Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ben L. Bryan, Jr., has been a member of the Florida Bar since 1962 and has continually engaged in the private practice of law in Fort Pierce since 1965. His offices are located at 101 1/2 South Second Street, Fort Pierce, Florida. In January, 1971, Petitioner was retained by the St. Lucie County School Hoard to represent it in the capacity of school board attorney. He remained in that position until October, 1974. During that period of time he was a member in good standing of the Florida Retirement System (FRS) and made the required contributions into the program. Bryan was credited with 3.83 years of service credit for that period. Since January 1, 1980, Petitioner has been retained by the St. Lucie County School Board as its attorney under a succession of written agreements which are substantially similar in form. He also re-enrolled as a participant in the FRS and began making the necessary contributions to the plan. On October 4, 1982, Respondent, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, advised Petitioner by letter that because he failed to comply with current FRS membership requirements, he was being removed from FRS membership effective January 1, 1980. The letter prompted the instant proceeding. Under the written agreements of employment, Petitioner is generally responsible for the handling of all legal matters of the school board. He devotes approximately thirty to forty hours per month to school board work while the remainder of his time is spent in his private law practice. A part of the school board work is performed at its administrative offices; however, the majority is done at Petitioner's law office. He is paid from a regular salaries and wage account. Either the superintendent or the board controls Petitioner's hours by assignment of the work to be done, including requests for advice, research and opinions. The board determines which cases will be settled, defended or appealed. Bryan is required to accept any case or matter assigned, and does not reject assignments. He is furnished the Education Law Reporter and other materials, including stationery and envelopes, by the school board. Additionally, dues are paid to various professional associations on his behalf. Bryan receives no pay for vacations, holidays or illnesses. He is, however, reimbursed for traveling expenses, and is covered by the school's health and life insurance and workers' compensation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Ben L. Bryan, Jr., be DENIED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben L. Bryan, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 3230 Fort Pierce, Florida 33454 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 207C, Box 81 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Nevin G. Smith, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated April 4, 2000, and if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact 1. Parker has been employed by St. Lucie on its administrative staff since 1991. 2. Parker received her undergraduate degree from Bethune- Cookman, and holds a master's degree from the University of Illinois. 3. Parker holds a Florida Educator's Certificate in guidance and counseling and psychology, which is valid through June 30, 2001. 4. At all times material to this case, Parker served as St. Lucie's Coordinator of Professional Training/Human Relations Specialist, and performed her duties in a satisfactory manner. 5. The events giving rise to this case began on or about February 7, 1997, when Parker submitted an administrative application packet (1997 application) for the position of Director of Human Relations and Professional Standards. One page of the 1997 application states that her highest degree attained is a doctorate. This page was signed by Parker. 6. St Lucie employees who hold a terminal degree may be eligible for a salary supplement in recognition of this significant professional credential. 7. Parker's 1997 application caused St. Lucie personnel administrators to become concerned that Parker was not receiving the appropriate salary supplement and asked her to provide official transcripts to document the doctorate she claimed to have. 8. Parker never responded to the request that she document her advanced degree. 9. St Lucie administrators contacted the schools listed on her résumé in an independent effort to verify that Parker did in fact hold a doctorate. The effort to corroborate the existence of an earned doctorate was unsuccessful. 10. Meanwhile, Parker continued to ignore repeated requests by St. Lucie administrators that she furnish evidence of the claimed doctorate. 11. Thereafter, Parker withdrew her 1997 application for the human relations position. 12. Included in Parker's 1997 application was her two-page résumé. 13. The résumé stated that Parker received a Bachelor of Science from Bethune-Cookman College in Psychology; a Master of Science in Educational Leadership, Administration and Supervision [sic] from the University of Miami; a Ph.D. from the University of Miami in Counseling Psychology [sic]; and an Ed.D. from Nova Southeastern University in Early and Middle Childhood [sic]. 14. With the exception of Bethune-Cookman, Parker had not received degrees from any of these institutions. 15. The résumé further stated that "transcripts for undergraduate education and doctoral degree were on file with personnel and were not included based on the requirements for this position." 16. Parker's personnel file did not contain transcripts reflecting a doctoral degree and could not have contained such transcripts because she did not, in fact, possess a doctorate. 17. Parker claims that the résumé, to the extent it represented that she held degrees other than the one conferred by Bethune Cookman, is a forgery and was not submitted by her in connection with the 1997 application, nor at any other time. 18. This claim conflicts with the testimony of St. Lucie employees who testified to their clear and independent recollection that the challenged résumé is in fact the résumé submitted by Parker in connection with her 1997 application. 19. Parker's testimony to the contrary is rejected. She asserted, without proof of any kind, that St Lucie's employees were conspiring to discredit her. This assertion is unpersuasive. St. Lucie's witnesses appeared straightforward in their demeanor under oath. Cross-examination failed to reveal any hidden agendas or animus toward Parker. 20. Parker, by contrast, undermined her credibility as to disputed factual matters by her failure to even attempt to explain, let alone express remorse, for numerous undisputed instances in which she allowed colleagues and the public to be misled as to her educational background. 21. For example, Parker did not dispute the authenticity of other portions of the 1997 application, including performance summaries, which were signed by her and which referenced her as "Dr. Vanessa Parker." 22. The 1997 application also included four letters of recommendation, each of which referred to her as "Dr. Parker" or "Dr. Vanessa Parker." 23. Parker's job duties included supervising the content and distribution of St. Lucie in-house training and informational publications including "TIPS" and "Lucy News." On various occasions, these publications contained references to Parker as "Dr. Parker" or "Dr. Vanessa Parker." 24. Parker attempted to disclaim responsibility for these references by stating that she did not personally perform the physical labor of typing copy, formatting templates, and running the printing press for these publications. However, Parker does not deny she was responsible for the entire content of these publications. 25. The evidence further established, and Parker did not dispute, that she sent and received correspondence via the School Board's in-house e-mail system in which she was referred to as "Dr. Vanessa Parker." 26. The Commissioner attempted to prove that Parker displayed School Board business cards which identified her as "Vanessa A. Parker, Ph.D." 27. The Commissioner's evidence on this point consisted of a business card which purported to be Parker's but which Parker denied was hers. The Commissioner elicited testimony from other School Board employees to the effect that administrators could design their own business cards. However, no School Board witness purported to have any personal knowledge of whether Parker did in fact request or receive a business card. No witness claimed to have received, from Parker or any other source, a St. Lucie business card purporting to be hers. Accordingly, the Commissioner's claim that Parker violated rules cited in the Administrative Complaint by carrying or distributing a false or misleading business card is rejected. 28. Throughout these proceedings, Parker claimed that she did in fact receive a doctorate from an institution which she variously referred to as "American International University" or the "American Campus of International University." 29. Apart from her own uncorroborated testimony, there was no evidence that an institution by either name exists. 30. Parker admits that such an institution, if it does exist, is not accredited and is therefore not authorized to confer degrees recognized by the State of Florida. 31. At all times relevant to this case, Parker had no factual basis upon which to refer to herself as having an earned doctorate, nor to allow others to so refer to her.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Lisa A. Griffin, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Tampa, Florida 33602 For Respondent: Arthur B. Brandt, Esquire Law Office of Arthur Brandt 4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 700 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Parker's Educator's Certificate be permanently revoked. 13 DONE AND ENTERED this aut raay of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Sra ck lon. FLORENCE SNYDER AIV. 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 2k day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa A. Griffin, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3500 Tampa, Florida 33602 Arthur B. Brandt, Esquire Law Office of Arthur Brandt 4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 700 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whittier, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 14
Findings Of Fact The geographical boundaries for the various schools in Broward County established for the school years 1977-1978 (Exhibit 1) and 1978-79 (Exhibit 2) are adopted on an annual basis by the school board. In adopting the 1978-79 boundaries the geographical area for Dillard High School and Plantation High School was unchanged from the previous year. Petitioners are parents of students who, pursuant to the plan under consideration, are bused some fourteen-miles from their homes to Dillard High School which they attended in school years 1977-78 and are attending this current school year. These students are also Petitioners. But for the busing program integral to the boundary plan, these pupils would go to Plantation High School which is closer to their homes. Prior to adopting the boundaries for Broward County Public Schools (Exhibits 1 and 2), proposed boundaries were prepared by the area superintendents working in conjunction with staff personnel from the Superintendent's office. These proposals were forwarded to the school board, presented at public meetings to interested persons who were given an opportunity to comment and present input to the plan, and subsequently adopted by the school board at a public meeting. These various meetings at which the boundaries plans were explained and voted on received wide publicity in the news media as well as being advertised in local newspapers (Exhibit 6). From the evidence submitted it clearly appears that the school boundaries for the various schools in Broward County established by the school board are not only authorized by the statute, but the statute directs their promulgation. No evidence was submitted from which a finding of unreasonableness or arbitrariness could be found in establishing these boundaries. These boundaries affect school children and parents of these children throughout Broward County. While the only boundaries here contested are those involving Dillard and Plantation High Schools, these two schools are but a small part of the overall plan of school boundaries in Broward County. Dillard and Plantation High Schools are located in the N9rth Central area of Broward County and there are thirty-four schools in this area. Broward County is divided into four areas. To maintain all schools at population levels close their capacity, it is necessary from time to time to change boundaries and to bus some people from one school boundary area to another. This type busing is also required to maintain acceptable integration ratios in the schools. Prior to adopting the Boundaries for Broward County Public Schools, no economic impact statement was prepared and filed; and the school board did not give notice of its intended action with a short, plain explanation of the purpose of the rule or a summary of the rule and a statement of the legal authority for the rule adopted. In 1974 the School Board of Broward County adopted the policy of establishing boundary areas for schools on an annual basis and this rule is incorporated in the School Board Policy Manual.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents, James A. Shanks Middle School, Havana Magnet School, and/or Carter-Parramore Academy, subjected Petitioner to discrimination on the basis of his age, sex, or race, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes,1 and/or whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for the exercise of protected rights under section 760.10.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Gadsden County School District is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). It is the governing body responsible for the administration of public schools in Gadsden County and is therefore treated as a Respondent in this proceeding, though unnamed by Petitioner. James A. Shanks Middle School, a public school of Gadsden County, is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Havana Magnet School, a public school in Gadsden County, is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Carter-Parramore Academy, a public school in Gadsden County, is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Mr. Jones, who was 63 years old at the time of the hearing, is a black male. Mr. Jones’s complaint is that he applied for open teaching positions in January 2020 at two Gadsden County public schools, applied for a third position in October 2020, and did not receive an interview for any of the positions. Mr. Jones alleges that the failure to interview him constituted discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and/or age. Mr. Jones has worked in the recent past as a substitute teacher for the School District. The record established that Mr. Jones was eligible for a temporary teaching and professional teaching certificate for social sciences from October 12, 2017, through October 12, 2020. Mr. Jones was not eligible for certificates in other educational areas. Mr. Jones testified, and the School District did not dispute, that he has applied for “hundreds” of positions with the School Board over the years. These applications were mostly for teaching positions but also included a range of jobs from bus driver to deputy superintendent. Mr. Jones has filed two discrimination complaints against the School District prior to the instant cases that resulted in DOAH Recommended Orders. In the most recent case, Jones v. Gadsden County School Board, Case No. 20-4489, 2021 WL 1256500 (Fla. DOAH Mar. 30, 2021), ALJ James H. Peterson III found that the School District’s internal application system had labeled Mr. Jones as “ineligible” for employment, and that Mr. Jones had therefore been summarily excluded from the pool of candidates for several positions with the School District. The School District explained that Mr. Jones stated on his application that he had a criminal record, which triggered an automatic “ineligible” notification on the School District’s internal employment application system. ALJ Peterson went on to find that the evidence established that Mr. Jones had been cleared by the Department of Education and that he had, in fact, been eligible for employment by the School District. ALJ Peterson found that the School District’s employment application system erroneously labeled Mr. Jones as ineligible for employment, but that this error was a simple mistake and not evidence of unlawful discrimination or retaliation. In a Recommended Order entered on March 30, 2021, ALJ Peterson recommended that the FCHR enter a Final Order dismissing Mr. Jones’s petition for failure to provide evidence of discrimination. The hearing in DOAH Case No. 20-4489 was completed on December 16, 2020. After the hearing made it aware of its error, and well before ALJ Peterson issued his Recommended Order, the School District corrected the error and manually removed the “ineligible” designation from Mr. Jones’s employment application. In an email dated January 27, 2021, counsel for the School District advised Mr. Jones his application status had been changed from “ineligible” to “complete” and that his criminal history would no longer prevent him from applying for employment with the School District. As to the applications at issue in these consolidated cases, Mr. Jones applied for social studies teaching positions at Carter-Parramore Academy and James A. Shanks Middle School in January 2020, and applied for a social studies teaching position at Havana Magnet School in October 2020. These applications were all made before the School District had corrected Mr. Jones’s application status in light of the hearing before ALJ Peterson. On each of these applications, Mr. Jones did not receive an interview because the School District’s employment application system showed him as “ineligible.” Major Willie Jackson, a 58-year-old black male, has been the principal at Carter-Parramore Academy for three years. Mr. Jackson testified that Mr. Jones had worked for him at James A. Shanks Middle School about five years ago as a one-on-one assistant for an exceptional education student, but that Mr. Jones had been hired by the school’s Exceptional Student Education department, not by him. Mr. Jackson recalled interviewing Mr. Jones for another position at James A. Shanks Middle School but could not recall whom he ultimately hired. Mr. Jackson testified that he did not interview Mr. Jones for the social studies teaching position at Carter-Parramore Academy in January 2020 because the School District’s application system showed that Mr. Jones was ineligible for employment. Mr. Jackson stated that he would have interviewed Mr. Jones but for the erroneous statement as to his eligibility. Mr. Jackson ultimately hired John Leprell, a white male in his early forties. Mr. Jackson testified that he had no knowledge of any prior FCHR complaints that Mr. Jones had made. Mr. Jackson credibly testified that none of his decisions was based on Mr. Jones’s age, race, or sex, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Parish Williams, a black male over the age of 40, was the principal at Havana Magnet School in January 2020. He testified that he did not know Mr. Jones and did not know his age or race before the hearing in the instant cases. Mr. Williams also testified that he was unaware of any FCHR or other complaints that Mr. Jones had made against the School District. Mr. Williams testified that he did not interview Mr. Jones for the open social studies teaching position at Havana Magnet School because the School District’s application system indicated that Mr. Jones was ineligible. Mr. Williams stated that he would probably have interviewed Mr. Jones had he not been flagged as ineligible. Mr. Williams ultimately hired Patrice Monroe, a black female, for the position. Mr. Williams credibly testified that his decision on the job position was not based on Mr. Jones’s race, age, or sex, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Maurice Stokes, a black male over the age of 40, was principal at James A. Shanks Middle School when Mr. Jones applied for a social studies teaching position in October 2020. Mr. Stokes stated that he did not know Mr. Jones personally but had seen him before. Mr. Stokes could not recall whether Mr. Jones had applied for the position, but he knew that he did not interview Mr. Jones. Mr. Stokes testified that he would not interview Mr. Jones or any other candidate who was listed as “ineligible” on the School District’s employment application system. Mr. Stokes hired Ken Hubbard, a 60-year-old black male, for the social studies position. Mr. Stokes testified that he hired Mr. Hubbard because he was the best social studies candidate available. Mr. Stokes had no knowledge of any FCHR complaints that Mr. Jones had made against the School District. Mr. Stokes credibly testified that his decision was not based on Mr. Jones’s race, age, or sex, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Sonya Jackson, Human Resources Director for the School District, testified about the process by which the School District corrected Mr. Jones’s information in its database. She testified that Mr. Jones has continued to make applications since the “ineligible” status was removed from his record. Ms. Jackson stated that Mr. Jones was called for an interview on a maintenance supervisor position for which he had applied, but that he turned down the interview. Mr. Jones testified at length but provided no evidence that the School District or any of its personnel had discriminated against him based on his race, age, or sex, or that anyone retaliated against him for exercising his right to file complaints of discrimination with the FCHR. Mr. Jones claimed that in 2008 the School District dismissed him from a teaching job in a manner disallowed by statute,2 and that it has spent the last 13 years covering its tracks by placing false records in his employment file. He complained that the School District only hires women for teaching positions, though two of the three jobs he applied for in these cases were eventually filled by men. Mr. Jones appears to assume that when someone of a different race, age, or sex is hired for a job that he seeks, the result is due to discrimination against him. If the person hired is a woman, then Mr. Jones was discriminated against based on sex. If the person hired is younger, then it is age discrimination. Mr. Jones had no real answer when confronted with the hiring of Mr. Hubbard, a 60-year-old back male, at James A. Shanks Middle School. He also could not explain away the fact that the hiring decision in each of the three cases was made by a principal who was black, male, and over 40 years of age. Mr. Jones provided no evidence that any of the decisions not to interview him were causally linked to protected activity. Mr. Jones established that he is prolifically litigious but failed to establish that his activities are as well known in the community as he believes. Each of the principals credibly testified that they were unaware that Mr. Jones had engaged in protected activity. 2 Mr. Jones never provided a citation to the law he claimed the School District violated by dismissing him. In summary, Mr. Jones offered insufficient evidence that he was discriminated against based on his race, age, or sex. Mr. Jones also offered insufficient evidence that he was subjected to unlawful retaliation. Mr. Jones offered no credible evidence disputing the non- discriminatory reason given by the School District for its failures to interview him for the three positions at issue. Mr. Jones offered no credible evidence that the School District’s stated reason for not hiring him was a pretext for discrimination based on his age, race, or sex.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ronald David Jones, pro se 1821 McKelvy Street Quincy, Florida 32351 For Respondents: William Breen Armistead, Esquire Coppins Monroe, P.A. 1319 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that neither James A. Shanks Middle School, Havana Magnet School, nor Carter-Parramore Academy committed an unlawful employment practice, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. 3 Brungart was decided under the Family and Medical Leave Act, but its reasoning as to the element of retaliation has been repeatedly applied in cases involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. See e.g., Mitchell v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int’l, Inc., 637 Fed. Appx. 535, 539 (11th Cir. 2015); and Willis v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 619 Fed. Appx. 960, 962 (11th Cir. 2015). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2021. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 William Breen Armistead, Esquire Coppins Monroe, P.A. 1319 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ronald David Jones 1821 McKelvy Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Gwendolyn P. Adkins, Esquire Coppins, Monroe, Adkins and Dincman, P.A. 1319 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Did Respondent, Volusia County Schools (School Board), decline to renew the contract of Petitioner, Glen Collins (Mr. Collins), because of his age? Did the School Board unlawfully retaliate against Mr. Collins for protected activity?
Findings Of Fact The School Board is an employer as defined by section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes (2010),1/ the Florida Civil Rights Act. The School Board had policies and procedures in place during Collins' employment that prohibited the discrimination or harassment of any employee "on the basis of [that employee's] race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, marital status, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or age." The School Board provided these policies and procedures to all employees in the new employee briefing. The School Board also provided employees periodic training on the policies. Additionally, the policies and procedures were available to employees on the School Board's website and in employee handbooks. The School Board also operated a human resources department to help enforce the policies and answer employee questions or concerns about the policies. The School Board's anti-discrimination policy encouraged any employee who believed he or she had been subject to harassment on the basis of age to notify the equity officer, through use of a report form or orally, within 60 days of the alleged harassment. The School Board policies commit to promptly investigate any complaint(s) of harassment, whether formal or informal, verbal or written, and take appropriate action to prevent further harassment, including disciplining the employee violating its policy. The School Board also prohibited retaliation against any employee for reporting allegations of harassment or participating in an investigation, proceeding or hearing related to the alleged harassment. The School Board would take the appropriate disciplinary or other action against any employee found to be in violation of the policy. Mr. Collins worked for the School Board from August 28, 2006, until June 30, 2010. He began employment in the maintenance unit for the school system. The maintenance unit employees were responsible for repair and other maintenance of the School Board facilities throughout Volusia County. Russell Tysinger (Mr. Tysinger) hired Mr. Collins. In 2006, the School Board operated separate construction and maintenance departments. The maintenance department consisted of employees at two district offices, one in Daytona Beach and one in Deltona. Mr. Collins began work at the Daytona office. Mr. Collins was a skilled, diligent, and committed employee. Over the years he worked in several positions including Electrical Maintenance Supervisor for the East Side (of the County), Facility Mechanical Technician (FMT) Supervisor, and Trade Supervisor (Electric). In addition to performing all the duties of his various positions during his years of employment, Mr. Collins volunteered for additional duties and actively sought to identify and solve problems at the schools for which he was responsible. For instance, when a plumbing supervisor retired, Mr. Collins volunteered to assume the duties of that position. This permitted the School Board to save money by eliminating the position. The School Board recognized Mr. Collins' skills and dedication. It gave him additional duties and pay increases. The School Board does not claim that Mr. Collins' termination was for discipline or unsatisfactory work. In 2008, and in every year since, the School Board's revenue has declined. This has caused a decrease each year in the budget of the maintenance and construction department and other departments. When the School Board hired Mr. Collins, he knew that it faced financial difficulties and was likely to downsize. Mr. Tysinger, the maintenance unit's head, had to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and economize in both the materials and labor components of his budget. In 2008, he eliminated several vacant positions and did not fill positions created by retirements. In 2009, when the head of the construction unit resigned, the School Board consolidated the maintenance and construction units to save money. Mr. Tysinger became the head of the consolidated unit. The School Board eliminated the position filled by the former head of construction. In 2009, Mr. Tysinger faced a greater need to reduce costs, including labor costs. This year there were not enough retirements and vacancies to achieve the needed personnel cost savings simply by eliminating vacant positions. Mr. Tysinger laid off 12 employees from the newly consolidated unit, including five in supervisory positions. He reduced capital and material expenditures also. And he reinvigorated an energy conservation program to reduce utility costs. During the 2009-2010 time period, Mr. Tysinger also changed the maintenance shop locations from two (one on the east side of the county and one on the west side) to five distributed around the county. He did this to reduce the costs of the various tradesmen driving to the schools where they performed their tasks and to improve efficiency by having less driving time and more working time. These changes saved the financial equivalent of 33-full time equivalent positions and doubled the department's productivity. In July of 2009, Mr. Collins became an FMT supervisor, responsible for overseeing and assisting 11 FMTs. These duties were in addition to his duties as an electrical maintenance supervisor. On December 3, 2009, Mr. Collins executed an annual contract with the School Board for the 2009-2010 school year. The contract specifically provided that "[a]n Employee may be dismissed where the School Board through financial necessity for good cause shown deems it necessary to decrease the number of employees of the particular kind of service in which the affected Employee was engaged." The contract expired on June 30, 2010. In 2010, the School Board required Mr. Tysinger to cut approximately 1.8 million dollars from his personnel budget and four to five percent from his materials and supplies budgets. These further budget reductions required Mr. Tysinger to lay off 38 employees in the construction and maintenance division and take other cost-cutting measures. Mr. Tysinger conducted a rational analysis of employees and their skill sets to determine which employees he would have to let go in 2010. First, Mr. Tysinger identified all of the skill sets that he needed to have in the maintenance and construction unit. This included plumbing, electrical, and heating and cooling. He also determined how many employees with each skill set he needed. Then he identified the employees with the needed skills. After that, Mr. Tysinger reviewed the seniority of each employee in each group determined by the skill set groupings. He then determined who would be laid off by seniority, while ensuring that he maintained the skill sets needed and the number of employees he required with those skills. Using seniority as a factor helped ensure that the School Board retained the employees with the most experience with the School Board facilities and systems. Mr. Collins was one of the individuals let go. Mr. Tysinger advised Mr. Collins on May 27, 2010, that the School Board would not renew his contract in June when it expired. Mr. Collins was 52-years-old. The School Board's Maintenance and Construction unit retained employees older than Mr. Collins. For example, the School Board retained Mr. Ken Blom and Mr. Rick Jones, both of whom were older than Mr. Collins. During the period between May 27, 2010, and the end of the contract period, Mr. Collins' supervisor asked him to train Antonio Gutierrez in the job duties that Mr. Collins performed and inform Mr. Guiterrez about projects and activities underway. Mr. Gutierrez is younger than Mr. Collins. His age does not appear in the record. Mr. Tysinger retained Mr. Gutierrez because of his expertise with air conditioning units, because air conditioning was one of the largest problem areas, and because of his seniority. During the time period when he reduced the number of staff, Mr. Tysinger also reassigned employees to different locations and units to provide the needed distribution of skill sets at each location and in each unit. This process took several months. In this process, as an interim measure, Mr. Tysinger assigned Mr. Gutierrez to perform many of Mr. Collins' functions. Mr. Gutierrez did not replace Mr. Collins or permanently assume his duties. Mr. Tysinger reassigned the majority of Mr. Collins' duties to Mr. Blom. This included his electrical duties and supervision of some of Mr. Collins' former FMTs. He assigned Mr. Collins' plumbing responsibilities and some of his FMTs to Mr. Ford. And he assigned some of Mr. Collins' electrical responsibilities to Mr. McKinnon. The ages of Mr. Ford and Mr. McKinnon do not appear in the record. Mr. Collins' claim of age discrimination rests solely on his belief that Mr. Gutierrez assumed his job responsibilities. During his employment with the School Board, Mr. Collins identified maintenance problems at different schools, including Pine Ridge High School, over the years and reported them. Mr. Collins also discovered sealant was being improperly applied and raised concerns about this. Mr. Collins thinks that his identification of the problems embarrassed the supervisors responsible for the schools and that his termination was retaliation for identifying the problems. There is no persuasive evidence to support Mr. Collins' belief. There is no evidence that Mr. Collins opposed any practice that is unlawful under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (chapter 760, Florida Statutes), or that he made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Civil Rights Act. Budget reductions required the School Board to reduce the number of employees in the construction and maintenance unit where Mr. Collins worked. Mr. Tysinger and the School Board did not consider Mr. Collins' age in deciding to end his employment. They also did not act because of any dissatisfaction with his good work identifying problems with the maintenance of the schools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations deny Mr. Collins' Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 11th day of April, 2012.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certificate as an educator in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: 1. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Commissioner of Education, was the state official in Florida responsible for the certification of educators and the regulation of the teaching profession in Florida. Petitioner is authorized to seek appropriate disciplinary sanctions against persons holding teaching certificates in the State of Florida. The basis for disciplinary sanctions against a teacher's certificate are set forth in Sections 231.262 and 231.28, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent, John H. Pedonti, Jr., is certified as an educator in this state by the Petitioner, and holds Florida Educator's Certificate 384296, valid through June 30, 2004, and covering the area of technical arts. At all times relevant herein, Mr. Pedonti was employed by the Hillsborough County School Board. 3. The chief factual allegation in this case is that Mr. Pedonti committed battery on his wife, who was also a teacher in the Hillsborough County school system. Mr. Pedonti and his wife told differing versions of the relevant events, but agreed on certain facts. The parties agreed that John and Debra Pedonti were separated and living apart in November 1997. Mrs. Pedonti and their three-year-old daughter lived in the family home. Mr. Pedonti lived in a house that he had owned since before the marriage. The parties agreed that throughout the night of November 21, 1997, Mrs. Pedonti left messages on the telephone answering machine at Mr. Pedonti's residence, and that Mr. Pedonti replied to none of them. The parties agreed that at about five a.m. on November 22, 1997, Mrs. Pedonti drove her van to Mr. Pedonti's house. Their daughter was asleep in the van. Mrs. Pedonti knocked on the door of the house. Mr. Pedonti opened the door, and they had a discussion culminating in Mr. Pedonti telling his wife to drive home and put their daughter to bed, and that he would follow in his own car. Mrs. Pedonti drove home, pulling the van into the front yard rather than the driveway. Mr. Pedonti arrived shortly thereafter and found his wife slumped over the steering wheel. They had an altercation concerning the dome light in the van. Mr. Pedonti then carried their daughter into the house and put her to bed, Mrs. Pedonti following them. The Pedontis then sat in the living room. Mrs. Pedonti lectured Mr. Pedonti at length concerning their marriage and their child, while he sat on the sofa with his eyes closed. At this point, physical violence erupted, though the parties disagree as to who was the perpetrator and who was the victim. 4. Mrs. Pedonti testified that, though they were separated, she and her husband were making efforts to reconcile and that he was spending most evenings at the family home. She had spoken to Mr. Pedonti by telephone on the afternoon of November 21, and expected him to come to the family home that night. She became increasingly worried as the night wore on, and began leaving messages asking him to call her. She left messages throughout the evening and into the early morning hours. At about five a.m., she put her sleeping daughter into her van and drove to Mr. Pedonti’s residence. She testified that she wanted to make sure Mr. Pedonti was "okay." 5. Mrs. Pedonti arrived at Mr. Pedonti’s residence and knocked on the door. She was crying. Mr. Pedonti answered the door. Mrs. Pedonti asked him why he had not called or come over, and whether he cared about her and their daughter. Mr. Pedonti asked her to be quiet, told her to get back in her car and drive home, and said that he would follow her. Mrs. Pedonti complied. She testified that she was still crying, but was relieved that her husband was all right. 6. Mrs. Pedonti testified that she drove home, and parked the car in the yard because it was closer to the front door than was the driveway. She was "emotionally drained after a long night of waiting and worrying and crying," and remained slumped over the steering wheel for the few minutes it took her husband to arrive. 7. Mrs. Pedonti testified that her husband arrived, walked to the passenger side of her van, and opened the sliding door so that he could carry their daughter into the house. He asked Mrs. Pedonti to turn off the dome light, but she could not because there was no switch on the light. Mrs. Pedonti testified that her husband punched the light with his fist, breaking it. He then picked up their daughter and proceeded to the front door. He used his key to unlock the door, threw his keys into the hallway, and walked down the hall to put their daughter to bed. 8. Mrs. Pedonti testified that she was afraid of Mr. Pedonti after he knocked out the light in the van. She took the house key off his key ring, because she did not want him to be able to get back into the house. She then put the key ring back in the hallway where he had thrown it. 9. Mrs. Pedonti next sat down at the dining room table. Mr. Pedonti emerged from their daughter's bedroom and sat on the couch. She began talking to him about making the marriage work. She told him that he had spent only four hours with his daughter that week, and that he needed to spend more time with them. Mrs. Pedonti testified that during this monologue, her husband “laid his head back and closed his eyes and acted like he was asleep." She moved to sit on the couch and continued to talk. She testified that she did so in a quiet, calm voice, because she had already seen him knock out the light in the van. 10. Mrs. Pedonti testified that Mr. Pedonti suddenly lunged toward her and pushed her down on her back. He placed his left arm across her jaw, holding down her head. His face was red, his expression "contorted." She told him he was hurting her, and asked him to let her up. Mr. Pedonti drew back his right hand and hit her in the left eye with his fist. 11. Mrs. Pedonti testified that she could feel her eye begin to swell immediately, and she begged Mr. Pedonti to let her up so that she could put ice on it. He let her get up, but only after holding her down for a while longer. She walked to the kitchen, but Mr. Pedonti would not allow her to get to the refrigerator. She said something about the police. Mr. Pedonti told her, "Go ahead, call the police," then knocked the phone off the wall, breaking it. He repeatedly said, "I'll lose my job, I'll go to jail." Mrs. Pedonti testified that he left the house soon thereafter. 12. Mrs. Pedonti testified that she did not immediately call the police because she still loved her husband and did not want him to lose his job or go to jail. She did not see her husband on Saturday after he left the house, but she did speak to him by telephone on Sunday, November 23. She told him that she could not leave the house because of her eye, and asked him to buy some milk and take their daughter to Sunday school. Mr. Pedonti sent a family friend, Wayne Canady, to the family residence to do what he could for her. 13. Mrs. Pedonti went to school on Monday morning. She worked in a portable classroom and avoided being seen by staff and fellow teachers. Her eighth grade students saw her and asked what happened to her eye. She told them that her husband hit her. She did not work on Tuesday or Wednesday. Thursday was Thanksgiving, a holiday. 14. Mrs. Pedonti testified that on Tuesday, November 24, her parents saw her condition and urged her to go to the police. The next day, she decided that she would call the police. She testified that she concluded that she had to take a stand and stop this "foolishness." She did not want her daughter to grow up in such an environment. On Friday, November 27, Mrs. Pedonti made her report to the police. 15. Mr. Pedonti testified that on Friday, November 21, 1997, he spoke to his wife in the afternoon and told her that he would not be over that evening. He stated that he had been spending a lot of time at his wife's house, neglecting his own residence, and needed to spend the evening putting his own house in order. He also stated that he needed to move a car to someone else's house that evening. 16. Mr. Pedonti testified that he delivered the car and was driving home at around 3:30 a.m. on Saturday morning. He stopped at a 24-hour Winn-Dixie, shopped, then drove to his house. Upon arriving home at about 4:30 a.m., he found there were numerous telephone messages from his wife. He turned the machine off after the third or fourth message, because the messages were "crazy." His wife knew what he was going to do that evening, and had no reason to call repeatedly questioning his whereabouts. 17. Mr. Pedonti testified that there was a knock on his door at about 5:30 a.m. His wife was standing in the doorway, "hysterical" and saying things that made no sense. He asked her where their daughter was, and Mrs. Pedonti replied that she was asleep in the van. Mr. Pedonti testified that he did not live in a good neighborhood, and did not want his daughter there. He told his wife to drive home, and he would follow her. Mrs. Pedonti drove off, and Mr. Pedonti locked up the house and followed a few minutes later. 18. Mr. Pedonti testified that when he arrived at the family residence, his wife's van was parked in the front yard with the dome lights on. He stated the light was so bright it looked like a theater. He went to van and saw his wife slumped over the steering wheel, apparently asleep. He tried to rouse her by tapping on the driver's side window, but she did not move. He walked around to the passenger side and opened the sliding door. He reached in and shook his wife's shoulder to wake her. He told her to wake up and turn off the light, and said he would take their daughter into the house. Mr. Pedonti testified that his wife still didn't respond. He reached up to the dome light, trying to find a switch. When he touched the light, the plastic dome fell off and the bulb fell out. 19. Mr. Pedonti testified that he then picked up his daughter and carried her to the front door. He pulled the keys out of his pocket, used his house key to open the front door, then put the keys back into his pocket. He put his daughter to bed, then came out of the bedroom and sat on the couch in the living room. 20. Mr. Pedonti testified that his wife began to harangue him about their daughter. Mrs. Pedonti told him that she needed 10 to get the child out of the house, that she could no longer take care of the child and that Mr. Pedonti needed to take her. Mr. Pedonti testified that her conversation "made no sense to me," but that he calmly listened. He stated that he dozed off, but that Mrs. Pedonti woke him by coming over to the couch, yelling and screaming. After he woke up, she returned to her seat at the dining room table. 21. Mr. Pedonti testified that his wife then shifted the subject to his spending more time with her and their daughter. He "didn't know what she was talking about," because he had gone to the family home every evening after work that week. Mr. Pedonti testified that he sat quietly listening, until he again fell asleep. He testified that a "noise or something" startled him awake. He opened his eyes, but could not see farther than his hands. He put his hands up, brushed his nose, and saw blood on his hands. He stood up quickly and bumped against his wife, who was hovering over him. He asked her what happened. She replied, "You hit me." He pointed out the blood on his hands and asked her if she had hit him, but she kept repeating that he had hit her. Mr. Pedonti said to himself, "This is crazy," and walked out of the house. 22. Mr. Pedonti testified that as he stood outside the front door, he stopped and asked himself what had just happened. He decided to go back in. He took the keys out of his pocket, but saw that he no longer had a key to the house. He surmised 11 that his wife must have taken the key ring from his pocket and removed the house key while he was asleep. He called out to Mrs. Pedonti to open the door, which she did. They quarreled for a few moments, then Mr. Pedonti left the house and drove back to his own residence. 23. Mr. Pedonti testified that his wife called him two or three times on Saturday, and that on Sunday she drove to his house and demanded that he repair the dome light in her van. The situation deteriorated into another loud quarrel, an@ Mr. Pedonti went inside and called the police. Mrs. Pedonti left before the police officers arrived. 24. Mr. Pedonti testified that his wife returned with their daughter at about five p.m. that evening, but that he would not answer the door. He called the police and waited inside for them to arrive. Mr. Pedonti testified that an officer arrived and advised Mrs. Pedonti to leave. After some argument, she did leave. Mr. Pedonti testified that he then spoke with the police officer, who advised him to file for an injunction against his wife to keep her away. 25. Mrs. Pedonti's version of the essential events is more believable and is credited. The photographs taken of Mrs. Pedonti by the police at the time of her complaint show that her left eye was bruised and discolored. Mr. Pedonti's only explanation of his wife's injury was that he might have 12 accidentally poked her in the eye when he jumped to his feet and bumped her. 26. Mr. Pedonti's friend, Wayne Canady, testified that he saw only some redness in the corner of Mrs. Pedonti's eye when he visited her at Mr. Pedonti's request on Sunday. However, Mr. Canady's testimony simply parroted Mr. Pedonti's story. In describing her injury, Mr. Canady testified that Mrs. Pedonti "looked like a finger had accidentally been poked in her eye." He did not explain how he could tell from looking at Mrs. Pedonti's eye that it had been injured "accidentally." 27. Mr. Canady admitted that he did not ask Mrs. Pedonti what had happened, because Mr. Pedonti had already told him. Mr. Canady stated that Mrs. Pedonti volunteered that her husband had "lost it" and "knocked her around." Mr. Canady admitted that Mr. Pedonti had requested that he stop by and ask if he could buy some groceries for Mrs. Pedonti. Mr. Canady stated that the reason Mrs. Pedonti could not go shopping for herself had nothing to do with her physical condition. Rather, he testified that it was difficult for Mrs. Pedonti to go out because she had a "small baby" to care for. The Pedontis' daughter was three years old at the time of the incident. 28. Mr. Canady also testified that Mr. Pedonti had a "claw mark" on his nose and "some cuts or bruises." Mr. Pedonti testified that the altercation left no marks on him. In summary, 13 Mr. Canady's efforts to corroborate Mr. Pedonti's testimony cannot be credited. 29. Mr. Pedonti was subsequently arrested on a charge of domestic violence. The arrest took place on the school campus. victor Fernandez, who was the assistant principal for discipline at W. G. Pierce Middle School, testified that he worked with the arresting officer to minimize the impact of the arrest on the school. The arrest took place at the end of the school day, when most of the students were on buses preparing to depart the campus. Mr. Fernandez testified that some students were nearby, outside the school grounds, but he could not be certain they saw the arrest. In the days following the arrest, Mr. Fernandez had the feeling that students knew "something was going on with Mr. Pedonti," but no student ever spoke to Mr. Fernandez about the matter. 30. Mr. Fernandez indicated that the arrest was not generally known at the school, but that several people close to Mr. Pedonti knew about the situation and became "uncomfortable." Mr. Fernandez stated that no student ever expressed an unwillingness to go into Mr. Pedonti's classroom, and no colleague ever expressed an unwillingness to work with him. To the contrary, Mr. Pedonti's colleagues were concerned about his situation and deteriorating mental condition and were willing to help him. 14 31. Mr. Fernandez testified that the arrest had a "big impact" on Mr. Pedonti's behavior. Mr. Pedonti was uncomfortable about returning to the school because of his fears as what students and faculty would think of him. He lost interest in his work. Mr. Fernandez described him as "totally disoriented, distressed, confused." 32. Mr. Fernandez also noted that Mr. Pedonti's job performance declined after his arrest. Mr. Fernandez described Mr. Pedonti as "an outstanding, dynamic teacher" who was very popular with his students. After the arrest, Mr.Pedonti began coming to school late and often did not prepare lesson plans. Mr. Fernandez eventually sent him to school district headquarters for counseling. 33. Frank Johnson is an administrative resource teacher with the Hillsborough County school district. He taught with Mr. Pedonti for more than twenty years and testified that Mr. Pedonti had been one of the best industrial arts teachers in the county, but that his performance began to fall off in 1997 because of his separation and divorce. 34. In September 1999, Mr. Johnson visited Mr. Pedonti's classroom at the request of Mr. Fernandez, who was now the principal of W. G. Pierce Middle School. Mr. Fernandez was concerned with the poor quality of instruction and wanted Mr. Johnson to assist Mr. Pedonti in improving his classroom Management and teaching skills. Mr. Johnson found the classroom 15 and storage rooms in disarray. Mr. Pedonti could not provide him with a lesson plan. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Pedonti what his school administration could do to help him. Mr. Pedonti replied that nothing more could be done, and that he could no longer perform his teaching duties. He felt that he was no longer in control of his life and was unable to make plans for the future. Mr. Pedonti told Mr. Johnson that the only reason he was still teaching was that the school system was short of substitutes, and even expressed some desire to surrender his teaching certificate. 35. Mr. Pedonti admitted that his divorce and arrest affected his job performance, along with every other aspect of his life. He expressed a belief that his wife had conspired with the counselors at The Spring of Tampa Bay, where he completed domestic violence counseling, to trick him into making incriminating statements during his initial evaluation at that facility. He also stated his suspicion that the events of November 22, 1997, were planned and orchestrated by his wife, apparently to set him up for the domestic violence allegations that followed. 36. Mr. Pedonti's case went to trial on February 4, 1999. The court withheld adjudication and sentenced him to 26 weeks of domestic violence counseling and twelve months' probation. Mr. Pedonti has completed those obligations. 37. Mr. Pedonti has continued to teach in the Hillsborough County school system since the incident. The Hillsborough County 16 public schools took no disciplinary action against Mr. Pedonti, though it was aware of his arrest and the pending criminal proceedings. Linda Kipley, general director of professional standards for Hillsborough County public schools, testified that the school district's response was to assist Mr. Pedonti in working through his personal circumstances. Ms. Kipley also testified that it is not the district's policy to retain an employee whose effectiveness has been seriously reduced. 38. The evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Mr. Pedonti committed an act of moral turpitude when he held his wife down on the couch by pressing his left arm against her head with such force that she feared he was breaking her jaw, then punched her in the left eye with his fist. This was an act of serious misconduct in flagrant disregard of society's condemnation of violence by men against women. 39. Although the evidence establishes that Mr. Pedonti committed an act of moral turpitude, the only evidence offered regarding any notoriety arising from the November 1997 incident and from Mr. Pedonti's subsequent arrest and trial on the charge of domestic violence was the testimony of Mr. Fernandez. Mr. Fernandez was uncertain whether any students saw the arrest, and had no direct knowledge of adverse student reaction to the situation. Mr. Fernandez noted that several teachers knew about the incident and were concerned, but their concern in the nature of solicitude for Mr. Pedonti's emotional welfare. There was no 17 evidence to prove that Mr. Pedonti's conduct was sufficiently notorious to cast him or the education profession into public disgrace or disrespect or to impair Mr. Pedonti's service in the community. 40. There was persuasive evidence presented to establish that Mr. Pedonti's performance as a teacher and an employee of the Hillsborough County public schools was diminished as a result of the November 1997 incident and its aftermath. Both Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Johnson testified that Mr.Pedonti's job performance deteriorated drastically after his arrest, such that the school district felt obliged to step in and assist him in organizing his classroom. Mr. Pedonti was often late for work. He was not completing his lesson plans. His entire demeanor changed, to the point where colleagues who were close to him expressed their concern for his welfare. Mr. Pedonti himself testified that his job performance was affected, and he told Mr. Johnson that he felt his life was out of control and he was contemplating the surrender of his teaching certificate.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Robert E. Sickles, Esquire Broad and Cassel 100 North Tampa Street Suite 3500 Tampa, Florida 33602-3310 For Respondent: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commissioner of Education enter a final order placing John H. Pedonti, Jr., on probation for a period of two years, and requiring Mr. Pedonti to undergo a full psychological evaluation to ensure that he is fully capable of performing his assigned duties, prior to Mr. Pedonti's being allowed to return to the classroom. DONE AND ENTERED this /2Uh aay of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. : prnrean2oC0r~ [AWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this /27K day of July, 2001. 26
