Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 48 similar cases
HUBERT E. RIDAUGHT vs. LAKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 77-001661 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-001661 Latest Update: May 01, 1978

Findings Of Fact Petitioner has served in the field of education in the State of Florida for approximately twenty-seven years. He has worked as a teacher, a dean, an assistant principal, and a principal. From 1959 until June, 1972, he worked in the Broward County, Florida school system in various capacities. Prior to the 1972-73 academic year, the Petitioner moved to Lake County where he was hired as an assistant principal at Eustis High School. He served as the assistant principal at Eustis High School during the 1972-73 and 1973-74 academic years. During those two academic years there were two assistant principals employed at Eustis High School. The school was not large enough to justify two assistant principalships; however, racial tensions at the school had placed a strain upon administrative personnel, and two assistant principals were assigned to the school for that reason. During the spring of the 1973-74 school year, it became apparent that only one of the two assistant principals would be rehired for the next academic year. The principal at Eustis High School decided to retain the other assistant principal rather than the Petitioner. This was not because of any deficiency on the Petitioner's part, but rather because the other assistant principal was black man, and the principal felt it important to maintain a black person in a high administrative capacity at the school in view of the recent tensions. During the 1972-73 and 1973-74 school years, the Petitioner was employed with the School Board on an "annual contract" basis. He was eligible for a "continuing contract" for the 1974-75 school year. The principal at Eustis High School wished to recommend the Petitioner for continued employment as an administrator; however, he did not have a position available, and he recommended that the Petitioner be hired on a continuing contract basis as a teacher. The School Board voted to place the Petitioner on continuing contract status as a teacher. During the summer of 1974 additional funds became available, and the School Board elected to keep a second assistant principal at the Eustis High School. The Petitioner was offered that position. In the meantime, however, the Petitioner had applied for a vacancy as an assistant principal at the Mount Dora Middle School, within the Lake County school system. The Petitioner was hired for that latter position. During the 1974-75 school year the principal at the Mount Dora High School was removed, and the Petitioner was assigned as the principal. He served in that capacity for the remainder of that school year, and for the 1975-76 and 1976-77 school years. For each of those two latter years, he was given an annual contract as a principal. During February, 1977, the Superintendent of the School Board advised the Petitioner at a conference that the Petitioner would not be recommended for an administrative position within the school system for the 1977-78 school year, but that the Petitioner's continuing contract status as a teacher would be honored, and that he would be recommended for a teaching position. This oral notification was followed by letters dated March 7, 1977 and March 29, 1977 advising the Petitioner of the action. Petitioner is now employed on a continuing contract basis, as a teacher at the Eustis Middle School within the Lake County school system. At all times relevant to this action, the School Board has distributed contracts to its personnel in the following manner: During the spring or early summer of each academic year, two copies of proposed contracts are mailed to personnel who the Board has decided to rehire. If the employee agrees with the contract he signs both copies and returns them to the School Board, where the facsimile signatures of the Superintendent and Chairman of the School Board are affixed. One of the copies is then returned to the employee. Prior to the 1974-75 school year, a continuing contract of employment was forwarded to the Petitioner in this manner. The contract provided in pertinent part: WHEREAS, Section 231.36, et. seq., Florida Statutes, provides for continuing contracts with each School Board for members of the instructional staff in each district school system, who are qualified by the terms of said law, and WHEREAS, the School Board has appointed and employed the Teacher for continuing employment as teacher in the Mount Dora Middle School of the district. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements, covenants, terms, and conditions herein contained, it is expressly stipulated, understood, agreed, and covenanted by and between the parties hereto as follows: The School Board enters into this contract of continuing employment with the Teacher pursuant to the laws of Florida and to Section 231.36, et. seq., Florida Statutes, and the action of the School Board heretofore taken, whereby the Teacher was appointed and employed . . . The words "(Asst. Prin.)" had been placed after the words "whereas the School Board has appointed and employed the teacher for continuing employment as teacher". The words "(Asst. Prin.)" were also crossed out. It appears that these words were inserted in the contract after Mr. Ridaught had signed it and before the proper facsimile signatures of the Chairman of the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools were affixed to the contract. The Superintendent crossed out the words before the contract was signed by the School Board personnel. When the contract was returned to the Petitioner the words "(Asst. Prin.)" were placed on the contract and were crossed out. It does not appear that the words "(Asst. Prin.)" as above have any bearing on this case, or that they were intended to be a part of the contract by either of the parties. It appears that they were inserted by clerical error and were crossed out in order to obviate the error. The School Board has, in the past, offered continuing contract status to teachers, principals, and supervisors. The School Board has not, in the past, offered continuing contract status to assistant principals, or any administrators below the level of principal. It does not appear that the School Board has ever offered a continuing contract to an administrator other than a principal. As a result of a change in the pertinent statutes the School Board now gives tenure or continuing contract status only to teachers. Neither supervisors nor principals are granted continuing contract status. Assistant principals are classified for the School Board's purposes as teachers. Their paygrade is determined from the same scale that is used for teachers. Assistant principals are given an increment in their salary for the additional duties that they perform, in the same manner that coaches, librarians, and guidance counsellors are given an increment. There is no separate salary scale for assistant principals as there is for administrators and supervisors. Although the School Board classified the Petitioner as a teacher in the continuing contract that was granted to the Petitioner in 1974, the Petitioner had not, prior to that time, ever served within the Lake County school system as a teacher. All of his service prior to then was as an assistant principal. His duties as an assistant principal included administrative duties assigned by the principal of the school. At no time did he serve as a classroom teacher. Subsequent to 1974, the Petitioner continued to serve as an administrator within the school system, and not until the present school year did he ever serve as a classroom teacher.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's prayer that the School Board be required to consider him as having continuing contract status as an administrator or assistant principal; and denying the Petitioner's prayer for loss of wages; and dismissing the petition herein. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Vossler, Esquire Harrison T. Slaughter, Jr., Esquire 110 North Magnolia Drive Suite 610, Eola Office Center Suite 224 605 Robinson Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Orlando, Florida 32801 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 1
PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs CHERYL UNWIN, 00-001866 (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:West Palm Beach, Florida May 02, 2000 Number: 00-001866 Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 2
MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs JOSEPH KINNAN, 14-000778 (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Bradenton, Florida Feb. 19, 2014 Number: 14-000778 Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 3
THOMAS E. DEEN vs. HERNANDO COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 85-001342 (1985)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 85-001342 Latest Update: Nov. 05, 1985

Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Thomas E. Deen, is an employee of Respondent, School Board of Hernando County, Florida. The School Board is an agency of the State of Florida and is charged with responsibility for the operation of the Hernando County public schools. The Petitioner was initially employed by Respondent as an assistant principal for the 1961-62 academic year. He was thereafter employed under successive annual contracts of employment for the academic years 1962-63 and 1963-64. The Petitioner was thereafter granted a continuing contract as assistant principal for that period commencing with the 1964-65 academic year. In 1972, Petitioner was promoted to the position of principal. The Petitioner thereafter served in the position of principal for the 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 academic years. In the 1976-77 through 1981-82 academic years. Petitioner was assigned to various administrative positions, including Title I Resource Specialist and Adult Education Coordinator. At all times during this period, he was paid at least the administrative base salary in accordance with the salary schedule annually adopted by the School Board. For the 1982-83 academic year, the Petitioner was assigned to the position of adult school director at the Alternative Adult Education Day and Trade School. This school involved day high school students, adult students, a trade school and an alternative program. This school is located in a separate facility. The Petitioner replaced an individual by the name of Lorenzo Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton held the administrative title of principal while he served in that position and was paid as a principal. The duties performed by Mr. Hamilton and Petitioner were identical in all respects. Both Mr. Hamilton and the Petitioner performed many of the duties required of principals by the School Board's job description for the position of principal, including: 1) evaluation of teachers; 2) supervision of teachers; 3) discipline of students; 4) evaluation of students; and, 5) signing numerous documents as principal. However, several duties required of principals were not performed by Mr. Hamilton, or Petitioner. Those duties included: 1) recommending to the superintendent changes and improvements to the school plant, physical equipment and grounds; 2) recommending to the superintendent changes in existing personnel and the hiring of personnel; 3) recommending to the Superintendent major changes in the curriculum of the school; 4) keeping property records on equipment and textbooks and maintaining internal accounts; 5) recommending to the School Board any rentals of the buildings and 6) submitting purchase orders and estimated needs for office supplies, classroom supplies and custodial supplies. Many of the functions of principals which were not performed by Petitioner or Mr. Hamilton were the responsibility of Mr. Goss. Mr. Goss was considered Petitioner's and Mr. Hamilton's supervisor and was employed as a community school coordinator. Generally, principals report directly to the superintendent in the school system's chain of command; Petitioner did not report directly to the superintendent. The Petitioner therafter served as community school director for the 1982-83 school year and the 1983-84 school year. For the 1984-85 school year the Petitioner held the administrative title of principal/community school coordinator. After Petitioner relieved Mr. Lorenzo Hamilton, the title of the administrative position was re-evaluated and it was determined that the position should be a director's position and not a principal's position. In addition, it was determined that the position did not call for a principal's salary. While employed in the position of community school director for the 1982-83 school year, the Petitioner received the administrative base pay of a community school director, a five (5%) per cent enrollment supplement and a three (3%) per cent alternative school supplement. The two (2) supplements which the Petitioner received were also received by Mr. Hamilton when he served in the position during the 1981-82 school year. Further, the School Board of Hernando County supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the 1982-83 school year, admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4 reflects that those two (2) supplements were paid to principals but were not paid to community school directors. For the 1983-84 school year, the Petitioner was paid the administrative base of a director, however, he continue to receive enrollment and position supplements which were reserved for principals according to the school board's supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the year 1983-84. For the 1984-85 school year the Petitioner was paid 100% of the administrative base. However, the Petitioner did not receive an enrollment supplement nor a position supplement. According to the school board's supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the school year 1984-85, persons occupying the position of principal were entitled to an enrollment supplement and a position supplement. For the 1984-85 school year, the Petitioner's title was changed from community school director to principal. The primary reason for the change in title was to implement the district school board's policy requiring that the person at the school level in charge of the Beginning Teacher Program be titled "principal." The Petitioner was in charge of the Beginning Teacher Program at the Alternative School. The Beginning Teacher Program began in the State of Florida on July 1, 1982. The Petitioner was involved with the Beginning Teacher Program since its inception, but did not have any beginning teachers in 1982-83. The Petitioner did have beginning teachers in his school during the 1983-84 and 1984-85 school years. The Petitioner protested his rate of pay for the 1982- 83 school year to Superintendent Austin. Initially, Petitioner's contract reflected that he would be paid 90% of administrative base with no supplements. After a heated discussion with Mr. Austin, Petitioner's salary was adjusted to include a 5% supplement for the number of students and a 3% supplement for the type of school; Petitioner's administrative base salary was unchanged. During the 1984-85 school year the Petitioner did not report directly to Mr. Austin, the superintendent of schools. Based on the school board's chain of command, a principal will report directly to the office of the superintendent while assistant principals do not report directly to the superintendent. Mr. Austin, the superintendent of schools of Hernando County has never recommended to the school board that a person receive a continuing contract as a principal. Mr. Austin has recommended that certain individuals receive a continuing contract as assistant principal and has made a recommendation that an individual receive a continuing contract in the position of administrator. The school board's supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the 1982-83 school year provided that assistant principals would be paid 100% of the administrative base, or $26,575. Petitioner held a valid continuing contract as an assistant principal during the 1982-83 school year, but was paid an administrative base of $23,917.50. The school board's supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the 1983-84 school year provided that assistant principals would be paid 100% of the administrative base, or $28,967. Petitioner held a valid continuing contract as an assistant principal during the 1983-84 school year, but was paid an administrative base of $26,070. The School Board's supervisory and administrative salary schedule for the 1984-85 school year provided that assistant principals would be paid 100% of the administrative base, or $31,800. Petitioner was paid in accordance with the School Board's salary schedule for the 1984-85 school year. The 1984-85 salary schedule provided that assistant principals and "principal of adult day high school and trade school/community school directors" would receive the same salary, i.e. 100% of administrative base. Petitioner is presently employed, for the 1985-86 school year, in the position of principal of adult day high school and trade school/community school director. Petitioner is currently being paid in accordance with the salary scheduled established by the School Board for the category "principal of adult day high school and trade school/community school director." The Petitioner's agreement of employment with the School Board for each academic year in question consisted of a composite of documents evidencing the total understanding between the parties. Those documents included: (a) an "Intent- to-Return" form submitted by the employee indicating his intent to return to the Hernando County school system the following year; (b) a letter of appointment or re-appointment written by the superintendent and addressed to the District School Board of Hernando County; (c) a letter written by the superintendent addressed to the employee confirming that the appointment or reappointment was approved by the District School Board; (d) an Administrative Salary Statement, with salary and position filled in by the School Board and submitted to the employee for signature; and, (e) a general "Supervisory and Administrative Salary Schedule" applicable to all administrative employees in the school system.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: The School Board of Hernando County declare and determine that Petitioner does not hold a continuing contract of employment as a principal; The School Board of Hernando County adjust the pay of Petitioner for the 1985-86 academic year to reflect past salary shortages totalling $5,554.50; and that The School Board of Hernando County deny Petitioner's claim for compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of November, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (9040 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of November, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esq. 1030 E. Lafayette Street - #112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph E. Johnston, Jr., Esq. 29 South Brooksville Avenue Brooksville, Florida 33512 Hon. Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, Esq. General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James K. Austin, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools The School Board of Hernando County, Florida 919 U.S. Highway 41, North Brooksville, Florida 33512-2997 APPENDIX Pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1983) the following is submitted in response to Petitioner's and Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Finding: Ruling: Accepted; see paragraphs 1 & 2, R.O. Accepted, see paragraph 1. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 2, 3 and 14, R.O. Petitioner's proposed finding that his contract "denoted "CC" indicating a continuing contract as a principal" is rejected as a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding that the "Superintendent and School Board acted on Petitioner's employment as though he held a continuing contract as a principal" is not supported by the evidence. Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs & 5. Facts not included therein are rejected as irrelevant. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4 and 5 R.O. Facts not included therein are rejected as irrelevant, cumulative or immaterial. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, R.O. Facts not included therein are rejected as irrelevant, cumulative or immaterial. Accepted; see paragraph 11, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs and 11, R.O. Facts not included therein are rejected as cumulative, irrelevant or immaterial. Partially accepted; see paragraph Facts not included therein are rejected as cumulative or immaterial. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 8 and 15. Petitioner's proposed finding that "Under the 1982-83 Salary Schedule an individual holding a contract as . . . an assistant principal and performing the duties of a principal" would have been entitled to administrative base plus supplements is not supported by the evidence. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 9 and 16. Petitioner's proposed finding that "under the 1983-84 salary schedule an individual holding a contract as . . . an assistant principal and performing the duties of a principal" would have been entitled to administrative base plus supplements is not supported by the evidence. (No paragraph 13) Partially accepted; see paragraph 17, R.O. Petitioner's proposed finding that he was entitled to supplements in the same manner as he had received in prior years is rejected as a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed finding that "Under the 1983-84 salary schedule an individual holding a contract as . . . an assistant principal and performing the duties of a principal" would have been entitled to administrative base plus supplements is not supported by the evidence. Partially accepted; see paragraph 11 and 17, R.O. Facts not included therein are rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. The testimony of Petitioner established that his retirement benefits would be based on the average of his 5 highest paid years. However, there was no evidence as to when Petitioner planned to retire, therefore, any effect on Petitioner's retirement benefit caused by underpayments during the years in question is speculative. Rejected as immaterial. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Finding: Ruling: Accepted; see paragraphs 1 & 2, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 15, R.O. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted; see paragraphs 8 and 9, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4 & 5. Respondent's proposed finding that Petitioner's duties were not commensurate with those assigned to principals is partially not supported by the evidence since it was established that many of Petitioner's duties were commensurate with those assigned to principals. Accepted; see paragraphs 15 and 16, R.O. Rejected; see paragraphs 15 and 16, R.O. Partially rejected; Petitioner is currently, 1985-86 school year, being paid the salary of an assistant principal, however, Petitioner seeks to have his salary for 1985-86 adjusted to that of principal.

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 4
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES COUNCIL vs. CHARLES ROBERT MCGARRY, 77-000730 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-000730 Latest Update: Aug. 12, 1977

Findings Of Fact Respondent Charles Robert McGarry moved to Sarasota, Florida, after graduating from college in December of 19793, and worked as a substitute teacher in the Sarasota County school system. At college he had trained to be a physical education teacher, and, in August of 1974, he began as a full-time physical education instructor at Bay Haven Elementary School. Respondent was working in this capacity on March 9, 1976, teaching his pupils tumbling. In the course of that day, five children (who were not all in the same physical education class), LeShay Smith, Jamie Farmer, James White, Edward Robinson, and Tracy Williams, were particularly exuberant, and interfered with the instructions. After milder measures proved unavailing, respondent told them that they would have to stay after school and run laps as punishment for their disruptive behavior. Respondent asked Pat Walker, who taught some of the offending children other subjects, to keep them after school until he came for them. When the school day ended, respondent went to Pat Walker's classroom for the children detained there, and the other children who were to run laps appeared of their own accord. As respondent and the five children descended the stairs on their way outside, some of the children announced that they were going to run away instead of running the laps; when children actually started running in different directions, respondent caught them and threaded a jump rope he happened to have in his hand through the belt loops in the boys' pants. Holding an end of the jump rope in his hand, respondent led a jocular procession single file in the direction of the playing field, but got no further than his motorcycle, a two cylinder, 450 cc. model. Respondent's effectiveness as a teacher was not impaired by the motorcycle incident. Jamie Farmer, the only one of the five children involved in the incident who testified, indicated that he still "get[s] along all right" (R31-32) with respondent. None of the children respondent has taught since the incident has mentioned it to respondent.

Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Vossler, Esq. 110 North Magnolia Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John M. Strickland, Esq. 2828 South Tamiami Trail Sarasota, Florida 33579

# 5
JOHN L WINN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs DAVID MENKE, 05-004189PL (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida Nov. 17, 2005 Number: 05-004189PL Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2007
# 6
MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs RIAN WATTS, 10-002381TTS (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Bradenton, Florida Apr. 29, 2010 Number: 10-002381TTS Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 7
TOM GALLAGHER, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs THOMAS JENKINS, 00-003345PL (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida Aug. 10, 2000 Number: 00-003345PL Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2002

The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (1999), and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), (b), (e), and (f), Rule 6B-1.006(4)(a) and (b), Rule 6B-1.006 (5)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (o), and Rule 6B-1.001(1), (2), and (3), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact Mr. Jenkins holds a Florida Educator Certificate. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, he was employed as a physical education teacher at Pasedena Lakes Elementary School (Pasedena Lakes) in the Broward County School District, where he had been teaching for 15 years. Mr. Jenkins was a Master Steward for the teachers' union. He was also a member of the School Advisory Council (SAC) and was chair of the Safety and Discipline Committee, which is a part of SAC. Jill Wilson has been the principal at Pasedena Lakes for six years and has a total of 29 years of educational experience. The assistant principal at Pasedena Lakes is Charlene Hogan, who has been at Pasedena Lakes for five years and has a total of 28 years of experience in the field of education. On October 29, 1998, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Mr. Jenkins came to Ms. Wilson's office and yelled at her, accusing her of discrediting him and making things worse at the school. During this incident, Donna Blank, a former employee of Pasedena Lakes, was leaving the building and, through a window, observed Mr. Jenkins pounding on Ms. Wilson's desk and saying, "You're not my boss." Ms. Blank went to her car, but returned to the building because she felt that she could not leave Ms. Wilson alone in that situation. When Ms. Blank went to Ms. Wilson's office, Ms. Wilson was visibly shaken. Ms. Wilson felt intimidated by Mr. Jenkins and, as a result of the incident, issued a memorandum to Mr. Jenkins dated October 30, 1998. The memorandum outlined the events that had taken place in Ms. Wilson's office on October 29, 1998, advised Mr. Jenkins that his actions were inappropriate, and required him to schedule future meetings with her secretary so that she could have another staff member present when they met. Pasedena Lakes has about 900 elementary students. Parking was a problem at the school, as well as traffic congestion when parents dropped off students in the mornings. Parents would park in the teachers' parking spaces, and there would be disruptions in the flow of traffic when the parents would take time to dole out lunch money, dress the children, say farewells, and otherwise take up additional time as they were dropping off the students. Mr. Jenkins volunteered to help direct traffic in the mornings in order to reduce the congestion in the parking lots. His mode of directing traffic was more aggressive than the methods that had been used previously by the other teachers. Mr. Jenkins used a bull horn to shout at the parents to move the traffic along and to tell them to kiss their kids at home and not at school. At first his efforts were commendable, but he began to become frustrated with the job. Mr. Jenkins would yell at the parents and the students, upsetting both the parents and the students. On one occasion while on traffic duty, Mr. Jenkins, using his bullhorn, called another teacher "Deadwood," belittling her in front of students, parents, and other staff members. Sometime during the fall of 1999, Patricia Lewis was bringing her two children to the school. Ms. Lewis needed to talk to one of her children's teachers, so she dropped her children off and told them to wait for her while she parked the car. While she was parking the car, Mr. Jenkins yelled at her children, "You little monkeys, hurry up and get back to class." Ms. Lewis, a Haitian-American, was upset at his remarks and confronted him. She told Mr. Jenkins, "My kids have a name. You do not call them that." Mr. Jenkins replied, "If you don't like it, go get a lawyer, and my lawyer will win." Visibly upset, Ms. Lewis went to the school administration's office and asked to speak to the principal. She talked with Ms. Wilson and explained what had happened in the parking area. Ms. Wilson assured her that she would take care of the matter and talk to Mr. Jenkins. Ms. Lewis left the office and went to find her child's teacher to talk with her as originally planned. She ran into Mr. Jenkins in the hallway. Mr. Jenkins said, "Oh, you're the one who went to the principal." Ms. Lewis told him that she did not want to talk with him and turned away. Mr. Jenkins began to yell at her, and she went back to the office in tears. When she got to the principal's office, Ms. Lewis was loud and upset. Again Ms. Wilson calmed her down. In the fall of 1999, the Safety and Discipline Committee had concerns over the traffic problems at Pasedena Lakes and over unauthorized visitors on campus. A meeting of SAC was scheduled for November 9, 1999, to discuss these issues. The Safety and Discipline Committee met and drafted a letter which was to be sent to the parents asking them to come to the meeting and outlining the concerns which would be discussed. Ms. Hogan was on the Safety and Discipline Committee, and she edited the draft letter with input from other committee members so that the letter would fit on one sheet of paper. Mr. Jenkins was not happy with the edited version, but he did not tell Hogan of his displeasure at the time the letter was rewritten. Mr. Jenkins helped distribute the letter to the parents in the parking lot. Alice Lacy, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes, was the chair of SAC, and Hogan was co-chair. On November 1, 1999, Mr. Jenkins told Ms. Lacy that he wanted to have a meeting prior to the SAC meeting scheduled for November 9, 1999, in order to get the teachers to form a coalition and come to the November 9 meeting to support him. As chair of SAC, Lacy told Mr. Jenkins that it would be better to send a memorandum to the teachers rather than schedule a separate meeting. Later on the same day, Mr. Jenkins told Ms. Lacy that he was demanding that the teachers come to the November 9 SAC meeting. He became angry with Ms. Lacy and told her that it was a personal issue and that the teachers owed it to him. He stormed away from Ms. Lacy. Ms. Lacy became concerned about the November 9 SAC meeting and felt that Mr. Jenkins should clarify his intentions prior to the meeting. She sent Mr. Jenkins a memorandum, requesting that he provide her with an agenda by November 5. Mr. Jenkins did not supply an agenda. Ms. Lacy heard him yelling at teachers outside her classroom on November 5, but did not know what he was discussing with the teachers. Ms. Lacy became concerned and sent a memorandum dated November 5, 1999, to Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan, urging that the November 9 SAC meeting be postponed until the issues involving Mr. Jenkins could be resolved. The administration met with Mr. Jenkins, and Ms. Lacy was assured that Mr. Jenkins understood that the SAC meeting would be under Ms. Lacy's direction, the agenda would be followed, and the meeting would take place in the media center. When Ms. Lacy went to the media center on the evening of November 9, 1999, she found that the media center was locked and that Mr. Jenkins was setting up the meeting in the cafeteria, where he could have teachers sit on stage with him to lend him support. Lacy confronted Mr. Jenkins and told him that the meeting would take place in the media center as planned. Mr. Jenkins shook his finger at Ms. Lacy and told her that she was making a big mistake. When Ms. Lacy was calling the meeting to order, Mr. Jenkins called out of turn and said, "I motion to move this meeting to the cafeteria." Ms. Lacy called Mr. Jenkins out of order. There was a large turn-out for the SAC meeting, and it was agreed that each speaker would be limited to two minutes. When Mr. Jenkins began to make his presentation for the Safety and Discipline Committee, Ms. Lacy felt that he was unprepared and was improvising. Several times Mr. Jenkins spoke and went over his two-minute limit. When he did, Ms. Lacy would cut him off and go on to the next speaker. After this happened three times, Susie Ruder, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes, sent a note to Ms. Lacy, telling Ms. Lacy that she felt Ms. Lacy was being rude to Mr. Jenkins. After Ms. Lacy received the note, she gave Mr. Jenkins more time to speak. The day after the meeting, Mr. Jenkins ran into Ms. Hogan and Cathy Greenspan, a reading resource specialist at Pasedena Lakes, on the school campus. Mr. Jenkins shook Ms. Hogan's hand and commented that the SAC meeting had been a good meeting. Approximately ten minutes later, Mr. Jenkins went to Ms. Wilson's office. He was wearing shorts, a shirt, and a fanny pack. His purpose for the visit was to discuss sending flyers to parents advising them of the decision of SAC to require parents to obtain a visitor's pass to come on the school campus. Ms. Wilson told him that the passes had been ordered but had not arrived and that she did not want the flyers to be sent until the passes had arrived. Mr. Jenkins shifted the conversation and told Ms. Wilson that she was responsible for the rumor mill around school and accused her of changing a letter that had been written by the Safety and Discipline Committee in October to advise the parents of the November 9 SAC meeting. Mr. Jenkins said the letter that went home to the parents was not the letter the Safety and Discipline Committee had agreed upon. Ms. Wilson did not know about the changes to the letter and called Ms. Hogan to come into the office to discuss the letter. Ms. Hogan brought in the disc on which the letter had been saved, and they viewed it on the computer. Mr. Jenkins again shifted the conversation to the November 9 meeting and held Ms. Wilson responsible for the rudeness he felt Ms. Lacy displayed at the SAC meeting. Mr. Jenkins then shifted the discussion again and wanted the South Area Office to look into what Ms. Wilson's role was on SAC. Mr. Jenkins started to yell and point his finger in Ms. Wilson's face. His face got red, and his voice became louder. He told Ms. Wilson that she would be in charge of damage control. Ms. Hogan told him not to point his finger at Ms. Wilson. Mr. Jenkins turned to Ms. Hogan and said, "I've got an attorney, I've got the union, and I've got a gun." Both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan asked Mr. Jenkins what he said. He replied that he did not know what he said and that he had been interrupted. Either Ms. Wilson or Ms. Hogan told him that he had said, "I've got a gun." Mr. Jenkins became flustered and walked out of the office. Both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan were shocked by Mr. Jenkins' outburst. Neither woman could tell whether Mr. Jenkins actually had a gun in his fanny pack. A conference room was located next to Ms. Wilson's office. Cathy Greenspan, Donna Blank, and Barbara Perkins were in the conference room when Mr. Jenkins was meeting with Ms. Wilson and Ms. Hogan. Both Ms. Blank and Ms. Perkins heard Mr. Jenkins say the word, "gun." Ms. Greenspan heard Mr. Jenkins say, "I've got a gun." After Mr. Jenkins left the administration office, Ms. Hogan called the Special Investigative Unit (SIU), which is the school police, and requested assistance. Investigator Evelyn McCabe came to the school. Ms. Hogan was afraid of what Mr. Jenkins might do and locked herself in her office until Inspector McCabe arrived. Mr. Jenkins returned to the administration office with Sydna Satterfield, a teacher at Pasedena Lakes and a friend of Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Satterfield, Investigator McCabe, Ms. Wilson, and Ms. Hogan went into to Ms. Wilson's office. A few minutes later Susie Ruder, another teacher and friend of Mr. Jenkins, joined them. Mr. Jenkins denied saying that he had a gun and then stated that he did not know what he said. He threw his keys on Ms. Wilson's desk and asked to be transferred to an "F" school. He walked out of the office but returned and said that he wanted an investigation. Ms. Wilson told him to think about whether he wanted an investigation or wanted to work out things. She advised him that she was willing to work with him on their problems. Mr. Jenkins said he did not know what he said, but apologized for whatever he had said. Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Wilson hugged, and they agreed to try to work together. That evening and the next morning, Ms. Wilson received calls from staff members who feared for their safety and the safety of their children as a result of the incident with Mr. Jenkins. Ms. Wilson began to think about what had happened and the complaints from staff. She also saw an article in the newspaper concerning a colleague who had not contacted authorities concerning an incident that had happened at his school and had tried to resolve the situation by himself. She felt she had to get assistance. Ms. Wilson called Bruce Wagar, who is in charge of professional standards. He advised her to file a complaint with SIU, which resulted in an investigation. As part of the investigation, Mr. Jenkins underwent a psychological evaluation in April 2000 by Dr. Joel Kimmel. The evaluation report stated: Personality tests and behavioral observations indicate that Mr. Jenkins is a frustrated individual who believes he is being prevented from doing his job. His responses to the personality tests indicate that he tends to define his identity based upon his position and derives a lot of satisfaction from his job. He enjoys working with students and motivating them to achieve their potential. He likes the status and recognition he receives from his position and may have a lonely life outside his job. He also appears to be somewhat incompetent, or inefficient. When frustrated, he can escalate and demand his way. However, there are no signs of any violent behaviors in any of his responses suggesting that he probably will not act out when frustrated. He does believe in the benefit of talking things out. However, he does want to do things his way and may not respect others if they disagree with him. He also does appear to have some boundary issues in terms of not understanding where his authority ends and being able to accept the authority of others. His greatest fear is that of failure and losing his job which could represent a failure for him. His provisional diagnosis would be Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features (DSM IV 309.28). It is highly recommended that Mr. Jenkins participate in sensitivity training and interpersonal relationship programs in order to develop his capacity to tolerate others' viewpoints as well as decrease his frustration. A stress reduction program would also be helpful in improving his ability to control his frustration and developing more patience. Meetings between he [sic], his principal, and a counselor may be of assistance in improving their relationship. Mr. Jenkins has demonstrated inappropriate behavior on different occasions involving his students. He showed his paycheck to a first grade class and asked them if that was not a lot of money. Another time, he read an article from a newspaper to a kindergarten swim safety class about a student who had drowned and told the class that they could drown. Mr. Jenkins left his physical education class outdoors unattended when their regular classroom teacher failed to pick them up on time. On November 17, 1999, Ms. Wilson inadvertently referred to Mr. Jenkins during a morning announcement as Thomas Wilson rather than Thomas Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins and his wife composed a letter to show how one word could be misconstrued. The letter, which Mr. Jenkins referred to as a private joke, stated that Mr. Jenkins thinks that Ms. Wilson fantasizes about him being her husband, that she wants his body, that Ms. Wilson was a "horny lady," and that she might lose control and have sex with him. Mr. Jenkins' wife shared the letter, which Mr. Jenkins called a "nothing" letter, with other employees of Pasedena Lakes. Both teachers and parents testified that they were fearful of Mr. Jenkins based on his past conduct and that he had created a hostile work environment.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Thomas Jenkins violated Subsections 231.28(1)(c), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (1999), and Rule 6B-1.001(1), (2), and (3), Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), and (e), Rule 6B-1.006(4)(a), and Rules 6B-1.006(5)(d),(e) and (o), Florida Administrative Code; finding that Thomas Jenkins did not violate Rule 6B-1.006(3)(b) and (f), Rule 6B-1.006(4)(b), and Rule 6B- 1.006(5) (a), (c), and (f), Florida Administrative Code; suspending Thomas Jenkins' teaching certificate for 60 days followed by a probation period of three years; requiring that Thomas Jenkins take courses in professional responsibility, improving interpersonal communication skills, and sensitivity training; requiring Thomas Jenkins to have periodic psychological evaluations prior to and after returning to work; and requiring Thomas Jenkins to have a fitness-for-duty examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Randy A. Fleischer, Esquire 4801 University Drive, Suite 3070 Davie, Florida 33328 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Frank L. Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125

Florida Laws (1) 120.57 Florida Administrative Code (3) 6B-1.0016B-1.0066B-4.009
# 8
JOHN L. WINN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs DAVID MORGAN, 05-000373PL (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Daytona Beach, Florida Jan. 28, 2005 Number: 05-000373PL Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 9
SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs JOY DEAL, 19-003135 (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Jun. 10, 2019 Number: 19-003135 Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024

The Issue Whether Respondent, Joy Deal (Respondent or Ms. Deal), committed misconduct as alleged by the School Board of Sarasota County (School Board), and, if so, whether the School Board had just cause to terminate her employment.

Findings Of Fact The Parties and Personnel Petitioner is responsible for operating the public schools in the Sarasota County School District, including Sarasota High School (Sarasota High). The School Board is responsible for hiring, firing, and overseeing both instructional employees and non-instructional employees within Sarasota County, Florida. Respondent has been an employee the School Board for 22 years. She has worked as an administrative secretary, but relevant to these proceedings, Ms. Deal was employed at Sarasota High as an SSP-5 Attendance Clerk (Attendance Clerk).5 David Jones (Principal Jones) is Sarasota High's principal and has been employed by the School Board since 2005. He previously served as a math teacher, assistant principal, middle school principal, and principal of another high school. He became the principal at Sarasota High at the start of the 2016/2017 school year, replacing Jeffrey Hradek (Principal Hradek). Sarasota High's administrative team was made up of Principal Jones and numerous assistant principals. Both Ryan Chase and Becky Moyer served as assistant principals under Principal Jones during the 2016/2017, 2017/2018, and 2018/2019 school years. Principal Jones, Assistant Principal Chase, and Assistant Principal Moyer all supervised Respondent during these years at different times. Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) There is a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the School Board and the Sarasota Classified, Teachers Association (SC/TA). Ms. Deal is a member of the SC/TA and subject to the CBA. Article XXI of the CBA (Disciplinary Actions) provides for progressive discipline, with termination of employment as the last step of the disciplinary process: Scope of Article This article covers actions involving oral and written warning, written reprimands, suspensions, demotions, dismissals, or reductions in grade or pay with prejudice. 5 "SSP-5" means Salary Schedule P-5. Disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by sufficient evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All facts pertaining to a disciplinary action shall be developed as promptly as possible. Actions under this Article shall be promptly initiated after all the facts have been made known to the official responsible for taking the actions. * * * An employee whom disciplinary action is to be taken may appeal through the grievance procedure that proposal. An employee against whom action is to be taken under this Article shall have the right to review all of the information relied upon to support the proposed action and shall be given a copy upon request. The Union shall be provided with a copy of all correspondence that is related to the action of the employee the Union is representing. The employee and his/her representative shall be afforded reasonable amount of time to prepare and present appropriate responses to the proposed actions under this article, through Step One of the Grievance Process. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. * * * Previous charges or actions that have been brought forth by the administration may be cited against employee if these previous acts are reasonably related to the existing charge. All previous charges or actions must have been shared with the employee. Progressive Discipline The discipline, dismissal, demotion, and suspension of any employee shall be for just cause. Where just cause warrants such action(s), an employee may be demoted, suspended, or dismissed upon recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent of Schools. Except in cases that constitute a real immediate danger to the district or [sic] the other flagrant violation, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal reprimand (written notation placed in site file). Written reprimand filed in personnel and site files. Suspension with or without pay. Dismissal. Sarasota High's administration utilized meetings known as "Weingarten hearings" to make factual findings that would determine whether discipline was warranted for an employee. Employees were provided notice of the allegations against them and allowed to bring counsel or union representation to the hearing.6 Ms. Deal's Job Description As her job title implies, Ms. Deal was responsible for maintaining attendance data and monitoring the comings and goings of students throughout the school day. Ms. Deal's job duties were listed in Board Policy 6.42, Job Description 11 for Attendance Clerk, and include: 6 Article XXI sets forth what is commonly referred to as "Weingarten" rights. See In NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975)(holding unionized employee has right to notice and union representation, in instances where member reasonably believes investigatory meetings, conferences, or interviews may result in disciplinary action). Communicate daily with a variety of parents and staff. Assist office staff with answering the telephone and greeting parents. * * * Provide a safe and secure workplace. Model and maintain high ethical standards. * * * (15) Maintain confidentiality regarding school matters. * * * Respond to inquiries and concerns in a timely manner. Follow all School Board policies, rules and regulations. Exhibit interpersonal skills to work as an effective team member. Demonstrate support for the School District and its goals and priorities. Perform other incidental tasks consistent with the goals and objectives of this position. As an Attendance Clerk, Ms. Deal had constant interactions with students and parents when they checked in or out of school. She was privy to the students' personal information because she was the school employee with whom parents would interact if they were picking or dropping off a child (outside of normal school start and stop times) for personal or medical reasons. The attendance desk, Ms. Deal's workspace, was in Sarasota High's front office. The front office also houses the school clinic and the office of the At-Risk Coordinator, Keri Gartland. To enter either the clinic or Ms. Gartland's office, staff and students would have to go through the front office. The clinic also has a sliding glass window looking into the front office. The front office had an "outside door" which was open to the public, and a "campus door" to the school grounds. Anyone coming to school after the start of the school day would have to come in the front office through the outside door, stop at the attendance desk to sign in, and go through the campus door to get to class. Students leaving the school before normal exiting times were required to stop by the attendance desk to sign out of school, or have their parent sign them out. Employment History School administrators utilized memorandums of instruction (MOI) as a non-disciplinary means of working with employees to improve job performance. Although MOIs are not disciplinary in nature, they are intended to be corrective tools to focus an employee's attention on certain guidelines and acceptable standards of conduct in response to performance or behavioral issues. Principal Hradek supervised Ms. Deal from 2003 through 2016. During this period, Ms. Deal received non-disciplinary MOIs from Principal Hradek and assistant principals outlining the need to improve her level of cooperation while working with others, stop gossiping, be more tactful, be more courteous to parents and students, be more patient with and respectful of others, and accept guidance from others regarding these issues. On August 25, 2010, Ms. Deal was issued an MOI with regard to ethical deficiencies. The MOI focused on the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida (the Principles) which, as explained below, require employees to take reasonable precautions to distinguish between personal views and those of the School Board, not intentionally distort or misrepresent facts concerning an educational matter in direct or indirect public expression, and not make malicious or intentionally false statements about another employee. In her 2010 evaluation, Ms. Deal was rated "Effective," " Needs Improvement," and " Not Effective." Specifically, the evaluation indicated that Respondent needed improvement accepting constructive criticism and that she needed to increase her ability to accept guidance. The evaluation also stated Ms. Deal was ineffective in the areas of "Cooperation" and "Personal Relationships." Ms. Deal was again reminded to "increase her level of cooperation working with others [and] decrease gossip." Regarding her personal relationships, she was told to "increase tact, courtesy to parents and students, patience and respect for others." At some point during his tenure, Principal Hradek relieved Ms. Deal of her attendance duties and moved her out of the front office into Building Ms. Deal's duties in this new area were to provide secretarial support to the assistant principals, the school resource officer, and the Exceptional Student Education (ESE) liaison. Neither Principal Hradek nor the School Board changed Respondent's SSP-5 Attendance Clerk designation, even though she was no longer performing the duties of that job. In this new role, Respondent had less contact with parents and students. Principal Hradek explained: I think in the role of an attendance clerk with all the public interaction that [Ms. Deal] had with families and various staff it was – that was her flaw. She wanted to talk about things other than her job responsibilities or elicit her opinions. So, moving her over to Building 14, she did a very good job with the special needs students. Ms. Deal had no disciplinary issues or MOIs for a number of years. Then, on August 20, 2015, Principal Hradek issued an MOI to Ms. Deal for having loud outbursts and making profane statements in front of students and staff while contesting new parking procedures. Respondent was again reminded of her ethical obligations and the Principles. When Principal Jones replaced Principal Hradek, Principal Jones made the decision to move Ms. Deal back to the attendance desk in the front office to perform the duties she was designated to do as Attendance Clerk. Shortly after resuming her position as Attendance Clerk, Respondent received an MOI from Principal Jones addressing numerous issues including: her failure to take consistent breaks throughout the day; her use and volume of musical devices during school hours; her verbal communications with colleagues, parents, and students; her failure to bring her concerns to administration instead of voicing them to others; and her need to collaborate with and receive approval from an administrator prior to changing office procedures and protocols. Respondent was reminded again to adhere to acceptable ethical standards and the Principles. On December 1, 2016, Principal Jones received a complaint from a parent complaining Ms. Deal had made an inappropriate comment to his or her child. The student, who suffers from a medical condition, was attempting to address school absences with Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal made rude, embarrassing, and inappropriate comments to the student, her brother, and two other students who were in the front office. The parent's complaint was corroborated by another student. Around the same time, the school administration received another complaint from a different parent regarding inappropriate comments to her child made by Ms. Deal regarding the child's illness. Ms. Deal questioned whether the student should be able to leave the school, and whether the student should be able to obtain work from his or her teachers. On February 1, 2017, as a result of these incidents and after following the proper procedures under the CBA, Assistant Principal Moyer issued Ms. Deal a verbal reprimand for unprofessional behavior. Respondent did not grieve this action. On September 25, 2017, the administration was informed that Respondent had made inappropriate statements regarding a student suffering a seizure to a parent who was signing out another student from school. On September 26, 2017, Respondent was involved in an incident in which she allegedly discussed and laughed at a student's medical issue with a teacher in the student's presence. Ms. Deal refused to allow the student to contact her parents to request a change of clothes needed due to a menstruation accident. Ms. Deal then demanded the student's parent call Ms. Deal even though the student informed Respondent that her parent did not speak English. Ms. Deal allegedly told the student that she did not care if her parents spoke Chinese or Spanish. She then proceeded to discuss the student's medical condition in front of another parent. After an investigation and following the procedures in the CBA, on October 5, 2017, Assistant Principal Chase issued a written reprimand to Ms. Deal for unprofessional behavior in connection with the September 25 and 26 incidents. Respondent did not grieve this action. On August 7, 2018, the administration received two reports from staff regarding inappropriate behavior by Ms. Deal during the distribution of locker assignments. Ms. Deal was frustrated with her computer and was disrespectful to fellow staff members. Ms. Deal also complained to students and parents about the computer and process for assigning lockers, and eventually left school early that day. After an investigation and following the procedures in the CBA, on September 18, 2018, Principal Jones recommended Ms. Deal be suspended for three days without pay for unprofessional behavior. Ms. Deal grieved the suspension. As a result, the suspension was reduced to two days. Ms. Deal did not further grieve or appeal the suspension. At the final hearing, Ms. Deal sought to relitigate the facts underlying these previous disciplinary actions and argued she accepted the discipline based on the faulty advice of her union representative. Ms. Deal presented no evidence contradicting the circumstances regarding these incidents and chose not to testify on her behalf. Even if she had presented such evidence, the time for appealing these previous steps of progressive discipline has passed. November 2, 2018 On November 2, 2018, Ms. Deal had an incident with a student, Johneshia Burks, in the front office (the Incident). The School Board presented no testimony from anyone who was in the front office at the time the Incident started. According to Ms. Deal's PRO, Ms. Burks entered the attendance office, told Ms. Deal that she was there to see Ms. Gartland, and asked Ms. Deal where Ms. Gartland was. Ms. Deal claims she replied, "she did not keep Ms. Gartland's schedule." (Resp. PRO, p.5, ¶8). In her PRO, Ms. Deal also claims she asked Ms. Burks for a hall pass, at which point, Ms. Burks got upset and started verbally attacking Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal also claims Ms. Burks became physically aggressive. (Resp. PRO, p.5, ¶8). Ms. Deal, however, did not testify and offered no credible evidence of the Incident. Although other evidence establishes they were both yelling, there is no evidence that Ms. Burks was physically aggressive or started the argument. Regardless, Denise Masi, the school's security aide and a former New York City police officer, testified as to what she witnessed that day. The undersigned finds Ms. Masi's testimony is unbiased, credible, and convincing; her testimony also is corroborated by various witness statements in the investigative file. Sometime between 11:00 a.m. and noon, Ms. Deal called Ms. Masi for assistance in the front office on the school-issued radio. Ms. Masi arrived at the front office entering from the campus door. She observed Ms. Burks on the side of the door yelling at Ms. Deal, and Ms. Deal behind her desk yelling at Ms. Burks. Although she did not understand what they were yelling about, she heard Ms. Deal yell "you can't stay in here. She has to go." Ms. Masi also observed that there were parents in the office. She also noticed the clinic nurse and assistant looked frightened behind the clinic's glass sliding window, which was closed. Ms. Masi tried to de-escalate the situation by asking Ms. Deal to "keep quiet" and stop yelling. Ms. Deal did not comply. Ms. Masi testified that Ms. Deal was not making it easy to calm everyone down. Realizing Ms. Deal was not going to stop yelling, Ms. Masi removed Ms. Burks from the front office. Ms. Masi assessed that Ms. Burks was waiting to see Ms. Gartland and remained with Ms. Burks. While in a breezeway between the front office and the administrative office, they encountered Ms. Gartland. Ms. Gartland returned to her office through the front office with Ms. Burks without incident. Ms. Masi then went back into the front office to check on the nurse and assistant. The nurse and assistant told Ms. Masi that, in response to hearing the yelling, they suggested to Ms. Deal that she call security and then they closed the glass window into the front office. During Ms. Masi's return to the front office, she observed Ms. Deal was still agitated and kept repeating that she was not Ms. Gartland's secretary. Ms. Masi was interviewed separately by Principal Jones and by Assistant Principal Chase regarding the Incident. Assistant Principal Chase also interviewed Ms. Burks, who gave him a written statement. Based on his conversations with Ms. Burks he learned that Ms. Gartland had requested Ms. Burks to come to her office but Ms. Gartland was not there when Ms. Burks arrived. Ms. Burks claimed Ms. Deal started yelling when she asked her about Ms. Gartland's whereabouts. As part of their investigation, both Principal Jones and Assistant Principal Chase reviewed a video of the Incident. The video had no audio. This video was not retained and was not offered into evidence at the final hearing. The undersigned finds that the testimony regarding what was in the video is not helpful in determining what happened between Ms. Deal and Ms. Burks. Ms. Deal did not testify. Instead, she offered the testimony of Madison Byrd (her daughter and a Sarasota High student), in an attempt to establish that Ms. Deal's actions during the Incident were justified and appropriate. Ms. Byrd claimed she was in the front office during the Incident. According to Ms. Byrd, Ms. Burks was the only person yelling and her mother did not say anything to Ms. Burks. Ms. Byrd admitted she walked into the front office "in the middle of the situation." She also heard the nurse ask Ms. Deal to call security. Ms. Byrd's testimony was subject to bias because of her familial and financial ties to Respondent. Ms. Byrd also indicated she disliked Ms. Burks because of something that happened in middle school. The undersigned finds, to the extent Ms. Byrd's testimony was inconsistent with Ms. Masi's testimony, Ms. Masi's testimony is more reliable and corroborated by other evidence. On November 15, 2018, Principal Jones met with Ms. Deal in a Weingarten meeting to address the Incident. During this meeting, Respondent took no personal responsibility, attempted to lay blame upon Ms. Burks, and denied yelling. Similarly, at the final hearing, Ms. Deal presented no evidence that she accepted some responsibility or that her behavior was appropriate and justified under the circumstances. On November 30, 2018, Principal Jones recommended termination of Respondent's employment based upon Ms. Deal's past disciplinary history for unprofessional conduct in the workplace and the Incident. At the final hearing, Ms. Deal attempted to impeach the School Board's witnesses by asking them if the administration told them to "keep an eye" on her or give written statements against her. There was no evidence anyone was asked to fabricate information about Ms. Deal. It is clear from the testimony and evidence at the hearing that Ms. Deal and Ms. Burks were involved in a shouting match in the front office that could be heard by other parents and staff. Regardless of who started the argument, Ms. Deal was the adult in the room. More importantly, as an Attendance Clerk, Ms. Deal was required to act professionally and according to School Board rules and regulations. Instead, she took no steps to de- escalate the situation, and refused to regain her composure even after being asked by Ms. Masi to do so.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the School Board of Sarasota County terminate Joy Deal's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 2021. Joy L. Deal 4503 Hale Street Sarasota, Florida 34233 Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert K. Robinson, Esquire Rob Robinson Attorney, P.A. Suite 400 500 South Washington Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34236 Dr. Brennan Asplen, III, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 1960 Landings Boulevard Sarasota, FL 34231-3365

Florida Laws (13) 1001.301001.331001.421012.011012.221012.231012.271012.331012.3351012.40120.569120.57286.011 Florida Administrative Code (3) 28-106.2166A-10.0816A-5.056 DOAH Case (1) 19-3135
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer