The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly decided to deny Petitioner tenure and promotion.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 8, 1997, Petitioner began working for Respondent as an Assistant Professor in a tenure-earning position in the COE, Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (DHPER). Because Petitioner was serving in a tenure-earning position, Respondent had to award her tenure by the end of six years of continuous full-time service or give her notice that Respondent would not offer her further employment beyond the end of the seventh year of employment. Petitioner received a copy of the applicable tenure criteria soon after she began her employment. The tenure criteria for scholarly publications required the following: (a) publish or show acceptance of at least three publications, including books, monographs, and articles in local, state, regional and national journals, which meet the peer-review process, not including abstracts/proceedings; (b) achieve additional publication credit, which may include individual citations in a text's quotes or credits for scholarly endeavors; and (c) present at least two papers at state, regional or national professional meetings. Petitioner also received a copy of Respondent's criteria for promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. The criteria state as follows in relevant part: The minimum number of publications will be three (3), which must be in indexed refereed professional journals, of which at least two (2) must list the candidate as the primary author. This includes, not in addition to, chapters in books, monographs for national use, and books. Chapters will treated as journal publications. The number of publications will be cumulative. Respondent is required to provide its faculty members with an annual faculty evaluation. For faculty members in tenure-earning positions, Respondent also is required to provide an annual tenure appraisal. On April 24, 1998, Petitioner received her 1997-1998 faculty evaluation. The evaluation reflected Petitioner's poor rating for evidence of papers or articles published in professional journals and/or of books published. There is no evidence that Respondent provided Petitioner with an annual tenure appraisal for the 1997-1998 academic year. Each academic term, Respondent and each of its faculty members, in tenured and non-tenured positions, sign an Assignment of Responsibility Form. The form lists the credit and non-credit generating activities and assigns a percentage of the employee's designated effort for each activity. The total percentage of designated effort for each academic term should equal 100 percent for one full-time-equivalent (FTE) faculty. The credit generating activities are specific student classes/courses. An assignment to teach courses with more than cumulative credit hours in the same semester is considered an overload. Faculty members on a nine-month pay plan are never required to accept an overload assignment. Assuming responsibility for designated effort in excess of 100 percent is strictly voluntary. Instructors receive additional pay beyond their base salary when they accept an overload assignment. Respondent always gives its nine-month faculty the opportunity to teach extra classes as an overload before hiring additional staff. The same is true for teaching summer school. Respondent's nine-month faculty has first choice to earn additional pay by teaching classes in summer school before Respondent hires adjunct professors. The nine-month faculty is not required to teach summer school. The non-credit activities include the following: supervision of cooperative education; (b) clinical instruction; (c) other instructional efforts (non-credit); (d) research; (e) public service; (f) academic advisement; (g) academic administration; (h) university governance; (i) leave of absence with pay; and (j) collective bargaining release time. There is no set percentage of designated effort for any particular non-credit activity. Respondent's faculty can always request that some percentage of their designated effort be attributable to one of the non-credit activities, such as research. In such a case, Respondent would assign the faculty member less designated effort to other non-credit activities such as academic advisement. In every case, tenure-earning faculty members know or should know that Respondent expects them to begin working on research projects when they are hired in order to meet the tenure criteria for scholarly publications within the required time frame. This is true regardless of whether they elect to teach overloads or summer school and regardless of whether they request and receive a specific amount of designated effort for research each academic term. Other than as set forth below, there is no evidence that Petitioner ever requested Respondent to assign her a greater percentage of designated effort to research. On April 28, 1998, Petitioner signed the Assignment of Responsibility Form for the 1998 Spring semester. The form indicates that 86 percent of Petitioner's designated effort was spent teaching five classes for a total of 13 credit hours. Her only other assignment was academic advisement, which represented 14 percent of her designated effort. Petitioner agreed to teach during the 1998 Summer B semester. She taught two classes for a total of 3 credit hours, representing 64 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. For the 1998 Fall semester, Petitioner accepted a teaching overload. She taught six classes for a total of 15 credit hours, representing 99 percent of her designated effort. She also performed academic advisement for 21 percent of her designated effort. In the Spring semester of 1999, Petitioner taught five classes for a total of 13 credit hours, representing 86 percent of her designated effort. She was assigned to perform academic advisement for the balance of her time, equal to 14 percent of her designated effort. On April 28, 1999, Petitioner received her 1998-1999 faculty evaluation form. The form again reflected her poor rating for evidence of papers or articles published in professional journals and/or books published. On June 1, 1999, Petitioner received a tenure appraisal for the 1998-1999 academic year. The appraisal informed Petitioner that she needed to improve in the research category. Specifically, she needed to publish and present at least three to four research articles within a five-year period before applying for tenure. For the Summer B semester of 1999, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of four credit hours, representing 84 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. In the Fall semester of 1999, Petitioner taught seven classes for a total of 16 credit hours, representing 106 percent of her designated effort. She also performed academic advisement for an additional 20 percent of designated effort. For the Spring Semester 2000, Petitioner taught six classes for a total of 14 credit hours, representing 93 percent of her designated effort. She served as an academic advisor for an additional 20 percent of her designated effort. On April 26, 2000, Petitioner received her 1999-2000 faculty evaluation form. The form indicates that Petitioner's research and creative ability were not applicable. The record does not show that Petitioner engaged in any scholarly presentations or research and writing projects during the 1999- 2000 academic year. In the Summer B term of 2000, Petitioner taught one class for a total of one credit hour, representing four percent of her designated effort. She did not have any other assigned duties that summer. For the Fall semester 2000, Petitioner taught seven courses for a total of 14.5 credit hours, representing 91 percent of her designated effort. She also agreed to devote three percent of her designated effort in each of the following areas: (a) research; (b) public service; and (c) academic advisement. In the Spring semester of 2001, Petitioner taught six classes for a total of 14 hours, representing 93 percent of her designated effort. She also was assigned the following responsibilities: (a) five percent of her time in research; (b) five percent of her time in public service; and (c) 10 percent of her time in academic advisement. For the Summer A term of 2001, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of three credit hours, representing 62 percent of her designated effort. In Summer B term of 2001, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of three credit hours, representing 65 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. On July 5, 2001, Petitioner received her annual faculty evaluation for the 2000-2001 academic term. Petitioner received a fair rating regarding evidence of papers or articles published in professional journals and/or of books published. On August 27, 2001, Petitioner received her annual tenure appraisal for the 2000-2001 academic term. The appraisal acknowledges that Petitioner had improved significantly in the areas of research and scholarly activities. According to the appraisal, Petitioner had made several research presentations, submitted articles for publication, and choreographed several dance pieces for the Orchesis Dance Concert and public school activity programs. The appraisal stated that after a few of Petitioner's research articles were published, she would be on par for complete satisfaction of the scholarly publications requirements. The August 27, 2001, tenure appraisal also commended Petitioner for her public service work. At the same time, the appraisal warned Petitioner not to commit too much of her time to public service because she might neglect other tenure criteria areas. The appraisal advised Petitioner that it was extremely important to balance her time between teaching, research, and service. In the Fall semester of 2001, Petitioner taught five classes, for a total of 16 credit hours, representing 96 percent of her designated effort. She spent 20 percent of her designated effort working as an academic advisor. For the Spring semester of 2002, Petitioner taught six classes for a total of 14 credit hours, representing 93 percent of her designated effort. She divided the balance of her designated effort as follows: (a) five percent to research; five percent to public service; and (c) 10 percent to academic advisement. In the Summer A term of 2002, Petitioner taught two classes for a total of three credit hours, representing 65 percent of her designated effort. She had no other assignments that summer. For the 2001-2002 academic term, Respondent did not perform a faculty evaluation or tenure appraisal of Petitioner. Dr. Virden Evans, Chairman of DHPER, gave Petitioner copies of the evaluation forms and requested that she perform a self- evaluation before meeting with him to discuss her performance. Petitioner never returned the evaluation forms to Dr. Evans. On September 9, 2002, Petitioner submitted her applications for tenure and promotion, together with a portfolio to document her qualifications. The tenure application listed the following two research projects as in progress: (a) a 2001 project titled "Exercise Adherence Among African-American Females"; and (b) a 2002 project titled "Perceived Stress and Burnout of MEAC Track and Field Athletes." There is no evidence that Petitioner completed, or submitted for publication, a paper or article based on either of these research projects. The tenure application also listed a 2002 research project titled "An Assessment of NCAA D-1A Academic Advisors Salaries", naming Petitioner as a contributing, but not leading participant. The application indicated that the participants in the study submitted the research project for acceptance at the 2003 American Alliance of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) 118th National Convention as part of its program and proceedings during a research consortium poster session. There is no persuasive evidence that the research project was accepted at the national convention in Baltimore, Maryland, as submitted. During the hearing, Petitioner presented evidence that the research project involving academic advisors salaries was submitted as a one-page abstract in May or June of 2002, and accepted in November or December 2002, for poster presentation at the February 2003 Southern District AAHPERD Convention, in Savannah, Georgia. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner timely provided Respondent with documentation of the abstract's acceptance as a poster presentation during a convention proceeding or that the research project resulted in a peer-reviewed written paper that was ever published other than as an abstract in the convention program. The tenure criteria at issue here specifically exclude abstracts/proceedings. Petitioner's tenure application listed several dance productions, naming her as the director and choreographer. It is apparent that Petitioner spent valuable time creating the dances, writing scripts for skits, designing costumes, etc. However, the greater weight of the evidence indicates that these creative activities are not scholarly publications in journals that meet the peer-review process. During the hearing, Petitioner presented evidence that she included a reference to her doctoral dissertation in her portfolio. The dissertation, entitled "A Comparison of Perceived Stress Levels of College Freshman Athletes and Non- Athletes" was published in 1987 by the Florida State University, College of Education, Department of Movement Science and Physical Education, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for Petitioner's degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The most persuasive evidence indicates that the dissertation is not a peer-reviewed scholarly publication in a journal or a book, completed by Petitioner within her tenure-earning time frame. Petitioner is credited as the author of one scholarly publication that meets the requirements of the applicable tenure and promotion criteria. In August 2002, Petitioner's article entitled "Introductory Activities in Elementary Physical Education Classes" was accepted for publication in the Winter 2003 Journal of the Florida Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. In September 2002, Dr. Evans continued to serve as Chairman of DHPER. As a tenured professor, Dr. Evans attended some of DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings but did not vote on Petitioner's applications for two reasons. First, he abstained because, as Chairman of DHPER, he would have to make a recommendation on the applications to the COE Tenure and Promotion Committee. Second, Dr. Evans had a close professional relationship with Petitioner and reserved his input on her applications, hoping that she would meet the publication requirements before he had to take a position. Dr. Janet Sermon, COE's Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, was one of DHPER's tenured faculty members. In the fall of 2002, Dr. Sermon often was required to act on behalf of the COE's Dean or, occasionally, in the capacity of COE's Acting Dean in recommending approval or disapproval of tenure and promotion applications to the University Tenure and Promotion Committee. Therefore, she did not participate in DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings. She did not vote on Petitioner's applications due to this potential conflict of interest. Coach Bobby Lang was one of DHPER's tenured faculty members. He was on medical leave during the fall of September 2002. The most credible evidence indicates that Coach Lang had notice of Petitioner's pending applications but chose not to participate in DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings while on medical leave. Coach Samuel Bogan was one of DHPER's tenured faculty. His coaching schedule made it difficult for him to participate in DHPER Tenure and Promotion Committee meetings. Coach Bogan had notice about Petitioner's pending applications but was absent when the DHPER Tenure and Promotion Committee voted on her applications. DHPER had four other tenured faculty members: (a) Dr. Steve Chandler; (b) Dr. Maria Okeke; (c) Dr. Barbara Thompson, Chairperson of DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee; and (d) Dr. Joseph Ramsey. DHPER's Tenure and Promotion Committee met for the first time on September 16, 2002. The committee did not consider Petitioner's application at that meeting. The DHPER Tenure and Promotion Committee met again on October 2, 2002, to vote on Petitioner's tenure and promotion applications. Coach Bogan, Dr. Evans, Dr. Sermon, and Coach Lang were not present for reasons stated above. A secret ballot on Petitioner's tenure application resulted in two (2) votes to deny and two (2) abstentions. A secret ballot on Petitioner's promotion application resulted in three (3) votes to deny and one (1) abstention. In a memorandum dated October 3, 2002, Dr. Thompson advised Dr. Evans of the committee's decision to recommend denial of Petitioner's request for tenure and promotion. In a letter dated October 4, 2002, Dr. Evans advised Petitioner of the committee's vote to recommend denial of her applications. In a letter dated October 8, 2002, Dr. Evans explained to Petitioner that the committee based its recommendation on the apparent lack of a sufficient number of publications. Subsequently, Dr. Evans recommended approval of Petitioner's applications to the COE Tenure and Promotion Committee. Thereafter, the COE committee voted to recommend denial of both applications. Subsequently, COE's Dean recommended denial of Petitioner's applications to the University Tenure and Promotion Committee. The University committee voted to recommend approval of Petitioner's promotion application and denial of her tenure application. Dr. Fred Gainous was Respondent's President during the time that Petitioner's applications were pending. Dr. Gainous had the responsibility to nominate candidates for tenure to Respondent's Board of Trustees, the entity with the authority to make final decisions granting tenure. The Board did not consider applications for tenure without such a nomination. Dr. Gainous did not nominate Petitioner for tenure before Respondent's Board of Trustees. President Gainous had authority to make the final decision regarding Petitioner's application for promotion. Dr. Gainous took no action in this regard because Petitioner's promotion was a moot question in light of the denial of her application for tenure and the issuance of a terminal contract for the 2003-2004 academic term. In a letter dated March 31, 2003, President Gainous advised Petitioner that her application for tenure was denied and that she would not be offered further employment beyond the end of her seventh year of employment. The letter states that the action was based on Petitioner's failure to meet the publication requirements of the COE. Dr. Gainous sent Petitioner a letter dated June 3, 2003. The letter advised Petitioner that her application for promotion was denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner tenure and promotion and terminating her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Avery D. McKnight, Esquire Ruth Nicole, Esquire Florida A & M University 300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Patricia A. Tucker 2802 Primrose Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elizabeth McBride, General Counsel Florida A & M University 300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Dr. Fred Gainous, President Florida A & M University 400 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florid 32307-3100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the School Board of Pinellas County (School Board) should accept the Petitioner's recision of her resignation from her position as a high school teacher and reinstate her to her former position on the ground that her resignation was given under legal duress.
Findings Of Fact During the 1992/1993 school year, the Petitioner, Deborah Green, taught high school in the GOALS (drop-out prevention) program at Dixie Hollins High School. In January, 1993, she applied for a year of medical leave of absence due to stress and stress-related symptoms. The School Board approved leave starting January 27, through June 11, 1993. Shortly after going on medical leave, the Petitioner was notified that a student had made serious accusations against her. One of the accusations was that the Petitioner freely told the student details about her romantic relationship with a Michael Miller, who was married and the principal of another Pinellas County high school. She contacted the student to find out what the accusations were and met with her principal and the student and his mother to discuss the accusation. At the meeting, the student recanted. The Petitioner left for Dallas, Texas, shortly after her leave began, but she continued to receive telephone messages locally through her friend and former housemate. Not long after the Petitioner left for Dallas, the student who had accused her, and then recanted, again accused the Respondent, alleging that he had recanted because the Petitioner had asked him to lie for her. When this happened, the principal of Dixie Hollins referred the matter to Stephen Crosby, Director of Personnel Services for the Pinellas County Schools. Crosby called the Petitioner at her local telephone number and left a message. When the Petitioner returned the call from Dallas, Crosby explained that he was investigating serious charges that had been made against her and that, as always in such circumstances, it was important for him to meet with her about them as soon as possible. The Petitioner declined, stating that she was not emotionally, mentally, or physically prepared at the time to handle the situation or the stress of the situation. She insisted that her meeting with Crosby be postponed. As an accommodation to the Petitioner, Crosby agreed to postpone the meeting, and the two agreed to meet on March 1, 1993. On or about February 28, 1993, on a return trip to Pinellas County, the Petitioner visited her school and left a written message for Crosby to tell him that she still was unable to meet with him and would not attend the scheduled March 1, 1993, meeting. Crosby did not get the message until the morning of the scheduled meeting. On receipt of the message, Crosby turned to the School Board's legal office for advice on how to proceed. Based on the advice of counsel, Crosby sent the Petitioner a letter stating that he viewed the delay in the interview until March 1 to be an unusual accommodation, since teacher interviews normally are conducted as soon as he becomes aware of the charges. He wrote that, since the Petitioner would not meet on March 1, as they had agreed, he would have to proceed exclusively on the basis of his interviews of students and others. In accordance with normal procedures, he also advised her that, unless she chose to resign by March 12, 1993, he would be recommending to the School Superintendent that he recommend to the School Board that the Petitioner be dismissed. On March 3, 1993, the Petitioner received Crosby's March 1 letter and wrote back in response to offer her resignation, effective June 11, 1993. In the Petitioner's own written words, she resigned "for my personal sanity and for the credibility of Michael Miller." Crosby processed the Petitioner's resignation to be considered at the March 24, 1993, School Board meeting. It is standard operating procedure to process resignations before their effective dates, if possible, so that replacement personnel can be hired. The School Board accepted the Petitioner's resignation (among others) at its March 24, 1993, meeting. The Petitioner tried unsuccessfully several times after March 24, 1993, to contact Crosby by telephone to rescind her resignation. She was unable to speak to him but was told that the School Board already had accepted her resignation and that it was too late to rescind it. In April, 1993, the Petitioner learned that the Florida Education Practices Commission of the Florida Department of Education also was investigating the allegations against her, notwithstanding her resignation. On or about June 3, 1993, the Petitioner returned to Pinellas County and met with a lawyer about getting her teaching position back and about defending her teacher certificate. On June 8, 1993, the lawyer wrote a letter to the School Board Attorney (which was received on or before June 11, 1993) purporting to rescind the Petitioner's resignation. It was not proven that the Petitioner had no choice but to resign from her position as a teacher between March 1 and March 12, 1993, due to her emotional, mental and physical condition at the time. As a result of her long-standing membership in the local teachers' union, the Pinellas Classroom Teachers Association (PCTA), the Petitioner knew that dues-paying members of the PCTA may be entitled to the services of an attorney, free of charge, in a teacher dismissal proceeding. She claimed that she did not know she still was entitled to free legal counsel after going on medical leave of absence as of January 27, 1993, and ceasing to pay union dues while on leave. However, there was no evidence that she inquired as to the availability of paid counsel until after the effective date of her resignation. Had she done so in a timely fashion, she would have learned before her resignation was accepted that she was entitled to the services of an attorney, free of charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Pinellas County enter a final order dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-6074 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven. Third sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that she spoke to Crosby more than once. Explaining the discrepancies between her testimony and his is problematic. But some of the telephone conversations she supposedly had with Crosby would have been on weekends (e.g., January 16 and 23, 1993), giving rise to a question as to the accuracy of her testimony. In addition, the Petitioner's own evidence suggested that her condition during this time period impaired her thought process and memory. Perhaps the Petitioner is counting unsuccessful attempts to contact Crosby as actual conversations with him. Rejected as not proven that the Petitioner acted on the advice of her physician in cancelling the March 1, 1993, meeting with Crosby. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Second sentence, rejected as not proven that she resigned "under protest because of her inability to participate in the investigation due to her medical condition"; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, rejected as not proven. See 7., above. (Some of the telephone conversations she supposedly had with Crosby during this time period would have been during the spring school holidays when all school offices were closed.) Second sentence, accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected in part as not proven as to "rational decisions with respect to her employment"; otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 4.-7. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 8.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 23.-26. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (As to 25., the referee appeared to be referring to Green's medical leave of absence.) COPIES FURNISHED: Mark F. Kelly, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. P. O. Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675-0638 Keith B. Martin, Esquire Assistant School Board Attorney Pinellas County Schools Administration Building 301 Fourth Street SW Largo, Florida 34649-2942 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street SW Largo, Florida 34640-3536 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of marital status in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact In June 2008, Dr. Hernandez was hired at the University as a faculty member of the School of Pharmacy in the position as a professor. She had a one-year employment agreement, with no presumption of renewal and a starting salary of $97,000.00. At all times material hereto, Dr. Hernandez was divorced. Dr. Hernandez had been divorced from her husband since 1995. The University was aware that Dr. Hernandez was divorced when she was hired. She had been recruited by the University's then Dean of the School of Pharmacy, Dan Brown, who, at that time, was also divorced. Marital status is not a factor in hiring an employee by the University. Dr. Hernandez's marital status was not a consideration or a factor in her hiring. By February 15th of each year, faculty members are notified whether their employment contract will be renewed for the following year. If a faculty member is not notified by February 15th that their contract will not be renewed, the faculty member's contract is automatically renewed for another year. Dr. Hernandez's contract was renewed for the 2009-2010 academic year. Spring 2010 Dean Brown was one of Dr. Hernandez's supervisors. For all the professors in the School of Pharmacy, Dean Brown prepared and distributed a list of all of their current work load ratios. The goal for all Pharmacy professors was a ratio of 0.8. Dr. Hernandez's work load ratio was 0.68, which was below the goal. She failed to meet the goal of the work load ratio for all Pharmacy professors. Dr. Hernandez refused to accept the work load ratio as a reliable tool of performance and considered it as irrelevant to her. She did not express or exhibit an interest in improving her work load ratio. Also, Dean Brown prepared and distributed a comparative analysis of student surveys of all the Pharmacy professors. Students were requested to score the performance of all the Pharmacy professors in 12 different areas. Based on the student surveys of faculty performance, Dr. Hernandez was the second lowest ranked Pharmacy professor. She scored very low in the following areas: "presents material in concise, organized, easy-to-follow manner" and "is an effective teacher." Dr. Hernandez refused to accept the student surveys as a reliable tool of performance and had no interest in the comparative analysis from the student surveys. Additionally, she failed to express or exhibit an interest in improving in those areas in which the students gave her a low ranking. During his supervision of Dr. Hernandez, Dean Brown received several complaints from faculty members regarding emails that they had received from her. The faculty members considered the emails to be "caustic," "obnoxious," and "insulting." As a result, Dean Brown met with her and advised her to stop sending antagonistic emails and insulting her fellow faculty members. One week later, Dr. Hernandez sent such an email to a fellow professor, Mary Ferrill, Ph.D. Dr. Ferrill was married to Dean Brown. Dr. Hernandez's email insinuated that Dr. Ferrill received special treatment because she was married to Dean Brown and asked whether she "sang and danced" for her students. Both Dean Brown and Dr. Ferrill considered the email to be insulting and confronted Dr. Hernandez. Dean Brown raised his voice at Dr. Hernandez when he confronted her because he was very upset in that he had, only a week earlier, advised her to stop sending antagonistic and insulting emails to fellow faculty members. Dean Brown admitted to the University's Human Resources Office that he was wrong in raising his voice to Dr. Hernandez, and he apologized to Dr. Hernandez. Because of the confrontation with Dean Brown, Dr. Hernandez was fearful that her contract would not be renewed. Many of the classes at the School of Pharmacy are team taught: one course coordinator with several faculty members teaching segments of the course. Essential to team teaching is faculty members exhibiting team work. Dr. Hernandez was one of the team members who taught PHR 2264, Endocrinologic and Musculosketal Pharmacotherapy. The course coordinator was Professor Dana Brown, Ph.D. Dr. Hernandez repeatedly failed to meet established deadlines for team members in PHR 2264. Exam questions from team members for PHR 2264 were to be submitted to Dr. Dana Brown two weeks before the scheduled exams. Her responsibility was to carefully review all questions, including how the questions overlapped with questions submitted by other faculty members. Dr. Hernandez failed to submit timely her exam questions, forcing Dr. Dana Brown to follow-up with Dr. Hernandez regarding the questions. Further, Dr. Hernandez would generally not inform Dr. Dana Brown ahead of time that she would be submitting her exam questions late. On one occasion, Dr. Hernandez submitted her exam questions only one day before the exam. Additionally, exam lectures were to be posted 48 hours in advance of a class. Dr. Hernandez failed to post her exam lectures 48 hours before she taught her class and, generally, posted the exam lectures the night before her class. Students complained to Dr. Dana Brown that Dr. Hernandez was difficult to understand. Dr. Dana Brown observed some of Dr. Hernandez's lectures and thought that Dr. Hernandez failed to answer students' questions. Also, on one occasion, Dr. Dana Brown, responding to an email that she received from Dr. Hernandez, hit "reply all." Dr. Hernandez became upset and raised her voice to Dr. Dana Brown because the response went to persons other than Dr. Hernandez. Dr. Dana Brown spoke to Wagdy Wahba, Ph.D., the then Interim Associate Dean, of the School of Pharmacy several times regarding the problems that she was having with Dr. Hernandez. Summer 2010 In the summer 2010, Dean Brown stepped down as Dean of the School of Pharmacy to focus on teaching. In August 2010, Dr. Ferrill became the Dean of the School of Pharmacy. Fall 2010 Faculty Activities Plan and Report The School of Pharmacy uses a performance instrument for its professors, referred to as a Faculty Activities Plan and Report (FAPR), which is, basically, an evaluation of a professor's performance in the previous year and expectations for the future. A FAPR that shows significant student or faculty concerns about teaching or collegiality is considered deficient. Dr. Wahba completed the FAPR for all faculty members of the School of Pharmacy. Dr. Wahba was Dr. Hernandez's immediate supervisor. He completed her FAPR. In October 2010, Dr. Hernandez received her FAPR from him and met with him to discuss it. In the "Dean's Comments" section for the FAPR, Dr. Wahba included the following issues that he determined that Dr. Hernandez needed to address: [a.] Not showing up for scheduled class in February 2010, and not sending the recorded lecture to the students until 21 days later. [b.] How to improve relationship, communication & cooperation with other faculty & coordinators within the team-taught courses. [c.] How to avoid reactive responses to concerns expressed by colleagues & administration, verbally and via e-mail[.] [d.] Currently not posting lectures on e- college in a timely fashion according to school policy[.] [e.] Currently not submitting exam questions to coordinators in a timely fashion[.] [f.] Showing up late or not at all to scheduled review sessions and committee meetings[.] Dr. Wahba and Dr. Hernandez discussed his comments. Additionally, Dr. Wahba noted in the Dean's Comments section that, of great concern, was how Dr. Hernandez was going to address the negative comments from students in her student surveys. The students' comments mainly revolved around Dr. Hernandez's disorganized lecture presentations and her difficulty in explaining material clearly. During the meeting in October 2010 with Dr. Wahba on the FAPR, Dr. Hernandez showed no willingness to improve in the areas that he had determined deficient. Further, she took the position that she had no deficiencies in her performance and demanded proof from him of her deficiencies. After the October 2010 meeting, Dr. Wahba met with Dr. Hernandez a second time to discuss her FAPR. She continued to resist his efforts to address the areas determined by him to be deficient. After the meetings, the next step in the FAPR process was for Dr. Hernandez to respond to Dr. Wahba's comments with a written plan of action and to sign the FAPR. She failed to do so. She was the only faculty member of the School of Pharmacy who did not complete the FAPR process. Dr. Hernandez blames Dr. Wahba for her not completing the FAPR process, taking the position that his responsibility was to "pursue" her to complete the FAPR process. December 13, 2010 Meeting As Dean of the School of Pharmacy, one of Dr. Ferrill's responsibilities was to review the FAPRs of the School of Pharmacy's faculty. In the fall of 2010, three faculty members had deficient FAPRs: Dr. Hernandez; Luna Bennett, Ph.D.; and Devon Sherwood, Ph.D. Dr. Ferrill met with each of them to discuss their deficient FAPR. Before meeting with Dr. Hernandez, Dr. Ferrill met with Dr. Wahba and discussed Dr. Hernandez's FAPR. Dr. Wahba advised Dr. Ferrill that he had reached an impasse with her in that she had never responded to his comments in the FAPR. On December 13, 2010, Dr. Ferrill met with Dr. Hernandez to discuss her FAPR and her plans to improve on the deficiencies. Others who attended this meeting included Dr. Wahba and Keysha Bryant, Ph.D., a professor in the School of Pharmacy. During the meeting, Drs. Ferrill and Wahba discussed areas in which Dr. Hernandez's performance was good. Further, they discussed the areas of deficiency and informed her that she needed a plan of action to improve in those areas. Additionally, Dr. Ferrill advised Dr. Hernandez that she was at risk of non- renewal of her contract unless she made strides to improve on her areas of deficiency. During the meeting, Dr. Hernandez was not receptive to the discussion regarding her deficiencies. She indicated, among other things, that nothing was wrong with her teaching skills and that she saw no reason to change what she was doing. Additionally, when queried about her plan of action to address the negative comments in the FAPR, she became emotional and raised her voice. Sometime near the end of the meeting, Dr. Hernandez expressed that she was emotionally upset, explaining that her ex- husband was ill and that she was taking care of him. Without questioning from anyone, she stated voluntarily that her ex- husband was living with her, indicating that she recognized that she was sinning in the University's eyes, but not in the eyes of God. The University has a policy against members of the University, including faculty and students, having extramarital sexual relationships. The policy prohibits a member of the University from having extramarital sexual relationships regardless of whether the subject person was divorced, single, or married to someone other than the person with whom the subject person was having a sexual relationship. Dr. Ferrill believed that Dr. Hernandez was admitting to violating the University's policy on extramarital sexual relationships. Dr. Ferrill questioned her further as to whether she was having an extramarital sexual relationship with her ex- husband, but Dr. Hernandez refused to answer. Prior to the meeting on December 13, 2010, Dr. Hernandez had never spoken of her living arrangement or sexual relations with her ex-husband to Dr. Ferrill. Further, prior to the meeting on December 13, 2010, Dr. Ferrill was not aware of Dr. Hernandez's living arrangements. Dr. Ferrell believed that she was required to report any University policy violation or potential violation of which she was or became aware. As a result, Dr. Ferrill advised Dr. Hernandez that she (Dr. Ferrell) was required to report the potential policy violation to her (Dr. Ferrill's) supervisor. After the meeting on December 13, 2010, Dr. Ferrill reported to Provost Joseph Kloba that Dr. Hernandez had admitted to violating the University's policy against extramarital relations. Once Dr. Ferrill made the report to Provost Kloba, she considered that her duty to report was fulfilled. Dr. Ferrell spoke to no one else regarding Dr. Hernandez's living arrangements. Provost Kloba determined that no violation of the University's policy existed and that no further action was warranted. Once Provost Kloba made his decision, Dr. Ferrill considered Dr. Hernandez's living arrangements to be a non-issue. Dr. Hernandez's Living Arrangements In October 2010, Dr. Hernandez's ex-husband had a health crisis while visiting family in Georgia. Due to his health crisis, he suffered, among other things, cognitive deficits and became totally disabled. In November 2010, Dr. Hernandez moved her ex-husband to E. J. Healey Rehabilitation Facility in West Palm Beach, Florida. He remained at the facility until March 2011. The evidence demonstrates that no one at the University was aware of Dr. Hernandez's living arrangements until the meeting on December 13, 2010. Post December 13, 2010 Meeting and Non-Renewal of Contract After the meeting on December 13, 2010, Drs. Ferrill and Wahba gave Dr. Hernandez an extension to respond to her FAPR. Three days later, on December 16, 2010, Dr. Hernandez submitted her response. In her response, Dr. Hernandez indicated that there was no need to make any significant improvements. Further, she indicated that she did not understand the issues presented and would discuss the comments with the University's Human Resources Office. As to students' critical comments, she indicated that she did not know what to do with the comments, but would conduct a research project about it. In January 2011, Dr. Hernandez participated in a group interview conducted by the School of Pharmacy for the position of Dean of Faculty. The interviewee was Seena Haines, Ph.D. Dr. Hernandez asked Dr. Haines questions which appeared to relate to the spring 2010 incident that Dr. Hernandez had with then Dean Brown when he confronted Dr. Hernandez about the email she (Dr. Hernandez) had sent to Dr. Ferrill. Dr. Hernandez's questions to Dr. Haines were considered by Dr. Ferrill to be inappropriate for a group interview; by Dr. Dana Brown to be unprofessional; and by Dr. Wahba to be out of place. Dr. Ferrill recommended to Provost Kloba that Dr. Hernandez's contract not be renewed for another year. Dr. Ferrill's recommendation was based upon the deficiency issues identified in the FAPR regarding Dr. Hernandez's teaching and collegiality and upon Dr. Hernandez's lack of interest in improving her deficiencies. Provost Kloba, who was also the Chief Academic Officer, was responsible for making the decision as to whether to renew Dr. Hernandez's contract. He reviewed, among other things, her FAPRs, including the student comments and her responses, and received feedback from Drs. Ferrill, Wahba and Brown (Dean Brown in spring 2010). Provost Kloba decided to not renew Dr. Hernandez's contract for another year. Dr. Hernandez's living arrangements were not considered and were not a factor in Provost Kloba's decision of non-renewal. Regardless with whom Dr. Hernandez was living, Provost Kloba would not have renewed her contract. By letter dated February 1, 2011, Provost Kloba informed Dr. Hernandez that her contract would not be renewed for another year. By letter dated February 4, 2011, Provost Kloba informed Dr. Hernandez that, effective February 1, 2011, through June 30, 2011, she was placed on paid administrative leave. She received all pay and benefits through the expiration of her annual contract, i.e., June 30, 2011. Divorced Faculty Members The evidence demonstrates that the University employs several faculty members who are divorced. The evidence demonstrates that Dr. Brown (Dean Brown) is divorced. Comparative Employees The evidence fails to demonstrate any similarly situated employee who was not divorced and was treated more favorably than Dr. Hernandez. The evidence fails to demonstrate any employee who was accused of the same or similar conduct and was treated more favorably than Dr. Hernandez. Current Employment Currently, and since January 2012, Dr. Hernandez is a Professor of Medical Sciences at California North State University, College of Pharmacy. She is subject to a yearly appointment. Her yearly salary is $110,000.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the discrimination complaint of Maria Hernandez, Ph.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 4th day of February, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Stuart Silverman, Esquire Stuart Silverman, P.A. Post Office Box 812315 Boca Raton, Florida 33481 Peter L. Sampo, Esquire Lisa Ann McGlynn, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. 121 Majorca Avenue, Third Floor Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the employer, School Board of Alachua County, committed an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against Ms. Bates on the basis of her handicap. At the commencement of the hearing the Petitioner moved for a judgment on the pleadings or a determination that the facts were not in dispute on the basis of the respondent having failed to file an answer in accordance with Rule 22T- 9.008(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Hearing Officer reserved ruling on the motion and provided the parties an opportunity to present their evidence. Both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and both parties offered exhibits. On March 17, 1988, a transcript of the hearing was filed and on March 28, 1988, both parties filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Careful consideration has been given to the parties' post-hearing submissions during the formulation of this Recommended Order. Specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Ann Bates, began employment with the Respondent, School Board of Alachua County, on August 15, 1983, as a classroom aide assigned to Stephen Foster Elementary School. In August of 1985, she was transferred to the A. Quinn Jones Center and assigned to the classroom of a teacher named Sue Clarey. The Principal at A. Quinn Jones Center had initially contacted the Petitioner and asked her to work at his school. The Petitioner continued to be employed by the Respondent until March 14, 1986. The Petitioner's last job title was Paraprofessional II. On February 28, 1986, the Petitioner saw Dr. W. Alvin McElveen and was given a definite diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. This diagnosis was confirmed by Dr. Richard Cunningham in early March, 1986. Petitioner has been a patient of Dr. Richard Cunningham for approximately four and a half years. In March of 1986, Dr. Richard Cunningham did not place any restrictions on Petitioner's employment. Petitioner's duties as a Paraprofessional II at A. Quinn Jones included feeding and tutoring students, as well as assisting the teacher in general clerical and administrative tasks. At all times the Petitioner was able to satisfactorily complete the job duties of a Paraprofessional II. On March 3, 1986, the Petitioner notified Mr. Jeff Jones, the Principal at A. Quinn Jones Center, that she had been diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis. In March of 1986, the Petitioner took six days off from work on sick leave (March 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11) and returned to work on the morning of Wednesday, March 12, 1986. On March 12, 1986, the school secretary, Ms. Dorothy Emo, placed a handwritten note in the Petitioner's school mailbox, which stated, in substance, "Please see Mr. Jones at your convenience." It was the common practice of the Principal to speak informally with any employee who was returning from more than a day or two of sick leave to ascertain how the employee was doing and to make sure that the employee felt well enough to return to work. On the morning of Wednesday, March 12, 1986, the Petitioner left the classroom, informing the teacher that she was going to see Mr. Jones, and went to the front office. She met with Mr. Jones at about 10:00 a.m. In the Principal's office, the Petitioner expressed her frustration with her medical condition and stated that it was her desire to resign her employment. In response to the Petitioner's expressed desire to resign, Mr. Jones asked the school secretary to bring in a "resignation form," which she did. It was a new form, with which the Principal was not familiar. The Petitioner and Mr. Jones then discussed her leaving employment and the effect it would have on her ability to collect unemployment compensation. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Jones believed that a voluntary resignation would preclude her from being able to receive unemployment compensation. This belief, as it turned out, was erroneous. The Respondent School District had recently revised its separation form to include all three types of separations (voluntary resignation, involuntary termination, and retirement) on one form. Previously, resignation and terminations were processed on separate, different forms. The Principal, Mr. Jones, had never used this particular separation form. Further, the Principal had never used any separation form which indicated that an employee was being involuntarily terminated. He was also unsure what was meant by the term "involuntary termination." The Petitioner and Mr. Jones believed, albeit erroneously, that for the purpose of permitting the Petitioner to separate from employment and also collect unemployment compensation, the "involuntary termination" selection was the appropriate choice. This was by their mutual agreement. Mr. Jones had the form prepared in that manner and then he and the Petitioner signed the form. Mr. Jones gave a copy of the signed form to the Petitioner (which was contrary to the normal procedure) and then forwarded the original of the form to the district office for processing. Mr. Jones also called Will Griffin, the district supervisor of personnel, informed him of Ms. Bates' resignation, and told him that the form was en route. The above-mentioned form was received by Mr. Griffin around noon on March 12, 1986. Upon reviewing the form, he realized that it had been filled out incorrectly and he immediately so advised Mr. Jones by telephone and told Mr. Jones that the Petitioner would have to complete the proper section of the form. The Respondent's School District's procedures are that "involuntary termination" is used for only three types of separation: (a) dismissal of an employee, (b) job abandonment by an employee, or (c) deletion of a position. A school principal does not have the authority to involuntarily terminate an employee or to fill out a form to that effect. The "involuntary termination" form was, therefore, a nullity and of no effect. That form was not processed by the district office staff and was never acted on by the School Board. Principal Jones told his school secretary of the error on the form and asked her to prepare a corrected form. The corrected form indicated that Petitioner was resigning and was not being involuntarily terminated. The corrected form was signed by the Petitioner and the Principal on March 14, 1986, and it was then processed by the district office. At its regularly scheduled meeting on April 15, 1986, the Respondent School Board acted on the Petitioner's resignation and accepted it in a routine manner. At the time the Petitioner signed the second form on March 14, 1986, she did not indicate to the Principal in any way that she had changed her mind about wanting to resign. If the Petitioner had objected and had not signed the resignation form, she would have remained employed by the Respondent. At any time prior to the School Board's formal approval of a resignation, an employee may withdraw a resignation. At no time prior to the School Board's action on April 15, 1986, did the Petitioner withdraw her resignation or notify Mr. Jones or any other representative of the School Board of any change of mind regarding her resignation. At the time of the Petitioner's resignation, no steps had been taken by Principal Jones, or by any other representative of the School District, to dismiss the Petitioner from her employment. At that time the possibility of dismissing the Petitioner had not even been discussed. The Petitioner applied for and was awarded unemployment compensation on the basis that she had resigned her employment for health reasons. It is the policy and practice of the Respondent to provide all employees with a written notice of deficiencies on a job performance warning record before any dismissal action is begun. It is also the Respondent's policy and practice that prior to initiation of dismissal proceedings, an employee's immediate supervisor takes steps to try to resolve any problem before referring the matter to the district supervisor. Employees are normally suspended with pay pending an investigation of the basis for proposed dismissal, and actual dismissal is only carried out by the School Board after the employee has been given an opportunity for a hearing. None of these things took place with regard to the Petitioner, because the School Board was not trying to and did not dismiss her. The Respondent has a policy of providing for grievances by its employees who believe they have been treated unfairly. The Petitioner did not file a grievance with the School Board.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Benny O. Tjia, should be suspended from his position with the University for one semester and be required to reimburse the University for one working day?
Findings Of Fact Benny O. Tjia has been employed by the University since July 1, 1975. Dr. Tjia has been employed as an Extension Floriculture Specialist in the Department of Ornamental Horticulture of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (hereinafter referred to as "IFAS"), of the University. IFAS, including the Department of Ornamental Horticulture, provides teaching, research and extension services at the University. Dr. Tjia is a tenured Associate Professor at the University with an appointment in the Department of Ornamental Horticulture. Dr. Tjia's duties include the planning, developing and implementation of off-campus educational programs and the dissemination of research information to plant growers and the public in the area of floriculture. Dr. Tjia is the only Extension Floriculture Specialist working throughout the State of Florida. The chairman of the Department of Ornamental Horticulture, and Dr. Tjia's immediate supervisor, is Dr. Thomas Sheehan. Dr. Sheehan's immediate supervisor is Dr. John T. Woeste, IFAS Dean for Extension. On July 22, 1987, Dr. Tjia requested approval of leave with pay for the period October 12-27, 1987. The purpose of this leave was to participate as a speaker at a conference scheduled for October 15-17, 1987, and to participate in a post-conference seminar on October 22, 1987, at Massey University, New Zealand. Dr. Sheehan, in a memorandum dated August 11, 1987, approved Dr. Tjia's request for leave with pay, but only for the period of October 13-24, 1987. Dr. Sheehan advised Dr. Tjia that any additional time off would have to be taken as annual leave. Dr. Sheehan further advised Dr. Tjia that he should inform Dr. Sheehan in advance of any future negotiations for proposed out-of-state or out- of-country travel in order to avoid any embarrassment to Dr. Tjia or the University if leave is not approved. In late August, 1987, Dr. Tjia discussed with an Australian businessman the possibility of presenting a series of seminars in Australia from October 26, 1987, through November 10, 1987. Dr. Tjia decided that be would request approval of leave without pay to attend the seminars in Australia. He realized, however, that he did not have sufficient annual leave to cover the period of time he planned to spend in Australia. Therefore, Dr. Tjia requested the payment of 2,000.00 as compensation for his participation in the Australian seminars, which he believed would reimburse him for the leave without pay he would have to take from the University. During the first week of September, 1987, the Australian businessman and Dr. Tjia agreed that Dr. Tjia would participate in the seminars. Despite Dr. Sheehan's instructions to discuss out-of-county travel with him before accepting, Dr. Tjia did not inform Dr. Sheehan of, or obtain approval for, the Australian seminars before or after agreeing to participate. On Friday October 9, 1987, Dr. Tjia left a request for annual leave for the period October 26, 1987, through November 2, 1987, with Dr. Sheehan's secretary Dr. Tjia did not indicate in his request that he intended to participate in seminars in Australia during this period of time. Instead, Dr. Tjia indicated that he intended to visit relatives. On October 9, 1987, Dr. Tjia also left a request for leave without pay for the period November 3-13, 1987. Again, Dr. Tjia did not indicate in his request that he intended to participate in seminars in Australia during this period of time. Instead, Dr. Tjia indicated that he was requesting the leave for "personal reasons." Dr. Tjia did not discuss or attempt to discuss his leave requests of October 9, 1987, with Dr. Sheehan. When Dr. Sheehan received Dr. Tjia' leave requests on October 9, 1987, he attempted to contract Dr. Tjia to determine more information about Dr. Tjia's leave plans. Dr. Sheehan was unable to contact Dr. Tjia, however. After being informed that Dr. Tjia was running errands and would not return to this office on October 9, 1987, Dr. Sheehan wrote a memorandum to Dr. Tjia granting his request for annual leave on October 26, 1987, through November 2, 1987, and denying his request for leave without pay. A copy of this memorandum was left on Dr. Tjia's desk and in his University mail box and the original was mailed to Dr. Tjia's residence. Dr. Sheehan did not attempt to call Dr. Tjia. Dr. Tjia left the University on October 9, 1987. He left Gainesville, Florida, on Saturday October 10, 1987. Dr. Tjia never informed Dr. Sheehan that he intended on leaving Gainesville on October 10, 1987, instead of October 13, 1987, the first day of his approved leave. Dr. Tjia did not return to the University until November 16, 1987. Dr. Tjia was absent from the University without approval on October 12, 1987, and from November 3, 1987, through November 15, 1987. Dr. Tjia did not submit his request for approval of his proposed absence without pay until the last minute and did not wait until he determined whether his absence had been approved because he did not believe that his request would be approved. Dr. Tjia did not report to work on Monday, October 12, 1987. Dr. Tjia did not receive approval for his absence on October 12, 1987. October 12, 1987, was Columbus Day. Although Columbus Day is a Federal holiday, it is not a holiday for University personnel. Although Dr. Tjia was told by the department's administrative secretary that Columbus Day was a day, Dr. Tjia should have known that Columbus Day had not been a holiday for University personnel ever since his employment by the University in 1975. Additionally, Dr. Tjia was provided with a list of holidays in a memorandum which did not list Columbus Day as an authorized holiday. Dr. Tjia's testimony that he believed Columbus Day was a holiday is inconsistent with the fact that he requested approval of leave on July 22, 1987, for October 12, 1987. On or about October 19, 1987, Dr. Sheehan realized that Dr. Tjia had not receive the memorandum disapproving Dr. Tjia's request for leave without pay before his departure on October 10, 1987. Therefore, Dr. Sheehan telephoned Dr. Tjia's host in New Zealand an left a message requesting that Dr. Tjia call him. On October 21, 1987, Dr. Tjia telephoned Dr. Sheehan. Dr. Sheehan read his October 9, 1987, memorandum denying Dr. Tjia's request for leave without pay to Dr. Tjia over the telephone. Dr. Tjia was informed that he must return to the University on November 3, 1987 and that his failure to do so would constitute grounds for disciplinary action, including dismissal. On October 29, 1987, Dr. Sheehan received a letter dated October 23, 1987, from Dr. Tjia. In this letter Dr. Tjia indicated that he would not return to the University on November 3, 1987, as instructed by Dr. Sheehan. Dr. Tjia indicated that he would not return because he believed that his cancellation of his commitments would cause embarrassment to himself and the University. On October 30, 1987, Dr. Sheehan sent Dr. Tjia a mailgram, in care of Dr. Tjia's Australian host. Dr. Sheehan informed Dr. Tjia in the mailgram that his failure to report to the University a directed would constitute insubordination, neglect of his responsibilities to the University and a violation of the University's rules and regulations. Dr. Sheehan also called the spouse of Dr. Tjia's Australian host twice and asked her to ask Dr. Tjia to call him. Dr. Tjia received the information contained in Dr. Sheehan's mailgram of October 30, 1987, and Dr. Sheehan's request to call. Dr. Tjia did not call Dr. Sheehan, however, because he knew what Dr. Sheehan was trying to tell him. Dr. Tjia returned to the University on November 16, 1987. Dr. Tjia knew that he would be disciplined for failing to return to the University on November 3, 1987. Dr. Tjia did not visit relatives during the period of his annual leave as he indicated he planned to do in his request for annual leave. On November 19, 1987, Dr. Sheehan delivered a letter to Dr. Tjia from Dr. Woeste dated November 16, 1987. In this letter Dr. Tjia was informed that the University intended to suspend him without pay for the Spring Semester of 1988 (January 4 - May 5, 1988). Dr. Tjia was also informed that he would be required to reimburse the University for his salary for October 12, 1987. Dr. Tjia was informed that these actions were being taken because of his absence from the University on October 12, 1987, and during the period of November 3-13, 1987, without approval. Dr. Tjia was also informed that his actions constituted insubordination and neglect of his responsibilities to the University. Finally, Dr. Tjia was informed that he had the right to respond to the letter in writing or he could request a meeting within ten days of receipt of the letter. Dr. Tjia did not respond to the letter. By letter dated December 9, 1987, Dr. Woeste informed Dr. Tjia that the University had decided to take the actions outlined in the letter of November 16, 1987. Dr. Tjia was advised that he had the right to request a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Dr. Tjia requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The proposed action of the University was held in abeyance pending conclusion of the hearing. During the period of Dr. Tjia's absence without authorization from November 3, 1987, through November 13, 1987, Dr. Tjia's duties and responsibilities as an employee of the University were not carried out by Dr. Tjia. As a full-time faculty member, Dr. Tjia was required to be present at the University to preform day-to-day responsibilities unless his absence was approved by the University. Dr. Tjia did not perform these duties. Dr. Tjia received the University Faculty Handbook in January of 1984 and in the Fall of 1987. At page 24 of the 1987 Handbook it is provided: A leave of absence without pay may be granted by the President when it is determined that the leave of absence is an important benefit to the faculty member and the University. Pursuant to this provision, faculty members are required to provide sufficient information to demonstrate the benefit to the University and the faculty member of any leave without pay requested by a faculty member. IFAS Internal Management Memorandum Number 6C1-6.30-1-11, which Dr. Tjia received, requires that University faculty members submit requests for leave without pay well in advance of the period of leave. Dr. Tjia did not comply with the portion of the Handbook quoted, supra, by providing the University with sufficient information in his request for leave without pay of October 9, 1987, or otherwise, which demonstrated any benefit to the University. Dr. Tjia also did not comply with IFAS Internal Management Memorandum Number 6C1-6.30-1-11. Instead, Dr. Tjia waited until the day of his departure from the University and the day before his departure from Gainesville before submitting his request for leave without pay. Dr. Tjia intentionally waited until October 9, 1987, to request leave without pay because he was afraid it would be denied. No other employee of the Department of Ornamental Horticulture has requested leave without pay. Leave without pay has not been approved by the University for faculty members who desire to engage in the type of activities Dr. Tjia engaged in while he was absent from the University without approval. Leave without pay has only been granted for short periods of time when an employee has been inadvertently unable to return to the University as planned. Leave without pay has not been granted under circumstances similar to those involved in this case. Dr. Tjia, as a University faculty member, is charged with knowledge of the rules of the University and the Board of Regents. Dr. Tjia was aware, or should have been aware of the pertinent rules an regulations concerning leave and disciplinary matters. He also knew that he was in violation of those rules when he failed to return to the University on November 3, 1987, as directed by Dr. Sheehan. Dr. Tjia also knew that suspension was one of the penalties that could be imposed for neglect of duties or for insubordination. The University has suspended faculty members for misconduct. The University has not suspended any faculty member under circumstances similar to this case but no faculty member has failed to return to the University when instructed to do so other than Dr. Tjia. Dr. Tjia's failure to return to the University at the end of his annual leave on November 3, 1987, could have been treated by the University as a voluntary resignation pursuant to Rule 6C1-7.029(11), Florida Administrative Code. The University chose the lesser penalty of suspension to give Dr. Tjia an opportunity to remain with the University. The University chose suspension as the penalty in order to impress upon Dr. Tjia and other employees the seriousness of Dr. Tjia's offense, especially in light of his prior leave- related disciplinary problems. Dr. Tjia has been reprimanded and suspended by the University in the past for leave-related violations at the University. On August 30, 1984, Dr. Tjia received a written reprimand for absence from the University without approval. On September 27, 1985, Dr. Tjia was suspended without pay for ten days for being absent from the University without approval and for misrepresentations to University officials.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the University issue a Final Order requiring Dr. Tjia reimburse the University within thirty days of the date of the Final Order for his absence from the University on October 12, 1987, and suspending Dr. Tjia from his position with the University without pay for one semester. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5611 The University has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The University's Proposed Finding of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-3. 2 4-6. 3 7-8. 4 9-11. 5 12-13 and 17. 6 12-14. 7 12-13 and 31-33. 8 15. 9 16-17 and 19. 10 20-21. 11 22. 12 23-25. 13 26, 28 and 36. 14 27. 15 26 and 28. 16 28. 17 29. 18 36 and 39. 19 40. 20 41. 21 30. 22 34-35. 23 37-38. COPIES FURNISHED: Marshall M. Criser, Jr. President University of Florida 226 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611 Isis Carbajal de Garcia Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel University of Florida 207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, Florida 32011 Harry F. Chiles Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1501 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 625 Alachua, Florida 32015
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of willful absence from duty, in violation of Section 1012.67, Florida Statutes; willful neglect of duty, in violation of Sections 447.209, 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.40, Florida Statutes; gross insubordination, in violation of Sections 447.209, 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.40, Florida Statutes; and incompetence, in violation of Sections 447.209, 1012.22(1)(f), and 1012.40, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact During the 2001-02 school year, Petitioner employed Respondent as a part-time cafeteria worker at Ludlam Elementary School. Except for the manager, all food workers at the school are part-time employees. The absence of any of these workers, especially without notice on the morning of the nonappearance, places a considerable burden on the other cafeteria workers and jeopardizes the provision of what may be the first meal of the day for many students. By January 24, 2002, Respondent had been absent 16 days, including the four consecutive days preceding Christmas vacation, four of five days in mid-January, and January 22-24, 2002. Responding to this problem, the school principal sent Respondent a memorandum dated January 24 and ordering her to notify the principal of when Respondent intended to return to work and use leave procedures in the future. On the same date, the principal sent another memorandum to Respondent ordering her to communicate directly to the principal when Respondent intended to be absent and document future absences with medical excuses. Respondent signed this memorandum, indicating receipt. On Sunday, January 27, 2002, Respondent telephoned the principal and told her that Respondent would be returning to work the following day. The next day, when Respondent appeared at work, the principal talked to her about Respondent's professional responsibilities and offered to refer her to the Employee Assistance Program for help with a problem with alcohol that Respondent said that she had. Respondent declined the offer and said she would follow the principal's orders. The next day, Respondent arrived to work late. The following day, Respondent did not report to work or call in to notify the school of her absence. The two succeeding days, Respondent did not report to work, but she called the principal to say that she was in the hospital. However, on the last day of the week, Respondent did not report to work and did not call in. On February 11, 2002, the principal conducted a conference-for-the-record (CFR) with Respondent. Respondent said that she had been a recovering alcoholic for 15 years and had been encountering problems with alcohol since October. The principal again offered a referral to the Employee Assistance Program, but Respondent said that she was already in counseling. The principal warned Respondent that further noncompliance with her order would be gross insubordination. On February 19 and 20, 2002, Respondent was again absent and again failed to notify anyone at school of her absence. On the next day, the principal sent another warning memorandum to Respondent. On February 26 and March 11, 2002, Respondent again missed work and again failed to call anyone at the school. Respondent never provided medical documentation for these absences. Also, on March 5 and 8, 2002, Respondent was tardy without calling in to say that she would be late. On March 11, Respondent also failed to attend an appointment that the principal had scheduled for her with the Employee Assistance Program. Respondent told the principal that she would reschedule the appointment, but later failed to appear at this appointment. On September 20, 2002, the district office conducted a CFR. Out of 18 workdays in the new 2002-03 school year, Respondent had already missed four. For the prior school year, Respondent had been absent 47 times and late 11 times. Of the 47 absences, Respondent never called the principal 23 times and never even called the school 11 times. Respondent at first claimed that she had only been absence once that school year, but later admitted to four absences. She then explained that two of the absences were due to a job interview and an accident at the train station. On January 16, 2003, Petitioner advised Respondent that it had suspended her and initiated dismissal proceedings for the reasons set forth above. Petitioner has proved that Respondent is guilty of willful absence from duty without leave by repeated absences without leave and without notification on the day of the absence; willful neglect of duty by repeated absences, repeated failures to advise the school of absences, and repeated failures to provide medical documentation for absences; gross insubordination for the repeated disregard of the principal's order to call in before absences and document absences; and incompetence for the failure to perform her job duties adequately.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Merrett R. Stierheim Interim Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Denise Wallace Legal Department The School Board of Miami-Dade County 1452 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carleen Braddy 1884 Northwest 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33142
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the admissible oral and documentary evidence adduced in this cause, the following pertinent facts are found: Petitioner received his bachelor of science and master of science degrees in mathematics from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1963 and 1966 respectively. In 1969, petitioner was awarded his doctoral degree in mathematics from the University of Maryland, where he held a National Science Foundation Fellowship for the academic year 1968-69. In September of 1969, petitioner began his teaching and research appointment with respondent as an assistant professor of mathematics, a tenure-earning position. Under successive one year contracts, petitioner has been employed by respondent for seven years, with annual raises in salary and favorable annual evaluations. Prior to 1970, the university had two separate mathematics departments. The math department within the College of Basic Studies offered only freshman and sophomore math courses and the math department within the College of Liberal Arts provided upper level undergraduate math courses and those offered in the master's degree program. In 1970, the two departments were merged and became a single department within the College of Natural Sciences. In 1971, the math department began its Ph.D. program with emphasis on applied mathematics. During the early stages of the merger between the two separate math departments, conflict and dissension among faculty members existed. This conflict was manifest in the removal of the department chairman, Dr. Jogindar Ratti, in 1972. Petitioner, along with many other faculty members, played an active role in the removal of Ratti. In May of 1972, a poll among faculty members was taken as to their preference between twenty-nine faculty members for an interim chairman. In this poll, petitioner ranked tenth out of twenty-nine. Dr. Ratti ranked twenty-ninth and Dr. Manoug Manougian ranked twenty-eighth. The testimony showed that Manougian's rating was due to his close social and philosophical affiliation with the removed chairman, Dr. Ratti. Dr. Fred Zerla, who ranked fourteenth in the faculty poll, was appointed Acting Chairman by the administration and a search committee was formed to seek a new chairman. In 1974, after the search committee was unable to secure a candidate, Dr. Manougian was appointed by the administration as chairman. Petitioner, along with several other members of the faculty and the search committee, voiced objections thereto. Petitioner was involved in another sensitive issue within the department. Due to his interest in the course being taught, petitioner served on a textbook selection committee, in spite of warnings from several faculty members that such service could jeopardize his tenure consideration. This committee rejected the use of a textbook coauthored by Dr. Ratti and Dr. Manougian. Dr. Manougian felt that the committee made a poor choice in rejecting his book, but testified that this played no part in his evaluation of petitioner for tenure. Another member of the department, Dr. Samuel Isaak, who felt priority should be given to faculty-written textbooks, strongly expressed his objection to the faculty regarding this committee's rejection of the Ratti-Manougian text. The faculty voted to uphold the committee's conclusion. The open conflict and dissension within the math department has abated somewhat since Manougian's chairmanship. However, there is strong evidence that philosophical divergence and factionalization still exists among the faculty members. This divergence centers in part upon issues of personality and competence and in part upon the issues of the relative importance of the graduate versus the undergraduate program and the relative need for active research mathematicians who can attract and direct students pursuing graduate degrees versus quality teaching in the undergraduate as well as the graduate programs. The University of South Florida presently has a student enrollment of over 23,000. In any given quarter, approximately one-fourth of this enrollment, or almost 6,000 students, are taking math courses. There are thirty-one faculty members within the department and approximately twenty students are enrolled in the mathematics doctoral program. Approximately another twenty students are enrolled in the master's level program and are potential Ph.D. candidates. Some 150 math majors are enrolled in the undergraduate program. Thus, it is clear that a major responsibility of the mathematics department is to provide instruction to undergraduates and nonmath majors. In his fifth year of continuous employment at the University, petitioner was considered for tenure, and a decision was made to defer final consideration for one year. From the time of his employment with respondent to the present, tenure has been described by the Board of Regents and the respondent as a condition attained through highly competent research and teaching, or other scholarly activities, length of service and contributions to society. The guidelines for tenure have included a requirement for a high degree of competency in three areas: teaching, research or other creative activities and service, with emphasis placed, by Florida Statute, upon teaching. In the 1974/75 academic year, petitioner, then in his sixth year of continuous employment, prepared what is known as a "tenure packet" for consideration by those who would be voting on the issue, utilizing a standardized form and supplementing it with additional materials and correspondence. Included on the form was a listing of professional meetings and seminars attended and addressed, membership in professional and civic organizations, two articles published or accepted for publication in refereed journals, three nonpublished works and service on University committees. Briefly summarized, the results of the tenure consideration process were as follows: A peer evaluation of petitioner was completed by an advisory committee. This committee was composed of one person from each of the four programs into which the math department is organized. One member of the committee abstained from all voting since he was untenured and under consideration for promotion. The other three members of this committee were Dr. Ratti, Dr. Isaak and Dr. Yo-Feng-Lin. Dr. Lin testified that ratings were often the result of a compromise vote by the advisory committee. This committee rated petitioner on a five point scale in four areas. In teaching effectiveness, petitioner was rated 4; in research and creative activity, between 1 and 2; in service, 3; and in overall quality, between 2 and 3. The tenured members of the math department faculty voted thirteen in favor of tenure and five against tenure. Two tenured faculty members did not vote. A joint meeting of the department's advisory committee and executive committee took place. This, incidentally, was the first time that the executive committee had been used in tenure decisions. In his statement regarding tenure for petitioner, Manougian represented the vote of this committee to be five against tenure, two for tenure and one abstention. Chairman Manougian evaluated petitioner on a five point scale in four areas. Petitioner was rated four in teaching effectiveness; between one and two in research and creative activity; between three and four in service and between two and three in overall quality. Dr. Manougian recommended that petitioner not be granted tenure. He concluded that petitioner was a competent lecturer and interested in mathematics. In the area of scholarly activities, Manougian concluded that petitioner's performance was below average. Dr. Manougian felt that petitioner had not demonstrated a high degree of competence in his six years at the University, that he was not qualified to direct graduate students, and that there was little evidence of scholarly activities on the part of petitioner, even though petitioner had been assigned time for research activities and had taught on the average of only eight hours per quarter. Dr. Manougian stated that his recommendation was based upon consideration and evaluation of petitioner's performance of duties, Board of Regents policies regarding tenure, the educational goals and objectives of the math department, the recommendations of petitioner's colleagues and references and the general evaluations of three internationally known mathematicians from other institutions. Dr. Manougian represented that these outside mathematicians "did not recommend Dr. Gard for tenure." Subsequent letters from these three mathematicians regarding Manougian's citation of their evaluations in his recommendation reveal that their evaluations were made orally in an informal manner, considering only the vita of petitioner and the number of his publications. All three clearly indicated that they felt that quality of research and quality of teaching should be considered in tenure decisions. Since they indicated they had no knowledge of his teaching ability or the quality of his research, it is clear that none of these men intended to convey a specific recommendation against tenure for petitioner. Seven nonadministrative tenured faculty members, sitting as the College of Natural Sciences Tenure Committee, voted unanimously to recommend a denial of tenure for petitioner. Dr. Isaak served on this committee and was the only representative from the math department. This committee based its recommendation on the factors that although petitioner appeared to be an adequate teacher, his research record was poor and his chairman and the joint executive-advisory committee recommended denial of tenure. The College Tenure Committee further noted that petitioner "has indicated he is not interested in research by his request. . .for more teaching assignments and less research time." The Dean of the College of Natural Sciences recommended that petitioner be denied tenure. The Vice-President for Academic Affairs recommended that tenure be denied. This recommendation was based upon a consideration of petitioner's peer evaluation and the chairman's evaluation for overall quality, the chairman's recommendation of denial and the chairman's statement that petitioner was not adequately qualified to direct graduate students in the area of applied mathematics. Petitioner was timely notified of the respondent's decision that his employment contract would not be renewed after Quarter III of the 1975-76 academic year and that the last day of his employment would be June 17, 1976. Informal grievance proceedings within the University were thereafter instituted by petitioner. The matter not having been resolved by such informal means, President Mackey ordered that the petitioner's complaint be considered in a plenary proceeding as provided by 6C-5.08 of the Florida Administrative Code. The complaint was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and the undersigned Hearing Officer was assigned to conduct the plenary proceedings. The overwhelming weight of the evidence adduced at the hearing illustrates that in the area of teaching, petitioner is one of the outstanding members of the math department faculty. There was uncontradicted evidence from both students and colleagues that petitioner is innovative, creative and demanding in his teaching and has a good rapport with and a genuine concern for his students. He is described as being alert; well organized, encouraging and enthusiastic in his classroom teaching. His students find him serious and challenging, yet available and accessible for assistance. He stresses student participation and a practical approach to mathematics. His student evaluations show him to be consistently rated above the college median. Petitioner has taught courses ranging from the basic 100 level through the 500 level and has directed, without a reduction in his teaching load, the graduate student research seminar for a year. He has also conducted graduate level independent study programs and has helped develop the basic math sequence required of almost all students at USF. He has been a highly successful teacher in both the advanced calculus sequence - - the first difficult upper level course required of undergraduate math majors - - and in the engineering calculus courses. Petitioner has not been assigned to teach 600 level courses, nor has he directed any doctoral candidates in his area. Apparently, the reason for the latter is that there are, at present, no doctoral students in his area. Petitioner's assignment of duties with regard to teaching has ranged from 55 to 70 percent. Like most faculty members in the math department, petitioner has usually taught eight hours per quarter, though he has requested the opportunity to teach more than eight hours because of his concern with undergraduate teaching, large class sizes and the use of adjunct teachers. Because of his concern and interest in the advanced calculus course, petitioner began work on an advanced calculus textbook. This work was set aside upon the advise of two of his colleagues, including then Acting Chairman Zerla, that a textbook would not be given substantial credit in his second consideration for tenure and that he should therefore concentrate his efforts upon the publication of a research paper. Petitioner has served on various departmental committees. These include the book committee referred to above, the graduate and undergraduate committees, the library committee, the committee to evaluate teaching performance, the committee to make recommendations on general education course offerings and the curriculum committee. He also served as the coordinator of the Ph.D. preliminary examinations. The testimony was to the effect that petitioner was interested in departmental affairs and was always willing to serve and participate in committee work. Approximately five percent of his time was assigned to the area of service. Petitioner's graduate study was primarily in the areas of topology, dimension theory and lie theory. After coming to USF, he did additional work in the area of semi-groups. As noted above, petitioner has addressed professional meetings and the math honor society at USF. He has attended seminars and meetings. He works on, involves his students in and submits problems printed in the American Mathematical Association's Monthly. Petitioner now has four publications in refereed journals, two of these publications are the result of petitioner's work on his doctoral thesis, and were either completed or in progress before he came to USF. A mathematician who worked with petitioner in his doctoral program described his papers as being of high quality and illustrating "extraordinary breadth in the present age of specialization." For the six years in question, between twenty-five and forty percent of petitioner's time was assigned to research and other creative activities. It was the conclusion of those witnesses who recommended that petitioner not be granted tenure that his performance in the area of research and other creative activities was poor and indicated a lack of interest in research activities, a function considered by them to be vital to a math department with a Ph.D. program. These witnesses believed that publication promotes science, that publications are a by-product of research and that publications are indications of excellence. It was felt that research and teaching - the generation and transmission of knowledge - can not be separated and that those who do research remain close to their students. Those witnesses in favor of tenure for petitioner evaluated his scholarship, research and other creative activities as competent and substantial. They further expressed the opinion that while research is vital to the math department, this fact does not mean that everyone in the department is required to be an active publisher. These witnesses felt that it is wrong to measure the contribution of one so talented in teaching primarily in terms of numbers of publications. By employing professors who are outstanding teachers, others whose competence lies primarily in the research field would be able to concentrate on that area. Many did not feel that a good researcher was necessarily a good teacher, but rather that good teaching is a difficult and demanding competence requiring dedication, effort and concentration. These witnesses felt that research and scholarly activity should not be equated solely with publication, but should include work under development, keeping abreast with new developments in the field, challenging students about the developments and the critical examination of data and concepts. Many members of the math department feel that while the top level administrators of the university have always emphasized quality teaching, good teaching is not rewarded in the math department and research is considered more important; even to the detriment of good teaching. While all witnesses admitted that there is no merit to a simple counting of publications, there was general agreement that a shift has occurred from the university's and the department's initial emphasis on teaching and community service to an emphasis on research. Certainly more emphasis is placed upon publications now than in 1970.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that Dr. James R. Gard be awarded the status of tenure at the University of South Florida. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: President Cecil Mackey University of South Florida ADM 241 Tampa, Florida William D. Holland, Jr., Esquire Suite 304, First National Bank Building 215 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William E. Sizemore, Esquire of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, P.A. Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment for the reasons stated in the Final Disposition - Notice of Dismissal (Notice), dated October 11, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background The College is a public institution of higher education charged with the responsibility of providing post-secondary education. Currently, there are approximately 33,000 students enrolled at the College. It has eight campuses, including the Tarpon Springs Campus. Seven of the campuses have Provosts, who report to the Senior Vice President of Student Services. The College is overseen by a five-member Board of Trustees (Board), each Trustee appointed by the Governor. In this contentious dispute, the College seeks to terminate Respondent from his position as Provost of the Tarpon Springs Campus, a position he has held since 2014 under an annual Contract for Employment for Administrative Personnel of Community Colleges. The contract has been renewed three times, most recently for a term beginning on July 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2018. The College, however, can decline to renew his contract for no cause at the end of each term. The annual contract provides that "the Board may suspend or dismiss the Administrator [Provost] for cause pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Florida Statutes and the Board of Trustees' Rules and Colleges Procedures." Also, under Board Rule 6Hx23-2.2012 (rule 23-2.2012), the College can terminate contractual employees for "immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude." In this case, the College relies upon misconduct in office as the ground for dismissal. The contract requires Respondent to comply with all relevant statutes and rules of the State Board of Education, the State Board of Community Colleges, and the Board of Trustees. He also is required to comply with the terms of any College internal policies and procedures in effect at the time that his first contract became effective, and continuing throughout his term of employment. The position of Provost is a very high-ranking administrative position. The Provost is responsible for overseeing all aspects of student services, which includes student complaints of harassment and discrimination, as well as working in partnership with Academic Deans and the faculty. It is a highly visible position with the College and in the community. The College characterized the position as the "face" of the campus and the Tarpon Springs community. The Provost also serves on various community boards and organizations to represent the views of the College. At the time of Respondent's hire in 2014, the President was Dr. William Law, while Dr. Tonjua Williams served as Senior Vice President, Student Services. Dr. Williams is now the President and the one responsible for making the decision to terminate Respondent's employment, subject to confirmation by a majority of the Trustees. Shortly after his hire in 2014, the College became aware of allegations at his prior employment in Virginia, which involved an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate female employee. Dr. Law directed Dr. Williams to speak with Respondent about the allegations. Respondent acknowledged to her that the allegation was true, and, as a consequence, he was moved from a position on campus to a district office position. Dr. Law decided to give Respondent the opportunity to continue to serve at the College, but the expectations of the College with regard to his personal conduct were made very clear in a memorandum to Respondent from Dr. Williams. It stated in part that "it all boils down to exercising good judgment. Modeling good judgment is highly valued at [the College] and has a significant impact on staff morale, leadership effectiveness and student success." Respondent acknowledged in writing that he received the memorandum. According to the President, this established the expectation that he would always use good judgment in matters concerning the College. During his tenure at the College, Dr. Williams and Respondent had what she characterized as a "great relationship," "a very close working relationship," and one that was "open and transparent." She added "[t]here were no problems with us reaching each other when we needed to speak and talk." The Incident Around 1:30 a.m. on August 21, 2017, a physical altercation between Respondent and a female occurred at her apartment in New Port Richey. Although Respondent is married, the two had been involved in an affair for around two years. The female was not a student or employee of the College. On Thursday, August 31, 2017, Respondent was served with papers requiring him to appear for a hearing in circuit court on a domestic violence injunction involving the female. While attending the hearing on Friday, September 1, 2017, Respondent was arrested by the Pasco County Sheriff's Office and charged with two felonies, one for Burglary - Occupied Dwelling Unarmed (§ 810.02(3)(a), Fla. Stat.), and another for Battery - Commit Domestic Battery by Strangulation (§ 784.041(2)(a), Fla. Stat). Both charges related to the incident that occurred on August 21, 2017. After spending the night in jail, Respondent bonded out on Saturday, September 2, 2017. On October 26, 2017, the charges were dismissed by the State Attorney after he declined to prosecute the matter. Events After the Arrest The College was closed officially for Labor Day weekend on September 2, 3, and 4, 2017. On Tuesday morning, September 5, 2017, Respondent texted Dr. Williams asking, "can we talk privately tomorrow I have a home life situation but I need to converse with you." Respondent knew that Dr. Williams planned to attend a conference at the Tarpon Springs Campus the following day, and he intended to speak with her at that time. Dr. Williams responded "absolutely." Nothing in the text suggests the "home life situation" was related to a legal matter or criminal arrest or that there was any urgency in meeting with her. Nor did it suggest that the subject of the meeting involved something that could potentially affect the College's reputation or his continued employment. In fact, Dr. Williams assumed he wanted to discuss "a personal matter." Due to the threat of Hurricane Irma, then in the Gulf of Mexico and headed towards the state, Dr. Williams did not attend the conference the next day. Also, the College closed officially on September 6, 2017, due to the hurricane and did not reopen officially until September 18, 2017. With the approval of his supervisor, Dr. Rinard, Respondent flew to Maryland, where his wife and children reside. He did not return to Florida until September 13, 2017. During this intervening period, he did not attempt to contact his supervisor or the President regarding his arrest. Even though the College was closed for the hurricane, administrators continued to perform duties and responsibilities related to the safety and security of the College. Dr. Williams conducted at least two conference calls per day via telephone or Skype, where as many as 60 administrators would join in the call to discuss situations on the campuses. Although he was in Maryland much of the time, Respondent joined in the conferences on most, if not all, of those occasions. In fact, on Monday, September 11, 2017, he texted Dr. Williams regarding the situation on the Tarpon Springs campus, which had been conveyed to him by his staff. On September 12, 2017, Respondent texted Dr. Williams and advised he was returning from Maryland. The text stated in part: "I need to speak to you regarding a personal/family matter. I will discuss all in detail with you." Again, it made no reference to his arrest. After he returned to Florida the next day, Respondent and Dr. Williams agreed to meet on September 14, 2017, at a local restaurant. However, the President later informed Respondent that she was unable to make the meeting and needed to reschedule. She attempted to reach him later that day by telephone to reschedule the meeting but was unsuccessful. At that point, she assumed Respondent wished to discuss a personal family matter that did not involve the College. The two exchanged texts again on Sunday, September 17, 2017, but Respondent chose not to mention his arrest. Around noon on September 18, 2017, or 17 days after his arrest, Respondent telephoned Dr. Williams, and, in a 15-minute conversation, he advised her that he had been arrested on September 1, 2017, he was innocent of the charges, and he had retained counsel. He also told Dr. Williams that he was involved in a relationship with a woman that went awry, and the incident was not work-related. Respondent added that he had gone to court on September 1, 2017, to file a restraining order against the female, and he believed he was being scammed.1/ During the call, Dr. Williams told Respondent she needed more details. She specifically asked that he provide a police report with the details of the incident and the name of the victim to verify she was not a student. Dr. Williams also told Respondent that he needed to contact Dr. Rinard, his immediate supervisor, and tell him what had happened. Had Respondent been unable to reach Dr. Williams by telephone on September 18, 2017, his belated efforts to notify the President would be further delayed, as Respondent's first choice was to speak to her one-on-one, or if this was not possible, to discuss the incident by telephone. His actions also raise an inference that he always intended to speak with the President, and not his direct supervisor. Later that same day, September 18, 2017, Respondent spoke with Dr. Rinard by telephone. According to Dr. Rinard, Respondent "informed [him] that he had had an affair, that the woman he had an affair with had pressed charges, he was arrested, that these were all lies, that she was a thief, she had stolen property, [and he] admitted that he was wrong to have had an affair." Dr. Rinard asked Respondent if the incident involved a student or employee or occurred on College property. He was told it did not. He did not provide Dr. Rinard with the name of the victim. The following day, the two again spoke briefly while attending a Board meeting. Respondent asked if he needed anything more in reference to their conversation the previous day and Dr. Rinard answered "no." While at the Board meeting, Respondent spoke privately with a Board member, Trustee Gibbons, and disclosed that he had been arrested. On the evening of September 18, 2017, the President telephoned Respondent and commented that she was looking at the charges on a website. She said she needed more information regarding the incident, but Respondent told her he had no documentation regarding the arrest. During the call, Respondent asked the President to speak with his attorney who could provide any details that she wanted concerning the charges. Although Dr. Williams testified there was no agreement to speak with the attorney, Respondent's criminal attorney, Mr. Theophilopoulos, testified that he understood Dr. Williams had agreed to a conference call around 5:30 p.m. on September 20, 2017, so that he (the attorney) could answer any questions she had. Dr. Williams denies that a conference call was scheduled. Respondent contends otherwise and says he went to his attorney's office and waited for her to call at the scheduled time, and when she did not, they both attempted to call her from his office but were unsuccessful.2/ Whether or not such a call was scheduled, it is undisputed that it never took place. However, Dr. Williams telephoned Respondent around 6:11 p.m. on September 20, 2017, while he was driving home from his attorney's office. The Vice President of Administrative/Business Services & Information Technology, Mr. Miles, participated in the call. Mr. Miles has oversight of the Human Resources Department. During the call, Dr. Williams informed Respondent that he was being placed on administrative leave, with pay and benefits, effective that date. Again, she requested a copy of the police report or details of the incident, as the College needed more information so that it could properly assess the situation. Respondent replied that he had no written reports but his attorney had "new information" regarding the charges. Respondent was told to have his attorney contact the College General Counsel, Ms. Gardner. A few hours after the phone call, Respondent received a memorandum from Dr. Williams via email confirming that he was being placed on administrative leave, with pay and benefits, until further notice. According to Dr. Williams, this would give the College more time to thoroughly review the situation before deciding what action to take. At that time, the College still lacked the name of the victim and detailed information regarding the arrest. On September 20, 2017, Dr. Williams notified three of the five Trustees about the incident and shared with them the information she had gathered up to that point. She also told them she was still "working" on what action to take. Respondent decided to return to Maryland the same evening he was placed on administrative leave. He testified that while driving to Maryland, he received a call from Trustee Gibbons, who told him the Board had voted to not terminate him if he was cleared of the charges. This assertion was not corroborated, and there is no record of any Board meeting at which a vote would have taken place. The Termination Process On September 21, 2017, Dr. Rinard advised Tarpon Springs faculty and staff that Respondent had been placed on administrative leave and that an interim Provost had been appointed. That evening, Dr. Williams and Mr. Miles spoke with Respondent by telephone. They informed him that the College had not yet received information regarding the arrest and instructed Respondent to return his keys. Mr. Miles offered to meet with him to pick up the keys. However, Respondent, who by then was in Maryland, told them he had already mailed his keys to his attorney. The following day, September 22, 2017, through its own investigation, the College was able to obtain a copy of the Pasco County Complaint Affidavit providing additional details regarding the arrest. On Saturday, September 23, 2017, Mr. Miles left a voicemail for Respondent and reminded him that he wanted to meet with him to obtain the keys to College property. Mr. Miles also sent a text, which stated, "Dr. Williams asked me to obtain your work keys so I'm coming today," meaning that he (Mr. Miles) would drive to Respondent's home in Palm Harbor or the campus that day to retrieve the items. In response to Mr. Miles' request, Respondent replied by email that the keys had been sent to his attorney via Federal Express from Maryland. He added that if the College had any further questions, his attorney should be contacted. As of Monday, September 25, 2017, the College had not received any additional information from Respondent or his attorney regarding the arrest, and it had not received Respondent's keys or swipe card. On September 25, 2017, Dr. Williams determined that termination proceedings should begin. The same day, Dr. Rinard issued a memorandum recommending that Respondent be dismissed from employment. The basis for the recommendation was as follows: You have engaged in misconduct by not timely disclosing to the College your arrest and the charges pending against you. You have also engaged in misconduct by not providing the College with documentation related to your arrest and not returning the College's property upon request. You have also engaged in misconduct by not being truthful and forthcoming about the details of your arrest. The memorandum was actually prepared for Dr. Rinard's signature by Mr. Miles, who oversees the Human Resources Department and is also an attorney. According to the memorandum, Respondent's actions violated rule 23-2.2012, which authorizes the College to terminate an administrator for the offense of "misconduct in office." The recommendation also referred to rule 6Hx23-2.19, which outlines the procedure the College must follow when it proposes to terminate an employee. The following day, September 26, 2017, Respondent's attorney emailed the General Counsel asking for directions on where to return the keys and swipe card that were in his possession. She replied that all College property, including any electronic devices or computers, should be delivered to the security desk lobby of the district office in St. Petersburg. On September 28, 2017, five days after Dr. Williams' directive, the keys and swipe card were delivered and secured by the College. The College did not receive Respondent's college- owned laptop and other electronic devices until October 11, 2017. The Predetermination Hearing and Termination After the recommendation to terminate was issued, Respondent requested a predetermination hearing, which is afforded an employee before a decision is made regarding termination. On October 5, 2017, a hearing was conducted by the Senior Vice President of Instructional & Academic Programs, Dr. Anne Cooper, who had the authority to affirm, modify, or reject Dr. Rinard's recommendation. Respondent was accompanied by his attorney at the hearing. At the hearing, Respondent was provided a timeline of events. In response, Respondent presented his own timeline for reporting the arrest, as well as a written statement from the alleged victim in the incident which resulted in his arrest. On October 9, 2017, Dr. Cooper issued a recommendation to the President that Dr. Rinard's decision to terminate Respondent's employment be upheld. The recommendation is found in Petitioner's Exhibit 11. By letter dated October 11, 2017, the President advised Respondent that she was upholding the recommendation for dismissal because Respondent: Failed to timely advise supervisor and college administration of the arrest and nature of the charges; Failed to provide the college with information and requested documentation regarding the arrest and allegations; and Failed to immediately return college property as requested. These grounds differed slightly from those in the memorandum signed by Dr. Rinard on September 25, 2017. Whereas Dr. Rinard's memorandum stated that Respondent had failed to timely inform the College of his arrest and pending charges, Dr. Williams' Notice stated that Respondent had "[f]ailed to timely advise supervisor and college administration of the arrest and nature of the charges." Whereas the memorandum stated that Respondent had failed to provide the college with "documentation related to [his] arrest," the Notice stated that he had "[f]ailed to provide the college with information and requested documentation regarding the arrest and allegations." Finally, whereas the memorandum stated that Respondent had not returned the College's property upon request, the Notice stated that Respondent had "[f]ailed to immediately return college property as requested." Although Respondent contends he is prejudiced because the original charges were modified, the allegations in the memorandum and Notice are substantially the same, and Respondent did not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the minor changes. No matter which set of charges apply, the College has established that the allegations are true. The College Regulations and Policies Both parties agree there is no specific College regulation that requires employees to immediately notify their supervisor or other College officials after they are arrested and charged with a crime. However, Dr. Williams stated there is an expectation that a high-ranking employee, such as a Provost, should immediately notify his supervisor, within one or two working days, given the repercussions to the College that might arise if and when the charges became public.3/ The College relies on rule 23-2.2012 as the "principal ground for prosecution in this case." That rule allows the College to dismiss an employee under written contract for "misconduct in office." The term is not further defined by rule or statute that is applicable to the College. Because Respondent is not a career service employee, the College cannot rely on procedures applicable to that category of employees. Analysis of Respondent's Conduct At hearing, Respondent characterized the incident as "a personal and private matter" that was unrelated to the College. However, he agreed he had an obligation to tell the President and Dr. Rinard about the incident so that the College would not be blind-sided if the incident became public. He contends he made good-faith efforts to contact Dr. Williams by texting her on several occasions to request a meeting. But none of the texts stated, or even suggested, that he needed to speak with her about a work-related matter or that he had been arrested for two felony charges. Moreover, these efforts evidence the fact that he knew he had an obligation to timely, completely, and candidly report anything that could impact his effectiveness as a Provost or the reputation of the College. He failed to fulfill this obligation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that he made no effort to notify his immediate supervisor, Dr. Rinard, regarding his arrest until Dr. Williams instructed him to do so on September 18, 2017. More than likely, this was because he had very little contact with Dr. Rinard, who had assumed his position in July 2017. On the other hand, he had a much closer relationship with the President, and she is the individual who makes the final decision. According to Respondent, it was important that he discuss the matter one-on-one with the President due to the "nature of the sensitivity of the situation itself, my accuracy of understanding the accusations and the false accusations, which were also racially motivated." After Respondent was unsuccessful in personally speaking with the President on September 6, 2017, he should have immediately disclosed his arrest by telephone. The record shows that he had ample opportunity to report the incident to the President by telephone beginning on the day after he was arrested. His failure to do so exhibits a lack of good judgment and trustworthiness. The delay in reporting the arrest from September 1 until September 18, 2017, was unreasonable in light of all circumstances. As Dr. Williams noted, "there is an expectation of good judgment for Provost and campus leaders, Deans, and others in that role. And you always expect your leaders, you know, [to] protect the Institution and make sure they are aware of what is going on." In the same vein, Mr. Miles pointed out that the College ended up having "to get the information ourselves" after Respondent failed to provide additional information regarding the arrest. This led him to ask whether he could "trust Dr. Bright to give me what I need to do the job that I need to do." He added that it was imperative that the College know "what exposure" it might have and how to "react to the situation" should the incident become public. Dr. Cooper, who conducted the predetermination meeting and is the chief academic officer of the College, testified that the Provost is a high-profile position and the face of the campus in the community. She noted that even though the College was closed for a hurricane, "there were multiple opportunities to report the incident to his direct supervisor, Dr. Rinard, and he failed to do so." She also testified that the incident could have blind-sided the President and Board of Trustees and put "the College in a very poor light in regard to the community." She added that "there was potential for multiple issues associated with not reporting it sooner," and "someone in that high-profile leadership position would know that." She summed it up by saying that even if there was not a specific written policy requiring Respondent to promptly report the incident to his superiors, an obligation to do so "is leadership 101." Besides failing to report the incident for 17 days, the evidence as a whole shows that, once the incident was reported, Respondent was non-responsive, uncooperative, and somewhat evasive in responding to Dr. Williams' direction to provide her additional information regarding the arrest and the name of the victim. The President had legitimate reasons for requesting additional information. Without this information, the College was at risk of having its reputation and credibility damaged. As the President pointed out, she asked for information, and when she did not receive it, this forced her to "go dig [herself] to find information" from another source. This should not be the job of the President. Finally, as previously found, Respondent did not promptly turn in all College keys and equipment, despite being told to do so on numerous occasions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that St. Petersburg College enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as Provost at the Tarpon Springs Campus. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of April, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Hamdi A. Mohammed is a tenured professor in the Department of Dental Biomaterials, College of Dentistry, at the University of Florida. He received his dental degree in 1963 from the University of Alexandria in Egypt, obtained a Masters Degree in Prosthetic Dentistry in 1967 at Northwestern University, and his Doctorate Degree in Dental Materials and Engineering from the University of Michigan. Prior to the commencement of his employment at the University of Florida in 1974, he had served as an assistant professor and then associate professor at the University of Connecticut. (Testimony of petitioner, Exhibit 27 (Deposition of Petitioner)) Petitioner was first employed at the University of Florida in 1974 as a professor at a salary of $30,000.00. The notice of appointment stated that the Board of Regents had approved the appointment upon the recommendation of the President for 1974-1975 for a period of twelve months. In 1975, the Department of Dental Biomaterials, among others, was created within the College of Dentistry, and Petitioner was appointed chairman of the Department by Don L. Allen, Dean of the College of Dentistry on March 1 1975. Thereafter, the annual notice of appointment, dated November 25, 1975, which was signed by Dean Allen and Petitioner, reflected that the Board of Regents had approved Petitioner's appointment upon the recommendation of the President, as professor and chairman from July 1, 1975 to June 30, 1976 at a salary of $30,000.00. (Testimony of Petitioner, Allen, Exhibits 4, 6, 26 (Deposition of Allen), 27 (Deposition of Petitioner)) On February 24, 1976, Dean Allen recommended to the Board of Regents that Petitioner be tenured in the rank of professor when he became eligible on July 1, 1976. By letter of August 23, 1976, the President of the University informed "Professor" Mohammed that the Board of Regents had approved the tenure recommendation. Subsequent annual notices of appointment reflected that the President had approved the appointment of Petitioner for the ensuing year under Class Code 9060 as "chairperson and professor" in the College of Dentistry. In each instance, Petitioner acknowledged the appointment by signing the notice of appointment. (Exhibit 4) In the spring of 1980, Dean Allen received complaints against Petitioner from several members of the faculty in the Department of Dental Biomaterials. The complaints dealt generally with Petitioner's performance as chairman of the department primarily with respect to his alleged excessive absences and unavailability in the department, and taking credit for research efforts of other faculty members. Subsequently, on May 19, 1980, Dean Allen met with Petitioner to discuss his annual evaluation. The concerns which were discussed and later memorialized in the written "Annual Departmental Chairperson Review" were the "rather significant turnover of faculty members in the department" and "lack of a significant number of publications from the department." The written evaluation stated that "Dr. Mohammed's department, under his leadership, continues to do a very fine job in the dental educational program as well as the research program". The complaints of the faculty members were not discussed at the meeting. Dean Allen reported the complaints to Dr. Kenneth F. Finger, acting vice president for health affairs, who referred him to Thomas S. Biggs, Jr., the University attorney. Mr. Biggs, in turn, brought in Dr. Catherine A. Longstreth, Special Assistant to the President of the University. After discussing the matter, Biggs assigned an assistant to investigate the complaints and asked Dean Allen to provide him with further information concerning certain of Petitioner's activities in the department. At some point in time after several meetings, Biggs and Longstreth advised the Dean that he had the right to remove or not to reappoint Petitioner as the chairman at the end of the contract period on June 30, 1980, but could not remove him during a contract period without first affording Petitioner a hearing and showing cause for removal. They also agreed to support the Dean if he made the determination not to reappoint Petitioner as chairman of the department. At this time, a report of the investigation conducted by the University attorney's office had been provided to the participants wherein the investigator had found several instances of lack of verification of certain of the complaints made by the faculty members against Petitioner, but was otherwise inconclusive. (Testimony of Longstreth, Biggs, Allen, Exhibits 11, 20, 25 (Deposition of Longstreth), 26 (Deposition of Allen)) Dean Allen reported to Dr. Finger that he intended to meet with Petitioner and tell him that he would not continue as chairman of the department. Dr. Finger suggested that Dean Allen discuss the matter with some of the department's chairmen. On June 19, 1980, Dean Allen informed Petitioner of the faculty complaints and told him that, in view of the gravity of the situation, he considered that he had no option other than to try to rebuild the department with a new chairperson. The following day, Dean Allen met with five of the departmental chairpersons and informed them of his intent not to reappoint Petitioner as chairman of the Department of Dental Biomaterials. Dean Allen also met with Petitioner on June 22, 1980. At some time during their two meetings, the Dean told Petitioner that several "options" were open to him in the matter. These included non reappointment effective July 1, 1980 or July 1, 1981, or total resignation immediately from the faculty and the chairmanship, or resignation from the chairmanship only. However, Dean Allen told Petitioner that it seemed most appropriate for him to submit a letter of resignation prior to July 1, 1980 as chairman, which would be effective on June 30, 1981, and that he would keep the matter confidential until the beginning of 1981 so that Petitioner would have an opportunity to seek another position. Dean Allen indicated that he had discussed the "options" with Dr. Longstreth and Mr. Biggs. Petitioner testified at the hearing that the Dean had also told him that he was compelled to remove Petitioner as chairman upon the direction of those individuals. Dean Allen denied at the hearing that he had made such a statement. This conflict in the testimony cannot be resolved. In any event, by letter of June 23, 1980, Petitioner submitted his resignation as chairman effective June 30, 1981, and therein expressed the intent to remain in his position as a tenured professor in the department. The letter stated petitioner's understanding that his resignation would not reflect on his professional competence and ethical conduct or his ability to effectively function as a member of the tenured faculty, and requested that the Dean sign a copy of the letter if he concurred therein. Dean Allen expressed his concurrence by signing the copy of the letter on June 23, 1980. Also, by memorandum dated August 8, 1980, Dean Allen formally accepted the letter of resignation. In the memorandum, Dean Allen assured Petitioner that the fact of the resignation would not be disclosed until January, 1981. (Testimony of Petitioner, Allen, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 26 (Deposition of Allen), 27 (Deposition of Petitioner)) During ensuing months, Petitioner and Dean Allen exchanged correspondence concerning the Dean's stated intent to reduce Petitioner's state salary by $6,000.00 at the time the resignation as departmental chairperson became effective. By letter of October 22, 1980, Petitioner wrote to the Dean that, after due consideration, he was withdrawing his resignation. A letter from his attorney of the same date stated that it was apparent that proper procedures for handling complaints against faculty members were not followed, that Petitioner had been pressured and coerced into tendering his resignation, and that he had been advised that his income would be seriously affected if the resignation became effective. Mr. Biggs, the University attorney, responded to this letter of October 24th stating that the University had no intention of acknowledging the purported resignation withdrawal, but that the Dean, after appropriate consultation with other University officials, had made the decision that the interest of the department and college could best be served by someone else in the position as chairman. It further stated that petitioner did not have tenure in the administrative post of department chairman, and that, even absent a resignation, it was within the power of the Dean to make a change in the chairmanship of the department. (Exhibit 5) On December 12, 1980, Petitioner requested Dr. Finger to initiate a grievance proceeding and hearing "to investigate the ethics and justification of a resignation imposed upon me by Dr. Don L. Allen." In his letter, Petitioner stated that he had been pressured into resigning, but that after submitting the resignation, it was determined that the complaints against him had proved to be unfounded, and therefore he had withdrawn the resignation. He further stated his belief that the Dean's interest in discrediting him emanated from his discrimination against petitioner's national origin, citing an instance when Dean Allen had once stated in a public search committee meeting that he did not trust orientals and simply could not work with them. By letter of February 9, 1981, Dean Allen explained to Dr. Finger his reasons for his "plan" to remove Petitioner as chairman of the Department of Dental Biomaterials. He therein stated that the basic problem was the inability of Petitioner to develop a reasonably stable department from the standpoint of personnel to ensure its effectiveness. The letter further requested Dr. Finger's concurrence for the Dean to send Petitioner a letter stating that he would not be appointed chairperson of the department, effective with the 1981-1982 academic year appointment. Further correspondence ensued between Dean Allen and Petitioner, which culminated in the Dean's letter of May 1, 1981 advising Petitioner that after receiving certain materials from him, he had "reconsidered" the matter and it was his conclusion that the department had not demonstrated the continuity of faculty and staff to enable it to fulfill its responsibilities and commitments to the long-range goals of the College of Dentistry. It further stated the Dean's conviction that new leadership was required and that therefore he would not reappoint Petitioner as chairman at the end of the academic year. Effective July 1, 1981, Petitioner was not reappointed as department chairman, and an acting chairman has been serving in such capacity since that date. Petitioner has continued to serve as a professor in the department without reduction in salary. (Testimony of Allen, Exhibits 8, 13, 17, 18, 25 (Exhibits to Deposition of Longstreth)) It has been the general practice at the University of Florida for departmental chairmen to be appointed by the particular college dean with the concurrence of the appropriate vice president, without the need for personal approval by the President. Prior instances in which departmental chairmen had left that position were normally due to retirement or a voluntary desire to return to a purely faculty status without administrative duties. In such cases, the change normally would be effected simply by a resignation or the issuance of a personnel form showing the change in status. Although a chairman's state salary normally was above that of other members of the faculty, the specific amount for performing the duties of chairman was not identified as such until 1981 in the College of Dentistry. (Testimony of Biggs, Longstreth, Exhibit 5) Petitioner's status as a professor and later as a departmental chairman and professor was as an instructional and research faculty member (I and R) as opposed to the administrative and professional staff (A and P). The latter category includes specialized positions such as the university attorney, affirmative action officer, and clinical laboratory specialist. There is a separate classification for chairperson and professor which is Class Code 9060 in the State University System. A professor is under another class code. The classification system is designed to reflect a person's current duties and responsibilities and is relevant to the issue of collective bargaining unit determinations. Academic rank and tenure are reflected on annual notices of appointment. Those notices for Petitioner after he acquired tenure showed that he was in tenure status 1. He remained in tenure status 1 after July 1, 1981, as reflected in his notice of appointment as professor for the 1981-1982 school year. No instances have been shown where the Board of Regents or Respondent interpreted pertinent statutes and rules as providing for tenure with respect to administrative duties assigned to a faculty member, such as departmental chairman. Tenure recommendations and decisions uniformly have applied solely to faculty rank. It is considered common knowledge in academic circles that the concept of tenure does not apply to the position of departmental chairman. (Testimony of Perry, Allen, Longstreth, Biggs, Exhibits 25 (Deposition of Longstreth), 26 (Deposition of Allen), 28 (Deposition of Smith) 29 (Deposition of Wickwire), 30 (Deposition of Mahan), 31 (Deposition of Colaizzi)) Dean Allen's testimony at the hearing concerning the reasons that prompted him to decide not to reappoint Petitioner as chairman indicated that the accuracy of the faculty complaints was not the critical factor in his decision. He testified in the following vein: The big thing was whether these things were totally accurate or not, if Hamdi was perceived this way by this many people that were willing to put it down on paper, to make that kind of a commitment of what they were convinced of, then I felt like based on the history of the de- partment where everyone, every faculty member that had been in the department at this time had left or were leaving with the exception of Dr. Shen, who I believe had just joined the department, and some other things. (T 38-39) . . . that because I considered them to be generally true, and what I mean by generally true, I did not mean that each little word might be true but that the general situation was such that if these people, who some of them I knew, perceived of their chairman that way and would put it down in writing and knowing that the department had had difficulty in retaining faculty members, that all of those things taken together led me to believe that the perception of the people that worked with Dr. Mohammed as a colleague that were supposed to have some degree of freedom as a faculty member, that they did not see that they had that degree of freedom to the ap- propriate amount, and if Dr. Mohammed was perceived that way and this was the reason these people were leaving, then we needed an individual with a different kind of per- ception to chair that department. (T 111, Exhibit 26 (Deposition of Allen)) Dean Allen and Petitioner had been close personal friends for a number of years prior to the events of 1980. Petitioner's claim that the Dean's actions against him were prompted by discrimination against Petitioner's national origin was based primarily on a statement made by the Dean in 1978 before members of a faculty search committee that was considering several applicants for the position of chairman of the Department of Oral Surgery. Petitioner became upset as the result of an alleged statement by the Dean that foreigners could not be trusted. Two of the final three candidates were of foreign origin. In fact, the Dean had indicated to the committee that the position in question required a good working basis between the hospital and the medical school, and that he thought it was extremely important that the chairman knew American hospital procedures. He also had indicated some concern after interviewing the two foreign individuals that they wanted to tell him what they thought he wanted to hear rather than what they really thought. As a result of Petitioner's complaint to the Dean, the latter apologized at the next faculty meeting to the effect that if anyone had felt that he had said something derogatory about foreigners, he did not mean to do so. Most of the faculty members and graduate students in the Department of Dental Biomaterials were of foreign origin. It is found that the evidence is insufficient to show that the Dean's action with respect to Petitioner was based on any bias or discrimination against him because of his foreign origin. (Testimony of Allen, Petitioner, Exhibits 7, 26 (Deposition of Allen), 27 (Deposition of Petitioner), 28 (Deposition of Smith), 29 (Deposition of Wickwire), 30 (Deposition of Mahan), 31 (Deposition of Colaizze), 32 (Deposition of Lundeen))
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be dismissed from his employment with Florida A & M University, as proposed in a termination letter dated August 19, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: In this employee termination case, Petitioner, Florida A & M University (FAMU), seeks to terminate the employment of Respondent, Calvin C. Miles, Jr., on the ground that he sexually harassed three female students and retaliated against two students in violation of Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Because FAMU is a part of the State University System, the Board of Regents was also identified as a Petitioner. Respondent has denied all allegations. FAMU has a non-discrimination policy and harassment complaint procedure codified in Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code. Paragraph (6)(b) of the rule prohibits sexual harassment while paragraph (11)(a) prohibits retaliation. Respondent was subject to this policy and procedure, and on August 26, 1998, he signed a paper indicating that he had read and understood the same. On August 22, 1997, Respondent was hired as General Manager of WAMF, a radio station owned and operated by FAMU and which employed a number of FAMU students. Whether he was considered a non-instructional or instructional employee is not clear. In any event, the station had been without a full-time manager "for a while," and Respondent was told to come in and "put in place some policies and format . . . and move the station in the direction that [FAMU] thought it should go." He was also told that the station should be operated as a teaching facility. FAMU agrees that some of Respondent's decisions in implementing these directives "caused some people to bristle." Respondent's immediate supervisor was Dr. Hawkins, Director of FAMU's Division of Journalism. As such, Dr. Hawkins was required to prepare Respondent's annual evaluations. The first evaluation was prepared on September 29, 1998, and was transmitted to Respondent with a letter of the same date. In his letter, Dr. Hawkins concluded that Respondent's "first year here has been a mixed bag." While he acknowledged that Respondent had "turned up the level of professionalism at the station substantially and in rather quick fashion," he noted other matters of concern. Among these was a concern that at least three female students said that you had made inappropriate remarks to them. While none of these students have filed a complaint, I believe I have a responsibility to mention them now. In addition to the comments of these students, other female students have said that they just plan to stay away from the station so they do not have to be bothered. This is not the climate we want. This letter placed him on official notice that some female students perceived his conduct towards them as offensive and having an improper sexual connotation. In response to his evaluation, Respondent wrote Dr. Bryant a lengthy letter dated October 22, 1998. As to the allegations of sexual misconduct, Respondent "strongly suggest[ed] that the University conduct a thorough investigation of all complaints of this nature." During his tenure with FAMU, Respondent had two or three meetings with the Dean of the School of Journalism, Media, and Graphic Arts, Dean Ruggles, and his immediate supervisor, Dr. Bryant, regarding the foregoing complaints of sexual misconduct. Respondent was urged to use "extreme caution," to reassess his behavior with female students, and warned that "if these allegations were taken to the complaint stage" by a student and found to be substantiated, there would be severe consequences. In addition, on at least one occasion, Respondent met with the Director of FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs regarding a complaint by another student. Therefore, it is fair to infer that Respondent was well aware of on-going accusations being made against him, and that he should be extremely cautious in his behavior around female students. After formal complaints of sexual harassment were filed by three female students in February 1999, FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs conducted an investigation. On May 11, 1999, the President of FAMU notified Respondent that the findings of the investigation revealed that Respondent had violated Rule 6C3-10.103, Florida Administrative Code, and that FAMU intended to terminate his employment. Respondent then availed himself of the right to have an "investigatory interview" by a University Personnel Committee on July 13, 1999. When the committee determined that no new facts had been presented, Respondent was dismissed from employment effective August 26, 1999. This appeal ensued. Although the termination letter does not identify the specific allegations which form the basis for the termination, in a Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties, FAMU has alleged that Respondent "engaged in conduct and actions toward[s] [Symphony] Parson, [Deanna] McKinley[,] and [Jackeline] Pou that rose to the level of sexual harassment in violation of Rule 6C3- 10.103(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code." FAMU further alleged that Respondent "exhibited behavior towards Ms. Parson and Ms. Maria Williams, a witness in this matter, that rose to the level of retaliation as set forth in [Rule] 6C3-10.103(11)(a), F.A.C." However, there was no evidence regarding retaliation against Maria Williams, who was not a witness in this case, and that portion of the charges has been disregarded. Parson, McKinley, and Pou testified at the final hearing, and although Respondent disputed the accuracy of their allegations, their testimony has been accepted as being the most persuasive on these issues. Findings with respect to those allegations are set forth below. Deanna McKinley Deanna McKinley (McKinley) enrolled at FAMU in the fall of 1996 and was a senior at the time of hearing. On September 1, 1998, McKinley began working at WAMF and hosted an Inspirational Gospel Morning Show using the on-air name of "Deanna Devine." Respondent was her supervisor. Throughout her employment at the radio station, McKinley felt "uncomfortable" around Respondent. This was because he would stare at her breasts, always place his hands on her shoulders when speaking to her, squeeze her shoulders, touch her hand in the Disc Jockey (DJ) booth, and stand extremely close to her while the two spoke. She was especially uncomfortable "being in the same studio with him, because the studio was in a different part of the building, it was locked, it was dark, [and] usually [she] was the only one there." Although she disliked Respondent's conduct and on occasion had told him that she disapproved of it, McKinley was under the impression that unless she tolerated Respondent's actions, she would not be allowed to continue as a DJ or "make progress" at the station. Besides the foregoing conduct, Respondent made personal remarks of a sexual nature to McKinley. For example, when she would bend over, he would say something like "Don't bend over like that, you will get someone excited." He also made a comment about how "adorable" and "kissable" she was, and that if he were her man, he "would just kiss [her] all the time." Once, when McKinley remarked ". . . little old me?", Respondent stared at her breasts and replied "Nothing on you is little, Deanna. But that's all right. It's all good." In January 1999, McKinley accidentally dropped something on the floor in the studio and bent over to pick it up. Respondent again stated "You should not bend over like that, Deanna, you may get someone excited." This latest incident triggered a decision by McKinley to leave the radio station. It is fair to infer from the evidence that McKinley perceived the radio station to have a hostile working environment, and that Respondent's conduct unreasonably interfered with her educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 1, 1999, McKinley submitted her letter of resignation to the radio station. On February 11, 1999, she filed a complaint with FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. Symphony Parson Symphony Parson enrolled at FAMU in the fall of 1997 with a major in broadcast journalism. She began working at WAMF that same year as a music director and on-air personality. Respondent was her supervisor. In April 1998, and while on duty at the station, Parson was taking a telephone message for the station secretary late one afternoon when Respondent came up behind her and began rubbing her shoulders and then moved his hand onto her breast. She told him to stop, "cursed him," and then left the station. In November 1998, Parson was in the station "writing on the file cabinet" when Respondent came up behind her and "brushed up against her" rubbing his shoulders against her. She again "cursed him out." A month later, he repeated the same conduct. According to Parson, she felt "violated" and "horrible" whenever this conduct occurred. Respondent also engaged in inappropriate conversations with Parson when she was on duty at the station. For example, he asked her if she was having sex with her boyfriend, and he told her how "cute" and "sexy" she was. These conversations made her feel extremely uncomfortable and led Parson to try to avoid Respondent whenever possible. At the same time, however, Parson felt that she had to tolerate this conduct to keep her position at the station. It is fair to infer from the evidence that Parson found the station to have a hostile working environment, and that Respondent's conduct unreasonably interfered with her educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 8, 1999, Parson filed a charge of sexual harassment against Respondent with the Equal Opportunity Office. A few days later, Respondent was placed on administrative leave. When he returned to his office to clean out his personal items, he passed by Parson and said "You're dead." Parson reported this to the police, was forced to get a cell phone out of fear for her personal being, and asked her parents to temporarily move into her apartment. Jackeline Pou Jackeline Pou (Pou) enrolled in FAMU's journalism program in August 1996. She began working at WANF in September 1997. Respondent was her supervisor. While working at the station, Respondent would sometimes brush his body against Pou or touch her shoulders, which made her feel uncomfortable. Almost on a daily basis, he would make comments about how pretty she was or make comments about her "eyes". When he spoke to her, he would stare at her breasts. Once, she observed him staring at her "behind when [she] was walking away." In the summer of 1998, and just after Pou finished speaking on the telephone with a friend, Respondent asked who she was speaking with. When Pou responded "It's none of your business," Respondent said, "It couldn't have been a guy or the seat would have been wet." Respondent's conduct made Pou feel intimidated and uncomfortable, and she disliked being alone in the radio station with Respondent during the evening hours. Besides creating a hostile work environment, such conduct also unreasonably interfered with Pou's educational performance and ability to work at the station. On February 11, 1999, Pou filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Respondent with FAMU's Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. Respondent's contentions Respondent has steadfastly denied all allegations of sexual misconduct since they first surfaced in 1997 or 1998. At hearing, Respondent contended that he was an unpopular figure among the students due to his strong disciplinary measures. While this may be true, it does not justify his actions towards McKinley, Parson, and Pou. He suggested that McKinley's complaint was motivated by her displeasure with his disciplinary measures and failure to obtain her a parking pass. Respondent further suggested that Parson bore him ill-will after he demoted her to a different position at the station. He also contended that out of revenge, the three women met and conspired to file false complaints in an effort to have him removed from the station. Finally, Respondent suggested that each of the complainant's testimony was full of inconsistencies and lacked specificity as to certain dates and times. These contentions have been considered by the undersigned and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida A & M University enter a final order confirming the dismissal of Respondent as an employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 29th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bishop C. Holifield, General Counsel Florida A & M University Suite 300, Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Avery D. McKnight, Jr., Esquire Ruth N. Selfridge, Esquire Florida A & M University Suite 300, Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100 Calvin C. Miles, Jr. 501 Blairstone Road, Apartment 123 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
