before he left the school for the day, Mr. Smallridge contacted the school resource officer to notify him that there was a situation with drugs on the school campus that day. He also notified Brent Carson, director of professional practices (i.e., human resources) for the Marion County School District (“the District”), with the limited information he had obtained. The following morning, Friday, January 31, 2020, Mr. Smallridge began an internal investigation into the incident. He first interviewed L.L., in the presence of Ms. Roof; took notes of the events L.L. related; reviewed the notes verbally with L.L.; as well as having L.L. read them to himself. Afterward, he asked L.L. to sign his name at the bottom of the page as his statement of the incident. The next person he interviewed, Ms. Reese, came to him directly. She reported to Mr. Smallridge that she had information she felt he should know. She told Mr. Smallridge that Ms. Grace had confided in her that morning that she had allowed a student to flush marijuana in plastic bags down the toilet in her office the prior day, and that she was concerned that they may come back up or otherwise cause a plumbing problem. Ms. Reese provided and signed a written statement to that effect. Mr. Smallridge also interviewed, and took a written statement from, Ms. Roof regarding the incident. Before the school day ended, he also spoke to Mr. Carson, who instructed him to complete the school-level investigation by interviewing and getting written statements from Respondent and all witnesses, and do his best to determine what had happened. Mr. Smallridge interviewed Ms. Grace the following Monday, February 3, 2020, in the presence of his confidential secretary. Mr. Smallridge took notes of his interview with Ms. Grace, and Ms. Grace provided a written statement of her own. During his interview with Ms. Grace, Mr. Smallridge noted that “both [Ms. Grace and Respondent] were aware [L.L.] had drugs.” In Ms. Grace’s written statement, she stated that she “couldn’t remember” whether it was she or Respondent who told L.L. to flush the marijuana, “but I think it was me.” She stated that L.L. went to the small bathroom attached to her office, “then came out and told me he flushed it, bag and all.” Ms. Grace’s statement also confirmed that both she and Respondent were in her office when L.L. went to the bathroom. Ms. Grace later resigned from Dunnellon Middle. On August 26, 2020, after her resignation, she gave a second written statement regarding the incident. In that statement, Ms. Grace claimed responsibility for telling L.L. to flush the marijuana and called it a “momentary lapse in judgement.” She felt sorry for L.L. and did not want him to get in trouble, either with the school or with law enforcement. Mr. Smallridge also interviewed Respondent, who stated that, when L.L. nodded his head in response to her question, “Do you have weed,” she understood L.L. to mean that he had marijuana in his system, not on his person. Further, she claimed to have left Ms. Grace’s office shortly after she asked those questions and was not aware that L.L. had drugs on his person or that he flushed drugs in Ms. Grace’s office. Respondent also gave Mr. Smallridge a written statement. In her written statement, Respondent described the events of January 31, 2020. She said that when she first observed L.L. in Ms. Grace’s office, “The kid seemed sick, rocking, sobbing and not speaking.” She continued, “I thought he might be intoxicated as to why he would want to go home and not to the nurse. I asked him if he had weed as if in smoked it, had it in his system. He nodded and continued to cry. I said, that is no reason to go home.” Mr. Smallridge gathered all the statements and notes from his investigation, scanned and sent them to Mr. Carson. Jaycee Oliver is the executive director of employee relations for the District and is responsible for disciplinary issues with District employees, including hearings, grievances, mediations, and arbitrations. Ms. Oliver reviewed the documents from Mr. Smallridge, and discussed the incident with Mr. Carson and Mr. Smallridge. Ms. Oliver determined that the incident warranted a District-level investigation. District Investigation and Discipline The District investigation was conducted by Dawana Gary, director of equities and ethics, who worked with Tyson Collins, an investigator in her department. Ms. Gary was present for the interviews of both Ms. Grace and Respondent. Mr. Collins interviewed the remaining witnesses. Their interviews were recorded. Following the investigation, Ms. Gary prepared an investigative report containing written findings and conclusions. Based on the investigation, Ms. Gary concluded that both Respondent and Ms. Grace violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., which provides that the educator’s obligation to the student requires that the educator “[s]hall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental and/or physical health and/or safety.” She also concluded that both Respondent and Ms. Grace violated School Board Policy 6.27 I., which requires school board employees to comply with rule 6A-10.081. Ms. Gary sent her investigative report to Ms. Oliver, along with a recommendation that both Ms. Grace and Respondent receive a written reprimand, three-day suspension without pay, and mandatory training. Ms. Oliver reviewed the report and recommendation, and was surprised the recommendation was so lenient. Ms. Oliver characterized the violations as “egregious” and recommended to the superintendent that both Respondent and Ms. Grace be terminated. At the final hearing, Ms. Oliver testified that Respondent’s behavior was egregious because, not only did she fail to report the incident or take other measures to protect L.L., but also that allowing the student to dispose of the drugs prevented a proper investigation into distribution of drugs on campus. She maintained that Respondent’s behavior allowed both D.G., who was allegedly selling drugs on campus, and students who may purchase or otherwise obtain drugs from him, to remain in harm’s way. Without the drugs themselves as evidence, any potential investigation was jeopardized. Ms. Oliver discussed the recommendations for discipline at length with the superintendent. The superintendent made the final decision to impose a written reprimand and a five-day suspension, and require Respondent to take a course on “Reasonable Suspicion Drug Training” upon her return to work. L.L.’s statement that Respondent told him to flush the drugs is the only credible evidence on which to base a finding that Respondent did in fact do so.1 Respondent attempted to discredit L.L.’s testimony by introducing evidence (all of which was hearsay) that L.L. had previously been untruthful to teachers and had a penchant for drama. This evidence was neither credible nor reliable. L.L.’s testimony was clear: he acknowledged he had “weed;” he showed Respondent and Ms. Grace the weed; Respondent instructed him to 1 L.L.’s statement is an exception to the hearsay rule as an admission of a party opponent. See § 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. flush the weed; and he flushed the weed down the toilet in Ms. Grace’s private restroom. Ms. Grace’s testimony that she was the one who instructed L.L. to flush the marijuana is also not accepted as credible. Ms. Grace’s original statement to Mr. Smallridge (repeated in her first written statement) that she could not remember whether it was she or Respondent who told L.L. to flush the marijuana, was simply not credible. A middle school guidance counselor in her situation would have a clear memory of instructing a student to flush drugs down the toilet. Likewise, her memory that a teacher instructed the student to do so in her presence would likewise be significant enough to remember clearly. Further, Ms. Grace and Respondent were close colleagues, frequently having lunch together, and socializing outside of school on at least one occasion. Ms. Grace’s subsequent statement accepting responsibility for telling L.L. to flush the drugs was likely an attempt to protect Respondent. When she gave her second statement, Ms. Grace had already resigned from Dunnellon Middle; therefore, she could not be disciplined for falsely accepting responsibility for instructing L.L. to flush the marijuana. Finally, Ms. Grace’s testimony at the final hearing was too well- rehearsed to be credible. Notably, Ms. Grace had a well-rehearsed explanation for why Respondent would not have heard her tell L.L. to flush the drugs while they were sitting in her very small office, and she inserted that explanation in answer to a wholly-unrelated question. She attempted to explain Respondent’s state of mind, which she could not have known. In sum, Ms. Grace’s testimony was unreliable and was insufficient to establish that she, rather than Respondent, instructed L.L. to flush the marijuana down the toilet. Respondent’s testimony that she understood L.L. to mean he had marijuana in his system, rather than on his person, was not credible. L.L. had stated that he “had something he wasn’t supposed to have at school.” Respondent asked him if he “had weed” after asking him if he “had a weapon,” clearly seeking knowledge of what he possessed at school that he knew was off limits. Further, L.L.’s testimony that he showed Ms. Grace and Respondent the weed is accepted as true. Even if Respondent’s testimony that she understood L.L. to mean that he had marijuana in his system was accepted as true, that fact, coupled with her description of him as appearing ill, and possibly intoxicated,2 created a responsibility to take some step to protect the student’s health and well- being. If she understood L.L. to mean that he had ingested marijuana, and he appeared to her to be ill, her statement “that is no reason to go home,” was completely unprofessional. L.L.’s mother should have been contacted to pick him up from school, and administration should have been notified so that the situation could be avoided in the future to secure L.L.’s health and safety, as well as other students potentially involved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Marion County School Board enter a final order upholding both the charges and the discipline imposed against Respondent, Maria Acosta. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 18th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Suite 100 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Eric J. Lindstrom, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. Post Office Box 5276 Gainesville, Florida 32627 (eServed) Heidi S. Parker, Esquire Egan, Lev, Lindstrom & Siwica, P.A. 2nd Floor 231 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Dr. Diane Gullett, Superintendent Marion County School Board 512 Southeast 3rd Street Ocala, Florida 34471 Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent, University of Central Florida (“UCF”), engaged in a discriminatory employment practice and/or retaliated against Petitioner, Michael Flint.
Findings Of Fact UCF is a state university located in Orlando, Florida, with an enrollment of about 60,000 undergraduate students and 10,000 graduate students. Mr. Flint is a 71-year-old Vietnam combat veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), chronic fatigue, bipolar disorder, traumatic brain injury (“TBI”), and diabetes. He spent 30 years as a police officer. He graduated from Yale University with a degree in Psychology and, in 2002, obtained a master’s degree in Criminal Justice from UCF. Mr. Flint is currently a full-time instructor at UCF in the Criminal Justice Department and has held that position for over 15 years. In 2006, Mr. Flint learned that some faculty members were taking doctoral classes for free pursuant to a UCF policy. Like other state workers, UCF allowed its employees (and their spouses and children) to take up to six credit hours per semester for free so long as the course had an open seat and did not cost the school money. The privilege also applied to coursework towards a doctoral degree, though employees had to pay for their required dissertation credit hours. Mr. Flint believed that obtaining his doctorate degree would make him a better instructor and ensure he had cutting edge knowledge in his teaching field. But, he understood that pursuing this degree was both completely independent from and secondary to his full-time faculty position. Indeed, UCF neither encouraged nor required him to pursue a doctorate degree, as a condition of continued employment or for training, job security, or advancement purposes. His job as a full-time instructor would remain unaffected by the classes he took. The process for obtaining a doctorate degree is rigorous. First, students must complete their coursework, which often takes about two years, and pass a set of comprehensive exams. Then, they decide on their area of research and choose a dissertation committee, which is typically comprised of five faculty members: a chair, often with expertise in the student’s area of research, and four other faculty members, one or two within the student’s area of research and one or two outside of that area. Next, they draft a prospectus outlining the focus of the research, which has to be approved by and defended before the committee, after which they conduct intense research for about a year. Students then complete their dissertation, which must be approved by and defended before the committee. If successful, they are approved to graduate. Like most universities, UCF follows the seven-year rule, which required all doctoral students to complete their degrees within seven years of admission so as to ensure that the research and coursework does not become stale. Although exceptions could be granted, they are discretionary academic decisions based on the circumstances of the particular student. Exceptions beyond ten years are extremely rare and, of those granted such an exception, only about half ultimately graduated. Understanding that pursuing this degree would be secondary to his full-time job and that he had to complete the process in seven years, Mr. Flint applied for and was accepted into the PAF Program in the College of Health and Public Affairs (“COHPA”). He began his doctoral coursework in August 2006. From 2006 through 2009, Mr. Flint worked full-time teaching five to six courses in the Fall and Spring semesters and three to four courses in the Summer semesters. During this same period, he took about one to two substantive courses towards his degree for free each semester, although he backed off his coursework (with approval from Dr. Thomas Wan, the PAF Program director at the time) for a brief period when his wife was diagnosed with cancer. However, in late 2009, Mr. Flint developed Guillain- Barre Syndrome (“GBS”), which caused him to be hospitalized, placed on life support for almost two months, after which he spent an additional six months at home recovering. While in the hospital, he developed diabetes. He also developed chronic fatigue syndrome, from which he continues to suffer years after his recovery. UCF placed him on administrative medical leave from his teaching responsibilities for Spring and Summer 2010, but he resumed teaching a full course load in Fall 2010 and has continued to do so ever since. As for his doctorate degree, Mr. Flint requested a special leave of absence from CGS, which oversaw all of the graduate programs across the university. CGS granted the request and placed a hold on his enrollment for all of 2010. Mr. Flint returned to taking classes in Spring 2011 and completed his substantive coursework in Fall 2011. Still teaching full-time each semester, Mr. Flint moved on to the comprehensive exam phase of his studies. He studied for those exams in 2012 and passed them after one unsuccessful attempt in Fall 2013. Although the average student finished their coursework and exams in about two years, it took Mr. Flint seven years. While continuing to meet his full-time teaching obligations, Mr. Flint spent 2013 and 2014 trying to conduct dissertation research and prepare his prospectus, now having to pay for those credit hours. His dissertation committee initially consisted of Dr. Bob Langworthy, as chair, and Dr. Matt Matusiak, Dr. Jeff Rosky, and Dr. Sophia Dziegielewski. However, by Fall 2014, Mr. Flint had not yet submitted his prospectus to his committee. Ranetta Guinn, the director of Graduate Affairs for COHPA, met with him because it had been over seven years since he began the program. They created a timeline for finishing his prospectus by March 2015, defending it by May 2015, and defending his dissertation by April 2016. Ms. Guinn explained that he would need to apply for an exception from CGS to extend the deadline to ten years. Unfortunately, around the same time, Dr. Langworthy retired and Mr. Flint had to find a replacement chair for his committee. Dr. Dziegielewski ultimately agreed to serve as the chair, but that required Mr. Flint to find another faculty member in his area of expertise to serve on the committee. Dr. Cory Watkins ultimately agreed. In March 2015, Mr. Flint petitioned CGS to extend the graduation deadline to ten years based on his 2009 GBS diagnosis, chronic fatigue, diabetes, and his disability rating as a combat veteran. He did not inform CGS, or anyone else at UCF, about his PTSD, bipolar disorder, or TBI. Dr. Dziegielewski wrote a letter supporting his petition based on a Summer 2016 graduation. The director of the PAF Program also wrote a supporting letter based on his medical issues and recent setback in having to find a new committee chair. In April 2015, CGS approved the petition and extended the deadline for Mr. Flint to graduate through Summer 2016. The letter noted that no further petitions would be considered. At the time, Mr. Flint believed it was a reasonable accommodation and that he would be able to meet the timeline, but ultimately was unable to do so. He did not defend his prospectus until January 2016, though he was supposed to complete that task by May 2015. He began drafting his dissertation in the Spring 2016 (again, having to pay for those credit hours), but did not timely defend it by May 2016. Notwithstanding, he was permitted to continue working in the hopes he could defend and graduate by the end of 2016. When Mr. Flint had not yet submitted his dissertation in October 2016, he informed Dr. Dziegielewski that he was struggling with his normal workload, periodic illnesses, and chronic fatigue but would try to finish. But he did not petition CGS for another exception. He also failed to notify her or anyone else at UCF about his PTSD or bipolar disorder.2/ Because he ultimately failed to submit even a draft of his dissertation, he received an unsatisfactory dissertation grade for the Fall 2016 semester. In January 2017, CGS dismissed Mr. Flint from the PAF Program. He filed an appeal to be reinstated but the grievance committee, limited to the issue of whether CGS followed proper procedure in reaching its decision, denied relief in March 2017. While his appeal was pending, Mr. Flint submitted a draft of his dissertation. Upon review in March/April 2017, his committee members generally believed that it was almost ready and that he could complete his revisions and defend it in Fall 2017 or Spring 2018 at the latest. However, the PAF Program director confirmed nothing could be done because the draft was not then defensible, no more extensions could be given, and his appeal already had been denied. Notwithstanding his dissertation issues, Mr. Flint met his full-time teaching obligations throughout this period. He never asked for leave or a reduced schedule to have more time to devote to his studies. He taught consistently each summer to earn additional compensation, though doing so was not required, instead of focusing his attention on his studies. Even when his supervisor asked him to take a certification course on top of teaching in Fall 2016, he did not even think to ask if he could delay that course for a semester so he had more time to finish his dissertation. He also could have reduced his teaching load that semester by one course to account for the certification class, but chose not to do so. Mr. Flint was clearly a devoted employee who made his teaching position his main priority. Unfortunately, the combination of putting his studies second and the many medical conditions from which he suffered caused him to fail to meet the extended deadlines and to be dismissed from the PAF Program. Mr. Flint then filed a complaint with the Commission, alleging that UCF wrongfully dismissed him from the PAF Program and retaliated against him based on his age and handicaps. To establish that UCF discriminated against him, Mr. Flint presented the testimony of two other UCF faculty members, Robert Wood, Esquire (62 years old), and Abby Milon, Esquire (59 years old), who believed UCF had taken adverse employment actions against them and other older faculty members relating specifically to their teaching positions, such as reducing their course loads. However, neither of them were in a doctorate program like Mr. Flint and, moreover, their complaints related solely to their jobs as faculty members. Conversely, Mr. Flint suffered no such adverse actions relating to his job as a faculty member. He could not complain about the way UCF treated him in that role, even after he challenged his dismissal from the PAF Program, as that academic decision did not adversely impact his faculty position. He also is still permitted to take up to two courses for free per semester at UCF, just as he was before. Both UCF and Mr. Flint also presented the testimony of several UCF faculty members involved in Mr. Flint’s studies, from his committee members to PAF Program directors to the associate dean of CGS. Every such witness who testified about Mr. Flint’s dismissal confirmed that the decision was based on his failure to meet the agreed-upon extended deadlines and that his age and handicaps, most of which were unknown to the decision makers, had nothing to do it. Though his committee members confirmed that they were supportive of him being given a chance to graduate, they acknowledged that CGS made the final decision, that he had not adhered to the deadlines after they were extended, and that it was quite rare for any student (young or older, healthy or sick) to graduate beyond the ten-year mark.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Michael Flint, failed to establish that Respondent, University of Central Florida, committed an unlawful employment practice against him and dismissing his Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO 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 17th day of June, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the governing body of the Jackson County School District, and maintains its office in Marianna, Jackson County, Florida., The Respondent is engaged in the business of operating a school system. The Respondent is a public employer. The JCEA is an employee organization. On or about June 16, 1975, the Public Employees Relations Commission, in Case No. 8H-RC-754-1084, certified the JCEA as the exclusive bargaining representative of certified instructional personnel who are employed halftime or more by the Respondent in specific job categories. After lengthy contract negotiations, which began in August of 1975, a collective bargaining agreement was executed by the School Board and the JCEA on February 2, 1976. A copy of the agreement was received in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 1. On February 12, 1976& the JCEA filed an unfair labor practice charge against the School Board with the Public Employees Relations Commission. On February 20, 1976, the JCEA filed written grievances pursuant to Article III of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The matters raised in the grievances are substantially the same as those raised in the unfair labor practice charge. In accordance with the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, implementation of the agreement was to be completed by February 16, 1976. During the period just prior to and just following February 16, the Respondent, through its agents, implemented numerous unilateral changes in policies. Prior to August, 1975, members of the collective bargaining unit at Marianna High School were not required to sign in at the beginning of the work day, or to sign out at the end of the work day. During August, 1976, new sign in and sign out procedures were implemented. The procedures applied only to members of the unit. On February 16, 1976, a time clock system was implemented at Marianna High. The system was implemented in accordance with "Memorandum #10", dated February 9, 1976. The memorandum was received in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit 2. Members of the bargaining unit were required under the new policy to "clock in" on the time clock at the beginning of the work day, and to "clock out" at the completion of the work day. It was announced that failure to clock in and out would constitute grounds for dismissal. The principal at Marianna High School testified that the Collective Bargaining Agreement required more accurate time records, and that the time clock system was instituted in order that more accurate records could be kept. Article IV, Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Agreement were cited. Section 4.2 provides as follows: "The teacher's work day shall be seven (7) hours and fifty (50) minutes, during which each teacher shall be provided a duty-free lunch period on campus of not less than twenty-five (25) minutes. The principal of each school shall set the beginning and ending time of the work day. Teachers must have the prior approval of the principal or his designee before they leave school during working hours. Loss of time during the workday shall be covered by approved leave, loss of pay, or compensatory time." Section 4.3 provides as follows: "The principals may assign teachers extra duty which shall be restricted to supervising students on campus before and after school. The principal may also select from volunteers, teachers to supervise students at lunch. Compensatory time, equal to the extra duty time, shall be given teachers serving extra duty and lunch supervision, provided however, compensatory time shall not be given during the student day." Prior to the implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, employees within the bargaining unit were not paid extra duty time. The principal at Marianna High School testified that the precise delineation of the work day, and the entitlement to extra duty pay necessitated the more accurate record keeping. This explanation is inadequate. In the first place, in order to be entitled to extra duty compensation, the principal would have to assign the extra duty. The extra duties could include supervising students on campus before and after school, and during lunch. These sorts of extra duty are not such as would permit great variances in time. It is difficult to perceive why more accurate time keeping procedures were required. Indeed, as to extra duty during the lunch period, the time clock system would be of no assistance whatever. If more accurate time keeping was necessary at Marianna High School, it would have been just as necessary prior to implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Non-instructional employees of Marianna High School have not formed a collective bargaining unit. Any of these employees are compensated on an hourly basis, and are entitled to more or less compensation depending upon the hours they work. Accurate time records are as necessary for this group of employees as for employees within the bargaining unit; however, the time clock system applied only to employees within the bargaining unit. The time clock system was not the only new policy implemented at Marianna High School to coincide with implementation of the Collective bargaining Agreement. Teachers had been permitted prior to the adoption of the contract, to leave school early for doctors appointments, or to serve civic functions, without the necessity of taking any leave time. Subsequent to the adoption of the contract, if a teacher left more than ten minutes early, he or she would be required to take a minimum of one hour leave time. On or about February 16, 1976, teachers were instructed to stand outside of their classroom from 7:45 A.M. until 8:00 A.M. to supervise students coming into their classroom. Although teachers had previously been required to supervise students coming into their classroom, they were not required to stand outside of their classroom. Prior to implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement teachers were permitted to use the teacher's lounge for a planning period. As of February 16, teachers were not permitted to use the lounge for their planning period. The principal at Marianna High School testified that this was necessary in order that he would know where the teachers were since the planning period was to be used for parent consultations in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The testimony clearly revealed, however, that the planning period had been used for parent conferences prior to the adoption of the contract. Insofar as limiting the locations for the planning period was necessary, it was as necessary prior to adoption of the contract as subsequent to it. During the course of negotiations, the principal at Marianna High School had expressed a hostile attitude toward the collective bargaining process. None of the new policies set out above were discussed during the course of the negotiations. Each of the new policies was more restrictive than had been the case prior to collective bargaining. The timing of implementation of the policies to coincide with implementation of the agreement, the fact that the policies applied only to personnel within the bargaining unit, the fact that a hostile attitude toward collective bargaining had been expressed, and the lack of any other reasonable explanation for the policies lead inescapably to the conclusion that the new policies were implemented in order to dramatize to members of the collective bargaining unit that resort to the bargaining process would result in more restrictive supervision by the employer. The new policies were implemented for the purpose of discouraging membership in the JCEA, and to interfere with the employees' rights to engage in the collective bargaining process. Similar new and restrictive policies were implemented by the Respondent's agents at Malone High School, and at Golson Elementary School. The new policies at these schools were adopted to coincide with implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, applied only to personnel within the unit, and were implemented in asetting of hostility toward the collective bargaining process. Like the new policies at Marianna High, the new policies at Malone and at Golson were adopted to discourage membership in JCEA, and to interfere with employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in the collective bargaining process. At Malone High. School teachers were no longer permitted to use the teacher's lounge for their planning period as they had been prior to implementation of the contract. Prior to implementation of the contract teachers were permitted to eat lunch in the cafeteria, in the teacher's lounge, or in their own classrooms. Subsequent to the agreement, they were permitted to eat lunch only in the cafeteria, or in the Home Economics classroom, which was not available during all lunch periods. Nothing in the contract in any way necessitated these new policies. One of the top priorities of JCEA in negotiating a collective bargaining agreement was a "duty free" lunch period. JCEA was successful in this respect. The agreement provides for a "duty free" lunch period. Subsequent to adoption of the agreement at a faculty meeting the principal at Malone strongly advised members of the unit to eat with their classes, and in this regard made statements which could only have been perceived as threats. He stated for example that it might be necessary to trade the best player to make a better team. At Golson Elementary School, a "sign-in, sign-out" system was initiated just prior to February 16, 1976. The principal told members of the bargaining unit that he had treated them as professionals", but that now there was a collective bargaining agreement. He required that they sign in at 7:45 A.M. and he frequently reminded the teachers over the intercom system during morning announcements that they should sign in. Prior to implementation of the contract, teachers at Golson Elementary were permitted to leave the school grounds as much as twenty minutes early in order to attend classes, civic functions, or doctors appointments, without the necessity for using leave time. After the contract it was necessary to use one hour leave time in order to leave ten minutes early. Prior to implementation of the contract teachers were permitted to eat lunch in the teacher's lounge or in their own classrooms. Subsequent to the contract they were no longer permitted to do that. Prior to certification of the JCEA as the exclusive bargaining agent of instructional employees of the School Board, the School Board utilized a "Calendar Committee" to assist it in promulgating a calendar for each school year. A representative would be chosen from each school, and the Committee would recommend a calendar for the school year. Among recommendations made by the Calendar Committee would be dates for holidays. During the course of negotiations leading to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the School Board asserted that the calendar would prohibit negotiations respecting vacation days. The JCEA requested that a Calendar Committee not be utilized for the 1976-77 school year. The School Board nonetheless opted to utilize the Calendar Committee. At Marianna High School Betty Duffee, the chairman of the JCEA's negotiating team was nominated at a faculty meeting to serve on the Calendar Committee. The principal at Marianna High School discouraged the faculty from selecting Ms. Duffee because JCEA would be otherwise represented on the Committee. Use of the Calendar Committee was not designed to frustrate collective bargaining. A Calendar Committee had been utilized prior to certification of the JCEA by the Public Employees Relations Commission. Use of the Calendar Committee to make recommendations respecting mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, such as vacation days, would, however, at this juncture circumvent the exclusivity of JCEA's representation. The fact that the principal at Marianna High School discouraged selection of a JCEA representative to the Calendar Committee indicates an intention to utilize the Committee to make decisions respecting mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, such as vacation days, without the JCEA participating in negotiations. Mary Jo Morton is a teacher employed at Marianna High School. She is active in the JCEA, and this fact is known to the principal at Marianna High School. Shortly after implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Ms. Morton was evaluated by her principal and received an unfavorable evaluation. It appears from the evidence that the evaluation was not conducted under the best circumstances. For example, Ms. Morton was criticized for not permitting sufficient classroom participation during one class while a test was being conducted. Insufficient evidence was offered, however, to establish that the unfavorable evaluations of Ms. Morton were motivated even in part by her participation in the JCEA.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED that an order be entered as follows: Finding the School Board of Jackson County guilty of committing unfair labor practices by implementing restrictive policy changes at Marianna High School, Malone High School, and Golson Elementary School in such a manner as to discourage membership in the Jackson County Education Association, and interfere with its employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in the collective bargaining process. Finding the School Board of Jackson County guilty of committing an unfair labor practice by utilizing the Calendar Committee for the 1976-77 school year. Requiring that the School Board of Jackson County cease and desist from continued enforcement of the policy changes, and from continued utilization of a calendar committee. Directing that the School Board of Jackson County conspicuously post a notice that it has committed unfair labor practices, that it has been directed to cease and desist from such activities, and that it will cease and desist from such activities. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of January, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Austin F. Reed, Esquire Public Employees Relations Commission - Suite 300 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Frank, Esquire 341 Plant Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Joseph A. Sheffield, Esquire Post Office Box 854 Marianna, Florida 32446 John F. Dickinson, Esquire COFFMAN & JONES 2065 Herschel Street Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, Florida 32203
The Issue Whether Respondent's employment should be terminated based on the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner has been a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 1001.32. Petitioner has continuously employed Respondent since 1992 as a custodian at Melrose Elementary School, one of the public schools in Miami-Dade County. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Cynthia Gracia was the principal of Melrose Elementary School. Respondent is a non-probationary "educational support employee" within the meaning of Section 1012.40, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: As used in this section: "Educational support employee" means any person employed by a district school system . . . who by virtue of his or her position of employment is not required to be certified by the Department of Education or district school board pursuant to s. 1012.39. . . . "Employee" means any person employed as an educational support employee. (2)(a) Each educational support employee shall be employed on probationary status for a period to be determined through the appropriate collective bargaining agreement or by district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist. (b) Upon successful completion of the probationary period by the employee, the employee's status shall continue from year to year unless the superintendent terminates the employee for reasons stated in the collective bargaining agreement, or in district school board rule in cases where a collective bargaining agreement does not exist . . . At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a member of the AFSCME collective bargaining unit. AFSCME and Petitioner have entered into a CBA, which provides in Article XI for discipline of covered employees. Article XI, Section 4 provides that covered employees who have been employed by Petitioner for more than five years (such as Respondent) may only be discharged for "just cause." Article XI, Section 4 of the CBA pertains to types of separation from employment. Article XI, Section 4(B) pertains to excessive absenteeism and abandonment of position and provides as follows: (B) An unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays shall be evidence of abandonment of position. Unauthorized absences totaling 10 or more workdays during the previous 12-month period shall be evidence of excessive absenteeism. Either of the foregoing shall be grounds for termination. . . . School Board Rule 6Gx13-4E-1.01 provides as follows: Except for sudden illness or emergency situations, any employee who is absent without prior approval shall be deemed to have been willfully absent without leave. Pursuant to Section 1012.67, a school board is authorized to terminate the employment of an employee who is willfully absent from employment without authorized leave, as follows: Any district school board employee who is willfully absent from duty without leave shall forfeit compensation for the time of such absence, and his or her employment shall be subject to termination by the school board. Petitioner's leave policies do not permit a leave of absence for an incarcerated employee, unless the employee can demonstrate that he or she was wrongfully incarcerated. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent was not wrongfully incarcerated, and he was not eligible for a leave of absence under Petitioner’s leave polices. School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 states in pertinent part that: All persons employed by The School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves, both in their employment and in the community, in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. On September 25, 2002, Respondent was charged with assault and battery (domestic violence) involving his then girlfriend. Those charges were pending at the time of the final hearing. On or about November 14, 2002, Respondent appeared at a court hearing. Because he had missed an earlier court date, Respondent was incarcerated in the Miami-Dade County jail. Shortly after he was arrested, Respondent attempted to contact Ms. Gracia at Melrose Elementary School. Respondent testified he tried to call the school five or six times on the day he was arrested, but the call from jail was long distance and the school would not take a collect call. That same day, Respondent called his new girlfriend (Leanne Perez), told her that he was in jail, and asked her to tell Ms. Gracia that he was in jail. On November 14, 2002, Ms. Perez told Ms. Gracia by telephone that Respondent had been detained. When questioned, Ms. Perez explained that Respondent was in jail, but she did not provide any additional information. Respondent returned to his job site on December 16, 2002. Between November 14 and December 16, Respondent was absent from work without authorized leave. Neither Respondent nor anyone on Respondent's behalf contacted or attempted to contact Ms. Gracia between Ms. Perez's telephone call on November 14 and Respondent's reappearance at the job site on December 16. Prior to his incarceration, Respondent had absences from work without authorized leave. From April 11, 2002, to December 16, 2002, Respondent had 29.5 days of unauthorized absences from the worksite. Respondent's unauthorized absences impeded the provision of the custodial services that are necessary to keep a school clean and safe. During Respondent's unauthorized absences, the other members of the custodial staff had to perform their duties and had to perform extra work to cover for Respondent's absence. On December 5, 2002, Ms. Gracia wrote a memorandum to Respondent styled "Employment Intention." After listing the dates Respondent had been absent between October 10, 2002, and December 5, Ms. Gracia wrote as follows: These absences have caused the effective operation of the worksite to be impeded, and/or efficient services to students to be impeded. I am requesting your immediate review and implementation of any of the following options: Notify the worksite of your intended date of return; or Effect leave procedures (request for leave [form] attached); or Implement resignation from Miami-Dade County Public Schools. (Resignation letter attached.) You are directed to notify the worksite within 3 days of the date of this memorandum as to your employment intention. Your absences will be considered unauthorized until you communicate directly with this administrator. Ms. Gracia's memorandum was mailed to the address Respondent had given Petitioner as his residence, and a relative of Respondent, who was not named at the final hearing, signed for the mailing. Respondent testified, credibly, that he did not receive the memorandum until after he got out of jail. Respondent did not respond to the memorandum. Respondent testified, credibly, that he did not intend to abandon his employment. Respondent worked between December 16, 2002, and April 9, 2003, the date Petitioner suspended Respondent's employment without pay and instituted these proceedings to terminate his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order, sustains the suspension of Respondent's employment without pay, and terminates that employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a Compensatory Education Teacher at Lake Butler Middle School. Additionally, he served as Assistant Football Coach and Junior Varsity Baseball Coach. The Petitioner is over the age of eighteen years. During the 1986-87 school year the Petitioner possessed a temporary teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education (Certificate Number 562142) disclosing "Highest Acceptable Level of Training - Bachelor's Degree." The Petitioner also possesses a permanent teaching certificate with a validity period of July 1, 1987, through June 30, 1992. Superintendent of Schools, James H. Cason, III, met with M. H. Boyd, Principal, Lake Butler Middle School and Petitioner's principal, prior to formulating his decision to recommend Petitioner to Respondent for additional year of employment. Boyd advised Superintendent Cason that she was not entirely satisfied with Petitioner's performance but that she could "live with" Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason also conferred with the head coach, James F. Niblack, Petitioner's supervisor for the athletic duties performed by Petitioner, prior to formulating a recommendation to Respondent concerning Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Coach Niblack recommended Petitioner's reappointment for the 1987-88 school year. Superintendent Cason made a timely written nomination that Petitioner be reappointed by the Respondent in an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. On April 27, 1987, Respondent conducted a meeting for the purpose, inter alia, of acting upon the recommendation of Superintendent Cason for personnel appointments. The Respondent voted unanimously to reject the recommendation of Superintendent Cason that Petitioner be reappointed to an instructional position for the 1987-88 school year. No reason for the rejection of the nomination of the Petitioner by the Respondent was verbally stated at the April 27, 1987, meeting nor spread upon the minutes of such meeting. During the hearing, and after conferring with the members of the board, counsel for Respondent stipulated that Petitioner met the statutory requirement to be eligible for appointment to a position with Respondent in that he is of good moral character, is over the age of eighteen (18) years and holds a certificate issued under the rules of the State Board of Education. School Board member, W. S. Howard, Jr., a cousin of Boyd, requested that Boyd prepare an evaluation of Petitioner. The record is not clear as to whether the evaluation was made before or after the Superintendent conferred with Boyd on Petitioner's reappointment. Petitioner was evaluated "satisfactory" in ten (10) of the eighteen (18) areas measured on the evaluation instrument that was utilized, "unsatisfactory" on two (2), "not applicable" was marked on two (2) criteria and four (4) were left unmarked by the evaluator. The evaluation instrument utilized by the Respondent in evaluating the Petitioner's performance was not the instrument which should have been utilized during the 1986-87 school year although such instrument was utilized by the principal for other employees at the Petitioner's school. The Respondent officially sponsors, maintains and funds the athletic programs in which the Petitioner rendered services during the 1986-87 school year. Such programs constitute an integral part of the overall educational program offered by the Respondent to children of Union County. The Petitioner's service to the athletic program conducted by the Respondent was rated satisfactory or above.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, School Board of Union County, enter a Final Order GRANTING the Petitioner an annual contract for the 1987-88 school year and reimbursing Petitioner for any loss of wages due to his non-pay status which resulted from Respondent's rejection of his nomination. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2536 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 11, respectively. 12.-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 through 16, respectively. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact and 6. The fact that Boyd had some reservations concerning Petitioner's abilities to teach the compensatory education class is adopted in Finding of Fact 5, the balance of paragraph 6 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that Niblack recommended Petitioner for reappointment is adopted in Finding of Fact 6, the balance of Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the Union County School Board voted not to rehire Petitioner is adopted in Finding of Fact 9, the balance of paragraph 8 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The fact that the reason for Respondent's vote to reject Petitioner's reappointment was not verbally stated or spread in the minutes is adopted in Finding of Fact 10, the balance of paragraph 9 is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record in that the testimony of the individual School Board members lacked credibility. Rejected as being presented as an argument and not as a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer, Brooks and Cooper, P.A. 911 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bobby Lex Kirby, Esquire Route 2, Box 219 Lake Butler, Florida 32054 James H. Cason, III, Superintendent The School Board of Union Co. 55 Southwest Sixth Street Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Sydney McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
