The Issue The issue in this case is whether there is just cause for Broward County School Board to suspend Lula Faison for 10 days without pay based upon the allegations made in its Administrative Complaint filed on October 11, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a duly-constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Broward County. Art. IX, Fla. Const.; § 1001.32, Fla. Stat. Specifically, the School Board has the authority to discipline employees. § 1012.22(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Faison was hired by the School Board on February 10, 2004. She started her employment with the School Board at Sunset Center School, an off-campus program at Smith Community Health, where she taught for approximately four years. She was employed pursuant to a professional services contract with Broward County. Faison is a certified Exceptional Student Education ("ESE") and English for Speakers of Other Languages ("ESOL") teacher. She has worked with Emotional/Behavioral Disability ("EBD")1/ students her whole career with Broward County. She started working for Pompano Beach Elementary School ("Pompano") during the 2010-2011 school year as an ESE teacher for EBD students. During her first two years at Pompano, she had fourth- and fifth-grade EBD students. During the 2015-2016 school year, Faison's classroom was mixed with 10 EBD students in grades kindergarten, first, second, and third, with ages ranging from six to 10 or 11. The younger kids mimicked the older students' behavior, and it was challenging for Faison to control the classroom. Faison's classroom had the highest rate of incidents compared to the other EBD classrooms in the cluster at Pompano. Faison had both a paraprofessional, Hunt, and a substitute teacher, Popov, to assist in her classroom to help bring order. Hunt was assigned to assist Faison in her classroom with point sheets, monitoring the children, helping isolate behaviors, as well as manage and teach students. A.J. was approximately nine years old when he joined the EBD program during the 2015-2016 school year. A.J. was an enjoyable kid, but had numerous behavioral episodes. He was very explosive and lacked a concern for safety. He had various home issues going on. Additionally, A.J. was also a runner2/ and he had nine elopements3/ from January to April 2016. Pompano's protocol for if a student elopes was that administration was notified; the elopement was communicated over the school walkie-talkie system to notify staff to be aware to look out for the student; once the student was located, the locator was to keep eyes on the student; and typically a separate individual went after the student while the other watched. Safety is always the priority in any elopement. Faison was trained in the elopement protocol and was familiar with its process. While at Pompano, Faison never had any difficulty implementing or dealing with elopement protocols. On April 18, 2017, Faison reported to work late. Upon her arrival, Hunt had written the morning activities on the board and was instructing her classroom. Soon thereafter, Popov arrived and Faison took her class out to the playground. Popov assisted Faison taking the students outside, but she only remained about five minutes and then left Faison alone with the students. When no one came out to assist Faison with the students on the playground, she decided to take the students back inside. At the time, A.J. was playing with sticks. Faison instructed A.J. to put the sticks down because he could not bring them inside. She encouraged him to put them under the bench to retrieve and play with later. A.J. refused to put the sticks down and wanted to bring them inside. Faison told A.J. to walk with her and he did. Faison walked the students inside from off the playground headed to her classroom and ran into Popov. Faison had Popov walk the kids the remainder of the way into Faison's classroom so that Faison could deal with A.J. and the sticks. Faison had been trained in Professional Crisis Management ("PCM"). She evaluated the situation with A.J. and she determined that the best behavioral technique and de- escalation strategy to get A.J. to comply and put the sticks down, was to ask Felix to assist with A.J. Felix had a good relationship with A.J. Previously, A.J. had responded well to Felix and Felix had been able to calm A.J. down. Faison did not want A.J. to hurt anyone with the sticks. Faison went to the TAB room4/ where Felix was assigned. A.J. still had the sticks and was behind Faison in the hallway when she approached Felix's classroom.5/ Faison opened the door to the TAB room and observed that Felix had several students in his room that he was supervising when Faison arrived and that Felix was the only adult present. Faison stood in the doorway and explained to Felix that A.J. was not listening to her. She wanted to see if Felix could assist her and get him to come inside the classroom without the sticks. Faison requested that Felix help her out and speak to A.J. Faison held the conversation with Felix at the TAB room door with her body halfway in the door and Felix standing in the doorway on the TAB room side. When Faison turned around to address A.J. in the hallway, he was not there. Felix never saw A.J. in the hallway. When Faison discovered A.J. was no longer in the hallway, she thought A.J. was outside of Felix's classroom and she made a reasonable request that Felix call him in through the side door of the TAB classroom. Felix did not indicate to Faison that he either agreed to or refused to assist with or go after A.J. Faison left the TAB room believing that Felix was going to get A.J., which was a mistake because Felix did not follow up with A.J., unbeknownst to Faison. Faison's actions of not following up and believing Felix had followed up with A.J. were an isolated incident of misjudgment. After their discussion, Faison returned to her classroom. Later that morning, Pompano's secretary put out an elopement call on the Pompano walkie-talkie system. Faison did not receive the call because she did not have a walkie-talkie on April 18, 2016. Felix heard the elopement call and walked outside of the door towards the parking lot and emerged near the entrance of the school. There, Felix saw A.J. with a stick by the school marquee near the outer boundary of the school on the far end of the school property. Hunt also heard the elopement call on the walkie- talkie and went outside to follow the Pompano elopement protocol. Felix and Hunt worked together. Felix went to the left and Hunt went to the right to encircle A.J. When A.J. noticed them, he took off running toward 13th Avenue. Hunt and Felix caught A.J. approximately a block away from the school at the intersection of Northeast 8th Street and Northeast 13th Avenue near the baseball field. Following elopement protocol, Felix and Hunt let the administration know by walkie-talkie that they had caught up to A.J. The resource officer arrived and put A.J. in the patrol car because A.J. was combative. Principal Larson also appeared at the scene to check and see if everything was fine. Afterwards, Larson discussed A.J.'s elopement with Felix and decided he needed to follow up with Faison to determine what happened with A.J. When A.J. was returned to campus, he went to the TAB room to cool down and to determine why he eloped. Faison was not aware that A.J. had eloped. She was taking her students to lunch alone,6/ midway through the hallway about to lead the kids into the cafeteria, when Larson caught up with her and made the reasonable request that she come to him to have a discussion. He wanted to discuss the A.J. incident. Faison told Larson no when he told her to step aside and talk with him. Larson addressed Faison twice more and requested that she come to him. Faison refused to approach or talk to Larson. The third time Larson requested that Faison come to him, he informed her that she was being insubordinate. Faison felt she should not have left the kids and responded by telling Larson "I've been insubordinate all year." She finished walking the kids to the cafeteria following Larson's instructions. Broward County School Board's Police Special Investigative Unit and Broward Sheriff's Child Protective Investigations Services investigated A.J.'s April 18, 2016, off- campus elopement. Onagoruwa investigated the incident within 24 hours, including interviewing A.J. and closed her case as non-substantiated because no physical harm occurred to A.J. While at Pompano, Faison's previous discipline included: a summary memo dated May 2, 2014, regarding IEP deadlines; a second summary memo for failure to complete IEPs on time dated May 2, 2015; a disciplinary memo dated October 27, 2015, for failure to adhere to IEP deadlines and verbal reprimand of November 3, 2015; a February 1, 2016, written reprimand following a pre-disciplinary hearing meeting for failure to submit lesson plans and a comprehensive behavior plan; and a second written reprimand dated March 16, 2016, for failing to complete third grade portfolios and insubordinate behavior of hanging up the phone on Larson and refusing to meet with him in his office. The March 16, 2016, written reprimand specifically warned Faison about insubordination and stated: [Y]ou received notification regarding your insubordinate behavior on February 22, 2016, when you hung up the pone on me after I asked you to come to my office for a meeting and on March 2, 2016 for refusing to meet with me for non-disciplinary reasons. * * * [Y]our gross insubordination [is] a serious breach of conduct that cannot be tolerated. Therefore, I am issuing you a written reprimand that is consistent with School Board Policy 4.9. Please be advised that any further failure on your part to perform to the standards established for the effective and productive performance of your job duties as a teacher will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination of your employment. Petitioner ultimately filed charges against Faison by Administrative Complaint dated October 11, 2017, that included charges of misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and violation of School Board Policy 4008. On November 7, 2017, the School Board took action to suspend Respondent for 10 days without pay. Respondent contested the reasons for suspension.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order rescinding the 10-day suspension with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 6th day of July, 2018.
Findings Of Fact During 1978 and 1979, Petitioner was employed as a full-time teacher on an annual contract basis with the Leon County School Board. The principal at the Petitioner's school did not recommend him for reappointment for the 1979- 1980 school year. Petitioner, accordingly, was not reappointed. The Leon County School Board has adopted rules relating to the reappointment of teachers. School Board Rule 2.02(3)(a) provides: The building principal shall submit to the Superintendent for reappoint- ment, those members of his faculty recommended for reappointment. These reappointments, upon approval of the Superintendent, shall be recommended to the School Board at least six weeks prior to the close of the post school conference. In accordance with this rule, since Petitioner was not recommended for reappointment by his principal, he was not recommended by the superintendent and not reappointed by the School Board. Petitioner was not terminated from his position as a part of a School Board layoff. The Petitioner's job performance had been satisfactory. He was not recommended for reappointment because the school had three persons available to teach courses for which there were only two positions. The Petitioner was the least senior of the three persons and did not have tenure. Accordingly, he was not recommended for reappointment.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in the conduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, whether such conduct provides the School District of Palm Beach County with "just cause" to take disciplinary action against Respondent pursuant to Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. If so, what specific disciplinary action should be taken.
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 The School Board is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent's Teacher Certification Respondent is a teacher by profession. She holds a certificate (Certificate Number 618674) issued by the Florida Department of Education certifying that she is eligible to teach in the State of Florida in the areas of early childhood education, elementary education, ESOL, and exceptional education (specific learning disabilities, emotionally handicapped, and mentally handicapped). The certificate's "validity period" is July 1, 1993, through June 30, 1998. Respondent's Employment History Respondent has been employed by the School District since August of 1987. She holds a professional services contract. She is currently under suspension (without pay) pending the outcome of this disciplinary proceeding. For the duration of her employment with the School District, Respondent has held an instructional position at Forest Hill Elementary School (Forest Hill), the principal of which, since the 1988-89 school year, has been Linda Hardy. During her early years at Forest Hill, Respondent taught emotionally handicapped students. Having to deal with these special-need students, however, became too stressful for her. She therefore was moved to the regular education program at the school and served as a regular fifth grade classroom teacher until her removal from the classroom in November of 1996 when the school administration learned of the criminal conduct in which she had engaged the month before (that is described in the Administrative Complaint). Respondent's Classroom Performance Respondent's classroom performance at Forest Hill was erratic. Principal Hardy had various informal conferences with Respondent during which she identified for Respondent those areas of Respondent's performance in which improvement was needed. Respondent's performance in these areas would improve and reach a satisfactory level following each conference, but only for a limited period of time, after which it would decline again, thereby necessitating the convening of another conference. As Principal Hardy stated in her testimony at the final hearing, Respondent's performance was "like a roller coaster." Respondent nonetheless received an overall satisfactory rating on every annual written evaluation she was given while at Forest Hill. There were, however, on each of these evaluations, "areas of concern" noted.1 These "areas of concern" primarily involved Respondent's interaction with students, parents and colleagues. Respondent's Prior Disciplinary Record Prior to her removal from the classroom in November 1996, the only discipline she had received was a written reprimand for failing to timely submit lesson plans and other paperwork. Respondent's Rejection of the Suggestion to Participate in the Employee Assistance Program Particularly during the latter part of the period that she served as a regular classroom teacher, Respondent had difficulty coping with the stress she was experiencing in both her professional and personal lives. Principal Hardy, in whom Respondent had confided about these problems, suggested on more than one occasion that Respondent utilize the services of the School District's Employee Assistance Program. Respondent declined to follow Principal Hardy's suggestions. She advised Principal Hardy that it was unnecessary for her to seek assistance from the Employee Assistance Program since she was "seeing her own doctor" to help her with these problems. The Granting of Respondent's Request for Extended Leave By letter dated November 8, 1995, which read, in pertinent part, as follows, Respondent requested an extended leave of absence from her position with the School District: Effective 11-8-95, I am requesting a temporary leave of absence from my fifth grade teaching position at Forest Hill Elementary School (0621). At the present time it would be in the best interest of my students if I take a temporary leave of absence. During this temporary leave of absence I will be under the care of Doctors Jeanne Yetz [and] Mark Ellinger . . . . Respondent was granted a leave of absence from November 8, 1995, until January of 1996. Respondent's Mental Health Dr. Mark Ellinger is a clinical psychologist who has been treating Respondent (using psychotherapy) since August of 1994, for problems relating to mood, interpersonal relations, and substance abuse and dependence. Dr. Ellinger's treatment has been supplemented by medication (to reduce anxiety and for depression) prescribed by a psychiatrist, Dr. Jeanne Yetz. Over the period of time that she has been treated by Drs. Ellinger and Yetz, Respondent's condition has worsened. Dr. Ellinger's original diagnosis, at the time treatment began, was depressive disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified), a very mild disturbance. His secondary diagnosis was post-traumatic stress disorder. (Respondent related to Dr. Ellinger that, during her childhood, she had been sexually molested and verbally and physically abused.) More recently, in October of 1997, Dr. Ellinger determined that Respondent was suffering from major depression recurrent, borderline personality disorder, and cannabis dependence (in partial remission). Major depression recurrent is the most severe form of depression. Borderline personality disorder is also a very serious mental illness. It can extend over a lifetime and is difficult to treat effectively. Persons with borderline personality disorder struggle to control their anger and rage and to act appropriately, particularly in their dealings with others. As a result, they have difficulty maintaining stable interpersonal relationships. Cannabis dependence is a maladaptive pattern of marijuana use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress. It is more serious than cannabis abuse, which, unlike cannabis dependence, involves merely periodic, rather than ongoing, marijuana use. On November 5, 1997, Dr. Ellinger filled out a Functional Capacities Evaluation form (FCE Form) describing Respondent's abilities in the following areas: Ability to relate to other people; Restriction of daily activities, e.g. ability to attend meetings, socialize with others, attend to personal needs, etc.; Deterioration of personal habits; Constriction of interests; Understand, carry out, and remember instructions; Respond appropriately to supervision; Perform work requiring regular contact with others; Perform work where contact with others will be minimal; Perform tasks involving minimal intellectual effort; Perform intellectually complex tasks requiring higher levels of reasoning, math and language skills; Perform repetitive tasks; Perform varied tasks; Makes independent judgment; Supervise or manage others; Perform under stress when confronted with emergency, critical, unusual or dangerous situations; or situations in which working speed and sustained attention are make or break aspects of the job; and Ability to work relative to the attached job description. Dr. Ellinger indicated on the FCE Form that Respondent had a "mild" impairment ("[s]uspected impairment of slight importance which does not affect functionality ability") in areas 3, 11, and 12; a "moderate" impairment ("[i]mpairment affects but does not preclude ability to function") in areas 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10; and a "moderately severe" impairment ("[i]mpairment significantly affects ability to function") in areas 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 15, and 16.2 Dr. Ellinger sent the completed FCE Form to the "claims advisory agent" representing the insurance company with whom Respondent had filed, in May of 1997, after the initiation of this disciplinary proceeding, a claim seeking disability insurance benefits. Dr. Ellinger also completed and sent to the "claims advisory agent" a Mental Status Supplemental Questionnaire (Questionnaire), in which he stated, among other things, the following: She [Respondent] continues to struggle with the above listed problems [problems relating to mood, substance abuse and interpersonal relations] and those have gone on for years. Mood is intermittently depressed, anxious and irritable. Thinking processes are intact with some moderate deficit due to mood disorder and stress of medical problems. Intelligence is normal. Perception shows some deficits and judgment has been poor in recent past evidenced by legal problems. Behavior has been impulsive and aggressive. He also indicated in the completed Questionnaire that one of Respondent's "treatment goals" was to "develop [a] new career due to [her] disability." It is important for Respondent to "develop [a] new career" inasmuch as her deep-rooted and severe mental health problems have significantly impaired her ability to function effectively as a classroom teacher.3 Respondent's Relationship with the Scrivos In 1996, Respondent moved into an apartment building on Seapine Way (Seapine Apartments) in Greenacres, Florida. Living in the apartment directly beneath Respondent's was the Scrivo family: Joseph, Sr. (Joe); his wife Dana; and their children, Joseph, Jr., and Gianna. Joseph, Jr., and Gianna are now three and eight years of age, respectively. Gianna is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, a student at Forest Hill. After moving into the Seapine Apartments, Respondent began to socialize with the Scrivo family and became friends with Dana. Respondent, however, did not get along well with Joe. Joe said things to Respondent that Respondent considered to be insulting. She also suspected that Joe was the person who was leaving the pornographic material she started to find at her front door in the morning. (In fact, Joe was not the culprit.) The Scrivos' Separation In the summer of 1996, Joe and Dana had marital problems. As these problems escalated, Joe began to secretly tape record Dana's telephone conversations at home. With Respondent's assistance, Dana discovered that Joe was making these tape recordings. On August 7, 1996, Joe and Dana separated. Dana and the children remained in the Seapine Way apartment. Joe moved into a trailer located at 6074 South 16th Way in West Palm Beach. Dana obtained a restraining order against Joe. The restraining order prohibited Joe from having contact with Dana, except to the extent that such contact was necessary for Joe and Dana to discuss and to tend to the needs of their children. Dana made Respondent aware of the fact that she had obtained a restraining order against Joe. Joe's October 23, 1996, Visit to the Seapine Apartments Gianna had trouble dealing with her parents' separation. On the evening of October 23, 1996, Gianna was particularly upset. Dana telephoned Joe and told him that she wanted to speak to him in person about Gianna. Later that evening, Joe drove to the Seapine Apartments to meet with Dana. Respondent saw Joe in his van outside the apartment building. She telephoned the police and reported to them that Joe was on the grounds of the Seapine Apartments in violation of a restraining order that had been issued against him. When the police arrived on the scene, Joe and Dana were in Joe's van talking to one another. The police questioned Joe and then spoke to Dana. Dana told the police that she had requested the meeting with Joe to talk to him about the emotional problems their daughter was experiencing. She further informed the police that the restraining order did not bar Joe from meeting with her to discuss such a matter. The police left without taking any action. The Vandalizing of Respondent's Car The following afternoon, Thursday, October 24, 1996, Joe left town to visit his aunt in Key West, Florida. Sometime after Joe left town, during the evening of October 24, 1996, or the morning of October 25, 1996, before approximately 7:45 a.m., the front of the exterior of Respondent's automobile was damaged while the automobile was parked in the parking lot outside her apartment. It appeared to Respondent, who discovered the damage at approximately 7:45 a.m. on October 25, 1996, as she was about to get into her car and drive to work, that someone had thrown paint remover on the car. Respondent reported the damage to the police and then drove to work. After work she went to a body shop to obtain an assessment of the damage that had been done to her automobile. She then returned home. The "Trashing" of Joe's Trailer and the Theft and Use of Joe's Credit Cards From the time she returned home until the early morning hours of Sunday, October 27, 1996, Respondent remained awake and stewed about what had been done to her car. She felt as if she had been "violated." The more she thought about it, the more upset and angrier she became. Although she was experiencing these negative feelings, Respondent believed that there was no immediate need to seek the assistance of Dr. Ellinger, with whom she had an appointment scheduled for the following week. She thought that this situation "was something that [she] could actually work through" herself. As it turned out, she was wrong. Respondent erroneously believed that it was Joe who had damaged her automobile and she decided to get even with him by doing damage to his possessions. She knew that Joe was out of town, so, during the early morning hours of Sunday, October 27, 1996, she drove to Joe's trailer with the intention of vandalizing it and its contents. Upon arriving at her destination, she broke into the trailer and, in accordance with her plan, proceeded to willfully and maliciously do extensive damage to the interior of the structure and the possessions of Joe's that were in the structure. Among other things, she flooded the trailer by stopping up the sinks, turning on the faucets, and letting the water run; spread and smeared food items that were in the refrigerator on the floor, walls, ceiling, furniture, and photographs, including photographs of the Scrivo children; slashed Joe's clothes and his bed with a knife; and damaged electronic equipment. In addition, she stole from the trailer three of Joe's credit cards, which she subsequently used to purchase, by fraudulent means, in excess of $300.00 worth of merchandise. Respondent's "trashing" of Joe's trailer and her theft and fraudulent use of his credit cards was related to her mental illness, which made it difficult for her to control her emotions and to exercise restraint (although she knew what she was doing and that her actions were wrong). Respondent engaged in this conduct, notwithstanding that she was at the time, and had been for approximately the previous 26 months, under the care of, and receiving treatment from, Drs. Ellinger and Yetz. In fact, Dr. Ellinger had specifically counseled Respondent to make every effort to avoid being provoked by Joe. There is no guarantee that Respondent will not engage in similar inappropriate conduct in the future. Indeed, given the nature of her mental illness, it is more likely than not that she will. The Discovery of Respondent's Crimes Respondent also took from the trailer, when she left after her rampage, three or four audio cassette tapes that Joe had used to secretly tape record Dana's telephone conversations before their separation. Respondent left the tapes outside the front door of Dana's apartment along with a note which read as follows: These are the tapes that Joe used to record your phone conversations. From a friend. When Dana found the tapes and read the note she figured that someone had broken into Joe's trailer. She suspected Respondent as having been the culprit because, to Dana's knowledge, other than Joe and her herself, only Respondent and a friend of Dana's who lived in New Jersey knew of the existence of the tapes. Dana asked two of her downstairs neighbors who were friendly with Joe to go check on Joe's trailer. They agreed to do so. Some time later, one of them returned and informed Dana that Joe's trailer was flooded and that the police had been called to the scene. The other neighbor telephoned Joe, who was still in Key West, and told him about the damage to his trailer. Joe returned home immediately. Respondent's Post-Incident Conduct Respondent did not want anyone to know what she had done. She therefore initially told no one, not even Dr. Ellinger, about her "trashing" of Joe's trailer and her stealing and subsequently using his credit cards. While she remained quiet about her wrongdoing, she was not reluctant to complain to others about what she perceived to be Joe's harassment of her. On or about October 29, 1996, Respondent applied for and obtained in Palm Beach County Circuit Court an ex parte restraining order against Joe. The restraining order was later dismissed on November 12, 1996, after a hearing on the matter, in which both Joe and Respondent participated. On November 22, 1996, the police came to Forest Hill to speak with Respondent about the events of October 27, 1996. After being read her Miranda rights, Respondent agreed to give a statement to the police. At first, Respondent denied breaking into Joe's trailer. Not long thereafter, however, she retracted her denial and admitted to the police what she had done. Following the interview, the police advised Respondent that they would be seeking the issuance of a capias for her arrest. The police told Principal Hardy of their intention to effect Respondent's arrest. Principal Hardy thereupon directed Respondent not to return to the classroom and informed her that she was being reassigned (with pay) to her home until further notice. Later that day, Respondent saw Dr. Ellinger and for the first time told him about her destructive behavior at Joe's trailer during the early morning hours of October 27, 1996. (She subsequently, on December 16, 1996, told Dr. Ellinger about the credit cards she had stolen and then used.) The District Meeting and Meeting of the Professional Standards Committee Principal Hardy brought the matter of the police investigation of Respondent to the attention of the School District's Department of Employee Relations. The Department of Employee Relations determined that a pre-disciplinary meeting should be held with Respondent. Such a pre-disciplinary meeting was ultimately held on March 18, 1997. Present at the meeting were representatives of the School District, a representative of the Palm Beach County Teachers Association, Respondent and her attorney. At the meeting, Respondent admitted to breaking into Joe's trailer and "trashing" it and to stealing Joe's credit cards and using them to make purchases in excess of $300.00. In attempting to explain why she had engaged in such conduct, Respondent claimed that Joe had taunted, stalked and harassed her prior to the incident. In addition, she advised that she was under the care of a psychologist, Dr. Ellinger, whom, she stated, the School District could contact if it so desired. After hearing from Respondent, the School District representatives at the meeting determined that there was probable cause for the matter to be presented to the School District's Professional Standards Committee for its recommendation. After having considered the matter, the Professional Standards Committee recommended to the School District's Superintendent of Schools that action be initiated to terminate Respondent's employment with the School District. The Superintendent's Action On April 14, 1997, the Superintendent of Schools sent Respondent a Notice of Suspension and Recommendation for Dismissal from Employment, which read as follows: Based upon substantial information presented to me, I hereby inform you that I have found probable cause sufficient to warrant recommendation for your suspension without pay and dismissal from employment with the School District as an instructor. You are charged with committing misconduct sufficient to constitute just cause under the 1995-1997 collective bargaining agreement between the School District of Palm Beach County, and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association, based upon the following actions (criminal or otherwise): First, you admitted to breaking into a trailer and "trashing it." Second, you admitted to stealing a credit card and using it to make purchases in excess of $300.00. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), School Board Rules and Regulations, and the Code of Ethics for the Education Profession in Florida, Chapter 6B-1, Florida Administrative Code. Please be advised that I will recommend at the May 7, 1997, meeting of the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, that the School Board suspend you without pay effective May 8, 1997, and that the termination of employment will become effective upon the expiration of fifteen days thereafter. This action is taken in accordance with Sections 230.23 and 230.33, Florida Statutes. The May 7, 1997, School Board meeting will be held in the Board Room at 3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida at 5:00 p.m. You or your representative have the right to attend this meeting and present an oral statement or documentation to show why you should not be suspended without pay and/or terminated. If you intend to speak before the School Board, please immediately notify Ms. Alicia Bell, Clerk, at (561) 434- 8139, of your intention to make a presentation at that meeting. Pursuant to School Board Policy 3.27, you have the right to request a formal hearing contesting the recommendation for your suspension without pay and dismissal. If you desire to request a formal hearing, you must put your request in writing and submit it within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this letter to Cynthia S. Prettyman, General Counsel, School District of Palm Beach County, 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, C-302, West Palm Beach Florida 33406-5813. Failure on your part to timely request a hearing will be deemed a waiver of your right to a hearing on the matter, and all material allegations and charges made against you shall be deemed true by the School Board for purposes of entering a final order in this matter. On April 22, 1997, the Superintendent of Schools executed a Petition for Dismissal, which contained the following "administrative charges" and "demand for relief": ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES Petitioner, Dr. P. Kowal, alleges as follows: Respondent, Debora Woessner, admits to breaking into a trailer and "trashing it." Respondent also admits to stealing a credit card and using it to make purchases in excess of $300.00. The above-described conduct violated Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), the Respondent's contract, the Palm Beach County School Board's Rules and Regulations, and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida, Chapter 6B- 1, Florida Administrative Code. Just cause exists for the requested relief, pursuant to Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes; Article II, Section M, of the collective bargaining agreement between the School District and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association; the School Board's Rules and Regulations; and Rule 6B- 4.009, Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has engaged in misconduct, criminal and otherwise, which is inconsistent with the standards of public conscience and good morals, to wit: destruction of property, breaking and entering, and theft. DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Dr. Joan P. Kowal, Superintendent of Schools, recommends that the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, immediately suspend Respondent, Debora Woessner, without further pay or benefits. The Petitioner recommends that the School Board, subsequent to providing the requisite notice, dismiss, the Respondent, Debora Woessner, from her employment as an instructor predicated upon the foregoing facts and legal authority. By letter dated April 28, 1997, which read as follows, Respondent, through her attorney, requested a hearing on the Superintendent of School's recommendation: Our office has been retained for the purpose of representing Ms. Debora Woessner before the School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida, with respect to the issues raised in the Superintendent's letter dated April 14, 1997, charging Ms. Woessner with misconduct. Ms. Woessner denies that there is any basis to support the Superintendent's recommendation for suspension without pay and contests the recommendation for her dismissal. Ms. Woessner requests that a hearing be conducted with respect to all issues raised by the charges described above and her defense to the charges, and requests such a hearing be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., before a hearing officer appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. I will speak on Ms. Woessner's behalf at the School Board meeting scheduled for May 7, 1997, when the Board will consider the propriety of the recommendation for suspension without pay and dismissal from employment. The Criminal Proceedings After the conclusion of the police investigation of the "trashing" of Joe's trailer and the theft and use of his credit cards, the matter was turned over to the State Attorney and Respondent was criminally charged (in Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case No. 96-13985CFA02) with one count of felony criminal mischief and one count of grand theft. Respondent entered a guilty/"best interest" plea to both counts. An Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation was entered in Palm Beach County Circuit Court Case No. 96-13985CFA02 on April 23, 1997. The order placed Respondent on probation for a period of five years "concurrent with each count." Among the conditions of her probation were that she have "no contact" with Joe and that she pay Joe restitution in an amount to be determined following a hearing on the matter. Such a hearing was held on May 16, 1997, after which an order was entered which provided as follows: THIS CAUSE having come before the Court for a restitution hearing and this Court having [pr]esided at said hearing on May 16, 1997, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant, Debora Woessner, pay to the victim, Joseph Scrivo, restitution in the amount of $30,238.92. Restitution is to be a condition of the Defendant's probation sentence and shall be paid monthly in the minimum amount of $10 per month, commencing July 1, 1997 and continuing until paid in full. Publicity Respondent's criminal conduct was widely publicized in the community. It was reported in the newspaper and received television coverage. One particularly aggressive television news reporter attempted to interview Forest Hill students on school grounds to obtain their reaction to Respondent's wrongdoing. After the reporter was directed to leave, he stationed himself across the street from the school, where he interviewed students on their way home following the end of the school day. In addition, someone distributed in the neighborhood surrounding Forest Hill fliers which denounced Respondent as being unfit to teach as a result of her criminal conduct. Impaired Effectiveness Teachers serve as authority figures and role models for their students. Respondent's ability to effectively serve as a positive role model for her students has been seriously impaired by her widely publicized criminal conduct. The May 7, 1997, School Board Meeting The Superintendent of Schools' recommendation regarding Respondent's future employment was discussed at the Palm Beach County School Board's May 7, 1997, meeting. At the May 7, 1997, meeting, Respondent's attorney argued that the School Board was prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from taking adverse action against Respondent and that it was required by the ADA to provide her with an accommodation. The School Board decided not to take any action on the Superintendent of School's recommendation regarding Respondent's future employment until it received further information concerning Respondent's entitlement to protection under the ADA. Correspondence Concerning Respondent's ADA Claim On May 9, 1997, the School District's General Counsel sent Respondent's attorney a letter, which read as follows: On Wednesday, May 7, 1997, you appeared before the board on behalf of Debora Woessner. That evening you advised that Ms. Woessner had sought an ADA accommodation, and that her rights were violated due to the District's failure to accommodate her. As of today's date, we have had no information regarding this employee's request for an accommodation. No later than Monday, May 12, 1997, we would request a letter via facsimile to the attention of Dianne Howard, our Risk Manager, at (561) 434-8103 with regard to the following: Please outline the nature of your client's disability. Please outline how this disability affects her major life activity. Please advise as to the accommodation she is seeking. This information is critical for the District's consideration of your request. The consideration must be arrived on or before May 16, 1997. If this information is not received by Monday, and the meeting cannot be scheduled before May 16, 1997, th[e]n termination which was predicated on criminal activity, admitted by your client, will proceed at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on May 21, 1997. Respondent's attorney responded to this letter from the School District's General Counsel by letter dated May 12, 1997, which read as follows: I am in receipt of your letter of May 9, 1997 regarding Debora Woessner. For clarification, my statements to the Board indicated that Ms. Woessner was requesting, through her attorney, an accommodation. I further stated that Ms. Woessner was in possession of School Board Policy 3.06, and that the School Board should allow the District's ADA process to run its course before making a decision regarding Ms. Woessner's termination. I did not state that Ms. Woessner's rights had been violated. I stated that the Board should delay acting on the recommendation so that Ms. Woessner's rights would not be violated. Regarding your statement that the District has no information regarding Ms. Woessner's request for an accommodation, I stated at the meeting that (1) Ms. Woessner has been diagnosed with a psychiatric disability specifically defined by the DSM IV, (2) this disability affected a major life activity, i.e., interacting with people, (3) the actions for which the Superintendent recommended discipline for Ms. Woessner were directly related to her disability, (4) my client was directly in the process of getting information required by the district from the individual treating her for her disability, and that the district would be informed as to what accommodation was appropriate. Regarding the request contained in the letter, I spoke with Darren Edwards of your office on the afternoon of May 9, 1997 and informed him that Ms. Woessner would provide the requested information as early as possible. As I have previously informed you, and as I informed Mr. Edwards during the aforementioned conversation, Ms. Woessner obtained a copy of School Board Policy 3.06, and is in the process of complying with its dictates. Because of the nature of the information required by the Policy and the strictness of the Policy, it is not possible for Ms. Woessner to comply with your request that she have all information you requested in Ms. Howard's office by this afternoon. I would further note that this is the first time in the many instances in which I have dealt with the Palm Beach County School District on ADA accommodation questions that a deadline has been imposed on an employee. I have checked Policy 3.06 and can find no mention of a deadline within which an employee must provide the requested information. In short, it appears that Ms. Woessner has been singled out for special treatment. I consider this to be not only inappropriate, but possibly unlawful. I would also point out that your request implies that the information requested should come from me, Ms. Woessner's attorney, and not a mental health counselor. In short, it is my client's intention to comply with the District's ADA policy as quickly as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office. In a letter sent to Respondent's attorney on May 12, 1997, the School District's General Counsel acknowledged receipt of his May 12, 1997, letter and further stated the following: Ms. Woessner was reassigned to her home with pay in November, 1996. Over the past six months, and during several conferences with Ms. Woessner, there has never been any mention of her alleged disability or request for an accommodation. The principal confirmed that during the last nine years, Ms. Woessner never indicated she suffered any mental disability. Certainly no request for an accommodation was ever made. However, Ms. Woessner was very aware of our ADA policy since she had requested on prior occasions, ADA accommodations for her allergies. Irrespective of the ADA claim which has only recently been made, Ms. Woessner acknowledged her actions which comprise the felony charges against her. After admitting to the charges, termination proceedings were commenced. It was only at the eleventh hour, when the Board was asked to proceed with her termination of employment, did you state that Ms. Woessner was suffering from a disability. Although the administration sought termination related to Ms. Woessner's admitted criminal behavior, we agreed to consider your request on your client's behalf. We asked you to specify the nature of the disability, how it affected a major life activity, and the specific accommodation she was seeking. Your letter to the District indicates that this information will not be provided in the time frame requested. As a matter of law and in accordance with the very same case you cited (Hindman v. GTE), the District has never been made aware of the disability allegedly suffered by your client at the time of the incident, at the District meeting, or when she was notified of the termination proceedings. There was no request for an accommodation which specifies the accommodation, as required by the ADA either prior to her criminal behavior, nor after she was notified in April of the termination proceedings. The District will proceed with the termination proceedings on May 21, 1997. On May 21, 1997, ten to fifteen minutes before the start of the School Board meeting scheduled for that day, Respondent's attorney handed the School District's Chief Personnel Officer a letter addressed to Diane Howard, the School District's Director of Employee Benefits and Risk Management, which read as follows: Enclosed please find a copy of an affidavit executed by Dr. Mark Ellinger. Dr. Ellinger is Debora Woessner's psychologist and has provided the affidavit to assist Ms. Woessner in obtaining an accommodation for a disability pursuant to School Board Policy 3.06. Ms. Woessner is a teacher assigned to Forest Hill Elementary School, and holds a Professional Services Contract. Her Social Security Number is . . . . As you can see from the Affidavit, Ms. Woessner has had some recent difficulties related to her disability, and has been recommended for suspension without pay and termination by the District. Ms. Woessner's position, which is supported by her Doctor, is that the actions for which she is being terminated are directly related to her disability and that she can continue her teaching position if she is provided with a reasonable accommodation. Ms. Woessner has already provided her doctors with releases so that the School Board can obtain her medical records. Dr. Ellinger's address and telephone number are as follows: . . . . I will provide you with similar information for Dr. Yetz in the near future. Please keep in mind that this correspondence, and the attached affidavit, are confidential pursuant to both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Florida Statutes. As such, copies may not be provided to the press, or any individual not involved with making a determination of whether Ms. Woessner is entitled to an accommodation. If you have any questions regarding the matter covered in this letter or the affidavit, please do not hesitate to contact my office. The affidavit of Dr. Ellinger, which was appended to letter, read as follows: I am a clinical psychologist working in Palm Beach County, and have been treating Debora Woessner since August 15, 1994, for mood and substance abuse problems. In addition to being treated by me, Ms. Woessner sees Dr. Yetz, a [p]sychiatrist, for medication. The specific diagnos[e]s for Ms. Woessner are Depressive Disorder, not otherwise specified (311.00 DSM IV) and Cannabis Dependence (304.30, DSM IV) with sustained partial remission.4 The medication Ms. Woessner takes significantly reduces the severity of her disorder.5 Ms. Woessner's disorders are directly related to her to having grown up in a situation where she was physically and psychologically abused, which later manifested itself in psychiatric problems such as depression, substance abuse, and relationship problems. Ms. Woessner's disorders interfere with her ability to interact with others, and impact her work. More specifically, Ms. Woessner's disorder, particularly in the absence of the medication prescribed by her psychiatrist, significantly restricts her ability to interact with others as compared to the average person in the general population. Ms. Woessner was involved in an incident in November of 1996 where she damaged a man's trailer and used his credit cards to make purchases without his assent. Had it not been for her abusive childhood and its subsequent psychiatric illness, Ms. Woessner would not have acted out in such an aggressive manner. Her psychological problems directly caused and are related to the incident that occurred in November. It is highly unlikely that Ms. Woessner will repeat such actions in the future.6 Ms. Woessner is a good, dedicated and caring professional who genuinely wants the best for her students. Her profession has always given a sense of pride, meaning and structure to her life. Ms. Woessner loves her work, which is a central part of her identity. Ms. Woessner has been a hard worker in psychotherapy and has with tenacity chipped away at her various problems with success. She has been consistent in therapy and follows up on recommendations to better herself and resolve her problems.7 Ms. Woessner does not represent a threat to herself or anyone and her problems are treatable. Ms. Woessner should receive a leave of absence until the beginning of the 1997-1998 school year so that she can resolve her problems. During this time, Ms. Woessner will be treated for her problems and will undergo testing to ensure that her problems have been resolved.8 It was not until September of 1997 that Howard received the May 21, 1997, letter from Respondent's attorney's and the attached affidavit of Dr. Ellinger. Upon receiving these documents, she prepared and then sent to Respondent's attorney the following written response: I am in receipt of your letter dated May 21, 1997 and directed to my attention. I am sorry for the delay in response, however, I just received this letter on September 17. It came to my attention through our Legal Counsel as they were preparing for a hearing. I am sorry I never received this before, but I will try to answer it now. Your letter indicates you are asking for an accommodation for Debora Woessner. You are providing an affidavit from a clinical psychologist indicating that Ms. Woessner suffers from depressive disorder and cannabis dependence. You do not state a specific type of reasonable accommodation in your letter, however, the affidavit provided by Mark Ellinger, the Clinical Psychologist, indicates that allowing Ms. Woessner a leave of absence for the rest of the school year would give her time to treat [her] for her problems. While a depressive disorder may be considered a disability under the ADA, and a leave of absence can be an acceptable accommodation, we do not usually require that leave requests go through as an ADA accommodation. The School District leave policy is so generous that we would allow her to have a medical leave without going through the ADA process. I do understand that Ms. Woessner has since been terminated from the School District and that the first time that the ADA accommodation request was brought up was at a School Board meeting when the School Board was considering her termination. Apparently your client was terminated for misconduct, specifically destruction of property, breaking and entering and theft. Even if I could consider making an accommodation for your client's problems, I could never accommodate destruction of property, breaking and entering and theft. We can accommodate time to take the medication, other things like leave of absence, but not improper behavior. I am enclosing a copy of the new School Board policy with a form that should be completed if you think you have anything else to offer that could be considered. I do believe that the time to bring up an accommodation request would have been prior to a termination hearing. The School Board's Action Contrary to what Howard had stated in her letter, Respondent had not been terminated by the School Board. The School Board had merely suspended Respondent without pay (effective following the end of the 1996-1997 school year) pending the outcome of this dismissal proceeding. The Collective Bargaining Agreement As a teacher employed by the School District, Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers Association (CTA) and covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the School District and the CTA (CTA Contract). Article I, Section D, of the CTA Contract addresses the subject of "management rights." It provides as follows: The [School] Board hereby retains and reserves unto itself, the Superintendent, the principals and other administrative personnel of the School System, all powers, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities, and the exercise thereof, as conferred upon and vested in them by the Constitution and the Law and the Regulations of the United States and the State of Florida, and the policies of the School Board of Palm Beach County, in keeping with the provisions of this Agreement. Article II, Section M, of the CTA Contract addresses the subject of "discipline of employees." It provides as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Association [CTA], disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. All disciplinary action shall be governed by applicable statutes and provisions of this Agreement. Further, an employee shall be provided with a written notice of wrongdoing, setting forth the specific charges against that employee prior to taking any action. Any information which may be relied upon to take action against an employee will be shared promptly with said employee and his/her Association representative as soon as possible. Copies of any written information/correspondence that is related to the action of the employee or the investigating administrator(s) will be provided promptly to the employee and his/her Association representative. An employee against whom action is to be taken under any Section and his/her Association representative shall have the right to review and refute any and all of the information relied upon to support any proposed disciplinary action prior to taking such action. To this end, the employee and his/her Association representative shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare and present responses/refutations concerning the pending disciplinary action. This amount of time is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Only previous disciplinary actions which are a part of the employee's personnel file or which are a matter of record as provided in paragraph #7 below may be cited. Where just cause warrants such disciplinary action(s) and in keeping with provisions of this Section, an employee may be reprimanded verbally, reprimanded in writing, suspended with pay, suspended without pay or dismissed upon the recommendation of the immediate supervisor to the Superintendent. Other disciplinary action(s) may be taken with the mutual agreement of the parties. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations,9 progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With A Written Notation. Such written notation shall not be placed in the employee's personnel file and shall not be used to the further detriment of the employee after twelve months of the action/inaction of the employee which led to the notation. Written Reprimand. A written reprimand may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section. Such written reprimand shall be dated and signed by the giver and the receiver of the reprimand and shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension With Pay. A suspension with pay may be issued to an employee when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension with pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and receiver of the suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay may be issued to an employee when appropriate, in keeping with provisions of this Agreement, including just cause and applicable laws. The length of the suspension also shall be determined by just cause as set forth in this Section. The notice and specifics of the suspension without pay shall be placed in writing, dated and signed by the giver and receiver of the suspension. The specific days of suspension will be clearly set forth in the written suspension notice which shall be filed in the affected employee's personnel file in keeping with provisions of Article II, Section B of this Agreement. Dismissal. An employee may be dismissed (employment contract terminated or non- renewed) when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable laws. An employee against whom disciplinary action(s) has been taken may appeal through the grievance procedure. If the disciplinary action(s) taken include either a suspension or dismissal, the grievance shall be initiated at STEP TWO.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order sustaining Respondent's suspension and dismissing her as an employee of the School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1998.
